Lee Anderson, Conservative deputy chair says asylum seekers should ‘fuck off back to France’ if they don’t want to be housed on the Bobby Stockholm barge

Me too Callistemon

Oh yes, Delila 👍
I do click on it then forget to watch them!

Or click on/touch the yellow “watch this thread” button at the top of each page, under the OP title.

Then to re-visit, click on the “watching” option at the top of each page, to see your “watched” posts. (This is how it works for me on iPad).

Callistemon21, thanks for that information.

Please advise GNs. How do you keep tabs on a thread from days ago when it is no longer listed in GN Active? TIA, and hope I can find this one again.
It will be in your I'm On list, Maremia
And you can also Bookmark a post so it automatically opens on that post - click bottom right of the post so it says Saved!

Please advise GNs. How do you keep tabs on a thread from days ago when it is no longer listed in GN Active? TIA, and hope I can find this one again.
Lost your one Fleurpepper, from ages ago. You know the one where folk on page 1 told you no one was interested in BREXIT, but it then ran to over 30 pages? Did it ever get to 40 pages?
Apologies GNs, for jumping in with this question, but there are so may great discussions on just now, and I can't keep up.

Primrose Have you read any of the links above, all from reputable sources? Would you care to comment on them and how you would rate them for accuracy and truth compared with the self-interested statements of a loved-up ex Labour MP with a distinctly unsavoury and unreliable past. Good heavens, even Jeremy Corbyn disciplined him and he was deselected by his constituency.

I appreciate that your willingness to back up your arguments by quoting support across the political spectrum, shows your openmindness, but to choose Simon Dansczuk as your champion does show a sad lack of judgment or inadequate background checking on your part.

Primrose53

foxie48

Well he would say that wouldn't he? And of course he would, he's JUST married a Rwandan woman. His wife has just been denied a visa to enter the UK because the HO didn't think they were in a relationship. No idea if this is related!

Why are you making out you are telling me something I didn’t know?

I told You all that in my post above.

I have also heard countless people (not those supporting migrants and therefore biased) on TV and radio who have lived, work or holidayed there who say Rwanda is a great place to live and if you are prepared to work then you can make a good life and business there.

Sorry Primrose53 my post was obviously rather too subtle for you to understand. You didn't mention that his new wife had been refused a visa to enter the UK and I was pondering the question that his statement might be related to that. I am pleased that Rwanda is such a wonderful place as he may be spending lots of time there with his new wife, I wish them much joy. I object to the Rwandan project because refugees, who have a perfect right to claim asylum, could be removed to Rwanda permanently. I think this is wrong and you seem to think it's fine. Let's agree to differ, however, you also seem to think that if someone disagrees with you it's because they want to give asylum to anyone and everyone. If you read through the posts on here, not a single person has said that. Speaking for myself, I want genuine refugees dealt with swiftly and humanely and allowed to get on with their lives so they can contribute to our society, the rest need to be deported.

MOnica, I’ve welcomed your well informed, calm contributions to this debate. It’s so polarised that it seems even research like you and others have posted is dismissed.

Primrose What about Human Rights Watch, the US govrnment, even Al-Jazeera, and many other responsible international bodies, who all say that political oppression is widespread.

I quote from the executive summary of the US government document issued on the official US government site by the Department of State

Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary detention; political prisoners or detainees; transnational repression against individuals located outside the country, including killings, kidnappings, and violence; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; serious restrictions on free expression and media, including threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organization, funding, or operation of nongovernmental and civil society organizations; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; and serious government restrictions on or harassment of domestic and international human rights organizations.

The government took some steps to prosecute or punish officials reported to have committed human rights abuses and acts of corruption, including within the security services, but impunity involving civilian officials and some members of the state security forces was a problem.
www.state.gov/reports/2022-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/rwanda/ The report itself, further on goes into much finer detail on all these accusations.

foxie48

Well he would say that wouldn't he? And of course he would, he's JUST married a Rwandan woman. His wife has just been denied a visa to enter the UK because the HO didn't think they were in a relationship. No idea if this is related!

Why are you making out you are telling me something I didn’t know?

I told You all that in my post above.

I have also heard countless people (not those supporting migrants and therefore biased) on TV and radio who have lived, work or holidayed there who say Rwanda is a great place to live and if you are prepared to work then you can make a good life and business there.

Iam64

Callistemon - I had the same thought when I saw the DM article a few days ago

I hope I'm not being too cynical 🤔

She is his third? wife so he must have something!

Callistemon - I had the same thought when I saw the DM article a few days ago

To parody Mrs Merton, I wonder what the extremely beautiful Claudine Uwamahoro, age 28, sees in the 56 year old Simon Danczuk?

There is no accounting for taste of course.

Actually, having done a quick search on Simon Dansczuk, he is someone I would only quote as supporting an argument of mine, if i was absolutely desperate and was happy to quote someone with a dodgy past and dubious reputation. I cannot see myself every being in that situation, but obviously some are less concerned.

Simon Dansczuk did some positive work in politics. Sadly his private life imploded. I hope he’s happy in his new life but wouldn’t see him as a reliable balanced source of information about Rwanda. I’d read about the concerns about his wife’s permission to enter the uk

primrose Iknow you always take a balanced look at things before reaching conclusions. You have heard Simon Dansczuks view of the situation. Here is an alternative view given by the Human Rights Group www.hrw.org/world-report/2022/country-chapters/rwanda.

This one is from the US government www.state.gov/reports/2022-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/rwanda/

Even Al-jazeer has published articles that do not reflect Simon Dansczuk's view www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/9/15/rwandas-consensual-democracy-needs-a-reset

But Simon Dansczuk is a man in love and he is bound to take a rosy view of his bride's country.

Well he would say that wouldn't he? And of course he would, he's JUST married a Rwandan woman. His wife has just been denied a visa to enter the UK because the HO didn't think they were in a relationship. No idea if this is related!

he has Simon Dansczuk (sp?) the former Labour MP on his show just now and he has a house out there and married a Rwandan woman a few weeks ago.

He says it is a very, very safe country now and has a thriving economy and is know as The Switzerland of Africa because it is so beautiful. He says it would have been a perfectly good place to send migrants. he confirmed what many of us suspected that those on the Far left will go against absolutely everything to stop any plans the Govt make. They don’t care how good or well thought out their plans are, they are hell bent on stopping it because they want ALL the migrants allowed into our country.

Thanks for that MOnica. I have a mind of my own and always have.

Well they’re all off the barge now, it’s got legionella in the water supply.
It reminds me of the children’s book, ‘Whatever next?’

He isn't wrong but his use of foul language was.

gsm It is amazing jpw many governments or individual parties manage to subvert people, while they are all proudly saying that they think for themselves.

Email your MP for answers.

I have questions. Answers from those who believe the government have a policy position and plans for managing asylum seeking (as opposed to simply using it as a divisive trope to appeal to a certain element of the electorate) are particularly welcome.

1. Crossing the Channel without permission was made illegal by the 2022 Nationality and Borders Act, which created two-tier system for arrivals and allowed those who arrived by small boats to be treated differently to other asylum seekers. It was claimed this would speed up asylum processing, and had it ever been implemented, it might well have done. There were no legal challenges to this, but Sunak dropped that plank of the policy in June this year. Why was that?

2. The new Illegal Migration Act was given royal assent on July 27th this year. Braverman and Sunak have confirmed that they will not be seeking to implement any of its proposals - even though none except deportation to Rwanda have been legally challenged. Why is that?

If your answer to either question is that they would be legally challenged if they were implemented, I have a third question:

3. Is it a good use of taxpayer resources, and parliamentary time, to create legislation that knowingly breaches the law, and which, therefore, cannot be implemented? Do you believe the government did this because it enabled them to blame others for non-implementation? If not, what is the rationale for it?