|
|
Post by kesterj on Sept 22, 2015 21:34:44 GMT 1
The news this morning says that the Serbia - Hungary - Austria - Germany route is being blocked for the refugee columns that have been moving across Europe from Libya and Syria. Assuming the refugees will keep coming (and I can't see how they wouldn't), then surely Croatia is next? Rib- isn't Varazdin near the borders with Hungary and Slovenia? How will the Croats react? They've got extensive experience of dealing with refugee crises, and maybe quite a lot of humanity too? On the other hand, Croatia is quite aggressively catholic (i.e. not that tolerant of Muslims) and its not wealthy like Austria or Germany who have been very willing to donate things to the refugees so far. Carol, i must have spoken to 100-120 migrants, and none that I had met came from Libya. There were Croatian aid teams at work - volunteers, i think. And an "official" medical team at Tovarnik. |
|
|
|
Post by Ribaric on Oct 19, 2015 22:52:58 GMT 1
She who must be obeyed has spent this evening at a border crossing at Trnovec, a few km from here. There were 1000 people there who were refused entry to Slovenia so they were stranded in no-mans-land. No shelter, no food, nothing to drink... in the rain and on a chilly autumn night. Being mostly Syrian, their flip-flops and flimsy clothes betrayed their complete lack of understanding of what it's like on a cold European night in the open air. A lot of real helpers were there so blankets, clothes and hot food started to be handed out. The police and border guards also mucked in and allowed their offices to be used for baby changing and suchlike as well as helping to organise things. It seems, only the journalists felt the need to remain detached, perhaps that's right? In the end, the scene was of a lot of cold, wet and desperate people with frightened and bewildered children, plus numerous willing helpers. The local gypsies also provided shoes and clothing to add to the pile of donations. Refugees, wherever and whenever you encounter them, have always been a sad sight and clear evidence that somewhere, humanity has failed.  |
|
|
|
Post by Carol on Oct 21, 2015 15:49:49 GMT 1
That is awful, Ribaric. It is interesting too, to hear a first hand, unbiased account.
The reporting in Britain is very biased depending on the political persuasion of the organisation. If you listened to the BBC reports (for example), you'd believe that every refugee is travelling with their young families and are coming to man the NHS. They seem to be able to find an unusually large number of qualified Syrian dentists to interview.
|
|
|
|
Post by crojoe on Oct 21, 2015 17:12:35 GMT 1
That is awful, Ribaric. It is interesting too, to hear a first hand, unbiased account. The reporting in Britain is very biased depending on the political persuasion of the organisation. If you listened to the BBC reports (for example), you'd believe that every refugee is travelling with their young families and are coming to man the NHS. They seem to be able to find an unusually large number of qualified Syrian dentists to interview. and news medias seem to block out the 80% of young men in the mass exodus, but only showing mainly families. No checks on anyone. As of today I believe it has been reported that over 250,000 have passed through Croatia. But then guess Merkel did say they will accept 800,000. |
|
|
|
Post by Ribaric on Oct 21, 2015 20:06:41 GMT 1
Isn't it strange how politicians and 'celebs' can always find a handy news cameraman when they visit such scenes out of their "deep concern for the suffering".
|
|
|
|
Post by crojoe on Oct 21, 2015 23:37:52 GMT 1
Isn't it strange how politicians and 'celebs' can always find a handy news cameraman when they visit such scenes out of their "deep concern for the suffering". So many are using this for photo opportunities. You know it's a photo publicity stunt when the organization or persons only do it for one day. I'm not talking about those that have gathered stuff and driven it out to the transit camps to deliver it in person (a good idea if you can do that), but more of those that go with journalists in tow and it's all about "film me". |
|
|
|
Post by kesterj on Oct 24, 2015 11:54:59 GMT 1
That is awful, Ribaric. It is interesting too, to hear a first hand, unbiased account. The reporting in Britain is very biased depending on the political persuasion of the organisation. If you listened to the BBC reports (for example), you'd believe that every refugee is travelling with their young families and are coming to man the NHS. They seem to be able to find an unusually large number of qualified Syrian dentists to interview. and news medias seem to block out the 80% of young men in the mass exodus, but only showing mainly families. No checks on anyone. As of today I believe it has been reported that over 250,000 have passed through Croatia. But then guess Merkel did say they will accept 800,000. I'm afraid, Crojoe, that your conclusions as to the make up of the refugee groups is as biased as the cameramen* you happily criticise. I have been with the refugees from Budapest to Spielfeld (the latter just last Thursday) and I can assure you the percentage of young men in the general groups is nothing like 80% of the total. Never. What is true that - just as you complain that some news outlets appear to focus on families - it is possible equally possible to film scenes of predominantly young (ie 18 - 30 year old) males. This is absolutely true if there is any protest or chanting. You don't get 25 year old Syrian women with three kids jumping up on the shoulders of her husband, let alone some random male, and shouting: "We go Germany!". (I can't comment on the dentists - I have not seen any BBC reports. I think I met one dentist in what must have been 150 discussions with migrants from all sorts of countries at the various gathering points.) It is equally true that there ARE a high proportion of women with 2-3-4 kids. I met one on Thursday with 8 - including twins of about 6 months. Do you think the BBC or any news organisation should NOT show these people or what? The fact of the matter is that TV editors have a very limited set of themes/views that they can squeeze into a 2 or 3-minute news slot. They have to make hard decisions on what to included, and what not. And it is mostly the latter. TV can give you a swift and seemingly powerful view of what is happening, but in my opinion, with the savage time restrictions and competing claims for broadcasting time, plus limited attention span most viewers have, TV news is absolutely not the best way to gain a deeply informed understanding of what is going on. And if you think about it, it makes sense - since most people do not want a well-informed view on news - except when it directly affects them. (All of us, in fact, want to see our own pre-conceptions confirmed - it takes an effort to force ourselves to be open to other views.) The seemingly "simplest" of scenes are in fact, far from simple. eg there is a popular video out there on the net of refugees (almost all young men) aggressively rejecting water and supplies offered to them by police at Bicske railway station on September 3. The Hungarian government was keen to promote this, as the ugly scenes seemingly show the refugees in bad light - after all, who would want these ungrateful, unruly people coming into their country? What the Hungarian government conveniently forgets to mention is that this scene came about after it ordered - on TWO separate occasions (Aug 31 and Sept 3) - the police at Keleti station to leave the barriers and allow refugees free access to trains. You don't need a PhD in crowd control to know what happened with 2,000 - 4,000 refugees camped about just yards from the ticket barriers, each of them desperate to get to Munich. On that Monday, thousands of migrants rushed to spend tens of thousands of euros to buy tickets to Munich. Then, the police closed the station, which surprise, surprise, had been inundated with refugees desperate to board a train - leaving thousands with tickets but no trains. Tickets to Munich were priced at about €125 each (it was maddening enough that they were charged different prices). When the refugees asked for their money back, they were told they needed a Hungarian bank account to receive the money. Now, it is any wonder there were angry scenes on Tuesday 1 Sept? In fact, the wonder is that there were not more violent scenes. Imagine a train load of ordinary British folk (let alone, say, football supporters) in France, all with tickets, suddenly being told ONLY IN FRENCH that there were no trains. Nobody could say when there would be a train, and that they needed a French bank account to get their money back. What is incredible, nay scandalous, is that the Hungarian power at be (note the use of singular here) repeated this move on the Thursday - leading to a second inundation of the station, another round of cancelled trains and the refugees on one train being taken to a station just 40 km from Budapest and told to get out in order to be taken to a camp. Little wonder they were angry, and some - though I'd say only the most militant- refused to accept food and water from the police. They felt they had been repeatedly cheated by the Hungarian authorities. Now it could be argued that some of this was self-delusion - but that was their feelings, and there was a lot of justification behind it. So, did the refugees act in an unruly and aggressive manner towards relatively friendly police trying to give them food and drink? Did this look ugly? Yes it did. Is this a "true" video? Well, yes - and no. It happened, yes (I was there, on the platform) - but is the general conclusion a viewer, not know the background to the situation, would draw from this, accurate? I'd say a very big no, it would not be. The average viewer would just say: what a bunch of ungrateful muslims. I don't want them living near me. * note that cameramen - and it is usually men, as the best cameras are bloddy 'eavy, and it's useful to be tall and powerful when in crowd situations - simply go out and get every shot they can think their editors need. It is the editors/producers who actually choose the shots that appear on your screens. |
|
|
|
Post by crojoe on Oct 24, 2015 17:13:54 GMT 1
and news medias seem to block out the 80% of young men in the mass exodus, but only showing mainly families. No checks on anyone. As of today I believe it has been reported that over 250,000 have passed through Croatia. But then guess Merkel did say they will accept 800,000. I'm afraid, Crojoe, that your conclusions as to the make up of the refugee groups is as biased as the cameramen* you happily criticise. I have been with the refugees from Budapest to Spielfeld (the latter just last Thursday) and I can assure you the percentage of young men in the general groups is nothing like 80% of the total. Never. What is true that - just as you complain that some news outlets appear to focus on families - it is possible equally possible to film scenes of predominantly young (ie 18 - 30 year old) males. This is absolutely true if there is any protest or chanting. You don't get 25 year old Syrian women with three kids jumping up on the shoulders of her husband, let alone some random male, and shouting: "We go Germany!". (I can't comment on the dentists - I have not seen any BBC reports. I think I met one dentist in what must have been 150 discussions with migrants from all sorts of countries at the various gathering points.) It is equally true that there ARE a high proportion of women with 2-3-4 kids. I met one on Thursday with 8 - including twins of about 6 months. Do you think the BBC or any news organisation should NOT show these people or what? The fact of the matter is that TV editors have a very limited set of themes/views that they can squeeze into a 2 or 3-minute news slot. They have to make hard decisions on what to included, and what not. And it is mostly the latter. TV can give you a swift and seemingly powerful view of what is happening, but in my opinion, with the savage time restrictions and competing claims for broadcasting time, plus limited attention span most viewers have, TV news is absolutely not the best way to gain a deeply informed understanding of what is going on. And if you think about it, it makes sense - since most people do not want a well-informed view on news - except when it directly affects them. (All of us, in fact, want to see our own pre-conceptions confirmed - it takes an effort to force ourselves to be open to other views.) The seemingly "simplest" of scenes are in fact, far from simple. eg there is a popular video out there on the net of refugees (almost all young men) aggressively rejecting water and supplies offered to them by police at Bicske railway station on September 3. The Hungarian government was keen to promote this, as the ugly scenes seemingly show the refugees in bad light - after all, who would want these ungrateful, unruly people coming into their country? What the Hungarian government conveniently forgets to mention is that this scene came about after it ordered - on TWO separate occasions (Aug 31 and Sept 3) - the police at Keleti station to leave the barriers and allow refugees free access to trains. You don't need a PhD in crowd control to know what happened with 2,000 - 4,000 refugees camped about just yards from the ticket barriers, each of them desperate to get to Munich. On that Monday, thousands of migrants rushed to spend tens of thousands of euros to buy tickets to Munich. Then, the police closed the station, which surprise, surprise, had been inundated with refugees desperate to board a train - leaving thousands with tickets but no trains. Tickets to Munich were priced at about €125 each (it was maddening enough that they were charged different prices). When the refugees asked for their money back, they were told they needed a Hungarian bank account to receive the money. Now, it is any wonder there were angry scenes on Tuesday 1 Sept? In fact, the wonder is that there were not more violent scenes. Imagine a train load of ordinary British folk (let alone, say, football supporters) in France, all with tickets, suddenly being told ONLY IN FRENCH that there were no trains. Nobody could say when there would be a train, and that they needed a French bank account to get their money back. What is incredible, nay scandalous, is that the Hungarian power at be (note the use of singular here) repeated this move on the Thursday - leading to a second inundation of the station, another round of cancelled trains and the refugees on one train being taken to a station just 40 km from Budapest and told to get out in order to be taken to a camp. Little wonder they were angry, and some - though I'd say only the most militant- refused to accept food and water from the police. They felt they had been repeatedly cheated by the Hungarian authorities. Now it could be argued that some of this was self-delusion - but that was their feelings, and there was a lot of justification behind it. So, did the refugees act in an unruly and aggressive manner towards relatively friendly police trying to give them food and drink? Did this look ugly? Yes it did. Is this a "true" video? Well, yes - and no. It happened, yes (I was there, on the platform) - but is the general conclusion a viewer, not know the background to the situation, would draw from this, accurate? I'd say a very big no, it would not be. The average viewer would just say: what a bunch of ungrateful muslims. I don't want them living near me. * note that cameramen - and it is usually men, as the best cameras are bloddy 'eavy, and it's useful to be tall and powerful when in crowd situations - simply go out and get every shot they can think their editors need. It is the editors/producers who actually choose the shots that appear on your screens. UNHCR estimates www.unhcr.org/562a3bb16.html |
|
|
|
Post by Carol on Oct 25, 2015 8:23:08 GMT 1
KesterJ, you say that you have been with the refugees on their journey from Budapest to Spielfield. I am sure that I am not the only one who would be interested to know what your role is ? Aid worker, reporter, observer? Also the media report that a good number of the people travelling are not genuine refugees, something that is now borne out by Germany which (if the media is reporting correctly ) will be trying to return. So having travelled with and having first hand knowledge what kind of percentage fall into that category? I was wondering that too, TBH? |
|
|
|
Post by Carol on Oct 25, 2015 8:43:13 GMT 1
Its not just the TV news that is biased Kesterj. This "story" is so rich that it seems you can write anything you like about it and find material to back it up. There are elements of:-
- Intra-sect Islamic war (Shi'a versus Shi'ite)
- Religious war (Islam versus Christianity)
- Superpower game playing
- Human suffering
- opportunism
- terrorism
- nimbyism
- EU fractures
- jingoism
- charity
- lack of compassion
- extreme testing of infrastructure
- ageing population issues and potential solutions
- compare and contrast major cultural differences (including attitudes to women and rape)
- the whole "big melting pot" versus multiculturalism debate
and many, many more. I think you could take any view you choose and find evidence to back up your arguments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carol on Feb 17, 2016 10:38:47 GMT 1
Does anyone have an update on the latest situation with the migrants/ refugees as they cross Croatia? There was a concern in Dalmatia a few months ago, that so many routes would close that the refugees would detour via Dubrovnik and up the Adriatic coast to Split ruining the tourist trade along the way. (I've seen the interior of a refugee hotel from the independence war so I understand why there would be nervousness).
Those fears were unfounded though, weren't they? The refugees are still crossing from Serbia straight to Slovenia or Hungary?
And none of the returnees, evicted by German and Austria are coming back through Croatia?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ribaric on Feb 17, 2016 10:51:52 GMT 1
Erindoors is back this week in Slavonski Brod working for Red Cross (strange thing for a non-believer but there ya go). She's working a week of night shifts and tells me that trains come non-stop from Serbia and disgorge about 800 people at a time for EU registration. This is when the Red Cross, Unicef and a host of others take the opportunity to help out a bit. After the formalities, another train takes them non-stop to Slovenia where they are registered again before moving on the Austria. It's like a sausage machine these days. She tells me two to four trains a day (24 hours) are arriving and departing Slavonski Brod, so that's about 3,000 people per day. I believe this is the only route available through Croatia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carol on Feb 17, 2016 12:14:51 GMT 1
What about the evictees? Those who get turned back? Do they just reach Slovenia or Hungary and try again?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ribaric on Feb 17, 2016 18:35:17 GMT 1
What about the evictees? Those who get turned back? Do they just reach Slovenia or Hungary and try again? Those who are refused in Slavonski Brod are transported back to Serbia. After that, I have the same question. |
|
|
|
Post by dugodude on Feb 21, 2016 21:44:34 GMT 1
Does anyone have an update on the latest situation with the migrants/ refugees as they cross Croatia? There was a concern in Dalmatia a few months ago, that so many routes would close that the refugees would detour via Dubrovnik and up the Adriatic coast to Split ruining the tourist trade along the way. (I've seen the interior of a refugee hotel from the independence war so I understand why there would be nervousness). Those fears were unfounded though, weren't they? The refugees are still crossing from Serbia straight to Slovenia or Hungary? And none of the returnees, evicted by German and Austria are coming back through Croatia? Word on the street is Hungary and refugees do not mix. Not since September or October. Them mgayars don't want em there, and them musselmen and musselwomen don't want to go there neither, if they can help it. Neither do the Slovaks, the Czechs or Polaks. give us your EU subsidies, but forget about the rest of the things we signed up to, folks. That is the name of the game. |
|
