General UK Politics VI It's A (Honey) Trap!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Darat said:
You are using the old definition of safety, not the new definition. For example, it's safe for children to play in a field with live land mines.
Click to expand...

Arthur Dent: "Ah! This is obviously some strange use of the word "safe" that I wasn't previously aware of."
 
I've now seen the clip and the reference was to DRC, not Republic of the Congo.

It does seem wrong that a refugee from a country which is at war with Rwanda may be sent there, then again they may get a sympathetic reception.

Of course no asylum seekers should be sent to Rwanda so and analysis is moot.
 
The Don said:
I've now seen the clip and the reference was to DRC, not Republic of the Congo.

It does seem wrong that a refugee from a country which is at war with Rwanda may be sent there, then again they may get a sympathetic reception.

Of course no asylum seekers should be sent to Rwanda so and analysis is moot.
Click to expand...

I misheard. He wasn't quite as stupid as I thought he was
 
Ian Osborne said:
Didn't he question whether Rwanda and Congo were different countries? That's Stupid Plus.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. I saw the exchange with the benefit of subtitles (which among other things clarified that the "Congo" referred to in the question was the DRC and not the Republic of the Congo or some colloquial reference) and even then the question was a little difficult to follow..

The question could have been interpreted as asking whether Rwandan asylum seekers could be sent to Rwanda.
 
The Don said:
I'm not sure. I saw the exchange with the benefit of subtitles (which among other things clarified that the "Congo" referred to in the question was the DRC and not the Republic of the Congo or some colloquial reference) and even then the question was a little difficult to follow..

The question could have been interpreted as asking whether Rwandan asylum seekers could be sent to Rwanda.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I wouldn't put it past them them to send Rwandan refugees to Rwanda.
 
The Don said:
I'm not sure. I saw the exchange with the benefit of subtitles (which among other things clarified that the "Congo" referred to in the question was the DRC and not the Republic of the Congo or some colloquial reference) and even then the question was a little difficult to follow..

The question could have been interpreted as asking whether Rwandan asylum seekers could be sent to Rwanda.
Click to expand...


Could it?
The audience member, who said he came from the DRC where there is fighting with neighbouring Rwanda, asked: “Had my family members come from Goma [a city on the country’s border] on a [Channel] crossing right now, would they then be sent back to the country they are supposedly warring – Rwanda?
Click to expand...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...s-to-mix-up-rwanda-and-congo-on-question-time

It could be that, as "An ally of Philp reportedly told the BBC" Philp's question was rhetorical, but that would just mean that he was explaining to someone who had just told him they were from the DRC that the DRC and Rwanda are different countries.
 
Lothian said:
To be fair I thought he didn't really understand the scenario being explained and/or how the Government Rwanda policy would guarantee safety in the circumstances that his mouth started moving before knowing what to say.

That said seems the government policy doesn't guarantee safety and would sent people fighting against Rwanda to Rwanda to claim asylum.
Click to expand...

To be fair to Philp, he has trouble understanding how 1+1=2.
 
What a surprise, it looks like Infosys are getting the sick note contract.

Well, the £35 billion NHS IT contract.
 
Last edited:
P.J. Denyer said:
To be honest, I wouldn't put it past them them to send Rwandan refugees to Rwanda.
Click to expand...

Such claims from Rwanda citizens are of course obviously false, Rwanda is a safe™️ country so no one would be seeking asylum from Rwanda.




Safe™️ is a trademark of Infosys, used under licence by the Conservative & Unionist Party.
 
I received a booklet in the post today about the Mayoral election here. It carefully explains that applications for postal votes, proxy votes and voter ID certificates (for those who don't have any of the acceptable forms of ID) must have been received by last week. I can't help thinking that it might have been more useful to send the booklet out before the deadline.

I fear that the Reform candidate, standing on a pledge to abolish the Mayoral position, may win simply because the idea of (only part of) the East Midlands getting a Mayor is deeply unpopular. However, all the candidates pledge to do something about the potholes - which is odd because although Transport is part of the devolved power, Highways is not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom