Diane Abbott’s take on drownings in Med

I'm not wriggling out of anything I stand by what I said. If people wanted to stop the Criminal Smuggling Gangs they should support the Rwanda scheme and the Illegal Migration Bill.

Well said choughdancer. This is so true and in another life this could very well be us, and our family risking their lives in flimsy boats.

have no idea what she said as I won't open a link to that vile newspaper.

Nicenanny3

I'm not wriggling out of anything I stand by what I said. If people wanted to stop the Criminal Smuggling Gangs they should support the Rwanda scheme and the Illegal Migration Bill.

People can see for themselves what you said. Whether people support the ‘solutions’ proposed by the government is down to their own moral compass. Mine is certainly very different to yours.

Whitewavemark2

Whitewavemark2

Iam64

Cloughdancet 👏👏👏👏

Seconded

Thirded😄😄

Haha cheating there whitewavemark2😄

Tbh I found choughdancer’s post verging on the ridiculous.
A naive emotional post at best.
As a British national and a taxpayer you are fully entitled to live here and have first dibs, the ‘oh go on, be kind, let them all in’ brigade don’t do us all any favours if they managed to get their way.

13:15Casdon

Nicenanny3

I'm not wriggling out of anything I stand by what I said. If people wanted to stop the Criminal Smuggling Gangs they should support the Rwanda scheme and the Illegal Migration Bill.

People can see for themselves what you said. Whether people support the ‘solutions’ proposed by the government is down to their own moral compass. Mine is certainly very different to yours.

It's a free country and we still have free speech, I support Rwanda and The Illegal Migration Bill and you don't, GN is a public forum how boring if we all thought the same way

MaizieD

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.

You’re right, they have no obligation to stay in a safe country and can push on to wherever they like.You also have no obligation to do that either, especially if it means chancing death on the ocean waves.Why would anyone do that.They have their reasons? Probably they think the UK is a softer touch or have heard it is.

18Oreo

Whitewavemark2

Whitewavemark2

Iam64

Cloughdancet 👏👏👏👏

Seconded

Thirded😄😄

Haha cheating there whitewavemark2😄

Tbh I found choughdancer’s post verging on the ridiculous.
A naive emotional post at best.
As a British national and a taxpayer you are fully entitled to live here and have first dibs, the ‘oh go on, be kind, let them all in’ brigade don’t do us all any favours if they managed to get their way.

Seconded Oreo😊 I agree with every word of your post

Have I ever described or evaluated myself as a top notch lawyer Maizie? No. My partners in a big City firm presumably thought I was good enough for them though.

Have I ever said that my understanding of the law is that they should stay in the first safe country? No.

Not easy being a politician.
Harder being a female politician.
Being an older female politician - not for softies.
Being an older black female politician . . . ??

Better to fall into the hands of the living God than be shredded on Gransnet.

I am rapidly being forced to the conclusions that there are Grannies on GNet who are anti-democratic.

Can I just say that I want to live in an evolving democracy, warts and all. What I do not want is the Dictatorship some of you seem to be suggesting.

Who has suggested that?

I think you may have missed the last one that suggested the Opposition should not oppose; the Lords should not scrutinise legislation, hold the government to account, or considers and reports upon public policy; that Lawers should not use democratically agreed law in aid of their clients, and that properly constituted charities should not give aid to those they are set up to help.

I think both you and the person making that post nipped quickly over here to make this thread very much a repeat of the other one as, at that point, posters with such view were not being particularly challenged on this thread.

Obviously, I could be wrong about that and you could just be interested in the career and sayings of Diane Abbott.

I’m sure that if someone had said that the Opposition should not oppose and that the Lords should not scrutinise I would have noticed - are you twisting someone’s words?

The lawyers I criticise are the type who have recently been closed down, who fabricate stories for their clients to use. I have no doubt that more such closures will follow. That is not ‘using democratically agreed law’.

Breaking News from the Guardian just now:

“The Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) has said lifeboats from Dover, Ramsgate, Dungeness and Littlestone were called by HM Coastguard to an incident in the Channel on Thursday morning.”

Whitewavemark2

DA ‘s heart is always in the right place, but she suffers from foot in mouth syndrome, - she speaks before she has fully thought it through.

There are lots of posters, including myself , suffer from the same syndrome.

Yes. I've done the same. I have been bitterly angry and equally bitterly sarcastic - it vents the anger. But only in private.

If I were going to tweet as DA did - I would've slept on it first. And then held fast and had the courage of conviction.

When I was at school, back in the 50s, I once wrote a rather bitter letter to a male schoolfriend. It ended up in the headmistress' office (no idea how) and she called me in to remonstrate with me. I was almost paralysed with fear as she had a heck of a reputation and she scared the bejesus out of me. I can't remember a thing about her 'remonstration' but, as I was leaving, she called me back and said - quite gently and kindly in fact, words to the effect that if, in future, I was to "put pen to paper", I should always sleep on it first because I would feel differently in the morning. I've never forgotten that.

Urmstongran

Breaking News from the Guardian just now:

“The Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) has said lifeboats from Dover, Ramsgate, Dungeness and Littlestone were called by HM Coastguard to an incident in the Channel on Thursday morning.”

All manned by volunteers and supported by charitable donations. And whilst they’re doing that they’re not available to help anyone else.

I have upped my monthly contributions since I was first aware of their fantastic work in helping save children, women and men seeking sanctuary.

Go RNLI!

Oh! And apparently their donations have risen tremendously.

People are marvellous, empathetic and humane.

Oreo

MaizieD

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.

You’re right, they have no obligation to stay in a safe country and can push on to wherever they like.You also have no obligation to do that either, especially if it means chancing death on the ocean waves.Why would anyone do that.They have their reasons? Probably they think the UK is a softer touch or have heard it is.

Risking death on the ocean wave is their decision to make, Oreo, not ours.

As for their 'reasons', I really CBA to go through it all again. It's been spelled out often enough on these types of thread.

I heard to day that Brussels has passed this law.
It comes down to if your a country that refuses to take back undocumented migrants you won’t get a favourable trade deal.

www.politico.eu/article/pushback-brussels-plan-link-trade-migrant-returns/

choughdancer!! Think you have been voted the best poster on this thread.

I support my local RNLI station, not the national.

HelterSkelter1

have no idea what she said as I won't open a link to that vile newspaper.

It’s in plenty of others and on the news.

Whitewavemark2

I have upped my monthly contributions since I was first aware of their fantastic work in helping save children, women and men seeking sanctuary.

Go RNLI!

You would be surprised at the number of RNLI volunteers who are completely fed up though! I have said on here before that my friend is a volunteer and gets the boats all ready as soon as they come back from a shout for the next one.

She says every day when they are doing this people walk down to have a look and nearly all of them say they will no longer give to the RNLI because they are being used as a taxi service. She feels the same and said it is really embarrassing. Although the boats don’t come in up here she says if she worked down in Dover she would have left by now.

Same thing happened to us, a young volunteer had a stall near our lifeboat house and was hoping for donations but my husband told her we no longer give to them. We sat down nearby and watched scores of people walk past and say the same to her. I felt a bit sorry for her and went and said it was nothing personal and she said “I get it, it’s all I’ve heard all morning.”