On 22 Apr 2015 at 12:07am Disgusted wrote:
By voting to cut the money for the rescuing of refugees at sea ,the coalition effectively signed the death warrants for many of those drowned in the Meditterranean.The strategy was let them drown ,it will discourage the others from trying.Who could possibly vote for these monsters?Not me.
On 22 Apr 2015 at 4:13am Fairmeadow wrote:
The LibDem/Tory coalition has a lot to answer for, and there are plenty of good reasons for not voting for them, but blaming them for all the ills of the world is a bit steep. Syria, Somalia, Eritrea and Sudan were all a mess, and the West and Sub-Saharan African countries all poor, long before the coalition came to power. They (and Gordon Brown) deserve credit for maintaining the foreign aid budget at a higher level than pretty well any equivalent country, in the face of considerable pressures to cut spending.
On 22 Apr 2015 at 10:53am TRIPLE HOP wrote:
And to follow on from Fairmeadow's point, the current government (due to pressure and hard work from the Lib Dems within it and in the face of opposition from many Tories) have gone even further than Labour did, as they have now written into law that the UK will give 0.7% of GDP in international aid.
On 22 Apr 2015 at 11:10am Disgusted wrote:
The coalition cut the funding for rescuing refugees on the high seas.FACT.
On 22 Apr 2015 at 1:04pm Localbod wrote:
'Disgusted' raises an important issue, and the responses (seemingly from Lib Dem supporters, perhaps blinded by their own bias) miss the point. 'Disgusted' writes about the specific issue of how to manage the reality of tens of thousands of people trying to escape as refugees. The fact is that for whatever reason people are in the middle of the sea drowning, whilst others have a debate about the legitimacy of how they ended up there. A drowning refugee doesn't care about 0.7% of GDP. Right now people are risking their lives as refugees. We should simply be asking how these people's lives can be saved even if it is to return them to the place they are trying to escape from. Is that any more expensive than repatriating dead bodies? Presuming 'disgusted' is correct, how does cutting rescue-funding help save people from death by drowning? Do sinking ships get a better rescue service if they have wealthy tourists on board? Are the Lib Dems saying the refugees are at fault for not being grateful for improvements in foreign aid budgets. I am not sure refugees really care about conflicting parties squabbling with each other about who is to blame for what level of funding, and who is 'the best', as the seawater is filling their lungs.
On 22 Apr 2015 at 1:51pm TRIPLE HOP wrote:
Hello Localbod, quite a rant there! And thank you for reminding people that the Lib Dems secured a very positive reform of enshrining 0.7% of GDP as international aid. So are you saying that is a bad thing? Oh no, silly me, you just want to have a moan. and a whinge.
On 22 Apr 2015 at 2:02pm Localbod wrote:
Wow. That really is the definition of callous. I am sorry that you continue to think that drowning refugees should be the subject of humour and, and worse, political point scoring. These people have names.....although you chose to enjoy the privilege of hiding yours. I take it that you are a local Lib Dem activist?
On 22 Apr 2015 at 2:35pm TRIPLE HOP wrote:
No, just take an interest in what is going on and relevant to point out that if conditions in their own countries was improved via then this may be part (and just part) of the answer.
On 22 Apr 2015 at 2:35pm TRIPLE HOP wrote:
No, just take an interest in what is going on and relevant to point out that if conditions in their own countries was improved then this may be part (and just part) of the answer.
On 22 Apr 2015 at 3:33pm Localbod wrote:
rather than defend you drift into your own perfectly legitimite long term overseas funding agenda, you should re read my 'rant'. It refers to what the actual thread was about ie; the immediate and current funding of the rescue of drowning refugees. I realise that the preventable deaths of over 23,000 people (so far) does not merit your respect on a local internet Forum, but you may want to consider that for some of us these issues are a little closer to home than they clearly are to you.
On 22 Apr 2015 at 4:01pm TRIPLE HOP wrote:
Appreciate where you are coming from, localbod and like everyone else I naturally find the images and reports we all see / hear extremely upsetting. Just legitimate to look at longer term issues around this subject to consider what can be done to stop such things happening in the future.
On 22 Apr 2015 at 4:04pm Fairmeadow wrote:
Localbod - if you construe my response as that of a LibDem supporter, you have not read it very carefully.
I am not, and I will definitely not be voting for Mr Baker on 7 May. There are very good reasons for not voting for them - tuition fees, collusion with the Tories in increasing social inequality, likely future collusion in selling off our remaining affordable housing, etc, etc. But it was neither Mr Cameron nor Mr Clegg, nor any of their friends, who crowd thousands of people onto grossly overloaded and unseaworthy boats and send them out to sea.
On 22 Apr 2015 at 4:56pm 8 miles from home wrote:
When is the Lewes raft race this year?
On 22 Apr 2015 at 5:02pm Localbod wrote:
Fairmeadow, I chose the word 'seemingly', and I seem to have been correct in at least one instance, if not another. I find it amazing that anyone would continue to argue the why's and where simply fore's of how people come to be drowning in the sea. Does it really matter right now? The fact is that now, today, the immediate problem is death by drowning. I do hope that in the long term, the measures being described lessen the problem, but right now, they haven't taken effect. I want to know how EU countries are going to rescue drowning people today and get them back to shore? I really don't care where the people have come from, or which shore they go back to, if that matters to you. I simply do not want people to die drowning and terrified, and I do not agree with the notion that letting people drown will deter others from engaging in people smuggling , as has been claimed. Maybe I am just an unrealistic silly billy who should develop a more pragmatic view towards human suffering.
On 22 Apr 2015 at 7:50pm Lewes Resident wrote:
8 miles is not enough.
On 22 Apr 2015 at 7:56pm Englishman wrote:
If we are going to continue aid to Africa, we must send out condoms and teachers to educate the men to use them.
The biggest problem is that they keep knocking out unwanted children, and then abandon the mothers of their offspring.
We have a serious enough problem in this country with single mothers who get pregnant and then expect that state to feed and house them- the same problem is far worse in Africa.
On 22 Apr 2015 at 9:57pm Localbod wrote:
I agree with you about the need for the promotion of contraception in countries with HIV problems and unwanted pregnancies. A good place to start would be with the Pope, who also cannot endorse knowingly allowing people to drown.....
Anyway the whole point of this thread is to separate the politics of third world aid and the illegal smuggling trade, and look at the consequence , which is simply that right now people are drowning in the Med.
It seems that the view of several people on this thread is that they are happy to watch people drown. I wonder if they would say that if they were not sitting comfortably in front of their lap tops, but were out in a boat on the Med watching it happen. Maybe if they thought that the people drowning were white and/or Christians , that would help.
On 22 Apr 2015 at 11:42pm Totally Disgusted wrote:
David Cameron ought to be ashamed of himself cutting the funding for rescuing refugees. Now though because of public opinion he's been FORCED to do a U turn.. Would he of backtracked without being put under pressure.. highly unlikely.
On 23 Apr 2015 at 9:03am Belladonna wrote:
Local bod - Thank you for your cogent and humanitarian posts . I'm sure you are aware of the small local refugee and asylum seekers support group LSGRAS who welcome your - and anyone else's - help and support in the work they do.
On 23 Apr 2015 at 10:59am Localbod wrote:
Thank you for your info. Like many I am sending a few quid to a suitable group, and will add a few extra on behalf of each of the 'pro-drowning' posters above. Maybe they should all get together and loudly discuss their views on drowning refugees in one of this country's many great Vietnamese restaurants......
On 23 Apr 2015 at 11:31am ex Lib Dem voter wrote:
Just heard Clegg fessing up that his and Cameron's decision to cut funding for search and rescue for refugees on the high seas was in retrospect a "mistake.So was my deciding to vote Lib Dem last time.Never again.
On 23 Apr 2015 at 12:05pm real ex lib dem voter wrote:
I agree with you. (although you are not me)
On 23 Apr 2015 at 12:28pm ex LibDem voter wrote:
I suspect there may be many ex lib voters out there!
On 23 Apr 2015 at 1:05pm real ex lib dem voter wrote:
I think you may well be right. I doubt many tactical LibDem Baker voters thought that they were helping a party that would happily withdraw funding to save victims of smuggling crime and then claim surprise that the death toll has gone up. Very incompetent , inconsistent, and just plain nasty.