Tanja Bueltmann
LightNews LightNews
banner
tanjabueltmann.net
Tanja Bueltmann
@tanjabueltmann.net
13K followers 580 following 620 posts
Professor @ University of Strathclyde | migration and diaspora history | history of collective action | citizens' rights | commentator | immigrant | trans inclusive feminist | she•her | my views | https://tanjabueltmann.net
Posts Replies Media Videos
tanjabueltmann.net
Tried to get this published but no luck, so might as well ‘publish’ it here so it’s not a complete waste!

➡️ Stripping rights from refugees today endangers us all tomorrow

#asylum #Mahmood #history #humanrights
Stripping rights from refugees today endangers us all tomorrow   When I was 13, I visited a Nazi concentration camp for the first time, confronting my country’s dark history always—and rightly—a bedrock in my growing up.    One image from that visit has stayed with me ever since: a display of prisoners’ personal possessions.    It revealed a world in which those imprisoned were stripped not only of their freedom but of the last tangible traces of their humanity. That systematic erasure was the most important precondition for murdering millions.   Now, as a historian, I know that history does not flow into the present in a straight line, and direct comparisons are rarely appropriate. They certainly are not here.   But history is the one compass humanity has. Too often we choose to ignore it.    The Home Secretary’s proposals for changes to the UK’s asylum system represent such a moment of failure.    Yet the most troubling aspect of Labour’s frantic efforts to appear tough on immigration is not even the historical echoes that taking refugees’ possessions invokes. It is that cost recovery is not the real purpose of the rationale behind it.    The true aim is to appeal to a particular audience—those who take satisfaction in seeing people seeking refuge deprived of what little they have. It is hard to imagine a more troubling approach to policymaking, and that becomes even clearer when we consider the Home Secretary’s proposals in context.   As of June 2025, there were 42.5 million refugees globally. Over 70% are hosted by low- and middle-income countries. The UK hosts 548,000 refugees; that is 0.78% of the UK population. Around 110,000 people are in receipt of asylum support; that is 0.15% of the UK population.   It is unconscionable that such a small and vulnerable population can be targeted with deliberate cruelty and weaponised for assumed political gain.   And that is all this will ever be. The core miscalculation is believing that adopting these positions will neutralise Reform.    Both historical knowledge and current research show the opposite. Mainstreaming extremist policies legitimises them further and aids only the original. Each step towards Reform’s territory simply gives Reform more power.   But our political discourse has been so degraded over the last decade that many no longer even recognise policies—or the language that frames them—as extreme.    That is how the Home Secretary can speak so casually of desperate people seeking sanctuary as recipients of a ‘golden ticket’ as though the context is Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory rather than countries torn apart by war and starved by famine. Speak of her ‘moral mission’ to withdraw support, alleging that ‘illegal migration is tearing our country apart.’ And warn of ‘dark forces stirring up anger,’ oblivious to her own role: from the use of blurry, dehumanising images of refugees to spread falsehoods about their impact on communities, to the equally false description of refugee movements as illegal migration.    I suggest the Home Secretary find a mirror if she is keen to understand who is helping turn anger into hate.   Because it is the mainstreaming of far-right talking points that the Home Secretary’s proposals represent that is really tearing our country apart.   For when a policy looks like the far right, speaks to the far right and is hailed by the far right as being far right, it is far right. There is a reason Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is jubilant and speaks of ‘the Overton window having been obliterated.’   This makes a mockery of the Prime Minister’s recent comments on the urgent need to tackle racism. But it also raises alarming questions about the impact this will have on communities around the country, many of which are already deeply divided.    The proposed policies will do nothing for these struggling communities, because their problems simply do not stem from people seeking sanctuary with us. In fact: for as long as politicians focus on immigrants and refugees as the cause of our problems, they will fail to deliver for the British people.   But it is important to grasp the impact of the Home Secretary’s proposals as they carry broader consequences for all of us. Suggestions for changes to how the European Convention on Human Rights is applied are particularly concerning. Requiring judges to prioritise ‘public safety’—falsely implying refugees pose a threat—would qualify human rights for a specific group.   And once one accepts that human rights can be qualified for one group, one creates tools that can be used against anyone.   So what these proposals really mean goes far beyond asylum policy. This is about the kind of country we will have in the future. If human rights are no longer universal, they become a means for exclusion and control.    That is why stripping rights from refugees today can only enable a system that endangers all our rights tomorrow.    And that is why our historical compass matters and why we have to use it now. Because that compass tells us without doubt that when first they come for one group that is never where it ends. 
November 18, 2025 at 8:03 PM
tanjabueltmann.net
Outraged fuels people.

You may remember the #DeniedMyVote # on Twitter during the last UK EU election. It was my #: I posted that # in the night before anyone had even voted because I knew we would need an “outrage hook” the next day because it was obvious that 1000s would be denied their vote.
Screenshot of how AI describes it all: AI Overview The hashtag #deniedmyvote became a trending topic in the UK in May 2019 because many non-British EU citizens were unable to vote in the European Parliament elections. This was due to issues with the electoral registration process, where many EU citizens found their names were not on the register or their UC1 form hadn't been processed by local councils in time, often because it was sent late or not received.
November 18, 2025 at 1:37 PM
tanjabueltmann.net
And here you have it: becaus <1k asylum seekers use ECHR provisions, Labour plan to qualify human rights for asylum seekers. The thing is: once you qualify them for one group, they’re compromised for everyone. Any future govt can choose to apply this in much broader ways.
The government will announce that it will legislate to toughen how courts apply the European convention on human rights (ECHR) regarding family life, enabling more deportation of people with family members still in the UK. In his interview, Vaughan said the number of refugees who use provisions in the ECHR was “very, very small”, adding: “We need to be realistic about what those sorts of reforms are going to achieve. We can’t promise the public things which is not going to deliver.” Asked about the idea that the number of cases involving the ECHR was under 1,000, a tiny proportion of the total asylum claims, Norris said: “I probably wouldn’t challenge the number itself, but what I would challenge is the impact that that has on the wider system.”
November 17, 2025 at 10:06 AM
tanjabueltmann.net
It is impossible to make this up and I could rewrite my letter already. But at least it’s all out in the open now—including that Mahmood has been inspired by Kristi Noem, Trump’s homeland security secretary who oversees mass deportations. For the avoidance of doubt: they employ fascistic practices.
Screenshot of a report from The Times. It says that Trump’s homeland security secretary Kristi Noem inspired Mahmood. Noem oversees mass deportations in the US.
November 17, 2025 at 12:42 AM
tanjabueltmann.net
One addition:

‘Dark forces are stirring up anger in this country, and seeking to turn that anger into hate’ says Mahmood in the Guardian.

Dark forces. Like those that record videos in dark rooms using blurry dehumanised images to spread falsehoods about the impact of refugees in our communities? …
Screenshot from Mahmood’s video announcing asylum system changes. This shows the Home Secretary in a dark room with a Union Jack in the background. Screenshot from Mahmood’s video announcing asylum system changes. This shows the use of an image of blurry humans brings on a dinghy in the water. It is clearly dehumanising the group as a blurry mass.
November 16, 2025 at 11:42 PM
tanjabueltmann.net
‘So I urge you to oppose these proposals […] And to challenge dehumanising far-right rhetoric and its adoption in policy. 
 
Because that is what is really tearing our country apart. 
 
And stripping rights from refugees today can only enable a system that endangers all of our rights tomorrow.’
The first duty of MPs is not to their party, it is to their constituents. So as you mull over that one very simply question that this all boils down to—how these proposals improve the lives of your constituents—I urge you to recognise that they threaten their rights. I understand the societal and political climate we are currently in. And I recognise that opposing the proposals will be very hard for that reason alone. Some media outlets and commentators may choose to come after those who oppose the proposals. Call them woke or hard left agitators; write hit pieces about them. All the more reason to take a stand. And, in any case, we are at a juncture in the UK where I think it is a national duty to demand better than this. I make that demand as a citizen and with this letter, which I send to you as my MP and have made public (without disclosing who my MP is). But, ultimately, it is on our elected representatives to enable the real change that we now need.  So, as your constituent, I urge you to oppose these proposals publicly and within your party; to demand an approach grounded in evidence, humanity and the defence of those universal human rights Britain helped enshrine post-WWII. And to challenge dehumanising far-right rhetoric and its adoption in policy.    Because that is what is really tearing our country apart.    And stripping rights from refugees today can only enable a system that endangers all of our rights tomorrow. We cannot allow that to happen.   Yours sincerely, Prof Tanja Bueltmann
November 16, 2025 at 9:25 PM
tanjabueltmann.net
‘Once one accepts that human rights can be qualified for one group, one creates tools that can be used against anyone. 

So when the Home Sec warns left-wing Labour MPs, ‘if you don’t like this, you won’t like what follows me,’ recognise that for the threat that it is […] to all of us.’
we urgently need politicians to break this cycle. That begins with opposing policies like those set out in the current proposals. What is really at stake Because what these proposals really mean goes far beyond asylum policy and refugees. This is about the kind of country we are choosing to become and enable. Whether we will stand firm on the principle that human rights are universal, or whether we will accept that they can be qualified, compromised, and stripped away when deemed politically convenient. Any changes to how the European Convention on Human Rights is applied are a particular concern. The idea to require judges to prioritise ‘public safety’—again a false implication that refugees pose a threat—would qualify human rights for a specific group of people. The problem is: once one accepts that human rights can be qualified for one group, one creates tools that can be used against anyone.  So when the Home Secretary warns left-wing Labour MPs, ‘if you don’t like this, you won’t like what follows me,’ recognise that for the threat that it is—not just to left-wing Labour MPs though, but to all of us. For yes, this is about what comes next. What role do you want to play?  Labour MPs now face a choice. They can back policies that will not work—least of all for their constituents—but will cause immediate harm to very vulnerable people.  Those who choose to back the proposals need to be clear that that choice will help to further mainstream the far right, and help build an infrastructure that any future government could use for authoritarian ends. This is not a shrill statement: those who might lead that future government are literally telling us that that is what they intend to do.
November 16, 2025 at 9:25 PM
tanjabueltmann.net
‘Ask one simple question: How do Home Sec’s proposals improve lives of constituents? 

The answer is: they do not improve them. There will be no new money and there is nothing that will help address real problems in communities because they simply do not stem from people seeking sanctuary with us.‘
the UK. This is the consequence of a radicalisation that is happening in real time, enabled by parts of our media, by too many politicians, and by a far-right misinformation platform—X—that many continue to use as though it still represents a normal means of communication. It does not. Anyone staying is choosing to immerse in bot-driven racism and algorithmically amplified outrage. I urge not using X as a guide to views (and to leave it).  I suggest that a much better way of thinking about the proposals is to ask just one v simple question: How do the Home Sec’s proposals improve the lives of constituents?  The answer is: they do not improve them. There will be no new money and there is nothing that will help address real problems in communities because they simply do not stem from people seeking sanctuary with us. They do not stem from any immigrant for that matter. Our real problems lie in the failure of this Govt to address the cost-of-living crisis and in the mainstreaming of far-right policies—combined, these deliver a sure-fire path to much worse. So while scapegoating immigrants and refugees is easy—that is why it has always been the response populists use to hide their failures—it will not do a single positive thing for constituents. In fact, anti-immigration policies often constitute a double negative: they prevent addressing the real issues by providing wrong focus and they likely make the real issues worse because the UK actually needs immigrants. These are the facts we do not talk about because the main political parties have, for over a decade, let extremists define the agenda—and their immigration policies.  That the new target are people seeking sanctuary demonstrates how much the escalating extremism in British politics this triggered has already achieved. That it is a ‘Labour’ government that is choosing not only to directly enable more of this, but to set us on a path that brings real risks for all of us—you tell me what you make of that. But
November 16, 2025 at 9:25 PM
tanjabueltmann.net
‘The core miscalculation is believing that adopting these positions will neutralise Reform. […] Both our historical knowledge and essentially all current data and research show the opposite: mainstreaming extremist policies legitimises them further and benefits only the original.’
All of this makes a complete mockery of the Prime Minister’s claims to oppose racism. You cannot denounce racism while simultaneously adopting the visual and rhetorical techniques of the far right. By bringing to real life their dreams. There is a reason that Yaxley-Lennon says 'the Overton window has been obliterated'. And that commentators like Carl Benjamin are jubilant. As he noted in direct response to the announcement video on X: ‘this Labour turn to the right is a godsend to Nigel Farage. Not only will they establish the infrastructure for mass deportations, but they will have normalised it for the British public. He will only need to expand on existing practice.’  Benjamin is right. The question is: is that what Labour MPs want to enable with their support? Because that is what support for these proposals could do. This will not neutralise Reform—it will enable them The core miscalculation is believing that adopting these positions will neutralise Reform. It does not matter how many times Morgan McSweeney tells you that this is the right way to tackle Reform. Both our historical knowledge and essentially all current data and research show the opposite: mainstreaming extremist policies legitimises them further and benefits only the original. Each step towards Reform’s territory shifts the centre further right, giving Reform ever more power over policymaking, with Labour policies becoming ever more extreme at each shift.  But our political discourse has been so degraded over the last decade, much of our media so poor in how they report this, that many no longer even recognise policies as extreme. Some commentators and politicians already question the Britishness of some UK-born citizens and the rights of those permanently settled in
November 16, 2025 at 9:25 PM
tanjabueltmann.net
‘When challenged about engaging in far-right talking points, Hom Sec’ rejects that. Well: ‘She is not engaging in far-right talking points. She is choosing to turn them into Govt policy. […] when a policy looks like the far right and is hailed by the far right as being far right, it is far right.’
The framing is clear  But that is not how the Home Secretary sees it. She speaks of desperate people seeking sanctuary as recipients of a ‘golden ticket’ as though they live in the privileged world of Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory, not countries torn apart by war and starved by famine. She calls it her ‘moral mission’ to take support away because this ‘illegal migration is tearing our country apart.’ The description of refugee movements as illegal migration—one repeated as fact in much of our media when it is not a fact but a falsehood—is also deliberate, blurring the line between people exercising their legal right to seek asylum and criminality.  When challenged about engaging in far-right talking points—which, for clarity, all of these are—the Home Secretary simply replied that ‘I really reject the idea that dealing with this problem is somehow engaging in far-right talking points.’  I agree with the Home Secretary. She is not engaging in far-right talking points. She is choosing to turn them into Government policy. You may not like reading this, but that does not make it wrong: when a policy looks like the far right and is hailed by the far right as being far right, it is far right. Dehumanisation as political strategy The video that accompanied the announcement of the Home Secretary’s proposals, shot in a dark room, shows refugees only as blurred figures or groups of people, never as individual human beings with faces and stories. Described in terms of putting pressure on communities—another falsehood—any distinctiveness shown in the video lies only in darker skin colour and the back of a head in a headscarf. The dehumanisation of refugees interspersed with recognisable markers that point only to specific communities. More of those deliberate choices designed to speak to a certain audience—and there is no doubt about who they are.
November 16, 2025 at 9:25 PM
tanjabueltmann.net
‘It is unconscionable that [refugees] can be both targeted with deliberate cruelty and weaponised to dismantle universal human rights protections. But that is what the Home Secretary’s proposals do, answering a manufactured crisis with a policy that will have much more fundamental consequences’.
Let me repeat that: 0.78% and 0.15%. And yet these tiniest fractions are being used as justification for policies that risk the UK’s international standing while harming the most vulnerable community on our planet, those seeking sanctuary—and eroding the principle of universal human rights in the process.  It is unconscionable that such a small and vulnerable population can be both targeted with deliberate cruelty and weaponised to dismantle universal human rights protections. But that is precisely what the Home Secretary’s proposals do, answering a manufactured crisis with a policy that will have much more fundamental consequences for all of us in future. Deliberate cruelty For those seeking sanctuary in the UK, the proposals would remove paths to permanent settlement, trapping refugees in limbo until someone in the Home Office deems their homelands ‘safe’ so they can be returned. The idea that one can simply declare safety ignores reality—including the reality that many refugees flee countries destabilised by Britain’s colonial legacy or more recent military interventions. The UK helped create some of the very conditions people are escaping, yet claims right to judge when those conditions are acceptable enough for forced return. We now know too that refugees would only be able to claim permanent settlement after 20 years—two decades of uncertainty, of temporary status, of never being able to build a stable life. But of course the aim is that most never make it to that point in the first place, having been returned to their ‘safe’ homeland long before. This is shameful. But it will also limit integration—that is what keeping lives in limbo does.
November 16, 2025 at 9:25 PM
tanjabueltmann.net
🌍 42.5m refugees
Over 70% of them are hosted by low- and middle-income countries.

🇬🇧 548k refugees
= 0.78% of the UK population.

It is not refugees who tear our country apart, it is the mainstreaming of far right policies. And that’s a risk to all of us.

My letter to my MP.

#asylum #Mahmood

🧵
Dear [my MP’s name], As the Home Secretary prepares to announce sweeping changes to the UK’s asylum system, I see it as both my duty as a citizen and responsibility as a migration expert to do all I can to urge policymakers to oppose the proposals—not only for what they will do to refugees, though that is the first concern, but also for what they will mean for all of us and the future society we live in.  That is why I am writing to you as my MP. This letter explains why I consider the need to oppose the Home Secretary’s proposals urgent and, at the most fundamental level, in the national and your constituents’ interest. I was born in Germany, a country whose history taught me how quickly societies can go down dark paths; how quickly our leaders can fail in the choices they make. But the history of the displacement of people that the Nazi regime was responsible for also shaped my understanding of why refugee movements occur—and why our response to any of them can never compromise what are, and must always be, universal human rights. Which is why what is happening in the UK now is so deeply alarming. A manufactured crisis As of June 2025, there were 42.5 million refugees globally. Over 70% of them are hosted by low- and middle-income countries; most of them immediate neighbours. Overall, five countries—Colombia, Germany, Türkiye, Iran and Uganda—host a third of the total number of refugees; Germany is the main host in the EU, hosting 2.7 million. The UK hosts 548,000 refugees; that is 0.78% of the UK population. About 110,000 people are in receipt of asylum support; that is 0.15% of the UK population.
November 16, 2025 at 9:25 PM
tanjabueltmann.net
I say this with the bluntness it requires: they will get people murdered if this continues. This is not just populism anymore either: it’s completely unhinged and a deliberate choice that does endanger lives. I am not saying this lightly at all.
Screenshot of an Express article; it says: Robert Jenrick lists 30 'activist judges' he vows to axe in war on UK's open border In a bold move, Robert Jenrick is set to unveil a controversial plan targeting what he calls 'activist' judges, at the Conservative Party conference.
October 7, 2025 at 7:19 AM
tanjabueltmann.net
So anyway, folks: I’m out of here for a while. There is too much I have to deal with / do atm, so can’t keep up here as well. Will be back soon. In the meantime, here’s some totally unsolicited advice! First of all:

☀️ Enjoy the sunshine.
Picture of a tree with full young-ish green leaves against a cloud-free blue sky. Due to the sunshine, colours are very vibrant. A part of a typical Edinburgh town house can be seen in the bottom right hand corner background.
May 16, 2025 at 1:58 PM
tanjabueltmann.net
My letter to the Prime Minister. #immigration
Slightly amended so I can fit this here: I am writing to you as an immigrant who chose to make the UK my home. As someone who is now also a British citizen. And as a German-born historian who understands where the complete normalisation of the far right can end. I write to say: For shame! I first came to the UK in the 1990s for a visit with my grandmother. Objectively, much was backwards here. No mixer taps in the bathroom; awful ‘bread’; and strings had to be pulled to switch on lights. But however I felt about this, my own string had been pulled: I loved this Cool Britannia. It was quite possibly then that I decided that the UK was to be my home. When I arrived to settle here permanently, I made a choice: to contribute my skills, my knowledge—all I have to offer—to this country rather than another one. I am deeply disgusted by your comment today that immigration has done ‘incalculable damage’ to the country. This is the language of the far right. It is insulting, hateful & will fuel xenophobia. And it is just wrong. Migration is a normal part of the human existence. None of us would be where we are without it. Open your fridge and you will see migration. Immigrants help make the UK tick every single day, whether we clean toilets in our hospitals or provide care for the elderly; whether we empty our bins or carry out cancer research. We are mothers, sons-in-law, aunts and uncles, friends, neighbours and colleagues. I ask you not tell me that you do not mean me. I know that you do not—at least not primarily—mean a white woman from Europe who has a PhD. But who do you mean? And, much more importantly, who do you think those racists who were engaged in riots on our streets last summer think you mean? Anti-immigration narratives have defined UK policymaking for the best part of two decades. And fundamentally so. They were the key driver in delivering Brexit, for example, and, as such, have directly limited the rights and opportunities of British citizens. This obsessive focus on immigration as the ‘problem’—that is the real problem. And it is consistently delivering poor outcomes for the UK. Instead of tackling this, you are choosing to consolidate it, sowing divisions along the way. You may point me to polling and tell me that this is what voters want. Do they? I am not surprised at all that over 50% of voters might say they want to see immigration reduced if that is the question they are being asked. What we need to know is what they would answer to the question: “Would you like to see immigration reduced? What this would mean for you and your local community is XYZ.” That is not how surveys can ask questions, but governments absolutely can choose to make policy using such a more informed position. Prime Minister, you continue to talk a lot about making the tough choices. But let’s be clear: setting immigrants up as the ‘other’, as a scapegoat—describing us as a threat ‘pulling the country apart’, a ‘squalid chapter’, a risk that might make the UK an ‘island of strangers’—these are not tough choices at all. These are the easy choices. They are the choices that populists make who have no solutions to the real problems a country faces. What I would like to know, Prime Minister, is what you will do when your policies lead to the implosion of the UK’s Higher Education sector. What you will tell communities when they can no longer provide any care for the elderly. The policies you announced today will not solve anything at all. They will have exclusively negative impacts. For those immediately affected; for our communities; and for our economy. Being pro-immigration—it is progressive, yes, but the much more crucial point is that it is also the most pro-UK policy approach that any politician in the country can pursue. And you are choosing to do the opposite. This, Prime Minister, is the real damage—and it will be very calculable indeed. Tanja Bueltmann
May 12, 2025 at 2:46 PM
tanjabueltmann.net
I have not seen such a blatant anti-immigrant statement based on falsehoods, pitting people against people, in some time. Statement made by Keir Starmer at today’s immigration summit.
“There is little that strikes working people as more unfair than watching illegal migration drive down their wages, their terms and their conditions,” he added.
March 31, 2025 at 6:27 PM
tanjabueltmann.net
Finally a lesson for Labour: recognise that cosplaying AfD didn’t help the CDU. Merz set out to halve AfD support. Instead, he helped further normalise AfD and they landed on over 20% … gaining nearly 1 million votes *from* CDU.

Voters pick the original, not the copycat.

Don’t cosplay Reform!
Screenshot of a graph showing voter movements to the AfD. It gained most from those who didn’t previously vote — 1.8 million voters as previously noted, but then also 910k from the CDU.
February 23, 2025 at 11:10 PM
tanjabueltmann.net
I’ll leave you with these maps, missing constituencies won’t change the overall pattern much.

Light blue = AfD

Last map = AfD % for second vote (party vote).

If you really think that these maps show the far right has been defeated, then I honestly don’t know what else to say.
Map of Germany showing first vote result >> vote for a specific candidate, basically like first past the post (black = CDU; dark blue = CSU; red = SPD; green = Green; dark pink = Die Linke; grey areas shown = no result yet). Map of Germany showing second vote result >> vote for a party (black = CDU; dark blue = CSU; red = SPD; green = Green; dark pink = Die Linke; grey areas shown = no result yet). Map of Germany showing second vote breakdown for the AfD; while the % highest in the East, this shows significant % across most of Germany (grey areas shown = no result yet).
February 23, 2025 at 11:10 PM
tanjabueltmann.net
Twitter being even less of the force it once was is one way in which to lessen that influence. But until then, this here is just one example of it: he is being taken seriously and staying on X tacitly helps with that as it suggests it’s still a usable platform that plays an important role.
And people take him seriously. Last week the Telegraph splashed on a single tweet from Musk criticising Rachel Reeves’s proposed changes to inheritance tax on some farmland, even though Musk’s real understanding of almost anything about British life or politics could barely stretch to 280 characters. More worrying is his tendency to act as a freelance operator in international politics, blurring all lines between national security, faux-diplomacy and personal gain.
November 24, 2024 at 12:50 PM
tanjabueltmann.net
As Twitter continues its death spiral*, just a quick welcome to new followers and re-affirmation that I will use this in due course, just too much on atm. In the meantime, here are some autumnal greetings from the Highlands. #autumn #Highlands #ApplecrossPeninsula #Skye #Raasay #CuillinHills
A landscape photo showing a view of the Isle of Skye as seen from Applecross Peninsula. In the foreground is barren landscape in brown autumn colours; a single-track road is visible on the left, with some white cottages just about identifiable in the distance. There is a stretch of water and, in the background, parts of the Isle of Raasay and the tops of the Cuillin Hills on the Isle of Skye can be seen. The sky is grey and cloudy.
October 18, 2024 at 11:52 AM
tanjabueltmann.net
The Conservatives — limiting your future further every single day.
Screenshot of a news headline about the new immigration rules. It says: ‘Most UK nationals unable to bring home a foreign spouse under new migration rules’
December 4, 2023 at 10:05 PM
tanjabueltmann.net
Aw thank you Chris! I am currently spending evenings sorting through photos and this happened to be one that popped up only yesterday and I did then think that I’d have to check if you’re here. Lovely memory.
Photo of Chris and me sat at a table in a restaurant in Brussels.
November 1, 2023 at 7:07 PM
tanjabueltmann.net
This morning I wrote to UKRI to inform them of my resignation from the UKRI Talent PRC with immediate effect. My decision to resign is a direct result of the letter from the UKRI CEO published here www.ukri.org/news/respons... yesterday.

I attach my resignation letter for information.
Full text of my letter unfortunately too long to fully copy for all images, so here is a summary that captures the essence; I am having to spread this across the images as not enough space here: I argue that I expected UKRI to express concern in terms of wellbeing and safety issues that the public singling out of two academics might cause, and to confirm EDI as a core mission of UKRI. I then say that the UKRI CEO's response is anything but, setting a chilling precent that precedent that documents that UKRI is prepared not only to bow to government pressure, but to identify EDI as immediately dispensable in the process. I then continue to explain why I think this is so concerning. I note that such developments are not happening in isolation given the recent pledge at the Conservative Party conference to to ‘kick woke ideology out of science’, and examples from elsewhere that document that the government is moniroting those critical of government policy. I end by asking about where this will end and saying that I cannot serve in an org that makes such choices.
November 1, 2023 at 12:50 PM
tanjabueltmann.net
Still ‘living’ in the alternate universe that is book writing, so not much from me here yet. But this wee robin (no hidden nod to birdsite!) I managed to capture is too lovely not to share. Birds are of course also a great symbol of migration, so very fitting. Anyway: hello folks …more coming soon!
Photograph of a European robin in a tree. The robin is sitting on a small branch and looks quite “puffy” and round. There are some green and yellow-ish leaves on the branches around the bird.
October 23, 2023 at 9:51 PM