Colcam

I have taken the trouble to type out and publish the comment I received yesterday from 'Anonymous', as he or she (a he, I suspect) posted his little speech on a piece I did in October, and not on the most recent piece covering the same subject yesterday.

I wouldn't want anyone to miss it.


The annoying thing about this sort of propaganda is that it takes basic truths, and twists them emotively. You fail to mention, for example, that a 'dawn raid' only takes place after a family or individual are welcomed into the country, gladly supported while they make their asylum claim, lose their asylum claim (the standard of evidence they need to provide to win, by the way, is lower by far than would be required in a UK criminal or civil court), are gladly supported while they appeal their loss, are offered SEVERAL times a free ride home, with expenses, if they choose to depart voluntarily, fail to take advantage of this...

And then, when they have exhausted every legal challenge they can make, and turned down every offer of help to go home - only THEN does the Home Office admit defeat, realise they are never going to leave of their own accord, and enforce their removal. They go early in the morning, because it's the best time to get the whole family in one place at one time ( the best precaution against splitting the family up by accident). They do wear protective clothing, in case of a hostile reception (rare, but from a health and safety point of view it would be negligent to send somebody into that sort of situation without planning for the worst case scenario). They do handcuff adults and youngsters, but only if necessary, and are no different from the police (enforcing different laws) in that regard.

To be absolutely clear though, because you're clearly an idiot likely to believe anything fed to you, the Home Office does not gas anybody. When somebody claims asylum here, a fundamental human right (and many win their cases, although you're unlikely to find the media kicking up a storm about that fact), they do so on the understanding that they might lose. If they lose, they can't stay here. If they don't go voluntarily (again, many do - while they might not be happy to leave, they understand their legal obligations under the asylum system), they have to be removed.

Failed asylum-seekers get every opportunity to to leave voluntarily and with dignity. They only get removed if they decide not to take these routes.

Given the MASSIVE publicity enforced removals get, is it not negligent of the parents of children in these situations to accept help in leaving voluntarily, and not putting their kids through this sort of thing.

I don't expect a rational rebuttal, because you're incapable of any form of balance in your emotive argument. You left your brain offline, if you have one. The system isn't perfect, so propose a better one.

(The only changes I have made to the comment above by Anonymous is to tidy up his spelling).


I thank Anonymous for his comment and, as always, start by wondering why he feels he must remain anonymous. A common trait among anonymous writers, I have found, is that, apart from in one or two exceptional cases, they are poor at spelling, and invariably resort to being insulting.

That aside, Anonymous makes some valid points, and certainly seems to know quite a bit about the system - I might have thought he was a right-wing politician, but such a person would not have had to resort to insults, and would probably be better at spelling.

Judging by what he writes, he could actually be one of the people who break down the doors on dawn raids. That could explain the fervour he seems to have for the 'official line' and would possibly also explain the offensive language.

Or he could just be someone who hates immigrants, and wants a 'white' Britain. And we all know what people like that are called.

But I could be wrong, probably I am wrong. It's just that anonymous writers always get me wondering about them.

Maybe he's a a policeman - that would fit too.

Is he from Scotland or England? That would also have some bearing on his attitude.

Enough, Colcam, of the wild speculation....... answer the man for Christ sake!

OK. Emotive? Yes, probably. This is a blog - not the Guardian or the Times. I get to be emotive here.

Gassing? Get a reality check, Anon. The sentence I used, in relation to Home Office minister Tony McNulty saying the methods used are not inhumane, was, ""I suppose Hitler said much the same as the Jews were being rounded up and gassed". I am aware the Home Office are not gassing people, and I doubt your intelligence if you felt you had to say that.

Maybe a doorman at the Home Office.......?

Anyway, I don't know which part of the country Anonymous comes from, but the easy and sensible way round the problem of forced removals in Scotland would be to declare an amnesty for families who have been settled here for, say, over a year, and whose kids are settled in school. Allowing the parents to settle, and therefor work, would be beneficial to our society - we badly need a population injection in Scotland. We are short of good people. These kids could be a vital and talented part of our next generation.

On the point about parents being negligent in not accepting help to leave the country, I would only say that, as most parents want the best for their children, would it not be more negligent for them to submit to the will of the state and leave the country without a whimper?

I could go on, but will just say, finally, that Anonymous seems to think that asylum-seekers should be grateful to be offered "a free ride home", with a bit of cash thrown in. If it were only that simple. But Anonymous, while being big on defending the Home Office, the men who break down the doors, and the dubious "generosity" of the state, is patently lacking in any understanding of human nature or, indeed, humanity.

And it is absolutely clear I have managed to write this without resorting to childish jibes like idiot, even if I have left my brains offline.