Sending U.K. refugees to Rawanda

Whitewavemark2

Which Tory donor company will be getting the contract for shipping refugees to Rwanda, do you think?

The Army?

Praise indeed.

GrannyGravy13

volver

GG13 you made one of the suggestions at 10:31!

I do wonder if some people (not you) just want to see suggestions such as "push them back" or "put them in camps", so they don't think other things are real suggestions?

Oh dear ??? I am off out now for the day, I think it’s best I stay away from GN till the morning…

Have a good day GG13 (seriously). FWIW I think you've been quite constructive.

Daisyanne ??? Excellent posts - thoughtful, measured and intelligent. Thank you!

Whitewave I think I've already posted the link to that statement somewhere. To be fair, it wasn't Johnson who said it, but the UK's International Ambassador for Human Rights to the UN Human Rights Council, but it's on the official government website.

www.gov.uk/government/speeches/un-human-rights-council-universal-periodic-review-adoption-rwanda

I find it difficult to believe that Rwanda has really cleaned up its act in 9 months.

This

Also I hadn’t appreciated this but yes more steamrollering over accepted rules.

Caroline Lucas
@CarolineLucas
·
4h
Yesterday’s divisive #Rwanda announcement was made on 1st day of pre-election Purdah rules for local elections. Ministers aren’t meant to make announcements of “new or of a long-term character”.PM breaks law, & continues to corrode & chip away at our democratic standards

Which Tory donor company will be getting the contract for shipping refugees to Rwanda, do you think?

JaneJudge

Our own are not looked after either. Too much money is spent on legal bills within local authorities instead of providing support to people that they need.

I think that was VioletSky's point, Jane. All the "noise" about asylum seekers is to cover the fact that we have been severely let down by this government and to allow those inclined to want to forgive them an excuse to do so.

Germanshepherdsmum

I’m not telling or repeating a ‘story’ DaisyAnne. What I mentioned is garnered purely from BBC or Sky news. Not the Internet or newspapers. You seem to think it’s all fabricated. It isn’t.

Which bit of the law did you work in GSM? I find it quite fascinating that you tell us so often that you did but you do not seem to find spliting fact from an opinion that easy.

What did I "think" was fabricated? You didn't say. Was it the fact that people arrived without papers? If so I will repeat:

It doesn't matter how they get here, which countries they pass through, whether or not they have identity papers, the act of claiming asylum is never, in any circumstances, "illegal".

Can you tell us why you so desperately want these people to be something other than the asylum seekers they are? You try so very hard; there must be some deep-seated reason for you going to that trouble.

Our own are not looked after either. Too much money is spent on legal bills within local authorities instead of providing support to people that they need.

People "we should be looking after our own"

Government "I know but all these illegal immigrants"

People "oh of course, its not your fault, it's theirs"

The rest of us.... Erm, that's not how that works

I’m not telling or repeating a ‘story’ DaisyAnne. What I mentioned is garnered purely from BBC or Sky news. Not the Internet or newspapers. You seem to think it’s all fabricated. It isn’t.

GrannyGravy13

Thank you for that information GillT57 I was unaware.

Seems a bit head in the sand by this U.K. Government, hopefully the next cohort think differently.

I do wonder if asylum seekers are just too good a whipping boy for the government to give them up. They really can't be this incompetent - can they?

Germanshepherdsmum

Some of the people coming over in boats are known to have destroyed their ID papers. Not all but some. How would having officials in Calais prevent that and is there a good reason why someone would destroy their papers and seek to come here under the radar? Some boats land in deserted areas and the passengers disperse but some are found by police later. That sort of action does not signal good intent to me.

This just continues the story that the government wishes its fellow travellers to spread.

Generally, people are not going to hate those fleeing wars and oppression. So they use the term "illegal immigrants". People are given permission to hate because something in the lives of those seeking asylum is said to be bad. But it isn't true.

This is soon picked up by the right-wing MSM, the internet spreaders of hate and even by some people on GN. But asylum seekers are still not illegal immigrants. It doesn't matter how they get here, which countries they pass through, whether or not they have identity papers, the act of claiming asylum is never, in any circumstances, "illegal". So they are asylum seekers, nothing more, nothing less and those calling them anything else are doing it to try and encourage others to behave in a hostile, antagonistic or even aggressive way.

They do this to distract. It stops us from talking about the lying law-breaker running our country. All the bile and obfuscation will always, to some extent, succeed. Because some people love to hate. Some people are prepared to set aside their kindness and their good judgement in order to do just that.

According to Boris we are always either the 4th, 5th or 6th richest country in the world with low unemployment and millions being spent on our health service including new hospitals being built along with new social housing and so the propaganda goes on. If I was looking for somewhere to settle I'd head for this Utopia.

Interesting post volver. Just reinforces my opinion, which is supported by stats such as these, that this is a political move by the government.for several obvious reasons at the present time.

Makes me sad and ashamed to be British.

I'm going to keep that stat in mind OakDryad when people start talking about migrants "flooding" over the channel.

Thank you volver.

So, over a million visa and permits issued each year for all kinds of reasons but the government will be picking on less than 13000 single men from troubled places such Iran, Iraq, Eritrea, Syria, Afghanistan, Sudan, Vietnam, Kuwait, Ethiopia and Yemen to send to Rwanda for processing. It is gross discrimination on the basis of sex and country of origin.

This is good. Stats and facts though. Won't suit everybody.

guywalters.substack.com/p/why-i-think-priti-patels-plan-to?utm_source=twitter&s=r

I meant to say as well GG13, I don't suppose you are the only Conservative voter who thinks this is unconscionable.

volver

GG13 you made one of the suggestions at 10:31!

I do wonder if some people (not you) just want to see suggestions such as "push them back" or "put them in camps", so they don't think other things are real suggestions?

Oh dear ??? I am off out now for the day, I think it’s best I stay away from GN till the morning…

GG13 you made one of the suggestions at 10:31!

I do wonder if some people (not you) just want to see suggestions such as "push them back" or "put them in camps", so they don't think other things are real suggestions?

volver

This thread is full of suggestions of how we should deal with them.

No postcards required.

I have obviously missed them, oops!

I must admit I thought long and hard before posting on this thread, I voted for this Government and I am ashamed of this plan.

There are good and bad of all colours, religions and ethnicity’s, unfortunately it’s only the bad which is publicised.

This thread is full of suggestions of how we should deal with them.

No postcards required.