I’d never heard of Pursglove before, so did some searching on twitter…
https://twitter.com/mikemcktfc/status/1514866400451571713?s=21
I guess he ought to be able to recognise a criminal gang when he sees one.
https://twitter.com/StevieVanZandt/status/1514828503312748544
He's my empty vessel of an MP...
And some other tweets that came up about that interview (go listen to it)…
https://twitter.com/hackneyabbott/status/1514875600841891849?s=21
https://twitter.com/carlbenfield/status/1514875355156430855?s=21
https://twitter.com/galaverna_gb/status/1514876188530991105?s=21
No it’s permanent. So if you are an Afghan who speaks English and has family in the UK you will be expected to live in Rwanda.
Basically people trafficking with an official Home Office stamp on it. It's indefensible, and will make more countries turn their backs on the UK. Good luck getting a US trade deal now.
This level of abusive populist bullshittery feels like the death spasm of a government that ran out of ideas and legitimacy years ago.
I had the misfortune to hear pursglove on R4 this morning.
That performance could in no way be described as an interview; his utter ignorance was appalling - refused to allow the interviewer to ask a question in full before resuming his outpouring of verbiage.
I recognised his name but didn't't know anything about him so did a bit of research into his background - he's a perfect fit for patel's department.
What an odious, ignorant, contemptible little shit.
Binners - I'm reporting you to the mods. Posting Life of Brian memes is tiresome, but posting pictures of Priti Vacant gurning away is utterly revolting.
Some interesting facts from the House of Commons Library:
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/
"Asylum seekers made up around 6% of immigrants to the UK in 2019."
Well that puts this apparently huge problem into some sort of perspective.
"The percentage of asylum applicants refused at initial decision reached its highest point at 88% in 2004. Since then, the refusal rate has been falling overall and was at 28%, its lowest point since 1990".
It's interesting, although not entirely surprising, that there was such a high refusal rate when Tony Blair was PM. I wonder if his allegedly human rights lawyer wife had anything to say on the matter.
"When compared with EU countries, the UK ranked 14th out of the individual countries in terms of the number of asylum applications per capita".
Fascinating. Who would have thought it?
practicality of this back of a fag packet policy.
Just pity the poor civil servants. If you think you're having a shit day at work, remember that it is someone's job to implement this quarter-witted policy.
And when the cost of it escalates… they’ll get the blame.
EDIT: Oh, more importantly, when the faceless bureaucracy destroys lives, the civil servants will be blamed for that. I for one am sick of the Home Office and what was the FCO getting blamed for “failures” by Conservative politicians when they are operating policies designed to be heartless and damaging by Conservative politicans.
Since then, the refusal rate has been falling
Is that not partly because it has become much harder to apply? You can’t get here to apply, routes have been closed. You can’t jump through the hoops put in place to apply while outside the country.
TBH I think the new policy could be extended to anyone that dares question the goverment 🙂
May as well go all in if your going to go this route.
The actual policy is cobblers.
Surely this is a way of distracting from fines, failings and lies?
Operation save big dog lives on.
Just pity the poor civil servants. If you think you’re having a shit day at work, remember that it is someone’s job to implement this quarter-witted policy.
Thanks for that
when the faceless bureaucracy destroys lives, the civil servants will be blamed for that. I for one am sick of the Home Office and what was the FCO getting blamed for “failures” by Conservative politicians when they are operating policies designed to be heartless and damaging by Conservative politicans
And that.
Surely this is a way of distracting from fines, failings and lies?
Yep but won’t stop them trying it.
Bit like banging on about fishing rather than securing the financial service side, gets some people excited and let’s the clown circus roll on.
Is that not partly because it has become much harder to apply?
How does that affect the refusal percentage?
Are you suggesting that in 2004 88% of asylum application were indeed spurious? That is certainly a criticism levelled at asylum seekers - that they are on fact simply economic migrants. Although due to government policies in 2004 I think it is fair to say that there was very likely a significant increase in war refugees.
If you have to get past high hurdles to even apply (ie get into the UK or navigate any of the restrictive schemes that are supposed to let people apply on route from war zones), it already filters out many people lacking the paperwork and/or help to get their applications completed and accepted first time without the need for further submissions or an appeal.
So you think 88% of asylum claims made in 2004 were indeed false?
Well I guess it is possible but I am suspicious as it's generally an accusation made by right-wingers who are hostile towards asylum seekers, ie, "they are simply economic migrants trying to avoid the proper process".
Would we believe the same claim made by a Tory government? Especially at a time when many English speaking refugees are trying to flee war zones?
So you think 88% of asylum claims made in 2004 were indeed false?
No. I absolutely don’t. Read my words rather than making something else up.
I haven't got a clue what the hell you are talking about mate. You seem to be all over the place.
I point out that in 2004 88% of asylum claims were rejected. You came out with some excuse that it was easier to claim asylum then. So I ask you if you thought 88% were indeed false claims, you now say absolutely not and accuse me of making something up.
What is actually your point? Or is this just your irresistible urge to argue with me for the sake of it, and there is no point?
ernie and kelvin, boys - why not continue your spat offline as no-one is interested.
Is that not partly because it has become much harder to apply? You can’t get here to apply, routes have been closed.
We can see that clearly from the problems the Ukrainian refugees are facing. There was just no system set up to quickly deal with people claiming refugee or asylum status.
Now if this is the case for Ukrainians. Think how bad it must be/been for others over the past several years fleeing the proxy wars of the middle east and north Africa.
This is why they have been risking their lives to cross the channel in unsafe rubber dinghies. Simply because there was no other choice and the entire system has been designed this way to make claiming asylum as difficult as possible.
I have only read / scanned the first few posts.
I am not here to reject/accept whatever the migrants are doing, if they get through all the best to them but if not it must be heart breaking. Life is hard so good luck to them for seeking a safer better life.
Regardless, my view is that why do they want to choose UK? I am not here to discourage them coming to the UK but what does UK offer that other rich EU countries cannot (excluding former eastern block)?
If I could turn back the clock I would go to Sweden or Norway in an instant rather than UK because of the space, land and fewer people there.
But since I cannot speak Swedish/Norwegian my only choice is UK. Can't stand USA. However, I did consider Canada and Australia but for some reasons my qualifications are much more compatible with UK so ended up here. In fact at one point I would go to any of the EU countries if they would accept me for education.
If they come with nothing (qualification etc) it will take them at least 20 years of hard work to reach a level of financial stability. I mean really hard.
I spent 20 years just to earn a proper living and by that time I have already aged. Time passed very quickly. It was uphill for 20 years and never stopped.
Seriously, if they asked me for advice I would tell to them go to any of the EU countries to settle down as quickly as possible. Establish themselves there and have peace of mind, then their children can decide where they want to go.
p/s: even people from HK find it a bit challenging but since they come from a "pressure cooker" place with very strong work ethics, UK is a bit relax for them. Even so many are just relying on their saving to survive while doing odd jobs.
^^Credit where it's due, good, interesting post.
Regardless, my view is that why do they want to choose UK?
I think your reasons are perfectly valid for others wanting the UK over other destinations. Plus family connections.
Also, most do go to other destinations, the idea that all assylum seakers are desperate to get here is false, but suits the Tories cruel agenda.
Seriously, if they asked me for advice I would tell to them go to any of the EU countries to settle down as quickly as possible.
Given the current situation, this is going to sound odd, but most European countries bar a few notable exceptions are much much worse than the UK.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RwandaGov/status/1514578499452997633
Sounds good :
by tackling global inequalities of opportunity that drive economic migrants to leave their countries.
Except that people fleeing persecution or war are not necessarily "economic migrants". The term is deliberately used to suggest that they are less deserving.
And then there's this:
During the review, countries across all regions called on Rwanda to end torture and ill-treatment, and investigate cases of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detention, and deaths in custody.
Several countries also said that Rwanda should protect marginalized groups, such as children living on the streets, and ensure that they are not subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention, including in “transit” centers.
"Rwandan authorities need to go beyond empty promises and deflection to address the country’s human rights problems"
https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/02/01/un-countries-call-out-rwandas-rights-record
Except that people fleeing persecution or war are not necessarily “economic migrants”. The term is deliberately used to suggest that they are less deserving.
Yes, not all are economic migrants but there is nothing wrong with economic migrants as well so long as they can beat the system fairly.
Having said that time is not on their side if they wish to make a good living (especially economic migrants generally speaking.) and will probably takes 10 years to settle down (20 years to work like the "locals"). Then 2 to 3 generations to properly settle down to a meaningful life.
Anyway, I am just comparing my observation of HK migrants to UK and the way to cope with the changes.
Seriously, if they asked me for advice I would tell to them go to any of the EU countries to settle down as quickly as possible. Establish themselves there and have peace of mind, then their children can decide where they want to go.
If I could turn back the clock I would go to Sweden or Norway in an instant rather than UK because of the space, land and fewer people there.
I was talking to a migrant family who settled in Sweden and expressed surprise that they left there for the UK since I’d rather live in Sweden, but the racism they were subject to made them leave for the more multi-cultural UK.
That sounds like a good scheme.
That sounds like a good scheme.
As opposed to the scheme we are proposing.
Yep that does sound like a worthwhile scheme
Nothing like the monstrosity Patel was desperately struggling to explain today
Why is it a better scheme, what is good about it?
I can't see much difference with Patel's proposal other than asylum seekers in detention centres in Libya will be flown directly to Rwanda, rather than being flown from the EU.
And aren't these asylum seekers only in detention centres in Libya because of the EU anyway?
European Union (EU) migration cooperation with Libya is contributing to a cycle of extreme abuse. The EU is providing support to the Libyan Coast Guard to enable it to intercept migrants and asylum seekers at sea after which they take them back to Libya to arbitrary detention, where they face inhuman and degrading conditions and the risk of torture, sexual violence, extortion, and forced labor.
https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/01/21/no-escape-hell/eu-policies-contribute-abuse-migrants-libya
This bit could have come straight out of Priti Patel's mouth :
EU policy-makers and leaders justify this focus as a political and practical necessity to assert control over Europe’s external borders and “break the business model of smugglers,” as well as a humanitarian imperative to prevent dangerous boat migration.
The excuses and words used are exactly the same as the current Tory administration. They don't want them in the EU and they are prepared to spend £millions to keep them out.
It's a ****ing disgrace.
I can’t see much difference with Patel’s proposal other than asylum seekers in detention centres in Libya will be flown directly to Rwanda, rather than being flown from the EU.
Well, there’s one big difference for you, to start with. But I don’t have the inclination to argue with you, the time isn’t well spent, see it how you wish.
But I don’t have the inclination to argue with you
If only that represented a new attitude on your part. However we both know the truth is that you can't explain why it "sounds like a good scheme".
Forcing desperate refugees into appalling detention centres in Libya is a disgraceful policy. Flying them to Rwanda won't somehow exonerate that policy.
It seems that you don't have a problem with sending asylum seekers to Rwanda, you just have a problem with a Tory government doing it.
I have a problem with anyone doing it. Europe has a population of 500 million people, it can easily cope with the refugees, which are numbered in their thousands, typically fleeing wars started or fuelled by European countries.
Between January and June 2021, the EU-backed Libyan coastguards intercepted around 15,000 people at sea and returned them to Libya – more than in all of 2020 – during what they describe as “rescue” missions.
Fresh evidence of harrowing violations, including sexual violence, against men, women and children intercepted while crossing the Mediterranean Sea and forcibly returned to detention centres in Libya, highlights the horrifying consequences of Europe’s ongoing cooperation with Libya on migration and border control, said Amnesty International in a report published today.
You can say it “seems” all you want, but your words do not reflect my own words, or my thoughts.
These are your words :
kelvin Full Member
That sounds like a good scheme.Posted 10 hours ago
I stand by those words, but not the ones you are trying to put in my mouth. Express your own opinions and stop assigning things to me I haven’t said.
Yep, still very happy to argue. You are just not prepared to explain why "that sounds like a good scheme", which is understandable.
Sounds like a rubbish scheme to me. As does Priti Patel's proposal.
Getting people out of the Libya camps is necessary. The scheme linked to above seems a sound way to help achieve that. I do not support sending back boats in the Med any more that I support sending asylum-seekers from the UK to any other countries and denying them the right to apply for asylum in the UK. From now on, please state your own views and stop trying to put words in the mouths of others.
Asking why it "sounds like a good scheme" does not constitute putting words in the mouth of others.
Nor does saying "It seems that you don’t have a problem with sending asylum seekers to Rwanda". Something which you have just confirmed with this comment:
Getting people out of the Libya camps is necessary. The scheme linked to above seems a sound way to help achieve that.
Priti Patel could claim that her policy is exactly the same except for the horrific detention centres in Libya.
Priti Patel could claim that her policy is exactly the same except for the horrific detention centres in Libya.
UNHCR and others have been using EU funding to remove refugees from Libyan camps to Niger for years now (at least 2018 I think) Libya has no immigration laws, and no refugee status laws, and their resettlement centres are horrific, Mostly these folks are then returned to their home countries, although I think teeny numbers have ended up in Italy. I'd rather see legal routes for both immigration or asylum seekers, but anything that helps remove folks from the applaing system in Libya is to be welcomed and that includes (in my opinion at least) the risk of the sea crossing.
It's fair to say that in comparison to almost any country in the EU (bar a couple of notable exceptions) UK citizens have a more understanding position towards both immigrants and asylum seekers - as hard as that may to believe.
