Be Excellent To Each Other

Disagree. Sadly, its life.

He also looks just like my son. And of all the things that we have to worry about him that we sometimes think make our issues special, they ain't, because upsetting photo boy, and loads like him, are worse off.

Edit: However to clarify why, is because for me there is no pointscoring in this, and probably doesn't belong in the Political thread because no party in the UK is even touching on dealing with this in any way shape or form. The differences we have in the UK between Rich and Poor are trivial scratches compared to the circumstances that make this happen. It isn't left vs right, socialism vs capitalism, its humanity or not. And regardless what anyone says about Evil Tories, that isn't making this happen, and Corbyn or anyone else have no suggestion, or frankly even more than a passing glance on making it stop. This is Ethiopia 1985, writ large. And it needs to be resolved. Quickly.

My cock is floppy and ugly but you wouldn't want a picture of that slapped on here without a tag. But that's life, I have repugnant flap of meat drooping out of my pelvis.

Citation needed

That's a weak argument; all sorts of things are 'life' but having them front and centre as someone scrolls through a thread wouldn't be on. I personally don't mind but I support anyone who doesn't necessarily want to see dead children on Beex. A spoiler tag with a comment is trivial to do here and if you want to post an image of an actual dead person I'd be very surprised if it was considered too much to ask.

No-one wanted to see Michael Buerk reporting on emaciated virtual corpses walking round africa when they were eating their tea. But they saw them.

The world changed as a result. The problem didn't get solved overnight, but attitudes (looking beyond our own doorstep, and our comparatively trivial issues) changed and things improved over time.

There's a fairly big difference between primetime news reporting and a tiny games-focussed Web forum. Anyone looking to raise widescale awareness of any issue would be an idiot to use Beex as a springboard. And none of that speaks to my implicit question which is: where do you draw the line? Metric fucktons of terrible atrocities happen all over the world all the time so is it cool to post pictures of anything now as long as it actually happened? Obviously not, but that's the gist of your response here and I'm just saying that can't be the single justification.

...or Cameron's Daily-Mail-courting anti-immigration policies. Policies that have no grounding in economics, but are carefully designed to appeal to people scared of migrants. Which have been proven, year after year, to be entirely unworkable as immigration has risen time and time again. But the emotional impact -- the popularity of these policies with middle England -- that is undeniable. How is that any different to the policies you are castigating Corbyn for?

(1) Is Abdullah Kurdi now facing extradition from Turkey? (2) If these photographs hadn't surfaced, would the answer to (1) be any different? (3) isn't that shameful? (4) Some 2600 migrants fleeing to Europe by boat are estimated to have drowned. This is not an isolated story.

See also: all the time and money spent going on about and after 'benefit fraudsters' despite the tiny % of the welfare bill they make up, while tax avoidance on a massive scale by rich people and companies is, historically, strangely unaddressed in the tory crusade.

It's fucked up that the two pictures of the dead child seem to have completely changed the tabloid narrative from 'dole-seeking cockroaches' to 'humanitarian crisis'.

We're the thousands of other dead people not photogenic enough for the Sun or the Mail?

Parliament petition link, BTW.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/105991

Exactly that.

It's the usual hateful tabloid bullshit; as soon as public opinion moves they flip their position so they can always be on the 'right' side of whatever's going on. It's surely only a matter of time before the fucking Sun unveils some vomit inducing 'campaign' (with suitably vague aims) so that if anything at all does change they can do the usual load of hypocritical back slapping while claiming that it was The Sun wot won it. Ugh. The fact that they're so nakedly manipulative yet slack jawed twats keep buying into it really boils my piss.

No particular objections to the image being put behind a spoiler but I'd take issue with it being described as 'NSFW', this is a picture that's being carried far and wide on news services across the world, and I put it in a thread dedicated to political debate, it's not like I sneaked it into the MAME thread or something.

It'll be interesting to see if sewer rags like the Mail and the Sun change their position somewhat now, where more considered and, dare I say it, humanist and compassionate papers such as The Guardian, have been describing this as a humanitarian crisis all along, and publishing articles/opinion pieces/etc in support of that position.

(Although interestingly the Mail have pixelated the picture to protect their readers' gentle natures, not that paparazzi pics of random celeb's arses are given such treatment, along with a comment on whether or not the 'derriere' is 'pert' - and judgement passed accordingly.)

It was me wot moaned to the mods about it by the way.

Not NSFW per se, just massively upsetting.

Three clicks and done. Signed.

Actually for some (Russell included) it could be. Someone at our workplace (Russell and I work together) had their contract ended because of an image in the media that showed someone's death, being viewed on a work computer.

Whether it was what they wanted the person in question to leave for, who can say, but it was the technicality that was used to relieve them of their position, so in those terms not 'safe' for some at work. I completely understand what you are saing: these images are widespread and everywhere today, and something I am finding quite difficult to deal with emotionally, but in some cases actually having them cached in your browser viewing history might be a bit sensitive if it can be used against you.

I did actually umm and ahhh about describing the image as NSFW. I decided not to in the original post but then followed it up with with my own mod post describing it as such just in case anyone hadn't seen it, then they knew straight away that it wasn't suitable. Anyway, carry on.

NSFW isn't a literal thing as far as I'm concerned, anyway.

So - who'd house one of the immigrant families, if it came to that?

It should be noted that an image behind a spoiler tag is cached in your browser viewing history, which is why actual NSFW images and videos aren't allowed on Beex at all.

If in doubt don't browse BEEX on work computers at all, a lot of what's written here would fall afoul of many workplace internet policies. It's not just pictures and videos that can get you in the shit.

Me. Ok, probably not a family, but I've got a spare bedroom and buying food for four people instead of three is neither here nor there.

I've certainly got the space.

Are there not housing developments in Ireland standing empty? I reckon a bit of that sweet EU bailout money could help a few thousand to the emerald Isle.

I think the immediate problem is evacuation though. There's too many desperate people dying on rafts and dinghies

Ah, is that right? I think it is mostly academic as for many they have to be looking for something to get you over, and I think in the case mentioned it was as said person had been watching it with some others, one of whom assumedly alerted the powers to go and find the proof. I don't read the forums at work anyway (unless on my phone, which is on 3G) because I don't trust any of you I have actual work to do.

Couldn't have put it better myself.


If I had the room I'd take people in. Unfortunately there's barely room for those of us already living at my house, so I have to make do with signing petitions and donating via Amazon wishlists and stuff.

I'd temporarily take in a family.

There are over half a million homes empty in England anyway, so maybe we should put them to use?

That we have only taken in about 300 refugees is pretty awful. Even feckin' Ireland have taken more.

But like I always say, journalists are twats, what do you expect? Moral consistency? Integrity? Heh, good luck with that.

On the unspoilered image, I'm with Russ. I know it's weak of me etc. but I find it near impossible to deal with images such as have been described (I haven't looked at them).

I also agree with APOD that they've been posted in the wrong thread - this is a meta UK political issue and it's hardly as though any of the UK political parties has an answer to this, or indeed can have an answer.

My own view? As hard as it is to say - especially since I myself come from immigrant refugee stock (and so is hypocritical as I am acutely aware), I just don't think taking in more of these people is the answer, because if we do, ten times more again will come as a result. I'm sorry, but that's just the harsh reality of it for me.

We need to be concentrating our efforts into humanitarian measures within the actual affected countries (probably that we ourselves messed up, in many cases).

All that being said, we'd still be prepared to take in a family in need on a temporary basis I'm sure.

That's a pretty weak riposte. Yes, Cameron's 'anti immigration' policies are indeed disingenuous in the extreme (and empirically shown to be hopeless, for entirely understandable reasons to do with the EU and outwith his control), and so to that extent are 'swivel-eyed'. But fuck me, that's a criticism that can be levelled only at one very specific policy/aspect, not an entire gamut of them, or indeed all of them, as in the case of Corbyn, Syriza etc.

In fairness to the EU, they've told Cameron he needs to make the UK a much less attractive destination himself (i.e. remove the imperative to come here), by slashing benefits - which is certainly something I can agree with in principle.

That's not what i'm hearing in local news and commentators. Apparently, at least judging from what I hear, the UK is attractive because it's easier to work illegaly than in France, Germany or Sweden. Because when it comes to benefits, these countries are comparable, or even above, the UK.

And every time i hear your prime minister talk i have to change the channel. I suppose he has this anti-emigration/anti-EU rhetoric as a demagogic way of keeping some of the most far-right electorate, because he's certainly smarter than that. Kudos to Merkel, though. Never liked the lady as she's always meddling in our internal affairs, but she's been having a great attitude lately towards the humaniatian crisis.

It is a mess, but not surprising. The media will always try to lead the public opinion, to rile people up to follow with their narrative as people will pay to read their views writ large, so when they sense that actually, popular opinion differs from their own, they have to turn about on their heel pretty quickly.

I heard it was working on the black, rather than not working.

I don't think anyone disputes that fixing things at source is by far the best option. The fact is though that there are now millions of displaced people and we absolutely have to do something about that. Closing the borders is simply not an option at the moment, as it leads to lots and lots of dead people.

It's not like these are an underclass of layabouts or whatever; the people most likely to be able to get out are the ones who had money in the first instance. They are the doctors, bankers, teachers, etc.

Though that shouldn't make a difference. They aren't fleeing and dying to come here and claim fucking JSA.

I think you're conflating economic migrants from within the EU (who, apparently, if the papers are to be believed are in part attracted to the UK by its generous 'benefits regime' (be that actual benefits, tax credits or whatever), and actual refugees from war-torn countries outwith the EU. No-one is suggesting these latter people are 'layabouts' or 'dying to come here and claim JSA' (but then, no-one was actually saying either of these specific things about former economic EU migrants either...).

Nah, look at comment pages on pretty much any newspaper site; there are a lot of people who think that Syrian refugees are out to steal our monies!

David Cameron needs to remove his head from his arse and do something.

Oh sure, I accept there are doubtless fuckwits who do think that, but certainly no-one here, Curio.

Out of interest. what do you think Cameron should or could do, in specific terms? Take more refugees? But if so, do you not accept that this will simply incentivise a great many more to come/make the perilous journey also, thereby exacerbating the humanitarian crisis that much further?

If not taking more refugees, what are his other options?

If we find a way to take more refugees (which I think we should), the "journey" part of it needs to be fixed before (or as) it's put into place. Presumably that'll have to involve the military, as I can't think of any other reasonable way to get people here.

Firstly, take in more refugees. The very idea that people fleeing war will stop or go because the UK increases their intake by a tiny fraction of the whole is laughable. Lebanon has taken in a million people; this year we have taken 300. Upping that by 10k will not change the mind of a single person.

Secondly, take the lead in getting the EU, NATO and the UN in saying there has to be a centralised response. Fuck being on holiday this week; do something NOW. This reminds me of a larger scale version of the Vietnamese boat people who were taken in by various countries across the world following the fall of Saigon. It's a massive logistical nightmare, but if we want to consider ourselves to be human, we have to try.

Thirdly, come up with some idea about what to do in Syria. This is the hardest of the tasks as every side in the conflict are unmitigated fuckwits who have no issue with the wanton slaughter of millions of innocent people.

We cannot simply stand by and watch all these people die.

The comment pages on any newspaper site are where stupid goes to thrive, though: I wouldn't take that as the general consensus of feeling amongst people who have a reading age above 7 years old.

I think, unfortunately, a lot of people are confused and mixed up with various stories about EU migrants coming to the UK, those who are trying to breech security at the channel tunnel each night, the Syrian refugee crisis and stories coming from Greece, Turkey, Hungary, etc. After a while it is not that surprising that the words and images become a blur until one story or one picture stands out, and I guess that's the moment that has hit.

One thing I am slightly confused about is the hoped eventual destination of the refugees from Syria. I keep reading a lot of reports saying that for the vast majority they are aiming to get to Germany (BBC had the image below of the path through Europe that they claim is intended and attempted by many)



With the risk of sounding completely ignorant, why is their aim to seek refuge so far away? I'd have thought that if escaping for your life you'd stop at the first safe spot. I understand that numbers would push that safe spot further out, but from what I have read it's been the aim for Germany since the start: Is it because they have been far more welcoming of the refugees from the start? I assume that is it, as they would feel more welcomed there, but can't really find anything that mentions it and just wondered why.

Unsurprisingly I agree with Cavey. The bleeding-hearts of the left want the doors open wide to let in everyone, with no thought to logistics, infrastructure, housing, feeding, clothing, translational services, administration, processing - you name it, they haven't thought about it.

It's all very well to stand on the sideline and impotently bemoan the government to DO SOMETHING, but as usual there exists a reality of feasibility that thankfully supersedes blind angry ideological demands.

You think politicians are bastards because they aren't moved by the picture of a face-down dead child. That's precisely why we have politicians - we entrust them to make decisions on behalf of the country on the basis of considered and measured assessment of the REALITY of this country's capabilities. If a politician implemented new policy every time something tugged at their heart strings the country would be in a right fucking mess and nobody would thank them for that.

So, at soon as you can lay out a full plan for how the country can house an unexpected influx of thousands of displaced people given the current limitations of jobs, housing, and existing support services to process them, I'll be more than happy to support it. If you can't, and the whole of your argument is 'Rah rah rah, let them in you heartless bastards!', you won't be getting much support from me.



Sure we fucking can. More people die of other equally tragic causes every day, all over the world. You don't give a flying fuck about that most of the time because it's not pushed under your nose in a national newspaper or website. How is this any different apart from the fact it's a bit nearer than usual?

I find EBG far more agreeable in the Hearthstone thread.

Rationalising your egoism doesn't make it ethical.

I know right! I'm essentially saying 'Let's have a plan before we just open the floodgates'.

It's fucking heartless. I'm such a bastard. Down with me.

I'm not rationalising anything. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of suddenly demanding our government fix the ills of the world because one particular type is being well-publicised lately.

The point, rather, is that we have an elected government and civil service whose job it is to work out a full plan for how this can happen. More importantly, if we decide to go and start wars in other people's countries, it's criminal that we do so without expecting the result to be a humanitarian crisis that we absolutely bloody must be able to respond to. And absolutely, we can house 10,000 immigrants. We're a first world nation and we can send rockets into space. If you took a regiment of the Army Corps of Engineers and said 'build a fucking town in the middle of Dartmoor that we can move 10,000 people into in a month's time', they could do it without much difficulty. And then we give them a basic £35 a week each while we work out what to do with them on a more permanent basis. £350,000 a week. That's utter peanuts. We absolutely could do this, starting tomorrow.

The only question is whether 'we' want to.

Your government shouldn't "fix" anything. They should just do their part in sheltering part of the refugees instead of pandering to votes of people thinking like you. Besides, the UK government should also stop to victimize themselves over this issue because it's Germany who's taking the biggest toll.