A bunch of migrants according to David Cameron.

[Consumer dude]

Why are people jumping up and down about what he said..

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/27/david-cameron-bunch-of-migrants-jibe-pmqs-callous-dehumanising

Edited January 27, 2016 by citizenB
adding link

[renegadeimp]

It's pretty obvious

[Consumer dude]

I would have thought that referring to a group of people as a 'bunch' is ok so why are people upset..

[Consumer dude]

Just heard it played back on the radio and I can't see what the fuss is about..

[Conniff]

It's the left wing trying to get one up as they can't think up any legitimate reason to get people to vote for them.

[Consumer dude]

It seems that people are not allowed to say any thing any more in case it upsets someone. Its pretty sad ain't it..

[Conniff]

I've seen it on lots of things and I'm sure other have where someone has said words to the effect of 'How do you get on with them' and the reply 'They're a wonderful bunch of people' so what is the difference.

They say it of the nurses in hospitals.

[king12345]

I'm offended by every word in the dictionary

[tobyjugg2]

Because it shows a politician not being politically correct, yet still NOT being open, honest and true to their beliefs (even if the slip highlighted them).

 

Worst of all worlds.

[fad460]

When you are a politician, you should choose your words carefully. To me, "bunch of migrants" was a very bad choice of words.

[postmn]

When you are a politician, you should choose your words carefully. To me, "bunch of migrants" was a very bad choice of words.

 

but true

[king12345]

When you are a politician, you should choose your words carefully. To me, "bunch of migrants" was a very bad choice of words.

 

Very true.

He should have said "a bunch of economic migrants"

[tobyjugg2]

Very true.

He should have said "a bunch of economic migrants"

 

Yes.

It was not a small part of Farages 'flair' that there was a perception he was speaking honestly ... until he proved he wasn't.

 

Interesting watching the reports on France24 of migrants returning to their countries - on planes, one said she had spent $11,000 in their 3 months in Europe, but her children was starving (didn't look that way) and the food and lodgings made available were poor.

Why didn't they fly over and stay in a hotel? $11,000 would have funded a very nice 3 month luxury holiday in Greece late season.

 

Now that seems to me to be the situation with far too many of those ILLEGALLY coming over.

The REAL refugees are in refugee camps on the borders of their countries with nothing. THEY are the ones we should be helping.

[Conniff]

Well said.

Bunch is just a word. The Cambridge dictionary give it a meaning of 'a ​group of ​people:' It's just an attempt at one upmanship by labour as they have no other answer.

[unclebulgaria67]

I don't like Cameron for many different reasons, but i think he may well be correct in not taking migrants currently in France. If the UK took children from France, there would be TV news programmes across the world, announcing this was happening. This would mean thousands more childrens life's being put at risk crossing the Mediterranean. It would add to the migrant numbers flowing from different parts of the world. It is much safer to take children from UN refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon etc. It is up to the French to look after the migrants in France.

[tobyjugg2]

It is up to the French to look after the migrants in France.

 

Some here may like my take on this

They should all be sent to Germany - Merkel was the one who threw away the rules, agreements and law and said the illegal migrants were all welcome, then expected everyone else to just shut up and accept it..

[unclebulgaria67]

Some here may like my take on this

They should all be sent to Germany - Merkel was the one who threw away the rules, agreements and law and said the illegal migrants were all welcome, then expected everyone else to just shut up and accept it..

 

Merkel was well intentioned, but it has backfired. I think some Germans still have guilt from years ago.

 

Migration will become a bigger issue in the years ahead. It is not just due to wars, as you know.

[tobyjugg2]

Migration will become a bigger issue in the years ahead. It is not just due to wars, as you know.

 

Quite true. Climate change will make this look like a few day trips.

Buy your prime plot in Alaska now.

[king12345]

The only migrants who should be accepted on eu territory are the refugees.

Anyone coming for 'a better life' should apply through the correct channels, not jump on a boat without passport and come to the land paved of gold.

[determindator]

It was very very clever scripted words, imo. It was supposed to sound inflammatory and discriminating to persuade the people they are the ones to deal with the problem. Of course they will deny any of the sort and it was just an off the cuff remark. Not so nowadays, it's all psychological warfare.

[Consumer dude]

Why aren't rich arab states taking in migrants or are they ?

[tobyjugg2]

Why aren't rich arab states taking in migrants or are they ?

 

Generally no. They are even paying migrants that do arrive to go elsewhere.

 

and why would the Sunny extreme religious regimes like Saudi Arabia want shia or christian refugees?

 

its costing them a lot to fund the terrorists destabilising the moderate countries like Assad's Syria (yes - moderate - look at it) who were happy to have and maintain a multi religion tolerant state.

 

Syria was far more like us than Saudi Arabia (or Iran) will ever be.

 

Beware of simply google searching for 'dictatorships' as that does not take into account at all any multicultural tolerance.

Freedom is far more than a simple choice of having a limited vote on who is the figurehead of the state.

 

(and Corbyn is sending Labour and the UK the same way using a small minority to limit the choices of the majority)

[Conniff]

Why aren't rich arab states taking in migrants or are they ?

 

Because they aren't as stupid as the Europeans.

[tobyjugg2]

Some very disturbing statistics coming out of Sweden.

 

That there are an immense amount of young males all claiming to be 16 years old all claiming to be refugees.

 

It is unlikely to be coincidence that 16 -18 is the optimum age to claim asylum giving extras guarantees and help including priority housing and enhanced options to bring family over.

With 16 giving them all the potential benefits and 2 years to get asylum, priority housing and still be able to bring their family over.

 

Worst of all this indicates extensive knowledge of the benefits and asylum processes (which they have extensively bypassed) for these countries, something that a genuine refugee would be unlikely to know and plan to this level.

 

Not proven yet, but very disturbing.

[king12345]

I have met asylum seekers registered as being 15 or 16 here in uk and not in a million years they were any younger than 35.

Why don't we use dental mapping to check them like the US???