Off Topic Migrant crisis

[lardiman]

Rwanda's past genocide is exactly the reason the Conservatives chose it as their deportation destination.
The Government might deny it, but it's the truth.
They want the name of Rwanda to send a chill of fear through would-be migrants. They are using the horror of the genocide to frighten asylum seekers.
That is sick in my opinion, and utterly immoral.

The injustices of the British Empire are things many of us would like to forget.
But wishing it doesn't make it so.
The centuries of exploitation, racism and oppression are coming back to hold this Country to account.
But where are the descendants of the ruling classes who drove Imperial abuses? The Nobility and the rich merchants and Generals and Governors? Most of them are still living in their Rural estates, hosting episodes of Antiques Roadshow.
They aren't suffering the ongoing consequences of Colonialism. It's the poor and vulnerable who suffer - of course.

 

[Ubedizzy2]

Rwanda's past genocide is exactly the reason the Conservatives chose it as their deportation destination.
The Government might deny it, but it's the truth.
They want the name of Rwanda to send a chill of fear through would-be migrants. They are using the horror of the genocide to frighten asylum seekers.
That is sick in my opinion, and utterly immoral.

The injustices of the British Empire are things many of us would like to forget.
But wishing it doesn't make it so.
The centuries of exploitation, racism and oppression are coming back to hold this Country to account.
But where are the descendants of the ruling classes who drove Imperial abuses? The Nobility and the rich merchants and Generals and Governors? Most of them are still living in their Rural estates, hosting episodes of Antiques Roadshow.
They aren't suffering the ongoing consequences of Colonialism. It's the poor and vulnerable who suffer - of course.

Of course.
But this has absolutely nothing to do with anyone holding this country to account for injustices during the Empire building.
The people entering the country illegally are not doing so to avenge the wrongdoings meted out to their distant relatives. They are not asylum seekers by any stretch of the imagination in relation to what that description is meant to mean. If they were then they’d simply do what the tens of thousands of others do and apply to enter the country legally. Despite the lies, there are many, many ways for genuine asylum seekers to obtain permission to be here as evidenced by the figures for those that succeed.
The people who enter illegally have no right to be here, are not fleeing for their lives and are not avenging the wrongs of the past.
They simply want to come here because of our benefits and welfare systems and the fact that they know they can have a better life here than if they stayed in their homelands. That may be understandable on an individual basis, but this country simply cannot absorb this limitless flow of people who have no affinity for, respect for or will to integrate into our society and obey our laws.

 

[lardiman]

We are never going to find common ground on this issue.
I also find it unpleasant to continue to go round in endless circles debating it, so I won't be making any further contributions to this thread.

In accordance with my responsibility I will continue to monitor its content and moderate it if necessary, as I would with any other thread on our part of this forum.

 

[brb]

Rwanda's past genocide is exactly the reason the Conservatives chose it as their deportation destination.
The Government might deny it, but it's the truth.
They want the name of Rwanda to send a chill of fear through would-be migrants. They are using the horror of the genocide to frighten asylum seekers.
That is sick in my opinion, and utterly immoral.

I keep reading and hearing these arguments but there's one massive issue I've got with it, a Premier League club accepts Rwanda as sponsorship (Arsenal) - it's been clearly visible on their shirt sleeves for however many seasons now, including in last nights game.

https://www.sportspromedia.com/news...leeve-sponsorship-deal-supreme-court-ruling/?

I've not even started on Newcastle's new owners lol

Everyone subscribes to this in one form or another as football fans, funny ole world eh.

 

[Ubedizzy2]

We are never going to find common ground on this issue.
I also find it unpleasant to continue to go round in endless circles debating it, so I won't be making any further contributions to this thread.

In accordance with my responsibility I will continue to monitor its content and moderate it if necessary, as I would with any other thread on our part of this forum.

Debate and exchanging differing views are healthy and good and when done politely and reasonably are the only way to ever bring two opposing views together, but it takes time and a willingness on both sides to consider the other view.

It’s a complex issue of course with no easy solution and as usual there is a huge disparity between what is right for individuals and what is right for a society. You can make out a very different and yet still very strong case by looking at an issue from either an individual’s or a society’s position. I believe that that is where a lot of disagreements come from.

Should an individuals ‘rights’ come first or should a society’s. We have shifted more and more towards the individuals rights in the last 40/50 years.

Ideally that should be the way forward, but in reality, giving one persons ‘rights’ priority just means that other people’s rights are weakened and disregarded. Therefore what is best for a country or society as a whole, should in my view be the determining factor on policy and should take priority over individuals rights. I understand the dangers in saying that but the alternative will just lead to the continuing slide in behaviour, cohesion and order in our land.

 

[Ubedizzy2]

You're both right, though.
Try reading "Jupiter's Travels" by Ted Simon. It's a narrative by a man who took a Triumph motor bike from the factory and drove it round the world 1973 to 1977. Easily the most interesting chapters were about his travels through Africa. It was a vastly different continent before it became destabilised by war and famine; no need for mass migration then, no hell-holes, just very interesting friendly helpful people, in an era when British motor bikes were in need of constant maintenance. If it hadn't been destabilised there would be no migrations.

I haven’t read the book so I can’t comment on its message of course.

What I will say is that the world has changed beyond recognition since the 70’s and it is not all down to war or famine.

Having lived and worked in Africa I can tell you absolutely that it is a totally different way of life to here and the peoples from there cannot easily integrate into our society just the same as someone from here cannot easily integrate into theirs. Corruption, violence, racism, sexual abuse, child abuse, misogyny, matriarchal family units, Police bribery are all widespread in Africa. We would be better to accept that rather than saying that all people are equal and should all be treated the same. They are not the same and never will be. Trying to integrate 100’s of thousands of people from different cultural backgrounds will never work harmoniously and will always lead to problems. As in my last post, on an individual basis it can work perfectly, but across a society as a whole it won’t.

Personally I blame the ability to now travel vast distances with ease, plus the availability of endless information via phones and the internet as even bigger problems than those of war and famine.

 

[The Penguin]

It's been a good week for Sir Keir Starmer...

• A poll says he's more popular than Rishi Sunak in many constituancies (including the PM's own)
• Liz Truss is back in the headlines with her sleazy 'honours'... and typically the PM is nowhere to be seen.
• Cowardly snake Dominic Cummings says he is advising Rishi all No.10 has said is that they haven't given him a job.

There you go Sir Keir - less is more.
You don't have to come out and say much.
Just let events undermine the Tories for the next few months.

During the Rwanda debate the Labour front bench sat quiet as mice while the Government benches engaged in civil war.
Cummings may be advising Sunak but Starmer meets Blair "Fairly frequently" according to Blair, who is probably even more toxic.

 

[Ken Shabby]

You must log in or register to see images

 

[Ubedizzy2]

You must log in or register to see images

Well it’s safe enough for the UN refugee agency, the UNHCR to send asylum seekers there for processing.

But apparently they object to us sending anyone there ?

Bit odd don’t you think ?

 

[Ubedizzy2]

16 ? Someone needs to check his birth certificate.

That’s an impressive belly for a 16 year old….

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/darts/67849359

 

[Smudger603]

16 ? Someone needs to check his birth certificate.

That’s an impressive belly for a 16 year old….

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/darts/67849359

Apparently his brother is even younger and looks as old as him - don’t forget they’ve probably being drugs since they were 4 up there !

 

[lardiman]

The utter scumbag who threw corrosive alkaline all over that woman and her children deserves the same thing to be done to him.
There are no words to describe what a low-life he is.

We will all be sickened again when he gets caught, done for GBH and given just four or five years in jail.
The Police know this as well.
When they catch him I hope he resists a bit, so they can kick the living sh*t out of him (off camera).

That evil b*stard should be given a gallon of that stuff he threw and be made to drink it.
Stabbings, beatings and shootings are dreadful enough. But this is a whole different level of depravity.
To do that to kids too. Words now fail me.

 

[The Penguin]

The utter scumbag who threw corrosive alkaline all over that woman and her children deserves the same thing to be done to him.
There are no words to describe what a low-life he is.

We will all be sickened again when he gets caught, done for GBH and given just four or five years in jail.
The Police know this as well.
When they catch him I hope he resists a bit, so they can kick the living sh*t out of him (off camera).

That evil b*stard should be given a gallon of that stuff he threw and be made to drink it.
Stabbings, beatings and shootings are dreadful enough. But this is a whole different level of depravity.
To do that to kids too. Words now fail me.

Just read there are an average of 100 similar incidents a year in England.

 

[Smudger603]

The scumbag was an asylum seeker - there’s a surprise

 

[Ubedizzy2]

The scumbag was an asylum seeker - there’s a surprise

There’s thousands of these damaged people wandering around our streets.

It’s only going to get worse. A lot worse.

 

[Ubedizzy2]

Now revealed he was convicted of a sexual offence in the UK in 2018 and THEN granted asylum in 2021. And then commits this horrific offence in 2024.

WTF is wrong with this country and the f*cking woke, leftie, bleeding hearts that run it.

 

[lardiman]

That's it.
I'm going to have to give up trying to defend an asylum system that refuses that status twice to a man, then grants him asylum after he has been convicted of a sex offence committed while here in the UK and while he had no right to be here.

That situation cannot be defended by anybody. It is simply wrong.
And now uncounted numbers of innocent asylum seekers will pay the price for this disgraceful example of the UK asylum system being totally broken and dysfunctional.
And for the rising forces of the far-right, this deranged monster has delivered all their birthdays and Christmases at once.

 

[Ubedizzy2]

That's it.
I'm going to have to give up trying to defend an asylum system that refuses that status twice to a man, then grants him asylum after he has been convicted of a sex offence committed while here in the UK and had no right to be here.

That situation cannot be defended by anybody. It is simply wrong.
And now uncounted numbers of innocent asylum seekers will pay the price for this disgraceful example of the UK asylum system being totally broken and dysfunctional.
And for the rising forces of the far-right, this deranged monster has delivered all their birthdays and Christmases at once.

It IS indefensible and whilst I accept that mistakes can be made in any system, this is actually just run of the mill decision making when it comes to Asylum applications, not a one-off.

A woman and two children’s lives have been changed forever because of this scum, but also because of the people or person who made the decision to grant him asylum. Regardless of what’s happened to him in the past, he doesn’t deserve to live. If he’s really that damaged by his past that he can do this, then perhaps it’s better for him as well, if he didn’t exist any more.

 

[lardiman]

I'm not even sure we can blame the individual person who signed off the scumbag's asylum claim, even though that person presumably knew he was a convicted sex offender.

If questioned on the incredible decision, the person would probably say that their hands were tied. The system itself meant they had no option.
If true, then the only other option available to them would be to resign their job as a conscientious objection.
In which case the next person given their job would have signed him off.

Whichever Home Secretary drafted the way the UK Asylum system works, or whichever Judge ruled it has to work the way it does, is/are the people to blame in my opinion. Not the hapless cogs in the machine who have to sign the forms that allow evil monsters to prey on women and children in our communities.

When did the rules that allowed this criminal scum to gain asylum status come into force?
Whose watch was it on?
That's what I would like to know.

 

[Ubedizzy2]

I'm not even sure we can blame the individual person who signed off the scumbag's asylum claim, even though that person presumably knew he was a convicted sex offender.

If questioned on the incredible decision, the person would probably say that their hands were tied. The system itself meant they had no option.
If true, then the only other option available to them would be to resign their job as a conscientious objection.
In which case the next person given their job would have signed him off.

Whichever Home Secretary drafted the way the UK Asylum system works, or whichever Judge ruled it has to work the way it does, is/are the people to blame in my opinion. Not the hapless cogs in the machine who have to sign the forms that allow evil monsters to prey on women and children in our communities.

When did the rules that allowed this criminal to gain asylum status come into force?
Whose watch was it on?
That's what I would like to know.

Good question.

The reasons and decisions will be many and they will go back years and years, possibly decades. Certainly long before the time of Boris or Suella.

The problem is the sheer numbers. No system can cope with the volume of arrivals we now have and individuals are no doubt encouraged to rubber stamp claims in order to reduce the backlog. But this case is the inevitable result.

That’s why we HAVE to find a way to reduce the number of claimants and stopping the small boats is a big part of that because literally all of them arriving that way then claim asylum - and it’s hundreds each day.

I know the boat/lorry illegal immigrants are small in number compared to overall immigration, but it is those that have no legal right to be here that generally use those routes, not the law abiding, genuine refugees that use other ways into the country.

And of course it’s the illegal entrants that have no regard for the law, who are then far more likely to go on and commit these sorts of horrors.