Andy Burnham has no intention of stopping the boats coming across the Channel. The number coming over has increased and the boats are bigger. Far from any urge to stop them he talks about where the illegal migrants are to go in this country.
They are to go to middle class areas to mix with middle class people who don't want them. Let us not mince words. Nobody actually wants them.
The Rwanda scheme would have been good and well underway now. Migrants going to a dormitory in the sunny and hot climate with their own people of Africa from where they come, not Britain and with Christian people of the Church of England who respect and honour their wives and daughters, who asylum seekers from Muslim cultures know not how to behave with. They have learned from their mothers to expect cooking to be done and a woman to be to their beck and call and those with short tops and bare skin to be raped and murdered because they are not covered, are free to walk alone and not shut in only to be allowed out chaperoned.
The Rwanda scheme was immediately killed by Labour. Rwanda has not been a country of genocide for 30 years. Many people do not realise this. They say, oh my god, Rwanda! Shock horror. It was 1994 and you can blame Belgium for the left overs of the colonial days and King Leopold in neighbouring Congo for what went on in Rwanda. He was evil and he planted all the seeds for death, torture and punishments and human suffering. Rwanda has green and pleasant gardens, good income from mining and good work ethic. The migrants would have been integrated into Rwanda following the processing of their claims to be asylum seekers if suffering persecution in their homeland and Rwanda know for all their experience of who is actually in danger. Their mothers would have been happy they were in Africa and the boys would have one day been African workers and earning a living if seen as needing to stay. If they were fraudulent asylum seekers instead of coming to upset everyone around the world they would have been sent back to their original starting place, back with mother. But no, this plan was seen as too good for the British people and therefore not to be implemented. Instead, the migrants would still come and land on the shore with wet feet, be picked up and slung into our society to upset everybody as usual.
Today an Afghan has been sentenced to nine years in English jail for rape of a teenage girl.
Burnham has said that he cannot stop the PC Harper's killers from being released from prison because he cannot make an exception. If the Prime Minister cannot say "hold those laughing, mocking, despicable boys in jail for the entirety of their sentence" then what good is a prime minister at all? Why doesn't he be bold and make a stand and say " they are to stay inside, end of story".
I wish Burnham would stop being a man of the people and realise that he has to lead, not mingle.
ReplyDeleteI cannot see that foisting a huge number of male illegal immigrants on a small Oxfordshire village of 400 is going to work at all.
Why can they not be made to work, clearing ditches and doing any number of things that so many feckless Brits cannot be bothered to do, because they're so comfortable living on benefits and PIP?
If Burnham wants to make room in jails, free some of the harmless white-collar criminals who have never physically hurt anyone.
Sorry, mishmash of thoughts there . . .
I agree with your thoughts and I saw the same with Johnson, an inability to lead. We don't have good leaders any more. Burnham would get a lot more respect if he had the guts to stand up and be counted and demonstrated some leadership and common sense qualities instead of point scoring to gain the upper hand over those his party do not like. Running a country is not about spite,
DeleteI am despairing today Rachel. More than usual. I want this nightmare to end. I was even looking at moving to Jersey but need to earn at least 1.25 million per annum so that option is out! With regards to asylum seekers, legally you can claim asylum in Jersey, but in practice, the island rarely takes in or processes asylum seekers. Almost all claimants are directed Because Jersey lacks an extensive independent framework to process complex cases, it works directly with the UK Home Office. In almost all historic instances, asylum seekers arriving on the island have either been returned to a safe third country (like France) or transferred directly to the UK mainland system. (All this from google). Found out this too. ' Because Jersey is an island surrounded by France and the UK, authorities generally invoke the principle that an individual must seek asylum in the first safe country they enter. Arriving illegally from the French coast typically results in being intercepted and returned to French authorities.' UK could take them back to France but the powers at be don't want to. They want them here. They want to change this Island for good. Sorry for the rant. When will people take an interest and see what is happening?
ReplyDeleteNobody is as daft as Britain and especially not Jersey or France. There is no intention of stopping them, Burnham demonstrated that in his offering this week of saying more about where they are going to be dispersed in the country than anything about stopping them or being strong for us, the people.
DeleteGlad to have read two posts from you today! x
ReplyDeleteThank you. I am glad you read them. I am aware of the blogger problems and people arriving late and posts being missed. xx
DeleteI see that the Reform Party now want to send the illegals to El Salvador. Rwanda might have been more pleasant.
ReplyDeleteReform would be trapped in litigation and opposition and civil servants and would get nowhere in an entire term of government (in the unlikely event that they ever got to form a government). They are all pie in the sky and hot air. We are trapped in Blair's Britain and for that there is no getting out for anybody so we might as well get used to it. I see that asylum housing will now extend to empty holiday cottages in Welsh villages by the sea. As for foreign criminals I would have them deported on sentence and not another minute spent on British soil.
DeleteWhat happened back then in Rwanda is terrible, but we can all learn from that country in dealing with the aftermath and bringing about reconciliation and a well functioning society instead of a country still torn apart from old conflict.
ReplyDeleteA friend of mine who is MUCH more adventurous than I has been on a cycling holiday in Rwanda - she enjoyed it very much but because of the friend who was with her they had to cut the cycling short (the woman was rather unfit physcially and should never have come along on a cycling holiday).
To be stuck in a time warp about Rwanda is a bit like saying nobody can go to Germany because they once committed genocide and crimes against humanity. Ellen D speaks highly of the country as her son is married to a Rwandan.
Delete