Travel1 min ago
All the usual excuses once again?
19 Answers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/27/dr c-congo-deport-torture
Notice the Guardian's photo: 'Police at Kin Mazi�re intelligence HQ, Kinshasa, allegedly shown in this covertly taken picture with one of their detainees in 2008',
'Covertly' taken picture, you bet the camera man must have been standing side by side with the police.
There are an estimated 10,000 Congolese asylum seekers in the UK,
Last Thursday there was a charter flight carrying 24 Congolese bound for Kinshasa, the first such flight for more than two years.
That should thin them down a little, at 24 a week it will only take 8 years to get rid of the lot.
Notice the Guardian's photo: 'Police at Kin Mazi�re intelligence HQ, Kinshasa, allegedly shown in this covertly taken picture with one of their detainees in 2008',
'Covertly' taken picture, you bet the camera man must have been standing side by side with the police.
There are an estimated 10,000 Congolese asylum seekers in the UK,
Last Thursday there was a charter flight carrying 24 Congolese bound for Kinshasa, the first such flight for more than two years.
That should thin them down a little, at 24 a week it will only take 8 years to get rid of the lot.
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Covertly' taken picture, you bet the camera man must have been standing side by side with the police.
He may even have been a policeman himself - but knew that if he blew the whistle, he would himself be tortured.
I to am not sure what you want to discuss here - is it how the photo was taken or that you don't believe people are being tortured there.
Just a quick question for you though - if there life is in jeopardy and / or they are being tortured, would you be happy to send them back?
He may even have been a policeman himself - but knew that if he blew the whistle, he would himself be tortured.
I to am not sure what you want to discuss here - is it how the photo was taken or that you don't believe people are being tortured there.
Just a quick question for you though - if there life is in jeopardy and / or they are being tortured, would you be happy to send them back?
Oneeyedvic
Just a quick question for you though - if there life is in jeopardy and / or they are being tortured, would you be happy to send them back?
Of course not. but this excuse has been used over and over again, if we refused to send anyone back in case they were telling the truth, we would never get rid of illegals.
Perhaps we should take the chance and send a few back, then perhaps if they knew this possibility awaited them, if they took the decision to make for the UK, then perhaps they would choose the correct option by heading for first safe country they came to?
Just a quick question for you though - if there life is in jeopardy and / or they are being tortured, would you be happy to send them back?
Of course not. but this excuse has been used over and over again, if we refused to send anyone back in case they were telling the truth, we would never get rid of illegals.
Perhaps we should take the chance and send a few back, then perhaps if they knew this possibility awaited them, if they took the decision to make for the UK, then perhaps they would choose the correct option by heading for first safe country they came to?
There is a photograph to support the claim of torture, but you choose not to believe that is genuine. What would it take for you to be persuaded that it is not an excuse and that torture is taking place?
You seem quite happy to send some back to possible torture, to deter others coming here. I find that objectionable.
You seem quite happy to send some back to possible torture, to deter others coming here. I find that objectionable.
AOG
The case against the authorities in the Congo is based on more than the Guardian's photograph. If you can be bothered, you can read more here.
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?Category ID=581
The case against the authorities in the Congo is based on more than the Guardian's photograph. If you can be bothered, you can read more here.
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?Category ID=581
Gromit:
What I find "objectionable" is that people like you clearly prefer to defy the laws of our land by brazenly condemning the indefensible, i.e. that failed bogus asylum seekers should be rightly returned to their own countries where their fate is no concern of ours.
vic:
"but knew that if he blew the whistle, he would himself be tortured"
Doh? So you are now a mind reader, are you? A rare talent indeed. Could you tell me an honest MP I could vote for if you are possessed of such gifts, please?
The bleatings of the bleeding hearts brigade continues unabated!
What I find "objectionable" is that people like you clearly prefer to defy the laws of our land by brazenly condemning the indefensible, i.e. that failed bogus asylum seekers should be rightly returned to their own countries where their fate is no concern of ours.
vic:
"but knew that if he blew the whistle, he would himself be tortured"
Doh? So you are now a mind reader, are you? A rare talent indeed. Could you tell me an honest MP I could vote for if you are possessed of such gifts, please?
The bleatings of the bleeding hearts brigade continues unabated!
Paraffin
You clearly have no idea on the laws of this land. King Ethelbert made the first laws regulating sanctuary in about 600 A.D The UK has a long tradition of giving asylum to the persecuted for centuries. Rather than being indefensible, it it something with which this country can justly be proud.
You clearly have no idea on the laws of this land. King Ethelbert made the first laws regulating sanctuary in about 600 A.D The UK has a long tradition of giving asylum to the persecuted for centuries. Rather than being indefensible, it it something with which this country can justly be proud.
Paraffin - try reading the whole quote:He may even have been a policeman himself - but knew that if he blew the whistle, he would himself be tortured.
I don't know and neither do you or AOG.
AOG is suggesting that this is not a 'covert' picture because of the angle of the picture. I am giving a potential reason to suggest that it may be legitimate.
And just in case you don't understand words:
may
1 /meɪ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mey] Show IPA
�auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person may, 2nd may or (Archaic) may⋅est or mayst, 3rd may; present plural may; past might.
1. (used to express possibility): It may rain.
2. (used to express opportunity or permission): You may enter.
3. (used to express contingency, esp. in clauses indicating condition, concession, purpose, result, etc.): I may be wrong but I think you would be wise to go. Times may change but human nature stays the same.
4. (used to express wish or prayer): May you live to an old age.
5. Archaic. (used to express ability or power.)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/may?jss =1
Anytime you want to apologise, please feel free.
I don't know and neither do you or AOG.
AOG is suggesting that this is not a 'covert' picture because of the angle of the picture. I am giving a potential reason to suggest that it may be legitimate.
And just in case you don't understand words:
may
1 /meɪ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mey] Show IPA
�auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person may, 2nd may or (Archaic) may⋅est or mayst, 3rd may; present plural may; past might.
1. (used to express possibility): It may rain.
2. (used to express opportunity or permission): You may enter.
3. (used to express contingency, esp. in clauses indicating condition, concession, purpose, result, etc.): I may be wrong but I think you would be wise to go. Times may change but human nature stays the same.
4. (used to express wish or prayer): May you live to an old age.
5. Archaic. (used to express ability or power.)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/may?jss =1
Anytime you want to apologise, please feel free.
Gromit:
"The UK has a long tradition..." blah blah blah.....
Yes, and what does "tradition" have to do with the laws of our land, mmmhhh? Is it not traditional, at least for the majority in this country, to abide by the law? Or should we just make it up as we go along, so that bogus asylum seekers should be allowed to stay because King Wossisname in the year dot said it'd be alright?
By the way, Gromit, did King Wossisname preside over the whole of Great Britain? Or perhaps just a bit of it? If the latter, then maybe that "bit of it" would care to accommodate all the bogus asylum seekers and leave those of us law abiding citizens in peace, eh? I'm sure you'd happily allow yourself to be amongst that "bit of it", wouldn't you?
"The UK has a long tradition..." blah blah blah.....
Yes, and what does "tradition" have to do with the laws of our land, mmmhhh? Is it not traditional, at least for the majority in this country, to abide by the law? Or should we just make it up as we go along, so that bogus asylum seekers should be allowed to stay because King Wossisname in the year dot said it'd be alright?
By the way, Gromit, did King Wossisname preside over the whole of Great Britain? Or perhaps just a bit of it? If the latter, then maybe that "bit of it" would care to accommodate all the bogus asylum seekers and leave those of us law abiding citizens in peace, eh? I'm sure you'd happily allow yourself to be amongst that "bit of it", wouldn't you?
Paraffin
Sanctuary and Asylum has been part of UK law for a long time. You can read how the law is currently operated here.
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/
There are some genuine cases where asylum is appropriate and right. There are also some bogus claims which again rightly are refused.
Sanctuary and Asylum has been part of UK law for a long time. You can read how the law is currently operated here.
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/
There are some genuine cases where asylum is appropriate and right. There are also some bogus claims which again rightly are refused.
Gromit
Must I keep repeating myself, once again I was answering this statement of yours.
There is a photograph to support the claim of torture, but you choose not to believe that is genuine.
My answer,
So you are a firm believer in 'The camera never lies', are you Gromit?
This is the way it works. But no you don't accept this, or you can't answer my valid point, so you add another little snippet
.
The case against the authorities in the Congo is based on more than the Guardian's photograph.
It was after all you who stated that there was a photograph to support the claims to torture, why didn't you add this at the time.
This is the last time I am prepared to go over the same ground with you over and over again. Just admit you are not up to the senior league.
So go and have a lie down Gromit it would appear you haven't yet got over your hols.
Must I keep repeating myself, once again I was answering this statement of yours.
There is a photograph to support the claim of torture, but you choose not to believe that is genuine.
My answer,
So you are a firm believer in 'The camera never lies', are you Gromit?
This is the way it works. But no you don't accept this, or you can't answer my valid point, so you add another little snippet
.
The case against the authorities in the Congo is based on more than the Guardian's photograph.
It was after all you who stated that there was a photograph to support the claims to torture, why didn't you add this at the time.
This is the last time I am prepared to go over the same ground with you over and over again. Just admit you are not up to the senior league.
So go and have a lie down Gromit it would appear you haven't yet got over your hols.
Gromit
There are some genuine cases where asylum is appropriate and right. There are also some bogus claims which again rightly are refused.
Exactly, the whole point under discussion at last, but who is responsible to refuse asylum?
What is stopping the hand wringers still stating that they may face torture if sent back?
According to your earlier post :
You seem quite happy to send some back to possible torture, to deter others coming here. I find that objectionable.
So if it was up to you we would send no one back.
There are some genuine cases where asylum is appropriate and right. There are also some bogus claims which again rightly are refused.
Exactly, the whole point under discussion at last, but who is responsible to refuse asylum?
What is stopping the hand wringers still stating that they may face torture if sent back?
According to your earlier post :
You seem quite happy to send some back to possible torture, to deter others coming here. I find that objectionable.
So if it was up to you we would send no one back.
AOG,
I would not and I hope my country would not send anybody to be tortured. There will be many destinations where AS can be returned because their mother country is safe.
There is evidence of torture and oppression in Congo. The evidence should be assessed and not dismissed as excuses out of hand.
Seeing as you cannot be bothered to learn the facts about oppression in Congo and you are happy in your ignorance, here is a snippet of life they are fleeing.
Justine Masika Bihamba and her family have been attacked because of her work as coordinator of a women�s human rights organisation.
In September 2007 soldiers forced their way into Justine�s home while she was out, and tied up her six children at gunpoint. One of the soldiers assaulted her eldest daughter, then sexually assaulted and attempted to rape another daughter.
Although Justine and her children were able to identify the soldiers, they have not been arrested or brought to trial.
I would not and I hope my country would not send anybody to be tortured. There will be many destinations where AS can be returned because their mother country is safe.
There is evidence of torture and oppression in Congo. The evidence should be assessed and not dismissed as excuses out of hand.
Seeing as you cannot be bothered to learn the facts about oppression in Congo and you are happy in your ignorance, here is a snippet of life they are fleeing.
Justine Masika Bihamba and her family have been attacked because of her work as coordinator of a women�s human rights organisation.
In September 2007 soldiers forced their way into Justine�s home while she was out, and tied up her six children at gunpoint. One of the soldiers assaulted her eldest daughter, then sexually assaulted and attempted to rape another daughter.
Although Justine and her children were able to identify the soldiers, they have not been arrested or brought to trial.
Right, so we seem to be saying the photo might not prove torture takes place. Or that it might be a fake.
In short, the asylum seekers might be in danger of torture. Or they might not.
Given that level of doubt, and let's (out of generosity to the cynics' stance) say it's 50/50, I'd rather let them stay rather than risk sending them back to be tortured. According to that rationale, there's a 50% chance that we're giving asylum to someone who doesn't deserve it; a one-in-two chance we're being taken for a ride.
I'm happy to accept that risk.
There are others who on balance would rather they were sent home, so much do they detest the UK putting itself out.
I'd rather be a hand-wringer, cheers.
In short, the asylum seekers might be in danger of torture. Or they might not.
Given that level of doubt, and let's (out of generosity to the cynics' stance) say it's 50/50, I'd rather let them stay rather than risk sending them back to be tortured. According to that rationale, there's a 50% chance that we're giving asylum to someone who doesn't deserve it; a one-in-two chance we're being taken for a ride.
I'm happy to accept that risk.
There are others who on balance would rather they were sent home, so much do they detest the UK putting itself out.
I'd rather be a hand-wringer, cheers.
Gromit
Don't dare try to spread your left wing propaganda, do you know these people personally?
If so perhaps you would first ask them and then answer my question?
If they are indeed in danger , that they have to escape their mother country, why do they cross countless safe countries and then the English Channel, so as to settle in this country?
Migrant refugees? No economic refugees, end of story.
Don't dare try to spread your left wing propaganda, do you know these people personally?
If so perhaps you would first ask them and then answer my question?
If they are indeed in danger , that they have to escape their mother country, why do they cross countless safe countries and then the English Channel, so as to settle in this country?
Migrant refugees? No economic refugees, end of story.
1 to 19 of 19
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.