Diane Abbott’s take on drownings in Med

I miss the days when politicians acted and talked appropriately, in public, remembering their position

This yobbo style behaviour is unbecoming and, frankly, nasty

I agree. We should expect better standards of those who serve us and the bar is becoming lower and lower.

Anderson was wrong and Abbott's tit for tat language is totally inexcusable when people have died in such a dreadful way.

Oreo

Anyone fleeing death and persecution shouldn’t cross several safe European countries and then pay huge amounts to get on tiny leaky overcrowded small boats to cross the Channel.

Do you include in that the people who worked for us in countries they have been forced to flee because they were abandoned when we pulled out?

I do Gloianny
They could apply for asylum in France if they had worked for the allies in Afghanistan for instance.To gamble your own and your children's lives in that way crossing the Channel is madness.

I think Diane Abbot’s comments were to reflect and shame Anderson’s crass comments.
She will have deleted perhaps because she has been the focus of threats for years is years which must have be terrifying.

My biggest disgust about the BLM movement was the misappropriation of the funds that were raised. Those crusading families and their mansions, staff, security and bling for themselves and their hangers on beggared belief.

And Starmer has, only very recently, decided to confirm what a woman is. Good job the majority of us already knew.

And Diane Abbott is a muppet.

Oreo

I do Gloianny
They could apply for asylum in France if they had worked for the allies in Afghanistan for instance.To gamble your own and your children's lives in that way crossing the Channel is madness.

Totally agree Oreo.

Urmstongran

Oreo

I do Gloianny
They could apply for asylum in France if they had worked for the allies in Afghanistan for instance.To gamble your own and your children's lives in that way crossing the Channel is madness.

Totally agree Oreo.

Hang on I thought it was all single men making the journey. So now you are accusing them of not caring about their families. Talk about victim blaming!!

silverlining48

I think Diane Abbot’s comments were to reflect and shame Anderson’s crass comments.
She will have deleted perhaps because she has been the focus of threats for years is years which must have be terrifying.

I agree silverlining48.
Diane Abbot has suffered abuse, misogyny, racism and threats for years and it’s a wonder she’s still brave enough to be an MP.

The vast majority are Young, fit Men.
Not all.

Glorianny

Germanshepherdsmum

They stopped fleeing when they reached the first safe country. Their choice to risk their lives crossing the channel.

As I said your comments reflect your views and your perception of people fleeing death and persecution. "Not our problem" is a frequent excuse.

I too feel that this much repeated 'first safe country' is an excuse to make it 'not our problem'. GSM you have made it clear that you think that anyone fleeing death, war, starvation etc. should stay in the first safe country they reach. Can you expand on how this would work?

Already, the countries nearest to conflict and other disasters are accommodating refugees in vast numbers (70% according to UNHCR data) and most of the refugees (76%, UNHCR data) are hosted in low- and middle-income countries.

This is a result of people stopping in the 'first safe country': huge numbers of refugees living in appalling conditions, with little hope of recovery or a future life; a huge burden on already poor and undeveloped countries who are already struggling.

So we, in our relatively rich country with all the benefits that living in the UK gives us such as free healthcare, education etc., hide behind our fortunate distance from the main areas of conflict and devastation, saying 'first safe country' over and over again. Sorry this is not acceptable. What we seem to be saying is that not one iota of our privilege should be sacrificed for the sake of reaching out to our fellow human beings in desperate need. Yet it is fine to inflict on them and their host countries the burdens of the refugee situation.

Can anyone please tell me why we are more entitled to happy, safe, privileged lives than others? I am not aware that I have done anything to deserve one. I was simply lucky enough to be born white, in a country that is rich and spacious and far from the areas in conflict or suffering severe effects of the climate crisis. I am far from rich by UK standards, but by world standards I am wealthy in all senses of the word.

Every time I think about this or read posts about it I get a picture of us all sitting on top of a huge ivory tower, with massive walls around us, no drawbridge, with our noses in the air and our eyes firmly shut. Beneath the walls are billions of desperate people reaching out for help, but all that comes to them is a mumbled echo of 'first safe country'.

Lots of different people of all colours and creeds in the UK want to stop the boats. It's not about colour although the posters who call other posters racists keep mentioning colour especially white. I do not see colour when I see who is in the boats only their gender.

Cloughdancet 👏👏👏👏

Iam64

Cloughdancet 👏👏👏👏

Seconded

I have never said people should stay in the first safe country they reach. Kindly read my posts more carefully. Of course that would be totally unworkable. I have, however, repeatedly said that once they have reached a safe country they are no longer desperate and fleeing, adjectives so beloved of some posters.

Iam64

Cloughdancet 👏👏👏👏

Seconded

Whitewavemark2

Iam64

Cloughdancet 👏👏👏👏

Seconded

Thirded😄😄

Germanshepherdsmum

I have never said people should stay in the first safe country they reach. Kindly read my posts more carefully. Of course that would be totally unworkable. I have, however, repeatedly said that once they have reached a safe country they are no longer desperate and fleeing, adjectives so beloved of some posters.

I don't see what their state of mind once they reach a safe country has to do with the issue at all.

As a self evaluated top notch lawyer you should know that under international law they are under no obligation to stay in the first safe country they reach. The ones who reach the UK have their reasons, most of them perfectly valid, for wanting to come here. Your opinion on their 'feelings' is, thank God, irrelevant.

Choughdancer ,brilliant post.

Well you will be happy today 100,000 arrived across the channel since 2018, 400 today. The criminal smuggling gangs are coining it in but seems many are happy about that.

The hypocrisy of many on here is breathtaking, especially those who suggest that the boats should be turned around and sent back to France.

Nicenanny3

Well you will be happy today 100,000 arrived across the channel since 2018, 400 today. The criminal smuggling gangs are coining it in but seems many are happy about that.

What a weird comment. I don’t think anybody at all wants people to come in dangerous small boats across the channel. The compassionate among us do want to see a safe legal asylum system which prevents anybody needing to risk their lives.

Can you explain your reasoning behind your ridiculous assertion that many are happy that criminals are exploiting human misery and desperation?

sassysaysso

Can you explain your reasoning behind your ridiculous assertion that many are happy that criminals are exploiting human misery and desperation?

This was for Nicenanny3

12:52Casdon

Nicenanny3

Well you will be happy today 100,000 arrived across the channel since 2018, 400 today. The criminal smuggling gangs are coining it in but seems many are happy about that.

What a weird comment. I don’t think anybody at all wants people to come in dangerous small boats across the channel. The compassionate among us do want to see a safe legal asylum system which prevents anybody needing to risk their lives.

Even if there were safe legal asylum routes to the UK the ones who are economic migrants or have criminal records, not genuine with no Id's would still come via smuggling gangs, the dinghies wouldn't stop, naive to think otherwise in my opinion. We need a deterrent like Rwanda if they saw that if they arrived illegally by dinghy that they would be sent to Rwanda or some other country for processing they would soon think twice about handing over thousands of Euros to get here. But of course Labour voted against the Illegal Migration Bill so we know where they stand

Nicenanny3

12:52Casdon

Nicenanny3

Well you will be happy today 100,000 arrived across the channel since 2018, 400 today. The criminal smuggling gangs are coining it in but seems many are happy about that.

What a weird comment. I don’t think anybody at all wants people to come in dangerous small boats across the channel. The compassionate among us do want to see a safe legal asylum system which prevents anybody needing to risk their lives.

*Even if there were safe legal asylum routes to the UK the ones who are economic migrants or have criminal records, not genuine with no Id's would still come via smuggling gangs, the dinghies wouldn't stop, naive to think otherwise in my opinion. We need a deterrent like Rwanda if they saw that if they arrived illegally by dinghy that they would be sent to Rwanda or some other country for processing they would soon think twice about handing over thousands of Euros to get here. But of course Labour voted against the Illegal Migration Bill so we know where they stand*

You can’t wriggle out of what you said by diverting to other points Nicenanny3. What you said was offensive and untrue.