Simon Drew; Spot The Tv Show Postcard
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Stop The Boats Not Working – It’s The Fault Of The Labour Party Who Have Not Been In Power For 13 Years
.......according to Suella Braverman.
As the narrator says, there are a number of racist & bigots who will continue to believe/defend this policy and Braverman (are you one of them?).
As the narrator says, there are a number of racist & bigots who will continue to believe/defend this policy and Braverman (are you one of them?).
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//As someone fleeing a war-torn country, I’m under no legal obligation to claim asylum in the first safe country I reach – I want to make a proper application/claim for asylum in the UK, how do I do this?//
As explained by me and others, you don’t. The function of the asylum system is to provide temporary safe haven for those in danger, it is not to allow those who need to flee their places of origin (or those who simply don’t like it where they are) to start a new life in the destination of their choice. People in France are in no need of such a safe haven. We’ve been through this a number of times and you know my views on Article 31 of the UN Convention on the treatment of refugees and we’re never going to agree it.
However, that isn’t my point on this occasion. Your OP contains this:
“…there are a number of racist & bigots who will continue to believe/defend this policy”
Why is it that people who do not agree with you are labelled (in this case) as “racists & bigots?” In other cases they are labelled as “stupid.” My view on this has nothing to do with racism or bigotry. I'll set it out for you:
- It begins with a reasoned argument about the function of the asylum system.
- It then goes on to discuss the interpretation of a plain English document which differentiates quite clearly between those who come directly from a place where they are in danger and those who do not.
- It considers the position of (in particular) the UK government when it says it must abide by that document when an interpretation has been placed on it which is contrary to the words it contains.
- It concludes by trying to gain a wider acceptance that everybody who currently lives in Africa, Asia or France and who wants to settle in the UK cannot do so. This is because we do not have the facilities to accommodate them or the services they need, and I see no reason why the UK taxpayer should write what would be effectively and open cheque to maintain what is an unsustainable situation.
That’s the basis of my argument, so what’s racist or bigoted about it?
As explained by me and others, you don’t. The function of the asylum system is to provide temporary safe haven for those in danger, it is not to allow those who need to flee their places of origin (or those who simply don’t like it where they are) to start a new life in the destination of their choice. People in France are in no need of such a safe haven. We’ve been through this a number of times and you know my views on Article 31 of the UN Convention on the treatment of refugees and we’re never going to agree it.
However, that isn’t my point on this occasion. Your OP contains this:
“…there are a number of racist & bigots who will continue to believe/defend this policy”
Why is it that people who do not agree with you are labelled (in this case) as “racists & bigots?” In other cases they are labelled as “stupid.” My view on this has nothing to do with racism or bigotry. I'll set it out for you:
- It begins with a reasoned argument about the function of the asylum system.
- It then goes on to discuss the interpretation of a plain English document which differentiates quite clearly between those who come directly from a place where they are in danger and those who do not.
- It considers the position of (in particular) the UK government when it says it must abide by that document when an interpretation has been placed on it which is contrary to the words it contains.
- It concludes by trying to gain a wider acceptance that everybody who currently lives in Africa, Asia or France and who wants to settle in the UK cannot do so. This is because we do not have the facilities to accommodate them or the services they need, and I see no reason why the UK taxpayer should write what would be effectively and open cheque to maintain what is an unsustainable situation.
That’s the basis of my argument, so what’s racist or bigoted about it?
NJ – unfortunately that’s not the way it works, it’s no good saying ‘well that’s the way it should work’.
Given our legal obligation to those arriving at our shores, the whole sorry situation is entirely the fault of the Tory government – but whether they can convince enough people it is not, by saying that it is the fault of the Labour Party, or that the Labour Party has no plan, or it is someone else’s fault, remains to be seen.
Given our legal obligation to those arriving at our shores, the whole sorry situation is entirely the fault of the Tory government – but whether they can convince enough people it is not, by saying that it is the fault of the Labour Party, or that the Labour Party has no plan, or it is someone else’s fault, remains to be seen.
//NJ – unfortunately that’s not the way it works, it’s no good saying ‘well that’s the way it should work’.//
I’m saying exactly the opposite. The way it works at present is unsustainable and it’s no use continually saying “that’s the way it works”. It’s precisely because it doesn’t work that it needs to change and if that means the UK government unilaterally withdrawing from our alleged responsibilities, then so be it.
But leave that aside for the moment – any response as to whether my argument makes me a bigot and a racist? Or is that just a “given” which I’m expected to simply accept?
I’m saying exactly the opposite. The way it works at present is unsustainable and it’s no use continually saying “that’s the way it works”. It’s precisely because it doesn’t work that it needs to change and if that means the UK government unilaterally withdrawing from our alleged responsibilities, then so be it.
But leave that aside for the moment – any response as to whether my argument makes me a bigot and a racist? Or is that just a “given” which I’m expected to simply accept?
It seems to me that since Boris has been pushed out, Braverman continues to show herself as a possible best option replacement PM. Not that one can be sure as many promising candidates disappoint when actually in the role. But with the likes of Frosty and JRM not eager or available, and with Farage long since left the party, she definitely is on any reasonable shortlist.
Should the un-thinkable happen, and the situation in the UK become such that our citizens are fleeing to France, seeking asylum – I would like to think that there would be some system in place whereby all those who currently object to asylum seekers arriving from France were told to sling their hook, and their boats pushed back into the sea.
//Should the un-thinkable happen,...//
An extremely hypothetical scenario because if the "unthinkable" happened in the UK it is highly likely that if would affect France as well. But let's pretend it might not.
It's strange that the first thing that springs to some minds when something "unthinkable" is discussed is that residents should up sticks and clear off somewhere else. The unthinkable very much became thinkable in 1939, but I don't recall hearing of too many people leaving these shores "to start a new life" elsewhere. Many left these shores and lost their lives, but that's somewhat different. The men were enlisted into the armed forces - as indeed were some of the women though not in front line roles. The remaining women took over many of the jobs done by men and also ran their homes with severe rationing and the added thrill of nightly bombing. In short, they stayed here to sort out the problems the country faced and I am eternally grateful to them all (and so should everybody else be).
The asylum system encourages just the opposite. It encourages vast swathes of the population to leave, denuding the countries of those people (principally young men) whom the losing nations could do with to sort out their problems.
But that aside, we return to the same argument: people living in France are not facing anything unthinkable. They are living in a safe country but more than that, courtesy of the EU's ridiculous Schengen Agreement, they have passed through a number of other safe havens on their way their where they could easily have applied for asylum. Countries where they were safe and could also present themselves as refugees if they wished. But the fact is they are not solely interested in safety (which is the function of asylum); they are more interested in reaching the destination of their choice (which is not the function of asylum).
Meantime, any progress on whether my argument makes me a bigot and a racist?
An extremely hypothetical scenario because if the "unthinkable" happened in the UK it is highly likely that if would affect France as well. But let's pretend it might not.
It's strange that the first thing that springs to some minds when something "unthinkable" is discussed is that residents should up sticks and clear off somewhere else. The unthinkable very much became thinkable in 1939, but I don't recall hearing of too many people leaving these shores "to start a new life" elsewhere. Many left these shores and lost their lives, but that's somewhat different. The men were enlisted into the armed forces - as indeed were some of the women though not in front line roles. The remaining women took over many of the jobs done by men and also ran their homes with severe rationing and the added thrill of nightly bombing. In short, they stayed here to sort out the problems the country faced and I am eternally grateful to them all (and so should everybody else be).
The asylum system encourages just the opposite. It encourages vast swathes of the population to leave, denuding the countries of those people (principally young men) whom the losing nations could do with to sort out their problems.
But that aside, we return to the same argument: people living in France are not facing anything unthinkable. They are living in a safe country but more than that, courtesy of the EU's ridiculous Schengen Agreement, they have passed through a number of other safe havens on their way their where they could easily have applied for asylum. Countries where they were safe and could also present themselves as refugees if they wished. But the fact is they are not solely interested in safety (which is the function of asylum); they are more interested in reaching the destination of their choice (which is not the function of asylum).
Meantime, any progress on whether my argument makes me a bigot and a racist?
Bigot - a person who is intolerant or hateful toward people whose race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc., is different from the person's own.
NJ – your posts (and those of many others) are intolerant in their content towards those legally seeking asylum in the UK, especially (for some reason) those arriving by boat. I wonder if those arriving at Heathrow should be similarly shown the door.
NJ – your posts (and those of many others) are intolerant in their content towards those legally seeking asylum in the UK, especially (for some reason) those arriving by boat. I wonder if those arriving at Heathrow should be similarly shown the door.
Latest Posts
Crosswords5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
ChatterBank39 mins ago
Jokes70 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles74 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.