The leader of City of York Council has cited “offensive and racist” responses to council plans as one of the reasons the authority will support proposals to welcome people fleeing persecution overseas.
Yes, never mind the wishes of the voters. If those are not expressed correctly, they can be ignored.
At a meeting of the council’s cabinet on Tuesday, Coun James Alexander revealed he and other councillors had received “some very unsavoury emails” following the announcement the authority would look into City of Sanctuary status for York.
Are you going to give us some examples, or are they the sort of racist filth that can’t be printed?
Coun Alexander said that he had received correspondence from one individual in which he referred to refugees in a number of emails as “bombers, criminals, cowards, rabble, thieves, rapists and scum”.
Coun Alexander said: “He demanded a £10,000 referendum on the City of Sanctuary proposal and blamed refugees for sewage problems and issues with York’s congestion. I responded that his views were offensive and racist.”
So long as he didn’t imply that was true of all refugees, I can’t see that you’re right on the racism charge.
And as for the ‘offensive’, bit, well, I refer you to Stephen Fry’s advice on matters of offence…
Meanwhile, elsewhere in York:
Dr Sentamu said: “It was not in the manifesto. It will not do simply to repeat the statement that it was in the coalition agreement. Joe and Jane public did not vote on it. That is why there is anxiety in the nation and that is why there is a lot of worry about it. Therefore, the Government would be wise to persuade the public, the professionals and most of all the staff of the NHS that it is in their interest.
“The best way of doing that is to allow proper scrutiny of the areas that have caused the greatest anxiety.”
Damn, I’m confused. I’m pretty sure the City of Sanctuary status wasn’t in York councillors’ manifestos either. So can we expect to see Sentamu leading the charge against it on that basis?