Forum Topic

Rwanda go ahead

Sense and law prevails

Barbara Shillabeer ● 1098d34 Comments

"And yes the church should occupy the moral high ground but it cant with it's own failings."So who or what can?

David Ainsworth ● 1097d

Not a sneer a fact.And yes the church should occupy the moral high ground but it cant with it's own failings.Anyway Alexander always good to hear how you think I and others should think and express ourselves. Thankfully we are allowed to think for ourselves and Express an opinion....as of course are you.

Andy Pike ● 1097d

Philippa, I stand by my view that, imo, yours is probably the most ridiculous comment ever made on the Forum.  I’ve never been to Fishbourne, but I have been to Fairbourne in Wales! If the worst comes to worst, I hope the residents get compensation for the failure to protect their homes which would allow them to buy a home elsewhere in Wales.

Martine Guy ● 1097d

Martine. You may well say that but there does seem to be a feeling of us and them as if it couldn't happen to any of us.  There but for the grace of God.  The UK is made up of refugees and migrants who have arrived over the years.  Johnson's pedigree isn't all English.  Johnson thrives on divide and conquer something he learned in his Latin lessons at school.  He's busy upsetting Ireland over his lies over Brexit.  Scotland did not vote for Brexit and is still considering independence and rejoining the EU.  And Wales?  Well Fishbourne is likely to soon have climate migrants needing to move elsewhere.

Philippa Bond ● 1097d

The established church is quite complicated.As we were discussing the morales of the scheme - the head of the church was knighting Blair!Blair's policies are directly linked to the current situation - surely?Most MP's will follow the whip. A few (on both sides) will stand firm - perhaps a few more may make excuses and be absent from votes or simply not hear the call from the bathroom!Perhaps the whole cost should be considered both human and economical before waging these wars/conflicts?It doesn't seem unreasonable in non urgent situations to get the consensus of the people. If balloting representatives is not good enough for strikes why should it be good enough for war?

Ed Robinson ● 1097d

Andy: Once again, alas,  a sneer masquerading as a comment. Typical of your use of language, about which I have already offered some polite suggestions. You seem to know a lot about local government, on which I respect your views, but perhaps you should broaden your horizons? For example, the church is SUPPOSED to occupy the moral high ground, so surely no-one can blame it for doing its job.

Alexander MacLeod ● 1097d

The Church has no morals or certain members of the Church do not?

Ivonne Holliday ● 1097d

Philippa, this is, imo, the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen on this Forum

Martine Guy ● 1097d

And the church is so good on the moral high ground.Just ask all those choirboys and others who have first hand knowledge of their moral high standing.

Andy Pike ● 1097d

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/fairbourne-evacuation-plan-needed-now-22888666.amp

Philippa Bond ● 1097d

@Phillipa 14.39Is that meant to be a serious question? Really??🙄

Sue Hammond ● 1097d

What about the climate refugees from Wales?  Will we be closing our borders to them as well and deporting them by aeroplane during this climate emergency thousands of miles away to Rwanda or another foreign country?

Philippa Bond ● 1097d

If it's not to support Christian values one would have to question why they are bishops in th HoL. Surely, it's their moral duty to object? 

Michael Ixer ● 1097d

Michael: I agree the cost is nuts, but I still think someone has to bang on about the morals! I notice that on another  thread someone would like to see Archbishop Welby get the Thomas Beckett treatment. Perhaps he should stay away from Canterbury Cathedral for a while.

Alexander MacLeod ● 1097d

Alexander, I agree with you. The reason I raised the financial irresponsibility of this policy is that money is seems to be the main concern of Johnson and his supporters. They seem to be completely without morals so there didn't seem much point in wasting time on that line of argument. Looks like the numbers are approaching that of a private jet (possibly 3 or 4). Not only financial madness, not very green either?

Michael Ixer ● 1097d

You are seriously up the creek on two issues. (1) Archbishops have a right (I would say a duty) to get involved in politics. Why else are they in the House of Lords? (2) Thomas Becket was assassinated at the behest of the King. You are supporting a somewhat radical measure which most of us would hesitate to endorse. I think I am right in saying that advocating murder is against the law .....

Alexander MacLeod ● 1097d

Is the Archbishop of Canterbury far too political, really?Or you mean:- the Archbishop of Canterbury- the Archbishop of York- all of the other 23 bishops sitting as Lords Spirituals in the House of Lords, They are all too political?

Ivonne Holliday ● 1097d

Justin Welby is far too political. He should heed history and reflect on a cetain predecessor of  his, who came to a rather unfotunate demise in Canterbury  Cathedral for his interfering in politics

Barbara Shillabeer ● 1097d

Well, at least the churches have an eye on the moral aspect of this tawdry affair. From the Times today:An excoriating letter to The Times, signed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and all of the other 23 bishops’ sitting as Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords, states: “Whether or not the first deportation flight leaves Britain today for Rwanda, this policy should shame us as a nation....  the shame is our own, because our Christian heritage should inspire us to treat asylum seekers with compassion, fairness and justice, as we have for centuries”.Not sure about the accuracy of the last phrase, but otherwise it's spot on.

Richard Carter ● 1097d

The Lord of Misrule.

Judy Allen ● 1097d

I find it  striking that the moral (i.e. immoral) aspect of this legally dubious policy is tending to be glossed over. Yes, it costs a lot, and probably it won't have any practical  effect, but sending people against their will more than a thousand miles away to a poorly run African state - on a one-way ticket, without redress - is, quite simply, immoral. Says a lot about the depths to which this government is prepared to sink, not to mention the disgraceful conduct of its current leader and his cronies.

Alexander MacLeod ● 1097d

Oh well, at least Patel has not thought of charging the migrants for their tickets. Yet.

David Ainsworth ● 1097d

No, Michael, it is not value for money.It is a complete and utter travesty to common sense.  Eight people on an airplane that can take 220 people - all paid for the taxpayer?  Just think of the cost of fuel; absolute, total (and very expensive) nonsense.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1097d

No and Priti Patel had to issue a special Ministerial order because her department could not come up with figures proving it was a sensible solution.  Wasn't the Australian attempt at this sort of thing estimated to cost more than a million per person and beset with problems?  They will not be held in Rwanda so how long before they return?

Philippa Bond ● 1097d

Only eight people on tomorrow's flight. That's value for money?

Michael Ixer ● 1098d

We're going to need a bigger handcart to go to hell in.

Judy Allen ● 1098d

Hello Matt,That is a really frightening prospect!In the meantime, Kenya is evicting Massai Mara's from their land to give way to international hunting!!!  ???????????????? 

Ivonne Holliday ● 1098d

Xenophobic witch.

Simon Sharp ● 1098d

There could be up to 700 million climate refugees in Africa by 2030. Not only are you going to need a bigger Rwanda you're going to need a relocated one.https://www.climate-refugees.org/spotlight/2022/3/3/ipcc-africa

Matt Palmer ● 1098d

"we are where we are"No Michael, "We are where we are and we continue down the same road."We are still creating refugees in Yemen.https://reporting.unhcr.org/yemen

Ed Robinson ● 1098d

Ed. Yes, that  would be preferable but as they say "we are where we are" (to use an expression I'm not too keen on but appropriate in this case).

Michael Ixer ● 1098d

"If she's so confident the policy is legal why not wait.."People would then accuse her of having no faith in the government winning.The best policy is not to destroy other countries and create refugees in the first place.Unfortunately both major parties have the same foreign policy.Some will see this as a success - but if you look at the number of refugees displaced by such foreign policies and the strain that neighbouring countries are under you better start planning for a bigger Rwanda!

Ed Robinson ● 1098d

This was just an injunction to stop the flight pending the full outcome of the case into the legality of this policy. From what I gathered on the news the injunction failed on the basis that if th government loses the full case then those on the flight can be returned to the UK. So if the government loses the case in around three weeks time the taxpayer will have paid for two unnecessary flights to and from Rwanda. This is purely about Ms Patel making a publicity point at the possible expense of the UK taxpayer. If she's so confident the policy is legal why not wait a few more weeks, given this flight will now only have around ten passengers on board. Yet again, another example of this government happy to chuck away taxpayers' money :-(

Michael Ixer ● 1098d

I shouldn't think that is the end to it.

Philippa Bond ● 1098d