Crosswords1 min ago
Finally Balls Finds A Job!
37 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Am I wrong, then, in believing that only the government is responsible for the 'placement' of incoming Syrian refugees? A Scottish person cannot just go along to Downing Street and shout through the letter-box, "Hey, gie's ane o thay Syrian femilies, Davy-Boy!"
Do you know of anyone who expressed a willingness to shelter such incomers - and there were lots - who has been asked to honour their pledge? I suspect not and, therefore, your singling out of those you personally dislike is absurd.
Do you know of anyone who expressed a willingness to shelter such incomers - and there were lots - who has been asked to honour their pledge? I suspect not and, therefore, your singling out of those you personally dislike is absurd.
Yes it seems that the government is solely responsible for the placement of the refugees, QM. Of course what happens to them after they have been “placed” is a matter of conjecture. I don’t see the government taking on the responsibility for seeing that they remain where they are placed so the people of the Isle of Bute may not be troubled for too long as the incomers make their way to somewhere more suited to their likings once they have found out where the ferry terminal is.
I only know for certain of those two, QM. There were various other politicos, "celebrities" and Thespians urging everybody else to makes their spare rooms available but none that I recall made the specific pledge that the Misses Sturgeon and Cooper did. Doing a quick search it seems that some 2,000 British people made similar pledges to those two (though the article I found only mentions Bob Geldof by name):
http://
Most people are now accustomed to Mr Geldof’s rabid ramblings. He said it was images of three-year-old Syrian Aylan Kurdi's body being washed up on a Turkish beach that influenced his decision. "I look at it with profound shame and a monstrous betrayal of who we are and what we wish to be," he told RTÉ Radio One in Ireland.
Of course in heaping blame onto everybody else for the tragic death of the young boy, he neglected to add (perhaps because he had not troubled to find out or, more likely, that the facts did not suit his agenda) that the boy had, in fact, been removed from Turkey by his father who had lived there for some years and had a house and a job. It was his father who chose to place him in a rubber boat on the high seas, not everybody else. However, I digress.
However it’s really only politicians I am interested in for this issue as their rank hypocrisy seems to know no bounds. If there others who made similar unfulfilled pledges then there is plenty of my scorn and derision available for them, whatever their leanings. Despite the government’s monopoly on placing refugees I’m quite sure that if Scotland’s First Minister and one of the UK’s most senior opposition politicians (former Cabinet Minister and Shadow Home Secretary) really wanted to they would have found a way to influence the government’s “placing” strategy in order to fulfil their promise. Not perhaps in the way you suggest but by more subtle means. But like most politicians (including “Lord Snooty”) they talk a good talk. During the summer there was considerable disquiet in the UK about the likelihood of large numbers of Syrian refugees being settled here. This was when the EU, whose policies were much to blame for allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants to roam over mainland Europe, was trying to foist quotas of migrants on all member states. True to form those voicing such disquiet were howled down and Sturgeon’s and Cooper’s pledges, which they had absolutely no intention of keeping, were part of that antithesis. There is nothing absurd about highlighting that hypocrisy and I make no apologies for it.
I only know for certain of those two, QM. There were various other politicos, "celebrities" and Thespians urging everybody else to makes their spare rooms available but none that I recall made the specific pledge that the Misses Sturgeon and Cooper did. Doing a quick search it seems that some 2,000 British people made similar pledges to those two (though the article I found only mentions Bob Geldof by name):
http://
Most people are now accustomed to Mr Geldof’s rabid ramblings. He said it was images of three-year-old Syrian Aylan Kurdi's body being washed up on a Turkish beach that influenced his decision. "I look at it with profound shame and a monstrous betrayal of who we are and what we wish to be," he told RTÉ Radio One in Ireland.
Of course in heaping blame onto everybody else for the tragic death of the young boy, he neglected to add (perhaps because he had not troubled to find out or, more likely, that the facts did not suit his agenda) that the boy had, in fact, been removed from Turkey by his father who had lived there for some years and had a house and a job. It was his father who chose to place him in a rubber boat on the high seas, not everybody else. However, I digress.
However it’s really only politicians I am interested in for this issue as their rank hypocrisy seems to know no bounds. If there others who made similar unfulfilled pledges then there is plenty of my scorn and derision available for them, whatever their leanings. Despite the government’s monopoly on placing refugees I’m quite sure that if Scotland’s First Minister and one of the UK’s most senior opposition politicians (former Cabinet Minister and Shadow Home Secretary) really wanted to they would have found a way to influence the government’s “placing” strategy in order to fulfil their promise. Not perhaps in the way you suggest but by more subtle means. But like most politicians (including “Lord Snooty”) they talk a good talk. During the summer there was considerable disquiet in the UK about the likelihood of large numbers of Syrian refugees being settled here. This was when the EU, whose policies were much to blame for allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants to roam over mainland Europe, was trying to foist quotas of migrants on all member states. True to form those voicing such disquiet were howled down and Sturgeon’s and Cooper’s pledges, which they had absolutely no intention of keeping, were part of that antithesis. There is nothing absurd about highlighting that hypocrisy and I make no apologies for it.
Perhaps, NJ, you have failed to notice the obverse; namely, that if Cameron had actually called on Ms Sturgeon to honour her pledge by 'offering' her a family of refugees, she would almost certainly have accepted!
How could she do otherwise? But what would the fallout have been for Cameron and cronies? Obviously, the SNP would have been in a position to point out that THEIR leader - unlike him - actually DOES honour pledges!
In the total absence of any evidence that Ms Sturgeon was 'offered' and refused a Syian family, on what conceivable grounds can you accuse her of being hypocritical?
In addition, are you seriously suggesting that all the thousands of others who offered assistance are "rabid ranters"?
This is the thinnest of all your thin arguments in my experience.
How could she do otherwise? But what would the fallout have been for Cameron and cronies? Obviously, the SNP would have been in a position to point out that THEIR leader - unlike him - actually DOES honour pledges!
In the total absence of any evidence that Ms Sturgeon was 'offered' and refused a Syian family, on what conceivable grounds can you accuse her of being hypocritical?
In addition, are you seriously suggesting that all the thousands of others who offered assistance are "rabid ranters"?
This is the thinnest of all your thin arguments in my experience.
“In the total absence of any evidence that Ms Sturgeon was 'offered' and refused a Syian family, on what conceivable grounds can you accuse her of being hypocritical?”
On the grounds that if she had wanted to house such a family, as senior politicians both she and Miss Cooper would have found the mechanism to do so. The two women are not simply members of Joe Public who made an offer with the best intentions. They have no need to wait for things to happen and be disappointed if they don't. They have the connections to ensure their wish was granted. Their “offer” (such that it was) was made at a time when the disquiet among the majority of the UK population had to be quelled and they saw their bogus offer as a way of helping to achieve that. They had no intention whatsoever of fulfilling it.
I’m not equating Mr Geldof with those whom I consider more sincere in their offering of help. I don’t see many of them blaming the population of the UK for all the world’s ills and castigating them on TV for not contributing to what he considers to be worthy causes. I don’t need him to speak for me when he suggests that the death of a three year old whom his father had taken from a place of safety and dumped in a rubber dinghy to cross the open sea is somehow my fault.
We will clearly have to agree to differ because I hold in somewhat low regard politicians who make such pledges on a personal level that they have no need to make (other than to make them look and feel good about themselves) and which they have no intention of keeping. Instead they rely on the hope that their rash statements will simply fade into the mists of time with the gullible public turning their attention to the latest announcement made by one or other of them.
On the grounds that if she had wanted to house such a family, as senior politicians both she and Miss Cooper would have found the mechanism to do so. The two women are not simply members of Joe Public who made an offer with the best intentions. They have no need to wait for things to happen and be disappointed if they don't. They have the connections to ensure their wish was granted. Their “offer” (such that it was) was made at a time when the disquiet among the majority of the UK population had to be quelled and they saw their bogus offer as a way of helping to achieve that. They had no intention whatsoever of fulfilling it.
I’m not equating Mr Geldof with those whom I consider more sincere in their offering of help. I don’t see many of them blaming the population of the UK for all the world’s ills and castigating them on TV for not contributing to what he considers to be worthy causes. I don’t need him to speak for me when he suggests that the death of a three year old whom his father had taken from a place of safety and dumped in a rubber dinghy to cross the open sea is somehow my fault.
We will clearly have to agree to differ because I hold in somewhat low regard politicians who make such pledges on a personal level that they have no need to make (other than to make them look and feel good about themselves) and which they have no intention of keeping. Instead they rely on the hope that their rash statements will simply fade into the mists of time with the gullible public turning their attention to the latest announcement made by one or other of them.
Can you prove NJ, that she has not asked to be personally 'allocated' a Syrian refugee? You obviously cannot, so your continued insistence - "out of the blue", as it were - that she IS a hypocrite is utterly baseless. You're just claiming something out of nothing.
Given what I said in an earlier answer about what Cameron would have to lose by either granting or refusing her a refugee to house, you clearly have a touching faith in Call-Me-Dave's honesty! (One wonders whether these four words have ever appeared together anywhere in the world before now!)
Given what I said in an earlier answer about what Cameron would have to lose by either granting or refusing her a refugee to house, you clearly have a touching faith in Call-Me-Dave's honesty! (One wonders whether these four words have ever appeared together anywhere in the world before now!)
If she had asked she would have been given, QM. And the very next day photographs of her and her new lodgers would have been plastered all over every newspaper in the land. As far as I know there was no such story. Whilst I don't believe everything I read in the papers I'm inclined to believe that if something like this has not appeared then it has not happened.
Our two views of these events are completely opposed and insoluble. I believe these two politicians made their statements because it was politically expedient at the time but they had no intention of seeing them through – hence my assertion of hypocrisy. You seem to believe that having made their pledges they have not fulfilled them only because they have not had the opportunity to do so. We must wait and see who is right but I’m not holding my breath.
Our two views of these events are completely opposed and insoluble. I believe these two politicians made their statements because it was politically expedient at the time but they had no intention of seeing them through – hence my assertion of hypocrisy. You seem to believe that having made their pledges they have not fulfilled them only because they have not had the opportunity to do so. We must wait and see who is right but I’m not holding my breath.
I didn't say it was evidence, QM. I didn't know it was a criminal case we were taking part in. I thought it was a debate where views are exchanged.
Indeed it was an assumption. But one made on the basis of past experience. If politicians see an angle to increase their poll ratings and credibility they will adopt it provided, that is, it does not cause them too much personal inconvenience. Hence talking a good talk but not walking the walk (in the hope that people will have forgotten the talk).
As I said, our views are completely opposite and all we have to do is wait for one or both of the ladies to receive their new lodgers.
Indeed it was an assumption. But one made on the basis of past experience. If politicians see an angle to increase their poll ratings and credibility they will adopt it provided, that is, it does not cause them too much personal inconvenience. Hence talking a good talk but not walking the walk (in the hope that people will have forgotten the talk).
As I said, our views are completely opposite and all we have to do is wait for one or both of the ladies to receive their new lodgers.
Well to draw to to a close, QM, if neither of the ladies has taken in their Syrian lodgers by this time next year I'll try to remember to pose a question to see if you have changed your views (I've set a reminder on my Outlook). A year should be plenty of time for them to have been allocated a family, especially since they have volunteered and in view of their connections. If they have done so I'll be the first to accept I misjudged them. If they have not maybe you'd have the good grace to accept that my assumption may not have been so rash after all.
"If neither of the ladies has taken in their Syrian lodgers by this time next year..."
All that'll prove to me is that they haven't been allocated any! Consequently, you might as well delete the reminder you have set for yourself.
I totally agree that "A year should be plenty of time for them to have been allocated a family." (Perhaps you yourself did not notice your use of the passive voice in that sentence.) If they haven't been, clearly that will have been remiss of Cameron. By then he will have had the offer for well over a year and done nothing about it. As I suggested earlier, couldn't that just be because he realises that offering what they asked will be solely to THEIR credit not HIS?
All that'll prove to me is that they haven't been allocated any! Consequently, you might as well delete the reminder you have set for yourself.
I totally agree that "A year should be plenty of time for them to have been allocated a family." (Perhaps you yourself did not notice your use of the passive voice in that sentence.) If they haven't been, clearly that will have been remiss of Cameron. By then he will have had the offer for well over a year and done nothing about it. As I suggested earlier, couldn't that just be because he realises that offering what they asked will be solely to THEIR credit not HIS?
All it will prove, QM, is that they were not true to their word. It won't be Mr Cameron's fault (or indeed anybody else's apart from their own) if they have no lodgers. Mr Cameron will be more than happy to see senior politicians (even if they are his political opponents) take in refugees. Senior politicians make things happen when they want to if it is to their advantage and it does not cause them too much trouble. What you are suggesting is that they have made their pledge but will be thwarted from fulfilling it by either the PM or whoever is organising the billeting of refugees.
I'm definitely out of this now as it is clear we are poles apart.
I'm definitely out of this now as it is clear we are poles apart.
Well, since you had the first 'strike' in our personal duel here about the two ladies, I'll have the last.
You say, "Mr Cameron will be more than happy to see senior politicians...take in refugees."
Here are a couple of questions for you to ponder, since you have decided to withdraw...
(a) What conceivable reason has he got for failing to ensure that has happened?
(b) How can they be "true to their word" if no refugees have been 'handed' to them?
You say, "Mr Cameron will be more than happy to see senior politicians...take in refugees."
Here are a couple of questions for you to ponder, since you have decided to withdraw...
(a) What conceivable reason has he got for failing to ensure that has happened?
(b) How can they be "true to their word" if no refugees have been 'handed' to them?
So, it must still be my last shout again, then!
"As senior politicians they would not have to wait." Still with the assumptions, eh?
If you are going to come back again, after having declared yourself "out", please give me an example or two from the past where a Prime Minister has chosen to offer anything to opposition MPs which could only redound to THEIR credit. Were you able to do so, there might be something in the way of evidence for your naïve belief.
"As senior politicians they would not have to wait." Still with the assumptions, eh?
If you are going to come back again, after having declared yourself "out", please give me an example or two from the past where a Prime Minister has chosen to offer anything to opposition MPs which could only redound to THEIR credit. Were you able to do so, there might be something in the way of evidence for your naïve belief.
//Wee Burney’s intolerant Toytown Tartanistas are threatening to boycott Tunnock’s Tea Cakes because the company has removed the Scottish Lion Rampant logo from products sold south of the border to make them ‘more British’. There’s an idea.
Now that the SNP has set up shop in Westminster, perhaps we should start calling it the BNP// Littlejohn.
Perhaps she's too busy sorting out important issues.
I wouldn't move in with her if I can't have a Tunnocks teacake.
Now that the SNP has set up shop in Westminster, perhaps we should start calling it the BNP// Littlejohn.
Perhaps she's too busy sorting out important issues.
I wouldn't move in with her if I can't have a Tunnocks teacake.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Unusual Commuter In Australia.........
News9 mins ago
All Political Careers End In Failure
News11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.