Alien Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Gotcha, i meant in court. However he was quite right, on the evidence presented the woman is a liar and is trying to fraudulently gain entry to the country so of course statements will be made against fraudulent assylum seekers, they have no right to be here and damage to image of genuine assylum seekers. That depends on your individual image of asylum seekers. My general image of a Black person is Black, should that image also take on the mantle of rapper? because some are rappers, or pimps because some are pimps? Image is a problem in this country..always has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 That depends on your individual image of asylum seekers. My general image of a Black person is Black, should that image also take on the mantle of rapper? because some are rappers, or pimps because some are pimps? Image is a problem in this country..always has been. The appropriate image of an asylum seeker should surely be a person fleeing danger of death and who any decent person would give refuge to. Fraudsters make people cynical and damage the perception of genuine asylum seekers. I have no time for anyone supporting fraudulent asylum seekers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 The appropriate image of an asylum seeker should surely be a person fleeing danger of death and who any decent person would give refuge to. Fraudsters make people cynical and damage the perception of genuine asylum seekers. I have no time for anyone supporting fraudulent asylum seekers. The implications are far wider reaching than image. You may have overlooked the point I made about the country she would be sent back to. Try to forget her "image" crime, it's not as if she beat a gay White woman to death on the streets of the UK now is it? Considering the country, the publicity, would you feel comfortable knowing that after she was sent back she either disappeared or ended up with a tyre round her neck all for the sake of image? Personally I have no sympathy for her dishonesty, but it pales into insignificance in relation to a country run by witch doctors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ sheffield Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 The implications are far wider reaching than image. You may have overlooked the point I made about the country she would be sent back to. Try to forget her "image" crime, it's not as if she beat a gay White woman to death on the streets of the UK now is it? Considering the country, the publicity, would you feel comfortable knowing that after she was sent back she either disappeared or ended up with a tyre round her neck all for the sake of image? Personally I have no sympathy for her dishonesty, but it pales into insignificance in relation to a country run by witch doctors. So are you saying anyone can come here or is there a line to be drawn somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 If someone comes to this country without a valid asylum claim, they will lie, cheat and do whatever they think they have to do to ensure they are allowed to stay here - fact ! This story doesnt surprise me in the slightest.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 The implications are far wider reaching than image. You may have overlooked the point I made about the country she would be sent back to. Try to forget her "image" crime, it's not as if she beat a gay White woman to death on the streets of the UK now is it? Considering the country, the publicity, would you feel comfortable knowing that after she was sent back she either disappeared or ended up with a tyre round her neck all for the sake of image? Personally I have no sympathy for her dishonesty, but it pales into insignificance in relation to a country run by witch doctors. We're a small island. We absolutely should offer temporary sanctury to those who need it, for the period that they need it. This woman sought to abuse that to get economic entry to this country based on a tissue of lies. So I would have no issue with her being sent back to whence she came. Whatever issues she may face there are based on her lies, not on reality and I don't see any situation in which Britain is responsible for whatever happens to her as a result of her lies. I cannot accept a principle that entry to this nation is to be gained by lying and then claiming the consequences of the lie as a legitimate grounds for entry - it is immoral, encourages liars and fraudsters entering the country and makes a mockery of genuine asylum seekers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 So are you saying anyone can come here or is there a line to be drawn somewhere. Absolutely not, and yes a line must be drawn. Stand to be corrected but she's been here 8yrs? That's a hell of a long time for the authorities to get their act together, even murder trials take less. I've no doubt it's a difficult call but this is not a scenario..it's actually happening. From my perspective it's not so much about her, but the **** hole their going to send her back to after allowing her 8 yrs here. If a woman asked me for sanctuary because her fella was widely renowned as a woman beater I'd take it on. If I found later that her partner hadn't even touched her I may feel deceived, I wouldn't spitefully send her back knowing full well the partner was a nutter though. She's a human being who's been granted sanity for 8yrs. Maybe we could introduce lie detectors for asylum seekers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 We're a small island. We absolutely should offer temporary sanctury to those who need it, for the period that they need it. This woman sought to abuse that to get economic entry to this country based on a tissue of lies. So I would have no issue with her being sent back to whence she came. Whatever issues she may face there are based on her lies, not on reality and I don't see any situation in which Britain is responsible for whatever happens to her as a result of her lies. I cannot accept a principle that entry to this nation is to be gained by lying and then claiming the consequences of the lie as a legitimate grounds for entry - it is immoral, encourages liars and fraudsters entering the country and makes a mockery of genuine asylum seekers. Jeez..as a nation we would be still living on berries and like her trying to get out. Our past abroad is not so squeaky clean when it comes to "principles". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 The latter. See below: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8306041/The-truth-about-the-lesbian-asylum-seeker.html I doubt that story.... the articles and reports I have seen say the ruling was made on the basis she didn't buy gay magazines.... I don't trust the Telegraph not to be misleading on topics like this. In many cultures surnames are not particularly important, the evidence they have presented is in a negative context not a balanced one. None of it proves she has lied. In isolation they look damning, but they can only be understood in a context where both sides of the story are presented, without that what the Telegraph has reported is nothing more than a hatchet job. The Telegraph's reporting of the case seems to have resulted in restrictions placed on the reporting of her case. In this new rushed process to deport gays it looks likely she will be punished under existing laws to imprison for 14 years if she is returned to Uganda. She has already been told she will by the MP that tabled a bill in their Parliament to have them executed if she refuses to repent on her return. Somehow I doubt the Ugandan mobs will be that convinced by the Telegraph's take on the story. Even if she does repent on her return, I would think it still likely she would end up like David Kato. The reason she fled the country 8 years ago was from threats and her house being burnt down by a homophobic mob. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/09/ugandan-asylum-seeker-wins-case-review/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/26/brenda-namigadde-deportation-fear-uganda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Worry not she'll get exceptional leave to remain, they generally do after the usual procedures are exhausted, a charade lest the public start moaning. Why stop at granting the forgetful lesbian asylum/refuge ? Think of all the poor gays and lesbians stranded in Uganda ! The Royal Navy and Royal Marines must be urgently dispatched to Uganda to undertake Operation Pink Protector. To rescue only those able to reach our shores while ignoring those left behind would be like giving charity to a starving one legged man able to hop across the road to you while watching his unfortunate limbless brother starving in the gutter across the road, a man in greater need ignored due to his lack of gymnastic ability. After refuelling and taking on supplies the fleet are to make steam to the East in order to rescue all adulteresses from the Muslim lands lest their infidelity should leave them at risk of stoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.