20 June 2017

*Co-leader Jonathan Bartley: “We believe that when someone comes to your home seeking your help, you do not point them to the exit”

The Green Party has called for the Dubs scheme to be reinstated as a High Court challenge is launched today, on World Refugee Day [1].

Charity Help Refugees has accused the Government of failing to properly assess councils’ capacity to take in unaccompanied minors under the Dubs Amendment [2].

Jonathan Bartley, Green Party co-leader, said:

“In the last few weeks the British public have thrown open their doors to stranded strangers, defended people from heinous attacks, and rallied round to give donations of clothing, food, and money to those left homeless. So I know that when this Government turns away child refugees seeking sanctuary, they do so not as representatives of the beliefs or values of the British people.

“At a conservative estimate, 90,000 child refugees are believed to have been forced from their homes by wars in the Middle East – wars, let’s remember, that we have a played a part in. Of those this Government promised to accept 3000 but have closed the door at just 480. That’s 0.5% of the total numbers seeking refuge. 0.5% accepted to the fifth biggest economy in the world. It’s cruel and it’s shameful.

“The Green Party fully supports Help Refugees’ call for the reinstatement of the Dubs Amendment to allow child refugees a safe passage to Britain because we believe that when someone comes to your home seeking your help, you do not point them to the exit. When you have promised to do your bit to help the global community, you do not drop the ball and shrug your shoulders. Having witnessed the incredible spirit of the British public over these last few weeks I know that we will win this fight and we will create, together, a more caring Britain representative of its people.”

Notes:

1. http://www.unhcr.org/refugeeday/
2. http://helprefugees.org.uk/dubs/

Tweet

Back to main news page

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

China has banned online loans to college students following a three-year boom in campus lending, which has been accompanied by outrage over exorbitant rates, violent debt collection practices, porn for payment, and various financial scams.

Financial institutions not registered or authorized by regulators are now banned from offering loans on campus, said a recent notice by China’s Banking Regulatory Commission, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security.

The notice said existing online lenders must withdraw from the market. Those who refuse will be shut down. Institutions suspected of malicious fraud, violence, and spreading obscenities will be subject to prosecution.

Campus loans have been a brewing problem in schools across China. Some students who fall into this financial trap have been reported to have committed suicide, ran away from their homes, or settled their debts with sexual favors.

Naked loans

Shady Internet lenders in China are coercing female college students to provide nude photos of themselves as collateral, in exchange for higher loan amounts. The pictures will be published online, or to their families if the loans are not repaid on time, often at usurious interest rates.

Sometimes, lenders also propose a “fleshy payback”, for which these students will repay their loan with sexual activities.

Last December, at least ten gigabytes of naked pictures and videos for “naked loans” have been leaked by Jiedaibao, a Chinese online peer-to-peer lending platform. At least 167 females are involved in the case, between the age of 17-23, many of them are attending colleges.

Jiedaibao leaked naked pictures of females who fail to repay their debt in December, 2016.

Exorbitant rates

Online lenders set traps often by releasing the daily interest rate for loans.

Average daily interest rates range from 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent, which means monthly rates can reach three to six percent. This translates to an annual interest rate of 70 to 140 percent.

Last year a young woman at a college in Hefei, Anhui Province, borrowed 2,000 yuan (290 US dollars) in her first year, but her debt spiraled to 500,000 yuan (73,000 US dollars). She faced an interest rate of 30 percent a week.

Chinese banks resume campus consumer lending

China Construction Bank and Bank of China in May initiated new consumer loans tailored for university students, 18 years after Chinese banks stopped issuing credit cards and standard consumer loans to students.

The annual interest rates of the two banks are 5.6 percent and 5 percent respectively.

The state-owned banks are expected to cleanse the campus loan market, which has been controlled by private loan sharks, according to analysts.

For a year many in the media have recycled old tired materials from the referendum. They have invented something called soft and hard Brexit and have gone on and on trying to find weaknesses in the UK government position, and trying to shift the negotiating aims. They have failed to show impartiality by doing the same to the EU. Why aren’t they ringing round their contacts in other member states governments and business and finding out their differences on what the EU wants?  Why don’t they analyse all the different claims and protests the EU Commission has made, and set them against the views of individual countries? You could make a programme about all the varied claims for large sums of money which seem to have no legal basis whatsoever.

So far what has been fascinating about the rest of the EU debate is how unlike the UK media and Commission briefings it has been. I have not heard the Irish government say they think high tariffs on Irish agricultural products into the UK is a price worth paying to teach us a lesson. The Dutch government do not say they want their farmers to pay tariffs or stop supplying us with all that market garden produce and all those flowers. The German government has been noisier about how the UK must not gain from leaving, but has fallen short of saying a 10% tariff on cars is a good idea. Why don’t the media do more interviews to establish what are the economic and business interests of the rest of the EU? And why don’t they say the UK offer meets their needs far better than the Commission’s general idea of punishment for the UK which would mean more punishment for the rest of the EU given the balance of trade. In a world where the UK was forced by the EU to accept high tariffs on agricultural trade, the UK would gain the option of buying cheaper product elsewhere  by cutting tariffs or growing more at home where we are able to, which the EU under their own rules would not be able to do.

The UK right from the beginning said we wanted to reassure all EU citizens living in the UK they are welcome to stay. In turn we would need the same reassurance for UK citizens living in the rest of the EU. Why didn’t the media put more pressure on the EU to agree to just this decent and sensible approach? Why did the EU want to delay, and want to propose changes to a sensible arrangement? I have never thought the EU would end up forcing UK pensioners out of their homes on the Costa Brava, so why not say so immediately? I am glad that the EU now agrees this issue should be one of the first to be tackled. I hope they will not continue to make pawns of people living abroad, and look forward to the media directing their questions to the EU over this.

The UK also made clear in its Article 50 letter of withdrawal that it accepted the EU view that you cannot stay in the single market and Customs Union when you leave the EU. This letter and supporting policy was backed overwhelmingly by the Commons when it was debated and voted. It was also placed in the Manifestos of the Conservatives and Labour who went on to get 82% of the vote in the election. Maybe the media should recognise this.

In summary the people decided to leave the EU. The last Parliament voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU and sent the letter which means we are leaving the EU. The aims for the future relationship are straightforward and cross party. We seek continuing tariff free trade on a  similar basis to today, and many collaborations, joint investments, student exchanges, tourism and the rest as close neighbours should. This is not the UK begging favours. It is commonsense, in their interests as much as ours. What’s stopping them sorting out the detail to back this up?