Skip to main content


Right, let's see if all those who bitched and moaned about #Rwanda complain with the same outrage over this?
#DoubleStandards
theguardian.com/society/articl…

dick_turpin reshared this.

in reply to dick_turpin

I suppose I should be grateful. They've given me a future of five years of things to bitch about. 🤣
in reply to dick_turpin

I'm pretty outraged over it but not nearly as much as I was outraged over the Rwanda plan.

1) This is for convicted criminals who have already had due-process and court etc.
2) They get to come back after the sentence, it's only temporary.
3) It's not a different continent.

Would definitely be better to just pay to have enough prisons here, or maybe legalize protest and stop locking up innocent drug users.

in reply to dick_turpin

I thought the argument was that this was no way to treat human beings?

Anyone whose asylum claim was successful could've "Come back".

Not sure what the continent has to do with it? A flight is a flight regardless of the destination. A room is a room regardless of where it is.

The whole point of the Rwanda deal wasn't anything to do with shipping people out there; it was to scare the shit out of people to stop them coming. Three or four flights and the government would have been able to suspend the transfers. 🤷‍♂️

in reply to dick_turpin

Anyone whose asylum claim was successful could've "Come back".


Nope, that wasn't the policy. The policy was announced as "process them abroad" but when written was "process them as refugees there, to stay there or go back where they came from"

It was indeed designed and sold as a deterrent, which can't possibly work because refugees fleeing war in Afghanistan don't even know the immigration policy of the UK, they barely even know Only Fools And Horses.

I think distance does matter, but not enough to argue over. I was thinking more of the psychological distance for the victim of the government-sponsored human-traficking, rather than fuel costs.

It's all deplorable, but "serve your sentence abroad" is overall better than "we transfer your asylum application to the other side of the world you are never welcome here again"

in reply to Adam Dalliance

See, that is the greatest lie of the 21st century. While some of the initial countries, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and possibly even Turkey, might be a bit dangerous for them, you can't possibly believe Hungary, Austria, Italy, Switzerland, and France or Germany, Belgium, and France are not "Safe Countries" for a fleeing Afghan?

I watched a programme the other day documenting how numerous towns across Italy are welcoming migrants in the hope of reanimating dead towns and villages. Yet, thousands ignore that option and race for Calais.

While many migrants may have family in the UK, that doesn't mean they get an automatic right to come here. It is obvious why Britain is the destination of choice. I wonder what would happen if the welfare state was abolished?

in reply to dick_turpin

I didn't say anything about the safety of those countries.

Are you under the impression that there's some international rule saying people fleeing war have to stop at the first safe place they come to?

That rule doesn't exist, and it would be madness if it did, forcing the fleeing population to bunch up on the borders instead of spreading out around the world.

Scotland also wants immigrants, the UK is in dire need of immigrants because the population is old and retiring.

Most immigrants don't pick the UK, and those that do usually do so because of the language I suspect. That and Only Fools And Horses.

If they are under the impression we have a particularly generous welfare state they soon find they are mistaken.