Osmosis

You expressed concern that we could not afford to accommodate 1800 refugees locally, and I'm offering you some info on that. I don't think that's preaching, it's not intended to be. I've no idea of your source for this rumour, but it surely makes sense if you are so worried about what you've been told, to check it out. My first port of call since you ask would be https://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/government-citizens-and-rights/customer-services-enquiries/customer-service-standards#contact - I am sure you can take it from there. I am sure nobody would think you are time-wasting, it's their job to serve the community after all.

You don't know who I am, and don't really want to? I'm just a resident of Herefordshire, commenting on a local forum, like you Denise. George Osborne announced last year that over £460 million of the overseas aid budget will be used by 2019-20 across the statutory sector to assist with first year costs of resettling up to 20,000 of the most vulnerable Syrian refugees. They are also going to provide around a further £130 million by 2019-20 just to local authorities to contribute to the costs of supporting refugees up to their fifth year, including an ‘extreme cases' fund that will assist with high cost cases. Does that put your mind at rest Denise? You don't even know that there will be an influx of 1800 people, because you prefer to listen to rumour rather than check out the facts for yourself.

Just give them a quick to call to confirm it, it's obviously really troubling you that they might not be cared for properly.

Why not ring up the council and ask them?

Couldn't agree more Bobby47. All those expressing outrage on here for Swedish women being attacked by refugees, (motivated out of sincere concern for the rights of women, I don't doubt that for a minute), please bear in mind the police do not record the ethnicity of either criminals or victims, and the press is extremely constrained over reporting identifying details about either the victims or the perpetrators of crimes. I discovered this when doing some reading around the Julian Assange case. So how the Daily Mail is able to report that there are hundreds of North African/ Middle Eastern rapists on the loose is unclear (if indeed it has reported that, I don't read the DM). It is impossible either to prove or to disprove, from official statistics, the nationalist claim that the rapists are disproportionately young male migrants. Yet that claim is repeated as a fact in racist and xenophobic parts of the internet. Incidentally, I had a quick browse through the topics on the forums and couldn't find any similar outrage being expressed over the reported rape of a 16 year old girl in Belmont last October, but perhaps I've missed it.

My apologies Mick, I regretted it after I posted it. You are right, we should not be making assumptions about one another on an anonymous forum. One thing though. Many Poles came to the UK during, and after WWII, perhaps that's why you're here now. They weren't told to go home and fight for their country. They were welcome here then, and some of us welcome the Poles who have migrated here since Poland joined the EU. No not all refugees are from Syria. Many are from Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, and other places where we have helped to destroy the infrastructure and make it unsafe to live. Some do stay and fight of course. I can see that my views are unpopular on here, but whilst I've been challenged to back up every point I've made, and I've tried to do that, I don't see anybody else doing it. There's a lot of simple uninformed prejudice on this forum, and it's pretty ugly.

Were your grandparents caught up in a vicious civil war, and being bombed simultaneously by Russia, the US, France, UK? I'm out of here. I like informed debate, but you can't do that with a vegetable.

OK, I'll try to take your queries one at a time. How will they live in the UK? that's a good question. They are housed if they have nowhere to live, usually in a hostel. Like I said, about £5 a day, and I believe they can look for work if their claim for asylum has not been processed after about a year, but only in areas where there is a shortage of personnel, e.g. nursing. To be clear, there are unaccompanied children who have reached Europe, and we are recommended to take 3000 of them. They are not massed at Calais, where there are about 7000 people IN TOTAL. Regarding why they come to Europe rather than going to Saudi etc, if you look at a map you will see that Turkey is the easiest place to seek refuge, and that's where most Syrians are, plus also in Jordan and Lebanon, which has a huge proportion. They're obviously no safer in Iraq, so they're not going there. Europe is next, after Turkey, geographically. Saudi is a long, long way away, Qatar, Bahrain, further. But yes, you could reasonably argue that those countries could do more. That doesn't mean we should do less.

I believe 21 people have been charged in Cologne with various crimes, not sure of the numbers of those who are identified as asylum seekers, as opposed to just "North African". But given that they aren't allowed to earn any money, it's perhaps not surprising that some asylum seekers turn to theft? I just don't believe that narrative that they are all perverts and rapists. You sound like Donald Trump!

Well, as i said earlier, 86% are hosted by developing countries. Turkey has most of the Syrians.

Yup, no woman has ever been groped and abused by a white British man on new year's eve.

You're wrong. There are about 7000 people at the Jungle camp in Calais. A further 2500 or so are at Dunkirk. Do you really think 3000 of them are children? Why do you think they all want to get to the UK?

No, they've reached the EU, now the International Development committee is recommending that we take 3000. Many of them will have been orphaned en route.

Well you can look it up for yourself (Bill Thomas) by all means. Life isn't easy for these people, and the UK certainly doesn't make it easier. The allowance for an adult in France is around £8, but they make no allowances for children, which is why families may be better off in the UK. I don't know where you read about refugees refusing to be treated by female medics - was it a reliable source? I'm always sceptical. There's a corporate media narrative that portrays refugees and asylum seekers as uncivilised, barbaric, ignorant of the west etc etc but I don't buy into it myself.

Well, 86% of the world's refugees are hosted by developing countries, not the UK, or even the EU. Within the EU, most would prefer to go to Germany, Sweden, and Italy, and indeed those countries take many thousands more than we do in the UK. Asylum seekers are not allowed to claim benefits or work in the UK. If they are destitute and have no other means of supporting themselves, they can apply to receive asylum support. This is set at around £5.28 per day - it is more than that in France. So what makes you say that the UK is too soft?

One reason people don't want to seek asylum in France, is the difficulty in applying. One French rule, for example, requires refugees to have an address to start the asylum process, but you cannot get an address until you are in the system. Many of the people at Calais don't speak French, but they do speak English, or they have family already resident here who they hope to join. Unemployment is also high in France, and it has an unwelcoming reputation as far as refugees are concerned. Hard to believe, but France is actually more racist than the UK.

I'm new to this forum, and I have to admit to being quite shocked at some of the comments on here. Regarding the above quote, if I were crazed enough to want to kill somebody tomorrow, and did not care how I did it, who I killed or if I died myself, I could kill a few people without too much effort or planning. That is why the continual propaganda about “seven foiled ISIS terrorist plots†or “4,000 active Islamic terrorists in the UK†is quite simply untrue. If all those terrorists existed, they would not be so entirely unproductive. What the authorities do catch continually are fantasists, often children, boasting and “plotting†online about being terrorists. That is quite a different thing. It is worth noting that nobody has been charged over any of these seven foiled ISIS plots. Strange that, isn’t it?

Because Wiggin already more or less confines himself to representing the interests of the NFU. If you look at his record in parliament, these are the topics he raises. As farmers already get a very good deal from the taxpayer, I think they may feel that they have been well represented by Wiggin.

I don't have a problem with second jobs per se, after all, MPs get very long holidays, and maybe he can squeeze in his time for Emerging Asset or whatever they're called, in the recess. It's the conflict of interest here which is an issue. I'm sure he has had many representations from constituents about the closure of libraries for instance - perhaps there would be money for these things if hedge funds weren't stashing the tax revenues the UK should be receiving off-shore. I don't live in his constituency, but my parents do, and so do friends. Whenever they have contacted him (and he doesn't always reply, neither does Norman) he has responded by attaching a government statement on whatever the topic is, and that's it, end of story. Hardly a hard working constituency MP in my view. More relevant might be to ask, do we know of any constituent who has contacted him over an issue, and had a helpful response or positive outcome? Not including anybody from the farming industry obviously.

Already signed

Well Dippy, assuming one takes his protestations of innocence at face value, and it really was a financial muddle and not fraud (if), then I think we can assume also that he is not being employed for his financial acumen. He is a man of modest educational achievements. So one can draw conclusions about what other benefit he might be able to bring, and that surely would point to his being an MP, and the benefits and opportunities that arise for business when they make these connections. That's my view, for what it's worth!

It's a negative outcome, and a negative story. I agree it's reporting a routine situation (and as such hardly newsworthy I'd have thought), but the truth is we rarely/never hear any of the thousands of success stories to come out of the NHS. It contributes towards the negative perception of the NHS that Jeremy Hunt and his friends in private health care want to foster.

Absolutely right. There's a collusion between the media and our government to run down the NHS as much as possible, to manipulate attitudes towards it which tend to be overwhelmingly positive. Once you get people thinking the NHS is crap, then it's an easy step to convince people that it would be better run by private companies. Just like our railways, energy, water, buses, care for the elderly.....

Great gdj. Can anybody else see why this story might need running past a legal team? I can't. The register of member's interests is a matter of public record, and all the info seems to be factual enough. Curious...

I do indeed remember that Dippy, it was shameful. This is a useful link http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2009/05/john-e-strafford-a-short-guide-to-deselecting-your-mp.html in case anybody from his constituency wants to think about it...