FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > All gone quiet on the migrant front...
All gone quiet on the migrant front...
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"The government ministers who over the years have closed all legal routes for legitimate refugees. And then chosen to demonise them for being desperate to escape from places we've spent years bombing the shit out of, or supplied the weapons for the said bombing. " Could you give an example of a legal route that used to be open, and has been closed in recent times? | |||
| |||
"If Rwanda flights had taken place regularly the temptation to take risk crossing woukd have gone. I blame the do gooders " I agree 100% A friend is a language interpreter, she has been involved with migrants in the current crisis. I had a good conversation with her about it yesterday and the media is not helping the situation. The migrants actually believe that they are wanted/needed here. We have a record high number of job vacancies and this is being reported. Also when the footage of the life boats rescuing migrants is being broadcast across Europe it also encourages it. | |||
"If Rwanda flights had taken place regularly the temptation to take risk crossing woukd have gone. I blame the do gooders I agree 100% A friend is a language interpreter, she has been involved with migrants in the current crisis. I had a good conversation with her about it yesterday and the media is not helping the situation. The migrants actually believe that they are wanted/needed here. We have a record high number of job vacancies and this is being reported. Also when the footage of the life boats rescuing migrants is being broadcast across Europe it also encourages it. "  Agreed
Robby87 - no need to message being rude and abusive it showed you had no argument | |||
"If Rwanda flights had taken place regularly the temptation to take risk crossing woukd have gone. I blame the do gooders " The Rwanda flights broke the law and will never happen . There is zero evidence to suggest it would have stopped asylum seekers crossing the channel in small boats | |||
"If Rwanda flights had taken place regularly the temptation to take risk crossing woukd have gone. I blame the do gooders I agree 100% A friend is a language interpreter, she has been involved with migrants in the current crisis. I had a good conversation with her about it yesterday and the media is not helping the situation. The migrants actually believe that they are wanted/needed here. We have a record high number of job vacancies and this is being reported. Also when the footage of the life boats rescuing migrants is being broadcast across Europe it also encourages it. " Why do the vast majority stay in France then? | |||
"If Rwanda flights had taken place regularly the temptation to take risk crossing woukd have gone. I blame the do gooders I agree 100% A friend is a language interpreter, she has been involved with migrants in the current crisis. I had a good conversation with her about it yesterday and the media is not helping the situation. The migrants actually believe that they are wanted/needed here. We have a record high number of job vacancies and this is being reported. Also when the footage of the life boats rescuing migrants is being broadcast across Europe it also encourages it. Why do the vast majority stay in France then? " By the time they have traveled that far and have realised it’s not true that this country wants/needs migrants and they can live here happily after on benefits they realise it’s not worth the risk of going across the water. | |||
"If Rwanda flights had taken place regularly the temptation to take risk crossing woukd have gone. I blame the do gooders I agree 100% A friend is a language interpreter, she has been involved with migrants in the current crisis. I had a good conversation with her about it yesterday and the media is not helping the situation. The migrants actually believe that they are wanted/needed here. We have a record high number of job vacancies and this is being reported. Also when the footage of the life boats rescuing migrants is being broadcast across Europe it also encourages it. Why do the vast majority stay in France then? By the time they have traveled that far and have realised it’s not true that this country wants/needs migrants and they can live here happily after on benefits they realise it’s not worth the risk of going across the water. " What has that got to do with migrants being rescued by life boats? | |||
"The government ministers who over the years have closed all legal routes for legitimate refugees. And then chosen to demonise them for being desperate to escape from places we've spent years bombing the shit out of, or supplied the weapons for the said bombing. " what france? | |||
"If Rwanda flights had taken place regularly the temptation to take risk crossing woukd have gone. I blame the do gooders The Rwanda flights broke the law and will never happen . There is zero evidence to suggest it would have stopped asylum seekers crossing the channel in small boats "Still, people doing good are the problem.  | |||
"If Rwanda flights had taken place regularly the temptation to take risk crossing woukd have gone. I blame the do gooders I agree 100% A friend is a language interpreter, she has been involved with migrants in the current crisis. I had a good conversation with her about it yesterday and the media is not helping the situation. The migrants actually believe that they are wanted/needed here. We have a record high number of job vacancies and this is being reported. Also when the footage of the life boats rescuing migrants is being broadcast across Europe it also encourages it. " I have a friend who is a "language interpreter", she doesn't think that fictional broadcasts of lifeboats rescuing people are "encouraging it". | |||
"Who are you blaming???" The government for being weak and ineffective in dealing harshly with those who enter the country illegally. The government for not allocating enough resources to assess claims, so that the few deserving cases can be dealt with compassionately and the rest can be deported. The government for not tightening the law, closing loopholes such as the modern sl@very legislation. The government for not changing the law so we can ignore rulings of courts outside of this country. The public servants and their union for being obstructive and lazy with no will to deport people who have no right to be here. "Human Rights" lawyers who use every loophole to thwart the deportation of those who have no right to be here. These lawyers should be branded traitors. | |||
"Who are you blaming??? The government for being weak and ineffective in dealing harshly with those who enter the country illegally. The government for not allocating enough resources to assess claims, so that the few deserving cases can be dealt with compassionately and the rest can be deported. The government for not tightening the law, closing loopholes such as the modern sl@very legislation. The government for not changing the law so we can ignore rulings of courts outside of this country. The public servants and their union for being obstructive and lazy with no will to deport people who have no right to be here. "Human Rights" lawyers who use every loophole to thwart the deportation of those who have no right to be here. These lawyers should be branded traitors." Blimey. Maybe it's gone quiet because people don't need to be force fed anti immigration propaganda anymore, it's done its job. | |||
| |||
"For context: Number of asylum applications per 10,000 population: Cyprus = 152 Austria= 43 Germany = 22 France = 17 UK = 8 " Are there figures for refused claims/deportations against population? | |||
"For context: Number of asylum applications per 10,000 population: Cyprus = 152 Austria= 43 Germany = 22 France = 17 UK = 8 " 7 too many? | |||
"The government ministers who over the years have closed all legal routes for legitimate refugees. And then chosen to demonise them for being desperate to escape from places we've spent years bombing the shit out of, or supplied the weapons for the said bombing. Could you give an example of a legal route that used to be open, and has been closed in recent times?" Can you give examples of current legal routes into the UK and the numbers of asylum seekers who used those routes who were successful and now settled in the UK? I will start... 11,000 Afghanistan asylum applications but literally zero Afghans have been resettled from Afghanistan under ACRS Pathway 3 to date! | |||
"For context: Number of asylum applications per 10,000 population: Cyprus = 152 Austria= 43 Germany = 22 France = 17 UK = 8 7 too many?" Why? Are you saying genuine asylum seekers should not be helped? | |||
"Who are you blaming???" When you say it's all gone quiet, do you mean in the press or in these forums? I still see stories in the press and of course yesterday it was headlines for a bit with 4 people dying while trying to cross. On the forums there was a guy who started several threads on immigration but not seen one recently | |||
"For context: Number of asylum applications per 10,000 population: Cyprus = 152 Austria= 43 Germany = 22 France = 17 UK = 8 7 too many? Why? Are you saying genuine asylum seekers should not be helped?" No, however that is my estimate of the proportion of spurious claims. More than that are currently accepted but that is due to weak legislation,lack of will amd treasonous lawyers (as above). | |||
"For context: Number of asylum applications per 10,000 population: Cyprus = 152 Austria= 43 Germany = 22 France = 17 UK = 8 7 too many?" Why? | |||
"Who are you blaming??? The government for being weak and ineffective in dealing harshly with those who enter the country illegally. The government for not allocating enough resources to assess claims, so that the few deserving cases can be dealt with compassionately and the rest can be deported. The government for not tightening the law, closing loopholes such as the modern sl@very legislation. The government for not changing the law so we can ignore rulings of courts outside of this country. The public servants and their union for being obstructive and lazy with no will to deport people who have no right to be here. "Human Rights" lawyers who use every loophole to thwart the deportation of those who have no right to be here. These lawyers should be branded traitors." Why are they ‘traitors’ ? | |||
"For context: Number of asylum applications per 10,000 population: Cyprus = 152 Austria= 43 Germany = 22 France = 17 UK = 8 7 too many? Why? Are you saying genuine asylum seekers should not be helped? No, however that is my estimate of the proportion of spurious claims. More than that are currently accepted but that is due to weak legislation,lack of will amd treasonous lawyers (as above)." Treasonous? | |||
"Who are you blaming??? The government for being weak and ineffective in dealing harshly with those who enter the country illegally. The government for not allocating enough resources to assess claims, so that the few deserving cases can be dealt with compassionately and the rest can be deported. The government for not tightening the law, closing loopholes such as the modern sl@very legislation. The government for not changing the law so we can ignore rulings of courts outside of this country. The public servants and their union for being obstructive and lazy with no will to deport people who have no right to be here. "Human Rights" lawyers who use every loophole to thwart the deportation of those who have no right to be here. These lawyers should be branded traitors. Why are they ‘traitors’ ? " They are doing something clearly against the best interests of the country, mainly driven by financial gain. Their actions are disloyal and designed to make government difficult - I'm sure most of them would love this government to fall. That makes them treasonous traitors. | |||
"For context: Number of asylum applications per 10,000 population: Cyprus = 152 Austria= 43 Germany = 22 France = 17 UK = 8 7 too many? Why? Are you saying genuine asylum seekers should not be helped? No, however that is my estimate of the proportion of spurious claims. More than that are currently accepted but that is due to weak legislation,lack of will amd treasonous lawyers (as above). Treasonous? " It's now considered "treasonous" to make sure people seeking asylum are treated fairly and within the law. And people in other threads are worried the country has swung too far to the left. Lol. | |||
"Who are you blaming??? The government for being weak and ineffective in dealing harshly with those who enter the country illegally. The government for not allocating enough resources to assess claims, so that the few deserving cases can be dealt with compassionately and the rest can be deported. The government for not tightening the law, closing loopholes such as the modern sl@very legislation. The government for not changing the law so we can ignore rulings of courts outside of this country. The public servants and their union for being obstructive and lazy with no will to deport people who have no right to be here. "Human Rights" lawyers who use every loophole to thwart the deportation of those who have no right to be here. These lawyers should be branded traitors. Why are they ‘traitors’ ? They are doing something clearly against the best interests of the country, mainly driven by financial gain. Their actions are disloyal and designed to make government difficult - I'm sure most of them would love this government to fall. That makes them treasonous traitors." Hilarious, anyway, the Rwanda scheme was against the law, fact | |||
"Who are you blaming??? The government for being weak and ineffective in dealing harshly with those who enter the country illegally. The government for not allocating enough resources to assess claims, so that the few deserving cases can be dealt with compassionately and the rest can be deported. The government for not tightening the law, closing loopholes such as the modern sl@very legislation. The government for not changing the law so we can ignore rulings of courts outside of this country. The public servants and their union for being obstructive and lazy with no will to deport people who have no right to be here. "Human Rights" lawyers who use every loophole to thwart the deportation of those who have no right to be here. These lawyers should be branded traitors. Why are they ‘traitors’ ? They are doing something clearly against the best interests of the country, mainly driven by financial gain. Their actions are disloyal and designed to make government difficult - I'm sure most of them would love this government to fall. That makes them treasonous traitors." This is why I find these threads interesting. We all know immigration is basically a non-issue, which the government and media love to use as a distraction tactic for those not paying attention properly. So it's interesting to see people who have swallowed this anti-immigrant distraction so hard that they argue tooth and nail. | |||
"Who are you blaming??? When you say it's all gone quiet, do you mean in the press or in these forums? I still see stories in the press and of course yesterday it was headlines for a bit with 4 people dying while trying to cross. On the forums there was a guy who started several threads on immigration but not seen one recently" Yeah the guy who was perpetually terrified of "foreigners" has thankfully stopped his daily angry rant threads. | |||
"Who are you blaming??? The government for being weak and ineffective in dealing harshly with those who enter the country illegally. The government for not allocating enough resources to assess claims, so that the few deserving cases can be dealt with compassionately and the rest can be deported. The government for not tightening the law, closing loopholes such as the modern sl@very legislation. The government for not changing the law so we can ignore rulings of courts outside of this country. The public servants and their union for being obstructive and lazy with no will to deport people who have no right to be here. "Human Rights" lawyers who use every loophole to thwart the deportation of those who have no right to be here. These lawyers should be branded traitors. Why are they ‘traitors’ ? They are doing something clearly against the best interests of the country, mainly driven by financial gain. Their actions are disloyal and designed to make government difficult - I'm sure most of them would love this government to fall. That makes them treasonous traitors. This is why I find these threads interesting. We all know immigration is basically a non-issue, which the government and media love to use as a distraction tactic for those not paying attention properly. So it's interesting to see people who have swallowed this anti-immigrant distraction so hard that they argue tooth and nail. " Why is immigration a non issue? We have always had immigration, and need a balanced policy to attract people the country needs. However, immigration levels are currently high. Illegal immigration via small boats etc. is also high. Planning policy and investment in infrastructure has not kept up with demand. This has led to the housing crisis we now have, where housing costs are unaffordable and drive people into poverty. The solution is to encourage legal migration of people we need, discourage illegal migration, support the few in genuine need of asylum (not those who think life is easier here) and also deal with the housing and infrastructure problems by building adequate numbers of houses to support the population requirements. | |||
" the Rwanda scheme was against the law, fact" Can you point me to a ruling on that? | |||
" the Rwanda scheme was against the law, fact Can you point me to a ruling on that?" Try google, | |||
"Who are you blaming??? When you say it's all gone quiet, do you mean in the press or in these forums? I still see stories in the press and of course yesterday it was headlines for a bit with 4 people dying while trying to cross. On the forums there was a guy who started several threads on immigration but not seen one recently Yeah the guy who was perpetually terrified of "foreigners" has thankfully stopped his daily angry rant threads." He was banned  | |||
" the Rwanda scheme was against the law, fact Can you point me to a ruling on that?" The principle is still being tested in the UK courts. | |||
"Who are you blaming??? The government for being weak and ineffective in dealing harshly with those who enter the country illegally. The government for not allocating enough resources to assess claims, so that the few deserving cases can be dealt with compassionately and the rest can be deported. The government for not tightening the law, closing loopholes such as the modern sl@very legislation. The government for not changing the law so we can ignore rulings of courts outside of this country. The public servants and their union for being obstructive and lazy with no will to deport people who have no right to be here. "Human Rights" lawyers who use every loophole to thwart the deportation of those who have no right to be here. These lawyers should be branded traitors. Why are they ‘traitors’ ? They are doing something clearly against the best interests of the country, mainly driven by financial gain. Their actions are disloyal and designed to make government difficult - I'm sure most of them would love this government to fall. That makes them treasonous traitors. This is why I find these threads interesting. We all know immigration is basically a non-issue, which the government and media love to use as a distraction tactic for those not paying attention properly. So it's interesting to see people who have swallowed this anti-immigrant distraction so hard that they argue tooth and nail. Why is immigration a non issue? We have always had immigration, and need a balanced policy to attract people the country needs. However, immigration levels are currently high. Illegal immigration via small boats etc. is also high. Planning policy and investment in infrastructure has not kept up with demand. This has led to the housing crisis we now have, where housing costs are unaffordable and drive people into poverty. The solution is to encourage legal migration of people we need, discourage illegal migration, support the few in genuine need of asylum (not those who think life is easier here) and also deal with the housing and infrastructure problems by building adequate numbers of houses to support the population requirements." This is a very reasonable post. But immigrants are the butt of the blame for the government and local authorities failure. Immigrants have a net positive impact on the economy. So it's not the fault that there are too many people. Earlier on you were suggesting there's too many asylum claims. Which is nothing to do with immigration. | |||
" the Rwanda scheme was against the law, fact Can you point me to a ruling on that? The principle is still being tested in the UK courts." What a waste of money, the people who devised this scheme are traitors  | |||
" the Rwanda scheme was against the law, fact" "Can you point me to a ruling on that?" "Try google," Google tells me that the case is still working its way through the courts. There are a lot of people willing to assert that it is illegal, but as yet there is no court ruling. | |||
" the Rwanda scheme was against the law, fact Can you point me to a ruling on that? Try google, Google tells me that the case is still working its way through the courts. There are a lot of people willing to assert that it is illegal, but as yet there is no court ruling." Why haven’t they been able to send anyone to Rwanda? | |||
" the Rwanda scheme was against the law, fact" "Can you point me to a ruling on that?" "Try google," "Google tells me that the case is still working its way through the courts. There are a lot of people willing to assert that it is illegal, but as yet there is no court ruling." "Why haven’t they been able to send anyone to Rwanda?" Because there's an ongoing court case which has challenged it's legality. The legal judgement is due on Monday. | |||
" the Rwanda scheme was against the law, fact Can you point me to a ruling on that? Try google, Google tells me that the case is still working its way through the courts. There are a lot of people willing to assert that it is illegal, but as yet there is no court ruling. Why haven’t they been able to send anyone to Rwanda? Because there's an ongoing court case which has challenged it's legality. The legal judgement is due on Monday." Who is making this ‘legal judgement’ ? I can’t find anything online | |||
"Who are you blaming??? The government for being weak and ineffective in dealing harshly with those who enter the country illegally. The government for not allocating enough resources to assess claims, so that the few deserving cases can be dealt with compassionately and the rest can be deported. The government for not tightening the law, closing loopholes such as the modern sl@very legislation. The government for not changing the law so we can ignore rulings of courts outside of this country. The public servants and their union for being obstructive and lazy with no will to deport people who have no right to be here. "Human Rights" lawyers who use every loophole to thwart the deportation of those who have no right to be here. These lawyers should be branded traitors. Why are they ‘traitors’ ? They are doing something clearly against the best interests of the country, mainly driven by financial gain. Their actions are disloyal and designed to make government difficult - I'm sure most of them would love this government to fall. That makes them treasonous traitors. This is why I find these threads interesting. We all know immigration is basically a non-issue, which the government and media love to use as a distraction tactic for those not paying attention properly. So it's interesting to see people who have swallowed this anti-immigrant distraction so hard that they argue tooth and nail. Why is immigration a non issue? We have always had immigration, and need a balanced policy to attract people the country needs. However, immigration levels are currently high. Illegal immigration via small boats etc. is also high. Planning policy and investment in infrastructure has not kept up with demand. This has led to the housing crisis we now have, where housing costs are unaffordable and drive people into poverty. The solution is to encourage legal migration of people we need, discourage illegal migration, support the few in genuine need of asylum (not those who think life is easier here) and also deal with the housing and infrastructure problems by building adequate numbers of houses to support the population requirements." @Sexy_Horny I am curious how you would behave if you felt your life and that of your family was in danger. Scenario - The UK has a coup led by religious extremists who close the borders including airports. Bring in draconian laws that subjugate any who are not fully indoctrinated into their belief system. Then begin systematically hunting down and either imprisoning or executing those who they consider do not meet with their expectations of acceptability in society. In closing the borders they also expel diplomatic missions from other countries closing embassies. The religious police undertake intel operations and find that you have been frequenting a swinger website that they consider to be morally sinful and order you and your family to be captured, tortured, publicly humiliated, and executed. What are you going to do? | |||
" the Rwanda scheme was against the law, fact" "Can you point me to a ruling on that?" "Try google," "Google tells me that the case is still working its way through the courts. There are a lot of people willing to assert that it is illegal, but as yet there is no court ruling." "Why haven’t they been able to send anyone to Rwanda?" "Because there's an ongoing court case which has challenged it's legality. The legal judgement is due on Monday." "Who is making this ‘legal judgement’ ? I can’t find anything online " It's being heard at The high Court. https://metro.co.uk/2022/12/14/government-bill-for-defending-rwanda-asylum-plan-nears-1000000-17936247/ You're welcome. | |||
" the Rwanda scheme was against the law, fact Can you point me to a ruling on that? Try google, Google tells me that the case is still working its way through the courts. There are a lot of people willing to assert that it is illegal, but as yet there is no court ruling. Why haven’t they been able to send anyone to Rwanda? Because there's an ongoing court case which has challenged it's legality. The legal judgement is due on Monday. Who is making this ‘legal judgement’ ? I can’t find anything online It's being heard at The high Court. https://metro.co.uk/2022/12/14/government-bill-for-defending-rwanda-asylum-plan-nears-1000000-17936247/ You're welcome." Can the high court over rule the ECHR? | |||
"Who are you blaming??? The government for being weak and ineffective in dealing harshly with those who enter the country illegally. The government for not allocating enough resources to assess claims, so that the few deserving cases can be dealt with compassionately and the rest can be deported. The government for not tightening the law, closing loopholes such as the modern sl@very legislation. The government for not changing the law so we can ignore rulings of courts outside of this country. The public servants and their union for being obstructive and lazy with no will to deport people who have no right to be here. "Human Rights" lawyers who use every loophole to thwart the deportation of those who have no right to be here. These lawyers should be branded traitors. Why are they ‘traitors’ ? They are doing something clearly against the best interests of the country, mainly driven by financial gain. Their actions are disloyal and designed to make government difficult - I'm sure most of them would love this government to fall. That makes them treasonous traitors. This is why I find these threads interesting. We all know immigration is basically a non-issue, which the government and media love to use as a distraction tactic for those not paying attention properly. So it's interesting to see people who have swallowed this anti-immigrant distraction so hard that they argue tooth and nail. Why is immigration a non issue? We have always had immigration, and need a balanced policy to attract people the country needs. However, immigration levels are currently high. Illegal immigration via small boats etc. is also high. Planning policy and investment in infrastructure has not kept up with demand. This has led to the housing crisis we now have, where housing costs are unaffordable and drive people into poverty. The solution is to encourage legal migration of people we need, discourage illegal migration, support the few in genuine need of asylum (not those who think life is easier here) and also deal with the housing and infrastructure problems by building adequate numbers of houses to support the population requirements. @Sexy_Horny I am curious how you would behave if you felt your life and that of your family was in danger. Scenario - The UK has a coup led by religious extremists who close the borders including airports. Bring in draconian laws that subjugate any who are not fully indoctrinated into their belief system. Then begin systematically hunting down and either imprisoning or executing those who they consider do not meet with their expectations of acceptability in society. In closing the borders they also expel diplomatic missions from other countries closing embassies. The religious police undertake intel operations and find that you have been frequenting a swinger website that they consider to be morally sinful and order you and your family to be captured, tortured, publicly humiliated, and executed. What are you going to do? " Join you in the same bunker
Seriously though, in that case I would do my best to escape but I would claim asylum in the first safe country I reached. It would be nice to live in France as the quality of life is much better than here.
There are, of course, genuine asylum seekers and they should be treated with compassion. However, the laws are lax (arguably from another era) and the system is broken. This leads to long waits for decisions and repeated appeals. Not fair on this country or the genuine asylum seekers.
| |||
"Who are you blaming??? The government for being weak and ineffective in dealing harshly with those who enter the country illegally. The government for not allocating enough resources to assess claims, so that the few deserving cases can be dealt with compassionately and the rest can be deported. The government for not tightening the law, closing loopholes such as the modern sl@very legislation. The government for not changing the law so we can ignore rulings of courts outside of this country. The public servants and their union for being obstructive and lazy with no will to deport people who have no right to be here. "Human Rights" lawyers who use every loophole to thwart the deportation of those who have no right to be here. These lawyers should be branded traitors. Why are they ‘traitors’ ? They are doing something clearly against the best interests of the country, mainly driven by financial gain. Their actions are disloyal and designed to make government difficult - I'm sure most of them would love this government to fall. That makes them treasonous traitors. This is why I find these threads interesting. We all know immigration is basically a non-issue, which the government and media love to use as a distraction tactic for those not paying attention properly. So it's interesting to see people who have swallowed this anti-immigrant distraction so hard that they argue tooth and nail. Why is immigration a non issue? We have always had immigration, and need a balanced policy to attract people the country needs. However, immigration levels are currently high. Illegal immigration via small boats etc. is also high. Planning policy and investment in infrastructure has not kept up with demand. This has led to the housing crisis we now have, where housing costs are unaffordable and drive people into poverty. The solution is to encourage legal migration of people we need, discourage illegal migration, support the few in genuine need of asylum (not those who think life is easier here) and also deal with the housing and infrastructure problems by building adequate numbers of houses to support the population requirements. @Sexy_Horny I am curious how you would behave if you felt your life and that of your family was in danger. Scenario - The UK has a coup led by religious extremists who close the borders including airports. Bring in draconian laws that subjugate any who are not fully indoctrinated into their belief system. Then begin systematically hunting down and either imprisoning or executing those who they consider do not meet with their expectations of acceptability in society. In closing the borders they also expel diplomatic missions from other countries closing embassies. The religious police undertake intel operations and find that you have been frequenting a swinger website that they consider to be morally sinful and order you and your family to be captured, tortured, publicly humiliated, and executed. What are you going to do? Join you in the same bunker
Seriously though, in that case I would do my best to escape but I would claim asylum in the first safe country I reached. It would be nice to live in France as the quality of life is much better than here.
There are, of course, genuine asylum seekers and they should be treated with compassion. However, the laws are lax (arguably from another era) and the system is broken. This leads to long waits for decisions and repeated appeals. Not fair on this country or the genuine asylum seekers.
"So you want to live in France and are prepared to make a illegal crossing by boat into France. But what if France doesn’t want you? | |||
| |||
"Who are you blaming??? The government for being weak and ineffective in dealing harshly with those who enter the country illegally. The government for not allocating enough resources to assess claims, so that the few deserving cases can be dealt with compassionately and the rest can be deported. The government for not tightening the law, closing loopholes such as the modern sl@very legislation. The government for not changing the law so we can ignore rulings of courts outside of this country. The public servants and their union for being obstructive and lazy with no will to deport people who have no right to be here. "Human Rights" lawyers who use every loophole to thwart the deportation of those who have no right to be here. These lawyers should be branded traitors. Why are they ‘traitors’ ? They are doing something clearly against the best interests of the country, mainly driven by financial gain. Their actions are disloyal and designed to make government difficult - I'm sure most of them would love this government to fall. That makes them treasonous traitors. This is why I find these threads interesting. We all know immigration is basically a non-issue, which the government and media love to use as a distraction tactic for those not paying attention properly. So it's interesting to see people who have swallowed this anti-immigrant distraction so hard that they argue tooth and nail. Why is immigration a non issue? We have always had immigration, and need a balanced policy to attract people the country needs. However, immigration levels are currently high. Illegal immigration via small boats etc. is also high. Planning policy and investment in infrastructure has not kept up with demand. This has led to the housing crisis we now have, where housing costs are unaffordable and drive people into poverty. The solution is to encourage legal migration of people we need, discourage illegal migration, support the few in genuine need of asylum (not those who think life is easier here) and also deal with the housing and infrastructure problems by building adequate numbers of houses to support the population requirements. @Sexy_Horny I am curious how you would behave if you felt your life and that of your family was in danger. Scenario - The UK has a coup led by religious extremists who close the borders including airports. Bring in draconian laws that subjugate any who are not fully indoctrinated into their belief system. Then begin systematically hunting down and either imprisoning or executing those who they consider do not meet with their expectations of acceptability in society. In closing the borders they also expel diplomatic missions from other countries closing embassies. The religious police undertake intel operations and find that you have been frequenting a swinger website that they consider to be morally sinful and order you and your family to be captured, tortured, publicly humiliated, and executed. What are you going to do? Join you in the same bunker
Seriously though, in that case I would do my best to escape but I would claim asylum in the first safe country I reached. It would be nice to live in France as the quality of life is much better than here.
There are, of course, genuine asylum seekers and they should be treated with compassion. However, the laws are lax (arguably from another era) and the system is broken. This leads to long waits for decisions and repeated appeals. Not fair on this country or the genuine asylum seekers. "Type again... So you want to live in France and are prepared to make an illegal crossing by boat into France? But what if France doesn’t want you? What if your second language is Moroccan? What if you have family in Morocco? | |||
"Who are you blaming??? The government for being weak and ineffective in dealing harshly with those who enter the country illegally. The government for not allocating enough resources to assess claims, so that the few deserving cases can be dealt with compassionately and the rest can be deported. The government for not tightening the law, closing loopholes such as the modern sl@very legislation. The government for not changing the law so we can ignore rulings of courts outside of this country. The public servants and their union for being obstructive and lazy with no will to deport people who have no right to be here. "Human Rights" lawyers who use every loophole to thwart the deportation of those who have no right to be here. These lawyers should be branded traitors. Why are they ‘traitors’ ? They are doing something clearly against the best interests of the country, mainly driven by financial gain. Their actions are disloyal and designed to make government difficult - I'm sure most of them would love this government to fall. That makes them treasonous traitors. This is why I find these threads interesting. We all know immigration is basically a non-issue, which the government and media love to use as a distraction tactic for those not paying attention properly. So it's interesting to see people who have swallowed this anti-immigrant distraction so hard that they argue tooth and nail. Why is immigration a non issue? We have always had immigration, and need a balanced policy to attract people the country needs. However, immigration levels are currently high. Illegal immigration via small boats etc. is also high. Planning policy and investment in infrastructure has not kept up with demand. This has led to the housing crisis we now have, where housing costs are unaffordable and drive people into poverty. The solution is to encourage legal migration of people we need, discourage illegal migration, support the few in genuine need of asylum (not those who think life is easier here) and also deal with the housing and infrastructure problems by building adequate numbers of houses to support the population requirements. @Sexy_Horny I am curious how you would behave if you felt your life and that of your family was in danger. Scenario - The UK has a coup led by religious extremists who close the borders including airports. Bring in draconian laws that subjugate any who are not fully indoctrinated into their belief system. Then begin systematically hunting down and either imprisoning or executing those who they consider do not meet with their expectations of acceptability in society. In closing the borders they also expel diplomatic missions from other countries closing embassies. The religious police undertake intel operations and find that you have been frequenting a swinger website that they consider to be morally sinful and order you and your family to be captured, tortured, publicly humiliated, and executed. What are you going to do? Join you in the same bunker
Seriously though, in that case I would do my best to escape but I would claim asylum in the first safe country I reached. It would be nice to live in France as the quality of life is much better than here.
There are, of course, genuine asylum seekers and they should be treated with compassion. However, the laws are lax (arguably from another era) and the system is broken. This leads to long waits for decisions and repeated appeals. Not fair on this country or the genuine asylum seekers.
Type again...
So you want to live in France and are prepared to make an illegal crossing by boat into France? But what if France doesn’t want you? What if your second language is Moroccan? What if you have family in Morocco?"All hypothetical and I can see where you are leading so I am not biting. As I have said, there is no problem with legal migration or genuine asylum seekers. Too many people are gaming the system, either shopping for the best asylum deal or being rejected by one country and then going to the next. If you claim asylum in a country and are accepted then be prepared to repay that generosity by integrating into the society, contributing to that society and learning the language of the country. | |||
"Can the high court over rule the ECHR? " That's a complex question, with the answer being 'it would be difficult, but possible'. But in this case the answer is simple, since the ECHR have made no ruling on the issue. It was taken to the ECHR earlier this year, and they gave an opinion that flights should not start until the current UK court case is completed. The ECHR has made no ruling over whether the plan might be legal or not. The fact that they said flights should be stopped until the UK legislation is clear, implies that the UK is free to make its own decisions on whether flights can start or not once the UK court case is over. | |||
"Who are you blaming??? The government for being weak and ineffective in dealing harshly with those who enter the country illegally. The government for not allocating enough resources to assess claims, so that the few deserving cases can be dealt with compassionately and the rest can be deported. The government for not tightening the law, closing loopholes such as the modern sl@very legislation. The government for not changing the law so we can ignore rulings of courts outside of this country. The public servants and their union for being obstructive and lazy with no will to deport people who have no right to be here. "Human Rights" lawyers who use every loophole to thwart the deportation of those who have no right to be here. These lawyers should be branded traitors. Why are they ‘traitors’ ? They are doing something clearly against the best interests of the country, mainly driven by financial gain. Their actions are disloyal and designed to make government difficult - I'm sure most of them would love this government to fall. That makes them treasonous traitors. This is why I find these threads interesting. We all know immigration is basically a non-issue, which the government and media love to use as a distraction tactic for those not paying attention properly. So it's interesting to see people who have swallowed this anti-immigrant distraction so hard that they argue tooth and nail. Why is immigration a non issue? We have always had immigration, and need a balanced policy to attract people the country needs. However, immigration levels are currently high. Illegal immigration via small boats etc. is also high. Planning policy and investment in infrastructure has not kept up with demand. This has led to the housing crisis we now have, where housing costs are unaffordable and drive people into poverty. The solution is to encourage legal migration of people we need, discourage illegal migration, support the few in genuine need of asylum (not those who think life is easier here) and also deal with the housing and infrastructure problems by building adequate numbers of houses to support the population requirements. @Sexy_Horny I am curious how you would behave if you felt your life and that of your family was in danger. Scenario - The UK has a coup led by religious extremists who close the borders including airports. Bring in draconian laws that subjugate any who are not fully indoctrinated into their belief system. Then begin systematically hunting down and either imprisoning or executing those who they consider do not meet with their expectations of acceptability in society. In closing the borders they also expel diplomatic missions from other countries closing embassies. The religious police undertake intel operations and find that you have been frequenting a swinger website that they consider to be morally sinful and order you and your family to be captured, tortured, publicly humiliated, and executed. What are you going to do? Join you in the same bunker
Seriously though, in that case I would do my best to escape but I would claim asylum in the first safe country I reached. It would be nice to live in France as the quality of life is much better than here.
There are, of course, genuine asylum seekers and they should be treated with compassion. However, the laws are lax (arguably from another era) and the system is broken. This leads to long waits for decisions and repeated appeals. Not fair on this country or the genuine asylum seekers.
Type again...
So you want to live in France and are prepared to make an illegal crossing by boat into France? But what if France doesn’t want you? What if your second language is Moroccan? What if you have family in Morocco?
All hypothetical and I can see where you are leading so I am not biting.
As I have said, there is no problem with legal migration or genuine asylum seekers.
Too many people are gaming the system, either shopping for the best asylum deal or being rejected by one country and then going to the next.
If you claim asylum in a country and are accepted then be prepared to repay that generosity by integrating into the society, contributing to that society and learning the language of the country."I am not trying a “gotcha” I am simply turning the tables to demonstrate what the situation would be like in reverse. ie a complete nightmare. Your assertions need to be backed up as until they are they remain completely subjective. How many are gaming the system? How do you know they are shopping around for best asylum deal? How many are rejected by one country and go on to apply in another? What proportion of total asylum seekers does that represent? Is it a big or small proportion? Apart from a small number of legal routes established by the UK for specific groups (ie Afghans) there are no legal routes to claim asylum in the UK. Those legal routes are pitiful and not working (see my post earlier in thread). International law (to which the UK is a signatory and helped to write) says a person has a right to claim asylum in any country. You said in our hypothetical situation you would like to be in France. But what if you don’t speak French, are not particularly welcome, but do speak Moroccan, have family there. Would you not prefer to go there? The answer to all this is actually straightforward. Create legal routes. Enable that through Consulates in each country. You can then more quickly identify genuine asylum seekers. You remove the appeal of the criminal gangs who will only be transporting fake asylum seekers so mitigating action is clearer cut. Most asylum seekers from places like Syria, Iraq. Afghanistan pass through Turkey. So create a processing centre there? | |||
"Who are you blaming??? The government for being weak and ineffective in dealing harshly with those who enter the country illegally. The government for not allocating enough resources to assess claims, so that the few deserving cases can be dealt with compassionately and the rest can be deported. The government for not tightening the law, closing loopholes such as the modern sl@very legislation. The government for not changing the law so we can ignore rulings of courts outside of this country. The public servants and their union for being obstructive and lazy with no will to deport people who have no right to be here. "Human Rights" lawyers who use every loophole to thwart the deportation of those who have no right to be here. These lawyers should be branded traitors. Why are they ‘traitors’ ? They are doing something clearly against the best interests of the country, mainly driven by financial gain. Their actions are disloyal and designed to make government difficult - I'm sure most of them would love this government to fall. That makes them treasonous traitors. This is why I find these threads interesting. We all know immigration is basically a non-issue, which the government and media love to use as a distraction tactic for those not paying attention properly. So it's interesting to see people who have swallowed this anti-immigrant distraction so hard that they argue tooth and nail. Why is immigration a non issue? We have always had immigration, and need a balanced policy to attract people the country needs. However, immigration levels are currently high. Illegal immigration via small boats etc. is also high. Planning policy and investment in infrastructure has not kept up with demand. This has led to the housing crisis we now have, where housing costs are unaffordable and drive people into poverty. The solution is to encourage legal migration of people we need, discourage illegal migration, support the few in genuine need of asylum (not those who think life is easier here) and also deal with the housing and infrastructure problems by building adequate numbers of houses to support the population requirements. @Sexy_Horny I am curious how you would behave if you felt your life and that of your family was in danger. Scenario - The UK has a coup led by religious extremists who close the borders including airports. Bring in draconian laws that subjugate any who are not fully indoctrinated into their belief system. Then begin systematically hunting down and either imprisoning or executing those who they consider do not meet with their expectations of acceptability in society. In closing the borders they also expel diplomatic missions from other countries closing embassies. The religious police undertake intel operations and find that you have been frequenting a swinger website that they consider to be morally sinful and order you and your family to be captured, tortured, publicly humiliated, and executed. What are you going to do? Join you in the same bunker
Seriously though, in that case I would do my best to escape but I would claim asylum in the first safe country I reached. It would be nice to live in France as the quality of life is much better than here.
There are, of course, genuine asylum seekers and they should be treated with compassion. However, the laws are lax (arguably from another era) and the system is broken. This leads to long waits for decisions and repeated appeals. Not fair on this country or the genuine asylum seekers.
Type again...
So you want to live in France and are prepared to make an illegal crossing by boat into France? But what if France doesn’t want you? What if your second language is Moroccan? What if you have family in Morocco?
All hypothetical and I can see where you are leading so I am not biting.
As I have said, there is no problem with legal migration or genuine asylum seekers.
Too many people are gaming the system, either shopping for the best asylum deal or being rejected by one country and then going to the next.
If you claim asylum in a country and are accepted then be prepared to repay that generosity by integrating into the society, contributing to that society and learning the language of the country."even if we beg the question that there are all these people gaming the system... If they come here, and are able to make a case that is accepted by the UK... doesn't that make them legitimate? There appears to be a view that we do a bad job at identifying true case from bogus. If true, that's on us. It's like banning all booze and cigs because we do a bad job at identifying smuggled goods. | |||
"Who are you blaming??? The government for being weak and ineffective in dealing harshly with those who enter the country illegally. The government for not allocating enough resources to assess claims, so that the few deserving cases can be dealt with compassionately and the rest can be deported. The government for not tightening the law, closing loopholes such as the modern sl@very legislation. The government for not changing the law so we can ignore rulings of courts outside of this country. The public servants and their union for being obstructive and lazy with no will to deport people who have no right to be here. "Human Rights" lawyers who use every loophole to thwart the deportation of those who have no right to be here. These lawyers should be branded traitors. Why are they ‘traitors’ ? They are doing something clearly against the best interests of the country, mainly driven by financial gain. Their actions are disloyal and designed to make government difficult - I'm sure most of them would love this government to fall. That makes them treasonous traitors. This is why I find these threads interesting. We all know immigration is basically a non-issue, which the government and media love to use as a distraction tactic for those not paying attention properly. So it's interesting to see people who have swallowed this anti-immigrant distraction so hard that they argue tooth and nail. Why is immigration a non issue? We have always had immigration, and need a balanced policy to attract people the country needs. However, immigration levels are currently high. Illegal immigration via small boats etc. is also high. Planning policy and investment in infrastructure has not kept up with demand. This has led to the housing crisis we now have, where housing costs are unaffordable and drive people into poverty. The solution is to encourage legal migration of people we need, discourage illegal migration, support the few in genuine need of asylum (not those who think life is easier here) and also deal with the housing and infrastructure problems by building adequate numbers of houses to support the population requirements. @Sexy_Horny I am curious how you would behave if you felt your life and that of your family was in danger. Scenario - The UK has a coup led by religious extremists who close the borders including airports. Bring in draconian laws that subjugate any who are not fully indoctrinated into their belief system. Then begin systematically hunting down and either imprisoning or executing those who they consider do not meet with their expectations of acceptability in society. In closing the borders they also expel diplomatic missions from other countries closing embassies. The religious police undertake intel operations and find that you have been frequenting a swinger website that they consider to be morally sinful and order you and your family to be captured, tortured, publicly humiliated, and executed. What are you going to do? Join you in the same bunker
Seriously though, in that case I would do my best to escape but I would claim asylum in the first safe country I reached. It would be nice to live in France as the quality of life is much better than here.
There are, of course, genuine asylum seekers and they should be treated with compassion. However, the laws are lax (arguably from another era) and the system is broken. This leads to long waits for decisions and repeated appeals. Not fair on this country or the genuine asylum seekers.
Type again...
So you want to live in France and are prepared to make an illegal crossing by boat into France? But what if France doesn’t want you? What if your second language is Moroccan? What if you have family in Morocco?
All hypothetical and I can see where you are leading so I am not biting.
As I have said, there is no problem with legal migration or genuine asylum seekers.
Too many people are gaming the system, either shopping for the best asylum deal or being rejected by one country and then going to the next.
If you claim asylum in a country and are accepted then be prepared to repay that generosity by integrating into the society, contributing to that society and learning the language of the country.
I am not trying a “gotcha” I am simply turning the tables to demonstrate what the situation would be like in reverse. ie a complete nightmare.
Your assertions need to be backed up as until they are they remain completely subjective.
How many are gaming the system? How do you know they are shopping around for best asylum deal? How many are rejected by one country and go on to apply in another? What proportion of total asylum seekers does that represent? Is it a big or small proportion?
Apart from a small number of legal routes established by the UK for specific groups (ie Afghans) there are no legal routes to claim asylum in the UK. Those legal routes are pitiful and not working (see my post earlier in thread).
International law (to which the UK is a signatory and helped to write) says a person has a right to claim asylum in any country.
You said in our hypothetical situation you would like to be in France. But what if you don’t speak French, are not particularly welcome, but do speak Moroccan, have family there. Would you not prefer to go there?
The answer to all this is actually straightforward. Create legal routes. Enable that through Consulates in each country. You can then more quickly identify genuine asylum seekers. You remove the appeal of the criminal gangs who will only be transporting fake asylum seekers so mitigating action is clearer cut.
Most asylum seekers from places like Syria, Iraq. Afghanistan pass through Turkey. So create a processing centre there?"I don't object to the creation of legal routes, perhaps run by the UN with narrow criteria and successful applicants allocated to safe countries providing the allocation doesn't place an inequitable burden on any one country. This may well result in us taking more people than at present but would create a level playing field. As for the shopping around, there was an interview in the media a couple of weeks ago where a boat migrant said he would have been made to join the army and fight in his country. His asylum claim had been rejected in Germany and France so he came here. That is gaming the system, Indyref style. Keep asking every time it is rejected until someone makes a mistake and says yes. | |||
"Who are you blaming??? The government for being weak and ineffective in dealing harshly with those who enter the country illegally. The government for not allocating enough resources to assess claims, so that the few deserving cases can be dealt with compassionately and the rest can be deported. The government for not tightening the law, closing loopholes such as the modern sl@very legislation. The government for not changing the law so we can ignore rulings of courts outside of this country. The public servants and their union for being obstructive and lazy with no will to deport people who have no right to be here. "Human Rights" lawyers who use every loophole to thwart the deportation of those who have no right to be here. These lawyers should be branded traitors. Why are they ‘traitors’ ? They are doing something clearly against the best interests of the country, mainly driven by financial gain. Their actions are disloyal and designed to make government difficult - I'm sure most of them would love this government to fall. That makes them treasonous traitors. This is why I find these threads interesting. We all know immigration is basically a non-issue, which the government and media love to use as a distraction tactic for those not paying attention properly. So it's interesting to see people who have swallowed this anti-immigrant distraction so hard that they argue tooth and nail. Why is immigration a non issue? We have always had immigration, and need a balanced policy to attract people the country needs. However, immigration levels are currently high. Illegal immigration via small boats etc. is also high. Planning policy and investment in infrastructure has not kept up with demand. This has led to the housing crisis we now have, where housing costs are unaffordable and drive people into poverty. The solution is to encourage legal migration of people we need, discourage illegal migration, support the few in genuine need of asylum (not those who think life is easier here) and also deal with the housing and infrastructure problems by building adequate numbers of houses to support the population requirements. @Sexy_Horny I am curious how you would behave if you felt your life and that of your family was in danger. Scenario - The UK has a coup led by religious extremists who close the borders including airports. Bring in draconian laws that subjugate any who are not fully indoctrinated into their belief system. Then begin systematically hunting down and either imprisoning or executing those who they consider do not meet with their expectations of acceptability in society. In closing the borders they also expel diplomatic missions from other countries closing embassies. The religious police undertake intel operations and find that you have been frequenting a swinger website that they consider to be morally sinful and order you and your family to be captured, tortured, publicly humiliated, and executed. What are you going to do? Join you in the same bunker
Seriously though, in that case I would do my best to escape but I would claim asylum in the first safe country I reached. It would be nice to live in France as the quality of life is much better than here.
There are, of course, genuine asylum seekers and they should be treated with compassion. However, the laws are lax (arguably from another era) and the system is broken. This leads to long waits for decisions and repeated appeals. Not fair on this country or the genuine asylum seekers.
Type again...
So you want to live in France and are prepared to make an illegal crossing by boat into France? But what if France doesn’t want you? What if your second language is Moroccan? What if you have family in Morocco?
All hypothetical and I can see where you are leading so I am not biting.
As I have said, there is no problem with legal migration or genuine asylum seekers.
Too many people are gaming the system, either shopping for the best asylum deal or being rejected by one country and then going to the next.
If you claim asylum in a country and are accepted then be prepared to repay that generosity by integrating into the society, contributing to that society and learning the language of the country.even if we beg the question that there are all these people gaming the system...
If they come here, and are able to make a case that is accepted by the UK... doesn't that make them legitimate?
There appears to be a view that we do a bad job at identifying true case from bogus. If true, that's on us.
It's like banning all booze and cigs because we do a bad job at identifying smuggled goods. "We do a very bad job of assessing the claims for the reasons I set out above. | |||
"There appears to be a view that we do a bad job at identifying true case from bogus. If true, that's on us." I'm not sure that people think we do a bad job, I think it's more that it's a very difficult job to do. For instance, if a cunning foreigner turns up and says "I'm gay, and I'm being persecuted", it's practically impossible for the state to show that the person isn't gay. Likewise with religion. The CofE runs regular courses converting Muslims to Christianity. Some of those convertees have previously lost asylum claims and, as soon as they have converted, they lodge a new claim saying that they will be persecuted if they are sent back as a Christian. I'm sure some of the conversions are genuine, but I'm also sure that some of them are false. How is the state supposed to tell the false from the genuine? | |||
"There appears to be a view that we do a bad job at identifying true case from bogus. If true, that's on us. I'm not sure that people think we do a bad job, I think it's more that it's a very difficult job to do. For instance, if a cunning foreigner turns up and says "I'm gay, and I'm being persecuted", it's practically impossible for the state to show that the person isn't gay. Likewise with religion. The CofE runs regular courses converting Muslims to Christianity. Some of those convertees have previously lost asylum claims and, as soon as they have converted, they lodge a new claim saying that they will be persecuted if they are sent back as a Christian. I'm sure some of the conversions are genuine, but I'm also sure that some of them are false. How is the state supposed to tell the false from the genuine?" makes you wonder why there is such a back log ... This is where labour's approach works with safe lists. If you can show you are from a country that has persecution for being gay then the bar or evidence is lower. It's hard to comment without knowing the process today tbh. How many people claim what reason etc. And where the burden of proof is. Thers also something on the Church in your second point. That they do this at all raises concerns to me. Imagine if that were another religion !! | |||
"There appears to be a view that we do a bad job at identifying true case from bogus. If true, that's on us. I'm not sure that people think we do a bad job, I think it's more that it's a very difficult job to do. For instance, if a cunning foreigner turns up and says "I'm gay, and I'm being persecuted", it's practically impossible for the state to show that the person isn't gay. Likewise with religion. The CofE runs regular courses converting Muslims to Christianity. Some of those convertees have previously lost asylum claims and, as soon as they have converted, they lodge a new claim saying that they will be persecuted if they are sent back as a Christian. I'm sure some of the conversions are genuine, but I'm also sure that some of them are false. How is the state supposed to tell the false from the genuine?makes you wonder why there is such a back log ... This is where labour's approach works with safe lists. If you can show you are from a country that has persecution for being gay then the bar or evidence is lower. It's hard to comment without knowing the process today tbh. How many people claim what reason etc. And where the burden of proof is. Thers also something on the Church in your second point. That they do this at all raises concerns to me. Imagine if that were another religion !!" Lists of countries persecuting a particular group wouldn't work. Suddenly, in your example, everyone coming from one of those countries will claim to be gay if they think it makes it easier. For those circumstances, maybe requiring proof of arrest and severe punishment for being gay would be one of the requirements. | |||
"Can the high court over rule the ECHR? That's a complex question, with the answer being 'it would be difficult, but possible'. But in this case the answer is simple, since the ECHR have made no ruling on the issue. It was taken to the ECHR earlier this year, and they gave an opinion that flights should not start until the current UK court case is completed. The ECHR has made no ruling over whether the plan might be legal or not. The fact that they said flights should be stopped until the UK legislation is clear, implies that the UK is free to make its own decisions on whether flights can start or not once the UK court case is over." Implies? Let’s see what happens on Monday | |||
"Let’s see what happens on Monday " What a good idea. | |||
"There appears to be a view that we do a bad job at identifying true case from bogus. If true, that's on us. I'm not sure that people think we do a bad job, I think it's more that it's a very difficult job to do. For instance, if a cunning foreigner turns up and says "I'm gay, and I'm being persecuted", it's practically impossible for the state to show that the person isn't gay. Likewise with religion. The CofE runs regular courses converting Muslims to Christianity. Some of those convertees have previously lost asylum claims and, as soon as they have converted, they lodge a new claim saying that they will be persecuted if they are sent back as a Christian. I'm sure some of the conversions are genuine, but I'm also sure that some of them are false. How is the state supposed to tell the false from the genuine?makes you wonder why there is such a back log ... This is where labour's approach works with safe lists. If you can show you are from a country that has persecution for being gay then the bar or evidence is lower. It's hard to comment without knowing the process today tbh. How many people claim what reason etc. And where the burden of proof is. Thers also something on the Church in your second point. That they do this at all raises concerns to me. Imagine if that were another religion !! Lists of countries persecuting a particular group wouldn't work. Suddenly, in your example, everyone coming from one of those countries will claim to be gay if they think it makes it easier. For those circumstances, maybe requiring proof of arrest and severe punishment for being gay would be one of the requirements." it changes the level of evidence. I was responding to the point everyone could do that now so couldn't prove otherwise. I have no idea what the bar is. But a higher bar if I come from alabania and claim persecution because of sexuakitu makes sense to me. | |||
"Who are you blaming??? When you say it's all gone quiet, do you mean in the press or in these forums? I still see stories in the press and of course yesterday it was headlines for a bit with 4 people dying while trying to cross. On the forums there was a guy who started several threads on immigration but not seen one recently Yeah the guy who was perpetually terrified of "foreigners" has thankfully stopped his daily angry rant threads. He was banned "I'm sorry to hear he was banned. He seemed to have certain concerns that he wanted to discus, which I thought was the purpose of these forums. I certainly did not agree with all of his views or posts but find it a shame such topics can't be discussed in a reasonable way. I can only assume that there was some incident to warrant a ban. Do you know what it was? | |||
"Who are you blaming??? The government for being weak and ineffective in dealing harshly with those who enter the country illegally. The government for not allocating enough resources to assess claims, so that the few deserving cases can be dealt with compassionately and the rest can be deported. The government for not tightening the law, closing loopholes such as the modern sl@very legislation. The government for not changing the law so we can ignore rulings of courts outside of this country. The public servants and their union for being obstructive and lazy with no will to deport people who have no right to be here. "Human Rights" lawyers who use every loophole to thwart the deportation of those who have no right to be here. These lawyers should be branded traitors. Why are they ‘traitors’ ? They are doing something clearly against the best interests of the country, mainly driven by financial gain. Their actions are disloyal and designed to make government difficult - I'm sure most of them would love this government to fall. That makes them treasonous traitors. This is why I find these threads interesting. We all know immigration is basically a non-issue, which the government and media love to use as a distraction tactic for those not paying attention properly. So it's interesting to see people who have swallowed this anti-immigrant distraction so hard that they argue tooth and nail. Why is immigration a non issue? We have always had immigration, and need a balanced policy to attract people the country needs. However, immigration levels are currently high. Illegal immigration via small boats etc. is also high. Planning policy and investment in infrastructure has not kept up with demand. This has led to the housing crisis we now have, where housing costs are unaffordable and drive people into poverty. The solution is to encourage legal migration of people we need, discourage illegal migration, support the few in genuine need of asylum (not those who think life is easier here) and also deal with the housing and infrastructure problems by building adequate numbers of houses to support the population requirements. @Sexy_Horny I am curious how you would behave if you felt your life and that of your family was in danger. Scenario - The UK has a coup led by religious extremists who close the borders including airports. Bring in draconian laws that subjugate any who are not fully indoctrinated into their belief system. Then begin systematically hunting down and either imprisoning or executing those who they consider do not meet with their expectations of acceptability in society. In closing the borders they also expel diplomatic missions from other countries closing embassies. The religious police undertake intel operations and find that you have been frequenting a swinger website that they consider to be morally sinful and order you and your family to be captured, tortured, publicly humiliated, and executed. What are you going to do? Join you in the same bunker
Seriously though, in that case I would do my best to escape but I would claim asylum in the first safe country I reached. It would be nice to live in France as the quality of life is much better than here.
There are, of course, genuine asylum seekers and they should be treated with compassion. However, the laws are lax (arguably from another era) and the system is broken. This leads to long waits for decisions and repeated appeals. Not fair on this country or the genuine asylum seekers.
Type again...
So you want to live in France and are prepared to make an illegal crossing by boat into France? But what if France doesn’t want you? What if your second language is Moroccan? What if you have family in Morocco?
All hypothetical and I can see where you are leading so I am not biting.
As I have said, there is no problem with legal migration or genuine asylum seekers.
Too many people are gaming the system, either shopping for the best asylum deal or being rejected by one country and then going to the next.
If you claim asylum in a country and are accepted then be prepared to repay that generosity by integrating into the society, contributing to that society and learning the language of the country.
I am not trying a “gotcha” I am simply turning the tables to demonstrate what the situation would be like in reverse. ie a complete nightmare.
Your assertions need to be backed up as until they are they remain completely subjective.
How many are gaming the system? How do you know they are shopping around for best asylum deal? How many are rejected by one country and go on to apply in another? What proportion of total asylum seekers does that represent? Is it a big or small proportion?
Apart from a small number of legal routes established by the UK for specific groups (ie Afghans) there are no legal routes to claim asylum in the UK. Those legal routes are pitiful and not working (see my post earlier in thread).
International law (to which the UK is a signatory and helped to write) says a person has a right to claim asylum in any country.
You said in our hypothetical situation you would like to be in France. But what if you don’t speak French, are not particularly welcome, but do speak Moroccan, have family there. Would you not prefer to go there?
The answer to all this is actually straightforward. Create legal routes. Enable that through Consulates in each country. You can then more quickly identify genuine asylum seekers. You remove the appeal of the criminal gangs who will only be transporting fake asylum seekers so mitigating action is clearer cut.
Most asylum seekers from places like Syria, Iraq. Afghanistan pass through Turkey. So create a processing centre there?
I don't object to the creation of legal routes, perhaps run by the UN with narrow criteria and successful applicants allocated to safe countries providing the allocation doesn't place an inequitable burden on any one country.
This may well result in us taking more people than at present but would create a level playing field.
As for the shopping around, there was an interview in the media a couple of weeks ago where a boat migrant said he would have been made to join the army and fight in his country. His asylum claim had been rejected in Germany and France so he came here. That is gaming the system, Indyref style. Keep asking every time it is rejected until someone makes a mistake and says yes."Right so one person in an interview, ok that’s not quantifiable. However, what is this “system” you speak of? The whole issue is that there isn’t a “system”. Back to our hypothetical situation...are you saying that if your life was under threat in the UK but your application was rejected in France you would just go “oh well back to the UK then” or would you try somewhere else??? | |||
"Who are you blaming??? When you say it's all gone quiet, do you mean in the press or in these forums? I still see stories in the press and of course yesterday it was headlines for a bit with 4 people dying while trying to cross. On the forums there was a guy who started several threads on immigration but not seen one recently Yeah the guy who was perpetually terrified of "foreigners" has thankfully stopped his daily angry rant threads. He was banned
I'm sorry to hear he was banned. He seemed to have certain concerns that he wanted to discus, which I thought was the purpose of these forums. I certainly did not agree with all of his views or posts but find it a shame such topics can't be discussed in a reasonable way. I can only assume that there was some incident to warrant a ban. Do you know what it was?"I don't think he knows. | |||
"Who are you blaming??? When you say it's all gone quiet, do you mean in the press or in these forums? I still see stories in the press and of course yesterday it was headlines for a bit with 4 people dying while trying to cross. On the forums there was a guy who started several threads on immigration but not seen one recently Yeah the guy who was perpetually terrified of "foreigners" has thankfully stopped his daily angry rant threads. He was banned
I'm sorry to hear he was banned. He seemed to have certain concerns that he wanted to discus, which I thought was the purpose of these forums. I certainly did not agree with all of his views or posts but find it a shame such topics can't be discussed in a reasonable way. I can only assume that there was some incident to warrant a ban. Do you know what it was?"The person I meant was constantly going on misinformed confused rants about foreigners. | |||
"If Rwanda flights had taken place regularly the temptation to take risk crossing woukd have gone. I blame the do gooders I agree 100% A friend is a language interpreter, she has been involved with migrants in the current crisis. I had a good conversation with her about it yesterday and the media is not helping the situation. The migrants actually believe that they are wanted/needed here. We have a record high number of job vacancies and this is being reported. Also when the footage of the life boats rescuing migrants is being broadcast across Europe it also encourages it. Why do the vast majority stay in France then? By the time they have traveled that far and have realised it’s not true that this country wants/needs migrants and they can live here happily after on benefits they realise it’s not worth the risk of going across the water. " What proportion of refugees live forever on benefits? Do you think that's the reason they flee their countries? Not fear of persecution, torture, death, famine or war? | |||
"Who are you blaming???" I don't understand the question. What would you like to say about it? | |||
"If Rwanda flights had taken place regularly the temptation to take risk crossing woukd have gone. I blame the do gooders " How does preventing all routes for refugees coming to the UK prevent economic migrants from coming here? How does spending millions deporting people to Rwanda help us with our global influence or provide nursing and hospitality and agricultural staff with people highly motivated to make a new life? | |||
"Who are you blaming??? The government for being weak and ineffective in dealing harshly with those who enter the country illegally. The government for not allocating enough resources to assess claims, so that the few deserving cases can be dealt with compassionately and the rest can be deported. The government for not tightening the law, closing loopholes such as the modern sl@very legislation. The government for not changing the law so we can ignore rulings of courts outside of this country. The public servants and their union for being obstructive and lazy with no will to deport people who have no right to be here. "Human Rights" lawyers who use every loophole to thwart the deportation of those who have no right to be here. These lawyers should be branded traitors. Why are they ‘traitors’ ? They are doing something clearly against the best interests of the country, mainly driven by financial gain. Their actions are disloyal and designed to make government difficult - I'm sure most of them would love this government to fall. That makes them treasonous traitors. This is why I find these threads interesting. We all know immigration is basically a non-issue, which the government and media love to use as a distraction tactic for those not paying attention properly. So it's interesting to see people who have swallowed this anti-immigrant distraction so hard that they argue tooth and nail. Why is immigration a non issue? We have always had immigration, and need a balanced policy to attract people the country needs. However, immigration levels are currently high. Illegal immigration via small boats etc. is also high. Planning policy and investment in infrastructure has not kept up with demand. This has led to the housing crisis we now have, where housing costs are unaffordable and drive people into poverty. The solution is to encourage legal migration of people we need, discourage illegal migration, support the few in genuine need of asylum (not those who think life is easier here) and also deal with the housing and infrastructure problems by building adequate numbers of houses to support the population requirements. @Sexy_Horny I am curious how you would behave if you felt your life and that of your family was in danger. Scenario - The UK has a coup led by religious extremists who close the borders including airports. Bring in draconian laws that subjugate any who are not fully indoctrinated into their belief system. Then begin systematically hunting down and either imprisoning or executing those who they consider do not meet with their expectations of acceptability in society. In closing the borders they also expel diplomatic missions from other countries closing embassies. The religious police undertake intel operations and find that you have been frequenting a swinger website that they consider to be morally sinful and order you and your family to be captured, tortured, publicly humiliated, and executed. What are you going to do? Join you in the same bunker
Seriously though, in that case I would do my best to escape but I would claim asylum in the first safe country I reached. It would be nice to live in France as the quality of life is much better than here.
There are, of course, genuine asylum seekers and they should be treated with compassion. However, the laws are lax (arguably from another era) and the system is broken. This leads to long waits for decisions and repeated appeals. Not fair on this country or the genuine asylum seekers.
Type again...
So you want to live in France and are prepared to make an illegal crossing by boat into France? But what if France doesn’t want you? What if your second language is Moroccan? What if you have family in Morocco?
All hypothetical and I can see where you are leading so I am not biting.
As I have said, there is no problem with legal migration or genuine asylum seekers.
Too many people are gaming the system, either shopping for the best asylum deal or being rejected by one country and then going to the next.
If you claim asylum in a country and are accepted then be prepared to repay that generosity by integrating into the society, contributing to that society and learning the language of the country.
I am not trying a “gotcha” I am simply turning the tables to demonstrate what the situation would be like in reverse. ie a complete nightmare.
Your assertions need to be backed up as until they are they remain completely subjective.
How many are gaming the system? How do you know they are shopping around for best asylum deal? How many are rejected by one country and go on to apply in another? What proportion of total asylum seekers does that represent? Is it a big or small proportion?
Apart from a small number of legal routes established by the UK for specific groups (ie Afghans) there are no legal routes to claim asylum in the UK. Those legal routes are pitiful and not working (see my post earlier in thread).
International law (to which the UK is a signatory and helped to write) says a person has a right to claim asylum in any country.
You said in our hypothetical situation you would like to be in France. But what if you don’t speak French, are not particularly welcome, but do speak Moroccan, have family there. Would you not prefer to go there?
The answer to all this is actually straightforward. Create legal routes. Enable that through Consulates in each country. You can then more quickly identify genuine asylum seekers. You remove the appeal of the criminal gangs who will only be transporting fake asylum seekers so mitigating action is clearer cut.
Most asylum seekers from places like Syria, Iraq. Afghanistan pass through Turkey. So create a processing centre there?
I don't object to the creation of legal routes, perhaps run by the UN with narrow criteria and successful applicants allocated to safe countries providing the allocation doesn't place an inequitable burden on any one country.
This may well result in us taking more people than at present but would create a level playing field.
As for the shopping around, there was an interview in the media a couple of weeks ago where a boat migrant said he would have been made to join the army and fight in his country. His asylum claim had been rejected in Germany and France so he came here. That is gaming the system, Indyref style. Keep asking every time it is rejected until someone makes a mistake and says yes."On so many of your comments in this thread you are very reasonable but then seem to miss something. This Government have demonised refugees in the same way as economic migrants. If we did have processing centres in the refugee camps run by the UNHCR we are very likely to be able to filter genuine refugees. Failure to work through this system would mean you would be taken to one of you came here by another route. Not the Rwanda plan, because you aren't just relocating your problem. Those people will still have there claim processed but in the same way as everyone else. No business model for the smugglers. When we were in the EU a failed asylum application in one country failed everywhere. Not anymore. It is perfectly rational for them to try in the UK if they fail in the EU. There's nobody arguing for an open door policy, is there? | |||
"Who are you blaming??? When you say it's all gone quiet, do you mean in the press or in these forums? I still see stories in the press and of course yesterday it was headlines for a bit with 4 people dying while trying to cross. On the forums there was a guy who started several threads on immigration but not seen one recently Yeah the guy who was perpetually terrified of "foreigners" has thankfully stopped his daily angry rant threads. He was banned
I'm sorry to hear he was banned. He seemed to have certain concerns that he wanted to discus, which I thought was the purpose of these forums. I certainly did not agree with all of his views or posts but find it a shame such topics can't be discussed in a reasonable way. I can only assume that there was some incident to warrant a ban. Do you know what it was?
The person I meant was constantly going on misinformed confused rants about foreigners.
"I don't see any of those would get anyone a ban. Plenty of biased posts around, plenty of posts ranting about plenty of things. Should they be banned to? You and to an extent I may hold a different view on the situation but why should his view be censored? Isn't the forums for putting your opinion as well. If he was banned and banned for the reasons you put then I feel that's a mistake and makes the situation worse (just my opinion). Incidentally how does anyone know he was banned? | |||
| |||
"My question is should immigration be banned until inflation cools off ? Immigration just adds to inflationary costs." I'm certainly not an economist so need to ask why immigration adds to inflation. At a guess I would have thought the opposite but that's only via my own experience | |||
"My question is should immigration be banned until inflation cools off ? Immigration just adds to inflationary costs. I'm certainly not an economist so need to ask why immigration adds to inflation. At a guess I would have thought the opposite but that's only via my own experience" do they not add to the NHS ? | |||
"My question is should immigration be banned until inflation cools off ? Immigration just adds to inflationary costs. I'm certainly not an economist so need to ask why immigration adds to inflation. At a guess I would have thought the opposite but that's only via my own experience do they not add to the NHS ? " They staff the NHS. | |||
"My question is should immigration be banned until inflation cools off ? Immigration just adds to inflationary costs. I'm certainly not an economist so need to ask why immigration adds to inflation. At a guess I would have thought the opposite but that's only via my own experience do they not add to the NHS ? They staff the NHS." So who is paying for the migrant influx for free healthcare? | |||
"My question is should immigration be banned until inflation cools off ? Immigration just adds to inflationary costs. I'm certainly not an economist so need to ask why immigration adds to inflation. At a guess I would have thought the opposite but that's only via my own experience do they not add to the NHS ? They staff the NHS. So who is paying for the migrant influx for free healthcare?" Immigration is a boon to the economy. Look it up. | |||
"Who are you blaming??? When you say it's all gone quiet, do you mean in the press or in these forums? I still see stories in the press and of course yesterday it was headlines for a bit with 4 people dying while trying to cross. On the forums there was a guy who started several threads on immigration but not seen one recently Yeah the guy who was perpetually terrified of "foreigners" has thankfully stopped his daily angry rant threads. He was banned
I'm sorry to hear he was banned. He seemed to have certain concerns that he wanted to discus, which I thought was the purpose of these forums. I certainly did not agree with all of his views or posts but find it a shame such topics can't be discussed in a reasonable way. I can only assume that there was some incident to warrant a ban. Do you know what it was?"Tbh, I am only guessing, maybe it was his ‘Sunak isn’t British’ that was the final straw? | |||
"My question is should immigration be banned until inflation cools off ? Immigration just adds to inflationary costs. I'm certainly not an economist so need to ask why immigration adds to inflation. At a guess I would have thought the opposite but that's only via my own experience do they not add to the NHS ? They staff the NHS. So who is paying for the migrant influx for free healthcare? Immigration is a boon to the economy. Look it up." until they are employed and stable who is paying ? I don't need to look it up. Inflation means less jobs to cool a economy. | |||
"My question is should immigration be banned until inflation cools off ? Immigration just adds to inflationary costs." Inflation is not a catch-all excuse to do or not do something, although you'd be forgiven for thinking that it is. Why do immigrants add to inflation? What's the mechanism? | |||
"Who are you blaming??? When you say it's all gone quiet, do you mean in the press or in these forums? I still see stories in the press and of course yesterday it was headlines for a bit with 4 people dying while trying to cross. On the forums there was a guy who started several threads on immigration but not seen one recently Yeah the guy who was perpetually terrified of "foreigners" has thankfully stopped his daily angry rant threads. He was banned
I'm sorry to hear he was banned. He seemed to have certain concerns that he wanted to discus, which I thought was the purpose of these forums. I certainly did not agree with all of his views or posts but find it a shame such topics can't be discussed in a reasonable way. I can only assume that there was some incident to warrant a ban. Do you know what it was?
The person I meant was constantly going on misinformed confused rants about foreigners.
I don't see any of those would get anyone a ban. Plenty of biased posts around, plenty of posts ranting about plenty of things. Should they be banned to?
You and to an extent I may hold a different view on the situation but why should his view be censored? Isn't the forums for putting your opinion as well. If he was banned and banned for the reasons you put then I feel that's a mistake and makes the situation worse (just my opinion). Incidentally how does anyone know he was banned?"I've no idea why he was banned, sorry I wasn't suggesting it was because of his rants. I didn't know he was banned until today. | |||
"My question is should immigration be banned until inflation cools off ? Immigration just adds to inflationary costs. I'm certainly not an economist so need to ask why immigration adds to inflation. At a guess I would have thought the opposite but that's only via my own experience do they not add to the NHS ? They staff the NHS. So who is paying for the migrant influx for free healthcare?" Immigration has a net positive impact on the economy here. So in answer, their tax contributions pay for it, and more. | |||
| |||
"Here immigrants are a good thing I just curious how that works there with all the free socialism benefits. I see that the NHS is on the brink of disaster. Totally different by economies." Your Trump didn't seem to like immigrants. Anyone who pays taxes pays for the "socialism thing". That's how it works. It's not magic. The NHS is on the brink of disaster because of incompetent Government in the UK and immigration restrictions. It's running perfectly well in the rest of Europe. | |||
| |||
"Here immigrants are a good thing I just curious how that works there with all the free socialism benefits. I see that the NHS is on the brink of disaster. Totally different by economies. Your Trump didn't seem to like immigrants. Anyone who pays taxes pays for the "socialism thing". That's how it works. It's not magic. The NHS is on the brink of disaster because of incompetent Government in the UK and immigration restrictions. It's running perfectly well in the rest of Europe." I would say that the NHS is exactly where the government wants it to be on the brink of it's own plan. In my humble opinion. | |||
"Here immigrants are a good thing I just curious how that works there with all the free socialism benefits. I see that the NHS is on the brink of disaster. Totally different by economies. Your Trump didn't seem to like immigrants. Nothing to do with trump. Yet you try and call that game. Why? You constantly have to try and disparage? You are asad human being and by judging by your green arrow. You need to be my social besides your lame opinions. Seriously they all political posts. You trying to feel special ? Anyone who pays taxes pays for the "socialism thing". That's how it works. It's not magic. The NHS is on the brink of disaster because of incompetent Government in the UK and immigration restrictions. It's running perfectly well in the rest of Europe." | |||
"I think there should be a massive effort to control illegal human trafficking for starters,at the source. I'm pretty sure a coalition of military forces can be set up by the European countries that are getting effected by this. The crux of the problem is organised crime making money from others misfortune, feeding wrongful information to refugees. Secondly. More should be done by Arab nations to home Arab refugees these super wealthy countries right on the doorstep of Syria should do more. I'm not entirely sure where all of the immigrants/refugees are coming from exactly Syria, Afghanistan? But whilst I agree that those who need help should be helped I genuinely don't understand why someone would want to make a journey of a couple of thousand miles across many other countries to come to our little overcrowded island?? Security and safety,yes hopefully. Financial gain, hopefully not. I can't imagine what terrors people must have endured to leave everything behind and travel with young children in awful conditions to get away. My heart goes out to them. The reverse of this is how does a man leave his entire family behind to leave them unprotected and alone, whilst traveling to a foreign country to escape. The latter must be for economic gains as I would rather die with my family than to leave them alone. Like many others I can only say what I see based on information in our media I have no inside information my views and opinions are not based on hatred I just feel that we have passed crisis point and before too long we are not going to be able to control who's coming into the country unless extreme measures are taken. What they are I don't know but as long as it's done with compassion and order." I'm not sure that a "coalition of military forces" is the correct solution to criminality. That's what civilian police forces are for. That's theore appropriate route for funding and cooperation. There is a distinction between economic migrants and those seeking safety. Nobody is advocating an open door, regardless of the rhetoric. The best way to collect the genuine is at source via the UNHCR in refugee camps and consulates in countries neighboring repressive regimes. I agree that it would be ideal if wealthy Arab states contributed to those in crisis. The Chinese even. They don't though. Some of those regimes are equally repressive, corrupt and/or selfish. Sadly that's the reality. Either we see ourselves as "mugs" for doing the right thing or take pride in it. The problem is immigration being used for politics and rabble rousing preventing an actual solution because it's all about "looking tough". | |||
"Here immigrants are a good thing I just curious how that works there with all the free socialism benefits. I see that the NHS is on the brink of disaster. Totally different by economies." We don't have a socialist society. The NHS is a socialist concept though. It's on the brink of disaster due to mismanagement by the government. Some would say on purpose. | |||
"Here immigrants are a good thing I just curious how that works there with all the free socialism benefits. I see that the NHS is on the brink of disaster. Totally different by economies. We don't have a socialist society. The NHS is a socialist concept though. It's on the brink of disaster due to mismanagement by the government. Some would say on purpose." Tell me how would labour over the torries would have done any better? Do they have a magical cure for COVID shutdowns? | |||
"Here immigrants are a good thing I just curious how that works there with all the free socialism benefits. I see that the NHS is on the brink of disaster. Totally different by economies. We don't have a socialist society. The NHS is a socialist concept though. It's on the brink of disaster due to mismanagement by the government. Some would say on purpose. Tell me how would labour over the torries would have done any better? Do they have a magical cure for COVID shutdowns? " Labour (or any other party) maybe wouldn't have deliberately run it into the ground in order to sell off chunks of it to their party donors and friends. Not sure I understand the "magical cure for covid shutdowns" question. | |||
"Here immigrants are a good thing I just curious how that works there with all the free socialism benefits. I see that the NHS is on the brink of disaster. Totally different by economies. We don't have a socialist society. The NHS is a socialist concept though. It's on the brink of disaster due to mismanagement by the government. Some would say on purpose. Tell me how would labour over the torries would have done any better? Do they have a magical cure for COVID shutdowns? Labour (or any other party) maybe wouldn't have deliberately run it into the ground in order to sell off chunks of it to their party donors and friends. Not sure I understand the "magical cure for covid shutdowns" question." How would your labour part have done any different during your COVID lockdown? You wonder why costs are high?I just curious everyone there complaining about Tory yet can't give a definitive answers on how the other party would fair any better. | |||
"Here immigrants are a good thing I just curious how that works there with all the free socialism benefits. I see that the NHS is on the brink of disaster. Totally different by economies. We don't have a socialist society. The NHS is a socialist concept though. It's on the brink of disaster due to mismanagement by the government. Some would say on purpose. Tell me how would labour over the torries would have done any better? Do they have a magical cure for COVID shutdowns? Labour (or any other party) maybe wouldn't have deliberately run it into the ground in order to sell off chunks of it to their party donors and friends. Not sure I understand the "magical cure for covid shutdowns" question. How would your labour part have done any different during your COVID lockdown? You wonder why costs are high?I just curious everyone there complaining about Tory yet can't give a definitive answers on how the other party would fair any better. " No idea what Labour would have done differently with regards to the COVID lockdowns, or what this has to do with Tory mismanaging and underfunding the NHS. | |||
"Here immigrants are a good thing I just curious how that works there with all the free socialism benefits. I see that the NHS is on the brink of disaster. Totally different by economies. We don't have a socialist society. The NHS is a socialist concept though. It's on the brink of disaster due to mismanagement by the government. Some would say on purpose. Tell me how would labour over the torries would have done any better? Do they have a magical cure for COVID shutdowns? Labour (or any other party) maybe wouldn't have deliberately run it into the ground in order to sell off chunks of it to their party donors and friends. Not sure I understand the "magical cure for covid shutdowns" question. How would your labour part have done any different during your COVID lockdown? You wonder why costs are high?I just curious everyone there complaining about Tory yet can't give a definitive answers on how the other party would fair any better. No idea what Labour would have done differently with regards to the COVID lockdowns, or what this has to do with Tory mismanaging and underfunding the NHS." well no one working no tax revenue to fund the nhs causes what again ? | |||
"Here immigrants are a good thing I just curious how that works there with all the free socialism benefits. I see that the NHS is on the brink of disaster. Totally different by economies. We don't have a socialist society. The NHS is a socialist concept though. It's on the brink of disaster due to mismanagement by the government. Some would say on purpose. Tell me how would labour over the torries would have done any better? Do they have a magical cure for COVID shutdowns? Labour (or any other party) maybe wouldn't have deliberately run it into the ground in order to sell off chunks of it to their party donors and friends. Not sure I understand the "magical cure for covid shutdowns" question. How would your labour part have done any different during your COVID lockdown? You wonder why costs are high?I just curious everyone there complaining about Tory yet can't give a definitive answers on how the other party would fair any better. " The system wouldn't have already been in crisis before COVID so would have been better able to cope with the increased stress with more staff and a better motivated workforce. You never asked for a "definitive" answer before. You're welcome. | |||
"Here immigrants are a good thing I just curious how that works there with all the free socialism benefits. I see that the NHS is on the brink of disaster. Totally different by economies. We don't have a socialist society. The NHS is a socialist concept though. It's on the brink of disaster due to mismanagement by the government. Some would say on purpose. Tell me how would labour over the torries would have done any better? Do they have a magical cure for COVID shutdowns? Labour (or any other party) maybe wouldn't have deliberately run it into the ground in order to sell off chunks of it to their party donors and friends. Not sure I understand the "magical cure for covid shutdowns" question. How would your labour part have done any different during your COVID lockdown? You wonder why costs are high?I just curious everyone there complaining about Tory yet can't give a definitive answers on how the other party would fair any better. No idea what Labour would have done differently with regards to the COVID lockdowns, or what this has to do with Tory mismanaging and underfunding the NHS. well no one working no tax revenue to fund the nhs causes what again ? " so how is labour the saviour again ? It's not it would have done the same exact outcome. | |||
"Here immigrants are a good thing I just curious how that works there with all the free socialism benefits. I see that the NHS is on the brink of disaster. Totally different by economies. We don't have a socialist society. The NHS is a socialist concept though. It's on the brink of disaster due to mismanagement by the government. Some would say on purpose. Tell me how would labour over the torries would have done any better? Do they have a magical cure for COVID shutdowns? Labour (or any other party) maybe wouldn't have deliberately run it into the ground in order to sell off chunks of it to their party donors and friends. Not sure I understand the "magical cure for covid shutdowns" question. How would your labour part have done any different during your COVID lockdown? You wonder why costs are high?I just curious everyone there complaining about Tory yet can't give a definitive answers on how the other party would fair any better. No idea what Labour would have done differently with regards to the COVID lockdowns, or what this has to do with Tory mismanaging and underfunding the NHS. well no one working no tax revenue to fund the nhs causes what again ? " Lots of people worked through covid. Lack of tax revenue available for the NHS is not the problem. The problem is that it's mismanaged and underfunded. | |||
"Here immigrants are a good thing I just curious how that works there with all the free socialism benefits. I see that the NHS is on the brink of disaster. Totally different by economies. We don't have a socialist society. The NHS is a socialist concept though. It's on the brink of disaster due to mismanagement by the government. Some would say on purpose. Tell me how would labour over the torries would have done any better? Do they have a magical cure for COVID shutdowns? Labour (or any other party) maybe wouldn't have deliberately run it into the ground in order to sell off chunks of it to their party donors and friends. Not sure I understand the "magical cure for covid shutdowns" question. How would your labour part have done any different during your COVID lockdown? You wonder why costs are high?I just curious everyone there complaining about Tory yet can't give a definitive answers on how the other party would fair any better. No idea what Labour would have done differently with regards to the COVID lockdowns, or what this has to do with Tory mismanaging and underfunding the NHS. well no one working no tax revenue to fund the nhs causes what again ? Lots of people worked through covid. Lack of tax revenue available for the NHS is not the problem. The problem is that it's mismanaged and underfunded. " taxes feed that machine. No one works and collects financial gains where do you think the extra financial assistance comes from ? It just magically appears? No it comes from government coffers. So how would labour done any different in that situation? | |||
"Here immigrants are a good thing I just curious how that works there with all the free socialism benefits. I see that the NHS is on the brink of disaster. Totally different by economies. We don't have a socialist society. The NHS is a socialist concept though. It's on the brink of disaster due to mismanagement by the government. Some would say on purpose. Tell me how would labour over the torries would have done any better? Do they have a magical cure for COVID shutdowns? Labour (or any other party) maybe wouldn't have deliberately run it into the ground in order to sell off chunks of it to their party donors and friends. Not sure I understand the "magical cure for covid shutdowns" question. How would your labour part have done any different during your COVID lockdown? You wonder why costs are high?I just curious everyone there complaining about Tory yet can't give a definitive answers on how the other party would fair any better. No idea what Labour would have done differently with regards to the COVID lockdowns, or what this has to do with Tory mismanaging and underfunding the NHS. well no one working no tax revenue to fund the nhs causes what again ? Lots of people worked through covid. Lack of tax revenue available for the NHS is not the problem. The problem is that it's mismanaged and underfunded. taxes feed that machine. No one works and collects financial gains where do you think the extra financial assistance comes from ? It just magically appears? No it comes from government coffers. So how would labour done any different in that situation? " The reduction in income tax collected during covid is not the reason behind the NHS mismanagement and underfunding. It's been going on for much longer. | |||
"Here immigrants are a good thing I just curious how that works there with all the free socialism benefits. I see that the NHS is on the brink of disaster. Totally different by economies. We don't have a socialist society. The NHS is a socialist concept though. It's on the brink of disaster due to mismanagement by the government. Some would say on purpose. Tell me how would labour over the torries would have done any better? Do they have a magical cure for COVID shutdowns? Labour (or any other party) maybe wouldn't have deliberately run it into the ground in order to sell off chunks of it to their party donors and friends. Not sure I understand the "magical cure for covid shutdowns" question. How would your labour part have done any different during your COVID lockdown? You wonder why costs are high?I just curious everyone there complaining about Tory yet can't give a definitive answers on how the other party would fair any better. No idea what Labour would have done differently with regards to the COVID lockdowns, or what this has to do with Tory mismanaging and underfunding the NHS. well no one working no tax revenue to fund the nhs causes what again ? Lots of people worked through covid. Lack of tax revenue available for the NHS is not the problem. The problem is that it's mismanaged and underfunded. taxes feed that machine. No one works and collects financial gains where do you think the extra financial assistance comes from ? It just magically appears? No it comes from government coffers. So how would labour done any different in that situation? " The social care budget needs to be separated from the NHS. Sort out social care and watch the NHS benefit | |||
"Here immigrants are a good thing I just curious how that works there with all the free socialism benefits. I see that the NHS is on the brink of disaster. Totally different by economies. We don't have a socialist society. The NHS is a socialist concept though. It's on the brink of disaster due to mismanagement by the government. Some would say on purpose. Tell me how would labour over the torries would have done any better? Do they have a magical cure for COVID shutdowns? Labour (or any other party) maybe wouldn't have deliberately run it into the ground in order to sell off chunks of it to their party donors and friends. Not sure I understand the "magical cure for covid shutdowns" question. How would your labour part have done any different during your COVID lockdown? You wonder why costs are high?I just curious everyone there complaining about Tory yet can't give a definitive answers on how the other party would fair any better. No idea what Labour would have done differently with regards to the COVID lockdowns, or what this has to do with Tory mismanaging and underfunding the NHS. well no one working no tax revenue to fund the nhs causes what again ? Lots of people worked through covid. Lack of tax revenue available for the NHS is not the problem. The problem is that it's mismanaged and underfunded. taxes feed that machine. No one works and collects financial gains where do you think the extra financial assistance comes from ? It just magically appears? No it comes from government coffers. So how would labour done any different in that situation? The reduction in income tax collected during covid is not the reason behind the NHS mismanagement and underfunding. It's been going on for much longer. " COVID proved it's inadequate. It's a government funded program reliant on people's taxation input. What if there was not a vaccine available? You going to stay locked up collecting social benefits ? If COVID mutates and there is no vaccine then what? | |||
"My question is should immigration be banned until inflation cools off ? Immigration just adds to inflationary costs. I'm certainly not an economist so need to ask why immigration adds to inflation. At a guess I would have thought the opposite but that's only via my own experience do they not add to the NHS ? " Yes they add to the NHS I would guess unless more of them work for it than not. I was thinking more along the employment lines. More workers has a downward effect on wages which was why I was thinking the opposite to you. I don't know the overall picture or even where to find it | |||
"Who are you blaming??? When you say it's all gone quiet, do you mean in the press or in these forums? I still see stories in the press and of course yesterday it was headlines for a bit with 4 people dying while trying to cross. On the forums there was a guy who started several threads on immigration but not seen one recently Yeah the guy who was perpetually terrified of "foreigners" has thankfully stopped his daily angry rant threads. He was banned
I'm sorry to hear he was banned. He seemed to have certain concerns that he wanted to discus, which I thought was the purpose of these forums. I certainly did not agree with all of his views or posts but find it a shame such topics can't be discussed in a reasonable way. I can only assume that there was some incident to warrant a ban. Do you know what it was?
Tbh, I am only guessing, maybe it was his ‘Sunak isn’t British’ that was the final straw?"If memory serves in that thread he conceded that Sunak was British though happy to be proved wrong. If he did or didn't why would that get a ban? | |||
| |||
"Who are you blaming??? When you say it's all gone quiet, do you mean in the press or in these forums? I still see stories in the press and of course yesterday it was headlines for a bit with 4 people dying while trying to cross. On the forums there was a guy who started several threads on immigration but not seen one recently Yeah the guy who was perpetually terrified of "foreigners" has thankfully stopped his daily angry rant threads. He was banned
I'm sorry to hear he was banned. He seemed to have certain concerns that he wanted to discus, which I thought was the purpose of these forums. I certainly did not agree with all of his views or posts but find it a shame such topics can't be discussed in a reasonable way. I can only assume that there was some incident to warrant a ban. Do you know what it was?
The person I meant was constantly going on misinformed confused rants about foreigners.
I don't see any of those would get anyone a ban. Plenty of biased posts around, plenty of posts ranting about plenty of things. Should they be banned to?
You and to an extent I may hold a different view on the situation but why should his view be censored? Isn't the forums for putting your opinion as well. If he was banned and banned for the reasons you put then I feel that's a mistake and makes the situation worse (just my opinion). Incidentally how does anyone know he was banned?
I've no idea why he was banned, sorry I wasn't suggesting it was because of his rants. I didn't know he was banned until today.
"Me neither. I can't fathom it. I see people here going on about a subject and starting threads daily on a subject. Sometimes insults ensue, so called facts turn out to be false yet that seems acceptable. What's concerning is this feels like censorship due to the subject. | |||
"Here immigrants are a good thing I just curious how that works there with all the free socialism benefits. I see that the NHS is on the brink of disaster. Totally different by economies. We don't have a socialist society. The NHS is a socialist concept though. It's on the brink of disaster due to mismanagement by the government. Some would say on purpose. Tell me how would labour over the torries would have done any better? Do they have a magical cure for COVID shutdowns? Labour (or any other party) maybe wouldn't have deliberately run it into the ground in order to sell off chunks of it to their party donors and friends. Not sure I understand the "magical cure for covid shutdowns" question. How would your labour part have done any different during your COVID lockdown? You wonder why costs are high?I just curious everyone there complaining about Tory yet can't give a definitive answers on how the other party would fair any better. No idea what Labour would have done differently with regards to the COVID lockdowns, or what this has to do with Tory mismanaging and underfunding the NHS. well no one working no tax revenue to fund the nhs causes what again ? Lots of people worked through covid. Lack of tax revenue available for the NHS is not the problem. The problem is that it's mismanaged and underfunded. taxes feed that machine. No one works and collects financial gains where do you think the extra financial assistance comes from ? It just magically appears? No it comes from government coffers. So how would labour done any different in that situation? The reduction in income tax collected during covid is not the reason behind the NHS mismanagement and underfunding. It's been going on for much longer. COVID proved it's inadequate. It's a government funded program reliant on people's taxation input. What if there was not a vaccine available? You going to stay locked up collecting social benefits ? If COVID mutates and there is no vaccine then what? " Not sure what any of this has got to do with the topic. And also not sure how to speculate on what might happen if your speculations happen. | |||
"Who are you blaming??? When you say it's all gone quiet, do you mean in the press or in these forums? I still see stories in the press and of course yesterday it was headlines for a bit with 4 people dying while trying to cross. On the forums there was a guy who started several threads on immigration but not seen one recently Yeah the guy who was perpetually terrified of "foreigners" has thankfully stopped his daily angry rant threads. He was banned
I'm sorry to hear he was banned. He seemed to have certain concerns that he wanted to discus, which I thought was the purpose of these forums. I certainly did not agree with all of his views or posts but find it a shame such topics can't be discussed in a reasonable way. I can only assume that there was some incident to warrant a ban. Do you know what it was?
The person I meant was constantly going on misinformed confused rants about foreigners.
I don't see any of those would get anyone a ban. Plenty of biased posts around, plenty of posts ranting about plenty of things. Should they be banned to?
You and to an extent I may hold a different view on the situation but why should his view be censored? Isn't the forums for putting your opinion as well. If he was banned and banned for the reasons you put then I feel that's a mistake and makes the situation worse (just my opinion). Incidentally how does anyone know he was banned?
I've no idea why he was banned, sorry I wasn't suggesting it was because of his rants. I didn't know he was banned until today.
Me neither. I can't fathom it. I see people here going on about a subject and starting threads daily on a subject. Sometimes insults ensue, so called facts turn out to be false yet that seems acceptable. What's concerning is this feels like censorship due to the subject. "Yeah, that chap had far less personal insults than lots of people that don't get bans. | |||
"Who are you blaming??? When you say it's all gone quiet, do you mean in the press or in these forums? I still see stories in the press and of course yesterday it was headlines for a bit with 4 people dying while trying to cross. On the forums there was a guy who started several threads on immigration but not seen one recently Yeah the guy who was perpetually terrified of "foreigners" has thankfully stopped his daily angry rant threads. He was banned
I'm sorry to hear he was banned. He seemed to have certain concerns that he wanted to discus, which I thought was the purpose of these forums. I certainly did not agree with all of his views or posts but find it a shame such topics can't be discussed in a reasonable way. I can only assume that there was some incident to warrant a ban. Do you know what it was?
The person I meant was constantly going on misinformed confused rants about foreigners.
I don't see any of those would get anyone a ban. Plenty of biased posts around, plenty of posts ranting about plenty of things. Should they be banned to?
You and to an extent I may hold a different view on the situation but why should his view be censored? Isn't the forums for putting your opinion as well. If he was banned and banned for the reasons you put then I feel that's a mistake and makes the situation worse (just my opinion). Incidentally how does anyone know he was banned?
I've no idea why he was banned, sorry I wasn't suggesting it was because of his rants. I didn't know he was banned until today.
Me neither. I can't fathom it. I see people here going on about a subject and starting threads daily on a subject. Sometimes insults ensue, so called facts turn out to be false yet that seems acceptable. What's concerning is this feels like censorship due to the subject.
Yeah, that chap had far less personal insults than lots of people that don't get bans.
"it probably depends on ppl reporting ppl. | |||
"Here immigrants are a good thing I just curious how that works there with all the free socialism benefits. I see that the NHS is on the brink of disaster. Totally different by economies. We don't have a socialist society. The NHS is a socialist concept though. It's on the brink of disaster due to mismanagement by the government. Some would say on purpose. Tell me how would labour over the torries would have done any better? Do they have a magical cure for COVID shutdowns? Labour (or any other party) maybe wouldn't have deliberately run it into the ground in order to sell off chunks of it to their party donors and friends. Not sure I understand the "magical cure for covid shutdowns" question. How would your labour part have done any different during your COVID lockdown? You wonder why costs are high?I just curious everyone there complaining about Tory yet can't give a definitive answers on how the other party would fair any better. No idea what Labour would have done differently with regards to the COVID lockdowns, or what this has to do with Tory mismanaging and underfunding the NHS. well no one working no tax revenue to fund the nhs causes what again ? Lots of people worked through covid. Lack of tax revenue available for the NHS is not the problem. The problem is that it's mismanaged and underfunded. taxes feed that machine. No one works and collects financial gains where do you think the extra financial assistance comes from ? It just magically appears? No it comes from government coffers. So how would labour done any different in that situation? The reduction in income tax collected during covid is not the reason behind the NHS mismanagement and underfunding. It's been going on for much longer. COVID proved it's inadequate. It's a government funded program reliant on people's taxation input. What if there was not a vaccine available? You going to stay locked up collecting social benefits ? If COVID mutates and there is no vaccine then what? " You seem confused. The current party of Government was in charge for a number of years before COVID. During that period funding and staffing levels were run down and morale fell. The system is also integrated so at the same time as the NHS was being underfunded, so was primary care and social and elderly care. Also the same Government decided to run down its stocks of PPE etc, against advice. Consequently when COVID hit bad management had already handicapped it. Yet, despite all of that it held. COVID proved how robust it is. Yet now, after a period of increased strain it is being cut again. This is poor management. That can destroy anything. It happens in the most free market form of capitalism too. What will the US do when COVID mutates and there's no vaccine? Nothing different, or you catch it and die. Same choice. Why do you hate the NHS so much? | |||
"Here immigrants are a good thing I just curious how that works there with all the free socialism benefits. I see that the NHS is on the brink of disaster. Totally different by economies. We don't have a socialist society. The NHS is a socialist concept though. It's on the brink of disaster due to mismanagement by the government. Some would say on purpose. Tell me how would labour over the torries would have done any better? Do they have a magical cure for COVID shutdowns? Labour (or any other party) maybe wouldn't have deliberately run it into the ground in order to sell off chunks of it to their party donors and friends. Not sure I understand the "magical cure for covid shutdowns" question. How would your labour part have done any different during your COVID lockdown? You wonder why costs are high?I just curious everyone there complaining about Tory yet can't give a definitive answers on how the other party would fair any better. No idea what Labour would have done differently with regards to the COVID lockdowns, or what this has to do with Tory mismanaging and underfunding the NHS. well no one working no tax revenue to fund the nhs causes what again ? Lots of people worked through covid. Lack of tax revenue available for the NHS is not the problem. The problem is that it's mismanaged and underfunded. taxes feed that machine. No one works and collects financial gains where do you think the extra financial assistance comes from ? It just magically appears? No it comes from government coffers. So how would labour done any different in that situation? The reduction in income tax collected during covid is not the reason behind the NHS mismanagement and underfunding. It's been going on for much longer. COVID proved it's inadequate. It's a government funded program reliant on people's taxation input. What if there was not a vaccine available? You going to stay locked up collecting social benefits ? If COVID mutates and there is no vaccine then what? You seem confused. The current party of Government was in charge for a number of years before COVID. During that period funding and staffing levels were run down and morale fell. The system is also integrated so at the same time as the NHS was being underfunded, so was primary care and social and elderly care. Also the same Government decided to run down its stocks of PPE etc, against advice. Consequently when COVID hit bad management had already handicapped it. Yet, despite all of that it held. COVID proved how robust it is. Yet now, after a period of increased strain it is being cut again. This is poor management. That can destroy anything. It happens in the most free market form of capitalism too. What will the US do when COVID mutates and there's no vaccine? Nothing different, or you catch it and die. Same choice. Why do you hate the NHS so much?" Having worked in BHS for 25 years this sums it up perfectly. During bird blue years ago we all had fitted masks in preparation. This time nothing | |||
"Who are you blaming??? When you say it's all gone quiet, do you mean in the press or in these forums? I still see stories in the press and of course yesterday it was headlines for a bit with 4 people dying while trying to cross. On the forums there was a guy who started several threads on immigration but not seen one recently Yeah the guy who was perpetually terrified of "foreigners" has thankfully stopped his daily angry rant threads. He was banned
I'm sorry to hear he was banned. He seemed to have certain concerns that he wanted to discus, which I thought was the purpose of these forums. I certainly did not agree with all of his views or posts but find it a shame such topics can't be discussed in a reasonable way. I can only assume that there was some incident to warrant a ban. Do you know what it was?
The person I meant was constantly going on misinformed confused rants about foreigners.
I don't see any of those would get anyone a ban. Plenty of biased posts around, plenty of posts ranting about plenty of things. Should they be banned to?
You and to an extent I may hold a different view on the situation but why should his view be censored? Isn't the forums for putting your opinion as well. If he was banned and banned for the reasons you put then I feel that's a mistake and makes the situation worse (just my opinion). Incidentally how does anyone know he was banned?
I've no idea why he was banned, sorry I wasn't suggesting it was because of his rants. I didn't know he was banned until today.
Me neither. I can't fathom it. I see people here going on about a subject and starting threads daily on a subject. Sometimes insults ensue, so called facts turn out to be false yet that seems acceptable. What's concerning is this feels like censorship due to the subject.
Yeah, that chap had far less personal insults than lots of people that don't get bans.
it probably depends on ppl reporting ppl. "Probably does though who would stoop so low to stop a different point of view being heard. | |||
"Who are you blaming??? When you say it's all gone quiet, do you mean in the press or in these forums? I still see stories in the press and of course yesterday it was headlines for a bit with 4 people dying while trying to cross. On the forums there was a guy who started several threads on immigration but not seen one recently Yeah the guy who was perpetually terrified of "foreigners" has thankfully stopped his daily angry rant threads. He was banned
I'm sorry to hear he was banned. He seemed to have certain concerns that he wanted to discus, which I thought was the purpose of these forums. I certainly did not agree with all of his views or posts but find it a shame such topics can't be discussed in a reasonable way. I can only assume that there was some incident to warrant a ban. Do you know what it was?
The person I meant was constantly going on misinformed confused rants about foreigners.
I don't see any of those would get anyone a ban. Plenty of biased posts around, plenty of posts ranting about plenty of things. Should they be banned to?
You and to an extent I may hold a different view on the situation but why should his view be censored? Isn't the forums for putting your opinion as well. If he was banned and banned for the reasons you put then I feel that's a mistake and makes the situation worse (just my opinion). Incidentally how does anyone know he was banned?
I've no idea why he was banned, sorry I wasn't suggesting it was because of his rants. I didn't know he was banned until today.
Me neither. I can't fathom it. I see people here going on about a subject and starting threads daily on a subject. Sometimes insults ensue, so called facts turn out to be false yet that seems acceptable. What's concerning is this feels like censorship due to the subject.
Yeah, that chap had far less personal insults than lots of people that don't get bans.
it probably depends on ppl reporting ppl.
Probably does though who would stoop so low to stop a different point of view being heard. "Lots of people. I've been reported many times. You have to be super careful about posting any links or doing anything that's close to the edge of the rules, or you get reported. | |||
"I've been reported many times. You have to be super careful about posting any links or doing anything that's close to the edge of the rules, or you get reported. " Sadly, it seems that the rules about not being nasty, and not making personal attacks are not enforced as stringently as the other rules. (that's not a dig at the person I've quoted, I'm just following on the conversation) | |||
"Who are you blaming??? When you say it's all gone quiet, do you mean in the press or in these forums? I still see stories in the press and of course yesterday it was headlines for a bit with 4 people dying while trying to cross. On the forums there was a guy who started several threads on immigration but not seen one recently Yeah the guy who was perpetually terrified of "foreigners" has thankfully stopped his daily angry rant threads. He was banned
I'm sorry to hear he was banned. He seemed to have certain concerns that he wanted to discus, which I thought was the purpose of these forums. I certainly did not agree with all of his views or posts but find it a shame such topics can't be discussed in a reasonable way. I can only assume that there was some incident to warrant a ban. Do you know what it was?
The person I meant was constantly going on misinformed confused rants about foreigners.
I don't see any of those would get anyone a ban. Plenty of biased posts around, plenty of posts ranting about plenty of things. Should they be banned to?
You and to an extent I may hold a different view on the situation but why should his view be censored? Isn't the forums for putting your opinion as well. If he was banned and banned for the reasons you put then I feel that's a mistake and makes the situation worse (just my opinion). Incidentally how does anyone know he was banned?
I've no idea why he was banned, sorry I wasn't suggesting it was because of his rants. I didn't know he was banned until today.
Me neither. I can't fathom it. I see people here going on about a subject and starting threads daily on a subject. Sometimes insults ensue, so called facts turn out to be false yet that seems acceptable. What's concerning is this feels like censorship due to the subject.
Yeah, that chap had far less personal insults than lots of people that don't get bans.
it probably depends on ppl reporting ppl.
Probably does though who would stoop so low to stop a different point of view being heard. "Unfortunately it happens, I have been banned several times, | |||
| |||
| |||
"There is no system available for refugees to apply to come to the UK (apart from Ukrainian, Afghan, and one other) so the only way to enter the UK is illegally by boat and ask for asylum when you arrive." Again - if you have a little bit of money and a passport, it's perfectly possible to come here on the ferry as a tourist, and then claim asylum once you arrive. | |||
"There is no system available for refugees to apply to come to the UK (apart from Ukrainian, Afghan, and one other) so the only way to enter the UK is illegally by boat and ask for asylum when you arrive. Again - if you have a little bit of money and a passport, it's perfectly possible to come here on the ferry as a tourist, and then claim asylum once you arrive." And if you don’t have a passport? | |||
"Again - if you have a little bit of money and a passport, it's perfectly possible to come here on the ferry as a tourist, and then claim asylum once you arrive." "And if you don’t have a passport? " Then there's no legal method for you to travel anywhere, whether you intend to claim asylum or not. If you are seeking asylum, and you are stuck in France with no passport, your only legal route for anything is to apply for asylum in France. You can always move to the UK after your claim has been verified and you've built up a record of good citizenship. | |||
"Again - if you have a little bit of money and a passport, it's perfectly possible to come here on the ferry as a tourist, and then claim asylum once you arrive. And if you don’t have a passport? Then there's no legal method for you to travel anywhere, whether you intend to claim asylum or not. If you are seeking asylum, and you are stuck in France with no passport, your only legal route for anything is to apply for asylum in France. You can always move to the UK after your claim has been verified and you've built up a record of good citizenship." they would have entered France illegally. So can we call that a legal route ? And is entering on a tourist visa when you intend to claim asylum legal? I don't know. I would have thought you'd need to say you weren't planning to stay. (I bet most real illegal immigrants are over stayed visas. Crazy we ignore this and worry about those that may actually need help) | |||
"Again - if you have a little bit of money and a passport, it's perfectly possible to come here on the ferry as a tourist, and then claim asylum once you arrive." "And if you don’t have a passport?" "Then there's no legal method for you to travel anywhere, whether you intend to claim asylum or not. If you are seeking asylum, and you are stuck in France with no passport, your only legal route for anything is to apply for asylum in France. You can always move to the UK after your claim has been verified and you've built up a record of good citizenship." "they would have entered France illegally. So can we call that a legal route ?" It's possible they entered France legally, and then lost their papers. "And is entering on a tourist visa when you intend to claim asylum legal? I don't know. I would have thought you'd need to say you weren't planning to stay." It's not illegal to make a false statement on an immigration form, and the asylum law provides immunity from prosecutions related to immigration rules if asylum is granted. Of course, a person could always say they came here as a tourist unaware of the asylum rules, and that they only made a claim when they realised it was possible. That would mean that they filled in the form truthfully. | |||
"Again - if you have a little bit of money and a passport, it's perfectly possible to come here on the ferry as a tourist, and then claim asylum once you arrive. And if you don’t have a passport? Then there's no legal method for you to travel anywhere, whether you intend to claim asylum or not. If you are seeking asylum, and you are stuck in France with no passport, your only legal route for anything is to apply for asylum in France. You can always move to the UK after your claim has been verified and you've built up a record of good citizenship. they would have entered France illegally. So can we call that a legal route ? It's possible they entered France legally, and then lost their papers. And is entering on a tourist visa when you intend to claim asylum legal? I don't know. I would have thought you'd need to say you weren't planning to stay. It's not illegal to make a false statement on an immigration form, and the asylum law provides immunity from prosecutions related to immigration rules if asylum is granted. Of course, a person could always say they came here as a tourist unaware of the asylum rules, and that they only made a claim when they realised it was possible. That would mean that they filled in the form truthfully." they could have... but if they hadn't then no legal recourse. I guess the challenge with a tourist visa is getting one ... does everyone get one ? I agree asylum laws gives immunity from punishment. Like entering a country illegally ! | |||
"Again - if you have a little bit of money and a passport, it's perfectly possible to come here on the ferry as a tourist, and then claim asylum once you arrive. And if you don’t have a passport? Then there's no legal method for you to travel anywhere, whether you intend to claim asylum or not. If you are seeking asylum, and you are stuck in France with no passport, your only legal route for anything is to apply for asylum in France. You can always move to the UK after your claim has been verified and you've built up a record of good citizenship. they would have entered France illegally. So can we call that a legal route ? It's possible they entered France legally, and then lost their papers. And is entering on a tourist visa when you intend to claim asylum legal? I don't know. I would have thought you'd need to say you weren't planning to stay. It's not illegal to make a false statement on an immigration form, and the asylum law provides immunity from prosecutions related to immigration rules if asylum is granted. Of course, a person could always say they came here as a tourist unaware of the asylum rules, and that they only made a claim when they realised it was possible. That would mean that they filled in the form truthfully.they could have... but if they hadn't then no legal recourse. I guess the challenge with a tourist visa is getting one ... does everyone get one ? I agree asylum laws gives immunity from punishment. Like entering a country illegally !" So as a Syrian refugee in a refugee camp in a neighboring country you apply for a Syrian passport to replace the one left in the rubble of your home and apply to the UK embassy for a tourist Visa? That's our safe route for those facing persecution or fleeing conflict? | |||
" Why do the vast majority stay in France then? " Probably because they would rather be in an EU country, despite the aggro of having to learn French. The major attraction of coming to the UK is undoubtedly the language. | |||
" Why do the vast majority stay in France then? Probably because they would rather be in an EU country, despite the aggro of having to learn French. The major attraction of coming to the UK is undoubtedly the language." ...and friends, family or existing communities. | |||
"Again - if you have a little bit of money and a passport, it's perfectly possible to come here on the ferry as a tourist, and then claim asylum once you arrive." "And if you don’t have a passport?" "Then there's no legal method for you to travel anywhere, whether you intend to claim asylum or not. If you are seeking asylum, and you are stuck in France with no passport, your only legal route for anything is to apply for asylum in France. You can always move to the UK after your claim has been verified and you've built up a record of good citizenship." "And is entering on a tourist visa when you intend to claim asylum legal? I don't know. I would have thought you'd need to say you weren't planning to stay." "It's not illegal to make a false statement on an immigration form, and the asylum law provides immunity from prosecutions related to immigration rules if asylum is granted. Of course, a person could always say they came here as a tourist unaware of the asylum rules, and that they only made a claim when they realised it was possible. That would mean that they filled in the form truthfully." "So as a Syrian refugee in a refugee camp in a neighboring country you apply for a Syrian passport to replace the one left in the rubble of your home and apply to the UK embassy for a tourist Visa? That's our safe route for those facing persecution or fleeing conflict?" No. We're not talking about safe routes out of Syria, we're talking about legal routes into the UK. Specifically, from France. | |||
"Again - if you have a little bit of money and a passport, it's perfectly possible to come here on the ferry as a tourist, and then claim asylum once you arrive. And if you don’t have a passport? Then there's no legal method for you to travel anywhere, whether you intend to claim asylum or not. If you are seeking asylum, and you are stuck in France with no passport, your only legal route for anything is to apply for asylum in France. You can always move to the UK after your claim has been verified and you've built up a record of good citizenship. And is entering on a tourist visa when you intend to claim asylum legal? I don't know. I would have thought you'd need to say you weren't planning to stay. It's not illegal to make a false statement on an immigration form, and the asylum law provides immunity from prosecutions related to immigration rules if asylum is granted. Of course, a person could always say they came here as a tourist unaware of the asylum rules, and that they only made a claim when they realised it was possible. That would mean that they filled in the form truthfully. So as a Syrian refugee in a refugee camp in a neighboring country you apply for a Syrian passport to replace the one left in the rubble of your home and apply to the UK embassy for a tourist Visa? That's our safe route for those facing persecution or fleeing conflict? No. We're not talking about safe routes out of Syria, we're talking about legal routes into the UK. Specifically, from France." You don't, actually, need a safe route from France to solve the overall systemic problem. That's only looking at ourselves in isolation. Narrow and expensive. You need a safe route from where those claiming asylum come from to remove the entire business model for human trafficking. There would be nobody hanging around in France trying to get here except for economic migrants who we wouldn't accept anyway... | |||
| |||
"It's now legal to send asylum seekers to RWanda to be processed." Sad that this country has regressed to this, and even worse that people are cheering it on. | |||
"It's now legal to send asylum seekers to RWanda to be processed. Sad that this country has regressed to this, and even worse that people are cheering it on." I'm awaiting the explanation. Sending to Rwanda to be processed didn't feel the contentious bit imo. It was where they were granting asylum to stay in Rwanda when they had applied for asylum here. | |||
| |||
"Probably going to Appeal Process" Probably, they have already spaffed over £140 million on this useless scheme | |||
"Probably going to Appeal Process Probably, they have already spaffed over £140 million on this useless scheme " but it's still legal good job border control on strike other wise they'd be on a flight to Rwanda now | |||
"If Rwanda flights had taken place regularly the temptation to take risk crossing woukd have gone. I blame the do gooders The Rwanda flights broke the law and will never happen . There is zero evidence to suggest it would have stopped asylum seekers crossing the channel in small boats "So you are wrong. The High Court has ruled it is lawful. | |||
"Probably going to Appeal Process Probably, they have already spaffed over £140 million on this useless scheme " It's not entirely useless, it distracts people from government nepotism and incompetence. | |||
"Probably going to Appeal Process Probably, they have already spaffed over £140 million on this useless scheme but it's still legal good job border control on strike other wise they'd be on a flight to Rwanda now" No. That is not the case. The deportations have been insufficiently assessed according to the judgement so will have to be looked at again. An appeal will be lodged, so nothing will happen for at least one more process if not several to the Supreme Court. | |||
"It's now legal to send asylum seekers to RWanda to be processed." The ruling does imply that an additional layer of checks must be applied before deportation. More cost and time to the process that is put in place if the UK does start to do this. | |||
"If Rwanda flights had taken place regularly the temptation to take risk crossing woukd have gone. I blame the do gooders The Rwanda flights broke the law and will never happen . There is zero evidence to suggest it would have stopped asylum seekers crossing the channel in small boats
So you are wrong.
The High Court has ruled it is lawful."No, the 8 people they tried to move to Rwanda won’t be going anywhere, I suggest you read the ruling before you get over excited | |||
"Probably going to Appeal Process Probably, they have already spaffed over £140 million on this useless scheme but it's still legal good job border control on strike other wise they'd be on a flight to Rwanda now" You obviously haven’t read the ruling | |||
"It's now legal to send asylum seekers to RWanda to be processed. The ruling does imply that an additional layer of checks must be applied before deportation. More cost and time to the process that is put in place if the UK does start to do this." Basically the initial scheme was illegal, the new checks have to be applied to make it legal | |||
"It's now legal to send asylum seekers to RWanda to be processed. The ruling does imply that an additional layer of checks must be applied before deportation. More cost and time to the process that is put in place if the UK does start to do this. Basically the initial scheme was illegal, the new checks have to be applied to make it legal " However, I think I might have got that wrong | |||
"It's now legal to send asylum seekers to RWanda to be processed. The ruling does imply that an additional layer of checks must be applied before deportation. More cost and time to the process that is put in place if the UK does start to do this. Basically the initial scheme was illegal, the new checks have to be applied to make it legal However, I think I might have got that wrong "ibwasbgiing yo say Although im confused between the summary and the detail. It looks like on theory on can send inadmissible cases to Rwanda. But there were holes in each of the 8 cases. Including the home secretary (which I suspect means office, not person) confusing evidence between two cases. So there needs to be better due processing than there has been to date. 0 out of 8 and all for it appears different reasons. | |||
