General Chat

lol Susan thankyou :-) I'd vote for Guinevere myself, she has passion in debate but tempers it with more reasoned argument than I can sometimes manage ;-)
( whisper it quietly I have too much of a temper ;-) )

'We sometimes misjudge the past as doubtless the future will misjudge us'.

But whatever the UK decides to do, let it do so without further ado. Dilly-dallying costs innocent lives.

Ok Rose....I will vote for you :-D

Substitue the word 'Jew(ish)' with 'Syrian refugees' in the following....

"Thus, while Britain would 'tolerate' a certain amount of immigration for humanitarian reason, this 'toleration' was limited by several interlinked factors.
The first, was the perceived effect that this process could have on the fabric of British society. The charge that antisemitism would increase if too many Jewish refugees were granted entry was stated throughout the inter-war period, both by government officials and the already-established Anglo-Jewish community. The second factor that was cited was employment, or more precisely unemployment. For this reason, refugees were landed on condition that they did not seek to enter the labour market without permission from the Ministry of Labour. This stipulation, however, was waived in two cases, firstly for refugees able to leave Europe with their business intact and willing to establish new firms in Britain and secondly for those who were able to enter Britain as domestic servants. Thus, on the one hand, refugees had to be able to either create jobs in Britain or had to demean themselves by working in low-paid, low skilled employment, whatever their former circumstances. A third factor was that of assimilation. Foreign Jews were expected both by the government and by the Anglo-Jewish establishment to conform to the British way of life and to minimise their 'foreignness'. They were inundated with advice to avoid showing their alien nature, such as not speaking German in public. Fourthly, the refugees were landed on a temporary basis, on the understanding that they would in the future leave Britain. Whilst in reality some 40,000 remained in Britain, this had not been the government's intention. Refuge was to be for a limited time, in the hope that most would seek other countries in which to settle permanently. Lastly and of greatest importance, was the issue of finance. From the very beginnings of this movement, the Anglo-Jewish community was expected to find the funds that would be required to support the refugees whilst they were in Britain. Foreign Jews were not to become chargeable to state finance in any shape. Again this situation would change, as by 1939 the Anglo-Jewish community had exhausted its funds and came to rely upon government grants."

http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/221



Cameron has just said on the news that the problem will not be solved by Britain taking in more refugees but by bringing peace and stability to those countries they are fleeing.... ( not an exact quote but close)

Compare and contrast a line from the review as linked

".... emphasises the government's reluctance to admit Jewish refugees during the war and the consistent government line that the rescue of Jews was not a war aim. In fact, the government maintained that the only way to rescue European Jewry was for the Allies to win the war in the shortest possible time."

And in the meantime.....?


I read this years ago in a book by Lucy Davidowitz and it stuck in my mind ( the quote is from the Guardian but repeats the facts)

" The British Medical Association ensured that very few refugee doctors were allowed to practise in Britain before the second world war. After the Anschluss, it vetoed a Home Office scheme to bring 500 Austrian Jewish doctors to Britain."

It made me wonder when I read it what good things those doctors might have done if allowed in, even temporarily.

In 75 years time will there be an historian like the ones mentioned writing a book detailing how 'we' failed to save refugees because we feared what they might change for us?

It's dreadful isn't it Gwynne, very sad.

I fostered a refugee, a few years back. I only see people as people, I don't care where they come from, especially when they need help.

Would I take a refugee family in? Yes I probably would.

Who could look at the corpse of that poor little child washed up on Turkish beach and not want to help?

Cuba's very nice Dermot, beautiful beaches, and Havana is magical, I can highly recommend :-D

I'm just considering which country I might like to relocate to should similar trouble erupt in the UK following the election of Jeremy Corbyn as the new Labour leader.

I don't know about that namelessone, I'm purely talking about the horrors they must of gone through, fleeing their homes, leaving all possessions and of course family they never saw again.

I can only imagine what they went through, thank goodness. I think myself extremely lucky that I don't have to leave my homeland.

Yes, in fact a whole new country was formed just for them by annexing land and property, but that's another story and not relevant to Syria.

Did those Jews of WW2 DEMAND to be taken to the country of their choice?

I haven't got high blood pressure Rose, so I can take the flack :-D

I look at some of the refugees and it makes me think of WW2, when Jews fled Germany, awful :-(

There are 7.6m displaced persons in Syria with a further estimated 4m in other countries.

The countries helping need money!, they cannot provide the aid and assistance without it.

It doesn't matter one jot which religion or gender you are IS will adapt their interpretation of a nonsensical religious dictat to ensure they can continue to kill and maim without referring to any moderate Imam's guidance.

AS for the politics of the region I have already ranted previously.

Yes,

I'm going out so will leave Guinevere to 'speak for me' lol,

Lynda, this topic was touched on last week, do you have high blood pressure? if so I would delete and just talk about cats or the weather, for the good of your health. :-)

I'd want to leave more if I was Muslim. IS are fundamentalist crazy people who want to set personal freedom back centuries. As a woman I would hate to live under IS.

As a white non-Muslim European, definitely.

(editted version) As a Syrian Muslim? I'd probably move away from the immediate area of conflict, then return when things have settled down. People have always adapted and survived under the yokes of conquerors.

I don't know if I'd have the courage. I think I'd be paralysed with fear.

Would you flee the Country?

I know I would.