True patriots accept that our nation is multicultural

When Djed Spence played for England, I had mixed feelings. I was glad to see the first Muslim player take the field, and annoyed that a Spurs player was on the pitch.  When we were in Bristol on the weekend, the hotel we stayed in hosted the England (Women’s) Rugby team. There was no racism about them representing our nation. The Union flag and the flag of St George was flown outside the hotel as it has been for ages, but the roundabout near it had lampposts adorned with Union flags, but like with many places in the country, due to where they are, it is like they are at half mast.

On the weekend, there was a far right march. While the march for Palestine Action had more arrests, most were for peaceful protest. On the weekend, the far right decided that Blue Lives don’t matter and they attacked the police, the arrests being for violent conduct. 

The Union flag is one of inclusion, taking in languages other than English, the same with the flag of St George. Those who insist that only English is spoken on our shores are not aware how Cornish is a native language along with Scottish Gaelic and of course Welsh. Yiddish and Hebrew have also been an important part of our nation, with speakers being back on our shores in large numbers since the 19th century.

The flag of our nation represents values and ideals that people literally risk death to be part of. It was welcomed refugees for centuries and intolerance to them has been present in darker parts of our history as it is now. If you like the music of Queen, remember that Freddie Mercury was a refugee. Rita Ora, singer and actress, was a refugee as was Mika, another singer. And of course, our nation has Christian values, and Jesus was a refugee from The Middle East.  

I have met some Asylum Seekers. Many have terrible tales and we should accept those, but I have met a minority whom I would argue could seek refuge within their nation, with no actual need to travel to the UK. A change in European law is needed to ensure that those who need to come here do, while those who do not have to are not given asylum, for there is no doubt that our generosity is being abused.

Last of all, we housed the homeless during the COVID pandemic. It is right that we offer shelter to asylum seekers, but we should be doing the same to the homeless as well. 

Palestine Action (again) and a comparison to The Far Right

What level of criminal damage is acceptable when it comes to protests? Does the level change depending on what cause is being protested? 

Palestine Action has been in the news again. There are many who have justified their actions which include criminal damage. I am going to just mention the issue of how their actions have aided Russia in the invasion of Ukraine as that is not my main concern.

In Epping, there have been protests against asylum seekers due to the allegations made against one. The protests have been tarnished by violence and we know what has happened to those encouraging such acts last year.

My question to the supporters of Palestine Action relates to The Far Right. I would argue that people engaged in lawful protests do not throw smoke bombs and fire pyrotechnics around innocent members of the public. If it is acceptable for Palestine Action to do so, is it acceptable for the same to happen with the anti-refugee protests in Epping? If it is acceptable for protesters to damage our military hardware, would it be acceptable to damage places where asylum seekers are housed? Should those in Epping who have damaged police vehicles have their right to civil disobedience allow them to escape prosecution? My view is that the same standards should apply to all. 

Day five in France and the Afghan data leak

The holiday continues. My son has been volunteered to take part in gardening thanks to his grandfather but says he is enjoying his time outside London. I am sure that he is, but I find it hard to believe that he is enjoying himself as much as we are. 

The insect bites are healing and we have spent a lot of the day in the pool. We did go out for a meal in the evening where we were greeted by a puppy (who was taken away for eating the floorboards) and two other dogs.  My daughter too a photo of me cheating on our dog (she did as well) and is to show it to ours when she returns to the UK. 

Before I got to listen to The NewsAgents and heard an interesting story. It referred to a superinjunction about a data leak. I was sure I had heard about it before, but while I had, this turned out to be another one. Listening so far, it appears that the government initially did not want to resettle as many refugees as it has done since. I am concerned that this scheme is to stop. Those in Afghanistan risked a lot to help our troops there, I met one who is in a wheelchair for doing so. It may be that now the risk they face is low but I say we owe those remaining the chance of sanctuary in the UK. Forcing them to live in what is essentially The Republic of Gilead is not the thanks we should give.  

Saying that, I have yet to listen to the full story as a second episode dropped later, that will be interesting. 

Rwanda (again)

The government have managed to get the Rwanda plan to be passed in the Houses of Parliament.

I am in favour of it. I suspect that Germany and Italy have no or few concerns about this as well.

But only if we have a decent way for refugees to come to our great nation.

With refugees from Ukraine, we welcomed them to our shores even though they were in safe countries.

We should do the same with asylum seekers from other nations. We have an insane system where people who helped us in Afghanistan cannot get to our nation. That should change. 

In addition to that, we should enter into discussions across the globe with how refugees should be managed.  Too many nations (not us) bear a burden of looking after refugees and they should be aided in this. In addition to this, not all refugees need to leave their nation, instead for some of the ones I have encountered, moving to another part of their own nation would be appropriate. But while I have met some refugees whom I would not grant asylum (based on what they told me), I have met far more whom I would grant asylum. 

Jess Phillips on Rwanda

As those who have read my views on this topic know, I am in favour of deporting those who cross the channel to Rwanda.  

This is once we have a system were asylum applications can be processed abroad in a quick and fair manner.  I would be stricter on some applications, one patient I have seen fled Iraq to come here after falling out with a family in the town he lived in.  I think it is wrong for him to come here when he could have moved to another part of Iraq.  To put things in context, the surgery I work in has lots of women who have had to flee relationships due to feeling unsafe, some of whom are still subject to harassment.  I do not see them claiming asylum in France etc.  I do think that it is silly that those in Afghanistan who helped UK forces directly, or by serving in the Afghan security forces before the Taliban took it over, are not given automatic rights to live here. So while I would make it easier for some asylum seekers to enter the UK, I would make it harder for others.  Also, it is silly that the UK government is not working with other countries across the globe to come to a fairer solution to this as this is not just a UK issue.

But Jess Phillips has communicated things so well in Parliament in a few short minutes. 

The Kings Speech

It was the first Kings Speech that we watched today. One which would be viewed by many as being political. I felt his speech referred to the cost of living crisis and also could be viewed as taking care of refugees. The last point is especially important considering how today is celebrated by many as the birth of the most famous refugee of all. 

A vote to Stop the Boats and ignore those we should be helping

I am proud that our nation took in refugees from Ukraine, many of whom were in safe nations such as Moldova and Poland when they needed sanctuary.  There was a need and the applications for asylum were processed quickly.

I do not understand why the same is not being done for people from Afghanistan, notably, those who are linked to the UK when we had a presence there.  We have Afghan soldiers who face execution if returned to Afghanistan waiting in Pakistan among many others we have a duty to help.  I suspect that the reason that they are being left to rot is because they are Muslim.  

We have shown that asylum applications can be processed quickly.  Instead, the government have allowed loads of asylum seekers to be held up in hotels while more cross The English Channel. A cynic would argue that the reason that they have done this is to make this into an election issue...

Why are we abandoning refugees from Afghanistan?

I am proud of the way our nation took in Ukrainian refugees, many of whom were in safe nations such as Moldova. I do not know why we do not do the same with refugees from Afghanistan or other nations riven by war, such as Yemen. 

We know that many of those who died in The Channel this month were from Afghanistan and that two years on from the Taliban taking over Afghanistan, we are still failing those Afghans who helped our forces when we were trying to bring human rights to the nation.

We have been offered a way to stop the boats back in 2021 when France said we could process asylum seekers there. Doing so in a speedy manner would reduce channel crossings, slash the bills housing them in hotels and end any need for any barges. Also, having a fair and speedy system in France would mean that there are few moral issues to deporting those crossing the channel to Rwanda.

We are not a soft touch for refugees. When there was the migrant caravan in 2015, most refugees went to Germany and Sweden. France has more refugees than the UK. So when Lee Anderson says that asylum seekers can “fuck off back to France” does he include Ukrainian ones? 

The UK is not a soft touch for refugees

I am disgusted at the quality of reporting when it comes to how our nation is dealing, or failing to deal with refugees.  Listening to journalists who should know better, they do not mention several things. 

1- The European nation with the largest number of refugees is Germany.  When the migrant caravan happened, most refugees went to Germany, not to the UK.

2 - France (which has more refugees than the UK) has offered to stop the boats by allowing refugees to apply for refugee status in a legal manner.  In addition to this, action has taken place in France to stop them using ports and the Channel tunnel to get to the UK.

3 - The safe and legal routes that we do have for refugees from Afghanistan have left too many in danger.  

And now we want to house asylum seekers in a barge that is considered by many to be unsafe...

STOP THE BOATS

I am both in favour and against the decision of the Court of Appeal to deport those who cross The English Channel in small boats to Rwanda. 

As posted before, I think that those who do cross in small boats should have deportation.  But I also think that there should be a system in place so that asylum seekers can have applications processed abroad in third countries, just like we did with refugees fleeing Putins War in Ukraine. The system should be able to cope with the numbers quickly and fairly, just as it did with Ukrainian refugees.

It is insane that an Afghan Pilot has had to get here by a small boat because we have no decent safe and legal route for him to come here.  Many more who have helped the UK in Afghanistan are still trapped abroad and it is a crime to process them slowly with wilful inertia.

Refugees should not be considered to be migrants

I am proud that our nation took in refugees fleeing the invasion of Ukraine from safe third party nations such as Poland. I am tempted to ask if there is a reason that non-white Asylum Seekers in France are not offered the same (as offered by France in 2021) because that would Stop The Boats.  But I know the answer.  

We have a political party in power who acts like Alan B'stard when it comes to refugees.  The sad thing is that the episode of the New Statesman, Heil and Farewell, is sadly accurate and in many ways reflects the position of our government on refugees.

So when Gary Lineker comments about the language used to describe asylum seekers, or others make similar comparisons, I can understand this.

    

I have mixed feelings about gate-crashing the speeches being made as I do not think that freedom of speech should be infringed by protest, but while this protest did cause disruption, it did not stop those on the right from speaking, so overall, I accept this form of protest.

As we know, too many people do not have a safe and legal route to claim asylum here that is worthy.  We have seen it with those trying to flee Afghanistan where they are subjected to abuse when they flee to a neighbouring nation, as well as the many that we have left to suffer there.

King Charles comes to town

King Charles came to town yesterday (or rather the city). My son was at school, but my daughter, being at the Sixth Form College, saw him as she waited in the centre and he passed by her. She, and her friends, waved at the snipers who were in town as well.  She wore a burger king crown and waved a flag. I found all this out when I had sent a text on the family group chat asking if she had been with the banner crowd or had been using the megaphone.

 

Many do not like the King, but I admire his views on Climate Change and also the deportation of refugees which he has has to remain silent in now he is our monarch. I do wish he had spoken out about the racist double standards his daughter-in-law had been subjected to however.

Issues about racism and refugees were in the news today thanks to a tweet by Gary Liniker. I think that a better choice of words would have made things clearer, but there is no doubt that the language used about asylum seekers is designed to incite hatred and has resulted in lots of the electorate blaming them for many issues in our nation.

In PMQs, the government reminded us how many refugees were taken in from Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan. But the fact remains that many crossing the channel to get to the UK, have no safe and legal route to get here. It would be easy to process applications in France rather than housing asylum seekers in hotels in the UK, and once there is a decent safe and legal route, then we can deport those crossing the channel. Instead many are now blaming this issue for the way the government have underfunded the NHS (and other public services).

Needless to say, issues of asylum and refugees were brought up in PMQs, the government who has failed to deport failed asylum seekers has been stating that it is Labour that are in favour of open borders. One thing that many Labour supporters will not like, will be the way that when this is sorted out when Labour come to power, deportations will take place.

Being a refugee is not a crime

I have heard plans that our government intends to crack down on those crossing the channel in boats.

Let me remind people that I am also in favour of this and deporting those crossing the channel to Rwanda. But only once we have an asylum system that works and that involves decent safe and legal routes to come here to claim asylum

The sad fact is that, as seen in the video, we do not have safe and legal routes for them to come.  

I suspect that the government is allowing a backlog of asylum applications to build up so that it can claim that the system is being swamped and that the action that is needed is to ignore claims and deport asylum seekers.  Yes, they are to process certain applicants quickly, and so long as this is done in a fair manner, that is a good idea. 

But let us look at how thousands of Afghans who helped British forces remain stranded by by inaction by our government and many journalists who face persecution are also being left as well. Last month, only 22 Afghans had been resettled in UK under a ‘pathway’ to help vulnerable refugees and many who have fled to Pakistan face injustice there. 

I am proud of how we welcomed Ukrainian refugees to our nation, many of whom were in safe nations outside Ukraine.  I am ashamed how we are not doing this for others. 

Edit - another video has been published showing that there is no safe and legal route for many asylum seekers to get to our nation.  

Born in Bethlehem, deported to Rwanda

It is coming up to Christmas, that time of year when we celebrate the birth of Jesus, who fled Israel when his parents saved him from The Massacre of the Innocents. The thing is, when his parents sought asylum in Egypt, they did so illegally, being required to remain so Jesus could be murdered along with others of his age.

Today, if his parents tried to seek asylum in the UK, they would have to cross the channel illegally to do so, risking death. The reason for this is because there is no safe and legal route for many to come here who are seeking asylum  That is, or course, if they wanted to come here. Other nations take in more refugees than we do.

Jesus was an undocumented child refugee. Should he have been deported?

I want failed asylum seekers to be quicky deported to Rwanda and I want anyone who crosses the channel illegally to be deported, but there is a caveat. I also want safe, speedy and legal routes for refugees to come here first. 

I have treated asylum seekers. Too many have no safe and legal route to come here and thanks to government cuts, the waits to process their applications, be they here or in the nation they flee from, take too long. I am not going to say that all the cases should be taken in as some of the stories, in my view, do not justify asylum here, but loads do. We have a speedy safe and legal route for refugees from Ukraine, many of whom were in a safe country before coming here), we can and should have one for those seeking asylum from other nations such as Afghanistan and others. I do not want a system where Jesus (who was an undocumented child refugee when his parents fled the Massacre Of The Innocents) would have been deported to Rwanda, if he was able to overcome the barriers to get here!

The argument that we cannot afford to take them in, from a government who wishes to help the rich to get richer when others are getting poorer is wrong.  Worse, it is an argument that is designed to spread hatred and division while distracting from the real reasons that we have increasing levels of poverty and hardship.

If we can get a speedy safe and legal framework to take in refugees from Ukraine, there is no reason why we cannot have one for refugees from other, non-white, nations.

In a way we’re ALL in a massive queue leading to a coffin

Today is a historic day with the funeral of The Queen taking place. I am not sure if my wife and I will be watching history as it happens, being on holiday, but leaders from across the globe have come to pay respects at her funeral.

I am in favour of The Monarchy, not because I consider them to be better than me (I do not do so BTW), but I prefer them to be Head of State. The option of an elected head of state has no appeal for me. In 2019, the Brexit party got the highest percentage of votes in the European Elections which are, or were, our only elections held under Proportional Representation which meant that Nigel Farage won it. In 2014, Brexit supporting parties won over 50% of the vote (a combination of UKIP, the Conservatives and the DUP equalling 50.5% of the vote, Nigel Farage getting the most votes again. If those elections had been for Head of State, we would have had Nigel Farage in office since 2014. The role is essentially ceremonial, The Monarch in essence doing what they are told, keeping their views private. King Charles, when Prince Of Wales, was outspoken on environmental issues, campaigning for this when it was not a big issue for the political mainstream (i.e. before the electoral performance  of The Green Party in the 1989 European Elections). In addition to this, he has reportedly spoken out in private about being against the deportation of refugees and migrants to Rwanda, a policy that would have seen Paddington being sent to the jungles of deepest Africa and Jesus being housed in an inn in Kigali for fleeing The Massacre Of The Innocents. Now, as head of state, he is going to have to appear to speak in favour of policies that will probably increase our contribution to global warming and may include even more radical proposals on deportation. Nigel Farage, in such a position would have a more prominent platform to spread his lies designed to stir up hatred and division in our multicultural nation.

The fact that so many have come to the funeral is a sign of how Britain is viewed and respected across the globe, Biden is risking death to do so by having to meet Liz Truss (though this has been postponed).  Few have sent representatives other than the head of state. 

I am not ashamed to have a Royal Family. I do understand the anger of republicans that so much money is spent on them when so many are facing a cost of living crisis, and it has been pointed out that the Dutch Royal family are housing Ukrainian refugees while ours are not.

What I am ashamed about when it comes to the Royal Family is the double standards shown (again). The Duchess of Sussex held the hand of her grieving husband and faced a backlash from many about this. I suspect that those who felt that she was wrong to do this will not speak out when other wives do the same on official visits to our nation. It just so happens that those couples are not mixed race and both are white. 

King Charles and the Greenest Government Never

Yesterday, before the Queen became ill, our Prime Minister was extolling the benefits of increasing the contribution of our great nation to Climate Change.  Our Queen has died and our King, Prince Charles, a campaigner for the climate, will have to make a Kings Speech were he is going to promote policies which will harm our planet and country.  

And that is ignoring any issues with immigration, as he is the son of an immigrant himself and has commented on the process of sending asylum seekers abroad before.

Jesus was an undocumented child refugee

I am in favour of the government plan to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda if they cross the channel illegally. I do this, knowing the hardships that those seeking persecution face. BUT, I am only in favour of this relocation where people are fleeing from nations where we have a safe and legal refugee route that is working to process applications quickly. That is if it is possible to have such a system in place in that nation. 

 

When I posted about this last year, I did mention that asylum seekers are coming to our shores from a safe nation where they can claim asylum and that no action would result in more deaths in The Channel. I was wrong to do so as I was not aware how hard it was for asylum seekers to access legal routes. In addition to this, forcing refugees to claim asylum in the first safe nation they enter creates a burden on those nations, as seen in Lebanon and Moldova. I would only be in favour of that if we had a system, as is in place with Ukrainian refugees, where they can apply for asylum from those nations 

 

It is silly really as we claim to be a Christian nation, and Jesus himself was an undocumented child refugee. There are some who disagree, but they forget how his parents fled The Massacre of the Innocents.  I do think it is important to act on the people smugglers but it is even more important to offer refugees more legal avenues to seek asylum here. 

With this in one, I am glad the plane which was to deport asylum seekers has been stopped from doing so.  I do not know how long this will be for, but I do hope those who are fleeing persecution find a safe refugee here.  I also hope we can create decent safe and legal routes for those wishing to come here as well.