UKC

Patel again

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Baron Weasel 04 Jul 2020
In reply to Greenbanks:

She's a particularly nasty piece of work that should have been tried for treason over trying to divert foreign aid to the Israeli military. 

6
 The Lemming 04 Jul 2020
In reply to Baron Weasel:

> She's a particularly nasty piece of work

You calling a Tory a particularly nasty piece of work?

That's like saying bears shit in the woods.

15
 Andy Hardy 04 Jul 2020
In reply to The Lemming:

As bears go, she is particularly incontinent

4
In reply to Andy Hardy:

The poor lady seems to oscillate continually between verbal diarrhoea and constipation.

2
 Andy Hardy 04 Jul 2020
In reply to John Stainforth:

I much prefer her constipated episodes

1
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Except in her constipated episodes, she is not answering the question.

 Cobra_Head 04 Jul 2020
In reply to The Lemming:

> You calling a Tory a particularly nasty piece of work?

> That's like saying bears shit in the woods.


what would you call her?

I have a word for her

I don't think you need to be of a particular persuasion, to realise what she is.

3
 profitofdoom 05 Jul 2020
In reply to Greenbanks:

> A humanity by-pass. 

Thanks 

I am getting really, really tired of Patel. I've had enough of her 

1
 Babika 05 Jul 2020
In reply to Greenbanks:

You're focusing on Patel but must there must be Home Office officials and Govt lawyers who have decided to push ahead with this.

If just one of them has an 11 year old daughter I don't know how they look them in the face over breakfast knowing the unimaginable torture they want to put a fellow schoolgirl through

3
 wercat 05 Jul 2020
In reply to Babika:

it's odd given it's tory policy to allow 3M people to come here if they wish.  That's a lot more than the highly controversial offer to Ugandan Asians in the 70s.  We'll no doubt need Priti to get tough on EU nationals a bit too to make up for that.

2
 The Lemming 05 Jul 2020
In reply to Babika:

> You're focusing on Patel but must there must be Home Office officials and Govt lawyers who have decided to push ahead with this.

Your right, it takes a whole department to do such things. But staff are moulded by their their senior managers and ministers words and deed. And minister's words and deeds are moulded from electioneering and results at the ballot box.

While Foreign Minister, Mrs may was especially nasty to the Windrush generation. A similar future political and humanitarian crisis could befall people living in Hong Kong if they decide to move to the UK for their own safety.

Patel is a nasty bullying individual at the very heart of a very nasty and bullying cabinet, with a Prime Minister who likes to tell lies if it furthers his agenda. And the Prime Minister is happy to employ consultants who also have a talent to tell lies for their own reasons.

Post edited at 10:11
3
 veteye 05 Jul 2020
In reply to The Lemming:

the Prime Minister is happy to employ consultants who also have a talent to tell lies for their own reasons.

And a father who does what the hell he likes....

1
OP Greenbanks 05 Jul 2020
In reply to Babika:

Patel could sort it...seems like other Ministers (and SPADS) have their civil servants firmly in their pockets. Patel I suspect is pretty sure of herself & has surrounded herself with nodding dogs. As is custom.

 climbingbadger 05 Jul 2020
In reply to The Lemming:

She's a nasty piece of work even by Tory standards though. Which I guess makes her some kind of demonic hellspawn by everyone else's?

I swear it's mandatory to be a horrible person to get the Home Secretary job.

1
 The New NickB 05 Jul 2020
In reply to Babika:

> You're focusing on Patel but must there must be Home Office officials and Govt lawyers who have decided to push ahead with this.

> If just one of them has an 11 year old daughter I don't know how they look them in the face over breakfast knowing the unimaginable torture they want to put a fellow schoolgirl through

Of course Patel has form for getting rid of dissenting Civil Servants.

In reply to Greenbanks:

Before politics Patel did PR work for a tobacco firm about a factory they had as a joint venture with the military regime in Myanmar which used child labour.

She's way beyond the normal Tory level of evil and it is absolutely no coincidence they made her Home Secretary.  The Brexiteers want to see an evil b*stard in that job and to keep the Asian Brexit voters on side the Tories are putting an Asian in that job to show they will stick the same sh*t to the Europeans as they have always done to the Asians.  Too much of a coincidence to get two Asian Home Secretaries in a row in an overwhelmingly white cabinet.

England is stuck with these c*nts for five years but Scotland is not.

4
 neilh 05 Jul 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Where did you get that from?

a different left persoective

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/05/priti-patel-balancing-act-...

5
Alyson30 05 Jul 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> She's way beyond the normal Tory level of evil and it is absolutely no coincidence they made her Home Secretary. 

Spot on.

2
Alyson30 05 Jul 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> England is stuck with these c*nts for five years but Scotland is not.

It is, unfortunately.

4
In reply to neilh:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/30/priti-patel-worked-as-spin...

Google 'Patel tobacco Myanmar' there's a ton of links will come up.

2
In reply to Alyson30:

> It is, unfortunately.

54% for independence and a Holyrood election next year.   Westminster can maybe block a referendum but they can't block an election.  SNP is on course for an absolute majority.   Next year there will either be an independence referendum or a unilateral declaration of independence.  

Post edited at 02:00
8
Alyson30 06 Jul 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> 54% for independence and a Holyrood election next year.   Westminster can maybe block a referendum but they can't block an election.  SNP is on course for an absolute majority.   Next year there will either be an independence referendum or a unilateral declaration of independence.  

Or more realistically, the tories, unable to win elections in Scotland, simply strip Holyrood of its powers and/or frustrates their exercice, until it become a joke Parliament which is exactly what they think it is, and increasingly is becoming as such.

Any attempt at UDI would probably result in Sturgeon and co being thrown in jail. Nicola is too smart to have not realised this isn’t a realistic option.

As much as I can see the independence movement growing in Scotland, it doesn’t really matter, the only way you get Scottish Independence is when the English electorate decides they had enough of the Scots.

Post edited at 10:19
3
 jkarran 06 Jul 2020
In reply to Baron Weasel:

> She's a particularly nasty piece of work that should have been tried for treason over trying to divert foreign aid to the Israeli military. 

I think we could reasonably suspect from the lack of serious legal or career consequences her Israel trip was deniable rather than totally unsanctioned. If so, she still bungled it by getting caught. That or Johnson really is a completely spineless cretin surrounding himself with the dimmest ideologues to consolidate his brexit crown. Granted either is possible.

IMO she's a dreadful human being and a worse home secretary but I suspect we were sold a line over the Israel affair.

jk

1
 Bob Kemp 06 Jul 2020
In reply to The Lemming:

> Your right, it takes a whole department to do such things. But staff are moulded by their their senior managers and ministers words and deed. And minister's words and deeds are moulded from electioneering and results at the ballot box.

Yes, it's all about the hostile environment...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/28/that-clayton-barnes-i...

 neilh 06 Jul 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

It is fascinating what the internet throws up.

Interestingly Dominic Raab worked on a project for the PLo at one stage.........look it up on his bio...took my breath when I learn that.

Maybe they both cancel each others " sins" out.

3
 neilh 06 Jul 2020
In reply to jkarran:

Whilst I find Patel a strange person, I do find there is a lot of misogynistic comments about her.

Its a poisoned chalice being Home Secretary. Lurking away in your portfolio are some horrendous long standing never to be resolved issues on immigration, police and law and order.At some stage a couple of them hit the surface and the press latch onto it as an example of the Home Secretarys character.

The current Home Secretary is "always the worst on record " whoever it is as it goes with the territory.

11
Removed User 06 Jul 2020
In reply to neilh:

Very true.

Possibly the worst job in government as opposed to Foreign secretary, the best job in government.

Doesn't mean she wouldn't unplug your life support to charge her phone.

1
 gazhbo 06 Jul 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Whilst I find Patel a strange person, I do find there is a lot of misogynistic comments about her.

It’s difficult to think of anything more misogynistic than sending a child to a country in which she’s never lived despite overwhelming evidence that she’ll be subject to FGM, the same practise which killed two of her aunts and which is the basis of her mother’s asylum claim.

I agree that Patel comes in for a lot of criticism, but I think, because of her Ethnicity and Gender, most people are very careful to make sure they criticise her for what she does, rather than what she is, which usually turns out to be quite easy.

1
 THE.WALRUS 06 Jul 2020
In reply to gazhbo:

Priti Patel isn't to blame for the 3,000,000 girls who undergo FGM each year (figures from the WHO website).

Seems to be rather alot of anger directed against Patel, here. 

Surley the actual problem is Islam, and mysogenistic family structures that enforce it. 

Post edited at 12:55
11
 jkarran 06 Jul 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Whilst I find Patel a strange person, I do find there is a lot of misogynistic comments about her.

> Its a poisoned chalice being Home Secretary. Lurking away in your portfolio are some horrendous long standing never to be resolved issues on immigration, police and law and order.At some stage a couple of them hit the surface and the press latch onto it as an example of the Home Secretarys character.

Sure, obviously the problem is 99% me being a hand wringing wet, racist, misogynist but also let's be honest, she's just ghastly, never missing an opportunity to disappoint. Johnson's whole cabinet is chosen either for their brexit zealotry, for fawning loyalty or because they're no threat to him one way or another. Patel is at the overlapping heart of that awful anti-meritocratic Venn diagram.

> The current Home Secretary is "always the worst on record " whoever it is as it goes with the territory.

Really? I disagree for what it's worth, however much I despise this government I think I retain some perspective, some judgement.

They're not all shit, Sunak deserves credit.

jk

1
 jkarran 06 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> Priti Patel isn't to blame for the 3,000,000 girls who undergo FGM each year (figures from the WHO website).

No but she will be directly to blame for her failure to protect this one child. One is damning enough.

jk

2
 gazhbo 06 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Ok, I don’t think anyone has said she is, but that’s an unusual way of looking at it.  She has the power and influence to protect someone, who is 11 years old, from being subject to that practice, but she appears to be doing the exact opposite, by hiding behind differing burdens of proof in the family and immigration court.  Essentially she is saying that it is okay for the immigration court to ignore the overwhelming likelihood of the girl being mutilated if sent home, because that is what the evidential rules permit.  If that transpires, she’ll be complicit.  To me, and I would hope everybody, that is an absolute disgrace.  It’s not misogynistic to think that.

Post edited at 13:16
1
Alyson30 06 Jul 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Whilst I find Patel a strange person, I do find there is a lot of misogynistic comments about her.

> Its a poisoned chalice being Home Secretary. Lurking away in your portfolio are some horrendous long standing never to be resolved issues on immigration, police and law and order.At some stage a couple of them hit the surface and the press latch onto it as an example of the Home Secretarys character.

> The current Home Secretary is "always the worst on record " whoever it is as it goes with the territory.

That is because they have become worse and worse.  Javid was actually a faint glimmer of light but that was short-lived.

1
 THE.WALRUS 06 Jul 2020
In reply to jkarran:

I agree, but she's in a difficult position.

If she sets a precedent with one FGM case, she's liable to cop 2,999,999 more. Every year.

As we saw in Germany, Merkel's well intentioned opening of the gates to mass immigration has caused chaos.

Priti Patel has made a tough decision, but I understand why she has done so.

How would you respond, in these circumstances?

Post edited at 13:16
12
 Andy Clarke 06 Jul 2020
In reply to neilh:

> The current Home Secretary is "always the worst on record " whoever it is as it goes with the territory.

Exactly the opposite was said about Roy Jenkins in the 1960s, a man who genuinely stood for the values of tolerance and diversity. The reason it gets said about Patel is because she's a strong contender for the award.

 Alkis 06 Jul 2020
In reply to neilh:

> The current Home Secretary is "always the worst on record " whoever it is as it goes with the territory.

Sorry but no. Amber Rudd wasn't bad. She got burnt by May's whip. May was horrible and many of the issues we're seeing today are direct consequence of her handling of the Home Office.

Javid's rhetoric was encouraging but he didn't stay long enough to see what that would amount to.


Patel can easily end up doing the same stuff as May because she wants to be seen as being tough and genuinely appears to be lacking empathy, which is incredibly worrying for someone at the helm of the home office.

Post edited at 13:30
 Enty 06 Jul 2020
In reply to neilh:

She wants to bring back the death penalty and also wants to implement policies which if done 50 years ago she wouldn't exisit.

Also - Israel.

She's vile and would be vile if she was a he or white or whatever.

E

1
 gazhbo 06 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

She’s not in a tough position. The floodgates argument only applies if you’re a massive callous tw*t.  The 3m cases you cite are global, but if there were 3m girls in the UK at risk of FGM if deported, none of them should be deported.

Patel is actively appealing a FGM protection order made in the family court, on the basis that the most relevant information about the risk of harm to the child should just be ignored.  She could have accepted the decision and hid behind it, but she didn’t.  Instead she’s wasting money fighting it.  I’ve no idea why other than to set a precedent that the uk is not a soft touch on FGM.

Post edited at 13:36
1
 THE.WALRUS 06 Jul 2020
In reply to gazhbo:

So, we protect people at risk of FGM who live here, but ignore calls for help and asylum from people at risk of FGM who live overseas?

This argument hugely oversimplifies the problem. It was to follow the standard 'Patel bad' line, but there's far more behind this than her callous nature. 

I would add that, an ex-employee of Manchester Airport, I can tell you that the PIA, Air Ethiopia and Turkish Airways flights carried a great many school girls being overseas for FGM every summer - chaperoned by their 'uncles'. 

The place was swarming with police and social services, very rarely were they able to prove that the child was at risk. Even when the appeared back home, prosecution was nearly impossible.

These unfortunate girls were sent overseas with the consent of their families, by the thousand, from Manchester Airport alone. How on earth would we be able to close the floodgates? And how would the Muslim population react to our sampling of their religious customs? 

Post edited at 14:01
5
 gazhbo 06 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> So, we protect people at risk of FGM who live here, but ignore calls for help and asylum from people at risk of FGM who live overseas?

not at all - obviously they’re not mutually exclusive.  Patel has the power to do something about immediately (she doesn’t actually have to anything other than not appeal a court decision), in this and other similar circumstances, and the other is far more difficult.  

> This argument hugely oversimplifies the problem. It was to follow the standard 'Patel bad' line, but there's far more behind this than her callous nature. 

Are you suggesting that people are using her reprehensible position to have a pop at her, because they’re secret woman haters.  If so I don’t agree.

Alyson30 06 Jul 2020
In reply to Alkis:

> Sorry but no. Amber Rudd wasn't bad.

Absolutely true. Her only crime was to be a remainer, so she got assassinated for Windrush even though she had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Worse, Patel is actively perpetuating Windrush  (NONE of the laws that created the situation have been changed, virtually none of the compensation paid out) But that's all fine....

> Javid's rhetoric was encouraging but he didn't stay long enough to see what that would amount to.

I agree.

> Patel can easily end up doing the same stuff as May because she wants to be seen as being tough and genuinely appears to be lacking empathy, which is incredibly worrying for someone at the helm of the home office.

She is worse than May. May didn't give a single f*ck about the countless lives she ruined.
Patel is actively seeking to ruin the lives of the people she hates.

Post edited at 14:12
2
 THE.WALRUS 06 Jul 2020
In reply to gazhbo:

> not at all - obviously they’re not mutually exclusive.  Patel has the power to do something about immediately (she doesn’t actually have to anything other than not appeal a court decision), in this and other similar circumstances, and the other is far more difficult.  

And there-in lies the problem. If we take a stand against FGM - we risk becoming a sanctuary for the 3 million other cases, each year. By your own admission, we can't turn a blind eye to them.

It's an extremely tough line to take, but what can we do in the face of this kind of such a wide-spread problem?  

> Are you suggesting that people are using her reprehensible position to have a pop at her, because they’re secret woman haters.  If so I don’t agree.

No, that wasn't what I was suggesting. I didn't mention her gender.

Interesting that we're all turning Patel into the bogyman, here. The problem is Islam.

Post edited at 14:23
9
 gazhbo 06 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> So, we protect people at risk of FGM who live here, but ignore calls for help and asylum from people at risk of FGM who live overseas?

> This argument hugely oversimplifies the problem. It was to follow the standard 'Patel bad' line, but there's far more behind this than her callous nature. 

> I would add that, an ex-employee of Manchester Airport, I can tell you that the PIA, Air Ethiopia and Turkish Airways flights carried a great many school girls being overseas for FGM every summer - chaperoned by their 'uncles'. 

> The place was swarming with police and social services, very rarely were they able to prove that the child was at risk. Even when the appeared back home, prosecution was nearly impossible.

> These unfortunate girls were sent overseas with the consent of their families, by the thousand, from Manchester Airport alone. How on earth would we be able to close the floodgates? And how would the Muslim population react to our sampling of their religious customs? 

So what then? Just ignore it?

There is a mechanism for protection in the form of local authorities applying for protection orders.  I’ve been involved in these cases and I know the test is quite high but in this case it was met and and an order made.  Patel is appealing that order.

The issue of protecting cultural sensitivities should and does come secondary to child welfare.  Most FGM protection orders are made against families seeking to take girls ‘home’, rather than the home office. They are akin to care proceedings.  As I’ve said the test is quite high, but clearly it was met in this case.

How to close the floodgates is only an issue if you think there is a floodgates argument to be had, which there really isn’t.

Post edited at 14:43
1
 gazhbo 06 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

In this particular case the problem is absolutely Patel.  Islam also is not synonymous with FGM.

2
 THE.WALRUS 06 Jul 2020
In reply to gazhbo:

Yes - but the process is far too laborious, and the standard of evidence is far too high to be effective in the tens of thousands of cases we'd need to prevent each year to make a significant difference.

If you walk all over cultural sensitivities, even for the right reasons, you get race riots.

As for the floodgates argument; Islam is one of the worlds biggest religions, in some countries 80% of the female population have suffered FGM; that's 200000000 people worldwide.  Still can't see the floodgate? 

Post edited at 14:37
6
 THE.WALRUS 06 Jul 2020
In reply to gazhbo:

You can certainly stick the blame for 1 FGM case on Patel.

Who cops for the other 199 999 999? 

3
 jkarran 06 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> I agree, but she's in a difficult position. If she sets a precedent with one FGM case, she's liable to cop 2,999,999 more. Every year.

Good. If that happens that's 2,999,999 little girls not sliced up each year.

Of course I don't agree it will happen and we wouldn't have to protect them all through asylum there are other options, plenty of other nations already take their responsibilities seriously, plenty more would have nowhere to hide if sizeable influential countries like ours set a better example. Instead we get dreadful people like Patel in power pandering to a populous with fears like yours, fears they've they deliberately stoked for decades of Muslims and being over-run.

> Priti Patel has made a tough decision, but I understand why she has done so.

And in your response the rest of us can see why too. This makes her a dreadful human being, failing to fulfil the responsibility of her office.

> How would you respond, in these circumstances?

Not deport a child to be mutilated so as to pander to terrified gammon tw*ts. It isn't difficult.

jk

Post edited at 15:34
2
 THE.WALRUS 06 Jul 2020
In reply to jkarran:

Patel hasn't stoked my fears. I speak only of what I have seen myself.

I don't think we have the wealth or capability to deal with a problem of this scale. We're talking 200 million people and counting; and a sizable proportion of one of the worlds biggest religions who actively promote FGM.

Sure, it might be more digestible if she came out with a few platitudes, but theres precious little she can do about the problem...all the more so now that everything she does is assessed against woke standards, where any move which violates cultural sensitivities will be misinterpreted as racism.

What's a terrified gammon tw*t? That's a new one on me. Presumably one of the phrases we trot-out when someone interferes with the UKC echo chamber?

7
 Graeme G 06 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

At 14:22 you said there’s 3 million cases. 12 minutes later you posted it’s now 200 million cases.

Difficult to create an argument when your data keeps changing.

PS For comparison we have capacity for 3 million Hong Kong residents.

3
 THE.WALRUS 06 Jul 2020
In reply to Graeme G:

200 million existing cases worldwide.

3 million new cases each year.

WHO figures.

1
 neilh 06 Jul 2020
In reply to Andy Clarke:

Different times..... there again Jenkins did not have to live with social media and a 24 hour news culture.. and you do wonder how he would have coped. Jenkins was a reforming Home Secretary nevertheless.

 Graeme G 06 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> 200 million existing cases worldwide.

> 3 million new cases each year.

> WHO figures.

Gotcha. So perhaps the best she can do, is save one. You’re right the problem is far greater than any single individual, or nation, could sort. Leadership takes courage. Send her back says one message, keep her here sends a very different message. 

 jkarran 06 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> I don't think we have the wealth or capability to deal with a problem of this scale. We're talking 200 million people and counting; and a sizable proportion of one of the worlds biggest religions who actively promote FGM.

Asylum seekers cost us very little, once granted asylum they can become productive members of our community. Of course our current policy of indefinite detention for those whose applications are rejected rather increases the costs but there we go. I guess someone thinks it's popular.

> Sure, it might be more digestible if she came out with a few platitudes, but theres precious little she can do about the problem...all the more so now that everything she does is assessed against woke standards, where any move which violates cultural sensitivities will be misinterpreted as racism.

She's actively appealing against a decision to grant protection. There's one blindingly obvious thing she could do if she had the tiniest shred of human decency.

What is 'woke' about wishing to see our obligation to protect an asylum seeking child from physical mutilation upheld. What happened to us that our own government would think this a popular course of action, I despair.

jk

1
 Alkis 06 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

So, let me get this straight:

Because Patel cannot solve the problem for every child on the planet, she not only should not solve it for the one child she CAN solve it for but she must also ensure that that child is cut?

Is this your argument? That is what is sounds like, please do clarify if it is not, because that would make you a psychopath.

2
In reply to Alyson30:

> As much as I can see the independence movement growing in Scotland, it doesn’t really matter, the only way you get Scottish Independence is when the English electorate decides they had enough of the Scots.

The English said the same thing to the US, Ireland, India and every other country in their Empire.

1
Alyson30 06 Jul 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The English said the same thing to the US, Ireland, India and every other country in their Empire.

And in every single case they gave up when it became too expensive, too much of a bother, and too unpopular to the English electorate. Not when they just asked for independence.

Post edited at 17:14
 THE.WALRUS 06 Jul 2020
In reply to Graeme G:

Yes, saving her would be nice.

But, Patel doesn't want to set a precedent. She's a Tory politician, whose party won a landslide election victory on grounds of, amongst other things, being tough on immigration.

If we give an illegal immigrant permission to stay in the UK because she is at risk of FGM, we will open the floodgates for all illegally landed Muslim females to stay here; partly because FGM is so prevalent, partly because being at risk of such a procedure is almost impossible to disprove and partly because they'll be ably represented by a bunch of dubious human rights lawyers (now that the money tap for bringing false claims against retired soldiers has run dry, they're looking for another bottomless taxpayer-funded money pit).

If Patel conceded ground in this case, she's conceded them all...and a chunk of the 3 million new FGM cases each year.

She would have achieved a symbolic victory in saving this one girl, but the consequences of this would be millions more claims for asylum and a defeat at the next election.

As we have seen in Germany and France, the populous are no longer tolerant of mass immigration, particularly from the Islamic world. It's caused, amongst other things, the accelerating rise of the far right, race riots, and widespread difficulties with social integration.

Ergo, she has to fight this case. She's doing what she said she'd do when she was elected. 

Post edited at 17:18
4
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Wow! You really are The Walrus!

1
 Graeme G 06 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Don’t agree. We’ve (You?) already lost the ‘floodgates’ argument by openly saying we have space for 3 million residents of Hong Kong.

You’re playing the ‘Johnny foreigner’ card. However, you’re right that this would cost the Tories at the election. Nothing to do with morality, right or wrong. Just reducing the fate of humans to a PR campaign, playing to a far right audience. Unfortunately that plays into the independence debate in Scotland (I’ve just gone and done what I’ve accused others of, apologies). Which, if you believe John Major, will result in all parts of the UK having significantly less world influence in the future.

So her short term gain has the potential to be a long term loss.  Anyway, we’ll agree to disagree. But I know my decision would be to save just one. It might be a short term victory, or the start of something greater. 

 THE.WALRUS 06 Jul 2020
In reply to Graeme G:

The Western world is falling over itself to take refugees from Hong Kong. They are from a comparably advanced nation, with a requisite level of education and transferable skills. They are likely to be net contributors to the economies of their new homelands.

The same cannot be said for survivors of FGM, a practise is most prevalent in poor, rural areas of countries like Sudan, Pakistan and Ethiopia whose populous to not have a comparable level of education and training.

Add to this growing hostility towards Muslims, ever increasing far-right malcontent, the risk of public disorder and the social problems encountered by other European countries who have permitted mass immigration from the Muslim world, and you can see why Patel is holding her ground. 

I don't know what the Jonny Foreigner card is, either!

Post edited at 17:42
3
 gazhbo 06 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> The Western world is falling over itself to take refugees from Hong Kong. They are from a comparably advanced nation, with a requisite level of education and transferable skills. They are likely to be net contributors to the economies of their new homelands.

> The same cannot be said for survivors of FGM, a practise is most prevalent in poor, rural areas of countries like Sudan, Pakistan and Ethiopia whose populous to not have a comparable level of education and training.

So children at risk of FGM are not worthy of the legal protections already afforded to them because they are not as well educated as graduates from Hong Kong?

1
 THE.WALRUS 06 Jul 2020
In reply to gazhbo:

In terms of realpolitik, yes.

Morally, no.

3
OP Greenbanks 06 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> As we saw in Germany, Merkel's well intentioned opening of the gates to mass immigration has caused chaos <

Now that is worth serious scrutiny. This authoritative analysis would tell us otherwise:

https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2019/05/how-has-germanys-econ...

Nempnett Thrubwell 06 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Why isn't the floodgates argument being used for Hong Kong then?

If HK residents can argue that their liberty is about to be reduced, then why not the 1 billion Chinese in mainland China whom already have their liberty restricted.

As you rightly say a significant proportion of fgm practice is in the poor rural areas like the countries you mentioned - where it is highly unlikely that any girl has the awareness, timeframe, education or resources to start an asylum application to the UK between finding out their fate and the act being carried out.

So the chances of the quoted 3 million new cases each year being able to get a safe place in their own country let alone to the UK are almost zero.

Whilst the chances of the home secretary influencing 1 case in the UK by changing position is highly likely.

 MG 06 Jul 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> And in every single case they gave up when it became too expensive, too much of a bother, and too unpopular to the English electorate. 

Err, you might want to read about US history. (And TiE about the British Empire)

Post edited at 18:21
 THE.WALRUS 06 Jul 2020
In reply to Greenbanks:

That's hardly authoritative. If you Google hard enough you'll find the counter argument.

You're not even comparing like-for-like.

Post edited at 18:42
1
 THE.WALRUS 06 Jul 2020
In reply to Nempnett Thrubwell:

See above, for the HK argument. It's a once-ever intake, by the way. FGM in on-going.

Lack of education and legal services amongst those who lived in rural Iraq didn't stop our Human Rights lawyers from packing their bags and trawling through remote Iraqi settlements and backwaters in search of faux victims of war-crimes.

Give them a sniff of a pay cheque in the Sudan and they'll be on the plane. It's happened before, I see no reason why it wouldn't happen again. 

Post edited at 18:42
3
 Alkis 06 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

>Lack of education and legal services amongst those who lived in rural Iraq didn't stop our Human Rights lawyers from packing their bags and trawling through remote Iraqi settlements and backwaters in search of faux victims of war-crimes.

OK, throughout all of this I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, thinking you are basically playing the devil's advocate here, i.e. stating what you feel the government's justification is, not what your opinion on the situation is. What you just posted is beyond the pale, you really *are* stating that we shouldn't help where we can.

3
 THE.WALRUS 06 Jul 2020
In reply to Alkis:

That's not what I'm saying.

Thr origional posters contended that Priti Patel was some kind of vile, hateful bogeyman who has suffered a humanity bypass and was deliberately harming a child.

I've tried to inject some context by countering that she's bound by realpolitik and the Tory manifesto.

I've tried to explain why, in my opinion, she's made these decisions, the pitfalls of 'doing the right thing', the justification behind opening the doors to immigrants from Hong Kong, and the well publicised folly of believing what human rights lawyers tell you.

The reality of FGM, and our response to it, is far more nuanced, and far uglier than the article in the Guardian would have us believe. 

Your objections illustrate why most emotive online debate isn't really debate at all...just echoes of the same opinion. 

Post edited at 19:07
3
Nempnett Thrubwell 06 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Why do you think HK will be a once ever intake. Surely you must think those same lawyers you mention will be packing their bags to use the HK argument for Chinese citizens? 

2
Alyson30 06 Jul 2020
In reply to MG:

> Err, you might want to read about US history. (And TiE about the British Empire)

Well given that US history corroborates what I’ve said, I’m not sure what your point is.

1
Alyson30 06 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> That's not what I'm saying.

> Thr origional posters contended that Priti Patel was some kind of vile, hateful bogeyman who has suffered a humanity bypass and was deliberately harming a child.

> I've tried to inject some context by countering that she's bound by realpolitik and the Tory manifesto.

Your points were good, but nonwithstanding , I’ve followed her closely since the brexit campaign, and I came to the conclusion that she is a very nasty piece of work.

You can look at her voting record, it’s particularly vomit inducing 

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24778/priti_patel/witham/divisions?policy...

Post edited at 19:33
2
 THE.WALRUS 06 Jul 2020
In reply to Nempnett Thrubwell:

Seriously?

I suspect the Chinese authorities would frown on foreign human rights lawyers operating on their turf. Or citizens looking to flee.

Have a look at the new anti-protest laws. They extend to overseas nationals and carry life imprisonment.

1
Nempnett Thrubwell 06 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

As you've not challenged the premise of my point,  just tried to belittle the clumsy way I've tried to make it I can only assume you have no counter argument and that mine is correct. 

Cheers.

2
 THE.WALRUS 06 Jul 2020
In reply to Nempnett Thrubwell:

If you can't see the issues surrounding UK human rights lawyers operating in one of the worlds most oppressed societies, theres not much point in me highlighting them. 

As I was saying....the problem with arguing in the online echo chamber.

Perhaps I'll just butt-out and you can all agree with each other. That'll get to the bottom of the issue!

1
 MG 06 Jul 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

No, it doesn't. Which is my point. Just have a read, I don't, of course, expect you to admit here you are even slightly wrong or could learn anything on any topic.

Alyson30 06 Jul 2020
In reply to MG:

> No, it doesn't. Which is my point. Just have a read, I don't, of course, expect you to admit here you are even slightly wrong or could learn anything on any topic.

I note that you utterly fail to even explain why it doesn’t corroborate my point. If you want me to learn something then maybe you have to say what it is instead of doing the usual ad-hominem.

The US got its independence because they waged relentless war against Britain, until the British got so desperate to end this costly affair that they eventually gave up.

It certainly wasn’t because the Americans asked nicely or because Britain respected self-determination.

And it goes back to my point, it is plainly naive  to think that Scotland would be given independence if they asked for it.

It is BTW pretty obvious given that Westminster wouldn’t even allow a second independence referendum to occur - despite a very clear and impeccable democratic mandate for of it.

They can’t even get the right to hold referendum, ffs... how can anyone argue they would give Scotland independence just because it would ask is beyond me.

Post edited at 20:23
2
 Andy Clarke 07 Jul 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> The US got its independence because they waged relentless war against Britain, until the British got so desperate to end this costly affair that they eventually gave up.

> It certainly wasn’t because the Americans asked nicely or because Britain respected self-determination.

Mind you, it helped that the British Prime Minister of the time, Lord North, was regarded by many as indolent, vacillating and incompetent, so there are some parallels to the current situation. 

 wercat 07 Jul 2020
In reply to Nempnett Thrubwell:

the issue of the 3M Chinese (which would, worst case, increase our population by a calculable percentage) is a political ploy without mandate.  Such a move really would need to be put to the electorate one way or another.

 neilh 07 Jul 2020
In reply to wercat:

Why is that. They are BNO??? Not European or USA or African or whatever.. They are British Nationals.

 jkarran 07 Jul 2020
In reply to neilh:

The longstanding presence of 2 million Europeans was apparently enough to trigger a political earthquake, the arrival of up to 3 million Hong Kongers seems unlikely to be accepted any more warmly by the fraction of the electorate currently holding sway in Britain. If they come en masse (which I doubt they will, Britain is in spiralling decline largely thanks to those very same voters) that's a big and not to put too fine a point on it, visible social change.

jk

1
 deepsoup 07 Jul 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The English said the same thing to the US, Ireland, India and every other country in their Empire.

You seem confused, the English have never actually had an empire.

There was a British Empire though, could that be the one you're thinking of?

Post edited at 11:26
2
Alyson30 07 Jul 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> You seem confused, the English have never actually had an empire.

> There was a British Empire though, could that be the one you're thinking of?

These two claims are contradicting one another.

4
Alyson30 07 Jul 2020
In reply to jkarran:

> The longstanding presence of 2 million Europeans was apparently enough to trigger a political earthquake, the arrival of up to 3 million Hong Kongers seems unlikely to be accepted any more warmly by the fraction of the electorate currently holding sway in Britain. If they come en masse (which I doubt they will, Britain is in spiralling decline largely thanks to those very same voters) that's a big and not to put too fine a point on it, visible social change.

> jk

Even if 2m HK were to come (very unlikely) this isn’t going to lead to any visible social change just like the arrival of 3.2m european did not lead to any major changes. Most will concentrate in already very diverse areas, blend in and that will be it. 

Post edited at 13:13
1
 jkarran 07 Jul 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> Even if 2m HK were to come (very unlikely) this isn’t going to lead to any visible social change just like the arrival of 3.2m european did not lead to any major changes. Most will concentrate in already very diverse areas, blend in and that will be it. 

2M new people moving from HK, mostly into London in pretty short significantly change the ethnic mix, job and property markets. Especially if that coincides with brexit and covid stress it's bonkers to think people who apparently couldn't cope living around Poles will just shrug and ignore it.

It's pretty old data but as of 2011 there were only 125k ethnically Chinese people, <550k if you include 'Asian-Other' very diffusely spread across greater London (more diffuse than almost any other group) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London. 2 or 3 million new arrivals won't just blend in unnoticed.

Personally I couldn't care less, but we're a country that has just torn itself apart over immigration, the idea that a new wave of arrivals won't be ruthlessly exploited by demagogues, old and new, that seems naive.

jk

1
 deepsoup 07 Jul 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> These two claims are contradicting one another.

Well, they are if "English" and "British" are the same thing. 

I'm just about old enough to remember when enthusiastic Scottish nationalists used to complain bitterly that the Scots weren't given enough credit for their contribution to conquering half the world and building the glorious British Empire.  The inventors, industrialists, soldiers, the Glasgow shipyards etc. 

It just amuses me how it's now become apparent that the dastardly English of the 18th & 19th centuries did it all on their own whilst dragging the helplessly reluctant Scots along behind them kicking and screaming all the way.  (I think the Welsh may also have made the transition from enthusiastic collaborators to helpless hostages, though I'm not sure.  Perhaps T-in-E could clarify?)

Post edited at 14:03
1
Alyson30 07 Jul 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> Well, they are if "English" and "British" are the same thing. 

True but they are also contradicting if « English » is a subset of « British ». Which it think everybody agrees it is.

> It just amuses me how it's now become apparent that the dastardly English of the 18th & 19th centuries did it all on their own whilst dragging the helplessly reluctant Scots along behind them kicking and screaming all the way.  (I think the Welsh may also have made the transition from enthusiastic collaborators to helpless hostages, though I'm not sure.  Perhaps T-in-E could clarify?

It is pretty common historical knowledge that the British empire was initiated by overseas possession and trading posts established by England.

Nevertheless I don’t think the issue Scottish nationalist have is with what happened in the past it’s more about the fact that imperialist nostalgic fantasies are driving so much of current U.K. policies.

Post edited at 16:05
1
 deepsoup 07 Jul 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> Nevertheless I don’t think the issue Scottish nationalist have is with what happened in the past it’s more about..

Oh, I think T-in-E has had more than enough to say on here about history to justify gently teasing him about his talk of the "English Empire".

> the fact that imperialist nostalgic fantasies are driving so much of current U.K. policies.

Yes.  Can't argue with that, sadly.

Alyson30 07 Jul 2020
In reply to jkarran:

> 2M new people moving from HK, mostly into London in pretty short significantly change the ethnic mix, job and property markets. Especially if that coincides with brexit and covid stress it's bonkers to think people who apparently couldn't cope living around Poles will just shrug and ignore it.

Actually you probably wouldn’t notice in most parts of the country. The influx of 3m eu citizens was barely noticeable appart from maybe a few more polish delis. 

> Personally I couldn't care less, but we're a country that has just torn itself apart over immigration, the idea that a new wave of arrivals won't be ruthlessly exploited by demagogues, old and new, that seems naive.

I think it comes from a profound misunderstanding. It’s easy to simplify and say the brexit electorate is just xenophobic/racist and they don’t want immigrants.

The brexit voting electorate isn’t actually  concerned so much about immigration. What they disliked is the fact that immigrants could have the same right as them.

That is why you see the same people who were talking about the need to end freedom of movement so that we could treat all immigrant the same are now giving access to the U.K. to 3m BNO nationals.

In their mind, giving people from a former colonies the « permission » to come to the U.K, under an unilateral, political act of charity is perfectly OK and even to be celebrated, it is an expression of power and  « sovereignty ».

However having citizens from Europe’s coming with equal rights on a reciprocal basis protected by international law is seen as betrayal.

So you just can’t compare the two with each other.

Post edited at 16:46
4
In reply to deepsoup:

> You seem confused, the English have never actually had an empire.

Yes, they did.   Look at the population graphs for Scotland vs England over the last 300 years.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/b5e3t7/while_testing_my_knowledg...

Almost all the population growth after the union is in England.   See what happened to Ireland - just as f*cked as Scotland while it was tied to England and recovering after it got independence.

It is the English empire because the power and wealth generated by the hard work and inventiveness of half the world, including Scotland, was controlled from London and largely spent for the benefit of the English elite.  Anyone who wanted to get ahead was dependent on accessing capital controlled by London or forced to move to London to progress their career.   As soon as an industry outside of London came into hard times it was thrown to the wolves.  Only banking and land owning were protected.

Post edited at 16:57
2
 jkarran 07 Jul 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> Actually you probably wouldn’t notice in most parts of the country. The influx of 3m eu citizens was barely noticeable appart from maybe a few more polish delis. 

Yet look what mileage was made from even that near invisible influx, we now have what is in all but name a UKIP government in the pocket of brexit sponsors.

> I think it comes from a profound misunderstanding. It’s easy to simplify and say the brexit electorate is just xenophobic/racist and they don’t want immigrants.

It is easy or at least lazy but that isn't the case I was making. It never has been that brexit is a xenophobic endeavour, it was a coup plain and simple but nationalism and xenophobia run through the case made for brexit, to the electorate, like Blackpool through rock and we flocked to those ideas.

> The brexit voting electorate isn’t actually  concerned so much about immigration. What they disliked is the fact that immigrants could have the same right as them.

And you think that resentment couldn't be stoked again?

> That is why you see the same people who were talking about the need to end freedom of movement now giving access to the U.K. to 3m BNO nationals.

Hardly anyone in power actually gives a f**k about immigration or FOM but making the voters believe it mattered was a powerful tool to unite a bloc with otherwise disparate views. The consequence of that hard sell and the years of squabbling after 2016 is many have they've built solid identities around immigration. De-radicalising the electorate now so we'd overlook an influx of millions of Hong Kong Chinese seems an endeavour unlikely to be successful IMHO especially since it benefits those in power to keep us divided on these social issues rather than returning to more traditional economic divide. Do you really think people whipped up to fear others taking their jobs and diluting their identity will care that they're BNO? Most of us barely had a clue that was a thing until last week.

> In their mind, giving people from a former colonies the « permission » to come to the U.K, under an unilateral, political act of charity is perfectly OK and even to be celebrated.

We'll see.

jk

1
 MG 07 Jul 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

What has population growth got to do with being an empire? Countries like Bangladesh and INdia with massive growth are hardly empires.  Pretending Scotland was anything but fully bought in to the British Empire is absurd.  Glasgow, Dundee and Edinburgh benefited just as much as London, Bristol and Newcastle.

1
Alyson30 07 Jul 2020
In reply to jkarran:

> Yet look what mileage was made from even that near invisible influx, we now have what is in all but name a UKIP government in the pocket of brexit sponsors.

> It is easy or at least lazy but that isn't the case I was making. It never has been that brexit is a xenophobic endeavour, it was a coup plain and simple but nationalism and xenophobia run through the case made for brexit, to the electorate, like Blackpool through rock and we flocked to those ideas.

> And you think that resentment couldn't be stoked again?

It could but I don’t see what benefit they could draw from it at this point.

> Hardly anyone in power actually gives a f**k about immigration or FOM but making the voters believe it mattered was a powerful tool to unite a bloc with otherwise disparate views.

I agree it is just that the issue of immigration itself  was an issue of perception not of any reality on the ground. There is very compelling survey evidence of that BTW. When you survey people who voted bye it the vast majority can’t give you any example of how their lives have been changed by european immigration.

> De-radicalising the electorate now so we'd overlook an influx of millions of Hong Kong Chinese seems an endeavour unlikely to be successful IMHO especially since it benefits those in power to keep us divided on these social issues rather than returning to more traditional economic divide.

And yet my twitter feed and Facebook is full of Brexiteers celebrating the offer to HK citizens despite the fact that they were pissing on FoM a few years back.

If anything, it shows that the argument around immigration was completely bogus. It was always an issue with English identity.

Post edited at 17:23
Alyson30 07 Jul 2020
In reply to MG:

> What has population growth got to do with being an empire? Countries like Bangladesh and INdia with massive growth are hardly empires.  Pretending Scotland was anything but fully bought in to the British Empire is absurd.  Glasgow, Dundee and Edinburgh benefited just as much as London, Bristol and Newcastle.

The Scottish aristocrats were certainly very enthusiastic participants to the Empire.

But I don’t think this is disputed by TiE.

In reply to MG:

> What has population growth got to do with being an empire? Countries like Bangladesh and INdia with massive growth are hardly empires.  Pretending Scotland was anything but fully bought in to the British Empire is absurd.  Glasgow, Dundee and Edinburgh benefited just as much as London, Bristol and Newcastle.

No city in the UK benefited anything like as much as London from anything that has happened in the last 300 years.  It has all been about centralising power and wealth in London.   If you got wealthy in another region you ended up having a house in London because you needed to be close to the money and political power.

You could be right about Newcastle, the north of England gets treated just as badly as Scotland.

 MG 07 Jul 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

IF you want to argue that large cities (NY, London, Paris etc.) have all benefited more from economic shifts than regional cities in the last 300 years, I'm with you, but that isn't what you were saying higher.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Almost all the population growth after the union is in England. 

All those bloody Scots moving to England...

In reply to MG:

> IF you want to argue that large cities (NY, London, Paris etc.) have all benefited more from economic shifts than regional cities in the last 300 years, I'm with you, but that isn't what you were saying higher.

No, I want to argue that when all the decision makers - government, law, finance and in the old days royals are in one city anyone who wants to get on has to live there too.  London sucks money and talent out of the rest of the country like a cancer and the further you are from London the less you can influence the people with the power.

Other countries are nothing like as bad.  The US - political power is in Washington, Finance is in New York but states like California have substantial and *independent* financial institutions which invest in Californian tech and media companies, oil is in Texas.   Paris may be as bad as London.  Germany is more distributed.  The EU is very decentralised, Brussels is a second tier city.

1
Alyson30 11 Jul 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I really don’t understand your beef with London.

I understand that the Westminster system  is completely shot and I’m 100% with you in saying that at this point, anything to cut us off from it is a good thing.


But as far as London goes there is a big advantage to have a big global hub. True it sucks talent and money but that’s the nature of  agglomeration economics there isn’t all that much we can do about it.

Post edited at 07:08
In reply to Alyson30:

> But as far as London goes there is a big advantage to have a big global hub. True it sucks talent and money but that’s the nature of  agglomeration economics there isn’t all that much we can do about it.

There is.  We can become independent, like the Irish did. 

If you look at how easy it is for Irish tech firms to access capital from Irish banks compared to how easy it is for Scottish tech firms to access capital from (so called) Scottish banks you will see the difference.  The Irish banks are investing the savings of Ireland into businesses located in Ireland.   The same is true in California, the silicon valley companies can access money from banks in San Francisco and the California government pension schemes invest in Californian industry.  That's how companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Cisco Systems get the scale of investment needed to become world class.  

The  London thing is pernicious and it is a circular argument.  The more you put in London the more London will argue that because everything else is there then the next investment should also be in London.  It is completely out of hand and it needs to be stopped but a London based government will never stop it because the MPs and the civil servants all own property in London.

1

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...