Return to: Home | Blogs | Bright's Blog

And the winner is...

newstatesman.com users vote overwhelmingly for an investigation into Britain's asylum crisis

Writing on the Guardian's website, Roy Greenslade has picked up on the New Statesman Investigates feature and wishes us luck.

Readers have voted overwhelmingly for an investigation into the asylum system. This has come as something of a surprise but it seems that asylum campaigners have adopted the poll with enthusiasm.

There are important lessons to learn from this exercise, including making sure that we define very clearly the difference between an investigation and a campaign.

The vote for the NS to investigate the asylum system coincides with an editorial decision to launch a campaign to stop the practice of detaining the children of asylum seekers. More on this in next week's magazine and online on Thursday.

We will therefore be closing the poll with the results as follows:

2 percent said Conservative Party Funding
10 percent said Lobbying
2 percent said Prince Charles
2 percent said The State of British Childhood
84 percent said Asylum Crisis

An investigation into such a controversial and complex issue will take some time. But we intend to publish the results of our work by the end of the year.

Meanwhile, thanks to everyone who voted and to those who provided constructive suggestions. We will be including suggestions for investigations from readers in future polls.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

8 comments from readers

raggedyman
29 August 2008 at 21:10

Morg:

Or for that matter the al-Dura hoax. How you fake that has got me whistling dixie - or is it that jug of cider I've just downed?

Morgan097
30 August 2008 at 01:15

raggy,

Anytime a gentleman of your breeding whistles Dixie, it encourages my faith in mankind, but the French court has determined that French television did exactly that, i.e. patched together the manufactured al-Dura footage.

Didn't catch the story from Jeremy, Orla or Babs?

What a surprise!

raggedyman
30 August 2008 at 08:53

Morg:

Which version of the 'hoax' are you signed up to?

a. the al-Duras were not really there and the whole thing is a total fabrication

b. the al-Duras were there caught in cross-fire but were not really shot

c. the al-Duras were there caught in the cross-fire and were shot but not by the Israelis

And which of the above is the conclusion of the French Court? [be careful here as the case is on appeal]

And finally:

The 'death' of the son of Mohammed al-Dura's son, or not, should not distract us from the wider far more sombre back-drop that formed a context to this single episode:

''According to B’Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, Israeli security forces killed 2,038 Palestinians between 29 September 2000 and 11 May 2003. Of these, 366 (18%) were minors under the age of 18.''

Morgan097
30 August 2008 at 10:10

raggy,

1. Don't you think that the French court seems to subscribe to b and c?

2. B'Tselem is a typical left wing NGO that would go bankrupt without its own ideological axe to grind, and how many of those "young victims" do you believe were actually innocent bystanders and not active combatants, unlike the multitude of maimed and murdered Jewish kids and women just out riding a bus, attending a dance or enjoying a pizza?

3. Your statistics are also over five years old. Is that because few "plight-fliers" care to draw attention to the later massive suicide campaign inflicted upon Israeli civilians by the followers of The Religion of Peace(TM)?

Morgan097
30 August 2008 at 10:13

raggy,

Please amend line 1 to read "b or c," not "b and c."

raggedyman
30 August 2008 at 12:24

Morg:

The French court said the assertion by the film maker that the son of al-Duras was shot by the IDF was unsubstantiated as the missing footage did not show the boy 'in his death throes' as claimed.

What happened to the boy, therefore, remains unkown or uncertain. There is no evidence as yet that fully substantiates any of the possible scenarios - that the boy wasn't shot, that the boy was shot but not killed, that the boy was shot and killed but by someone other than the IDF, or that the boy was indeed shot and killed by the IDF.

It is hardly hoax of the century, Morg, either way. It is also becoming, perhaps with calculation, a major distraction from the grim reality of the bigger picture - which is that over 100 Israeli kids have been killed since 2000 and over 1000 Palestinian kids. What kind of world stands by and watches this?

Morgan097
30 August 2008 at 13:01

Actually, raggy, it's kinda peaceful there, right now.

Morgan097
30 August 2008 at 13:11

Unlike Darfur.

Post your comment

(Your email address will not be published)

Recent Posts

The horror comes home

22 January 2009 09:58

Ken Clarke's return

19 January 2009 16:10

A New Deal of the mind

15 January 2009 09:31

It's a New New Deal

08 January 2009 09:51

A year of ups and downs

18 December 2008 09:44

Mystic Mart

15 December 2008 13:06

The two-man show

11 December 2008 09:44

Past Entries

Follow this blog

Vote!

Will Baroness Ashton be an effective EU foreign minister?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker