Should ‘poor’ be a protected characteristic?

[Mike Reed]

What's that saying again, beggars can't be choosers.

Isn't that the one commonly used in the world of sodomy? Ah, no, I remember; that was a u, not an e,

 

[mansr]

At some point, the people in question (the adults, not the kids) had the choice of staying in France or putting their lives at risk trying to cross the channel. They chose the latter and died. There is an argument to be made that other options should have been available, and I might agree with some version thereof. However, the reality these people faced didn't include these fantasy options. When people suffer or die as a consequence of making a choice where at least one of the available options, even if unfair in some broader sense, did not involve great risk to life, then at least some of the blame is on those making said choice.

 

[Big Tabs]

You seem to assume that such choices come from a comfortable place such as ours. We chose not to put our families at risk because we have the great good fortune to have much better options. Other people in other countries do not have the same range of choices with death at one end, and something very British* at the other. For some it’s a gamble. A gamble between one choice of potential death, and another.

*That is not meant as sarcasm, we should be proud enough of our privileges to extend them to others less fortunate

No.

I do not assume that such choices come from a comfortable place such as ours.

There was no death eminent in France.

 

[Big Tabs]

Defending callousness and ignorance on the grounds of diversity. I see.

There is my point again.

You are unable to comprehend that I am not ignorant and do have knowledge, but say something different to you.

That it appears callous to you is your opinion.

I think it is beyond cruel to encourage anyone to try to cross the channel by illegal means.

Do all the folk arguing the toss with me want to actively encourage people to try to cross the channel by dubious means?

I am looking at the reality of the situation.

 

[ks.234]

No.

I do not assume that such choices come from a comfortable place such as ours.

There was no death eminent in France.

You’re missing the point about an asylum seeker’s right to choose the country in which they wish to seek asylum

You’re argument has been about choice, if you believe in such choice why are you excluding those most in need from their legal right to choose which country in which to seek asylum?

 

[Big Tabs]

You’re missing the point about an asylum seeker’s right to choose the country in which they wish to seek asylum

You’re argument has been about choice, if you believe in such choice why are you excluding those most in need from their legal right to choose which country in which to seek asylum?

You are missing the point about adults choosing to take children into an unsafe environment.

 

[mansr]

There are two points being put forward here:

• It ought to be easier to seek asylum in the UK.
• It is stupid to try crossing the channel in a tiny boat.

These are not incompatible.

 

[Big Tabs]

^^^
that.

 

[ks.234]

You are missing the point about adults choosing to take children into an unsafe environment.

And you’re missing the point about adults only having a choice between one unsafe environment and another.

A choice between an unsafe place and a safe place is a choice we are familiar with. It’s not a choice open to everyone

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

It might be helpful to think of these people as trafficked. They have usually handed their life savings to a (criminal) enterprise on the promise of safe passage to the UK. By the time they get to Calais, they discover that the 'safe passage' is in an overloaded inflatable with just enough fuel to make the crossing. They're pretty much out of options at this point, and no doubt they are 'encouraged' to get in the boats. I can't honestly say that, in their shoes, I'd be able to make a different decision. So I don't condemn them for taking what might, from the comfort of my respectable, middle-class armchair, look like a foolhardy risk.

 

[Seanm]

There is my point again.

You are unable to comprehend that I am not ignorant and do have knowledge, but say something different to you.

That it appears callous to you is your opinion.

I think it is beyond cruel to encourage anyone to try to cross the channel by illegal means.

Do all the folk arguing the toss with me want to actively encourage people to try to cross the channel by dubious means?

I am looking at the reality of the situation.

I think I comprehend your ignorance pretty well. You betray your ignorance of the the legal background by casually assuming that the crossings are illegal, which they aren't. You betray your ignorance of the basic human situation by assuming that the dead had better options: maybe they did, but the typical situation of refugees is such that if you have to make assumptions then it would safer to go with the opposite. You seem to think that someone is "encouraging" people to make the crossings. People smugglers? This also suggests ignorance. I don't understand what possible grounds you have for claiming to be "looking at the reality of the situation".

I'm not sure whether your pronouncements would be more or less callous if you actually knew what you were talking about. I'm just marvelling at the things that some people can casually say about dead children and their dead parents, if they happen to be refugees. Between this, the school meals and everything else, I can't help thinking how well the ground has been prepared for, well, fascism. Starving kids? Drowned kids? Looks like somebody made some bad choices!

 

[Big Tabs]

And you’re missing the point about adults only having a choice between one unsafe environment and another.

A choice between an unsafe place and a safe place is a choice we are familiar with. It’s not a choice open to everyone

There is still a choice between the sea and land.

 

[Big Tabs]

I think I comprehend your ignorance pretty well. You betray your ignorance of the the legal background by casually assuming that the crossings are illegal, which they aren't. You betray your ignorance of the basic human situation by assuming that the dead had better options: maybe they did, but the typical situation of refugees is such that if you have to make assumptions then it would safer to go with the opposite. You seem to think that someone is "encouraging" people to make the crossings. People smugglers? This also suggests ignorance. I don't understand what possible grounds you have for claiming to be "looking at the reality of the situation".

I'm not sure whether your pronouncements would be more or less callous if you actually knew what you were talking about. I'm just marvelling at the things that some people can casually say about dead children and their dead parents, if they happen to be refugees. Between this, the school meals and everything else, I can't help thinking how well the ground has been prepared for, well, fascism. Starving kids? Drowned kids? Looks like somebody made some bad choices!

I sincerely think that you do not have the faintest idea about me at all.

I do believe that you find my opinion disagreeable.

Fair enough.

I find your opinion typical.

 

[Cav]

It was a poor choice.

I just put forward that there were other choices available.

You judge, with hindsight, that the choice was poor because of the outcome. Had the family not drowned it would have been an excellent choice. Crossing the Channel in small boats is a well-celebrated English tradition btw.

 

[Tim Jones]

I think I comprehend your ignorance pretty well. You betray your ignorance of the the legal background by casually assuming that the crossings are illegal, which they aren't. You betray your ignorance of the basic human situation by assuming that the dead had better options: maybe they did, but the typical situation of refugees is such that if you have to make assumptions then it would safer to go with the opposite. You seem to think that someone is "encouraging" people to make the crossings. People smugglers? This also suggests ignorance. I don't understand what possible grounds you have for claiming to be "looking at the reality of the situation".

I'm not sure whether your pronouncements would be more or less callous if you actually knew what you were talking about. I'm just marvelling at the things that some people can casually say about dead children and their dead parents, if they happen to be refugees. Between this, the school meals and everything else, I can't help thinking how well the ground has been prepared for, well, fascism. Starving kids? Drowned kids? Looks like somebody made some bad choices!

I suggest it may also be a bad choice to exploit tragedies to parade one's moralising.

 

[Seanm]

I suggest it may also be a bad choice to exploit tragedies to parade one's moralising.

Thanks Tim, the point I was trying to make, more succinctly put.

 

[ks.234]

There is still a choice between the sea and land.

Yes, you’re right, f*ck em, they deserve to die.

 

[Tim Jones]

Thanks Tim, the point I was trying to make, more succinctly put.

What started as an interesting thread about how poverty might not be held against those who suffer it has, with stunning monotony, become a vehicle for you to build a pointless catfight with anyone who disagrees with you.

 

[Seanm]

What started as an interesting thread about how poverty might not be held against those who suffer it has, with stunning monotony, become a vehicle for you to build a pointless catfight with anyone who disagrees with you.

And for you to tone police. Not a total loss then eh Tim.

 

[hifinutt]

So tragic to read of this Kurdish family who paid 21k to smugglers to come here , some years back we befriended a lovely Kurdish family , some got here under a lorry. They were so lovely and did very very well in UK