Support for Ex-pats?

[annieacorn]

Does the UK government extend it's advice beyond holiday makers and offer help to ex-pats who live and work in Egypt.What happens if you need to get out in a hurry? Who's there to help you?

[carrie]

I am registered with the Embassy in Cairo and get a daily email, the Embassy informs where demonstrations are taking place and issues warnings about keeping away from demo's and to obey the curfew. During the last revolution, against Mubarak, a plane was made available to evacuate ex pats, this was from Cairo. Since it wasn't advisable to travel from Luxor by road and the trains were cancelled, very few if any flights from Luxor to Cairo, even if we had wanted to leave it wouldn't have been a lot of use.
Since that time a system of wardens has been introduced. I get regular updates from my warden which really is just a copy of the advice the Embassy are releasing
Perhaps Dusak is best placed to answer this post he is I believe a warden, but as far as I am concerned we are on our own.
I chose to live here, I consider that gives me a responsibility to care for my own welfare and not rely on the Gov't to bail me out if the worst comes to the worst. I have no intention of leaving.

[Brian Yare]

Those ex-pats who consider that their being in Luxor is "essential" are not worthy of being aided in the event that the FCO says everyone should leave.

I will object if my taxes are used to evacuate people who were not there "essentially". I note that some forum members would not welcome evacuation, but no doubt a considerable amount would be spent on not evacuating them. C'est la vie.

[Bombay]

And of course none of the ex-pats have ever paid taxes

[annieacorn]

Brian,surely if they've made their lives and homes there, then it's essential that they stay put as long as possible? Do you object to UK nationals being helped to return here if their lives were at risk? It's called humanitarian aid and I believe everyone is entitled to that.

[DJKeefy]

Oh forget what Brian Yare says: he's just jealous he's not living here

[timetraveller]

And of course none of the ex-pats have ever paid taxes

Do not even GO THERE Bombay! Zooropa might be reading. Surely you do not (in your selfishness and arrogance) imagine that all the tax that you might have paid to the British Government might actually entitle you to any support from them should you desperately need it!

Funny isn't it that the posters who are so scathingly critical of ex-pats who may (or may not) require evacuation are the ones who are NOT ACTUALLY THERE. Maybe they would feel differently if they were and found themselves in the same situation. It's very easy to preach from the safety of your Ivory Tower!

[Bombay]

I think Keefy covers it there is often the "wannabees" element that creeps into posts about expats "arebees" especially those who have successful businesses (HA)

[Scottishtourist]

Its surely a "hypothetical"question Annieacorn?
Most ex-pats there have indicated that they have no intention of leaving,no matter what happens.
They'll stay there and accept any consequences.
Or...am I reading the whole situation wrong?

[annieacorn]

It's a hypothetical question at the moment ST,but the situation is so fast moving,that surely some advance preparation is warranted?

[Zooropa]

And of course none of the ex-pats have ever paid taxes

Do not even GO THERE Bombay! Zooropa might be reading. Surely you do not (in your selfishness and arrogance) imagine that all the tax that you might have paid to the British Government might actually entitle you to any support from them should you desperately need it!

Funny isn't it that the posters who are so scathingly critical of ex-pats who may (or may not) require evacuation are the ones who are NOT ACTUALLY THERE. Maybe they would feel differently if they were and found themselves in the same situation. It's very easy to preach from the safety of your Ivory Tower!

Please be mature and move on. Constantly harping back to our debate really is boring and is liable to ruin any other debates if you keep dredging it back up.

If you cant get over it then its your problem not mine.

I made it clear in my post that I only disagreed with people that walk into an already developing situation and also made it clear that I would support aid for those caught up in the trouble whom had been there before it occurred, so stop misquoting me as well.

What is "funny" is people who cant get over being disagreed with and who keep misquoting.

The post is still up so I can only assume It did not break forum rules so I should not have to put up with your petty sniping.

[Brian Yare]

Oh forget what Brian Yare says: he's just jealous he's not living here

No, I stand by what I said. Those who ignore the many warnings are not worthy of recovery at public expense.

[annieacorn]

What if those people "unworthy of help" have children or other dependants? Where do you suggest the line is drawn and how would you feel if you had loved ones in a desperate position,who were being refused aid because they were brave enough to want to stay and try to protect their homes?

[timetraveller]

And of course none of the ex-pats have ever paid taxes

Do not even GO THERE Bombay! Zooropa might be reading. Surely you do not (in your selfishness and arrogance) imagine that all the tax that you might have paid to the British Government might actually entitle you to any support from them should you desperately need it!

Funny isn't it that the posters who are so scathingly critical of ex-pats who may (or may not) require evacuation are the ones who are NOT ACTUALLY THERE. Maybe they would feel differently if they were and found themselves in the same situation. It's very easy to preach from the safety of your Ivory Tower!

Please be mature and move on. Constantly harping back to our debate really is boring and is liable to ruin any other debates if you keep dredging it back up.

If you cant get over it then its your problem not mine.

I made it clear in my post that I only disagreed with people that walk into an already developing situation and also made it clear that I would support aid for those caught up in the trouble whom had been there before it occurred, so stop misquoting me as well.

What is "funny" is people who cant get over being disagreed with and who keep misquoting.

The post is still up so I can only assume It did not break forum rules so I should not have to put up with your petty sniping.

What 'misquotes' are they then Zooropa? I have been very careful to quote you verbatim. But I guess that in addition to 'selfish' and 'arrogant' I now have to stomach 'petty'. I will let it drop because frankly it's not worth the energy and it's boring for other people. But just tell me this- why do you seem to feel a compulsion to insult anybody who doesn't agree with YOU? You've insulted me with impunity and have compounded that insult by telling me that I have no 'right' to be offended! Well excuse me, but I think that entitles me to have a bit of fun with it and employ a bit of sarcasm at your expense! And if you can't deal with that? Well, I guess that's your problem!

[Zooropa]

Anieacorn, in my view, as ive stated before the line should be drawn where people have walked into an already developing situation, those that have been caught up in unfolding events in my view should receive assistance, although I do understand where Brian Yare is coming from.

On another thread about whether ex pats should receive health treatment back in the UK my view was that if they had paid tax for a reasonable length of time they should have every right to that treatment.

Unfortunately in my view, the tax and benefit system in the UK is not consistent or fair in many cases.

Many people have worked and paid taxes for many years yet when they need benefits they are normally, only entitled to the same as someone who has chosen not to work for years and years, and in some cases they get even less!

If there are families caught up in Luxor then I think they should receive assistance with priority to those with young children.

I would hope that those families fall into the category of being there prior to any trouble.

I would hope that anyone with a young family would not, at this time choose to move there.

That would not strike me as wise.

[Zooropa]

Well im glad that's sorted then, we can move on.

The misquotes ive already detailed,

the latest one: That I accused you of breaking site rules.

Where have I said you broke site rules?

that's a misquote.

"No one has the right not to be offended"

What this means is no one has the right to limit free speech and to neutralise debate by claiming to be offended as a mechanism for argument.

It does not literally mean you cant feel offended, offense is a natural reaction, its like saying no one has the right to be nervous or scared.

This link here explains it very well, as ive stated already, its a common topic of debate that im sure many on here would have heard of:

phpBB [video]

[timetraveller]

What a load of b------s! ( No offence!) So......If I do NOT have a right NOT to be offended, why do you object to my being offended by YOUR statements? By this twisted logic I'm OBLIGED to be!

[Zooropa]

Erm, I would re read what you wrote there pet(no offence).

Again, no offence but you've just made yourself look stupid (in my opinion).

There is no twisted logic just a lack of understanding on your part, and capitalising the word "not" has just compounded it for you.

Perhaps its late at night or that it needs explaining differently to you.

I think you have tied yourself up in knots with the word "not.

The statement whether you agree with it or not, is not saying you have a right to be offended, its saying the opposite, its saying that for the purposes of debate and allowing others to take up a contrary position and to be able to disagree with you and make conclusions based on your point of view you cant pull out a "im offended by that" waiver card because it stifles debate.

So whether you agree with it or not, (and to be honest you cant have a sensible view either way at the moment because you have not grasped the meaning of it) the logic is not twisted, its consistent, you're obliged not to be!

This phrase is well known, I have not made it up, ask the members if they have heard of it, ive given you a link to a show that explains it well and has won numerous awards and Penn & Teller are championed by several Libertarian and free thinking groups, you are of course entitled to think its BS, but I think its because you don't understand it and it may be better to do that before you judge.

Where is Bullet when you need him, he's much better at explaining this sort of thing.

Have a think about it.

In my opinion what Penn & Teller are saying is, we should be free to offend because you cant legislate for offence, someone could be offended because someone else is wearing a red jumper, like they made reference to, someone could be offended with someone wearing leather or a fur jacket.

where do you draw the line?

Who is to say that's offensive and this is not etc?

They are saying in a roundabout way that offence is impossible to avoid because there is not and cannot be a set standard for offence, so offend and be offended, question things and debate them.

Its a philosophical question and such questions are not always easily understood initially.

It should not be dismissed because of that.

If you had or could demonstrate that you understand the question I could accept your view but that one line in your last post demonstrates that you don't.

No offence.

[biosceptic]

Erm, I would re read what you wrote there pet(no offence).

Again, no offence but you've just made yourself look stupid (in my opinion).

There is no twisted logic just a lack of understanding on your part, and capitalising the word "not" has just compounded it for you.

Perhaps its late at night or that it needs explaining differently to you.

I think you have tied yourself up in knots with the word "not.

The statement whether you agree with it or not, is not saying you have a right to be offended, its saying the opposite, its saying that for the purposes of debate and allowing others to take up a contrary position and to be able to disagree with you and make conclusions based on your point of view you cant pull out a "im offended by that" waiver card because it stifles debate.

So whether you agree with it or not, (and to be honest you cant have a sensible view either way at the moment because you have not grasped the meaning of it) the logic is not twisted, its consistent, you're obliged not to be!

This phrase is well known, I have not made it up, ask the members if they have heard of it, ive given you a link to a show that explains it well and has won numerous awards and Penn & Teller are championed by several Libertarian and free thinking groups, you are of course entitled to think its BS, but I think its because you don't understand it and it may be better to do that before you judge.

Where is Bullet when you need him, he's much better at explaining this sort of thing.

Have a think about it.

In my opinion what Penn & Teller are saying is, we should be free to offend because you cant legislate for offence, someone could be offended because someone else is wearing a red jumper, like they made reference to, someone could be offended with someone wearing leather or a fur jacket.

where do you draw the line?

Who is to say that's offensive and this is not etc?

They are saying in a roundabout way that offence is impossible to avoid because there is not and cannot be a set standard for offence, so offend and be offended, question things and debate them.

Its a philosophical question and such questions are not always easily understood initially.

It should not be dismissed because of that.

If you had or could demonstrate that you understand the question I could accept your view but that one line in your last post demonstrates that you don't.

No offence.

Having followed this strand, I have found some of your arguments and phrasing very confusing as well.

I also would disagree with the statement that "No one has the right not to be offended"

Whether I get offended or not is not something another can control. I will get offended based on my own beliefs, ethics and understandings.

If you mean people do not have the right to use their personal feeling of offence as an argument in a discussion so shut down opposing views then I can see the point although I don't necessarily agree with it.
Many arguments I see on this forum fall into logical traps but as long as their is no abuse I am happy to point out the flaws. Personal offence is not a logical position but can often explain a blinkered or emotive response, and needs to be considered if people wish to progress the discussion.

[dsaxelby]

At the end of the day if the British government have to help remove us they will charge us and I believe they may only move us to the nearest safe country. Mute point really.

There is an emergency consulate number we can ring, as to how effective it is I have no idea, has anyone called on consulate assistance and what was the response?