EU - Turkey deal

Antony are you saying Kidderminster can accommodate 20.000 migrants ?

If so
Is there sufficient housing for them ? I would assume they would require social housing ?

Do the doctors in the area have the capacity to take in this number of people ?

How about the dentists and other medical services ? I understand many NHS services across the West Midlands are under extreme pressure ? Redditch only a few miles from you for instance have closed the Maternity units sending mothers 20 miles to Worcester who simply put cannot cope and do not have the capacity..

The list of requirements of the thousands of migrants is beyond numbers. As others have said elsewhere on this forum its two weeks to see a doctor now. Our doctors have a telephone appointment system but twice in the past month they have failed to ring me on not only the agreed time and day but not at all. Not ideal is it ?

 

Sorry Charlie I think you may have mis-interpreted my post above.

I was ( and am ) talking about what could be done. At no point have I said that we could just take in 20,000 migrants.

I said that new houses, doctors surgeries etc could be built on all the waste land that is in our larger towns and cities.

 

And at risk of upsetting some people, ( and I apologise for this beforehand in case I do ), I would say no to all migrants anyway. Migrants are people who move around to get what they can where they can, it's the refugees we should be helping.

 

That all costs money, and the building works would cause significant disruption to traffic and such. Then there's the added burden on infrastructure like water mains, drainage etc.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. I'd rather see unused urban space put to use than the countryside concreted over. But if we did that for a migrant influx when we couldn't even do it for people born here who can't get affordable accommodation anywhere near where they grew up and where all their friends and family are, then I think we'd very quickly see a rapid shift to the far right, which would really suit nobody.

 

Its not that I trust no one, its just that the numbers appear to be based on per 100,000 existing population?
Which I rightly or wrongly? seem to think it means if you already have a large population, you should be taking more applicants?

So in other words, if you are already overpopulated, you should be taking more in

If a country has a tiny population then they will appear to be doing more as regards taking in asylum seekers.
How about a graph based on the area of each country?
Wonder how that one would work out?

 

Yes Shiney, just read your post a minute ago, sorry for posting almost the same as you, its just that I only just came on line since 10pm yesterday, and haven't had chance to read all the posts in this thread.

 

Or a graph of applications by availability of employment, or accommodation.

Statistics can be made to tell any story the author/analyst wishes.

Besides, the chart only talks about actual applications. It makes no reference to anyone here illegally or attempting to get here illegally. We know this must be a problem, because the last government introduced a law that meant employers were legally liable if they hired illegal immigrants.

I don't think the situation in the UK is anywhere near as bad as some make out, but grossly misleading statistics do nothing to reassure. In fact I'd say they do they opposite, being so blatantly misleading that we have to ask (as indeed we have in this discussion)why they have misled us and what they are trying to hide.

 

We have a population of just under 36 million and 9,984,670 km2. But there are lots of places one would NOT want to live. Let's see, the frozen north, in the middle of one of the great lakes..The side of a mountain... Where the bears are likely to eat you... you get the idea.

We have taken in 25,000 refugees and will have another 25,000 within the next few months.

There are already grumbles because we don't have nice big houses waiting for them to take over. Many are housed in hotels until other accomodations can be found. They say it is like being in a cage yet they are not locked in, are free to visit any place they wish to go.... Our Prime Minister is now saying that they should not have to learn either of our official languages. That usually segregates people, at least in my opinion. Many are also saying they really didn't want to come here. So why the heck didn't we just send assistance to them rather than insisting they come here

It is a complicated issue. And unfortunately our Prime Minister Selfie does not have the brains or common sense counselling to guide us through this mess.

 

I only used the "area" idea as to give a different set of figures @CanadianLori lori, I was not suggesting this was a better way of assessing the situation, just pointing out that you could make the figures read whatever you want.