Is France Correct?
- Thread starter securespark
- Start date
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 10 Jul 2024
- Messages
- 2,310
- Reaction score
- 71
- Country
Possible, yes, for an (anti-immigrant) asylum seeker, to have been a landlord with 2 properties, qualified in Mainframe engineering, and Finance, with loads of money in the bank, but can't afford to repair a leaking roof, and has trouble counting.
If what he says is true, it's a testament to the benefit asylum seekers bring to the UK.
Last edited:
A Syrian refugee living in the UK tells how the new Home Secretary will have her work cut out to 'Stop the Boats', in the Guardian...good news for the Gumby's though, as it means they'll always have something to gumble about.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 10 Jul 2024
- Messages
- 2,310
- Reaction score
- 71
- Country
I said only recently, that the more attempts at stopping the boats the more risker and dangerous the attempted crossings will become.
It's a misguided policy, it creates more dangers for the asylum seekers.
The Mediterranean crossing is 10 times longer for the asylum seekers, the dangers greater, the casualty rate greater, but still they attempt it.
The government wants to stop refugees moving through Morocco and Spain and Italy and France. It is too late to be talking about these countries. Start in Syria, start in Yemen, start in Iran and Iraq and Afghanistan and Sudan and Eritrea, where the problems originate...
Which is easier said than done: After the UK helped bomb Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, helped the Saudi's wage war in Yemen, then ignored Sudan and Eritrea; how will the new government negotiate with them to reduce numbers of refugees fleeing the respective countries? The UK helped create those problems in the first place, even leaving the EU meant we had no leverage with France to reduce numbers. All they can do at GBnews is whine about the government not doing enough to stop them when we've already done more than enough to make them attempt the perilous journey in the first place.
Trump made things worse by not even appointing a new consulate i many countries and the UK has reduced foreign aid meaning our influence has waned also. The clueless policy from the Tory govt. means Labour have a bigger job on their hands than needs be.
Which is easier said than done: After the UK helped bomb Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, helped the Saudi's wage war in Yemen, then ignored Sudan and Eritrea; how will the new government negotiate with them to reduce numbers of refugees fleeing the respective countries? The UK helped create those problems in the first place, even leaving the EU meant we had no leverage with France to reduce numbers. All they can do at GBnews is whine about the government not doing enough to stop them when we've already done more than enough to make them attempt the perilous journey in the first place.
Trump made things worse by not even appointing a new consulate i many countries and the UK has reduced foreign aid meaning our influence has waned also. The clueless policy from the Tory govt. means Labour have a bigger job on their hands than needs be.
It's a time will tell subject really. As any attempt is. A Guardian view - the article says could have been sent to Rwanda - really?
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
