Refugee welcomes safety of Carlisle after fleeing Kenya
A Kenyan woman who fled her home country because she says she was being persecuted over her sexuality is calling for a greater understanding of the difficulties faced by refugees.Cynthia Waggah came to the UK in 2022 as she feared being arrested and having her child taken from her, having been outed in a country where homosexuality is illegal.Ms Waggah, a former government official, is now happily settled in Carlisle but said initial doubts from some people about how genuine her need was made her feel "unwanted".She said seeking refuge was "not a bed of roses", but the UK has allowed her to create "a safe life" with her son.
Speaking to BBC Radio Cumbria as part of Refugee Week, which is running until Sunday, she explained the consequences of being outed by someone close to her were devastating.Sentences for homosexuality can range from fines to imprisonment, while in some cases people have been killed.Travelling to the UK on a visitor's visa, she immediately sought asylum through the Home Office and spent several months living in hostel-style accommodation in Warrington before being given 24-hours' notice that she was being moved to Carlisle.Recalling her old life, she said: "My life was beautiful. I had everything figured out career-wise, education-wise, family-wise. I was working at the Ministry of the Interior and I had my child."I had to take off because of persecution. Life became unbearable. "The only way out was to seek refuge where human rights are upheld - a safe environment."It took a series of events for me to decide I had to leave."
'Swimming with sharks'
Her young son remained with family members in Kenya while Ms Waggah went through the application process.In early 2024 she was notified she had been granted leave to remain in the UK for a period of five years and they are now reunited.But the difficulty of being split up from her family was not the only obstacle she says she faced, as other asylum seekers viewed her sexuality negatively due to their cultural beliefs while some people in the UK were opposed to immigration.
"When I got here, I realised there's actually so much negativity around seeking refuge," she said."People think it's not genuine. That created stress. You feel really unwanted."It felt like being thrown in the ocean, swimming with sharks."We are coming here because you are part of the few enjoying human rights - something we see as a luxury where we come from."It's not a bed of roses. We are not coming to grab anything. "I've been trying to integrate into the community and create a good life for me and the people around me."Help came from various support organisations she contacted, including those helping members of the LGBTQ community.As well as the shop she runs in Carlisle's Botchergate area, she chairs Cumberland Sanctuary Network, a group helping people seeking asylum and refuge.While hoping to one day be able to return to Kenya, should their laws around homosexuality change, she is now settled in Cumbria."I pray for a day when human rights will be upheld [in Kenya], but I've created a safe life here and Carlisle is my home."
Follow BBC Cumbria on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
36 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Palestine Action are not terrorists. The RAF is just grossly incompetent
One can see why the Government is proposing to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. That anyone could enter the RAF base at Brize Norton, one of the most significant we have, and smear red paint on planes was deeply humiliating. Once, the commanding officer of the base would have resigned immediately; the security officer would have been moved to the cookhouse, if he was lucky; and the Defence Secretary would have offered his resignation. But no-one resigns these days, so branding the intruders 'terrorists', as if they were some ruthless group trained to outwit military professionals, with death and destruction their aim, makes them sound all the more formidable, and their victims all the more helpless. It is an unconvincing cover for the sort of grotesque incompetence that characterises our public sector and public services. That was the RAF; the next day it was the Metropolitan Police unable to prevent an epidemic of daylight robbery on the streets of the West End; the next NHS maternity services that humiliate and degrade women giving birth. What Palestine Action, however organised and bonkers and loathsome they are, did was not terrorism: it was vandalism. You might as well call football hooligans terrorists, or the groups of louts who on hot summer evenings riot because they are bored and the police upset them by seeking to restore order. Terrorism is a truly abhorrent, lethal, wicked and repulsive thing: chucking paint over planes and ridiculing the RAF and the Government in the process does not even begin to compare with it. This devaluation of a word with a precise meaning is highly dangerous. Lord (Toby) Young, in his excellent work for the Free Speech Union, has disclosed that Prevent – the increasingly preposterous, Left-leaning body that tries to stop terrorism at its roots – has done research that suggests 'red flags' for spotting potential far-right terrorists are people who like, among other things, Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, GK Chesterton's poems, The Bridge On the River Kwai, The Dam Busters and Yes, Minister. Where do I give myself up? Many of us remember real terrorism, perpetrated by real terrorists: the Birmingham and Guildford Bombings; the Hyde Park Bombings; murders in Manchester, both by the IRA in 1992 and 1996 and, a generation later, an Islamic extremist who killed 22 at the city's Arena in 2017; the massacre on 7/7, which killed 52 innocent people in 2005; and if that's not enough, Lockerbie. I could go on. Does all that utter horror compare with exposing the pitiful security at Brize Norton and slapping paint on planes? Of course not. This seemed to start in 2016, after the abominable murder of Jo Cox, the Labour MP, by Thomas Mair, a recluse and weirdo unknown to the authorities. He was rapidly branded a 'terrorist' by politicians when it became clear he had a deeply unhealthy obsession with the far-right and its doctrines. He was a member of no terrorist organisation. What he did was appalling, but he was no more a terrorist than any politically-motivated psychopath acting alone. Ms Cox's murder came days before the Brexit vote. Those who branded Mair a 'terrorist' (and the authorities rapidly followed suit) were surely not trying to associate him with the Brexit movement – were they? On Friday, four people were arrested over the Brize Norton incident. If convicted, they must suffer exemplary punishment. However, I hope the Government accepts its responsibilities for such pathetic security. And I also hope that in future it reserves the term 'terrorist' for those who really merit it, rather than diluting it for idiotic troublemakers or lethal misfits.
The Guardian
39 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Are we safe, if nuclear weapons are here?': trepidation in Norfolk village over new jets
The genteel west Norfolk village of Marham does not seem to be at the forefront of Britain's military might. A dance class is about to start in the village hall, a game of crown green bowls is under way and swallows are swooping around the medieval church tower as wood pigeons coo. 'It's a lovely, quiet little village,' says Nona Bourne as she watches another end of bowls in a match between Marham and nearby Massingham. Like many, Bourne is troubled by the news that this week thrust Marham to the frontline of UK's nuclear arsenal, in the biggest expansion of the programme for a generation. Without consultation, RAF Marham is to be equipped with new F-35A jets capable of carrying warheads with three times the explosive power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Bourne said: 'When they spread it all over the news that these planes are going to come here from America with these bombs, it makes you think we're going to be targeted. My bungalow is five minutes from the base.' The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is planning a protest in Marham on Saturday. Bourne, whose son-in-law used to work at the base, is tempted to take part. 'I might join in,' she says. 'My daughter says we've always been a target here, but I am concerned. If I was younger I'd think about moving, but I'm 83, I'm not going anywhere.' Sisters Becky, 29, and Katherine Blakie, 31, are heading to a friend's house for a plunge in their hot tub. 'I read about the weapons on Facebook,' says Becky. 'It's strange to think they'll be here in little old Marham.' Becky, who works in fundraising, is annoyed that the village was not consulted about the decision. She says: 'Marham and the RAF base are intertwined so we should definitely have had a say.' Katherine, a medical student, says: 'It makes you think, 'Are we safe, if people know nuclear weapons are here?'' At this stage it is unclear where the nuclear warheads will be housed, but new jets to be based at Marham have the capacity to drop them. Wherever they are stored, the fear Marham will be a target is widespread in the village. 'Look what happened at Pearl Harbor,' says Patricia Gordon after finishing her bowls match. 'We'd be obliterated here.' She adds: 'And with Donald Trump's finger on the button, does it matter that we've got nuclear weapons or not?' But her partner, Bruce Townsend, 77, a retired lorry driver, thinks the nuclear deterrent works. He says: 'You can't give up nuclear weapons. Iran, and those countries, know damn well that if they start anything, they'll just get wiped out.' He adds: 'I feel the same about the protest as I did about people who tried to ban the bomb. It's stupid. They can't change it.' It is the men in Marham who seem more relaxed about the prospect of nuclear-armed planes on their doorstep. Chris Joice, a carer who used to work at the base, says: 'We've had F-35s for so many years, and having the next model isn't going to make much difference.' Joice is out walking a friend's dog, Millie, who has an RAF roundel pendant strapped to her collar. He is concerned about the lack of consultation: 'I'm just annoyed that all these decisions go ahead and the common man doesn't have a single word in.' He adds: 'No one needs that kind of firepower. I'd rather people rolled dice to settle their beefs.' Others are more full-throated in their support. Jim Smith, 79, a retired construction worker, remembers nuclear weapons at the base in the 1950s. 'They had them up there in 1958 or 59 when they had the V bombers. It stopped a world war then. And it's no different now.' A man on a bike who would only give his name as John recently retired as a grounds maintenance worker at the base. He says: 'They're never going to attack us. It would be Armageddon if it comes to that. So it doesn't make a shite's worth of difference worrying about it.' He adds: 'I don't mind protest, I'm a biker so I'm all about freedom, but I've got better things to do. People protesting here don't live in the real world, they should worry instead about people sleeping on the streets in King's Lynn.' Colin Callaby, 64, is out picking cherries from a tree in the middle of the village. The cherries, which he plans to turn into wine, are the sweetest he has ever known. 'We're right in the firing line,' he says, 'but if there's going to be a nuclear bomb we're all done for so I'd rather be right underneath it and die instantly than be 50 miles away and take weeks to die from radiation.' He adds: 'It's very sad that mankind has got to spend billions of pounds on mass destruction and we can't do something better with that money. But what can you do?'
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
PM snubs call to axe powerful No10 chief Morgan McSweeney after welfare backlash
THE PM'S powerful chief of staff Morgan McSweeney is 'not going anywhere' No10 declared - despite calls for him to be sacked over the welfare fiasco. Keir Starmer is battling to shore up his grip on power after being forced to massively water down benefits cuts in the latest screeching U-turn. 4 4 4 Rebel Labour MPs blame Mr McSweeney for the row and had demanded the PM sack the senior aide as part of a 'regime change' in No10. One rumour circulating among a small and well connected group of Labour figures suggested Mr McSweeney was fed up with No10 and wanted to leave. He was planning to return to Labour HQ to lead the party's campaigns and elections team - heading up the fight to beat Reform in 2029, according to a source close to No10. But last night Downing Street insisted the PM's Svengali is going nowhere. A No10 source said: 'Tittle tattle about a change to chief of staff is uninformed nonsense. 'He isn't going anywhere.' Ministers are confident they will get their benefits legislation over the line on Tuesday after 126 Labour MPs tried to derail plans. But they are braced for a significant rebellion with lefty MPs plotting a fresh bid to try and kill the bill. 'It's a mutinous atmosphere,' one Labour MP said. 'There could be 70 of us still against this legislation.' 4 One Government insider said: 'MPs are furious because they feel like they weren't being listened to. The question is, can No10 put that anger back in the box?' The climbdown over benefits and a U-turn on winter fuel means Chancellor Rachel Reeves must find £4.5billion. A Labour MP fumed: 'We can't keep making these U-turns every time we make a big decision. It's so expensive.' Helen Whately Shadow Pensions Secretary Every day it becomes clearer that this is a government without a plan and without any idea about how to run the country. Welfare is one of the most important challenges facing Britain. But still, Keir Starmer has no answers. The chickens of his deeply incompetent time in office are coming home to roost. He is being held hostage in Number 10 by the Parliamentary Labour Party. Having been forced into yet another humiliating U-turn, it is clear he is no longer in control. His authority is completely shot. That's because socialist Labour MPs don't believe in lower spending. Ever since Labour took office, they have been itching to spend more. From day one, they handed out billion-pound bungs to the union barons who bankroll their party. But that is not what the situation requires. After the pandemic, there has been a drastic expansion of people dependent on the welfare state, and it is set to reach boiling point. With 2,000 people being signed off work for good a day, spending on sickness benefits is set to rise to £100 billion by 2030. We cannot afford to support a country the size of Panama on benefits. But even so, this week's omnishambles makes clear Labour MPs are not comfortable with the tighter spending this desperate situation requires. Labour's changes would have seen this dented by £5 billion. It sounds like a lot, but in the context of £100 billion it is a drop in the ocean. We need our government to be a lot more ambitious on welfare spending, not less. What we need is a focus on getting young people into work. Labour has made that harder too, by destroying jobs and opportunities for people across the country. If they can't even deliver this paltry plan paltry for savings from a spiralling welfare bill, we don't have a chance. Britain deserves better. Diane Abbott said Sir Keir should be more like Tony Blair and take the left seriously. In a sign of more rows to come, she told BBC Radio 4: 'Starmer and his people thought they could dismiss Labour MPs, well they know differently now.' In a speech to Welsh Labour on Saturday the PM said fixing the 'broken' welfare system must be done in a 'Labour way'.
