---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

---

I may live in "leafy Surrey" but also in one of the areas with the highest proportion of members of ethnic minorities.  As for visiting some of our major cities I would surmise that I do so far more than most - I live just 30 minutes from the very centre of London, was in Bristol last week, Birmingham on Monday, Preston, Bolton and Manchester a couple of weeks ago.  It is amazing to see just how much as a country we do have and how the vast majority of millions of people live, work and play in harmony with each other.

 

I do keep 'going on' about the poor refugees because that is exactly what they are.  I wish some of those who do keep 'going on' about how immigrants are to blame for all their woes would take off their blindfolds and appreciate just how much they have got.  90% of both the 'in' and 'out' campaigns concentrate on what we will lose if we don't follow their particular choice - rather than what we have and will gain by doing so.   We are incredibly lucky in this country, and will remain so however the referendum is decided, and both as a country and as individuals behave on many occasions like the rich man in his castle.

 

Sit back when you have time and imagine your city, town or village under siege.  Authorities such as police, army, councils etc no longer in existence - water cut off, shops empty, no food in the larder - what would you do for yourself and your family.  It has been suggested that those in this situation should 'fight for their country' rather than try to protect their family!

 

Syria was a rich country with towns and cities every bit as sophisticated as those found in the UK with populations equally educated and skilled but when it comes down to basic survival lacking in many of the necessary skills, just as we would be in their situation.

 

Now imagine that as well as your home town and the rest of the UK no longer habitable the whole of Europe was being similarly ravaged but you were given the hope for you and your family to escape to the US, Canada or Australia - tell me that your principles would stop you from doing so and you would go to France instead because the US was keeping the 'bad guys at bay' by bombing them.

 

So you survive the journey to the US but when you arrive instead of receiving the assistance you expected you are held in a camp with tens of thousands of others, hardly any sanitary facilities, insufficient food and water and no health facilities for months on end - you'd sit down, (on the cold and dirty ground), and think how lucky you were.  You wouldn't be tring to get out - of course you wouldn't!

 

 

---

Creeky, you clearly are a well meaning person, well travelled and well read. You point out that these migrants are desperate and escaping a war torn, ravaged once wealthy nation so that they can protect their families - which I don't dispute!

However can you explain to me

1. Why is it that such a large number of them seem to have lost their families along the way and its only the men who have arrived??? I'm not sure how that 'protects' their families - I know if it were me the last thing I'd do is leave my wife and children along the way and meet up with them later!

2. Why is it they choose to travel the length of Europe and choose the UK as their final destination when they supposedly were safe the minute they entered Europe?