Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Allegations of widespread sexual exploitation of Calais migrants by British volunteers

Jesus Christ. I've not noticed you being such a pretentious twat before this thread, thanks for the alert.

You don't even seem to understand the word "investment" :facepalm:

If it helps you to think that, and if it means I don't waste my time on this sub-gcse-politics, I'm happy to pretend that, too. :)
 
Sorry to the rest of the people for this derail, but sorry I can't just leave this one:

two sheds said:
The working class can't build all the houses we need without being given the money (paid time and resources) to do it.... It's a simple statement of fact.

Wow. :facepalm:

Are you fucking dense? With the current economic system they can't. Because land costs money and materials cost money and they need to be paid for their labour.

You're pretending I'm saying that the working class *need* a ruling class as a general rule? That makes you a dishonest piece of shit.
 
Why haven't the working class in the last few years in the UK built the homes that we need? Because they've not been given the paid time and resources they need to do it (as they were in the PWSC).
I don't know why you lay the blame then at the feet of the working class.
 
I don't know why you lay the blame then at the feet of the working class.

Sigh.

I'm not doing that. That's why I said they can't do it without the time and resources. I'm laying the blame at the feet of governments.

Why are *you* laying the blame at the feet of the working class by pretending they can buy all the land and materials themselves and build all these new houses?

 
Sigh.

I'm not doing that. That's why I said they can't do it without the time and resources. I'm laying the blame at the feet of governments.

Why are *you* laying the blame at the feet of the working class by pretending they can buy all the land and materials themselves and build all these new houses?


You know when someone does something particularly stupid but thinks they're being clever and nothing will persuade them they're making an arse of themselves? That's you right now with this "the working class would do this if their relationship to the means of production were different".
 
I'm not trying to be clever. I'm not trying to make a philosophical point. I'm simply saying that the government should build some more houses, and that it's a government decision whether that is done.

I didn't even bring the working classes into it until I was told I was blaming them for it. But I wasn't.
 
I'm not trying to be clever. I'm not trying to make a philosophical point. I'm simply saying that the government should build some more houses, and that it's a government decision whether that is done.

I didn't even bring the working classes into it until I was told I was blaming them for it. But I wasn't.

Ok, I'll try one more time...

As a first step:

What's the driver for this house building, in the context of your 'investment' model within the current situation? Specifically, who are the investors, what are the returns, and how do those returns benefit the investors? In real terms i.e. the owners of the wealth, regardless of whether the process is mediated through government. And how do you think the identities/interests of the groups 'owner of wealth' and 'government' interact to impact on those questions?
 
Yes fuck this. If Athos is going to lie about what I'm saying and Pickmans is going to just ignore it then what the fuck is the point.

What I've said is clear, I think that anyone not trying to prove he's a right-on socialist will understand perfectly.
 
Yes fuck this. If Athos is going to lie about what I'm saying and Pickmans is going to just ignore it then what the fuck is the point.

What I've said is clear, I think that anyone not trying to prove he's a right-on socialist will understand perfectly.
I've not lied.

Why not have a go at the questions in my last post to you?
 
I've not lied.

Why not have a go at the questions in my last post to you?

Yes you have lied. You tried to pretend that I'm saying the working class can't act without rulers giving them money when I was clearly saying nothing of the sort.

two sheds said:
The working class can't build all the houses we need without being given the money (paid time and resources) to do it.... It's a simple statement of fact.


Wow. :facepalm:

You've distorted what I've said throughout this thread. You're a dishonest piece of shit trying to look like some sort of theoretical revolutionary.

Why not have a go at the several questions I put to you above rather than just ignoring them?

Or you can just fuck off.
 
Yes you have lied. You tried to pretend that I'm saying the working class can't act without rulers giving them money when I was clearly saying nothing of the sort.

You've distorted what I've said throughout this thread. You're a dishonest piece of shit trying to look like some sort of theoretical revolutionary.

Why not have a go at the several questions I put to you above rather than just ignoring them?

Or you can just fuck off.

I haven't tried to suggest you've said that, at all. I think it's another example of you misunderstanding what I did say. But, for the avoidance of doubt, I'll happily retract anything, if it means you'll answer the questions in my recent post (after which, I'll gladly answer yours).

But, if you can't answer, let's just leave it there. As I said this morning, I don't think I stand to gain much from our exchange of ideas.
 
I haven't tried to suggest you've said that, at all. I think it's another example of you misunderstanding what I did say. But, for the avoidance of doubt, I'll happily retract anything, if it means you'll answer the questions in my recent post (after which, I'll gladly answer yours).

But, if you can't answer, let's just leave it there. As I said this morning, I don't think I stand to gain much from our exchange of ideas.
i fear it's a one-way street rather than an exchange
 
I haven't tried to suggest you've said that, at all.

Of course you have - what other meaning was there to that :facepalm:? Don't try to squirm your way out of it now.

I think it's another example of you misunderstanding what I did say. But, for the avoidance of doubt, I'll happily retract anything, if it means you'll answer the questions in my recent post (after which, I'll gladly answer yours).

No I asked them first - you answer mine :D

Could those men and women have refused to fight? Are there historical examples of that? Why are you so keen to deny the agency of working class people?

And while you're at it, go and tell some squaddies that they're the ones responsible for invading Iraq because they didn't refuse to fight, rather than it being Blair who ordered them in there. :facepalm:

What sort of revolutionary socialist would say that? "keen to deny the agency of working class people"? You pompous git.
 
two sheds isn't acquitting himself well on this thread and might be well advised to seek another, perhaps less challenging, topick upon which to wax lyrical.

You're clearly very intelligent, very widely read, and you're often entertaining. You've also never really come out of the heavily stupid school bully phase when you start off on your having-to-have-the-last-word sniping from the sidelines.

You often seem to accompany it by this pretentious Crowley "topick" type spelling, but that just makes you look like a bit of a pric.
 
Of course you have - what other meaning was there to that :facepalm:? Don't try to squirm your way out of it now.



No I asked them first - you answer mine :D



And while you're at it, go and tell some squaddies that they're the ones responsible for invading Iraq because they didn't refuse to fight, rather than it being Blair who ordered them in there. :facepalm:

What sort of revolutionary socialist would say that? "keen to deny the agency of working class people"? You pompous git.

No, I really haven't said any such thing; you've misunderstood, again.

I've not suggested soldiers are to blame; to say I have is dishonest. Or, at best, you've failed to grasp what I was saying, again.

There's nothing pompous about the idea of agency. Maybe you just don't understand what I meant, again.

Anyway, this is boring and unproductive. It seems you're incapable of mustering an argument to convince me, or of understanding any I might use to convince you.
 
You're clearly very intelligent, very widely read, and you're often entertaining. You've also never really come out of the heavily stupid school bully phase when you start off on your having-to-have-the-last-word sniping from the sidelines.

You often seem to accompany it by this pretentious Crowley "topick" type spelling, but that just makes you look like a bit of a pric.
yeh. there's no need to parade your ignorance. but yet you do it time and time and time again.

for the fucking umpteenth time IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CROWLEY YOU STUPID FUCKING CUNT. you made that up yourself.

have i made myself clear?
 
You said they could have refused to fight. No misunderstanding about it. You pretended I've been making a general theoretical point about the inability of the working class to do anything on their own. That was a lie.

Go and annoy someone else.
 
You said they could have refused to fight. No misunderstanding about it. You pretended I've been making a general theoretical point about the inability of the working class to do anything on their own. That was a lie.

Go and annoy someone else.

Some could have refused. Some did, in fact! The faulty conclusions you draw from that indisputable fact are entirely a product of your own cognitive failings.

I've not said you've made a general theoretical point about anything. I doubt you're capable.
 
24 pages, the refugees in Calais themselves virtually invisible in the conversation.

Interesting, eh?
I thought that...I came back on this thread just now as I thought there might be useful discussion about how best to help people during evictions and it's all tedious point scoring
 
24 pages, the refugees in Calais themselves virtually invisible in the conversation.

Interesting, eh?

Well this:

The original person making the posts is no sock puppet, he was actually driving a load of aid out that he'd picked up from us from our Leeds Fest collections when he made the original post, and he's been involved for a fair amount of time.

The main organisations working on the ground all have codes of conduct on this, and have been making efforts to ensure all volunteers who register with them undergo training about it.

The site is a vaguely tolerated site, nobody is in charge, and nobody can ban someone from simply rocking up to the site and helping out how they choose to, and following whatever rules they feel like following, or none.

There are many pretty young, pretty naive volunteers who end up on the site in one way or another who firstly have probably not considered the potential consequences of their actions, and secondly don't necessarily have the same levels of power imbalance involved as would be the case with official NGO run refugee camps where those running the camps control all aspects of camp life. In some cases we're talking about 18-19 year old girls on summer holiday volunteering missions, sometimes music or arts related, or litter picking etc finding themselves in a very strange situation in a camp surrounded by thousands of mostly 18-30 year old single men from many different parts of the world who're mostly bored out of their minds most days. And many have little control over anything going on in the camp.

So in the majority of cases, while it's probably inadvisable, it's a lot more questionable about whether their actions are particularly abusive in the same way that would usually be the case with big NGO run refugee camps. Some are living and volunteering side by side with the refugees in the camp for weeks or months on end, and combined with stressful situations like this I'd be more surprised if there wasn't some level of sex going on than finding out that there is.

I suspect in some cases it would be the volunteer involved who ends up feeling the worst about what happened on camp rather than the male refugees involved. In at least one case a volunteer who met someone on the camp is now living with them in the UK - was this abuse?

Basically IMO there's a lot more grey areas involved than the black and white tone of the OP / article.

Not to condone underage sex or exploitative sexual relationships if they've happened.

I fully support the position of the main organisations working on the site in promoting codes of conduct to ask volunteers to maintain professional boundaries and not get involved in this way, for the good of the volunteers involved as much as the refugees. But ultimately if you're going to have thousands of single young men mixing day in day out with dozens / hundreds of young volunteers for months on end in this sort of environment then I doubt it's ever going to be possible to stop it happening entirely.

It's also a little too easy to criticise from the safety of an armchair (or a plush NGO office, while ignoring the fact that the NGO's being questioned in the article have done fuck all to help in Calais to my knowledge).

and this:

Also worth saying;

- The guy who started the thread is an extremely good guy who has done more than most for refugees, including a long stint in Greece in a sea rescue team. Suggestions he is a plant or provocateur are pretty ridiculous.

- that said I thought the post(s) were ill advised and the discussion was ridiculous- rude, abusive, badly informed and unhelpful. (I was on holiday when it happened but have read it all since returning)

- There are undoubted issues in the Calais camp. Those working with particularly vulnerable groups have been crying out for help and support for over a year on how to safeguard them. They have had no interest and little support, despite begging governments, NGOs, the UN etc etc. So the timing and sudden concern is striking.

- the UN (and thus most aid agencies) doesn't ban sexual relationships. It 'strongly discourages' them.

- It is interesting to note that what the press has taken away and is running with is the white supremacist trope of black men sleeping with white women. Even hounding a couple in an undoubtably genuine relationship. There has been almost nothing about the actual, undebatable, horrific abuse; (which would involve looking at the CRS, truckers, smuggler gangs as well as people who come into camp to exploit and abuse, and addressing the moral culpability of governments who have known about this and chosen to ignore it; plus investigating a very small number of volunteers) or even about the morally ambiguous and potentially unethical (but some genuine) relationships that have developed in camp between refugees and volunteers. Just lots of leg rubbing about young white volunteers shagging black men, local women paying for sex from men in camp.... A lot of it reads like something justifying a lynching in the Deep South.

- It is also interesting to note that this blew up at the same time an eviction was announced, making it much harder for refugees to be supported and protected through that eviction.

and some similar contributions pretty well answered the OP for me.
 
this thread was never about calais fugees, it was always a thinly vieled vehicle for that brownshirt cunt to give it large about do gooding lefties. Head bangingly obvious. The man is a total transparent cunt.

Viva Lilli Allen!
 
Back
Top Bottom