Refugees Channel crossing

1246

Comments

  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    hopkinb wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    "Austerity is the idea that the GFC in 2008 was caused by there being too many libraries in Wolverhampton"

    I find it amazing each time a discussion of immigration ends up discussing the consequences of austerity or other domestic political choice issues which have nothing to do with immigration.

    Because people are told in the press/news/social media that immigrants are the reason for the pressure on care services/schools/hospitals/housing/gp clinics. Or people hear foreign languages in the waiting room/school playground, where they didn't before, so put 2 and 2 together and make 5.

    People are merely reacting to their current position. If they are fighting for housing, healthcare, education etc. then pitching it to them that they should accept more immigration and therefore further erosion of the existing services but it will boost GDP a couple of points is a losing argument. Investing in essential services and infrastructure so that they are already there and then pursuing more immigration might get you a different answer. I am still awaiting a government in my lifetime to propose this proactive solution.

    You can be as accommodating as you like to the idea of taking more refugees as it might well be the right thing to do but only a fool would pursue this policy without putting a plan in place to integrate the people and not significantly disadvantage those already resident. If you fail to do this then history shows that this leads to far right groups etc. gaining ground which is never a positive outcome. So lefties get your head out the sky and get some system behind your wish list and the rest of the country might well follow your plan.
  • bradsbeard
    bradsbeard Posts: 210
    john80 wrote:
    hopkinb wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    "Austerity is the idea that the GFC in 2008 was caused by there being too many libraries in Wolverhampton"

    I find it amazing each time a discussion of immigration ends up discussing the consequences of austerity or other domestic political choice issues which have nothing to do with immigration.

    Because people are told in the press/news/social media that immigrants are the reason for the pressure on care services/schools/hospitals/housing/gp clinics. Or people hear foreign languages in the waiting room/school playground, where they didn't before, so put 2 and 2 together and make 5.

    People are merely reacting to their current position. If they are fighting for housing, healthcare, education etc. then pitching it to them that they should accept more immigration and therefore further erosion of the existing services but it will boost GDP a couple of points is a losing argument. Investing in essential services and infrastructure so that they are already there and then pursuing more immigration might get you a different answer. I am still awaiting a government in my lifetime to propose this proactive solution.

    You can be as accommodating as you like to the idea of taking more refugees as it might well be the right thing to do but only a fool would pursue this policy without putting a plan in place to integrate the people and not significantly disadvantage those already resident. If you fail to do this then history shows that this leads to far right groups etc. gaining ground which is never a positive outcome. So lefties get your head out the sky and get some system behind your wish list and the rest of the country might well follow your plan.


    I wish there was an applause emoji!!! Well said.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,226
    john80 wrote:
    People are merely reacting to their current position. If they are fighting for housing, healthcare, education etc. then pitching it to them that they should accept more immigration and therefore further erosion of the existing services but it will boost GDP a couple of points is a losing argument. Investing in essential services and infrastructure so that they are already there and then pursuing more immigration might get you a different answer. I am still awaiting a government in my lifetime to propose this proactive solution.

    Would you support it? It sounds like a good idea.
  • hopkinb
    hopkinb Posts: 7,129
    bradsbeard wrote:
    hopkinb wrote:
    Because people are told in the press/news/social media that immigrants are the reason for the pressure on care services/schools/hospitals/housing/gp clinics. Or people hear foreign languages in the waiting room/school playground, where they didn't before, so put 2 and 2 together and make 5.

    My son and 3 others were being given special support by teaching assistant for a couple hours to help them catch up. My son had a hearing disorder for the first year of school and has struggled. This time had helped him gain ground and he was getting back on course.

    Then after xmas the school had to take on a lad who spoke very little and poor english. Therefore my son and the other 3 had the time with the teaching assistant taken away as the assistant's time had to be devoted this lad full time.

    I'm afraid these aren't scaremongering stories it really is happening.

    Sorry to hear about your son. I spent the 13 years of my daughter's short life fighting for funding to make her life easier or towards the end of her life to make her pain more bearable, and eventually, fighting for her to be able to die at home.

    So the problem is lack of resource. You seem to only be concerned because the new lad spoke no English. What is he had been British with special needs which took away the TA's time? That wouldn't have been ok either. Individual people need things or support that the state is best placed to provide. People in the UK as a whole show, by returning Conservative governments, that they don't want to provide these services.
  • Longshot
    Longshot Posts: 940
    john80 wrote:
    You can be as accommodating as you like to the idea of taking more refugees as it might well be the right thing to do but only a fool would pursue this policy without putting a plan in place to integrate the people and not significantly disadvantage those already resident. If you fail to do this then history shows that this leads to far right groups etc. gaining ground which is never a positive outcome. So lefties get your head out the sky and get some system behind your wish list and the rest of the country might well follow your plan.

    The trouble is, you're blaming the wrong people.

    It's not the refugees' fault that the Government are massively underfunding the education system. They are supposed to be providing sufficient resources to run an education system that caters for the population of the country (where each individual hails from). They aren't.
    You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.
  • hopkinb
    hopkinb Posts: 7,129
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    john80 wrote:
    People are merely reacting to their current position. If they are fighting for housing, healthcare, education etc. then pitching it to them that they should accept more immigration and therefore further erosion of the existing services but it will boost GDP a couple of points is a losing argument. Investing in essential services and infrastructure so that they are already there and then pursuing more immigration might get you a different answer. I am still awaiting a government in my lifetime to propose this proactive solution.

    Would you support it? It sounds like a good idea.

    Sounds dangerously "leftie", this idea of investing in essential services and infrastructure.
  • haydenm
    haydenm Posts: 2,997
    john80 wrote:
    hopkinb wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    "Austerity is the idea that the GFC in 2008 was caused by there being too many libraries in Wolverhampton"

    I find it amazing each time a discussion of immigration ends up discussing the consequences of austerity or other domestic political choice issues which have nothing to do with immigration.

    Because people are told in the press/news/social media that immigrants are the reason for the pressure on care services/schools/hospitals/housing/gp clinics. Or people hear foreign languages in the waiting room/school playground, where they didn't before, so put 2 and 2 together and make 5.

    People are merely reacting to their current position. If they are fighting for housing, healthcare, education etc. then pitching it to them that they should accept more immigration and therefore further erosion of the existing services but it will boost GDP a couple of points is a losing argument. Investing in essential services and infrastructure so that they are already there and then pursuing more immigration might get you a different answer. I am still awaiting a government in my lifetime to propose this proactive solution.

    You can be as accommodating as you like to the idea of taking more refugees as it might well be the right thing to do but only a fool would pursue this policy without putting a plan in place to integrate the people and not significantly disadvantage those already resident. If you fail to do this then history shows that this leads to far right groups etc. gaining ground which is never a positive outcome. So lefties get your head out the sky and get some system behind your wish list and the rest of the country might well follow your plan.

    For once I totally agree with you. I can't see why the net tax gain from immigration can't used in part to help the poorest and most vulnerable in society
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,587
    john80 wrote:
    hopkinb wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    "Austerity is the idea that the GFC in 2008 was caused by there being too many libraries in Wolverhampton"

    I find it amazing each time a discussion of immigration ends up discussing the consequences of austerity or other domestic political choice issues which have nothing to do with immigration.

    Because people are told in the press/news/social media that immigrants are the reason for the pressure on care services/schools/hospitals/housing/gp clinics. Or people hear foreign languages in the waiting room/school playground, where they didn't before, so put 2 and 2 together and make 5.

    People are merely reacting to their current position. If they are fighting for housing, healthcare, education etc. then pitching it to them that they should accept more immigration and therefore further erosion of the existing services but it will boost GDP a couple of points is a losing argument. Investing in essential services and infrastructure so that they are already there and then pursuing more immigration might get you a different answer. I am still awaiting a government in my lifetime to propose this proactive solution.

    You can be as accommodating as you like to the idea of taking more refugees as it might well be the right thing to do but only a fool would pursue this policy without putting a plan in place to integrate the people and not significantly disadvantage those already resident. If you fail to do this then history shows that this leads to far right groups etc. gaining ground which is never a positive outcome. So lefties get your head out the sky and get some system behind your wish list and the rest of the country might well follow your plan.

    Well, the problem is that whenever 'lefties' (I've never voted Labour so I assume I'm not one) suggest that we increase taxes to enable improved services the country doesn't follow the plan. Everyone wants Government to provide the services they think are most important, very few are prepared to pay more to allow that to happen. Again, it doesn't provide a good reason to refuse to help those that have left their country with literally nothing in order to avoid imprisonment, torture or death (sometimes due to political upheaval that our country has played a large part in creating).
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    What's the assumption that more people = worse services?
    _
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    john80 wrote:
    hopkinb wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    "Austerity is the idea that the GFC in 2008 was caused by there being too many libraries in Wolverhampton"

    I find it amazing each time a discussion of immigration ends up discussing the consequences of austerity or other domestic political choice issues which have nothing to do with immigration.

    Because people are told in the press/news/social media that immigrants are the reason for the pressure on care services/schools/hospitals/housing/gp clinics. Or people hear foreign languages in the waiting room/school playground, where they didn't before, so put 2 and 2 together and make 5.

    People are merely reacting to their current position. If they are fighting for housing, healthcare, education etc. then pitching it to them that they should accept more immigration and therefore further erosion of the existing services but it will boost GDP a couple of points is a losing argument. Investing in essential services and infrastructure so that they are already there and then pursuing more immigration might get you a different answer. I am still awaiting a government in my lifetime to propose this proactive solution.

    You can be as accommodating as you like to the idea of taking more refugees as it might well be the right thing to do but only a fool would pursue this policy without putting a plan in place to integrate the people and not significantly disadvantage those already resident. If you fail to do this then history shows that this leads to far right groups etc. gaining ground which is never a positive outcome. So lefties get your head out the sky and get some system behind your wish list and the rest of the country might well follow your plan.

    I think that's broadly correct, and historically we've been happy to take the extra GDP and tax receipts from immigration but less eager to spend some of it on expanding public services accordingly. That is a political decision, not a logistical one.

    We are though again muddling overall migration (hundreds of thousands) with those claiming asylum which is currently <40,000 a year. An order of magnitude difference. The latter we are obliged to accept and consider their applications under international treaty and are well within our capabilities to accommodate if we so chose.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,587
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    What's the assumption that more people = worse services?

    It seems to be what some are assuming. I would say it's more people, no additional spending = worse services.
  • elbowloh
    elbowloh Posts: 7,078
    I'm not even sure we need to increase taxes as such. If we could just get people and corporations to pay the tax they actually owe, then i think we'd pay able to pay for a lot more services. It's scandalous that the likes of Vodaphone can negotiate deals to not pay billions of pounds of tax over lunch with the HMRC.
    Felt F1 2014
    Felt Z6 2012
    Red Arthur Caygill steel frame
    Tall....
    www.seewildlife.co.uk
  • haydenm
    haydenm Posts: 2,997
    Things we aren't in favour of (correct me if I'm wrong):

    -People dying
    -War
    -Stretched public services
    -Kids not getting the help they need
    -People having houses to live in

    If we had yes/no referendum on these issues it would be unanimous. None of us want bad stuff to happen, there are just several different ways of getting there.

    Also, it's not a lefty idea to fund essential services, the conservatives have spent billions on it. It's just a question of how much is too much. The problem with refugees is that it comes in waves because of geopolitical events, that is quite hard to manage in terms of spending unless we make forward provision when the numbers are lower
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    So worth examining some of the assumptions, if people are making an economic case for immigration (which I guess is what this refugee discussion is a proxy for), though, it ought to be added that there is a humanitarian case to be made as well.

    https://fullfact.org/immigration/impact ... -services/
    _
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,587
    HaydenM wrote:
    Things we aren't in favour of (correct me if I'm wrong):

    -People dying
    -War
    -Stretched public services
    -Kids not getting the help they need
    -People having houses to live in

    If we had yes/no referendum on these issues it would be unanimous. None of us want bad stuff to happen, there are just several different ways of getting there.

    Also, it's not a lefty idea to fund essential services, the conservatives have spent billions on it. It's just a question of how much is too much. The problem with refugees is that it comes in waves because of geopolitical events, that is quite hard to manage in terms of spending unless we make forward provision when the numbers are lower

    I think you're being too kind to part of the population there!
  • elbowloh
    elbowloh Posts: 7,078
    Pross wrote:
    HaydenM wrote:
    Things we aren't in favour of (correct me if I'm wrong):

    -People dying
    -War
    -Stretched public services
    -Kids not getting the help they need
    -People having houses to live in

    If we had yes/no referendum on these issues it would be unanimous. None of us want bad stuff to happen, there are just several different ways of getting there.

    Also, it's not a lefty idea to fund essential services, the conservatives have spent billions on it. It's just a question of how much is too much. The problem with refugees is that it comes in waves because of geopolitical events, that is quite hard to manage in terms of spending unless we make forward provision when the numbers are lower

    I think you're being too kind to part of the population there!
    Yes, the population vote against people dying, but they would probably vote "yes" for capital punishment given the chance.
    Felt F1 2014
    Felt Z6 2012
    Red Arthur Caygill steel frame
    Tall....
    www.seewildlife.co.uk
  • haydenm
    haydenm Posts: 2,997
    Pross wrote:
    HaydenM wrote:
    Things we aren't in favour of (correct me if I'm wrong):

    -People dying
    -War
    -Stretched public services
    -Kids not getting the help they need
    -People having houses to live in

    If we had yes/no referendum on these issues it would be unanimous. None of us want bad stuff to happen, there are just several different ways of getting there.

    Also, it's not a lefty idea to fund essential services, the conservatives have spent billions on it. It's just a question of how much is too much. The problem with refugees is that it comes in waves because of geopolitical events, that is quite hard to manage in terms of spending unless we make forward provision when the numbers are lower

    I think you're being too kind to part of the population there!

    Well probably, but I'm trying to do my bit of un-polarising things! I'm always surprised at how similar most people are once you really get down to what they want for the country in the long run.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    So worth examining some of the assumptions, if people are making an economic case for immigration (which I guess is what this refugee discussion is a proxy for), though, it ought to be added that there is a humanitarian case to be made as well.

    https://fullfact.org/immigration/impact ... -services/

    Seems to be. Two different subjects if you ask me.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    bradsbeard wrote:
    hopkinb wrote:
    Because people are told in the press/news/social media that immigrants are the reason for the pressure on care services/schools/hospitals/housing/gp clinics. Or people hear foreign languages in the waiting room/school playground, where they didn't before, so put 2 and 2 together and make 5.

    My son and 3 others were being given special support by teaching assistant for a couple hours to help them catch up. My son had a hearing disorder for the first year of school and has struggled. This time had helped him gain ground and he was getting back on course.

    Then after xmas the school had to take on a lad who spoke very little and poor english. Therefore my son and the other 3 had the time with the teaching assistant taken away as the assistant's time had to be devoted this lad full time.

    I'm afraid these aren't scaremongering stories it really is happening.

    In a state school are you able to self-fund a TA/LSA?

    Then rather than advocating higher spending and taxation can you fund your own needs?
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    bradsbeard wrote:
    hopkinb wrote:
    Because people are told in the press/news/social media that immigrants are the reason for the pressure on care services/schools/hospitals/housing/gp clinics. Or people hear foreign languages in the waiting room/school playground, where they didn't before, so put 2 and 2 together and make 5.

    My son and 3 others were being given special support by teaching assistant for a couple hours to help them catch up. My son had a hearing disorder for the first year of school and has struggled. This time had helped him gain ground and he was getting back on course.

    Then after xmas the school had to take on a lad who spoke very little and poor english. Therefore my son and the other 3 had the time with the teaching assistant taken away as the assistant's time had to be devoted this lad full time.

    I'm afraid these aren't scaremongering stories it really is happening.

    In a state school are you able to self-fund a TA/LSA?

    Then rather than advocating higher spending and taxation can you fund your own needs?

    I don't think you can directly, but you could fundraise for the school and ask them to spend it on a TA.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rjsterry wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    bradsbeard wrote:
    hopkinb wrote:
    Because people are told in the press/news/social media that immigrants are the reason for the pressure on care services/schools/hospitals/housing/gp clinics. Or people hear foreign languages in the waiting room/school playground, where they didn't before, so put 2 and 2 together and make 5.

    My son and 3 others were being given special support by teaching assistant for a couple hours to help them catch up. My son had a hearing disorder for the first year of school and has struggled. This time had helped him gain ground and he was getting back on course.

    Then after xmas the school had to take on a lad who spoke very little and poor english. Therefore my son and the other 3 had the time with the teaching assistant taken away as the assistant's time had to be devoted this lad full time.

    I'm afraid these aren't scaremongering stories it really is happening.

    In a state school are you able to self-fund a TA/LSA?

    Then rather than advocating higher spending and taxation can you fund your own needs?

    I don't think you can directly, but you could fundraise for the school and ask them to spend it on a TA.

    A shame as a couple of hours of a TA’s time divided by four would seem to be eminently affordable
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    bradsbeard wrote:
    hopkinb wrote:
    Because people are told in the press/news/social media that immigrants are the reason for the pressure on care services/schools/hospitals/housing/gp clinics. Or people hear foreign languages in the waiting room/school playground, where they didn't before, so put 2 and 2 together and make 5.

    My son and 3 others were being given special support by teaching assistant for a couple hours to help them catch up. My son had a hearing disorder for the first year of school and has struggled. This time had helped him gain ground and he was getting back on course.

    Then after xmas the school had to take on a lad who spoke very little and poor english. Therefore my son and the other 3 had the time with the teaching assistant taken away as the assistant's time had to be devoted this lad full time.

    I'm afraid these aren't scaremongering stories it really is happening.

    In a state school are you able to self-fund a TA/LSA?

    Then rather than advocating higher spending and taxation can you fund your own needs?

    I don't think you can directly, but you could fundraise for the school and ask them to spend it on a TA.

    A shame as a couple of hours of a TA’s time divided by four would seem to be eminently affordable

    I think it could be done through a PTA, maybe, but it would need a lot of effort in fundraising to be able to reliably employ even one TA. The average primary school event raises, what, <£500? Doesn't pay for many hours even on a TA wage.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • asprilla
    asprilla Posts: 8,440
    rjsterry wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    bradsbeard wrote:
    hopkinb wrote:
    Because people are told in the press/news/social media that immigrants are the reason for the pressure on care services/schools/hospitals/housing/gp clinics. Or people hear foreign languages in the waiting room/school playground, where they didn't before, so put 2 and 2 together and make 5.

    My son and 3 others were being given special support by teaching assistant for a couple hours to help them catch up. My son had a hearing disorder for the first year of school and has struggled. This time had helped him gain ground and he was getting back on course.

    Then after xmas the school had to take on a lad who spoke very little and poor english. Therefore my son and the other 3 had the time with the teaching assistant taken away as the assistant's time had to be devoted this lad full time.

    I'm afraid these aren't scaremongering stories it really is happening.

    In a state school are you able to self-fund a TA/LSA?

    Then rather than advocating higher spending and taxation can you fund your own needs?

    I don't think you can directly, but you could fundraise for the school and ask them to spend it on a TA.

    A shame as a couple of hours of a TA’s time divided by four would seem to be eminently affordable

    I think it could be done through a PTA, maybe, but it would need a lot of effort in fundraising to be able to reliably employ even one TA. The average primary school event raises, what, <£500? Doesn't pay for many hours even on a TA wage.

    Our three events a year raise about £30k in total. If you need any advice on how to increase your fund raising them I'm happy to help.
    Mud - Genesis Vapour CCX
    Race - Fuji Norcom Straight
    Sun - Cervelo R3
    Winter / Commute - Dolan ADX
  • Ben6899
    Ben6899 Posts: 9,686
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Ok my point is that anti immigration arguments totally forget that it's just people. We're not talking about monsters we need to keep out. It's people like us. Even economic migrants are people like us. Why are they not fit to have the same western life as us? Perhaps people would benefit from a life swap with them.

    You'll be tarred with the "leftie" brush, if you're not careful!

    (well said)
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    Ben6899 wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Ok my point is that anti immigration arguments totally forget that it's just people. We're not talking about monsters we need to keep out. It's people like us. Even economic migrants are people like us. Why are they not fit to have the same western life as us? Perhaps people would benefit from a life swap with them.

    You'll be tarred with the "leftie" brush, if you're not careful!

    (well said)


    Perhaps they should stay at home and fight for their own families. do something useful and improve their countries and quality of life rather than diluting the quality of other peoples.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    Ben6899 wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Ok my point is that anti immigration arguments totally forget that it's just people. We're not talking about monsters we need to keep out. It's people like us. Even economic migrants are people like us. Why are they not fit to have the same western life as us? Perhaps people would benefit from a life swap with them.

    You'll be tarred with the "leftie" brush, if you're not careful!

    (well said)


    Perhaps they should stay at home and fight for their own families. do something useful and improve their countries and quality of life rather than diluting the quality of other peoples.

    To avoid dilution Could we not swap the well qualified hard, working ones with our home grown wasters?
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    I think their countries need all the hard working qualified ones they can get. Happy to send our wasters over there to help them out :)
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    Ben6899 wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Ok my point is that anti immigration arguments totally forget that it's just people. We're not talking about monsters we need to keep out. It's people like us. Even economic migrants are people like us. Why are they not fit to have the same western life as us? Perhaps people would benefit from a life swap with them.

    You'll be tarred with the "leftie" brush, if you're not careful!

    (well said)


    Perhaps they should stay at home and fight for their own families. do something useful and improve their countries and quality of life rather than diluting the quality of other peoples.

    To avoid dilution Could we not swap the well qualified hard, working ones with our home grown wasters?
    Too right? We have plenty diluting the quality of life from our own lot. Arguably quality of life would improve if we did a talent swap. We get their talent and they get our dossers.

    It's not useful to earn more over here, and a supposedly hard currency, to send back home? Oh well I live and learn.
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    One more point, you do know that fighting for your families is literally what they'd have to do to survive in many cases. Is that o.k with you? Would you like to be in their situation?
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    One more point, you do know that fighting for your families is literally what they'd have to do to survive in many cases. Is that o.k with you? Would you like to be in their situation?

    It's perfectly ok with me. infact I strongly believe they should have the courage to look after and not abandon their families.

    Would I like to be in their situation? No of course not but I know for a fact I wouldn't run away.

    Quite why we want people here like that is beyond me.

Categories