FabSwingers.com
 

FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Flights to Rwanda back on now legal

Flights to Rwanda back on now legal

Jump to: Newest in thread

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago

Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields

This country is going down the shitty faster and faster.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields

*shitter

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over."

Who pays these lawyers "a fortune"?

What information do you have for how much they earn from these cases? Could you please share?

The flights are not "back on" yet as there are likely to be further appeals and a change in how they assess those eligible for removal.

You will just have to remain patient for due process to take its course.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *uninlondon69Man  over a year ago

Tower Bridge South


"Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy?"

Mary and Joseph were migrants. They would be on the plane to Rwanda too.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over."

How many do you think we should send

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy?

Mary and Joseph were migrants. They would be on the plane to Rwanda too. "

Off to Rwanda with em, I say.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

+ send their donkey with em too! Bloody migrant donkeys, coming over ere, taking advantage of our vets!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.

(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.

(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)

"

What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields


"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.

(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)

What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange "

Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.

(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)

What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange

Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details."

agreed. It will buy them votes in 2024. That's what matters.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields


"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.

(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)

What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange

Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.agreed. It will buy them votes in 2024. That's what matters. "

That's what I have been saying all along when everyone is gleefully predicting an end to Tory rule.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *eroy1000Man  over a year ago

milton keynes


"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over."

I imagine there are appeals to be lodged yet and assume nothing can happen while awaiting the appeals to be heard. Is there a limit to the amount of appeals allowed or is it indefinite. Also even if appeals are rejected, can't the ECHR intervene to stop it?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.

I imagine there are appeals to be lodged yet and assume nothing can happen while awaiting the appeals to be heard. Is there a limit to the amount of appeals allowed or is it indefinite. Also even if appeals are rejected, can't the ECHR intervene to stop it?"

Supreme Court for any particular ruling. So only two more steps.

However, the ruling implies that every individual order for each person could be appealed as well.

ECHR could intervene, but that's why the UK wants to withdraw from it, together with Belarus and Russia. Some might not consider that a good look.

You are probably aware of this, but for the benefit others; the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *eroy1000Man  over a year ago

milton keynes


"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.

I imagine there are appeals to be lodged yet and assume nothing can happen while awaiting the appeals to be heard. Is there a limit to the amount of appeals allowed or is it indefinite. Also even if appeals are rejected, can't the ECHR intervene to stop it?

Supreme Court for any particular ruling. So only two more steps.

However, the ruling implies that every individual order for each person could be appealed as well.

ECHR could intervene, but that's why the UK wants to withdraw from it, together with Belarus and Russia. Some might not consider that a good look.

You are probably aware of this, but for the benefit others; the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU."

Two more steps (if those concerned decide to press ahead) should drag this on for quite a while as never seems to be quick. I did see the court saying 8 individual claims need assessment again as they may not be fair. If the government does withdraw from the ECHR then that maybe a bigger story in its own right. If they don't I guess we have to wait to see if they intervene. Yes I'm aware the ECHR and EU are different though your right to say they sometimes get mixed up

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *mateur100Man  over a year ago

nr faversham


"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.

How many do you think we should send "

How many do you think we should accept

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *mateur100Man  over a year ago

nr faversham


"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.

(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)

What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange

Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details."

Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *mateur100Man  over a year ago

nr faversham


"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.

I imagine there are appeals to be lodged yet and assume nothing can happen while awaiting the appeals to be heard. Is there a limit to the amount of appeals allowed or is it indefinite. Also even if appeals are rejected, can't the ECHR intervene to stop it?

Supreme Court for any particular ruling. So only two more steps.

However, the ruling implies that every individual order for each person could be appealed as well.

ECHR could intervene, but that's why the UK wants to withdraw from it, together with Belarus and Russia. Some might not consider that a good look.

You are probably aware of this, but for the benefit others; the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU."

Australia. They are not completely aligned but are in a position to relocate. All I need is a government that does the same

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields


"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.

(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)

What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange

Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.

Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia "

It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *mateur100Man  over a year ago

nr faversham


"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.

(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)

What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange

Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.

Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia

It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too. "

Abhorrent? That's a point of view

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields


"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.

(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)

What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange

Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.

Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia

It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.

Abhorrent? That's a point of view "

Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *mateur100Man  over a year ago

nr faversham


"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.

(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)

What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange

Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.

Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia

It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.

Abhorrent? That's a point of view

Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion. "

That depends on the humans in question

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields


"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.

(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)

What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange

Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.

Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia

It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.

Abhorrent? That's a point of view

Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion.

That depends on the humans in question"

The humans in question are people seeking asylum.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.

(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)

What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange

Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.

Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia

It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.

Abhorrent? That's a point of view "

There have been serious abuse scandals and they have paid out tens of millions of dollars in compensation.

So, I hope it is very different to Australia's policy, but I sadly don't think that it will be any better because this is being led by short term politics, not strategy.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.

(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)

What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange

Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.

Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia

It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.

Abhorrent? That's a point of view

Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion.

That depends on the humans in question"

Treating people as humans "depends"?

Did you really mean that, or are you just caught up in the argument?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *L RogueMan  over a year ago

London


"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.

(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)

What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange

Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.

Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia

It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.

Abhorrent? That's a point of view

Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion.

That depends on the humans in question

Treating people as humans "depends"?

Did you really mean that, or are you just caught up in the argument?"

Crossed my mind too. So much for decency...

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.

How many do you think we should send

How many do you think we should accept "

Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.

How many do you think we should send

How many do you think we should accept "

In the year to June 2022 UK immigration was 1.1 million. This was before any of the modest number of Ukrainian refugees were allowed in.

So, we aren't that full it seems. We also have a lot of vacancies to fill in both high value and low value jobs.

Refugees are very motivated to work and will be net tax payers soon enough.

Substitute some of the skilled immigrants with skilled refugees and some unskilled and we can probably accommodate over one hundred thousand a year, wouldn't you say?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.

How many do you think we should send

How many do you think we should accept

In the year to June 2022 UK immigration was 1.1 million. This was before any of the modest number of Ukrainian refugees were allowed in.

So, we aren't that full it seems. We also have a lot of vacancies to fill in both high value and low value jobs.

Refugees are very motivated to work and will be net tax payers soon enough.

Substitute some of the skilled immigrants with skilled refugees and some unskilled and we can probably accommodate over one hundred thousand a year, wouldn't you say?"

no don't want any get are house in order first then look until then send everyone back home or Rwanda either I don't care.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.

How many do you think we should send

How many do you think we should accept

In the year to June 2022 UK immigration was 1.1 million. This was before any of the modest number of Ukrainian refugees were allowed in.

So, we aren't that full it seems. We also have a lot of vacancies to fill in both high value and low value jobs.

Refugees are very motivated to work and will be net tax payers soon enough.

Substitute some of the skilled immigrants with skilled refugees and some unskilled and we can probably accommodate over one hundred thousand a year, wouldn't you say?no don't want any get are house in order first then look until then send everyone back home or Rwanda either I don't care."

You seem a bit confused.

So the 1.1 million immigrants who came here in 2022 shouldn't have come because "our house is not in order"?

We are proposing to spend hundreds of millions on preventing those with legitimate asylum concerns from entering the country and deporting those who do in order to prevent economic migrants from coming here?

We are going to spend how much money to save how much money to get "our house in order"?

"I don't care" sadly feels like the default position of many people. Often those with the hardest views on refugees have an equally uncompromising opinion on those in distress within the UK.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *mateur100Man  over a year ago

nr faversham


"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.

How many do you think we should send

How many do you think we should accept

Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda? "

And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *mateur100Man  over a year ago

nr faversham


"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.

(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)

What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange

Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.

Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia

It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.

Abhorrent? That's a point of view

Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion.

That depends on the humans in question

Treating people as humans "depends"?

Did you really mean that, or are you just caught up in the argument?"

Your opinion on convicted criminals?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *mateur100Man  over a year ago

nr faversham


"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.

(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)

What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange

Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.

Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia

It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.

Abhorrent? That's a point of view

There have been serious abuse scandals and they have paid out tens of millions of dollars in compensation.

So, I hope it is very different to Australia's policy, but I sadly don't think that it will be any better because this is being led by short term politics, not strategy."

I'd be happy to copy Australia's policy. End of

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.

How many do you think we should send

How many do you think we should accept

Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda?

And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum "

They can be returned home.

How does preventing legal routes for those seeking asylum help that?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *mateur100Man  over a year ago

nr faversham


"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.

How many do you think we should send

How many do you think we should accept

Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda?

And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum

They can be returned home.

How does preventing legal routes for those seeking asylum help that?"

Home? Where is home exactly?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.

How many do you think we should send

How many do you think we should accept

Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda?

And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum

They can be returned home.

How does preventing legal routes for those seeking asylum help that?"

or Rwanda or where the HO decided they should have claimed asylum.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.

(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)

What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange

Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.

Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia

It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.

Abhorrent? That's a point of view

Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion.

That depends on the humans in question

Treating people as humans "depends"?

Did you really mean that, or are you just caught up in the argument?

Your opinion on convicted criminals? "

What crime? Shoplifting to find food for your family? Stealing a bicycle when you were thirteen?

I'd still treat thieves and murderers as human beings though.

The overwhelming majority of refugees and those seeking asylum are not criminals though. So why bring that up?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *mateur100Man  over a year ago

nr faversham


"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.

(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)

What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange

Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.

Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia

It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.

Abhorrent? That's a point of view

Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion.

That depends on the humans in question

Treating people as humans "depends"?

Did you really mean that, or are you just caught up in the argument?

Your opinion on convicted criminals?

What crime? Shoplifting to find food for your family? Stealing a bicycle when you were thirteen?

I'd still treat thieves and murderers as human beings though.

The overwhelming majority of refugees and those seeking asylum are not criminals though. So why bring that up?"

You'd treat murderers as human beings? Then I don't want to live in your world

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *mateur100Man  over a year ago

nr faversham


"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.

How many do you think we should send

How many do you think we should accept

Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda?

And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum

They can be returned home.

How does preventing legal routes for those seeking asylum help that?

Home? Where is home exactly? "

Where is home exactly?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields


"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.

(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)

What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange

Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.

Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia

It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.

Abhorrent? That's a point of view

Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion.

That depends on the humans in question

Treating people as humans "depends"?

Did you really mean that, or are you just caught up in the argument?

Your opinion on convicted criminals?

What crime? Shoplifting to find food for your family? Stealing a bicycle when you were thirteen?

I'd still treat thieves and murderers as human beings though.

The overwhelming majority of refugees and those seeking asylum are not criminals though. So why bring that up?

You'd treat murderers as human beings? Then I don't want to live in your world "

You seem confused, this thread is about the horrific inhuman policies this government champions towards immigrants, not murderers.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *mateur100Man  over a year ago

nr faversham


"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.

(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)

What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange

Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.

Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia

It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.

Abhorrent? That's a point of view

Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion.

That depends on the humans in question

Treating people as humans "depends"?

Did you really mean that, or are you just caught up in the argument?

Your opinion on convicted criminals?

What crime? Shoplifting to find food for your family? Stealing a bicycle when you were thirteen?

I'd still treat thieves and murderers as human beings though.

The overwhelming majority of refugees and those seeking asylum are not criminals though. So why bring that up?

You'd treat murderers as human beings? Then I don't want to live in your world

You seem confused, this thread is about the horrific inhuman policies this government champions towards immigrants, not murderers. "

You seem confused, I'm dealing with a comment raised earlier that quite clearly stated murderers would be treated by him as human beings.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.

How many do you think we should send

How many do you think we should accept

Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda?

And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum

They can be returned home.

How does preventing legal routes for those seeking asylum help that?

Home? Where is home exactly? "

It seems that you are now avoiding thinking.

You are unable to explain a connection between dehumanising refugees and those in need of asylum, and preventing economic migration.

You are unable to explain why you are trying to link criminals and refugees.

You are just are now just trying to distract.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.

(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)

What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange

Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.

Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia

It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.

Abhorrent? That's a point of view

Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion.

That depends on the humans in question

Treating people as humans "depends"?

Did you really mean that, or are you just caught up in the argument?

Your opinion on convicted criminals?

What crime? Shoplifting to find food for your family? Stealing a bicycle when you were thirteen?

I'd still treat thieves and murderers as human beings though.

The overwhelming majority of refugees and those seeking asylum are not criminals though. So why bring that up?

You'd treat murderers as human beings? Then I don't want to live in your world "

Distraction

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.

How many do you think we should send

How many do you think we should accept

Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda?

And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum

They can be returned home.

How does preventing legal routes for those seeking asylum help that?

Home? Where is home exactly? "

Distraction

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.

(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)

What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange

Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.

Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia

It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.

Abhorrent? That's a point of view

Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion.

That depends on the humans in question

Treating people as humans "depends"?

Did you really mean that, or are you just caught up in the argument?

Your opinion on convicted criminals?

What crime? Shoplifting to find food for your family? Stealing a bicycle when you were thirteen?

I'd still treat thieves and murderers as human beings though.

The overwhelming majority of refugees and those seeking asylum are not criminals though. So why bring that up?

You'd treat murderers as human beings? Then I don't want to live in your world

You seem confused, this thread is about the horrific inhuman policies this government champions towards immigrants, not murderers.

You seem confused, I'm dealing with a comment raised earlier that quite clearly stated murderers would be treated by him as human beings. "

Distraction

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *mateur100Man  over a year ago

nr faversham


"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.

(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)

What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange

Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.

Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia

It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.

Abhorrent? That's a point of view

Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion.

That depends on the humans in question

Treating people as humans "depends"?

Did you really mean that, or are you just caught up in the argument?

Your opinion on convicted criminals?

What crime? Shoplifting to find food for your family? Stealing a bicycle when you were thirteen?

I'd still treat thieves and murderers as human beings though.

The overwhelming majority of refugees and those seeking asylum are not criminals though. So why bring that up?

You'd treat murderers as human beings? Then I don't want to live in your world

Distraction"

You seem incapable of answering

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *mateur100Man  over a year ago

nr faversham


"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.

How many do you think we should send

How many do you think we should accept

Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda?

And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum

They can be returned home.

How does preventing legal routes for those seeking asylum help that?

Home? Where is home exactly?

Distraction"

You said "home". Simply wondering where that might be. Your inability to reply isn't a distraction

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.

(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)

What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange

Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.

Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia

It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.

Abhorrent? That's a point of view

Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion.

That depends on the humans in question

Treating people as humans "depends"?

Did you really mean that, or are you just caught up in the argument?

Your opinion on convicted criminals?

What crime? Shoplifting to find food for your family? Stealing a bicycle when you were thirteen?

I'd still treat thieves and murderers as human beings though.

The overwhelming majority of refugees and those seeking asylum are not criminals though. So why bring that up?

You'd treat murderers as human beings? Then I don't want to live in your world

Distraction

You seem incapable of answering "

Distraction

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.

How many do you think we should send

How many do you think we should accept

Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda?

And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum

They can be returned home.

How does preventing legal routes for those seeking asylum help that?

Home? Where is home exactly?

Distraction

You said "home". Simply wondering where that might be. Your inability to reply isn't a distraction"

Refugees and those on need of asylum come from many places, as do economic migrants.

Distraction.

You are unable to explain a connection between dehumanising refugees and those in need of asylum, and preventing economic migration.

You are unable to explain why you are trying to link criminals and refugees.

You are unable to explain why you don't wish to treat people like humans.

You continue to try to distract.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Hopefully the legal system will help many of them.to stat here in the UK to have a better life may god help them

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *uninlondon69Man  over a year ago

Tower Bridge South

Home is wherever their passport states, and if their asylum application is rejected then they should go back there. Which most of the racists would probably agree with. Then you remind them that Shamima Begum is British and it confuses them.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *mateur100Man  over a year ago

nr faversham


"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.

How many do you think we should send

How many do you think we should accept

Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda?

And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum

They can be returned home.

How does preventing legal routes for those seeking asylum help that?

Home? Where is home exactly?

Distraction

You said "home". Simply wondering where that might be. Your inability to reply isn't a distraction

Refugees and those on need of asylum come from many places, as do economic migrants.

Distraction.

You are unable to explain a connection between dehumanising refugees and those in need of asylum, and preventing economic migration.

You are unable to explain why you are trying to link criminals and refugees.

You are unable to explain why you don't wish to treat people like humans.

You continue to try to distract."

Pathetic

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"Hopefully the legal system will help many of them.to stat here in the UK to have a better life may god help them"

That is not what our government wants.

Apparently, many of us actively vote to not help them. You can see the expression of that callousness on this thread.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.

How many do you think we should send

How many do you think we should accept

Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda?

And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum

They can be returned home.

How does preventing legal routes for those seeking asylum help that?

Home? Where is home exactly?

Distraction

You said "home". Simply wondering where that might be. Your inability to reply isn't a distraction

Refugees and those on need of asylum come from many places, as do economic migrants.

Distraction.

You are unable to explain a connection between dehumanising refugees and those in need of asylum, and preventing economic migration.

You are unable to explain why you are trying to link criminals and refugees.

You are unable to explain why you don't wish to treat people like humans.

You continue to try to distract.

Pathetic "

You are unable to explain a connection between dehumanising refugees and those in need of asylum, and preventing economic migration.

You are unable to explain why you are trying to link criminals and refugees.

You are unable to explain why you don't wish to treat people like humans.

You continue to try to distract.

That is, indeed, pathetic.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *uninlondon69Man  over a year ago

Tower Bridge South


"Hopefully the legal system will help many of them.to stat here in the UK to have a better life may god help them

That is not what our government wants.

Apparently, many of us actively vote to not help them. You can see the expression of that callousness on this thread."

Apparently empty supermarket shelves, unpicked produce and understaffed infrastructure are a good thing.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *uboCouple  over a year ago

East kilbride

If they are entitled to asylum, then why not do it in the first countries they come to. Why travel through Europe to get to Britain. We are far to lenient.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *mateur100Man  over a year ago

nr faversham


"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.

How many do you think we should send

How many do you think we should accept

Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda?

And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum

They can be returned home.

How does preventing legal routes for those seeking asylum help that?

Home? Where is home exactly?

Distraction

You said "home". Simply wondering where that might be. Your inability to reply isn't a distraction

Refugees and those on need of asylum come from many places, as do economic migrants.

Distraction.

You are unable to explain a connection between dehumanising refugees and those in need of asylum, and preventing economic migration.

You are unable to explain why you are trying to link criminals and refugees.

You are unable to explain why you don't wish to treat people like humans.

You continue to try to distract.

Pathetic

You are unable to explain a connection between dehumanising refugees and those in need of asylum, and preventing economic migration.

You are unable to explain why you are trying to link criminals and refugees.

You are unable to explain why you don't wish to treat people like humans.

You continue to try to distract.

That is, indeed, pathetic."

Hilarious. You are unable to justify anything you have said. Return them home, treat murderers as human beings. How do you return someone home with no passport, if they refuse to say where they originate? As for the murderers line, you're welcome to it. I will not waste my time responding to your drivel on this topic unless of course you identify "home" and deal with the murderer issue

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *uninlondon69Man  over a year ago

Tower Bridge South


"If they are entitled to asylum, then why not do it in the first countries they come to. Why travel through Europe to get to Britain. We are far to lenient. "

That argument again?

Any number of reasons - it could be language, family ties, history or dozens of other reasons, including promises made by the government to Afghan interpreters. . By your logic everyone fleeing Ukraine should stop in Poland. Why should Poland be forced to take everyone?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.

How many do you think we should send

How many do you think we should accept

Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda?

And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum

They can be returned home.

How does preventing legal routes for those seeking asylum help that?

Home? Where is home exactly?

Distraction

You said "home". Simply wondering where that might be. Your inability to reply isn't a distraction

Refugees and those on need of asylum come from many places, as do economic migrants.

Distraction.

You are unable to explain a connection between dehumanising refugees and those in need of asylum, and preventing economic migration.

You are unable to explain why you are trying to link criminals and refugees.

You are unable to explain why you don't wish to treat people like humans.

You continue to try to distract.

Pathetic

You are unable to explain a connection between dehumanising refugees and those in need of asylum, and preventing economic migration.

You are unable to explain why you are trying to link criminals and refugees.

You are unable to explain why you don't wish to treat people like humans.

You continue to try to distract.

That is, indeed, pathetic.

Hilarious. You are unable to justify anything you have said. Return them home, treat murderers as human beings. How do you return someone home with no passport, if they refuse to say where they originate? As for the murderers line, you're welcome to it. I will not waste my time responding to your drivel on this topic unless of course you identify "home" and deal with the murderer issue "

You are unable to explain a connection between dehumanising refugees and those in need of asylum, and preventing economic migration.

You are unable to explain why you are trying to link criminals and refugees.

You are unable to explain why you don't wish to treat people like humans.

You continue to try to distract.

Now anger. The real you. The real motivating emotion.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"If they are entitled to asylum, then why not do it in the first countries they come to. Why travel through Europe to get to Britain. We are far to lenient. "

Why do you think? Why would they take such risks?

Family here? Friends? A community that they are familiar with? They speak English?

Why do you think people take such risks?

Are you are implying that they are not "real" refugees and asylum seekers because you cannot understand their motivation?

Lenient? We have stopped every route for refugees and those in need of asylum to come here. Why would we hate such people?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *uninlondon69Man  over a year ago

Tower Bridge South


"If they are entitled to asylum, then why not do it in the first countries they come to. Why travel through Europe to get to Britain. We are far to lenient.

Why do you think? Why would they take such risks?

Family here? Friends? A community that they are familiar with? They speak English?

Why do you think people take such risks?

Are you are implying that they are not "real" refugees and asylum seekers because you cannot understand their motivation?

Lenient? We have stopped every route for refugees and those in need of asylum to come here. Why would we hate such people?"

The thing none of the racists grasp is that they are willing to risk death by drowning or hypothermia to get here, similar to the East Berliners trying to cross the wall 40 years ago. Whatever they are fleeing is a worse option for them.

40 years ago Farage and his fanboys would manning the searchlights on the western side of the wall.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ony 2016Man  over a year ago

Huddersfield /derby cinemas


"Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy?

Mary and Joseph were migrants. They would be on the plane to Rwanda too.

Off to Rwanda with em, I say."

Imagine the scenario of God sending his only Son back to Earth to spread His word , Jesus and twelve of his male friends arrive on British shores in a small boat ,,,, if you want to know what would ,or should happen next ask a Conservative MP who claims to be a Christian

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *uddy laneMan  over a year ago

dudley

I wonder what the reaction would be if there were human traffickers organising boats for migrants/asylum seekers/refugees on the shore of Blackpool or Anglesey for them to get to their destruction of the isle of man.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *uddy laneMan  over a year ago

dudley

Destination*

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"If they are entitled to asylum, then why not do it in the first countries they come to. Why travel through Europe to get to Britain. We are far to lenient. "

How are we ‘lenient’ ??

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ldbutrandyMan  over a year ago

West Midlands


"Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy?

Mary and Joseph were migrants. They would be on the plane to Rwanda too.

Off to Rwanda with em, I say. Imagine the scenario of God sending his only Son back to Earth to spread His word , Jesus and twelve of his male friends arrive on British shores in a small boat ,,,, if you want to know what would ,or should happen next ask a Conservative MP who claims to be a Christian "

Good point. Why are they almost all male ? Maybe so once here they can send for the rest of the family. So that'll be Lord knows how many more than the published numbers.

And BTW Mary and Joseph weren't migrants. They were in town to pay their taxes.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *eroy1000Man  over a year ago

milton keynes


"Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy?

Mary and Joseph were migrants. They would be on the plane to Rwanda too.

Off to Rwanda with em, I say. Imagine the scenario of God sending his only Son back to Earth to spread His word , Jesus and twelve of his male friends arrive on British shores in a small boat ,,,, if you want to know what would ,or should happen next ask a Conservative MP who claims to be a Christian

Good point. Why are they almost all male ? Maybe so once here they can send for the rest of the family. So that'll be Lord knows how many more than the published numbers.

And BTW Mary and Joseph weren't migrants. They were in town to pay their taxes."

I'm not as sure as I was about the sending for the rest of their family anymore. I caught a an interview with a Labour front bencher on the Sunday program. She was talking about the Dublin agreement that the UK is no longer a part of. As has been mentioned in the past this used to allow an easier return of

failed migrants. According to her the flip side was it also allowed successful migration claimants to then send for their family and when they arrived and claimed they would be accepted (because family already here). As the UJ is no longer a part of that agreement the the family issue us no longer accepted. I have not checked it out myself but as she is a senior member of Labour and likely to be in the next government then I would expect her to know

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy?

Mary and Joseph were migrants. They would be on the plane to Rwanda too.

Off to Rwanda with em, I say. Imagine the scenario of God sending his only Son back to Earth to spread His word , Jesus and twelve of his male friends arrive on British shores in a small boat ,,,, if you want to know what would ,or should happen next ask a Conservative MP who claims to be a Christian

Good point. Why are they almost all male ? Maybe so once here they can send for the rest of the family. So that'll be Lord knows how many more than the published numbers.

And BTW Mary and Joseph weren't migrants. They were in town to pay their taxes.

I'm not as sure as I was about the sending for the rest of their family anymore. I caught a an interview with a Labour front bencher on the Sunday program. She was talking about the Dublin agreement that the UK is no longer a part of. As has been mentioned in the past this used to allow an easier return of

failed migrants. According to her the flip side was it also allowed successful migration claimants to then send for their family and when they arrived and claimed they would be accepted (because family already here). As the UJ is no longer a part of that agreement the the family issue us no longer accepted. I have not checked it out myself but as she is a senior member of Labour and likely to be in the next government then I would expect her to know"

I've not seen the interview just quotes so not 100pc sure you've interpreted this correctly. Given this would be low hanging fruit for a leave campaign I suspect you haven't.

My reading is if we allow people with family ties to claim in France, and then be transferred to the UK, you'd save putting lives at risk.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy?

Mary and Joseph were migrants. They would be on the plane to Rwanda too.

Off to Rwanda with em, I say. Imagine the scenario of God sending his only Son back to Earth to spread His word , Jesus and twelve of his male friends arrive on British shores in a small boat ,,,, if you want to know what would ,or should happen next ask a Conservative MP who claims to be a Christian

Good point. Why are they almost all male ? Maybe so once here they can send for the rest of the family. So that'll be Lord knows how many more than the published numbers.

And BTW Mary and Joseph weren't migrants. They were in town to pay their taxes."

Perhaps because young men without families are the biggest threat to a repressive regime and the most likely to actively protest or fight?

Refugees and those in need of asylum pay taxes once they are allowed to work.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *lderguy4uMan  over a year ago

wirral

Send them back there's enough piss poor here already that can't afford to live

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *eroy1000Man  over a year ago

milton keynes


"Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy?

Mary and Joseph were migrants. They would be on the plane to Rwanda too.

Off to Rwanda with em, I say. Imagine the scenario of God sending his only Son back to Earth to spread His word , Jesus and twelve of his male friends arrive on British shores in a small boat ,,,, if you want to know what would ,or should happen next ask a Conservative MP who claims to be a Christian

Good point. Why are they almost all male ? Maybe so once here they can send for the rest of the family. So that'll be Lord knows how many more than the published numbers.

And BTW Mary and Joseph weren't migrants. They were in town to pay their taxes.

I'm not as sure as I was about the sending for the rest of their family anymore. I caught a an interview with a Labour front bencher on the Sunday program. She was talking about the Dublin agreement that the UK is no longer a part of. As has been mentioned in the past this used to allow an easier return of

failed migrants. According to her the flip side was it also allowed successful migration claimants to then send for their family and when they arrived and claimed they would be accepted (because family already here). As the UJ is no longer a part of that agreement the the family issue us no longer accepted. I have not checked it out myself but as she is a senior member of Labour and likely to be in the next government then I would expect her to knowI've not seen the interview just quotes so not 100pc sure you've interpreted this correctly. Given this would be low hanging fruit for a leave campaign I suspect you haven't.

My reading is if we allow people with family ties to claim in France, and then be transferred to the UK, you'd save putting lives at risk. "

I agree I may have misunderstood and like you say it would have been easy pickings for the leave campaign. She said it more than once and prettier sure she linked it to the Dublin agreement. I think it was Yvette Cooper and it was the Laura kunsberg program.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"Send them back there's enough piss poor here already that can't afford to live "

Really? So why did we accept 1.2 million immigrants through formal routes over the last year?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields


"Send them back there's enough piss poor here already that can't afford to live "

That's the spirit, blame some foreigners for the problems, completely ignore the government, brexit etc.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"Send them back there's enough piss poor here already that can't afford to live

Really? So why did we accept 1.2 million immigrants through formal routes over the last year?"

Apologies, only 1.1 million

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *lderguy4uMan  over a year ago

wirral

What a dick there not piss poor

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"What a dick there not piss poor "
the quote button is yr friend.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields


"What a dick there not piss poor "

You said "Send them back there's enough piss poor here already that can't afford to live".

Then "What a dick there not piss poor"

Are you arguing against yourself? Who is winning?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *lderguy4uMan  over a year ago

wirral

The 1.1 m that came here legally are not piss poor

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *lderguy4uMan  over a year ago

wirral


"What a dick there not piss poor the quote button is yr friend. "
thanks will rem that

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"The 1.1 m that came here legally are not piss poor"
so they can afford to live ?

You may have to expand on your points here.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"The 1.1 m that came here legally are not piss poor"

They won't be if they're allowed to work, will they?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields


"The 1.1 m that came here legally are not piss poor"

None of them?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy?

Mary and Joseph were migrants. They would be on the plane to Rwanda too.

Off to Rwanda with em, I say. Imagine the scenario of God sending his only Son back to Earth to spread His word , Jesus and twelve of his male friends arrive on British shores in a small boat ,,,, if you want to know what would ,or should happen next ask a Conservative MP who claims to be a Christian

Good point. Why are they almost all male ? Maybe so once here they can send for the rest of the family. So that'll be Lord knows how many more than the published numbers.

And BTW Mary and Joseph weren't migrants. They were in town to pay their taxes."

Mary and Joseph were also forced to leave their home against their will and travel somewhere else.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *estivalMan  over a year ago

borehamwood


"Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy?

Mary and Joseph were migrants. They would be on the plane to Rwanda too.

Off to Rwanda with em, I say. Imagine the scenario of God sending his only Son back to Earth to spread His word , Jesus and twelve of his male friends arrive on British shores in a small boat ,,,, if you want to know what would ,or should happen next ask a Conservative MP who claims to be a Christian "

why are you bringing make belive characters into it

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ldbutrandyMan  over a year ago

West Midlands


"Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy?

Mary and Joseph were migrants. They would be on the plane to Rwanda too.

Off to Rwanda with em, I say. Imagine the scenario of God sending his only Son back to Earth to spread His word , Jesus and twelve of his male friends arrive on British shores in a small boat ,,,, if you want to know what would ,or should happen next ask a Conservative MP who claims to be a Christian

Good point. Why are they almost all male ? Maybe so once here they can send for the rest of the family. So that'll be Lord knows how many more than the published numbers.

And BTW Mary and Joseph weren't migrants. They were in town to pay their taxes.

Mary and Joseph were also forced to leave their home against their will and travel somewhere else."

Nowadays they'd pay by bank transfer .

I always felt Joseph gad a bum deal. Having to bring up someone else's kid.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

  

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy?

Mary and Joseph were migrants. They would be on the plane to Rwanda too.

Off to Rwanda with em, I say. Imagine the scenario of God sending his only Son back to Earth to spread His word , Jesus and twelve of his male friends arrive on British shores in a small boat ,,,, if you want to know what would ,or should happen next ask a Conservative MP who claims to be a Christian

Good point. Why are they almost all male ? Maybe so once here they can send for the rest of the family. So that'll be Lord knows how many more than the published numbers.

And BTW Mary and Joseph weren't migrants. They were in town to pay their taxes.

Mary and Joseph were also forced to leave their home against their will and travel somewhere else.

Nowadays they'd pay by bank transfer .

I always felt Joseph gad a bum deal. Having to bring up someone else's kid."

I wouldn't necessarily say he got a bum deal, but he certainly didn't get the credit that he deserves for raising the boy up as his own.

Mary seems to get a lot of praise for having a child of uncertain parentage though

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

» Add a new message to this topic

0.1718

0