Sending U.K. refugees to Rawanda

volver

Sometimes, we get to a point where posts are so wicked, so racist, so bad, so disrespectful, that words aren't enough.

Today's the day.

I agree. I did think about reporting the last example but I think it should stay to show what is being done to our country.

Maudi

I forgot in my previous post, mention the racist card to stop debate.

It doesn’t stop debate it keeps it civilised and without hate

No, you carry on Maudi. You carry on "debating", just like your peers.

Careful though, the chip on your shoulder is showing.

I live near a couple of places with very high Muslim populations and I have never seen a woman wearing a burkha. There are woman wearing the niqab occasionally but most women just wear modest clothing and a hijab.

Whitewavemark2

Maudi

I forgot in my previous post, mention the racist card to stop debate.

It doesn’t stop debate it keeps it civilised and without hate

Has someone actually mentioned the "racist card"?

I've mentioned "racist" regarding a post. And I'll mention it again if its relevant and true.

Urmstongran

And there you have it. Civil servants thinking they can pick and choose which policies they implement. The Home Secretary is often pilloried for not dealing with illegal immigration, but now we know why.

Cummings was right re The Civil Service.

Well, here, in response to your idiotic and predictable post, Ug, George Peretz C lays out the legal position of civil servants.

They are not refusing to implement the policy. They are refusing to carry any responsibility for having to implement despite its failure to meet the criteria (as outlined in the thread I'm posting). They are covering their backs, as they have every right to do.

We do not yet have a fascist dictatorship, though you, and maudi and other posters on here would welcome one with open arms, quite failing to recognise that the sort of things you would like to be implemented already are in Russia. Just look at what happens there and give your heads a good shake...

I digress

George Peretz QC

^A “ministerial direction” - as explained here by @instituteforgov
instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/ministerial-directions^
-is a formal instruction from a minister telling their department to proceed with a spending proposal, despite an objection from their permanent secretary. The Perm. Sec, as accounting officer (personally accountable to Parliament and especially @CommonsPAC) has a duty to seek such a direction if they think a spending proposal is irregular, improper, poor value for money, or infeasible.
The role of the accounting officer is a key part of the way in which Parliament, through the National Audit Office and @CommonsPAC, holds (on our behalf) ministers and Whitehall to account for spending what (as Conservatives used traditionally to remind us) is our money.
As the IFG paper notes, ministerial directions used to be rare. But they have become far more frequent under the current government.
It is of course right that it is Ministers and not civil servants decide, in the end, whether to proceed with a spending proposal.
But the news that a minister has had to overrule their Perm Sec on a major spending proposal, despite the Perm Sec’s view that it is improper, poor value for money, irregular or infeasible, should be cause for the ringing of alarm bells, not celebration bells.
It is not as if the Home Office is a nest of wooly liberals, desperate to prevent any policy designed to make life harder for refugees trying to reach the UK: nor, contrary to Lord Moylan’s odd suggestion, is there any evidence that it’s worried about its popularity on Twitter

(last bit refers to the tweet Peretz was responding to, which I haven't copied)

twitter.com/GeorgePeretzQC/status/1515217856870469632

Unlike the SNP boulder on yours ?

Why would we not mention "Germany and the Jews". It is the best and most recent example we have of the use of propaganda that is similar to that the Johnson government's are employing.

You know, DaisyAnne, I think we have another example to mention; far nearer in time, in fact, contemporary. Putin's Russia with Putin's intention to eradicate the Ukranian 'race' and culture.

We have some huge fans of state repression on here

I have always suspected by reading posts that they support the sort of behaviour you so often see emanating from white supremicists, fascists and Nazi supporters, but quite honestly I still find it shocking when it is there in black and white.

I hope with all my heart that this sort of attitude is very much in the minority.

There's another thread asking why people without grandchildren join GN. I'm tempted to say "for the high standard of debate and respect for other people's opinions."

I'd be lying, though.

I’ve just read an opinion about the Rwanda policy and think it correct.

“It is state sponsored trafficking”

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Maudi

I forgot in my previous post, mention the racist card to stop debate.

So what do you say to someone who is using prejudiced or antagonistic language toward others on the basis of their race or ethnicity?

This thread has been a sickening revelation to me. It is also very obvious despite claims to the contrary, that Brexit was based on racism. Oh and ignorance. What on earth a well established Pakistani community (brought here by the UK government to work) has to do with terrified people fleeing Eritrea or Syria is unclear, other than the elephant in the room that they all have brown skin

I’m shocked.

Message deleted as it quotes a deleted post.

Even Channel 4’s Fact Check facility has the good grace to concede: “The terminology can be tricky in this debate. The words “migrants”, “refugees” and “asylum seekers” are sometimes used interchangeably, although they mean different things.”

And it admitted: “It’s impossible to know for sure how many people who claim to be refugees are really economic migrants instead.”

This from todays Times

Surely whatever your views, everyone must agree that something must be done to destroy the business model of the people smugglers.
That’s not going to be easy of course as it’s a very lucrative business.
I’m all in favour of this latest scheme and hope it works

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

MaizieD

^Why would we not mention "Germany and the Jews". It is the best and most recent example we have of the use of propaganda that is similar to that the Johnson government's are employing.^

You know, DaisyAnne, I think we have another example to mention; far nearer in time, in fact, contemporary. Putin's Russia with Putin's intention to eradicate the Ukranian 'race' and culture.

We have some huge fans of state repression on here

I agree Maizie. That is sadly the most recent attempt at an attack on liberal democracy. I feel as if Ukraine is fighting for the whole democratic world. However, when one country starts a war, against your country's wish for liberal democracy, it is obvious - dreadful but still obvious.

What we saw under Trump, what we see here, is the gradual erosion of our democracy. That is where I see the comparison with 1930s Germany (not the later years). In Russia, the small shoot of democracy had shown but Putin already had control of his own country.

I also don't think that Johnson and "friends" intend to make war with other countries. He believes he can con, trick, lie, dupe and deceive his way to financial success for the particular social group he relates to. That doesn't mean no one will die but I don't believe it will look like a war in the usual sense.

But you are right

Surely whatever your views, everyone must agree that something must be done to destroy the business model of the people smugglers. That’s not going to be easy of course as it’s a very lucrative business. I’m all in favour of this latest scheme and hope it works.

The government and their apologists have made you believe that the biggest issue as regards immigration is the “business model of the people smugglers.” This country issued over a million long stay visas last year. 28,000 people crossed the channel in little boats. About 13,000 of them fit the criteria for being sent to Rwanda. So the government are victimising about 1% of the migrants to this country, just to make people think they are being tough on immigration and that this will solve the problem. It has also been explained that far from “destroying the business model of the people smugglers” it could exacerbate the issue because they will be incentivised to smuggle families, who are not likely to be sent to Rwanda. Yet.

There are many other ways to “destroy the business model of the people smugglers” some described on this thread, but again and again we hear about how there’s only one way of doing it, and nobody else has any ideas.

I notice you say “I’m all in favour of this latest scheme and hope it works ”, not “I’m all in favour of this latest scheme because I think it will work. ” We can all decide for ourselves what that implies.

JenniferEccles

Surely whatever your views, everyone must agree that something must be done to destroy the business model of the people smugglers.
That’s not going to be easy of course as it’s a very lucrative business.
I’m all in favour of this latest scheme and hope it works

Could we not try and have the government be both practical and efficient first? This government has turned from a "hostile environment" (which T May grasped with glee) to an overload of administration and too few workers to process it. They have made a rod for their own back. Sorting out a short but efficient legal system for entry would immediately cut the numbers with a legitimate claim but no other route here.

Well if implemented as presented it will lead to a dramatic reduction in the small boat flotilla and put both trafficking gangs and dodgy lawyers out of business.

Secondly it will put Labour in a no win situation. If it is working it will be massively popular with the typical Red Wall voter. If Labour policy is to repeal it, they will then lose votes in big numbers. If Starmer doesn’t pledge to repeal it he will lose the support of his activists and the entire intellectual left.

Genius really.