Easier said than done, as has been proven since as long back as anyone can remember. Also add prosperity and reconciliation to the peace and stability and he might have something. And how long does one take to make this miracle happen.? A month or a lifetime.? In this world of excellent communications, 2nd and 3rd world peoples are very aware how relatively better off people are just a 1000 or so miles away, and also not frightened for their lives. If the accident of birth was reversed I would probably be on one of those migrant boats if my skills weren't needed in the 1st world.
Well what is Dave waiting for? He should get on with it, fly out there in the morning and not come back until the peace has been found. It really is a piece of cake!!
Aaah politics! Oh well.... pretty sure DC has not said it's easy just that's what needs to happen which is hard to disagree with really.
if he really means what he says he should fly out there in the morning!! He's all mouth ...!! Like his hero Tony Blair, although he did manage to bang heads in Northern Ireland.
Running through the final mixes for Fable's new single and making changes and production notes. I hate this part because you just don't know and can only go on feel and you might be completely wrong. Bit like buying a footballer.
Thing is though that he's the first British Prime Minister to have said it. He deserves plaudits, not derision, for acknowledging the truth. Also, the fact that it might be difficult and take time is no reason not to start. It all starts with a single step. If this is that step then good.
Question: What's people's stance on news organisations and individuals sharing photos of dying refugees (some children) to try and make a point and draw attention to the issue? I've been reading a lot of back-and-forth discussions online today, and just wondered. I can see why you'd do it, but at the same time I feel like I kind of understand why people don't want to see it. But, I can't help but feel but moaning about seeing it isn't really that helpful. A heartbreaking and sad necessity, or just not needed? I'm not too sure where I stand, overall. Although, I think I lean more towards it being a desperately sad resort to open eyes. Any thoughts? Thought it had the potential to be an interesting and worthwhile discussion... genuinely very torn.
I don't think it should be allowed on a front page. But then the shock value will get the sales the paper want. Away from the papers I still think they have to go careful on what is shown any one can see them pics. I would hate to be a parent having to explain to my child what is going on. The situation is only going to get worse with more and more refugees. In a way Cameron is right the middle east needs to be sorted, but as people have said it is easier to say then to do. The real problem is that some stable middle eastern countries are not taking any refugees at all. There will come a time when Europe itself can not take anymore.
For me, there's that big question about photographers who stand by and record a tragedy. What do they do, throw down the camera and help save the victims, or keep on recording the event in front of them.? Me.? I couldn't stand by. I know this isn't what you asked, but I wanted to get that in. On the subject you asked about. Whilst there is censorship in the public interest, it is also in the public interest to be better informed. I have heard plenty of people saying that refugees or asylum seekers should go back to where they came from. If seeing the plight of dying refugees gets at least one person to question their auto go-back response, and get them to wonder perhaps why a refugee might risk their life to escape their own country, then perhaps it is worthwhile. Sadly, I have also seen people shout go back home and then change their TV channel over before there's any danger they might become better informed. There is the 9pm watershed to save people from distressing images. In newspapers, the very worst images tend to be within the paper. However, if there was an easy answer you'd have thought of it, DTLW.
It's a difficult one. This child has already died and I think the image is an incredibly powerful one. Lest we forget the power and importance of photographs: Auschwitz, Germany, the Iron Curtain, Vietnam, Rwanda... the list is pretty much endless. Sometimes I think it needs a photo - that can become iconic - to drive something home. I can see why it's upsetting/heartbreaking for people, but isn't that pretty much the point? If it stops people, makes them think or do, and even if it does that for just 5% - it's done something to give people a jolt. In all reality, lots will look at it and then return to everyday life in what is, relative to the situation, luxury and ease.
I find them a bit cynical really, as it appears that the apparent use of shock value photographs of dead and dying children to draw attention to events, and possibly bring mass multinational action only seems to happen towards violent events like wars and the current mass migrations caused by wars. Malaria and other tropical diseases are killing more people by far than any of the war driven events that are happening now, because it happens constantly. There are annual fundraisers, sure but you don't see nations climbing over each other to solve these issues with many millions of dollars. Perhaps if parts of the world that could be improved through disease control were actually improved, they could become more productive, more attractive to foreign investment, and more attractive places for people to live in, and could offer people another option other than moving to europe with the hope of ending up in a flea pit flat in Walthamstow and working your ass off for minimum wage, or one of those swanky ghettos outside Paris proper that are riddled by crime and massive unemployment. What I'm saying I think, is that I for one am pretty inured to these photos having seen them in various guises at different world events, and drawn the logical conclusion that although the events themselves, and the personal tragedies are terrible, they are just small potatoes in the big scheme of things, and that nations generally have their priorities completely out of whack. I think the shock value isn't actually there at all for a large percentage of the British population, and the brief facebook wailing and gnashing of teeth that goes on when someone posts a dead baby photo is sickening to behold as you know that 5 minutes later those same people will be swapping videos of hilarious cats without actually doing anything about the previous horror they were all publicly showing a little previously. I am probably in a minority, thinking that we shouldn't be paying such attention to the "small" events, and should, actually, be properly tackling the big ones that cause and provoke the small ones. Obviously this requires a seachange in human attitudes toward one another and a great movement of wealth around the world, but just because it will probably never happen doesn't make it a bad idea I think an awful lot of other people really just don't give a ****, but it sells papers.
