A Not Wholly Unexpected Reaction To News Of Sajid Javid’S Appointment As Home Secretary

[sp1814]

Some of the top rated comments here suggest that Middle England is not happy with Sajid Javid’s appointment Home Secretary due to his Brexit stance, which is pretty reasonable. However, it appears that his religious/racial background is a problem too.

Should we too be concerned about having a Muslim Home Secretary?

Some of the top rated comments:

1. Cynical beyond all belief. We had someone over promoted because of their gender now this chap because of his race.

2. With him and Khan in such powerful positions we will become 2nd class citizens in our own country.

3. Token

4. So a Muslim Home Secretary, what could possibly go wrong

5. We have Sadiq Khan in Londung doing an awful job now Savid will be in charge of inviting over millions more Sadiqs and Savids. Will there be any English politicians in 10 years? How long til we have King Jamal or Prince Rashid?

5. To make Sajid Javid the Home Secretary would be like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank.

6. He'll be welcoming millions of new arrivals with open arms.

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes
/// To the best of my knowledge, any senior politician, if asked, will claim to be a Christian, so to condemn one of them for (possibly) following one faith, when the majority follow another seems somewhat biased. ///

The difference being is the recent baggage one certain religion is carrying.

[ummmm]

AOG - it's the targets that's the problem. Not the fact of deporting illegals.

[anotheoldgit]

ummmm
The higher the target the better I would have thought.

[THECORBYLOON]

ANOTHEOLDGIT, the Home Secretary does not practise ANY religion.

[ichkeria]

//But that is daft: does anyone seriously think Sajid Javid is some sort of jihadist or religious reactionary? //

It is not daft, I suspect some would.

The problem in that case is not Mr Javid :-)

[andy-hughes]

AOG - // All this talk about Amber Rudd's 'hostile' treatment of illegal immigrants, if they are in fact illegal then why shouldn't they be treated in a hostile way and deported as soon as they are discovered? //

The talk is about hostile treatment of legal immigrants - descendants of the Windrush generation, that is what the fuss is about.

No-one is suggesting that continued deportation of illegal immigrants is wrong, or should be halted - the issue is the sweeping powers that have been used against legal immigrants.

[diddlydo]

With respect AOG I think you have been brainwashed by the Daily Mail's sensationalist so-called journalism.

[naomi24]

//the issue is the sweeping powers that have been used against legal immigrants. //

But not intentionally so let us not allow emotion or anything else to cloud the facts. The immigrants concerned are here legally but since they can't prove it they have been mistakenly treated as illegal immigrants.

[andy-hughes]

Are we to excuse the bureaucrats because they acted in good faith, but incorrectly?

Somehow, if I was involved in this situation personally, I don't think that would really cut it as an excuse not to be a bit cross with them - because they didn't mean it!

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, you can't be talking to me. Who was that^ for?