Rwanda

A woman originally was a baby born with a womb and vagina who then turns into a girl or then blossoms into a woman.

A woman is not a human being that has been modified from their original birth a man- or has taken drug enhancements to change them or had surgical operations to change them.

 

I heard it was down to 7 or 8 today and likely may only be 2 or 3, if any come the day of the flight. What a joke, and how much has it cost the taxpayer for their legal cases? Not to mention the flight cost was slated at c£500k, which won't be refundable if it goes part full or doesn't go at all.

 

Hmm, ha, um now you've um put me ha ha on the spot, um, a woman is, ha ha, an adult, um, human being that can give ha ha birth, experience period pains, has ovaries and female reproductive um organs, ha but um doesn't necessary have to have um been born a female.

This bunch of waffle was brought to you by the ever liberal Labour Party

In other news, the word gay is to be redefined in line with woke rhetoric. Gay will no longer refer to people of the same sex who are attracted to each other. The new description will be people that are attracted to the same gender, which is very different.

But back to the Channel crisis and before all those due to be deported are offloaded, a concerted effort by British and French Police, and Border Forces from both countries, on shore and at sea just off the French coast stopping the dinghies launching at all, has to be the best and safest answer all round ?
That course of action will totally break the people trafficking model. And even better if those responsible can be traced and locked up, or deported or whatever.

In this day and age, you can't tell me that it's not possible to detect these craft and 70 odd people at a time before they even launch from a French beach and it would be so much more cost effective.

 

And the most laughable thing is that it's the Government (well us actually) that pay for these lawyers to represent those who are due to be deported.

One thing that has to come light which is interesting is that if the Government had put a bill through Parliament that had the majority of support across the house to put the Rwanda plan in place, then no judge or lawyer would be allowed to challenge it. If it's a law passed in Parliament then it forms part of British law and cannot be challenged in the way that these recent cases have been.

So come on Boris, let's see how the house of commons/lords feels about it. We can also apparently chose to sidestep the European Court Of Human Rights laws if we see fit.

 

I mentioned Starmer as he's most likely to be PM next and his views are relevant.

I couldn't agree more but you have to rely on the French Police.
This will never happen, why ?
Bloody French.

There are legal routes !
Most are young males who don't qualify and choose the illegal route.

 

there is a massive concern at the moment about the number of cases still to be heard [ is it 600k? ] and it is due to lack of solicitors and a lack of financial aid. having to try and make out cases for 1000's of illegal immigrants to be here or not is really screwing up the legal system.
one problem [ acquaintance, a third party trainee solicitor at uni ] says a lot of the solicitors representing them are in name only. He said I could buy a book read up about a certain law and open an office saying JGF2 solicitor, and take on cases!!! BUT unlikely to ever be accepted by the law society.
Part of the illegals plan is to swamp the system ... in the past 18 month's enough people have crossed the channel to replace the inhabitants of a town the size of KEYNSHAM ... BUT should that happen !!!!!!! there would be no need for schools as children would be minimal probably a couple double decker loads, males would be fighting at the rate of about 300+ to 1 for a female partner, .............

we need to ship about 150 a week, problem is the mind washing that goes on that UK is best place gives false hope, they might not be the one to be deported. They do not get every boat load ... want a free dingy and out board hang around the beach's near DOVER coast at night... and in a while might be a week or 2, one will land, the occupants jumpout and do a runner ..... jump in take it down coast to landing area and ...................

 

"We cannot offer asylum to everyone, but we must not outsource our ethical responsibilities, or discard international law - which protects the right to claim asylum."
It's not the first time the Archbishop of Canterbury has criticised the plan - he described it as "the opposite of the nature of God" in his Easter sermon.

The law states basically the first "friendly" country they land in and coming from France they have broken the law?? It is comments like this from people like this that make "believing in the church" a thing of the past. People today would sooner get married "not in a church" ... congregations are diminuishing ... some vicars now cover 2 or 3 church's and even so the people in them are rarely above a handful ..... at least the pope makes a comment about the criminality of Putrid the slayer, using Chetniyans/Syrians to do his dirty work and get killed ..................

 

The least 'Christian' Archbishop of Canterbury ever. Just another worthy leftie from what I regularly hear about him. The church of England could and should have been offering help, advice, comfort and guidance in the early days of Covid, but instead all they did was shut all of the churches which I thought was disgusting.

 

Dont you know???

 

Has anyone heard/seen anything from the BBC giving balance to the Rwanda policy ?
All we get is the left woke view, an alleged view from Prince Charles, letters from Archbishops and from outside the court comments from protesters and their lawyers against this policy.
And yet 80% of the population (99% in Dover) are fed up to the back teeth of illegal migrants landing on our shores.

Balance ?
The BBC have never heard of it.

 

Illegal immigrants are just what it says on the box - ILLEGAL. They have no rights and need to be dealt with accordingly which has to mean deportation but I'm not so sure Rwanda is the answer and so hard lines of another kind need to be implemented to deal with a pandemic of people trafficking. The cost to the taxpayer is off the radar and cannot continue to drain the economy and deal with the backlash from the population. Perhaps it's time to raid every ethnic restaurant, if you get my drift, and immediately detain and deport all of the workers that are illegal along with the owner and their families. I can't believe it when the raids are done and the follow up tells us they can't be deported because they have no passport and they are freed to run and hide again without any recourse. The Border Services need to get some balls, and to hell with human rights, because general society always pays the price and by now must be getting sick and tired of the ineffective handling of the illegals.

 

But you are commenting on something that has no outcome. Will asylum seekers sent to Rwanda be exposed to murders by detention guards, sexual abuse and inhumane treatment?

The Government of the UK are going to move asylum seekers to another Country and continent, this could be tenuously comparable to the EU's history. The EU intercepts Europe-bound migrants and off shores migrants to Africa, and has done this for a very significant period. This does not stop large scale migration into Europe.

There is a observable standard there. We can have knowledge of murders by detention guards, sexual abuse and inhumane treatment condemned by human rights groups. The evidence of what the EU contributes to is there.

In regards to migration debate what the EU does, and its history has to be considered, the lack of criticism of observable EU policy is uneven and hypocritical. Wide spread condemnation of the UK government is mute regarding the EU's policies. Funny that, you could actually believe this is not a concern about migration at all, much of the noise is from the pro EU remaining side that ignores humanitarian abuses funded by the EU.

It is not but there are people within the Labour who embrace this nonsense, there are also voices in Labour that call the nonsense out.The rubbish comes from American left wing gender politics.

The answer is of course. Adult human female. Nothing else is necessary. Adult human female can only be a woman as it is solely a biological term. Anybody who refutes this is a liar.

 

Not sure why my replies aren't displaying properly

 

This is what I replied to Cliftonville
But the trans community are insisting that males that have gone through puberty and still have a penis can be called female should they choose, and that's where what are essentially men competing in women's sport goes horribly wrong.
There is also a case of a trans woman who raped a woman in jail whilst they were sharing the same cell. It's all just hideous idealogy.

Last week there was a story about an All Girls private school in England (location not disclosed) where the Head Teacher refuses to call the students girls due to their own views (!) and this is in an all girls school.

So lets hope that when those who are currently 'undecided' on their sexuality at age 11 (ffs) and upwards and who then go down the road of saying 'I want to transition to be a male' and then take the puberty blockers etc and potentially then have a double mastectomy, never change their minds and want to transition back as at some point they decide that they want to have children in their 20's when they are an adult, not a child, as their bodies reproductive systems will be irreparably damaged.

 

Where they are lying.

Female, girl, woman are biological terms. Choice doesnt come into it. There is no sub species of female, girl or women. In regards to sex this is literallly and legally true.

So they would know what a girl was to be an all girls school. This is how easy it is to highlight this nonsense.

Hopefully that is picked up. Equalities law and safeguarding measures could be broken there. The school has a duty to ensure single sex spaces are single sex spaces. The girls views are irrelevant, their birth certificates will state what sex they are, and that helps to ensure an all girls school is an all girls school.

 

But it’s the likes of head teachers that are basically siding with the woke and trans minority rather than behaving like a normal human being and calling them girls / which is what they are as you say
If I was a parent of one of those girls and I was paying thousands of pounds per term I’d be calling for the head teacher to resign

 

I was asking for his definition