Printable View
Todays quiz: Who said this, this morning?
“Our dialogue with the Rwandan government includes a mechanism for the transfer of asylum seekers… [the deal will] ensure a more dignified approach than the criminal network of human traffickers that characterises migration across the Mediterranean today.”
Not sure anybody caresQuote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Presumably we are paying Rwanda handsomly for taking these "undesirable" people off our hands.
This whole thing stinks, it is utterly shameful.
We are paying money to an authoritarian regime here, to absolve ourselves of the moral responsibility of looking after the vulnerable and needy.
Well I for one am "slightly taken aback" by the amount of energy JamesWales is expending defending the Rwandan policy. He would be far better served focusing his energy on criticising Russia and Vladimir Putin in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
I will take a guess at that bastion of right wing politics...........Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Denmark!!
Calling our admittedly right wing leaning government (at least on certain matters) an extreme right wing government is a bit ,well, extreme!Quote:
Originally Posted by Doucas
Ooh, this is a good game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elwood Blues
Which bastion of wishy-washy liberalism and architect of Go Home Vans and Billboards said this......
"From what I have heard and seen so far of this policy, I do not support the removal to Rwanda policy on the grounds of legality, practicality and efficacy.
"If it is the case that families will not be broken up, does she not believe and where is her evidence that this will not simply lead to an increase in the trafficking of women and children?"
It's not a game but it was Theresa MayQuote:
Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays
Sorry when James Wales said it was today's quiz I obviously misunderstood the seriousness of his question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elwood Blues
I for one have completely changed my mind and agree with the policy now that I have found out that someone from denmark think it is a goodun and Theresa May thinks it's bad. Oh wait actually I couldn't care less what other people think of it.
A glimpse into how some people formulate their opinions though maybe..?
Spot on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elwood Blues
Quote released today from that notoriously racist Tory, the Danish immigration minister, Mattius Tesfaye, son of an Ethiopian refugee, former vice Chairman of the Socialist Peoples Party and current MP for the centre-left governing Social Democrats.
Perhaps Europe is finally going to start dismantling people smuggling gangs seriously?
https://www.euronews.com/2022/04/20/...asylum-seekers
https://order-order.com/2022/04/20/d...ers-to-rwanda/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattias_Tesfaye
Did he provide that much needed evidence to suggest why the approach the British government is taking will reduce human trafficking? You seem so certain it will but then you dodge every question about it. Maybe Priti will find it down the back of her sofa.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
I am of the opinion that when the government spends hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayer money it shouldn't be on a whim and should be supported with an assessment of the value it returns. Happy to hear from you why you don't think that is an appropriate approach.
It is important to do a cost/benefit analysis but the reality is there are no facts and no evidence about something that hasn't happened yet, and the costs/benefits of the existing system are also impossible to measure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
I think it's worth trying to do this if it reduces the demand to come to the UK illegally. I dont have an issue with that and see no better solutions coming forward apart from a general shrugging of shoulders.
What is frustrating is that people resort to tropes without actually considering it. So anything to try and reduce illegal immigration is just branded 'racist'. TBH, I think people are seeing through that argument now and realising it's bullshit. At the very least at least a Danish-Ethiopian from a centre left party endorsing the same policy should make it's detractors come up with better reasons to oppose it.
A serious question for you, do you consider migrants who arrive here illegally to be criminals or victims?Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
It's a good question. Both, but victims more. The main problem is that people have infiltrated this system to exploit it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
But if I just go to America and stay there and don't get my flight home, I wouldn't view myself as a criminal per se..but it doesn't mean I can just do it.
There are tough moral calls to be made here, no one denies that. But the country cannot take anyone who wants to come here and we cant have a system effectively run by people traffickers especially when it is a safe country they are coming from.
But by that reckoning you wouldnt take anybody, we are an island with 30+ safe countries one side of us and 2000 miles of sea the other. We processed far less applications than there were illegal crossings last year. Are you seriously suggesting a core principle of this new policy will be to take more refugees 'from source', will we heck.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
If they are victims of trafficking and, in the majority of cases, a genuine claimant then why would you punish them twice by not properly judging their case and then flying them to rwanda against their will. This isn't 'going after people traffickers' this is going after victims. Easy option /= best option.
Why are so many people with such strong cases crossing illegally? Often because the legal process is shite and slow.
I agree with you completely on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
However, I'm not sure I share your confidence that Labour would reverse the Rwandan Scheme if it was adopted - and supported by the right wing press. It may be illegal, immoral, impractical and ridiculously expensive, but Starmer & Co have an image to create and maintain. Has Tony Blair pronounced on it yet?
Of course we would still take refugees. Britain, like every western country, has a long history of it. It doesn't normally happen via inflated boats, even greater inflated prices all into the pockets of people smugglers. Thats the point. The UK has recently taken refugees from Afghanistan, Syria and Hong Kong in significant (maybe it should have been greater numbers) I dont believe our official policy was to subcontract it out to global gangs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
Both in my view, 90 % are male, of the 90%, 70% are single males .Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
David Blunkett said In 2002 the then Labour Home Secretary David Blunkett was saying that he had “no sympathy” with young asylum seekers from Kosovo or Afghanistan who come to Britain looking for work. He told members of Parliament, “If these people are dynamic and well-qualified, and I don’t dispute that they are, they should get back home and recreate their countries that we freed from tyranny, whether it be Kosovo or now Afghanistan.” In response to this type of rhetoric by 2004 the Refugee Council was saying that ministers were treating asylum seekers like criminals “contributing to public misunderstanding of refugees”.
Why do you have a problem with single males? Are only women and children allowed to suffer atrocities in their countries and find asylum elsewhere?Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
I wonder if the high percentage (you might want to share your source on that too) of single males that come here is due to them being best equipped to get out of their country, rather than being tied to a bunch of kids.
It's just a thought but on the other hand they're probably all just black rapists in your mind.
I simply don't believe they are all true refugees and it's disproportionate between the sexes .Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
We need a process that let's in real refugees not strong man who have other agendas and thousands of pounds to pay trafficking gangs.
Families are the real victims and true displaced refugees, and we should care for them as a priority , with women and children given a fairer and easier route , with single healthy males should be processed off shore to determine the true nature of their refugee status .
What percentage of the men do you think are "true refugees"?Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
What authority do you have to back up your bold opinion?
Send the home office your address and test it out offer up a room .Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
Or you could just answer the question but something tells me you don't want to as you can see how racist you're being.Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
It's ok. We knew that already.
PatheticQuote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
I'm not sure whats happened, but there have been zero reported crossings in the last 5 days, despite weather being okay. I struggle to believe talk of Rwanda or the responsibility passing to the MOD has had such an immediate impact :sherlock:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...-24-april-2022
The patriots on twitter think all it took was one mention of Rwanda. Seems suspicious to me too.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Indeed. I do think the policy could help reduce the amount of illegal immigration, deaths at sea and profits for people smugglers, so I support it on balance. But I don't see how it could have such a dramatic impact, so something seems strange.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
You don't think that they could be lying, do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
I'm not really one for conspiracy theories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
In this case, it would be pretty easy to debunk as a single verified photo from the last five days from any member of the public would do it.
Labour quiet on Rwandan solution ,very vocal on cakes and parties
I imagine your Rwandan solution is very similar to what happened in '94.Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
Perhaps a mixture of reasons , French upping thier game , the thought of Rwanda has the desired effect , the MOD are more efficient the Border Control , who knows ??Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
If it saves life's and provides better and safer entry procedures it will be seen as a result.
I just wish the folk who oppose such measures could provide a better clwar solution or policy that one could understand, rather than just offer criticism , that then allows the electorate to have a clear view of where each political party stands. Just saying its racist ,waste of money , unfair , against human rights, blame Brexit or Farage and evil right wingingers is weak and doesn't really provide a clear answer to an issue that has dominated political life for some time now even among Labour supporters there us division on the matter , hence the fence sitting or cheap racist remarks .
Rather distasteful comment that is unless you are referring to something other than the Rwandan genocide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
I was referring to him likely choosing Diana Ross to take the opening penalty of the USA World Cup.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Life on Mars seems happy to suggest that most male refugees are wrong-uns and literally said that he thinks most of them aren't "true refugees". I find that very distasteful.
Did you miss that comment or just choose to ignore it as he's been supporting the same policy and party as you?
From his comments he's clearly happy for them to remain in their home country where they could be murdered by the state they are trying to flee as they're not true refugees unless they managed to procreate.
He would have had any fleeing male Rwandans flown back there and any criticism or question of his statements would presumably result in him telling me to put one of them up in my non-existent spare room (got a house full, sorry Life on Mars) if I care enough.
Very distasteful if you ask me.
Except that's unlikely to be the case isn't it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
Wilfully misunderstanding someones point and just labelling them as racist, or in this case as someone supportive of genocide is quite a common debating tactic nowadays, but it's a disingenuous one.
There's an issue that needs solving that currently works for no-one (aside from criminal gangs). It clearly is not the best way to deal with people in need of help and it's not the best way for our country to operate an immigration policy.
People are allowed to say these things and discuss them without being accused of supporting genocide for goodness sake.
Willfully misunderstanding someone's point?Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Please save me the sanctimony.
I asked him to explain his point (thought I'd give him a chance so I didn't "willfully misunderstand" it) as it sounded horrific.
He couldn't answer as he likely knew how bad it sounded and didn't want to dig a deeper hole for himself. Instead he portrayed me as the villain as if I cared enough about them then I'd house a refugee.
Cyril has recently posted a list of Life on Mars' previous racist comments somewhere on here.
If you wish to defend him then maybe see who exactly it is you're defending and why his comments are transparent and not at all "willfully misunderstood".
A quick glance at his comments will make you wince (unless you agree with his views).
Perhaps Cyril can post them here again to save you the trouble of searching for them.
"People are allowed to say these things and discuss them without being accused of supporting genocide for goodness sake" :hehe:
Sorry Tito, I haven't read everything he has said, but if you are accusing people of supporting a genocide, I think you should do so with a far greater threshold of evidence than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
Like I said, distasteful and it does debase the debate IMO, sorry if thats sanctimony.
I didn't say to read "everything he's said". I doubt even Cyril has done that. I said to read his greatest hits that Cyril posted which shows that this person isn't someone with good intentions and has a history of disgusting racist comments that would support me believing he doesn't care about the refugee crisis.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
He thinks single male refugees aren't genuine and refused to answer why he thinks that. Sorry, if I've used his response and the comments I read from Cyril's post to come to the conclusion that this person is someone who would happily allow these men to remain in danger of imminent death.
No point discussing it further with you as it's only debasing the debate.
I think you know that accusing people of supporting mass genocide probably isn't a reasonable debate tbf.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente