Stop voting for fucking Tories

[dpedin]

Rwanda

What with the shambles in taking in Ukranian refugees and now this
Makes you proud to be British

I am Welsh.
I don't consider myself British a bit like most Ukranians not considering themselves Russian

Ditto - I am Scottish. More seriously though this Little England nationalism is going to break up the UK very soon, very few folk up here want to be associated with this shit show of a PM and his evil crew. Even the Scottish Tories shrink away at his name. FFS he won't even show his face in public up here, afraid of the reception he would get.

[petej]

These people.

The UK moves beyond dumping its toxic waste onto 3rd world countries to dumping its "waste" human beings in a similar manner. This has shades of when the UK decided it was going to create a homeland for the Jews............ in Uganda.

And then you have this c**t
https://news.sky.com/story/tory-mp-crit ... s-12589153

There are over 300 Tory mps but it is always the same 50-60 or so morons who get on the news

[Paddington Bear]

These people.

The UK moves beyond dumping its toxic waste onto 3rd world countries to dumping its "waste" human beings in a similar manner. This has shades of when the UK decided it was going to create a homeland for the Jews............ in Uganda.

And then you have this c**t
https://news.sky.com/story/tory-mp-crit ... s-12589153

There are over 300 Tory mps but it is always the same 50-60 or so morons who get on the news

I suspect this is no accident - if you're a decent backbench MP with no massive ministerial ambitions why would you want to go on TV all the time?

Related to why Fabricant is always on TV - I know a few people talk of the 'Toby Young rule'. I.e. Toby Young is always on TV because when producers ring round for commentators he always says yes regardless of expertise, whereas a lot of people with perhaps more interesting things to say will say no unless they are confident they know the subject well.

[Raggs]

These people.

The UK moves beyond dumping its toxic waste onto 3rd world countries to dumping its "waste" human beings in a similar manner. This has shades of when the UK decided it was going to create a homeland for the Jews............ in Uganda.

And then you have this c**t
https://news.sky.com/story/tory-mp-crit ... s-12589153

There are over 300 Tory mps but it is always the same 50-60 or so morons who get on the news

I suspect this is no accident - if you're a decent backbench MP with no massive ministerial ambitions why would you want to go on TV all the time?

Related to why Fabricant is always on TV - I know a few people talk of the 'Toby Young rule'. I.e. Toby Young is always on TV because when producers ring round for commentators he always says yes regardless of expertise, whereas a lot of people with perhaps more interesting things to say will say no unless they are confident they know the subject well.

If people know your name, I'd guess you're more likely to get voted for bigger jobs than if no one knows your name.

[petej]

There are over 300 Tory mps but it is always the same 50-60 or so morons who get on the news

I suspect this is no accident - if you're a decent backbench MP with no massive ministerial ambitions why would you want to go on TV all the time?

Related to why Fabricant is always on TV - I know a few people talk of the 'Toby Young rule'. I.e. Toby Young is always on TV because when producers ring round for commentators he always says yes regardless of expertise, whereas a lot of people with perhaps more interesting things to say will say no unless they are confident they know the subject well.

If people know your name, I'd guess you're more likely to get voted for bigger jobs than if no one knows your name.

But less likely to be capable of doing those jobs.

[sockwithaticket]

Bet you will still vote Tory again

Without a doubt! Least worst option!!

Although I’ve never voted Tory and usually either spoil my vote or give it to one of the smaller parties, I’d usually have that thought in my mind.

But don’t you think that’s a bit difficult to back up now given Brexit, the constant lying, partygate, offshore, refugees, and on and on and on. It’s just a bit of a lazy statement now, this feels a bit unprecedented in terms of a really shit government taking us in a very wrong direction

Sadly there are many who think like OS. I can't understand it. The idea that Labour or the Lib Dems could possibly be worse than this shower of bumbling cunts just doesn't compute. It's a fantasy the voter base cling to in order to justify continually voting against their personal interests and those of the country as a whole I guess.

[Tichtheid]

Without a doubt! Least worst option!!

Although I’ve never voted Tory and usually either spoil my vote or give it to one of the smaller parties, I’d usually have that thought in my mind.

But don’t you think that’s a bit difficult to back up now given Brexit, the constant lying, partygate, offshore, refugees, and on and on and on. It’s just a bit of a lazy statement now, this feels a bit unprecedented in terms of a really shit government taking us in a very wrong direction

Sadly there are many who think like OS. I can't understand it. The idea that Labour or the Lib Dems could possibly be worse than this shower of bumbling cunts just doesn't compute. It's a fantasy the voter base cling to in order to justify continually voting against their personal interests and those of the country as a whole I guess.

This is what this bunch of crooks, spivs, liars and charlatans rely on, they know that a budgie in a blue rosette would get the votes they need. That is why that creature Rees Mogg harps on about “one great, large, independent body that judges whether what is done is right or wrong and that’s the British people”.

They can do whatever the fuck they want because they know that if they can con 40% of the voters they will gain a large majority and keep getting away with it.

I don't think the term "bumbling" is appropriate by the way, it implies incompetence, I think they've been quite good at achieving their objectives, the Tories almost always are.

[Torquemada 1420]

Rwanda!

This must be the biggest deadest cat bounce ever!

This shameful, disgusting Gov will do anything to deflect attention from the criminal acts perpetrated by our PM, Chancellor and the rest of No10. This is in effect a clarion call to all the jingoistic xenophobes, racists and right wing ultras, a declaration that their nazi policies are safe in the hands of the current Gov and that they will do anything they ask for to get their vote. Already they are out on the media trying to justify breaking international law and conventions. I wonder how many white male asylum seekers will get sent to Rwanda. I honestly can't tell you how utterly disgusted I am with this bunch of cunts, and I use that word advisedly!

Maybe we should have done an exchange program with the Ukraine.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Without a doubt! Least worst option!!

Although I’ve never voted Tory and usually either spoil my vote or give it to one of the smaller parties, I’d usually have that thought in my mind.

But don’t you think that’s a bit difficult to back up now given Brexit, the constant lying, partygate, offshore, refugees, and on and on and on. It’s just a bit of a lazy statement now, this feels a bit unprecedented in terms of a really shit government taking us in a very wrong direction

Sadly there are many who think like OS. I can't understand it. The idea that Labour or the Lib Dems could possibly be worse than this shower of bumbling cunts just doesn't compute. It's a fantasy the voter base cling to in order to justify continually voting against their personal interests and those of the country as a whole I guess.

Labour and the Lib Dems will come across to many as not merely being worse but much worse because of there alignment with those who label woman as cadavers with fuckholes.

[Tichtheid]

Labour and the Lib Dems will come across to many as not merely being worse but much worse because of there alignment with those who label woman as cadavers with fuckholes.

Who did this?

I didn't want to google the phrase, but I did and it came up with no matches, thankfully.

[sockwithaticket]

Although I’ve never voted Tory and usually either spoil my vote or give it to one of the smaller parties, I’d usually have that thought in my mind.

But don’t you think that’s a bit difficult to back up now given Brexit, the constant lying, partygate, offshore, refugees, and on and on and on. It’s just a bit of a lazy statement now, this feels a bit unprecedented in terms of a really shit government taking us in a very wrong direction

Sadly there are many who think like OS. I can't understand it. The idea that Labour or the Lib Dems could possibly be worse than this shower of bumbling cunts just doesn't compute. It's a fantasy the voter base cling to in order to justify continually voting against their personal interests and those of the country as a whole I guess.

This is what this bunch of crooks, spivs, liars and charlatans rely on, they know that a budgie in a blue rosette would get the votes they need. That is why that creature Rees Mogg harps on about “one great, large, independent body that judges whether what is done is right or wrong and that’s the British people”.

They can do whatever the fuck they want because they know that if they can con 40% of the voters they will gain a large majority and keep getting away with it.

I don't think the term "bumbling" is appropriate by the way, it implies incompetence, I think they've been quite good at achieving their objectives, the Tories almost always are.

True, it's a mistake to think that most, if not all, of the ill effects we experience as a result of Tory policy are anything other than intended. The objectives are just incomprehensible to anyone who wants functional public services and an economy that works for society rather than against it.Though there is certainly incompetence around, the likes of Raab, Truss, Johnson and Grayling certainly fit the descriptor.

[sockwithaticket]

Labour and the Lib Dems will come across to many as not merely being worse but much worse because of there alignment with those who label woman as cadavers with fuckholes.

Who did this?

I didn't want to google the phrase, but I did and it came up with no matches, thankfully.

I can only imagine its a jab at the trans policy of one or t'other and how they've somehow found themselves backing a particularly radical TRA with some nasty, misogynist views, but I can't say anything springs to mind.

[Tichtheid]

True, it's a mistake to think that most, if not all, of the ill effects we experience as a result of Tory policy are anything other than intended. The objectives are just incomprehensible to anyone who wants functional public services and an economy that works for society rather than against it.Though there is certainly incompetence around, the likes of Raab, Truss, Johnson and Grayling certainly fit the descriptor.

I wonder if those mentioned are useful idiots, rather than incompetents? Johnson's image is entirely manufactured and he is a shite PM, so I'm torn on which is a better descriptor.

On public services,
"That’s the standard technique of privatization: defund, make sure things don’t work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital."
Noam Chomsky,

[sockwithaticket]

True, it's a mistake to think that most, if not all, of the ill effects we experience as a result of Tory policy are anything other than intended. The objectives are just incomprehensible to anyone who wants functional public services and an economy that works for society rather than against it.Though there is certainly incompetence around, the likes of Raab, Truss, Johnson and Grayling certainly fit the descriptor.

I wonder if those mentioned are useful idiots, rather than incompetents? Johnson's image is entirely manufactured and he is a shite PM, so I'm torn on which is a better descriptor.

On public services,
"That’s the standard technique of privatization: defund, make sure things don’t work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital."
Noam Chomsky,

Oh yeah we are fully in the throes of that process. When I say incomprehensible I mean I can't understand why anyone would think giving money to private capital is preferable to having things like the NHS and our rail network being run by the state with the benefit to the populace first and foremost in their design. My brain just doesn't go to a place where rewarding shareholders and maybe getting a place on a board somewhere is more important. The justification is often that the state is subject to gross inefficiency and needs the business minded to run it properly, but all we ever seem to get are spiralling costs and deterioration of service when things are placed into the hands of the market.

[Tichtheid]

True, it's a mistake to think that most, if not all, of the ill effects we experience as a result of Tory policy are anything other than intended. The objectives are just incomprehensible to anyone who wants functional public services and an economy that works for society rather than against it.Though there is certainly incompetence around, the likes of Raab, Truss, Johnson and Grayling certainly fit the descriptor.

I wonder if those mentioned are useful idiots, rather than incompetents? Johnson's image is entirely manufactured and he is a shite PM, so I'm torn on which is a better descriptor.

On public services,
"That’s the standard technique of privatization: defund, make sure things don’t work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital."
Noam Chomsky,

Oh yeah we are fully in the throes of that process. When I say incomprehensible I mean I can't understand why anyone would think giving money to private capital is preferable to having things like the NHS and our rail network being run by the state with the benefit to the populace first and foremost in their design. My brain just doesn't go to a place where rewarding shareholders and maybe getting a place on a board somewhere is more important. The justification is often that the state is subject to gross inefficiency and needs the business minded to run it properly, but all we ever seem to get are spiralling costs and deterioration of service when things are placed into the hands of the market.

I agree, and it's fucking laughable in the most gallows humour way when you see rail and energy privatised here and sold off to be run by French, German and Italian state-owned companies

[sockwithaticket]

I wonder if those mentioned are useful idiots, rather than incompetents? Johnson's image is entirely manufactured and he is a shite PM, so I'm torn on which is a better descriptor.

On public services,
"That’s the standard technique of privatization: defund, make sure things don’t work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital."
Noam Chomsky,

Oh yeah we are fully in the throes of that process. When I say incomprehensible I mean I can't understand why anyone would think giving money to private capital is preferable to having things like the NHS and our rail network being run by the state with the benefit to the populace first and foremost in their design. My brain just doesn't go to a place where rewarding shareholders and maybe getting a place on a board somewhere is more important. The justification is often that the state is subject to gross inefficiency and needs the business minded to run it properly, but all we ever seem to get are spiralling costs and deterioration of service when things are placed into the hands of the market.

I agree, and it's fucking laughable in the most gallows humour way when you see rail and energy privatised here and sold off to be run by French, German and Italian state-owned companies

I managed to successfull de-Tory my dad in the run up to Brexit and pointing this out to him was a big help.

[petej]

True, it's a mistake to think that most, if not all, of the ill effects we experience as a result of Tory policy are anything other than intended. The objectives are just incomprehensible to anyone who wants functional public services and an economy that works for society rather than against it.Though there is certainly incompetence around, the likes of Raab, Truss, Johnson and Grayling certainly fit the descriptor.

I wonder if those mentioned are useful idiots, rather than incompetents? Johnson's image is entirely manufactured and he is a shite PM, so I'm torn on which is a better descriptor.

On public services,
"That’s the standard technique of privatization: defund, make sure things don’t work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital."
Noam Chomsky,

Both. They are usefully detached from reality with a distinct ideology which leads to them being incompetent.

[I like neeps]

The gasps are the producers realising the BBC will be sold off to the next rapacious capitalist for spare and revenues when mad Nad sees it.

That’s more Partridge than Partridge

The delivery isn't great... It's the shocked reactions I found funny.

[I like neeps]

According to an FT journo:

Three points on Rwanda policy.
1) Last year Australia spent £461m to process 239 asylum seekers offshore
2) The UK is spending £120m
3) 600 people crossed the Channel on Wednesday

So either this is a stunt, to deter and ease political pressure or a lot more money will be needed

This isn't happening. It's pure paper bate.

[_Os_]

If someone flees Rwanda (the Rwandan government has a habit of pursuing and killing opposition activists even after they go into exile in foreign countries) and they illegally enter the UK, will they be deported to Rwanda?

If someone flees the eastern part of the DRC because of Rwanda funded/trained/commanded rebels (something the Rwandan government seems committed to for a number of reasons), and they illegally enter the UK will they be deported to Rwanda?

Then there's the two ongoing wars Rwanda is involved in. In the CAR war, Rwandan government troops and Rwandan mercenaries (DRC rebels that are really just Rwandan forces) are on the same side as Russia's Wagner group (which is also the government and UN side, this gets complicated), the Russians have been accused by the UN and others of among other things indiscriminate killing of civilians/looting/sexual assault/slavery, the Russians and Rwandans work together quite a bit in military operations there.

There's going to be situations where people that have had their lives totally destroyed by Rwanda, could be deported to Rwanda. If they're again persecuted in Rwanda, that's going to be a massive court case in the UK because the UK will be party to their suffering.

[Slick]

According to an FT journo:

Three points on Rwanda policy.
1) Last year Australia spent £461m to process 239 asylum seekers offshore
2) The UK is spending £120m
3) 600 people crossed the Channel on Wednesday

So either this is a stunt, to deter and ease political pressure or a lot more money will be needed

This isn't happening. It's pure paper bate.

I just read that they have secured 50 hotel rooms for the project….

Reading some comments it’s various places it’s not a hugely unpopular plan

[I like neeps]

According to an FT journo:

Three points on Rwanda policy.
1) Last year Australia spent £461m to process 239 asylum seekers offshore
2) The UK is spending £120m
3) 600 people crossed the Channel on Wednesday

So either this is a stunt, to deter and ease political pressure or a lot more money will be needed

This isn't happening. It's pure paper bate.

I just read that they have secured 50 hotel rooms for the project….

Reading some comments it’s various places it’s not a hugely unpopular plan

It's a great publicity stunt for their clapping seals in the papers. 120m isn't much for a government which shows how serious the plan actually is.

[_Os_]

According to an FT journo:

Three points on Rwanda policy.
1) Last year Australia spent £461m to process 239 asylum seekers offshore
2) The UK is spending £120m
3) 600 people crossed the Channel on Wednesday

So either this is a stunt, to deter and ease political pressure or a lot more money will be needed

This isn't happening. It's pure paper bate.

I can see it happening.

There's been other countries the UK have tried to do this with. Albania and Ghana from memory, the UK government jumped the gun both times and were publicly told to fuck off by those countries (that were probably just nodding along to the crazy plans in private, with no intention of committing to anything).

Rwanda isn't like Ghana. Ghana is a democracy that has a turnover of parties and presidents. Rwanda isn't like that, it's an authoritarian dictatorship with an incredibly thin veneer of democracy, this is different to a flawed democracy with a low/no turnover of parties and/or presidents, it's a completely potemkin "democracy" where no democracy exists. Rwanda is ruled by the 10% Tutsi minority, as in the president for the last 22 years is a Tutsi (with 99% of the vote in presidential elections), the ruling party is Tutsi dominated, affirmative action works to benefit Tutsis (in government jobs and university places etc), the rebel groups Rwanda backs in the DRC are always Tutsi. It's a Tutsi junta.

Such a regime needs to find credibility and countries willing to support it. They've struggled fining this in Africa, this goes all the way back to their role in the Second Congo War. So they need outside support if the Hutus ever come for them again (which given enough time, they will, because the whole Tutsi junta thing). What this scheme gives Rwanda, is a binding of the UK to Rwanda for potentially a long period of time, which really means the UK supporting a minority Tutsi regime and helping to impose that on Hutus. It would be the type of colonial arrangement Tutsis have historically been keen on, to cement their power over the majority.

I expect the refugees will just be dumped in Rwanda without any support, hostile environment style. There's little prospect of an outsider integrating into Rwanda, where most of the opportunities in the tiny economy are monopolised by the Tutsi minority. The refugees will then have to take their chances traveling elsewhere, probably to big Kenyan or SA cities. It wouldn't be surprising if the Rwandans assisted them in doing this, especially if they can be directed at states not that supportive of Rwanda (larger democracies like Kenya or SA then). They'll then likely try and travel from there to elsewhere outside Africa.

I can see any support for the UK and the Commonwealth (massively) declining in any nation impacted by this.

[dpedin]

According to an FT journo:

Three points on Rwanda policy.
1) Last year Australia spent £461m to process 239 asylum seekers offshore
2) The UK is spending £120m
3) 600 people crossed the Channel on Wednesday

So either this is a stunt, to deter and ease political pressure or a lot more money will be needed

This isn't happening. It's pure paper bate.

I can see it happening.

There's been other countries the UK have tried to do this with. Albania and Ghana from memory, the UK government jumped the gun both times and were publicly told to fuck off by those countries (that were probably just nodding along to the crazy plans in private, with no intention of committing to anything).

Rwanda isn't like Ghana. Ghana is a democracy that has a turnover of parties and presidents. Rwanda isn't like that, it's an authoritarian dictatorship with an incredibly thin veneer of democracy, this is different to a flawed democracy with a low/no turnover of parties and/or presidents, it's a completely potemkin "democracy" where no democracy exists. Rwanda is ruled by the 10% Tutsi minority, as in the president for the last 22 years is a Tutsi (with 99% of the vote in presidential elections), the ruling party is Tutsi dominated, affirmative action works to benefit Tutsis (in government jobs and university places etc), the rebel groups Rwanda backs in the DRC are always Tutsi. It's a Tutsi junta.

Such a regime needs to find credibility and countries willing to support it. They've struggled fining this in Africa, this goes all the way back to their role in the Second Congo War. So they need outside support if the Hutus ever come for them again (which given enough time, they will, because the whole Tutsi junta thing). What this scheme gives Rwanda, is a binding of the UK to Rwanda for potentially a long period of time, which really means the UK supporting a minority Tutsi regime and helping to impose that on Hutus. It would be the type of colonial arrangement Tutsis have historically been keen on, to cement their power over the majority.

I expect the refugees will just be dumped in Rwanda without any support, hostile environment style. There's little prospect of an outsider integrating into Rwanda, where most of the opportunities in the tiny economy are monopolised by the Tutsi minority. The refugees will then have to take their chances traveling elsewhere, probably to big Kenyan or SA cities. It wouldn't be surprising if the Rwandans assisted them in doing this, especially if they can be directed at states not that supportive of Rwanda (larger democracies like Kenya or SA then). They'll then likely try and travel from there to elsewhere outside Africa.

I can see any support for the UK and the Commonwealth (massively) declining in any nation impacted by this.

Os - thanks for this background, very illuminating but also very, very worrying. This merely confirms my worst fears about this move for the asylum seekers arriving in the UK. It is astonishingly dangerous for both the individuals affected and for the UK going forward. It also proves to me the callousness and racist nature of this Gov and in Petty Patel we have a very, very dangerous sociopath in one of the highest offices of the land. She truly is our very own Eichmann, and I don't say that lightly.

Even if it is just a wee distraction for the No10 criminality, and it is interesting how the announcement has been rushed through to take the heat of the Blonde Bumblecunt and to stir up the racists prior to the local elections, and doesn't get off the ground it shows just how low they will go to retain power. I suspect they will go a lot lot lower if required. Brace yourself guys.

[Paddington Bear]

IIRC Rwanda already does this for Denmark?

[I like neeps]

According to an FT journo:

Three points on Rwanda policy.
1) Last year Australia spent £461m to process 239 asylum seekers offshore
2) The UK is spending £120m
3) 600 people crossed the Channel on Wednesday

So either this is a stunt, to deter and ease political pressure or a lot more money will be needed

This isn't happening. It's pure paper bate.

I can see it happening.

There's been other countries the UK have tried to do this with. Albania and Ghana from memory, the UK government jumped the gun both times and were publicly told to fuck off by those countries (that were probably just nodding along to the crazy plans in private, with no intention of committing to anything).

Rwanda isn't like Ghana. Ghana is a democracy that has a turnover of parties and presidents. Rwanda isn't like that, it's an authoritarian dictatorship with an incredibly thin veneer of democracy, this is different to a flawed democracy with a low/no turnover of parties and/or presidents, it's a completely potemkin "democracy" where no democracy exists. Rwanda is ruled by the 10% Tutsi minority, as in the president for the last 22 years is a Tutsi (with 99% of the vote in presidential elections), the ruling party is Tutsi dominated, affirmative action works to benefit Tutsis (in government jobs and university places etc), the rebel groups Rwanda backs in the DRC are always Tutsi. It's a Tutsi junta.

Such a regime needs to find credibility and countries willing to support it. They've struggled fining this in Africa, this goes all the way back to their role in the Second Congo War. So they need outside support if the Hutus ever come for them again (which given enough time, they will, because the whole Tutsi junta thing). What this scheme gives Rwanda, is a binding of the UK to Rwanda for potentially a long period of time, which really means the UK supporting a minority Tutsi regime and helping to impose that on Hutus. It would be the type of colonial arrangement Tutsis have historically been keen on, to cement their power over the majority.

I expect the refugees will just be dumped in Rwanda without any support, hostile environment style. There's little prospect of an outsider integrating into Rwanda, where most of the opportunities in the tiny economy are monopolised by the Tutsi minority. The refugees will then have to take their chances traveling elsewhere, probably to big Kenyan or SA cities. It wouldn't be surprising if the Rwandans assisted them in doing this, especially if they can be directed at states not that supportive of Rwanda (larger democracies like Kenya or SA then). They'll then likely try and travel from there to elsewhere outside Africa.

I can see any support for the UK and the Commonwealth (massively) declining in any nation impacted by this.

Sure I should rephrase to it'll happen as an incredibly small part of the overall asylum policy in that maybe two flights of people are sent. They also announced a new UK processing center. This is just a Nauru esk steak for the Tory press to deflect from all the boats arriving for two weeks.

[_Os_]

IIRC Rwanda already does this for Denmark?

I've seen it mentioned in reports about the UK move. It's not a good comparison to have though, Denmark is doing some very strange things. They're planning to conduct forced evictions and limit the "non-Western" (people who aren't white?) inhabitants of any area to 30%. This means going into fully settled communities of people who are Danish citizens and forcing them to live elsewhere. It was literally part of apartheid that forced evictions from "black spots" were carried out. In other words their plan is for Danish citizens to have apartheid controls on where they can live placed on them, but only if they are "non-Western".

Probably not a good thing if the Danes are doing it.

[_Os_]

Sure I should rephrase to it'll happen as an incredibly small part of the overall asylum policy in that maybe two flights of people are sent. They also announced a new UK processing center. This is just a Nauru esk steak for the Tory press to deflect from all the boats arriving for two weeks.

What my post outlined was that there's political incentive at both ends. If it was just some free money with no commitment on the part of receiving country, the UK wouldn't have been refused by other countries. It wouldn't be only the country under minority dictatorship that was keen. There seems a lot of scope for much more than "maybe two flights", but we shall see.

[Paddington Bear]

IIRC Rwanda already does this for Denmark?

I've seen it mentioned in reports about the UK move. It's not a good comparison to have though, Denmark is doing some very strange things. They're planning to conduct forced evictions and limit the "non-Western" (people who aren't white?) inhabitants of any area to 30%. This means going into fully settled communities of people who are Danish citizens and forcing them to live elsewhere. It was literally part of apartheid that forced evictions from "black spots" were carried out. In other words their plan is for Danish citizens to have apartheid controls on where they can live placed on them, but only if they are "non-Western".

Probably not a good thing if the Danes are doing it.

Yes I know Denmark well. A lovely country but I always have a slight giggle when people on the British left wish we were more like them...

[Brazil]

IIRC Rwanda already does this for Denmark?

I've seen it mentioned in reports about the UK move. It's not a good comparison to have though, Denmark is doing some very strange things. They're planning to conduct forced evictions and limit the "non-Western" (people who aren't white?) inhabitants of any area to 30%. This means going into fully settled communities of people who are Danish citizens and forcing them to live elsewhere. It was literally part of apartheid that forced evictions from "black spots" were carried out. In other words their plan is for Danish citizens to have apartheid controls on where they can live placed on them, but only if they are "non-Western".

Probably not a good thing if the Danes are doing it.

Yeah, they have a cuddly reputation that the reality belies. Deporting the Syrian refugees was a particular low point. Their recent Op in the Gulf of Guinea also raised a few eyebrows (shoot up a boat full of "pirates", release all but one of the survivors when you realise you might have to try them in Denmark, risking an asylum claim).

[Slick]

IIRC Rwanda already does this for Denmark?

An amazing number of refugee charities also seem to think it’s a good idea. I was approached by one to help them establish links with the government in Uganda with the dream being Afghan refugees being welcomed there then getting jobs and settling elsewhere in the country. Completely fucking mad idea but presumably it’s because African governments are prepared to look at it if there is cash being offered.

In fairness Uganda does have an incredibly welcoming environment for refugees

[Biffer]

According to an FT journo:

Three points on Rwanda policy.
1) Last year Australia spent £461m to process 239 asylum seekers offshore
2) The UK is spending £120m
3) 600 people crossed the Channel on Wednesday

So either this is a stunt, to deter and ease political pressure or a lot more money will be needed

This isn't happening. It's pure paper bate.

I just read that they have secured 50 hotel rooms for the project….

Reading some comments it’s various places it’s not a hugely unpopular plan

It's a great publicity stunt for their clapping seals in the papers. 120m isn't much for a government which shows how serious the plan actually is.

As a comparison, it's around one third of the UK's entire budget for space.

[C69]

Thought of this whilst channelling my inner Tory for some reason

[SaintK]

I thought I was missing something, from tyhe announcement this morning
Cross channel migrants are not being sent to Rwanda for "processing". They are being forcibly transported with no option for asylum once they have landed in Rwanda!!

[_Os_]

Yes I know Denmark well. A lovely country but I always have a slight giggle when people on the British left wish we were more like them...

Yeah, they have a cuddly reputation that the reality belies. Deporting the Syrian refugees was a particular low point. Their recent Op in the Gulf of Guinea also raised a few eyebrows (shoot up a boat full of "pirates", release all but one of the survivors when you realise you might have to try them in Denmark, risking an asylum claim).

I know very little about the place. Just read about their strange apartheid plan last year, and now they crop up again with this Rwanda move. The picture I have of the place is probably atypical.

[C69]

I thought I was missing something, from tyhe announcement this morning
Cross channel migrants are not being sent to Rwanda for "processing". They are being forcibly transported with no option for asylum once they have landed in Rwanda!!

They really are out Faraging Farage
What a bunch of cunts. I've just watched a report on Sky.
Tbh if you are a reactionary Daily Mail reading Opensides type you willbe tumescent at this news.

[SaintK]

They really are out Faraging Farage
What a bunch of cunts. I've just watched a report on Sky.
Tbh if you are a reactionary Daily Mail reading Opensides type you willbe tumescent at this news.

Talking of whom! We've only gone half way so far!

We will never ever solve this problem while we stay signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, subject to the European court in Strasburg, and have the incorporation of that law under the Human Rights Act into UK law ...

Boris Johnson today talked about an army of human rights lawyers. But he didn’t address the elephant in the room that is the Human Rights Act. And unless we deal with [that] - frankly, unless we complete Brexit - we’re not going to be able to deal with this for you is basically to get rid of the Human Rights Act.

[_Os_]

I thought I was missing something, from tyhe announcement this morning
Cross channel migrants are not being sent to Rwanda for "processing". They are being forcibly transported with no option for asylum once they have landed in Rwanda!!

If that's the case then it's as I thought, they're going to be dumped in Rwanda hostile environment style (like the people that just got dumped on the street in Jamaica with nothing). Which will not be that costly for the UK. They then (maybe) get a Rwandan passport, and the best visa free place they can easily and legally get to with that passport is Kenya (Rwandans need a visa to get into SA). So they get deported from the UK to Rwanda, then probably end up in a Nairobi slum (Kenya has a much larger economy than Rwanda, and Nairobi is a much larger city than Kigali, far more opportunity there). Kenya has so far been one of the more pro-UK African countries.

There's a heap of dangers in all that. One of them is that it's expanded to any illegal immigrant, the problem with that being the UK immigration system has a habit of changing its rules so radically that perfectly legal settled people become illegal overnight (or in some ways worse, end up in a grey area where they cannot prove their status).

[dpedin]

I thought I was missing something, from tyhe announcement this morning
Cross channel migrants are not being sent to Rwanda for "processing". They are being forcibly transported with no option for asylum once they have landed in Rwanda!!

If that's the case then it's as I thought, they're going to be dumped in Rwanda hostile environment style (like the people that just got dumped on the street in Jamaica with nothing). Which will not be that costly for the UK. They then (maybe) get a Rwandan passport, and the best visa free place they can easily and legally get to with that passport is Kenya (Rwandans need a visa to get into SA). So they get deported from the UK to Rwanda, then probably end up in a Nairobi slum (Kenya has a much larger economy than Rwanda, and Nairobi is a much larger city than Kigali, far more opportunity there). Kenya has so far been one of the more pro-UK African countries.

There's a heap of dangers in all that. One of them is that it's expanded to any illegal immigrant, the problem with that being the UK immigration system has a habit of changing its rules so radically that perfectly legal settled people become illegal overnight (or in some ways worse, end up in a grey area where they cannot prove their status).

This is illegal - surely? Forcibly removing folk seeking asylum from this country and dumping them in a potentially dangerous and hostile country with concerns over the human rights there is just plain wrong.

[Openside]

Bet you will still vote Tory again

Without a doubt! Least worst option!!

Although I’ve never voted Tory and usually either spoil my vote or give it to one of the smaller parties, I’d usually have that thought in my mind.

But don’t you think that’s a bit difficult to back up now given Brexit, the constant lying, partygate, offshore, refugees, and on and on and on. It’s just a bit of a lazy statement now, this feels a bit unprecedented in terms of a really shit government taking us in a very wrong direction

There is quite simply no alternative!!