Refugees

If they won't go to a transit camp to be processed, they certainly won't stay in a more permanent one!

I am not equating refugees with gypsies in any way. Just trying to imagine how it would work out.

Yes. Something like that might be an answer Luckygirl. But wouldn't it be looked upon in the way permanent campsites for gypsies are looked upon now?

It's hideous, and the only real answer would be to give our sons for it. And we don't want to go there again. So there is no real way through it.

If we in the West take alł the would-be refugees from the war torn countries, there is no escaping the fact there would be a huge drain on resources. Not all would immediately go into jobs and support themselves. Perhaps we should ask the deprived population what they want done about it. Making it clear to them that the money would be even thinner on the ground.

You see? Time to despair perhaps. Or be willing to change the face of this country completely.

When the Poles were displaced at the end of WW2, a camp was set up in Herefordshire - a huge site with prefabs where they lived for many years and slowly integrated into the general community over the next few decades. It worked very smoothly - I am not sure whether this idea could be resurrected. But there is always the NIMBY factor to consider.

Jingle it's a nightmare for some of us and a living hell for those poor people

I know that anniebach but the migrants in Budapest don't want to stay there - they want to get to their transport to move on. It's posturing.

As if things aren't confusing enough, I read today that Albanians and Kosovans are destroying their own papers and pretending to be Syrians so they can claim asylum. What a shambles. Its hard to see how a clear organised way can be found: at this rate the numbers will multiply unimaginably.

Most churches (and other religious organisations) do support refugees in this country and abroad in a number of ways up to and including providing emergency accommodation and defending people threatened with deportation. The idea that refugees could just be 'allocated' to particular areas sounds very sensible but the people who are dispersed in this way may want to live somewhere else, with a larger group of people from their own country. That's what's always happened in the past. Perhaps local authorities etc could sponsor a given number of families, wherever they are housed?

Anniebach - sharing is definitely good. I would imagine that if councils were given ten families to accommodate they would look at what local facilities are available whatever they may be, local landowners, churches or ordinary householders with room to spare.

Jingle, we too have put up fences

I don't think Hungary, with it's present ultra right wing government, should be in the EU. They don't think like the rest of us do. To them, cruel fences and militaristic control seems to be acceptable. But I guess we don't want to create a them and us divide.

Yes , but it's good to be inclusive isn't it NotToOld and not choose one section of out society . Centre point was set up by the Rev.Kenneth Leach, The Salvation Army has always been there for the home sleds and vulnerable . The Samaritans was started by Rev Chad Varah. St Martins in the Fields has run a refuge for the homeless since before WW2 . Many churches support the homeless and vulnerable , so a bit more sharing would be rather good wouldn't it

Last time I saw it reported there were 635,000 empty properties in England and 80,000 were in London. Many being left to gather financial value as investments.

Actually, Anniebach, I think the CofE is a pretty big landowner, too.

Oh, dear, perhaps YC's suggestion would prove too contentious!

Why Christian churches , what about very wealthy landowners who own most of the land in this country

And local churches could demonstrate Christianity in action.

We need someone powerful, sensible and non-biased to set up properly serviced refugee camps in northern Africa. These could be financed to some extent by the EU. I read today that the UK has contributed more financially to help Syrian refugees (in Syria) than any other EU country, so altho DC says we will take no migrants, we are at least trying to help them in other ways.

Interesting that it takes a woman (Ms Cooper) to come up with a sensible plan to help refugee families in the short term. I like her idea of each council taking charge of ten families. The WI could be drafted in to organise things as they did in WW2.

America doesn't help refugees,they cause people to become refugees .

Apparently the two little boys who drowned, along with their mother, were heading for Canada from Syria but could not go by any other route as they didn't have the correct papers.

home.bt.com/news/world-news/migrant-boys-found-dead-on-turkish-beach-were-trying-to-get-to-canada-11364001620275

It seems to me that the USA are keeping very quiet about this awful situation. Shouldn't they be offering sanctuary to at least some of the Syrian asylum seekers? I do think economic migrants are a different case but my heart bleeds for the poor Syrian families (and the Afghans affected by the Taliban too).

We took in Ugandan Asians and Vietnamese boat people and it feels right to me that we should be offering to take some of these suffering families now.

Indeed - it is a world problem. America cannot sit on the sidelines and do nothing. The only reason the refugees are flooding into Europe is because it is just over the water. That does not mean that Europe alone has responsibility for these poor people.

Is this really just an EU problem, or is it just the direction our media are taking it in? Are the refugees fleeing in other directions? How many countries outside the EU are helping?

We seem to get a very lopsided braised view of things.

Seem to be groups springing up to help the refugees. This is Amazon wish list for one of them-also local drop off points for donations.
www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/ls/ref=aw_wl_sr_res?ie=UTF8&lid=1P2RJO27Q6N2T