Middle

[Amadeus]

25 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

My point is less about the physical act of homing refugees and more about the reaction many people give. Bigoted people know they can't really come out and publicly say what they actually think, so they couch it in much more reasonable and indeed practical terms. But it's there with many, you can feel it. It was the same last time with the Syrians.

Edit - to make it clear I am not talking about you Gladys!

Oh make no mistake there are racist people here and everywhere who don’t want them and use it as excuse. There’s no denying that. This doesn’t mean all the other reasons aren’t valid and you have to take into account the needs and wishes of the existing population as well or things won’t be harmonious. 

If we can support existing efforts elsewhere that are better value for money and achieve more then let’s do that. You don’t have to help by dragging some token refugees over to make everyone feel better. Keep emotions out and do what makes most sense in terms of value for money and over-all positive impact. 

[quilp]

21 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Seems like a perfectly sensible suggestion. People will hate it.

I love it. Great post @Gladys spot on. 

[Ham_N_Eggs]

2 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

do what makes most sense in terms of value for money and over-all positive impact. 

There is no value for money to be achieved in a humanitarian crisis. However, the second part of this sentence is true.

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

There is no value for money to be achieved in a humanitarian crisis. However, the second part of this sentence is true.

Value for money means more people benefit.

Giving sanctuary to refugees is not like giving homestay to wet TT fans, they don't  just need a dry bed, a bath and some food for a couple of days.  People should not confused the two. 

[Ham_N_Eggs]

Just now, Gladys said:

Value for money means more people benefit.

Giving sanctuary to refugees is not like giving homestay to wet TT fans, they don't  just need a dry bed, a bath and some food for a couple of days.  People should not confused the two. 

Amadeus has mentioned money several times if that was not his meaning then he should have been clearer.

In crisis that was wholly made by the UK and USA they should be made to sort out the refugee issue whatever the cost. You break it you pay.

In Manx terms I wholly support your previous sentiments. If the Island can help long term then it should but not with token gestures. 

[quilp]

33 minutes ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

Amadeus has mentioned money several times if that was not his meaning then he should have been clearer.

I thought he meant getting the best return on an investment. In this case, investing in people, not money. The images being relayed now are scandalous. There is only one person to blame for this current fiasco- Joe Biden. There was no organised withdrawal, a moments notice has led to what we see now- bloody chaos. If it looks bad now, come the end of the month it will be much, much worse. Old Joe, as he said in a recent presser, "the buck stops right here!" and so it does. Boris, NATO; panicked and dithering, lost for where to go next and British forces, out there still, must be bricking it. Boris even suggesting 'name-your-price' to the Talebs to ensure a peaceful departure! Once the time limit is crossed it's going to be hell out there with the Mujahideen forces and other opposition groups, tribal factions, et al, already skirmishing with the Talebs and we all know who'll suffer the most. Afghanistan shares borders with 6 other countries, has anyone heard from them? Any of them negotiating terms on behalf of those refugees? History repeating itself... 

[The Voice of Reason]

2 hours ago, HeliX said:

So we should accept refugees AND increase funding for both physical and mental health services? Yes. Great idea.

Why not?

The existing population would be the main beneficiaries of increased physical and mental health services.

If this hadn’t been linked to accepting refugees and proposed as a stand alone policy then I imagine most would be supportive.

Sure there would be obstacles to overcome in accepting refugees.
 

Contributing in “other ways “ would obviously be well received but I’m afraid it would be salving our conscience rather than offering the help needed. ( “ sorry we don’t want you here but here’s a few quid to help you live somewhere else in a country that can be arsed to try and properly help you.)

Accepting refugees would be a complex issue, and one where we might not get everything right first time, but not one that should prevent us showing human decency or because it is  “emotional flavour of the month”. Other countries do it and it would enable the IOM to show itself as a grown up jurisdiction that has a place in the world.

Like the Stinking Enigma said it’s hard to understand how keeping someone alive is doing them more harm than good

 

 

[Gladys]

But it's not a choice of keeping someone alive, they will already be out of the dire situation in Afghanistan.   It is about choosing the best equipped place for them to recover, adapt and try to rebuild their life somewhere very different to their homeland.  

If you really think that Mrs Miggins who does the church flowers at St Olaf's and has a big, empty house is best placed to assist in the pyschological, emotional and economic rebuilding of a family from Afghanistan, then you are deluded, and not just deluded but likely to cause severe harm to that family.  The Mrs Miggins analogy is all that is being proposed by those suggesting it. Nothing is being said about how to really help these people in the ways they will need it, just throw open your doors. 

I don't doubt that you are well intentioned, but you are really underestimating what skills and facilities will be required.  But, rather than think about it you would rather make the grand gesture, regardless of the potentially catastrophic outcome. 

[quilp]

Right on the nail again @Gladys. There's really no serious discussion about what sort of a future this Island would have to offer, for instance to 10 families of Afghan or Syrian extract, long-term. 

[Gladys]

24 minutes ago, quilp said:

Right on the nail again @Gladys. There's really no serious discussion about what sort of a future this Island would have to offer, for instance to 10 families of Afghan or Syrian extract, long-term. 

There is no serious discussion at all, just emotional knee jerk which, whilst understandable, has to be tempered with what is a. achievable and b. in the best interests of the refugees themselves. 

Mrs Miggins may feel the best way to help is through some good Christian redemption, that everyone loves a bacon butty and why don't "these people" earn their keep by keeping the church clean?  Of course, you would hope that there would be a careful selection process for hosts, that training is given in psychology, emotional support and the Afghan religious and cultural customs and requirements, and that they are closely monitored.  But who is going to do all that, to what standard and how? 

And that's without going anywhere near any kind of exploitative behaviour of what will be a very vulnerable group. 

[quilp]

That just about covers it nicely.

Let's get back on topic... 

Edited August 25, 2021 by quilp

[Chie]

On 8/24/2021 at 5:29 PM, Raffles said:

Isnt Peters English?

Thats a valid point. @Stu Peters 

There's a boat in the morning 😅.

[HeliX]

3 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Why not?

The existing population would be the main beneficiaries of increased physical and mental health services.

If this hadn’t been linked to accepting refugees and proposed as a stand alone policy then I imagine most would be supportive.

Sure there would be obstacles to overcome in accepting refugees.
 

Contributing in “other ways “ would obviously be well received but I’m afraid it would be salving our conscience rather than offering the help needed. ( “ sorry we don’t want you here but here’s a few quid to help you live somewhere else in a country that can be arsed to try and properly help you.)

Accepting refugees would be a complex issue, and one where we might not get everything right first time, but not one that should prevent us showing human decency or because it is  “emotional flavour of the month”. Other countries do it and it would enable the IOM to show itself as a grown up jurisdiction that has a place in the world.

Like the Stinking Enigma said it’s hard to understand how keeping someone alive is doing them more harm than good

My comment wasn't sarcastic. I am fully in favour of both helping refugees and increasing funding to our health services.

[The Voice of Reason]

6 hours ago, HeliX said:

My comment wasn't sarcastic. I am fully in favour of both helping refugees and increasing funding to our health services.

Sorry I misunderstood. 
 

[Banker]

Anyone in middle had any manifestos yet as I haven’t?