Vitali Vitaliev makes a number of odd statements in his article of February 3 on refugees and asylum-seekers in Sighthill, Glasgow.
I doubt that more than 40 organisations across Scotland deal solely with asylum-seeker and refugee issues; the real story in Scotland is the way that many more voluntary, community, faith, and statutory-sector organisations have, in addition to continuing with their other work, developed new projects and adapted their services to meet the needs of those arriving here over the last three years.
I see little evidence of organisations ''spongeing off'' the problem. Which-ever sector they are in, those working or volunteering with asylum-seekers and refugees are among the most highly committed, hard-working, energetic, compassionate, and passionate people whom you are likely to meet in public service.
I find the suggestion that public funding defines an organisation as being among the ''spongers'' ridiculous. Where does Mr Vitaliev think the majority of the money for the Sighthill One-Stop Shop, a project that he rightly praises, comes from? I am similarly bemused by the conception that organisations with faxes, computers, spacious offices, and, even worse, coffee machines are in some way less likely to do valuable face-to-face work with asylum-seekers. How does it benefit asylum-seekers and refugees
if some of the smaller organisations that work so hard to serve them lack basic equipment?
Ideas such as these are very much akin to those in the pages of the right-wing tabloid press that Mr Vitaliev derides, a press that generally seems to think that services for those excluded by society, among whom asylum-seekers and refugees are one of the least popular groups, should be delivered by Mother Teresa types working on a shoestring and making do with whatever they have.
Nick Hopkins,
7 Garrioch Quadrant,
Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article