It is three years and six months since I came to Britain from Uganda to ask for asylum because of my sexuality.To Britain?
What, there were no nearer countries available?
… it was very sad for me to hear that a lesbian from Uganda, Brenda Namigadde, was at Yarl's Wood awaiting deportation, on the grounds that the Home Office did not believe she was gay.And as you helpfully leave out of your little paean, with pretty good reason for that decision...
Naively, when I reached England I sighed in relief, thinking it was the end of my suffering and that I was going to be protected straight away – it never occurred to me that I was about to embark on the longest and toughest fight of my life. The asylum system is ruthless and can be very brutal.*sigh*
Of course it is. We have to ensure that the people who get given asylum are really in need of it.
So when Brenda failed on basic things like the names of her lovers and the clubs she supposedly went to (after not even claiming asylum on those grounds in the first place!) it’s no wonder the judge was suspicious.
So when I heard about Brenda Namigadde at Yarl's Wood, my heart went out to her. The simple fact that her name appears in newspapers alongside the word "gay" is enough to put her in danger.Told you this would be the secondary line of attack, didn’t I?
It would be a bittersweet twist to Namigadde's story if Kato's death has at least some impact on Home Office decisions in this area, forcing them to acknowledge the reality of what awaits her if she is taken back.Lie that you are gay to gain asylum, then gain asylum because your lies have put you in danger. Brilliant!
Even the ‘Guardian’ is well aware of how this one is going to be received by the commentariat:
Because of the personal and highly sensitive nature of this piece, comments will be premoderated. Any comments that are judged to be offensive or in poor taste will not be published.How handy…
A lesser called Prossy?
Is that a joke?
I suspect the comment editors on the Grauniad are going into overdrive even as I write. The result will be a total whitewash and will please no-one other than those who agree with the CIF'er who I suspect will be very few on the ground. No one likes a scammer after all.
Nice to know the Guardian confirms that it does not believe in free speech. The fact that comments are to be premoderated shows, as QM says, only those comments that agree with the 'pc line' will be shown. That will then get cited by some loony-lefty as proof that the British people believe in all this rubbish.
It would be interesting to know what the Guardian is in the business of guarding.....
If the asylum system is the toughest fight of her life, methinks that her treatment in Uganda wasn't that bad after all, certainly not enough to be entitled to free money for life, sorry, asylum in Britain.
Love that comments in poor taste will be removed by the Grundad.
No, wait... I found Prossy's comments in poor taste. So does that count towards her being banned?
Or could this be one of those cases of double-standards the Gruns love so much. You know, one rule for the elite who are given space to moan and another for the rest of us.
Thanks for the tip-off - had to have a pop at this one.
Somehow doubt it'll make it pass the the Guardian gauleiters though.
What can they be afraid of ? :-)
it would be interesting to know what the Guardian is in the business of guarding.....
the liberal left against the majority
"I suspect the comment editors on the Grauniad are going into overdrive even as I write."
I think it must have been a training exercise for new mods!
"Nice to know the Guardian confirms that it does not believe in free speech."
It's not like we needed more confirmation, is it?
Indeed! Articles like these should carry a health warning!
"Love that comments in poor taste will be removed by the Grundad."
Surprisingly, they are now letting through a few, so long as you keep She Who Must Not Be Named out of it. What can that injunction have been granted for?
Post a Comment