FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Asylum seekers- Sunaks new plan
Asylum seekers- Sunaks new plan
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The cynic in me says ... Problem: Bad Tory news in the papers Solution: pretend to crack down on immigration. " Talk tough on 'jonny foreigner ' to salve the angst of middle England and once again fail in time.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The cynic in me says ... Problem: Bad Tory news in the papers Solution: pretend to crack down on immigration. " Definitely. This new bill will rumble of for ages. And will really energise the more 'foriegners-out' element of their supporters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... they say that these people will be removed and automatically banned for life. But removed to where?" The obvious place would be to France, since that's where they got into the small boat. I don't think the French would be happy with that idea though. Unless the recent talks with the EU covered more ground than has been announced so far. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... they say that these people will be removed and automatically banned for life. But removed to where? The obvious place would be to France, since that's where they got into the small boat. I don't think the French would be happy with that idea though. Unless the recent talks with the EU covered more ground than has been announced so far." This is one of the mysteries around this idea. I can't see the French agreeing to it but stranger things happen. I suspect legal matters could impede this to and could be on a collision course with the ECHR. Getting a few on a plane to Rwanda proved how difficult it is let alone banning and removing everyone who arrives by boat. I agree the timing is suspicious though I think perhaps the violence surrounding asylum seekers at hotels recently may have moved it up the agenda | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain." And break international law ?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Won't make any difference till anyone gets sent back. To stop the gangs take a ship to France any one can get on free. Process 90% on said ship return anyone how has failed AI photo same as we do for passport. On said ship." Good idea  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. And break international law ??" I think that's Sunak's cunning plan.. Then they can blame the lefty pinko lawyers, the EU etc to bolster those of their voters who might well not turn out in the next general election.. That they probably know or should do before they commit to wasting millions perhaps of public money and is immoral is by the by.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. And break international law ?? I think that's Sunak's cunning plan.. Then they can blame the lefty pinko lawyers, the EU etc to bolster those of their voters who might well not turn out in the next general election.. That they probably know or should do before they commit to wasting millions perhaps of public money and is immoral is by the by.." True, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. " The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? " That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated " this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. " This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people." what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people." This is key "it gives the right message to a lot of people". This is the only reason they're pushing the anti-immigrant thing at the moment. You can expect the Tories to ham this up a lot more when it's election time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated " The cost shouldn’t be irrelevant, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !!" Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. " I see what you're saying here but 'not liking foreigners' is not the same as 'wanting immigration controlled' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. " Exactly, this is the start of the GE push for pulling back the lost voters. There is no point arguing the rights and wrongs of the proposal, it doesn’t matter if it succeeds or fails, as long as they build their voter base back up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. Exactly, this is the start of the GE push for pulling back the lost voters. There is no point arguing the rights and wrongs of the proposal, it doesn’t matter if it succeeds or fails, as long as they build their voter base back up " Of course it matters if it succeeds or fails, labour , (and more importantly to the voters they are trying to win back) the likes of Farage and The Reform Party will be holding them to account . If it fails, we will all know about it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. Exactly, this is the start of the GE push for pulling back the lost voters. There is no point arguing the rights and wrongs of the proposal, it doesn’t matter if it succeeds or fails, as long as they build their voter base back up Of course it matters if it succeeds or fails, labour , (and more importantly to the voters they are trying to win back) the likes of Farage and The Reform Party will be holding them to account . If it fails, we will all know about it " It matters to you, it matters to the others you mention… This policy is a soundbite, if it works great, if it doesn’t it will be someone else’s fault. This is a headline to pull in their lost voters, it’s a no loss situation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. Exactly, this is the start of the GE push for pulling back the lost voters. There is no point arguing the rights and wrongs of the proposal, it doesn’t matter if it succeeds or fails, as long as they build their voter base back up Of course it matters if it succeeds or fails, labour , (and more importantly to the voters they are trying to win back) the likes of Farage and The Reform Party will be holding them to account . If it fails, we will all know about it It matters to you, it matters to the others you mention… This policy is a soundbite, if it works great, if it doesn’t it will be someone else’s fault. This is a headline to pull in their lost voters, it’s a no loss situation " You could apply that logic to any policy? The blame game will only fool the foolish this time, Farage and The reform party will be watching closely , they are the ones the Tories should be worried about | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. Exactly, this is the start of the GE push for pulling back the lost voters. There is no point arguing the rights and wrongs of the proposal, it doesn’t matter if it succeeds or fails, as long as they build their voter base back up " 100% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. I see what you're saying here but 'not liking foreigners' is not the same as 'wanting immigration controlled'" Immigration is controlled. This is all about regaining popularity. The Tories have zero interest in immigration outside of it being a useful political tool for them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. I see what you're saying here but 'not liking foreigners' is not the same as 'wanting immigration controlled' Immigration is controlled. This is all about regaining popularity. The Tories have zero interest in immigration outside of it being a useful political tool for them. " I didn't say it wasn't, however, you're statement sounds like anyone who is against immigration is racist. Namely 'don't like foreigners' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. I see what you're saying here but 'not liking foreigners' is not the same as 'wanting immigration controlled' Immigration is controlled. This is all about regaining popularity. The Tories have zero interest in immigration outside of it being a useful political tool for them. I didn't say it wasn't, however, you're statement sounds like anyone who is against immigration is racist. Namely 'don't like foreigners'" You implied that people think it's not controlled by saying "wanting immigration controlled". It is controlled. So they have what they want. So this is something different. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. I see what you're saying here but 'not liking foreigners' is not the same as 'wanting immigration controlled' Immigration is controlled. This is all about regaining popularity. The Tories have zero interest in immigration outside of it being a useful political tool for them. I didn't say it wasn't, however, you're statement sounds like anyone who is against immigration is racist. Namely 'don't like foreigners' You implied that people think it's not controlled by saying "wanting immigration controlled". It is controlled. So they have what they want. So this is something different. " The point is some people don't think it's controlled. Let's just keep going backwards and forwards because you can't admit what you wrote, you are aware you wrote that before I responded aren't you? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' That sounds very much like you're saying in this situation where people want control over asylum seekers are racist. Asylum seekers are free to roam until processed. Free to roam in this case means no control. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. I see what you're saying here but 'not liking foreigners' is not the same as 'wanting immigration controlled' Immigration is controlled. This is all about regaining popularity. The Tories have zero interest in immigration outside of it being a useful political tool for them. I didn't say it wasn't, however, you're statement sounds like anyone who is against immigration is racist. Namely 'don't like foreigners' You implied that people think it's not controlled by saying "wanting immigration controlled". It is controlled. So they have what they want. So this is something different. The point is some people don't think it's controlled. Let's just keep going backwards and forwards because you can't admit what you wrote, you are aware you wrote that before I responded aren't you? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' That sounds very much like you're saying in this situation where people want control over asylum seekers are racist. Asylum seekers are free to roam until processed. Free to roam in this case means no control." What type of person would want an asylum seeker to be imprisoned (unable to roam free)? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. I see what you're saying here but 'not liking foreigners' is not the same as 'wanting immigration controlled' Immigration is controlled. This is all about regaining popularity. The Tories have zero interest in immigration outside of it being a useful political tool for them. I didn't say it wasn't, however, you're statement sounds like anyone who is against immigration is racist. Namely 'don't like foreigners' You implied that people think it's not controlled by saying "wanting immigration controlled". It is controlled. So they have what they want. So this is something different. The point is some people don't think it's controlled. Let's just keep going backwards and forwards because you can't admit what you wrote, you are aware you wrote that before I responded aren't you? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' That sounds very much like you're saying in this situation where people want control over asylum seekers are racist. Asylum seekers are free to roam until processed. Free to roam in this case means no control. What type of person would want an asylum seeker to be imprisoned (unable to roam free)? " No, I personally have no issue with asylum seekers. That's not saying I don't understand other people's views. Would you prefer we just call all of those people racist? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. I see what you're saying here but 'not liking foreigners' is not the same as 'wanting immigration controlled' Immigration is controlled. This is all about regaining popularity. The Tories have zero interest in immigration outside of it being a useful political tool for them. I didn't say it wasn't, however, you're statement sounds like anyone who is against immigration is racist. Namely 'don't like foreigners' You implied that people think it's not controlled by saying "wanting immigration controlled". It is controlled. So they have what they want. So this is something different. The point is some people don't think it's controlled. Let's just keep going backwards and forwards because you can't admit what you wrote, you are aware you wrote that before I responded aren't you? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' That sounds very much like you're saying in this situation where people want control over asylum seekers are racist. Asylum seekers are free to roam until processed. Free to roam in this case means no control. What type of person would want an asylum seeker to be imprisoned (unable to roam free)? No, I personally have no issue with asylum seekers. That's not saying I don't understand other people's views. Would you prefer we just call all of those people racist?" No all of them , however, why would a person want to imprison asylum seekers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. I see what you're saying here but 'not liking foreigners' is not the same as 'wanting immigration controlled' Immigration is controlled. This is all about regaining popularity. The Tories have zero interest in immigration outside of it being a useful political tool for them. I didn't say it wasn't, however, you're statement sounds like anyone who is against immigration is racist. Namely 'don't like foreigners' You implied that people think it's not controlled by saying "wanting immigration controlled". It is controlled. So they have what they want. So this is something different. The point is some people don't think it's controlled. Let's just keep going backwards and forwards because you can't admit what you wrote, you are aware you wrote that before I responded aren't you? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' That sounds very much like you're saying in this situation where people want control over asylum seekers are racist. Asylum seekers are free to roam until processed. Free to roam in this case means no control. What type of person would want an asylum seeker to be imprisoned (unable to roam free)? No, I personally have no issue with asylum seekers. That's not saying I don't understand other people's views. Would you prefer we just call all of those people racist? No all of them , however, why would a person want to imprison asylum seekers? " Do you agree with this statement then? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. I see what you're saying here but 'not liking foreigners' is not the same as 'wanting immigration controlled' Immigration is controlled. This is all about regaining popularity. The Tories have zero interest in immigration outside of it being a useful political tool for them. I didn't say it wasn't, however, you're statement sounds like anyone who is against immigration is racist. Namely 'don't like foreigners' You implied that people think it's not controlled by saying "wanting immigration controlled". It is controlled. So they have what they want. So this is something different. The point is some people don't think it's controlled. Let's just keep going backwards and forwards because you can't admit what you wrote, you are aware you wrote that before I responded aren't you? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' That sounds very much like you're saying in this situation where people want control over asylum seekers are racist. Asylum seekers are free to roam until processed. Free to roam in this case means no control. What type of person would want an asylum seeker to be imprisoned (unable to roam free)? No, I personally have no issue with asylum seekers. That's not saying I don't understand other people's views. Would you prefer we just call all of those people racist? No all of them , however, why would a person want to imprison asylum seekers? Do you agree with this statement then? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory'" People who don’t like foreigners will want asylum seekers to be imprisoned | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. I see what you're saying here but 'not liking foreigners' is not the same as 'wanting immigration controlled' Immigration is controlled. This is all about regaining popularity. The Tories have zero interest in immigration outside of it being a useful political tool for them. I didn't say it wasn't, however, you're statement sounds like anyone who is against immigration is racist. Namely 'don't like foreigners' You implied that people think it's not controlled by saying "wanting immigration controlled". It is controlled. So they have what they want. So this is something different. The point is some people don't think it's controlled. Let's just keep going backwards and forwards because you can't admit what you wrote, you are aware you wrote that before I responded aren't you? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' That sounds very much like you're saying in this situation where people want control over asylum seekers are racist. Asylum seekers are free to roam until processed. Free to roam in this case means no control. What type of person would want an asylum seeker to be imprisoned (unable to roam free)? No, I personally have no issue with asylum seekers. That's not saying I don't understand other people's views. Would you prefer we just call all of those people racist? No all of them , however, why would a person want to imprison asylum seekers? Do you agree with this statement then? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' People who don’t like foreigners will want asylum seekers to be imprisoned "That doesn't answer my question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. I see what you're saying here but 'not liking foreigners' is not the same as 'wanting immigration controlled' Immigration is controlled. This is all about regaining popularity. The Tories have zero interest in immigration outside of it being a useful political tool for them. I didn't say it wasn't, however, you're statement sounds like anyone who is against immigration is racist. Namely 'don't like foreigners' You implied that people think it's not controlled by saying "wanting immigration controlled". It is controlled. So they have what they want. So this is something different. The point is some people don't think it's controlled. Let's just keep going backwards and forwards because you can't admit what you wrote, you are aware you wrote that before I responded aren't you? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' That sounds very much like you're saying in this situation where people want control over asylum seekers are racist. Asylum seekers are free to roam until processed. Free to roam in this case means no control. What type of person would want an asylum seeker to be imprisoned (unable to roam free)? No, I personally have no issue with asylum seekers. That's not saying I don't understand other people's views. Would you prefer we just call all of those people racist? No all of them , however, why would a person want to imprison asylum seekers? Do you agree with this statement then? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' People who don’t like foreigners will want asylum seekers to be imprisoned
That doesn't answer my question"You didn’t answer my question , also , your question is irrelevant to my point. Immigration is controlled, why are you talking about imprisonment for asylum seekers , who will that appease? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. I see what you're saying here but 'not liking foreigners' is not the same as 'wanting immigration controlled' Immigration is controlled. This is all about regaining popularity. The Tories have zero interest in immigration outside of it being a useful political tool for them. I didn't say it wasn't, however, you're statement sounds like anyone who is against immigration is racist. Namely 'don't like foreigners' You implied that people think it's not controlled by saying "wanting immigration controlled". It is controlled. So they have what they want. So this is something different. The point is some people don't think it's controlled. Let's just keep going backwards and forwards because you can't admit what you wrote, you are aware you wrote that before I responded aren't you? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' That sounds very much like you're saying in this situation where people want control over asylum seekers are racist. Asylum seekers are free to roam until processed. Free to roam in this case means no control. What type of person would want an asylum seeker to be imprisoned (unable to roam free)? No, I personally have no issue with asylum seekers. That's not saying I don't understand other people's views. Would you prefer we just call all of those people racist? No all of them , however, why would a person want to imprison asylum seekers? Do you agree with this statement then? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' People who don’t like foreigners will want asylum seekers to be imprisoned
That doesn't answer my question
You didn’t answer my question , also , your question is irrelevant to my point. Immigration is controlled, why are you talking about imprisonment for asylum seekers , who will that appease? "I don't answer your question on behalf of others 
This thread is about asylum seekers but your friend over their turned it into 'foreigners'
You're gonna have to do better  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. I see what you're saying here but 'not liking foreigners' is not the same as 'wanting immigration controlled' Immigration is controlled. This is all about regaining popularity. The Tories have zero interest in immigration outside of it being a useful political tool for them. I didn't say it wasn't, however, you're statement sounds like anyone who is against immigration is racist. Namely 'don't like foreigners' You implied that people think it's not controlled by saying "wanting immigration controlled". It is controlled. So they have what they want. So this is something different. The point is some people don't think it's controlled. Let's just keep going backwards and forwards because you can't admit what you wrote, you are aware you wrote that before I responded aren't you? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' That sounds very much like you're saying in this situation where people want control over asylum seekers are racist. Asylum seekers are free to roam until processed. Free to roam in this case means no control. What type of person would want an asylum seeker to be imprisoned (unable to roam free)? No, I personally have no issue with asylum seekers. That's not saying I don't understand other people's views. Would you prefer we just call all of those people racist? No all of them , however, why would a person want to imprison asylum seekers? Do you agree with this statement then? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' People who don’t like foreigners will want asylum seekers to be imprisoned
That doesn't answer my question
You didn’t answer my question , also , your question is irrelevant to my point. Immigration is controlled, why are you talking about imprisonment for asylum seekers , who will that appease?
I don't answer your question on behalf of others
This thread is about asylum seekers but your friend over their turned it into 'foreigners'
You're gonna have to do better "Immigration is controlled, we have Brexit and 13 years of Tory governments to back up that claim. The biggest issue is not with ‘control’ but the time it takes to legally process asylum seekers claims, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. I see what you're saying here but 'not liking foreigners' is not the same as 'wanting immigration controlled' Immigration is controlled. This is all about regaining popularity. The Tories have zero interest in immigration outside of it being a useful political tool for them. I didn't say it wasn't, however, you're statement sounds like anyone who is against immigration is racist. Namely 'don't like foreigners' You implied that people think it's not controlled by saying "wanting immigration controlled". It is controlled. So they have what they want. So this is something different. The point is some people don't think it's controlled. Let's just keep going backwards and forwards because you can't admit what you wrote, you are aware you wrote that before I responded aren't you? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' That sounds very much like you're saying in this situation where people want control over asylum seekers are racist. Asylum seekers are free to roam until processed. Free to roam in this case means no control. What type of person would want an asylum seeker to be imprisoned (unable to roam free)? No, I personally have no issue with asylum seekers. That's not saying I don't understand other people's views. Would you prefer we just call all of those people racist? No all of them , however, why would a person want to imprison asylum seekers? Do you agree with this statement then? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' People who don’t like foreigners will want asylum seekers to be imprisoned
That doesn't answer my question
You didn’t answer my question , also , your question is irrelevant to my point. Immigration is controlled, why are you talking about imprisonment for asylum seekers , who will that appease?
I don't answer your question on behalf of others
This thread is about asylum seekers but your friend over their turned it into 'foreigners'
You're gonna have to do better
Immigration is controlled, we have Brexit and 13 years of Tory governments to back up that claim. The biggest issue is not with ‘control’ but the time it takes to legally process asylum seekers claims, "It doesn't matter what the issue is. People think it's uncontrolled because asylum seekers can arrive and be left alone until processed which as you've just stated takes quite some time. What your friend did by saying 'People who don't like foreigners' is calling those people racist. If you don't agree with that statement I'm not really sure what you're saying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. I see what you're saying here but 'not liking foreigners' is not the same as 'wanting immigration controlled' Immigration is controlled. This is all about regaining popularity. The Tories have zero interest in immigration outside of it being a useful political tool for them. I didn't say it wasn't, however, you're statement sounds like anyone who is against immigration is racist. Namely 'don't like foreigners' You implied that people think it's not controlled by saying "wanting immigration controlled". It is controlled. So they have what they want. So this is something different. The point is some people don't think it's controlled. Let's just keep going backwards and forwards because you can't admit what you wrote, you are aware you wrote that before I responded aren't you? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' That sounds very much like you're saying in this situation where people want control over asylum seekers are racist. Asylum seekers are free to roam until processed. Free to roam in this case means no control. What type of person would want an asylum seeker to be imprisoned (unable to roam free)? No, I personally have no issue with asylum seekers. That's not saying I don't understand other people's views. Would you prefer we just call all of those people racist? No all of them , however, why would a person want to imprison asylum seekers? Do you agree with this statement then? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' People who don’t like foreigners will want asylum seekers to be imprisoned
That doesn't answer my question
You didn’t answer my question , also , your question is irrelevant to my point. Immigration is controlled, why are you talking about imprisonment for asylum seekers , who will that appease?
I don't answer your question on behalf of others
This thread is about asylum seekers but your friend over their turned it into 'foreigners'
You're gonna have to do better
Immigration is controlled, we have Brexit and 13 years of Tory governments to back up that claim. The biggest issue is not with ‘control’ but the time it takes to legally process asylum seekers claims,
It doesn't matter what the issue is.
People think it's uncontrolled because asylum seekers can arrive and be left alone until processed which as you've just stated takes quite some time.
What your friend did by saying 'People who don't like foreigners' is calling those people racist.
If you don't agree with that statement I'm not really sure what you're saying."What type of person wants to imprison asylum seekers? Immigration is controlled, if it isn’t why hasn’t it already been dealt with (Brexit and 13 years of Tory governments)? . To solve the current backlog they need to speed up the asylum process, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. I see what you're saying here but 'not liking foreigners' is not the same as 'wanting immigration controlled' Immigration is controlled. This is all about regaining popularity. The Tories have zero interest in immigration outside of it being a useful political tool for them. I didn't say it wasn't, however, you're statement sounds like anyone who is against immigration is racist. Namely 'don't like foreigners' You implied that people think it's not controlled by saying "wanting immigration controlled". It is controlled. So they have what they want. So this is something different. The point is some people don't think it's controlled. Let's just keep going backwards and forwards because you can't admit what you wrote, you are aware you wrote that before I responded aren't you? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' That sounds very much like you're saying in this situation where people want control over asylum seekers are racist. Asylum seekers are free to roam until processed. Free to roam in this case means no control. What type of person would want an asylum seeker to be imprisoned (unable to roam free)? No, I personally have no issue with asylum seekers. That's not saying I don't understand other people's views. Would you prefer we just call all of those people racist? No all of them , however, why would a person want to imprison asylum seekers? Do you agree with this statement then? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' People who don’t like foreigners will want asylum seekers to be imprisoned
That doesn't answer my question
You didn’t answer my question , also , your question is irrelevant to my point. Immigration is controlled, why are you talking about imprisonment for asylum seekers , who will that appease?
I don't answer your question on behalf of others
This thread is about asylum seekers but your friend over their turned it into 'foreigners'
You're gonna have to do better
Immigration is controlled, we have Brexit and 13 years of Tory governments to back up that claim. The biggest issue is not with ‘control’ but the time it takes to legally process asylum seekers claims,
It doesn't matter what the issue is.
People think it's uncontrolled because asylum seekers can arrive and be left alone until processed which as you've just stated takes quite some time.
What your friend did by saying 'People who don't like foreigners' is calling those people racist.
If you don't agree with that statement I'm not really sure what you're saying.
What type of person wants to imprison asylum seekers? Immigration is controlled, if it isn’t why hasn’t it already been dealt with (Brexit and 13 years of Tory governments)? . To solve the current backlog they need to speed up the asylum process, "You're missing the whole point. Not sure if I'm expecting too much here  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. I see what you're saying here but 'not liking foreigners' is not the same as 'wanting immigration controlled' Immigration is controlled. This is all about regaining popularity. The Tories have zero interest in immigration outside of it being a useful political tool for them. I didn't say it wasn't, however, you're statement sounds like anyone who is against immigration is racist. Namely 'don't like foreigners' You implied that people think it's not controlled by saying "wanting immigration controlled". It is controlled. So they have what they want. So this is something different. The point is some people don't think it's controlled. Let's just keep going backwards and forwards because you can't admit what you wrote, you are aware you wrote that before I responded aren't you? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' That sounds very much like you're saying in this situation where people want control over asylum seekers are racist. Asylum seekers are free to roam until processed. Free to roam in this case means no control. What type of person would want an asylum seeker to be imprisoned (unable to roam free)? No, I personally have no issue with asylum seekers. That's not saying I don't understand other people's views. Would you prefer we just call all of those people racist? No all of them , however, why would a person want to imprison asylum seekers? Do you agree with this statement then? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' People who don’t like foreigners will want asylum seekers to be imprisoned
That doesn't answer my question
You didn’t answer my question , also , your question is irrelevant to my point. Immigration is controlled, why are you talking about imprisonment for asylum seekers , who will that appease?
I don't answer your question on behalf of others
This thread is about asylum seekers but your friend over their turned it into 'foreigners'
You're gonna have to do better
Immigration is controlled, we have Brexit and 13 years of Tory governments to back up that claim. The biggest issue is not with ‘control’ but the time it takes to legally process asylum seekers claims,
It doesn't matter what the issue is.
People think it's uncontrolled because asylum seekers can arrive and be left alone until processed which as you've just stated takes quite some time.
What your friend did by saying 'People who don't like foreigners' is calling those people racist.
If you don't agree with that statement I'm not really sure what you're saying.
What type of person wants to imprison asylum seekers? Immigration is controlled, if it isn’t why hasn’t it already been dealt with (Brexit and 13 years of Tory governments)? . To solve the current backlog they need to speed up the asylum process,
You're missing the whole point. Not sure if I'm expecting too much here "I have a solution, process the asylum seekers as fast as possible, this will safe huge costs on accommodation and also appease the ‘people’ who are worried about them ‘roaming free’, no need to put them in prison | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. I see what you're saying here but 'not liking foreigners' is not the same as 'wanting immigration controlled' Immigration is controlled. This is all about regaining popularity. The Tories have zero interest in immigration outside of it being a useful political tool for them. I didn't say it wasn't, however, you're statement sounds like anyone who is against immigration is racist. Namely 'don't like foreigners' You implied that people think it's not controlled by saying "wanting immigration controlled". It is controlled. So they have what they want. So this is something different. The point is some people don't think it's controlled. Let's just keep going backwards and forwards because you can't admit what you wrote, you are aware you wrote that before I responded aren't you? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' That sounds very much like you're saying in this situation where people want control over asylum seekers are racist. Asylum seekers are free to roam until processed. Free to roam in this case means no control. What type of person would want an asylum seeker to be imprisoned (unable to roam free)? No, I personally have no issue with asylum seekers. That's not saying I don't understand other people's views. Would you prefer we just call all of those people racist? No all of them , however, why would a person want to imprison asylum seekers? Do you agree with this statement then? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' People who don’t like foreigners will want asylum seekers to be imprisoned
That doesn't answer my question
You didn’t answer my question , also , your question is irrelevant to my point. Immigration is controlled, why are you talking about imprisonment for asylum seekers , who will that appease?
I don't answer your question on behalf of others
This thread is about asylum seekers but your friend over their turned it into 'foreigners'
You're gonna have to do better
Immigration is controlled, we have Brexit and 13 years of Tory governments to back up that claim. The biggest issue is not with ‘control’ but the time it takes to legally process asylum seekers claims,
It doesn't matter what the issue is.
People think it's uncontrolled because asylum seekers can arrive and be left alone until processed which as you've just stated takes quite some time.
What your friend did by saying 'People who don't like foreigners' is calling those people racist.
If you don't agree with that statement I'm not really sure what you're saying.
What type of person wants to imprison asylum seekers? Immigration is controlled, if it isn’t why hasn’t it already been dealt with (Brexit and 13 years of Tory governments)? . To solve the current backlog they need to speed up the asylum process,
You're missing the whole point. Not sure if I'm expecting too much here
I have a solution, process the asylum seekers as fast as possible, this will safe huge costs on accommodation and also appease the ‘people’ who are worried about them ‘roaming free’, no need to put them in prison "I agree with your solution | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. I see what you're saying here but 'not liking foreigners' is not the same as 'wanting immigration controlled' Immigration is controlled. This is all about regaining popularity. The Tories have zero interest in immigration outside of it being a useful political tool for them. I didn't say it wasn't, however, you're statement sounds like anyone who is against immigration is racist. Namely 'don't like foreigners' You implied that people think it's not controlled by saying "wanting immigration controlled". It is controlled. So they have what they want. So this is something different. The point is some people don't think it's controlled. Let's just keep going backwards and forwards because you can't admit what you wrote, you are aware you wrote that before I responded aren't you? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' That sounds very much like you're saying in this situation where people want control over asylum seekers are racist. Asylum seekers are free to roam until processed. Free to roam in this case means no control. What type of person would want an asylum seeker to be imprisoned (unable to roam free)? No, I personally have no issue with asylum seekers. That's not saying I don't understand other people's views. Would you prefer we just call all of those people racist? No all of them , however, why would a person want to imprison asylum seekers? Do you agree with this statement then? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' People who don’t like foreigners will want asylum seekers to be imprisoned
That doesn't answer my question
You didn’t answer my question , also , your question is irrelevant to my point. Immigration is controlled, why are you talking about imprisonment for asylum seekers , who will that appease?
I don't answer your question on behalf of others
This thread is about asylum seekers but your friend over their turned it into 'foreigners'
You're gonna have to do better
Immigration is controlled, we have Brexit and 13 years of Tory governments to back up that claim. The biggest issue is not with ‘control’ but the time it takes to legally process asylum seekers claims,
It doesn't matter what the issue is.
People think it's uncontrolled because asylum seekers can arrive and be left alone until processed which as you've just stated takes quite some time.
What your friend did by saying 'People who don't like foreigners' is calling those people racist.
If you don't agree with that statement I'm not really sure what you're saying.
What type of person wants to imprison asylum seekers? Immigration is controlled, if it isn’t why hasn’t it already been dealt with (Brexit and 13 years of Tory governments)? . To solve the current backlog they need to speed up the asylum process,
You're missing the whole point. Not sure if I'm expecting too much here
I have a solution, process the asylum seekers as fast as possible, this will safe huge costs on accommodation and also appease the ‘people’ who are worried about them ‘roaming free’, no need to put them in prison
I agree with your solution "Thanks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is another challenge to the Rwanda plan tomorrow, if the courts again decide it is not illegal I think that will be Braverman’s push. I think Sunak will concentrate on the billions it will save the tax payer and hey presto, he will have strategy that will play to what he believes is the majority, and let’s face it, I think it is, those that want tighter border control and those that don’t want their taxes being spent on this. Nicely timed run in, if it pans out would be high on their expectations. I expect another challenge immediately after the court’s decision, this is why I feel it will run alongside or into the next GE. The questions I would be asking him are , How many can they send to Rwanda and how much will it cost ? That part is irrelevant to him, if it is less than housing and support it is a win. The same cost or even higher is still a win, he will claim to have delivered what others couldn’t and what the people want. I would also imagine if the costs were higher, he would say that is inevitable for the short term but as the message and situation sinks in, less people will travel here by small boat, removing the costs in the long term. In short if I can spin this, his team will have it gold plated this assumes that all you need is money to make it work. Is there a limit to how many Rwanda will take on at all. It's not the biggest of countries. This assumes the message is, we are stopping them and saving you money! I didn’t say it would succeed as a long term solution, but it gives the right message to a lot of people.what I mean is the message falls over if we receive 10,000 asylum seekers and send 200 to rwanada. It's hardly made a dent. And it sends no real message out. It may not even be solution for a single day !! Doesn't matter. It will win the Tories support. Most people just hear the headlines and think that if you don't like foriegners, who should you vote for. The Tories. Job done. I see what you're saying here but 'not liking foreigners' is not the same as 'wanting immigration controlled' Immigration is controlled. This is all about regaining popularity. The Tories have zero interest in immigration outside of it being a useful political tool for them. I didn't say it wasn't, however, you're statement sounds like anyone who is against immigration is racist. Namely 'don't like foreigners' You implied that people think it's not controlled by saying "wanting immigration controlled". It is controlled. So they have what they want. So this is something different. " Immigration and access to the UK is covered by UK laws and guidelines on what is or is not accepted by the government of the UK for entry. We can’t ignore the fact those laws are being broken, no matter the reasons. We agree the tories can roll out a plan to tackle this problem and it draws in voters, because the majority of the country do not want illegal access to the country, it instantly becomes a vote winner if presented correctly. Labour will not change this approach to immigration control, they will more than likely address the same issues in a less combative manner, they will tackle it in their own way but they too will use it as a vote grabber, because it provides the majority of UK citizens what they want. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain." Sounds a top plan | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Taking back control of our borders indeed!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. Sounds a top plan " Illegal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a thought Set up offices on the continent ( that’s what we used to do) Allow people to apply for asylum through safe routes and the boats disappear. Those who are rejected are so few it would not be worth the trouble for smugglers to help them. This mess is a creation of this government to rally the right wing. It also gives them someone to blame when they need a distraction from bad news. Boris’ dad gets a knighthood.. bloody immigrants. Boris mislead parliament .. bloody immigrants. NI better off in the EU shhh bloody immigrants. How ironic that Brexit has meant we can’t send anyone back ..
Taking back control of our borders indeed!! "I’m going to disagree with the right winger comments! Brexit was won thanks to the numbers of Left leaning voters in the northern Red Wall power house who wanted to take control of the borders, it formed their decision and their reasoning to vote leave the EU, so much so they voted Tory in 2019. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. Sounds a top plan Illegal "They are arriving Illegally! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. Sounds a top plan Illegal
They are arriving Illegally! "Prosecute them then , the Tories are the party of ‘law and order’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. Sounds a top plan Illegal
They are arriving Illegally!
Prosecute them then , the Tories are the party of ‘law and order’ "How would that work? Jail? Fines? Deportation? The Tory plan is option 3 as the other 2 are not workable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. Sounds a top plan Illegal
They are arriving Illegally!
Prosecute them then , the Tories are the party of ‘law and order’
How would that work?
Jail? Fines? Deportation?
The Tory plan is option 3 as the other 2 are not workable.
"What is the punishment for arriving here ‘illegally ‘? What is option 3 ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. Sounds a top plan Illegal
They are arriving Illegally!
Prosecute them then , the Tories are the party of ‘law and order’
How would that work?
Jail? Fines? Deportation?
The Tory plan is option 3 as the other 2 are not workable.
What is the punishment for arriving here ‘illegally ‘? What is option 3 ? "I’m not going down your rabbit holes after all you said prosecute them, what does that look like to you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. Sounds a top plan Illegal
They are arriving Illegally!
Prosecute them then , the Tories are the party of ‘law and order’ "Earlier you didn't want them imprisoned. How do you fine someone with no fixed abode? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. Sounds a top plan Illegal
They are arriving Illegally!
Prosecute them then , the Tories are the party of ‘law and order’
How would that work?
Jail? Fines? Deportation?
The Tory plan is option 3 as the other 2 are not workable.
"The lefty lawyers won’t allow that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. Sounds a top plan Illegal
They are arriving Illegally!
Prosecute them then , the Tories are the party of ‘law and order’
How would that work?
Jail? Fines? Deportation?
The Tory plan is option 3 as the other 2 are not workable.
What is the punishment for arriving here ‘illegally ‘? What is option 3 ?
I’m not going down your rabbit holes after all you said prosecute them, what does that look like to you? "This isn’t a trap, the previous poster has stated that they have arrived here illegally, if so , they should be punished according to the law , I honestly don’t know what that entails | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. Sounds a top plan Illegal
They are arriving Illegally!
Prosecute them then , the Tories are the party of ‘law and order’
Earlier you didn't want them imprisoned. How do you fine someone with no fixed abode?"As he is so in favour of all these immigrants arriving he might open up his own property to let them stay | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. Sounds a top plan Illegal
They are arriving Illegally!
Prosecute them then , the Tories are the party of ‘law and order’
How would that work?
Jail? Fines? Deportation?
The Tory plan is option 3 as the other 2 are not workable.
The lefty lawyers won’t allow that.
"There is no such thing as a lefty law | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. Sounds a top plan Illegal
They are arriving Illegally!
Prosecute them then , the Tories are the party of ‘law and order’
Earlier you didn't want them imprisoned. How do you fine someone with no fixed abode?
As he is so in favour of all these immigrants arriving he might open up his own property to let them stay "Why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. Sounds a top plan Illegal
They are arriving Illegally!
Prosecute them then , the Tories are the party of ‘law and order’
Earlier you didn't want them imprisoned. How do you fine someone with no fixed abode?"I don’t , I want to know what is the legal punishment for arriving here by boat | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. Sounds a top plan Illegal
They are arriving Illegally!
Prosecute them then , the Tories are the party of ‘law and order’
Earlier you didn't want them imprisoned. How do you fine someone with no fixed abode?
As he is so in favour of all these immigrants arriving he might open up his own property to let them stay
Why? "Why not? You are so in favour of these people arriving why not host them yourself. I am sure you have many spare bedrooms | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The point is some people don't think it's controlled. " Exactly! 100% this! This is my argument. " Let's just keep going backwards and forwards because you can't admit what you wrote, you are aware you wrote that before I responded aren't you? " Huh? I did say that. I am not denying it, have you confused me with someone else? " 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' That sounds very much like you're saying in this situation where people want control over asylum seekers are racist. Asylum seekers are free to roam until processed. Free to roam in this case means no control." No, you've made that up. Let me summarise my point. 1. Immigration is controlled. 2. The media and the Tories ramp up the fear of foreigners and immigrants, blaming them for a whole host of problems of which said immigrants have no control over. 3. People get confused and think that immigration isn't controlled. 4. Tories roll out some new anti-immigrant rhetoric and suggested policies to garner support from people who don't like foreigners "coming over 'ere". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. Sounds a top plan Illegal
They are arriving Illegally!
Prosecute them then , the Tories are the party of ‘law and order’
Earlier you didn't want them imprisoned. How do you fine someone with no fixed abode?
As he is so in favour of all these immigrants arriving he might open up his own property to let them stay
Why?
Why not? You are so in favour of these people arriving why not host them yourself. I am sure you have many spare bedrooms "I am a tax payer, why are you expecting me to do the governments job? How many homeless veterans have you housed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The point is some people don't think it's controlled. Exactly! 100% this! This is my argument. Let's just keep going backwards and forwards because you can't admit what you wrote, you are aware you wrote that before I responded aren't you? Huh? I did say that. I am not denying it, have you confused me with someone else? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' That sounds very much like you're saying in this situation where people want control over asylum seekers are racist. Asylum seekers are free to roam until processed. Free to roam in this case means no control. No, you've made that up. Let me summarise my point. 1. Immigration is controlled. 2. The media and the Tories ramp up the fear of foreigners and immigrants, blaming them for a whole host of problems of which said immigrants have no control over. 3. People get confused and think that immigration isn't controlled. 4. Tories roll out some new anti-immigrant rhetoric and suggested policies to garner support from people who don't like foreigners "coming over 'ere". " What bit did I make up? Are you suggesting that allowing people to arrive here by whatever means they choose, claim asylum, then be housed and be free to 'roam' until processed is controlled? Other types of immigration is controlled but asylum I would argue isn't, not until processing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. Sounds a top plan Illegal
They are arriving Illegally!
Prosecute them then , the Tories are the party of ‘law and order’
Earlier you didn't want them imprisoned. How do you fine someone with no fixed abode?
As he is so in favour of all these immigrants arriving he might open up his own property to let them stay
Why?
Why not? You are so in favour of these people arriving why not host them yourself. I am sure you have many spare bedrooms
I am a tax payer, why are you expecting me to do the governments job? How many homeless veterans have you housed? "Was has homeless vets got to do with illegal immigrants You keep banging on about the awful government doing an awful job so until your beloved socialist Labour Party get in power why not open your own house up to these lovely immigrants | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. Sounds a top plan Illegal
They are arriving Illegally!
Prosecute them then , the Tories are the party of ‘law and order’
Earlier you didn't want them imprisoned. How do you fine someone with no fixed abode?
As he is so in favour of all these immigrants arriving he might open up his own property to let them stay
Why?
Why not? You are so in favour of these people arriving why not host them yourself. I am sure you have many spare bedrooms
I am a tax payer, why are you expecting me to do the governments job? How many homeless veterans have you housed? Was has homeless vets got to do with illegal immigrants
You keep banging on about the awful government doing an awful job so until your beloved socialist Labour Party get in power why not open your own
house up to these lovely immigrants "Do you care about homeless veteran’s? People who have fought for your country and are being forced to beg and live on the streets? If so then using your logic you open your own house up to these lovely homeless veterans? Or maybe because you haven’t, you don’t care, is this how it works | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. Sounds a top plan Illegal
They are arriving Illegally!
Prosecute them then , the Tories are the party of ‘law and order’
Earlier you didn't want them imprisoned. How do you fine someone with no fixed abode?
As he is so in favour of all these immigrants arriving he might open up his own property to let them stay
Why?
Why not? You are so in favour of these people arriving why not host them yourself. I am sure you have many spare bedrooms
I am a tax payer, why are you expecting me to do the governments job? How many homeless veterans have you housed? Was has homeless vets got to do with illegal immigrants
You keep banging on about the awful government doing an awful job so until your beloved socialist Labour Party get in power why not open your own
house up to these lovely immigrants
Do you care about homeless veteran’s? People who have fought for your country and are being forced to beg and live on the streets? If so then using your logic you open your own house up to these lovely homeless veterans? Or maybe because you haven’t, you don’t care, is this how it works "Go on then tell me how many Vets you’ve housed ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. Sounds a top plan Illegal
They are arriving Illegally!
Prosecute them then , the Tories are the party of ‘law and order’
Earlier you didn't want them imprisoned. How do you fine someone with no fixed abode?
As he is so in favour of all these immigrants arriving he might open up his own property to let them stay
Why?
Why not? You are so in favour of these people arriving why not host them yourself. I am sure you have many spare bedrooms
I am a tax payer, why are you expecting me to do the governments job? How many homeless veterans have you housed? Was has homeless vets got to do with illegal immigrants
You keep banging on about the awful government doing an awful job so until your beloved socialist Labour Party get in power why not open your own
house up to these lovely immigrants
Do you care about homeless veteran’s? People who have fought for your country and are being forced to beg and live on the streets? If so then using your logic you open your own house up to these lovely homeless veterans? Or maybe because you haven’t, you don’t care, is this how it works
Go on then tell me how many Vets you’ve housed ?"Zero , and you ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The point is some people don't think it's controlled. Exactly! 100% this! This is my argument. Let's just keep going backwards and forwards because you can't admit what you wrote, you are aware you wrote that before I responded aren't you? Huh? I did say that. I am not denying it, have you confused me with someone else? 'People who don't like foreigners should vote Tory' That sounds very much like you're saying in this situation where people want control over asylum seekers are racist. Asylum seekers are free to roam until processed. Free to roam in this case means no control. No, you've made that up. Let me summarise my point. 1. Immigration is controlled. 2. The media and the Tories ramp up the fear of foreigners and immigrants, blaming them for a whole host of problems of which said immigrants have no control over. 3. People get confused and think that immigration isn't controlled. 4. Tories roll out some new anti-immigrant rhetoric and suggested policies to garner support from people who don't like foreigners "coming over 'ere". What bit did I make up? Are you suggesting that allowing people to arrive here by whatever means they choose, claim asylum, then be housed and be free to 'roam' until processed is controlled? Other types of immigration is controlled but asylum I would argue isn't, not until processing." I'm not suggesting anything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. Sounds a top plan Illegal
They are arriving Illegally!
Prosecute them then , the Tories are the party of ‘law and order’
Earlier you didn't want them imprisoned. How do you fine someone with no fixed abode?
As he is so in favour of all these immigrants arriving he might open up his own property to let them stay
Why?
Why not? You are so in favour of these people arriving why not host them yourself. I am sure you have many spare bedrooms
I am a tax payer, why are you expecting me to do the governments job? How many homeless veterans have you housed? Was has homeless vets got to do with illegal immigrants
You keep banging on about the awful government doing an awful job so until your beloved socialist Labour Party get in power why not open your own
house up to these lovely immigrants
Do you care about homeless veteran’s? People who have fought for your country and are being forced to beg and live on the streets? If so then using your logic you open your own house up to these lovely homeless veterans? Or maybe because you haven’t, you don’t care, is this how it works
Go on then tell me how many Vets you’ve housed ?
Zero , and you ? "Oh really I thought you were going to put me to shame and say you’ve helped lots and lots . But of course you haven’t that’s the socialist way. Tell people what to do as long as it doesn’t affect you or your pocket | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. Sounds a top plan Illegal
They are arriving Illegally!
Prosecute them then , the Tories are the party of ‘law and order’
Earlier you didn't want them imprisoned. How do you fine someone with no fixed abode?
As he is so in favour of all these immigrants arriving he might open up his own property to let them stay
Why?
Why not? You are so in favour of these people arriving why not host them yourself. I am sure you have many spare bedrooms
I am a tax payer, why are you expecting me to do the governments job? How many homeless veterans have you housed? Was has homeless vets got to do with illegal immigrants
You keep banging on about the awful government doing an awful job so until your beloved socialist Labour Party get in power why not open your own
house up to these lovely immigrants
Do you care about homeless veteran’s? People who have fought for your country and are being forced to beg and live on the streets? If so then using your logic you open your own house up to these lovely homeless veterans? Or maybe because you haven’t, you don’t care, is this how it works
Go on then tell me how many Vets you’ve housed ?
Zero , and you ?
Oh really I thought you were going to put me to shame and say you’ve helped lots and lots .
But of course you haven’t that’s the socialist way. Tell people what to do as long as it doesn’t affect you or your pocket "Are you a socialist? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. Sounds a top plan Illegal
They are arriving Illegally!
Prosecute them then , the Tories are the party of ‘law and order’
Earlier you didn't want them imprisoned. How do you fine someone with no fixed abode?
As he is so in favour of all these immigrants arriving he might open up his own property to let them stay
Why?
Why not? You are so in favour of these people arriving why not host them yourself. I am sure you have many spare bedrooms
I am a tax payer, why are you expecting me to do the governments job? How many homeless veterans have you housed? Was has homeless vets got to do with illegal immigrants
You keep banging on about the awful government doing an awful job so until your beloved socialist Labour Party get in power why not open your own
house up to these lovely immigrants
Do you care about homeless veteran’s? People who have fought for your country and are being forced to beg and live on the streets? If so then using your logic you open your own house up to these lovely homeless veterans? Or maybe because you haven’t, you don’t care, is this how it works
Go on then tell me how many Vets you’ve housed ?
Zero , and you ?
Oh really I thought you were going to put me to shame and say you’ve helped lots and lots .
But of course you haven’t that’s the socialist way. Tell people what to do as long as it doesn’t affect you or your pocket "Why haven’t you housed any? The tories and ‘righty’s’ love the arm forces, why not open your house to these lovely homeless veterans? Or is it possible to care and worry about their welfare without housing then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. Sounds a top plan Illegal
They are arriving Illegally!
Prosecute them then , the Tories are the party of ‘law and order’
Earlier you didn't want them imprisoned. How do you fine someone with no fixed abode?
As he is so in favour of all these immigrants arriving he might open up his own property to let them stay
Why?
Why not? You are so in favour of these people arriving why not host them yourself. I am sure you have many spare bedrooms
I am a tax payer, why are you expecting me to do the governments job? How many homeless veterans have you housed? Was has homeless vets got to do with illegal immigrants
You keep banging on about the awful government doing an awful job so until your beloved socialist Labour Party get in power why not open your own
house up to these lovely immigrants
Do you care about homeless veteran’s? People who have fought for your country and are being forced to beg and live on the streets? If so then using your logic you open your own house up to these lovely homeless veterans? Or maybe because you haven’t, you don’t care, is this how it works
Go on then tell me how many Vets you’ve housed ?
Zero , and you ?
Oh really I thought you were going to put me to shame and say you’ve helped lots and lots .
But of course you haven’t that’s the socialist way. Tell people what to do as long as it doesn’t affect you or your pocket "Btw, I am not telling you what to do, your telling me what to do, I am just highlighting your hypocrisy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. Sounds a top plan Illegal
They are arriving Illegally!
Prosecute them then , the Tories are the party of ‘law and order’
Earlier you didn't want them imprisoned. How do you fine someone with no fixed abode?
As he is so in favour of all these immigrants arriving he might open up his own property to let them stay
Why?
Why not? You are so in favour of these people arriving why not host them yourself. I am sure you have many spare bedrooms
I am a tax payer, why are you expecting me to do the governments job? How many homeless veterans have you housed? Was has homeless vets got to do with illegal immigrants
You keep banging on about the awful government doing an awful job so until your beloved socialist Labour Party get in power why not open your own
house up to these lovely immigrants
Do you care about homeless veteran’s? People who have fought for your country and are being forced to beg and live on the streets? If so then using your logic you open your own house up to these lovely homeless veterans? Or maybe because you haven’t, you don’t care, is this how it works
Go on then tell me how many Vets you’ve housed ?
Zero , and you ?
Oh really I thought you were going to put me to shame and say you’ve helped lots and lots .
But of course you haven’t that’s the socialist way. Tell people what to do as long as it doesn’t affect you or your pocket
Btw, I am not telling you what to do, your telling me what to do, I am just highlighting your hypocrisy "Ah yes and there is no hypocrisy from yourself at all is there... We are done | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a thought Set up offices on the continent ( that’s what we used to do) Allow people to apply for asylum through safe routes and the boats disappear. Those who are rejected are so few it would not be worth the trouble for smugglers to help them. This mess is a creation of this government to rally the right wing. It also gives them someone to blame when they need a distraction from bad news. Boris’ dad gets a knighthood.. bloody immigrants. Boris mislead parliament .. bloody immigrants. NI better off in the EU shhh bloody immigrants. How ironic that Brexit has meant we can’t send anyone back ..
Taking back control of our borders indeed!!
I’m going to disagree with the right winger comments! Brexit was won thanks to the numbers of Left leaning voters in the northern Red Wall power house who wanted to take control of the borders, it formed their decision and their reasoning to vote leave the EU, so much so they voted Tory in 2019."Yes you’re right that was too sweeping I agree as ms y left wingers believed it was the immigrants who were to blame for everything when in fact it was our constant stockily bad governments year after year. . The rest of the comments of rallying their core and the blatant racist element of our society still stands. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a thought Set up offices on the continent ( that’s what we used to do) Allow people to apply for asylum through safe routes and the boats disappear. Those who are rejected are so few it would not be worth the trouble for smugglers to help them. This mess is a creation of this government to rally the right wing. It also gives them someone to blame when they need a distraction from bad news. Boris’ dad gets a knighthood.. bloody immigrants. Boris mislead parliament .. bloody immigrants. NI better off in the EU shhh bloody immigrants. How ironic that Brexit has meant we can’t send anyone back ..
Taking back control of our borders indeed!!
I’m going to disagree with the right winger comments! Brexit was won thanks to the numbers of Left leaning voters in the northern Red Wall power house who wanted to take control of the borders, it formed their decision and their reasoning to vote leave the EU, so much so they voted Tory in 2019.
Yes you’re right that was too sweeping I agree as ms y left wingers believed it was the immigrants who were to blame for everything when in fact it was our constant stockily bad governments year after year. .
The rest of the comments of rallying their core and the blatant racist element of our society still stands. "I’m not so sure. If a person feels that thousands of people travelling to the UK by illegal means is wrong, does that make them a racist? I’ve mentioned earlier, the laws in the UK are set and the reality is they are breaking the law, even if you don’t agree. I’m afraid that your view is a minority view, if it wasn’t tories and Labour alike would not be putting the issue on their priority lists. I’m not singing you out, you reply in a calm manner allowing for easier conversation, to be fair most have on this thread which makes a refreshing change | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly, the simplest solution is to put them all on boats and drop them off in France. No messing about, that is where their boat journeys to cross the English Channel began. Don't try and sell a lie that their boats have enough fuel capacity to come from Norway or Spain. Sounds a top plan Illegal
They are arriving Illegally!
Prosecute them then , the Tories are the party of ‘law and order’
Earlier you didn't want them imprisoned. How do you fine someone with no fixed abode?
As he is so in favour of all these immigrants arriving he might open up his own property to let them stay
Why?
Why not? You are so in favour of these people arriving why not host them yourself. I am sure you have many spare bedrooms
I am a tax payer, why are you expecting me to do the governments job? How many homeless veterans have you housed? Was has homeless vets got to do with illegal immigrants
You keep banging on about the awful government doing an awful job so until your beloved socialist Labour Party get in power why not open your own
house up to these lovely immigrants
Do you care about homeless veteran’s? People who have fought for your country and are being forced to beg and live on the streets? If so then using your logic you open your own house up to these lovely homeless veterans? Or maybe because you haven’t, you don’t care, is this how it works "Your having a laugh. That would require empathy for other human beings without any material gain... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a thought Set up offices on the continent ( that’s what we used to do) Allow people to apply for asylum through safe routes and the boats disappear. Those who are rejected are so few it would not be worth the trouble for smugglers to help them. This mess is a creation of this government to rally the right wing. It also gives them someone to blame when they need a distraction from bad news. Boris’ dad gets a knighthood.. bloody immigrants. Boris mislead parliament .. bloody immigrants. NI better off in the EU shhh bloody immigrants. How ironic that Brexit has meant we can’t send anyone back ..
Taking back control of our borders indeed!!
I’m going to disagree with the right winger comments! Brexit was won thanks to the numbers of Left leaning voters in the northern Red Wall power house who wanted to take control of the borders, it formed their decision and their reasoning to vote leave the EU, so much so they voted Tory in 2019.
Yes you’re right that was too sweeping I agree as ms y left wingers believed it was the immigrants who were to blame for everything when in fact it was our constant stockily bad governments year after year. .
The rest of the comments of rallying their core and the blatant racist element of our society still stands.
I’m not so sure.
If a person feels that thousands of people travelling to the UK by illegal means is wrong, does that make them a racist?
I’ve mentioned earlier, the laws in the UK are set and the reality is they are breaking the law, even if you don’t agree.
I’m afraid that your view is a minority view, if it wasn’t tories and Labour alike would not be putting the issue on their priority lists.
I’m not singing you out, you reply in a calm manner allowing for easier conversation, to be fair most have on this thread which makes a refreshing change
"The interesting and obvious point is, why is this relatively minor issue, so high on a lot of people's priorities? To me it's because this the fear of immigrants is used as a political tool. It's very powerful. It helps keeps the Tories in power and it helped to facilitate the vote to leave the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a thought Set up offices on the continent ( that’s what we used to do) Allow people to apply for asylum through safe routes and the boats disappear. Those who are rejected are so few it would not be worth the trouble for smugglers to help them. This mess is a creation of this government to rally the right wing. It also gives them someone to blame when they need a distraction from bad news. Boris’ dad gets a knighthood.. bloody immigrants. Boris mislead parliament .. bloody immigrants. NI better off in the EU shhh bloody immigrants. How ironic that Brexit has meant we can’t send anyone back ..
Taking back control of our borders indeed!!
I’m going to disagree with the right winger comments! Brexit was won thanks to the numbers of Left leaning voters in the northern Red Wall power house who wanted to take control of the borders, it formed their decision and their reasoning to vote leave the EU, so much so they voted Tory in 2019.
Yes you’re right that was too sweeping I agree as ms y left wingers believed it was the immigrants who were to blame for everything when in fact it was our constant stockily bad governments year after year. .
The rest of the comments of rallying their core and the blatant racist element of our society still stands.
I’m not so sure.
If a person feels that thousands of people travelling to the UK by illegal means is wrong, does that make them a racist?
I’ve mentioned earlier, the laws in the UK are set and the reality is they are breaking the law, even if you don’t agree.
I’m afraid that your view is a minority view, if it wasn’t tories and Labour alike would not be putting the issue on their priority lists.
I’m not singing you out, you reply in a calm manner allowing for easier conversation, to be fair most have on this thread which makes a refreshing change
The interesting and obvious point is, why is this relatively minor issue, so high on a lot of people's priorities?
To me it's because this the fear of immigrants is used as a political tool. It's very powerful. It helps keeps the Tories in power and it helped to facilitate the vote to leave the EU. "It’s not a minor issue to the majority, that’s the point. It can be law and order, tax £‘s being spent or it could be racism. Far right racism is certainly a minority, if it wasn’t we would have a very different looking country and political party in charge. So to your question, it plays into the majority of voters on both sides and that means it is important for both parties to crack | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So I learn today the the home Secretary has the power to ban asylum seekers at their discretion, I assume on a case by case basis. The new law will make it an automatic ban if a person arrives in these small boats so no discretion needed. What was not answered was what happens to these people while awaiting deportation. Will they be locked up?. In theory if it goes ahead the asylum application should be very quick as it's automatically a NO. However how many legal challenges will there be and will they remain locked up awaiting the outcome. The article also mentioned it may put Labour on the spot too. Only this morning a Labour guy was on TV and when asked if Labour would reverse this new law, he would not give a straight answer. To be fair it was not long after the news broke so may be waiting for the official party position" The problems arise when they throw their documents, finding their homeland is harder to do and will cause delays, but I guess no more than happens today. The outcome will be interesting, it could send shockwaves and stop / slow those that are thinking of travelling here on small boats, or it will create a huge bottleneck and problems, again I’m not sure that is worse than today. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a thought Set up offices on the continent ( that’s what we used to do) Allow people to apply for asylum through safe routes and the boats disappear. Those who are rejected are so few it would not be worth the trouble for smugglers to help them. This mess is a creation of this government to rally the right wing. It also gives them someone to blame when they need a distraction from bad news. Boris’ dad gets a knighthood.. bloody immigrants. Boris mislead parliament .. bloody immigrants. NI better off in the EU shhh bloody immigrants. How ironic that Brexit has meant we can’t send anyone back ..
Taking back control of our borders indeed!!
I’m going to disagree with the right winger comments! Brexit was won thanks to the numbers of Left leaning voters in the northern Red Wall power house who wanted to take control of the borders, it formed their decision and their reasoning to vote leave the EU, so much so they voted Tory in 2019.
Yes you’re right that was too sweeping I agree as ms y left wingers believed it was the immigrants who were to blame for everything when in fact it was our constant stockily bad governments year after year. .
The rest of the comments of rallying their core and the blatant racist element of our society still stands.
I’m not so sure.
If a person feels that thousands of people travelling to the UK by illegal means is wrong, does that make them a racist?
I’ve mentioned earlier, the laws in the UK are set and the reality is they are breaking the law, even if you don’t agree.
I’m afraid that your view is a minority view, if it wasn’t tories and Labour alike would not be putting the issue on their priority lists.
I’m not singing you out, you reply in a calm manner allowing for easier conversation, to be fair most have on this thread which makes a refreshing change
"Sorry for my fat finger typos. Firstly there has been a lot of debate on here over this. It is not illegal to arrive in the country without permission. The routes are called unusual by the United Nations and Human right law, not illegal. Illegality only happens if the those arriving fail to claim asylum at the earliest opportunity after arrival. I’m not suggesting all people against immigrants are racist but many are. What if you were told 40,000 doctors and nurses were arriving by boats. Would they be hounded? The fact is many of those arriving have skills we need and those that don’t are wanting to work, The colour of their skin and method of arriving leads to extremely bias media stirring up a feeling of resentment such as they are taking our jobs or a million Turks are coming. Note not a million workers or again skilled doctors and nurses. Just Turks. Just Syrians, Just Arabs. The narrative is racist or cx at least bigoted however hard people try to cover it up. I appreciate the reasonable approach but a reasonable approach is absent from both our government and most of our media. I think you saying my view is a minority needs a bit of evidence please? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a thought Set up offices on the continent ( that’s what we used to do) Allow people to apply for asylum through safe routes and the boats disappear. Those who are rejected are so few it would not be worth the trouble for smugglers to help them. This mess is a creation of this government to rally the right wing. It also gives them someone to blame when they need a distraction from bad news. Boris’ dad gets a knighthood.. bloody immigrants. Boris mislead parliament .. bloody immigrants. NI better off in the EU shhh bloody immigrants. How ironic that Brexit has meant we can’t send anyone back ..
Taking back control of our borders indeed!!
I’m going to disagree with the right winger comments! Brexit was won thanks to the numbers of Left leaning voters in the northern Red Wall power house who wanted to take control of the borders, it formed their decision and their reasoning to vote leave the EU, so much so they voted Tory in 2019.
Yes you’re right that was too sweeping I agree as ms y left wingers believed it was the immigrants who were to blame for everything when in fact it was our constant stockily bad governments year after year. .
The rest of the comments of rallying their core and the blatant racist element of our society still stands.
I’m not so sure.
If a person feels that thousands of people travelling to the UK by illegal means is wrong, does that make them a racist?
I’ve mentioned earlier, the laws in the UK are set and the reality is they are breaking the law, even if you don’t agree.
I’m afraid that your view is a minority view, if it wasn’t tories and Labour alike would not be putting the issue on their priority lists.
I’m not singing you out, you reply in a calm manner allowing for easier conversation, to be fair most have on this thread which makes a refreshing change
The interesting and obvious point is, why is this relatively minor issue, so high on a lot of people's priorities?
To me it's because this the fear of immigrants is used as a political tool. It's very powerful. It helps keeps the Tories in power and it helped to facilitate the vote to leave the EU.
It’s not a minor issue to the majority, that’s the point.
It can be law and order, tax £‘s being spent or it could be racism.
Far right racism is certainly a minority, if it wasn’t we would have a very different looking country and political party in charge.
So to your question, it plays into the majority of voters on both sides and that means it is important for both parties to crack "I would argue that the Tories especially do not want to "crack" it. Then they would lose a major vote winner. If they did want it sorted to whatever standard their supporters think they want. Why haven't they done anything about it over the past 12 years? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a thought Set up offices on the continent ( that’s what we used to do) Allow people to apply for asylum through safe routes and the boats disappear. Those who are rejected are so few it would not be worth the trouble for smugglers to help them. This mess is a creation of this government to rally the right wing. It also gives them someone to blame when they need a distraction from bad news. Boris’ dad gets a knighthood.. bloody immigrants. Boris mislead parliament .. bloody immigrants. NI better off in the EU shhh bloody immigrants. How ironic that Brexit has meant we can’t send anyone back ..
Taking back control of our borders indeed!!
I’m going to disagree with the right winger comments! Brexit was won thanks to the numbers of Left leaning voters in the northern Red Wall power house who wanted to take control of the borders, it formed their decision and their reasoning to vote leave the EU, so much so they voted Tory in 2019.
Yes you’re right that was too sweeping I agree as ms y left wingers believed it was the immigrants who were to blame for everything when in fact it was our constant stockily bad governments year after year. .
The rest of the comments of rallying their core and the blatant racist element of our society still stands.
I’m not so sure.
If a person feels that thousands of people travelling to the UK by illegal means is wrong, does that make them a racist?
I’ve mentioned earlier, the laws in the UK are set and the reality is they are breaking the law, even if you don’t agree.
I’m afraid that your view is a minority view, if it wasn’t tories and Labour alike would not be putting the issue on their priority lists.
I’m not singing you out, you reply in a calm manner allowing for easier conversation, to be fair most have on this thread which makes a refreshing change
The interesting and obvious point is, why is this relatively minor issue, so high on a lot of people's priorities?
To me it's because this the fear of immigrants is used as a political tool. It's very powerful. It helps keeps the Tories in power and it helped to facilitate the vote to leave the EU.
It’s not a minor issue to the majority, that’s the point.
It can be law and order, tax £‘s being spent or it could be racism.
Far right racism is certainly a minority, if it wasn’t we would have a very different looking country and political party in charge.
So to your question, it plays into the majority of voters on both sides and that means it is important for both parties to crack
I would argue that the Tories especially do not want to "crack" it. Then they would lose a major vote winner.
If they did want it sorted to whatever standard their supporters think they want. Why haven't they done anything about it over the past 12 years? "I think you’re right on this, it makes sense to keep this as a vote winner | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a thought Set up offices on the continent ( that’s what we used to do) Allow people to apply for asylum through safe routes and the boats disappear. Those who are rejected are so few it would not be worth the trouble for smugglers to help them. This mess is a creation of this government to rally the right wing. It also gives them someone to blame when they need a distraction from bad news. Boris’ dad gets a knighthood.. bloody immigrants. Boris mislead parliament .. bloody immigrants. NI better off in the EU shhh bloody immigrants. How ironic that Brexit has meant we can’t send anyone back ..
Taking back control of our borders indeed!!
I’m going to disagree with the right winger comments! Brexit was won thanks to the numbers of Left leaning voters in the northern Red Wall power house who wanted to take control of the borders, it formed their decision and their reasoning to vote leave the EU, so much so they voted Tory in 2019.
Yes you’re right that was too sweeping I agree as ms y left wingers believed it was the immigrants who were to blame for everything when in fact it was our constant stockily bad governments year after year. .
The rest of the comments of rallying their core and the blatant racist element of our society still stands.
I’m not so sure.
If a person feels that thousands of people travelling to the UK by illegal means is wrong, does that make them a racist?
I’ve mentioned earlier, the laws in the UK are set and the reality is they are breaking the law, even if you don’t agree.
I’m afraid that your view is a minority view, if it wasn’t tories and Labour alike would not be putting the issue on their priority lists.
I’m not singing you out, you reply in a calm manner allowing for easier conversation, to be fair most have on this thread which makes a refreshing change
Sorry for my fat finger typos.
Firstly there has been a lot of debate on here over this.
It is not illegal to arrive in the country without permission. The routes are called unusual by the United Nations and Human right law, not illegal.
Illegality only happens if the those arriving fail to claim asylum at the earliest opportunity after arrival.
I’m not suggesting all people against immigrants are racist but many are.
What if you were told 40,000 doctors and nurses were arriving by boats. Would they be hounded?
The fact is many of those arriving have skills we need and those that don’t are wanting to work,
The colour of their skin and method of arriving leads to extremely bias media stirring up a feeling of resentment such as they are taking our jobs or a million Turks are coming. Note not a million workers or again skilled doctors and nurses. Just Turks. Just Syrians, Just Arabs.
The narrative is racist or cx at least bigoted however hard people try to cover it up.
I appreciate the reasonable approach but a reasonable approach is absent from both our government and most of our media.
I think you saying my view is a minority needs a bit of evidence please?
"If your views were in the majority the government and opposition would have a welcome to the UK agenda, as both parties don’t I’m confident that it is a minority view. The vote winner is important and to appease the masses is the vote winner. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a thought Set up offices on the continent ( that’s what we used to do) Allow people to apply for asylum through safe routes and the boats disappear. Those who are rejected are so few it would not be worth the trouble for smugglers to help them. This mess is a creation of this government to rally the right wing. It also gives them someone to blame when they need a distraction from bad news. Boris’ dad gets a knighthood.. bloody immigrants. Boris mislead parliament .. bloody immigrants. NI better off in the EU shhh bloody immigrants. How ironic that Brexit has meant we can’t send anyone back ..
Taking back control of our borders indeed!!
I’m going to disagree with the right winger comments! Brexit was won thanks to the numbers of Left leaning voters in the northern Red Wall power house who wanted to take control of the borders, it formed their decision and their reasoning to vote leave the EU, so much so they voted Tory in 2019.
Yes you’re right that was too sweeping I agree as ms y left wingers believed it was the immigrants who were to blame for everything when in fact it was our constant stockily bad governments year after year. .
The rest of the comments of rallying their core and the blatant racist element of our society still stands.
I’m not so sure.
If a person feels that thousands of people travelling to the UK by illegal means is wrong, does that make them a racist?
I’ve mentioned earlier, the laws in the UK are set and the reality is they are breaking the law, even if you don’t agree.
I’m afraid that your view is a minority view, if it wasn’t tories and Labour alike would not be putting the issue on their priority lists.
I’m not singing you out, you reply in a calm manner allowing for easier conversation, to be fair most have on this thread which makes a refreshing change
Sorry for my fat finger typos.
Firstly there has been a lot of debate on here over this.
It is not illegal to arrive in the country without permission. The routes are called unusual by the United Nations and Human right law, not illegal.
Illegality only happens if the those arriving fail to claim asylum at the earliest opportunity after arrival.
I’m not suggesting all people against immigrants are racist but many are.
What if you were told 40,000 doctors and nurses were arriving by boats. Would they be hounded?
The fact is many of those arriving have skills we need and those that don’t are wanting to work,
The colour of their skin and method of arriving leads to extremely bias media stirring up a feeling of resentment such as they are taking our jobs or a million Turks are coming. Note not a million workers or again skilled doctors and nurses. Just Turks. Just Syrians, Just Arabs.
The narrative is racist or cx at least bigoted however hard people try to cover it up.
I appreciate the reasonable approach but a reasonable approach is absent from both our government and most of our media.
I think you saying my view is a minority needs a bit of evidence please?
If your views were in the majority the government and opposition would have a welcome to the UK agenda, as both parties don’t I’m confident that it is a minority view.
The vote winner is important and to appease the masses is the vote winner."That’s not evidence that’s opinion . Labour won’t say anything too controversial over anything because the bias media will slaughter him even if he said we need to look at this afresh. To claim that’s labour supporting the present demonisation of immigrants is just plain wrong . The problem is not massive increase in immigrants when you actually look at the numbers it’s the massive backlog and the inability to send back the 2-3000 rejected per year now we’re are out or the EU . Amazing how we could control our borders far more efficiently when part of the Dublin agreement . Now our own government has full control it’s worse than ever. It would be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic. Independence is a myth. A formal safe system would sort this instantly and source urgently needed workers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a thought Set up offices on the continent ( that’s what we used to do) Allow people to apply for asylum through safe routes and the boats disappear. Those who are rejected are so few it would not be worth the trouble for smugglers to help them. This mess is a creation of this government to rally the right wing. It also gives them someone to blame when they need a distraction from bad news. Boris’ dad gets a knighthood.. bloody immigrants. Boris mislead parliament .. bloody immigrants. NI better off in the EU shhh bloody immigrants. How ironic that Brexit has meant we can’t send anyone back ..
Taking back control of our borders indeed!!
I’m going to disagree with the right winger comments! Brexit was won thanks to the numbers of Left leaning voters in the northern Red Wall power house who wanted to take control of the borders, it formed their decision and their reasoning to vote leave the EU, so much so they voted Tory in 2019.
Yes you’re right that was too sweeping I agree as ms y left wingers believed it was the immigrants who were to blame for everything when in fact it was our constant stockily bad governments year after year. .
The rest of the comments of rallying their core and the blatant racist element of our society still stands.
I’m not so sure.
If a person feels that thousands of people travelling to the UK by illegal means is wrong, does that make them a racist?
I’ve mentioned earlier, the laws in the UK are set and the reality is they are breaking the law, even if you don’t agree.
I’m afraid that your view is a minority view, if it wasn’t tories and Labour alike would not be putting the issue on their priority lists.
I’m not singing you out, you reply in a calm manner allowing for easier conversation, to be fair most have on this thread which makes a refreshing change
Sorry for my fat finger typos.
Firstly there has been a lot of debate on here over this.
It is not illegal to arrive in the country without permission. The routes are called unusual by the United Nations and Human right law, not illegal.
Illegality only happens if the those arriving fail to claim asylum at the earliest opportunity after arrival.
I’m not suggesting all people against immigrants are racist but many are.
What if you were told 40,000 doctors and nurses were arriving by boats. Would they be hounded?
The fact is many of those arriving have skills we need and those that don’t are wanting to work,
The colour of their skin and method of arriving leads to extremely bias media stirring up a feeling of resentment such as they are taking our jobs or a million Turks are coming. Note not a million workers or again skilled doctors and nurses. Just Turks. Just Syrians, Just Arabs.
The narrative is racist or cx at least bigoted however hard people try to cover it up.
I appreciate the reasonable approach but a reasonable approach is absent from both our government and most of our media.
I think you saying my view is a minority needs a bit of evidence please?
If your views were in the majority the government and opposition would have a welcome to the UK agenda, as both parties don’t I’m confident that it is a minority view.
The vote winner is important and to appease the masses is the vote winner.
That’s not evidence that’s opinion .
Labour won’t say anything too controversial over anything because the bias media will slaughter him even if he said we need to look at this afresh.
To claim that’s labour supporting the present demonisation of immigrants is just plain wrong .
The problem is not massive increase in immigrants when you actually look at the numbers it’s the massive backlog and the inability to send back the 2-3000 rejected per year now we’re are out or the EU .
Amazing how we could control our borders far more efficiently when part of the Dublin agreement . Now our own government has full control it’s worse than ever.
It would be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic.
Independence is a myth.
A formal safe system would sort this instantly and source urgently needed workers. "No party would dismiss the will of the people to put it on power, as mentioned in a few posts it plays to the masses and can be rolled out to secure voters. If that was not the case and the majority of people wanted a more lenient approach, it would be on the agenda. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a thought Set up offices on the continent ( that’s what we used to do) Allow people to apply for asylum through safe routes and the boats disappear. Those who are rejected are so few it would not be worth the trouble for smugglers to help them. This mess is a creation of this government to rally the right wing. It also gives them someone to blame when they need a distraction from bad news. Boris’ dad gets a knighthood.. bloody immigrants. Boris mislead parliament .. bloody immigrants. NI better off in the EU shhh bloody immigrants. How ironic that Brexit has meant we can’t send anyone back ..
Taking back control of our borders indeed!!
I’m going to disagree with the right winger comments! Brexit was won thanks to the numbers of Left leaning voters in the northern Red Wall power house who wanted to take control of the borders, it formed their decision and their reasoning to vote leave the EU, so much so they voted Tory in 2019.
Yes you’re right that was too sweeping I agree as ms y left wingers believed it was the immigrants who were to blame for everything when in fact it was our constant stockily bad governments year after year. .
The rest of the comments of rallying their core and the blatant racist element of our society still stands.
I’m not so sure.
If a person feels that thousands of people travelling to the UK by illegal means is wrong, does that make them a racist?
I’ve mentioned earlier, the laws in the UK are set and the reality is they are breaking the law, even if you don’t agree.
I’m afraid that your view is a minority view, if it wasn’t tories and Labour alike would not be putting the issue on their priority lists.
I’m not singing you out, you reply in a calm manner allowing for easier conversation, to be fair most have on this thread which makes a refreshing change
Sorry for my fat finger typos.
Firstly there has been a lot of debate on here over this.
It is not illegal to arrive in the country without permission. The routes are called unusual by the United Nations and Human right law, not illegal.
Illegality only happens if the those arriving fail to claim asylum at the earliest opportunity after arrival.
I’m not suggesting all people against immigrants are racist but many are.
What if you were told 40,000 doctors and nurses were arriving by boats. Would they be hounded?
The fact is many of those arriving have skills we need and those that don’t are wanting to work,
The colour of their skin and method of arriving leads to extremely bias media stirring up a feeling of resentment such as they are taking our jobs or a million Turks are coming. Note not a million workers or again skilled doctors and nurses. Just Turks. Just Syrians, Just Arabs.
The narrative is racist or cx at least bigoted however hard people try to cover it up.
I appreciate the reasonable approach but a reasonable approach is absent from both our government and most of our media.
I think you saying my view is a minority needs a bit of evidence please?
If your views were in the majority the government and opposition would have a welcome to the UK agenda, as both parties don’t I’m confident that it is a minority view.
The vote winner is important and to appease the masses is the vote winner.
That’s not evidence that’s opinion .
Labour won’t say anything too controversial over anything because the bias media will slaughter him even if he said we need to look at this afresh.
To claim that’s labour supporting the present demonisation of immigrants is just plain wrong .
The problem is not massive increase in immigrants when you actually look at the numbers it’s the massive backlog and the inability to send back the 2-3000 rejected per year now we’re are out or the EU .
Amazing how we could control our borders far more efficiently when part of the Dublin agreement . Now our own government has full control it’s worse than ever.
It would be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic.
Independence is a myth.
A formal safe system would sort this instantly and source urgently needed workers.
No party would dismiss the will of the people to put it on power, as mentioned in a few posts it plays to the masses and can be rolled out to secure voters.
If that was not the case and the majority of people wanted a more lenient approach, it would be on the agenda.
"I could be argued that the ruling party and their supporting press direct the will of the people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I could be argued that the ruling party and their supporting press direct the will of the people." Social and behavioural engineering at its finest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the punishment for arriving here ‘illegally ‘?" A person found guilty in a Magistrates' Court of an offence under section 24(B1) of the Immigration act 1971 is liable to a prison term of not more than 6 months, or an unlimited fine, or both. A person found guilty in a Crown Court of the same offence is liable to a prison term of not more than 4 years, or an unlimited fine, or both. Of course, in practice, there is no incentive to prosecute these people. Why spend taxpayers money locking them up for several months when we could simply deport them and be done with it. Almost everyone in jail for arriving in a small boat is there under section 25, which deals with assisting illegal immigration, or 'people smuggling'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a thought Set up offices on the continent ( that’s what we used to do) Allow people to apply for asylum through safe routes and the boats disappear. Those who are rejected are so few it would not be worth the trouble for smugglers to help them. This mess is a creation of this government to rally the right wing. It also gives them someone to blame when they need a distraction from bad news. Boris’ dad gets a knighthood.. bloody immigrants. Boris mislead parliament .. bloody immigrants. NI better off in the EU shhh bloody immigrants. How ironic that Brexit has meant we can’t send anyone back ..
Taking back control of our borders indeed!!
I’m going to disagree with the right winger comments! Brexit was won thanks to the numbers of Left leaning voters in the northern Red Wall power house who wanted to take control of the borders, it formed their decision and their reasoning to vote leave the EU, so much so they voted Tory in 2019.
Yes you’re right that was too sweeping I agree as ms y left wingers believed it was the immigrants who were to blame for everything when in fact it was our constant stockily bad governments year after year. .
The rest of the comments of rallying their core and the blatant racist element of our society still stands.
I’m not so sure.
If a person feels that thousands of people travelling to the UK by illegal means is wrong, does that make them a racist?
I’ve mentioned earlier, the laws in the UK are set and the reality is they are breaking the law, even if you don’t agree.
I’m afraid that your view is a minority view, if it wasn’t tories and Labour alike would not be putting the issue on their priority lists.
I’m not singing you out, you reply in a calm manner allowing for easier conversation, to be fair most have on this thread which makes a refreshing change
Sorry for my fat finger typos.
Firstly there has been a lot of debate on here over this.
It is not illegal to arrive in the country without permission. The routes are called unusual by the United Nations and Human right law, not illegal.
Illegality only happens if the those arriving fail to claim asylum at the earliest opportunity after arrival.
I’m not suggesting all people against immigrants are racist but many are.
What if you were told 40,000 doctors and nurses were arriving by boats. Would they be hounded?
The fact is many of those arriving have skills we need and those that don’t are wanting to work,
The colour of their skin and method of arriving leads to extremely bias media stirring up a feeling of resentment such as they are taking our jobs or a million Turks are coming. Note not a million workers or again skilled doctors and nurses. Just Turks. Just Syrians, Just Arabs.
The narrative is racist or cx at least bigoted however hard people try to cover it up.
I appreciate the reasonable approach but a reasonable approach is absent from both our government and most of our media.
I think you saying my view is a minority needs a bit of evidence please?
If your views were in the majority the government and opposition would have a welcome to the UK agenda, as both parties don’t I’m confident that it is a minority view.
The vote winner is important and to appease the masses is the vote winner.
That’s not evidence that’s opinion .
Labour won’t say anything too controversial over anything because the bias media will slaughter him even if he said we need to look at this afresh.
To claim that’s labour supporting the present demonisation of immigrants is just plain wrong .
The problem is not massive increase in immigrants when you actually look at the numbers it’s the massive backlog and the inability to send back the 2-3000 rejected per year now we’re are out or the EU .
Amazing how we could control our borders far more efficiently when part of the Dublin agreement . Now our own government has full control it’s worse than ever.
It would be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic.
Independence is a myth.
A formal safe system would sort this instantly and source urgently needed workers.
No party would dismiss the will of the people to put it on power, as mentioned in a few posts it plays to the masses and can be rolled out to secure voters.
If that was not the case and the majority of people wanted a more lenient approach, it would be on the agenda.
I could be argued that the ruling party and their supporting press direct the will of the people."Of course it could and happens, because the majority of people in the UK do not want the tax burden or the blatant breaking of UK laws. Minorities that want no immigration or immigrants are not in game, they will not succeed, nor will those that want to Trow open the borders to anyone who cares to travel here. The solution is complex as is the problem, but only seeing it from one side creates the very thing that keeps the tories in power for now. Labour will not allow illegal entry to happen either or they can say goodbye to their faithful who will vote Tory again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a thought Set up offices on the continent ( that’s what we used to do) Allow people to apply for asylum through safe routes and the boats disappear. Those who are rejected are so few it would not be worth the trouble for smugglers to help them. This mess is a creation of this government to rally the right wing. It also gives them someone to blame when they need a distraction from bad news. Boris’ dad gets a knighthood.. bloody immigrants. Boris mislead parliament .. bloody immigrants. NI better off in the EU shhh bloody immigrants. How ironic that Brexit has meant we can’t send anyone back ..
Taking back control of our borders indeed!!
I’m going to disagree with the right winger comments! Brexit was won thanks to the numbers of Left leaning voters in the northern Red Wall power house who wanted to take control of the borders, it formed their decision and their reasoning to vote leave the EU, so much so they voted Tory in 2019.
Yes you’re right that was too sweeping I agree as ms y left wingers believed it was the immigrants who were to blame for everything when in fact it was our constant stockily bad governments year after year. .
The rest of the comments of rallying their core and the blatant racist element of our society still stands.
I’m not so sure.
If a person feels that thousands of people travelling to the UK by illegal means is wrong, does that make them a racist?
I’ve mentioned earlier, the laws in the UK are set and the reality is they are breaking the law, even if you don’t agree.
I’m afraid that your view is a minority view, if it wasn’t tories and Labour alike would not be putting the issue on their priority lists.
I’m not singing you out, you reply in a calm manner allowing for easier conversation, to be fair most have on this thread which makes a refreshing change
Sorry for my fat finger typos.
Firstly there has been a lot of debate on here over this.
It is not illegal to arrive in the country without permission. The routes are called unusual by the United Nations and Human right law, not illegal.
Illegality only happens if the those arriving fail to claim asylum at the earliest opportunity after arrival.
I’m not suggesting all people against immigrants are racist but many are.
What if you were told 40,000 doctors and nurses were arriving by boats. Would they be hounded?
The fact is many of those arriving have skills we need and those that don’t are wanting to work,
The colour of their skin and method of arriving leads to extremely bias media stirring up a feeling of resentment such as they are taking our jobs or a million Turks are coming. Note not a million workers or again skilled doctors and nurses. Just Turks. Just Syrians, Just Arabs.
The narrative is racist or cx at least bigoted however hard people try to cover it up.
I appreciate the reasonable approach but a reasonable approach is absent from both our government and most of our media.
I think you saying my view is a minority needs a bit of evidence please?
If your views were in the majority the government and opposition would have a welcome to the UK agenda, as both parties don’t I’m confident that it is a minority view.
The vote winner is important and to appease the masses is the vote winner.
That’s not evidence that’s opinion .
Labour won’t say anything too controversial over anything because the bias media will slaughter him even if he said we need to look at this afresh.
To claim that’s labour supporting the present demonisation of immigrants is just plain wrong .
The problem is not massive increase in immigrants when you actually look at the numbers it’s the massive backlog and the inability to send back the 2-3000 rejected per year now we’re are out or the EU .
Amazing how we could control our borders far more efficiently when part of the Dublin agreement . Now our own government has full control it’s worse than ever.
It would be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic.
Independence is a myth.
A formal safe system would sort this instantly and source urgently needed workers.
No party would dismiss the will of the people to put it on power, as mentioned in a few posts it plays to the masses and can be rolled out to secure voters.
If that was not the case and the majority of people wanted a more lenient approach, it would be on the agenda.
I could be argued that the ruling party and their supporting press direct the will of the people.
Of course it could and happens, because the majority of people in the UK do not want the tax burden or the blatant breaking of UK laws.
Minorities that want no immigration or immigrants are not in game, they will not succeed, nor will those that want to Trow open the borders to anyone who cares to travel here.
The solution is complex as is the problem, but only seeing it from one side creates the very thing that keeps the tories in power for now. Labour will not allow illegal entry to happen either or they can say goodbye to their faithful who will vote Tory again."There is only one side to this. The Tories using immigration to whip up support for their party. That's all it is. "The tax burden" is an excellent example. As we all know, immigration has a net increase on the amount of tax generated and has a overall positive impact. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a thought Set up offices on the continent ( that’s what we used to do) Allow people to apply for asylum through safe routes and the boats disappear. Those who are rejected are so few it would not be worth the trouble for smugglers to help them. This mess is a creation of this government to rally the right wing. It also gives them someone to blame when they need a distraction from bad news. Boris’ dad gets a knighthood.. bloody immigrants. Boris mislead parliament .. bloody immigrants. NI better off in the EU shhh bloody immigrants. How ironic that Brexit has meant we can’t send anyone back ..
Taking back control of our borders indeed!!
I’m going to disagree with the right winger comments! Brexit was won thanks to the numbers of Left leaning voters in the northern Red Wall power house who wanted to take control of the borders, it formed their decision and their reasoning to vote leave the EU, so much so they voted Tory in 2019.
Yes you’re right that was too sweeping I agree as ms y left wingers believed it was the immigrants who were to blame for everything when in fact it was our constant stockily bad governments year after year. .
The rest of the comments of rallying their core and the blatant racist element of our society still stands.
I’m not so sure.
If a person feels that thousands of people travelling to the UK by illegal means is wrong, does that make them a racist?
I’ve mentioned earlier, the laws in the UK are set and the reality is they are breaking the law, even if you don’t agree.
I’m afraid that your view is a minority view, if it wasn’t tories and Labour alike would not be putting the issue on their priority lists.
I’m not singing you out, you reply in a calm manner allowing for easier conversation, to be fair most have on this thread which makes a refreshing change
Sorry for my fat finger typos.
Firstly there has been a lot of debate on here over this.
It is not illegal to arrive in the country without permission. The routes are called unusual by the United Nations and Human right law, not illegal.
Illegality only happens if the those arriving fail to claim asylum at the earliest opportunity after arrival.
I’m not suggesting all people against immigrants are racist but many are.
What if you were told 40,000 doctors and nurses were arriving by boats. Would they be hounded?
The fact is many of those arriving have skills we need and those that don’t are wanting to work,
The colour of their skin and method of arriving leads to extremely bias media stirring up a feeling of resentment such as they are taking our jobs or a million Turks are coming. Note not a million workers or again skilled doctors and nurses. Just Turks. Just Syrians, Just Arabs.
The narrative is racist or cx at least bigoted however hard people try to cover it up.
I appreciate the reasonable approach but a reasonable approach is absent from both our government and most of our media.
I think you saying my view is a minority needs a bit of evidence please?
If your views were in the majority the government and opposition would have a welcome to the UK agenda, as both parties don’t I’m confident that it is a minority view.
The vote winner is important and to appease the masses is the vote winner.
That’s not evidence that’s opinion .
Labour won’t say anything too controversial over anything because the bias media will slaughter him even if he said we need to look at this afresh.
To claim that’s labour supporting the present demonisation of immigrants is just plain wrong .
The problem is not massive increase in immigrants when you actually look at the numbers it’s the massive backlog and the inability to send back the 2-3000 rejected per year now we’re are out or the EU .
Amazing how we could control our borders far more efficiently when part of the Dublin agreement . Now our own government has full control it’s worse than ever.
It would be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic.
Independence is a myth.
A formal safe system would sort this instantly and source urgently needed workers.
No party would dismiss the will of the people to put it on power, as mentioned in a few posts it plays to the masses and can be rolled out to secure voters.
If that was not the case and the majority of people wanted a more lenient approach, it would be on the agenda.
I could be argued that the ruling party and their supporting press direct the will of the people.
Of course it could and happens, because the majority of people in the UK do not want the tax burden or the blatant breaking of UK laws.
Minorities that want no immigration or immigrants are not in game, they will not succeed, nor will those that want to Trow open the borders to anyone who cares to travel here.
The solution is complex as is the problem, but only seeing it from one side creates the very thing that keeps the tories in power for now. Labour will not allow illegal entry to happen either or they can say goodbye to their faithful who will vote Tory again.
There is only one side to this. The Tories using immigration to whip up support for their party. That's all it is.
"The tax burden" is an excellent example. As we all know, immigration has a net increase on the amount of tax generated and has a overall positive impact. "Why Do you think the Labour voters abandoned the party to vote conservative to make brexit a leave vote? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a thought Set up offices on the continent ( that’s what we used to do) Allow people to apply for asylum through safe routes and the boats disappear. Those who are rejected are so few it would not be worth the trouble for smugglers to help them. This mess is a creation of this government to rally the right wing. It also gives them someone to blame when they need a distraction from bad news. Boris’ dad gets a knighthood.. bloody immigrants. Boris mislead parliament .. bloody immigrants. NI better off in the EU shhh bloody immigrants. How ironic that Brexit has meant we can’t send anyone back ..
Taking back control of our borders indeed!!
I’m going to disagree with the right winger comments! Brexit was won thanks to the numbers of Left leaning voters in the northern Red Wall power house who wanted to take control of the borders, it formed their decision and their reasoning to vote leave the EU, so much so they voted Tory in 2019.
Yes you’re right that was too sweeping I agree as ms y left wingers believed it was the immigrants who were to blame for everything when in fact it was our constant stockily bad governments year after year. .
The rest of the comments of rallying their core and the blatant racist element of our society still stands.
I’m not so sure.
If a person feels that thousands of people travelling to the UK by illegal means is wrong, does that make them a racist?
I’ve mentioned earlier, the laws in the UK are set and the reality is they are breaking the law, even if you don’t agree.
I’m afraid that your view is a minority view, if it wasn’t tories and Labour alike would not be putting the issue on their priority lists.
I’m not singing you out, you reply in a calm manner allowing for easier conversation, to be fair most have on this thread which makes a refreshing change
Sorry for my fat finger typos.
Firstly there has been a lot of debate on here over this.
It is not illegal to arrive in the country without permission. The routes are called unusual by the United Nations and Human right law, not illegal.
Illegality only happens if the those arriving fail to claim asylum at the earliest opportunity after arrival.
I’m not suggesting all people against immigrants are racist but many are.
What if you were told 40,000 doctors and nurses were arriving by boats. Would they be hounded?
The fact is many of those arriving have skills we need and those that don’t are wanting to work,
The colour of their skin and method of arriving leads to extremely bias media stirring up a feeling of resentment such as they are taking our jobs or a million Turks are coming. Note not a million workers or again skilled doctors and nurses. Just Turks. Just Syrians, Just Arabs.
The narrative is racist or cx at least bigoted however hard people try to cover it up.
I appreciate the reasonable approach but a reasonable approach is absent from both our government and most of our media.
I think you saying my view is a minority needs a bit of evidence please?
If your views were in the majority the government and opposition would have a welcome to the UK agenda, as both parties don’t I’m confident that it is a minority view.
The vote winner is important and to appease the masses is the vote winner.
That’s not evidence that’s opinion .
Labour won’t say anything too controversial over anything because the bias media will slaughter him even if he said we need to look at this afresh.
To claim that’s labour supporting the present demonisation of immigrants is just plain wrong .
The problem is not massive increase in immigrants when you actually look at the numbers it’s the massive backlog and the inability to send back the 2-3000 rejected per year now we’re are out or the EU .
Amazing how we could control our borders far more efficiently when part of the Dublin agreement . Now our own government has full control it’s worse than ever.
It would be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic.
Independence is a myth.
A formal safe system would sort this instantly and source urgently needed workers.
No party would dismiss the will of the people to put it on power, as mentioned in a few posts it plays to the masses and can be rolled out to secure voters.
If that was not the case and the majority of people wanted a more lenient approach, it would be on the agenda.
I could be argued that the ruling party and their supporting press direct the will of the people.
Of course it could and happens, because the majority of people in the UK do not want the tax burden or the blatant breaking of UK laws.
Minorities that want no immigration or immigrants are not in game, they will not succeed, nor will those that want to Trow open the borders to anyone who cares to travel here.
The solution is complex as is the problem, but only seeing it from one side creates the very thing that keeps the tories in power for now. Labour will not allow illegal entry to happen either or they can say goodbye to their faithful who will vote Tory again.
There is only one side to this. The Tories using immigration to whip up support for their party. That's all it is.
"The tax burden" is an excellent example. As we all know, immigration has a net increase on the amount of tax generated and has a overall positive impact.
Why Do you think the Labour voters abandoned the party to vote conservative to make brexit a leave vote? "Because they believed that a very simple solution to an extremely complex problem was the answer. "get brexit done". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a thought Set up offices on the continent ( that’s what we used to do) Allow people to apply for asylum through safe routes and the boats disappear. Those who are rejected are so few it would not be worth the trouble for smugglers to help them. This mess is a creation of this government to rally the right wing. It also gives them someone to blame when they need a distraction from bad news. Boris’ dad gets a knighthood.. bloody immigrants. Boris mislead parliament .. bloody immigrants. NI better off in the EU shhh bloody immigrants. How ironic that Brexit has meant we can’t send anyone back ..
Taking back control of our borders indeed!!
I’m going to disagree with the right winger comments! Brexit was won thanks to the numbers of Left leaning voters in the northern Red Wall power house who wanted to take control of the borders, it formed their decision and their reasoning to vote leave the EU, so much so they voted Tory in 2019.
Yes you’re right that was too sweeping I agree as ms y left wingers believed it was the immigrants who were to blame for everything when in fact it was our constant stockily bad governments year after year. .
The rest of the comments of rallying their core and the blatant racist element of our society still stands.
I’m not so sure.
If a person feels that thousands of people travelling to the UK by illegal means is wrong, does that make them a racist?
I’ve mentioned earlier, the laws in the UK are set and the reality is they are breaking the law, even if you don’t agree.
I’m afraid that your view is a minority view, if it wasn’t tories and Labour alike would not be putting the issue on their priority lists.
I’m not singing you out, you reply in a calm manner allowing for easier conversation, to be fair most have on this thread which makes a refreshing change
Sorry for my fat finger typos.
Firstly there has been a lot of debate on here over this.
It is not illegal to arrive in the country without permission. The routes are called unusual by the United Nations and Human right law, not illegal.
Illegality only happens if the those arriving fail to claim asylum at the earliest opportunity after arrival.
I’m not suggesting all people against immigrants are racist but many are.
What if you were told 40,000 doctors and nurses were arriving by boats. Would they be hounded?
The fact is many of those arriving have skills we need and those that don’t are wanting to work,
The colour of their skin and method of arriving leads to extremely bias media stirring up a feeling of resentment such as they are taking our jobs or a million Turks are coming. Note not a million workers or again skilled doctors and nurses. Just Turks. Just Syrians, Just Arabs.
The narrative is racist or cx at least bigoted however hard people try to cover it up.
I appreciate the reasonable approach but a reasonable approach is absent from both our government and most of our media.
I think you saying my view is a minority needs a bit of evidence please?
If your views were in the majority the government and opposition would have a welcome to the UK agenda, as both parties don’t I’m confident that it is a minority view.
The vote winner is important and to appease the masses is the vote winner.
That’s not evidence that’s opinion .
Labour won’t say anything too controversial over anything because the bias media will slaughter him even if he said we need to look at this afresh.
To claim that’s labour supporting the present demonisation of immigrants is just plain wrong .
The problem is not massive increase in immigrants when you actually look at the numbers it’s the massive backlog and the inability to send back the 2-3000 rejected per year now we’re are out or the EU .
Amazing how we could control our borders far more efficiently when part of the Dublin agreement . Now our own government has full control it’s worse than ever.
It would be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic.
Independence is a myth.
A formal safe system would sort this instantly and source urgently needed workers.
No party would dismiss the will of the people to put it on power, as mentioned in a few posts it plays to the masses and can be rolled out to secure voters.
If that was not the case and the majority of people wanted a more lenient approach, it would be on the agenda.
I could be argued that the ruling party and their supporting press direct the will of the people.
Of course it could and happens, because the majority of people in the UK do not want the tax burden or the blatant breaking of UK laws.
Minorities that want no immigration or immigrants are not in game, they will not succeed, nor will those that want to Trow open the borders to anyone who cares to travel here.
The solution is complex as is the problem, but only seeing it from one side creates the very thing that keeps the tories in power for now. Labour will not allow illegal entry to happen either or they can say goodbye to their faithful who will vote Tory again.
There is only one side to this. The Tories using immigration to whip up support for their party. That's all it is.
"The tax burden" is an excellent example. As we all know, immigration has a net increase on the amount of tax generated and has a overall positive impact.
Why Do you think the Labour voters abandoned the party to vote conservative to make brexit a leave vote?
Because they believed that a very simple solution to an extremely complex problem was the answer. "get brexit done"."And simple people like simple solutions. I mean… who wants to think about complicated stuff? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a thought Set up offices on the continent ( that’s what we used to do) Allow people to apply for asylum through safe routes and the boats disappear. Those who are rejected are so few it would not be worth the trouble for smugglers to help them. This mess is a creation of this government to rally the right wing. It also gives them someone to blame when they need a distraction from bad news. Boris’ dad gets a knighthood.. bloody immigrants. Boris mislead parliament .. bloody immigrants. NI better off in the EU shhh bloody immigrants. How ironic that Brexit has meant we can’t send anyone back ..
Taking back control of our borders indeed!!
I’m going to disagree with the right winger comments! Brexit was won thanks to the numbers of Left leaning voters in the northern Red Wall power house who wanted to take control of the borders, it formed their decision and their reasoning to vote leave the EU, so much so they voted Tory in 2019.
Yes you’re right that was too sweeping I agree as ms y left wingers believed it was the immigrants who were to blame for everything when in fact it was our constant stockily bad governments year after year. .
The rest of the comments of rallying their core and the blatant racist element of our society still stands.
I’m not so sure.
If a person feels that thousands of people travelling to the UK by illegal means is wrong, does that make them a racist?
I’ve mentioned earlier, the laws in the UK are set and the reality is they are breaking the law, even if you don’t agree.
I’m afraid that your view is a minority view, if it wasn’t tories and Labour alike would not be putting the issue on their priority lists.
I’m not singing you out, you reply in a calm manner allowing for easier conversation, to be fair most have on this thread which makes a refreshing change
Sorry for my fat finger typos.
Firstly there has been a lot of debate on here over this.
It is not illegal to arrive in the country without permission. The routes are called unusual by the United Nations and Human right law, not illegal.
Illegality only happens if the those arriving fail to claim asylum at the earliest opportunity after arrival.
I’m not suggesting all people against immigrants are racist but many are.
What if you were told 40,000 doctors and nurses were arriving by boats. Would they be hounded?
The fact is many of those arriving have skills we need and those that don’t are wanting to work,
The colour of their skin and method of arriving leads to extremely bias media stirring up a feeling of resentment such as they are taking our jobs or a million Turks are coming. Note not a million workers or again skilled doctors and nurses. Just Turks. Just Syrians, Just Arabs.
The narrative is racist or cx at least bigoted however hard people try to cover it up.
I appreciate the reasonable approach but a reasonable approach is absent from both our government and most of our media.
I think you saying my view is a minority needs a bit of evidence please?
If your views were in the majority the government and opposition would have a welcome to the UK agenda, as both parties don’t I’m confident that it is a minority view.
The vote winner is important and to appease the masses is the vote winner.
That’s not evidence that’s opinion .
Labour won’t say anything too controversial over anything because the bias media will slaughter him even if he said we need to look at this afresh.
To claim that’s labour supporting the present demonisation of immigrants is just plain wrong .
The problem is not massive increase in immigrants when you actually look at the numbers it’s the massive backlog and the inability to send back the 2-3000 rejected per year now we’re are out or the EU .
Amazing how we could control our borders far more efficiently when part of the Dublin agreement . Now our own government has full control it’s worse than ever.
It would be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic.
Independence is a myth.
A formal safe system would sort this instantly and source urgently needed workers.
No party would dismiss the will of the people to put it on power, as mentioned in a few posts it plays to the masses and can be rolled out to secure voters.
If that was not the case and the majority of people wanted a more lenient approach, it would be on the agenda.
I could be argued that the ruling party and their supporting press direct the will of the people.
Of course it could and happens, because the majority of people in the UK do not want the tax burden or the blatant breaking of UK laws.
Minorities that want no immigration or immigrants are not in game, they will not succeed, nor will those that want to Trow open the borders to anyone who cares to travel here.
The solution is complex as is the problem, but only seeing it from one side creates the very thing that keeps the tories in power for now. Labour will not allow illegal entry to happen either or they can say goodbye to their faithful who will vote Tory again.
There is only one side to this. The Tories using immigration to whip up support for their party. That's all it is.
"The tax burden" is an excellent example. As we all know, immigration has a net increase on the amount of tax generated and has a overall positive impact.
Why Do you think the Labour voters abandoned the party to vote conservative to make brexit a leave vote?
Because they believed that a very simple solution to an extremely complex problem was the answer. "get brexit done"."You are not in my opinion, acknowledging that the issue of illegal crossings is not just a Tory voter issue. The idea that brexit was decided by racist right wing conservatives is a misleading one, it was decided by Labour voters who did the unthinkable and switched sides to make sure it happened in 2019. The immigration and control of borders is a concern across the political spectrum and peoples of the UK, if that is ignored it will never be resolved and political posturing will win the day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It appears that PM Sunak is to introduce new laws to prevent those people coming to the UK by illegal means (small boat crossings) of staying in the UK even to have their case heard. What's not clear to me is how this will get around other laws that entitles people to claim asylum in the UK. Also they say that these people will be removed and automatically banned for life. But removed to where? and how?, given they could not send one plane to Rwanda last year. Is this a good plan to tackle the issue? Is it a diversion tactic or a knee jerk reaction to more asylum related violence recently?" This is pure politics. This generates publicity and looks "strong". However, it does not solve the route cause. There are no viable legal routes for asylum to the UK. There is inadequate resource/people to process those who are coming here. This problem did not exist at this scale previously. All Government action to date has not improved the situation. More of the same will not either. Fear and blaming of the outsider is an old story. A convenient distraction from the root cause of domestic problems as well. New legislation will create new laws which the judiciary will follow, unless they are in conflict with other laws. The House of Lords will, no doubt, point this out and vote it down. The whole process, together with legal challenges will take quite some time. Allowing this Government that they would solve everything if only they weren't being prevented lefties, snowflakes, the woke, the ECHR, the EU, immigrants etc. etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a thought Set up offices on the continent ( that’s what we used to do) Allow people to apply for asylum through safe routes and the boats disappear. Those who are rejected are so few it would not be worth the trouble for smugglers to help them. This mess is a creation of this government to rally the right wing. It also gives them someone to blame when they need a distraction from bad news. Boris’ dad gets a knighthood.. bloody immigrants. Boris mislead parliament .. bloody immigrants. NI better off in the EU shhh bloody immigrants. How ironic that Brexit has meant we can’t send anyone back ..
Taking back control of our borders indeed!!
I’m going to disagree with the right winger comments! Brexit was won thanks to the numbers of Left leaning voters in the northern Red Wall power house who wanted to take control of the borders, it formed their decision and their reasoning to vote leave the EU, so much so they voted Tory in 2019.
Yes you’re right that was too sweeping I agree as ms y left wingers believed it was the immigrants who were to blame for everything when in fact it was our constant stockily bad governments year after year. .
The rest of the comments of rallying their core and the blatant racist element of our society still stands.
I’m not so sure.
If a person feels that thousands of people travelling to the UK by illegal means is wrong, does that make them a racist?
I’ve mentioned earlier, the laws in the UK are set and the reality is they are breaking the law, even if you don’t agree.
I’m afraid that your view is a minority view, if it wasn’t tories and Labour alike would not be putting the issue on their priority lists.
I’m not singing you out, you reply in a calm manner allowing for easier conversation, to be fair most have on this thread which makes a refreshing change
Sorry for my fat finger typos.
Firstly there has been a lot of debate on here over this.
It is not illegal to arrive in the country without permission. The routes are called unusual by the United Nations and Human right law, not illegal.
Illegality only happens if the those arriving fail to claim asylum at the earliest opportunity after arrival.
I’m not suggesting all people against immigrants are racist but many are.
What if you were told 40,000 doctors and nurses were arriving by boats. Would they be hounded?
The fact is many of those arriving have skills we need and those that don’t are wanting to work,
The colour of their skin and method of arriving leads to extremely bias media stirring up a feeling of resentment such as they are taking our jobs or a million Turks are coming. Note not a million workers or again skilled doctors and nurses. Just Turks. Just Syrians, Just Arabs.
The narrative is racist or cx at least bigoted however hard people try to cover it up.
I appreciate the reasonable approach but a reasonable approach is absent from both our government and most of our media.
I think you saying my view is a minority needs a bit of evidence please?
If your views were in the majority the government and opposition would have a welcome to the UK agenda, as both parties don’t I’m confident that it is a minority view.
The vote winner is important and to appease the masses is the vote winner.
That’s not evidence that’s opinion .
Labour won’t say anything too controversial over anything because the bias media will slaughter him even if he said we need to look at this afresh.
To claim that’s labour supporting the present demonisation of immigrants is just plain wrong .
The problem is not massive increase in immigrants when you actually look at the numbers it’s the massive backlog and the inability to send back the 2-3000 rejected per year now we’re are out or the EU .
Amazing how we could control our borders far more efficiently when part of the Dublin agreement . Now our own government has full control it’s worse than ever.
It would be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic.
Independence is a myth.
A formal safe system would sort this instantly and source urgently needed workers.
No party would dismiss the will of the people to put it on power, as mentioned in a few posts it plays to the masses and can be rolled out to secure voters.
If that was not the case and the majority of people wanted a more lenient approach, it would be on the agenda.
"The majority of people had no interest in Brexit or the EU I til they were told that they had to make a decision about it. The closeness of the vote indicates a coin toss in a yes/no decision. When did immigration start being defined as "a problem"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a thought Set up offices on the continent ( that’s what we used to do) Allow people to apply for asylum through safe routes and the boats disappear. Those who are rejected are so few it would not be worth the trouble for smugglers to help them. This mess is a creation of this government to rally the right wing. It also gives them someone to blame when they need a distraction from bad news. Boris’ dad gets a knighthood.. bloody immigrants. Boris mislead parliament .. bloody immigrants. NI better off in the EU shhh bloody immigrants. How ironic that Brexit has meant we can’t send anyone back ..
Taking back control of our borders indeed!!
I’m going to disagree with the right winger comments! Brexit was won thanks to the numbers of Left leaning voters in the northern Red Wall power house who wanted to take control of the borders, it formed their decision and their reasoning to vote leave the EU, so much so they voted Tory in 2019.
Yes you’re right that was too sweeping I agree as ms y left wingers believed it was the immigrants who were to blame for everything when in fact it was our constant stockily bad governments year after year. .
The rest of the comments of rallying their core and the blatant racist element of our society still stands.
I’m not so sure.
If a person feels that thousands of people travelling to the UK by illegal means is wrong, does that make them a racist?
I’ve mentioned earlier, the laws in the UK are set and the reality is they are breaking the law, even if you don’t agree.
I’m afraid that your view is a minority view, if it wasn’t tories and Labour alike would not be putting the issue on their priority lists.
I’m not singing you out, you reply in a calm manner allowing for easier conversation, to be fair most have on this thread which makes a refreshing change
Sorry for my fat finger typos.
Firstly there has been a lot of debate on here over this.
It is not illegal to arrive in the country without permission. The routes are called unusual by the United Nations and Human right law, not illegal.
Illegality only happens if the those arriving fail to claim asylum at the earliest opportunity after arrival.
I’m not suggesting all people against immigrants are racist but many are.
What if you were told 40,000 doctors and nurses were arriving by boats. Would they be hounded?
The fact is many of those arriving have skills we need and those that don’t are wanting to work,
The colour of their skin and method of arriving leads to extremely bias media stirring up a feeling of resentment such as they are taking our jobs or a million Turks are coming. Note not a million workers or again skilled doctors and nurses. Just Turks. Just Syrians, Just Arabs.
The narrative is racist or cx at least bigoted however hard people try to cover it up.
I appreciate the reasonable approach but a reasonable approach is absent from both our government and most of our media.
I think you saying my view is a minority needs a bit of evidence please?
If your views were in the majority the government and opposition would have a welcome to the UK agenda, as both parties don’t I’m confident that it is a minority view.
The vote winner is important and to appease the masses is the vote winner.
That’s not evidence that’s opinion .
Labour won’t say anything too controversial over anything because the bias media will slaughter him even if he said we need to look at this afresh.
To claim that’s labour supporting the present demonisation of immigrants is just plain wrong .
The problem is not massive increase in immigrants when you actually look at the numbers it’s the massive backlog and the inability to send back the 2-3000 rejected per year now we’re are out or the EU .
Amazing how we could control our borders far more efficiently when part of the Dublin agreement . Now our own government has full control it’s worse than ever.
It would be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic.
Independence is a myth.
A formal safe system would sort this instantly and source urgently needed workers.
No party would dismiss the will of the people to put it on power, as mentioned in a few posts it plays to the masses and can be rolled out to secure voters.
If that was not the case and the majority of people wanted a more lenient approach, it would be on the agenda.
The majority of people had no interest in Brexit or the EU I til they were told that they had to make a decision about it.
The closeness of the vote indicates a coin toss in a yes/no decision.
When did immigration start being defined as "a problem"?"Immigration started to be a problem when people realised it was not possible to house and feed the volume of people coming in to the UK and the growth of the population as it is. In 1900 population was 32milion now its 67milion 80 years it might be close to 120 million the penny don't fit the slot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a thought Set up offices on the continent ( that’s what we used to do) Allow people to apply for asylum through safe routes and the boats disappear. Those who are rejected are so few it would not be worth the trouble for smugglers to help them. This mess is a creation of this government to rally the right wing. It also gives them someone to blame when they need a distraction from bad news. Boris’ dad gets a knighthood.. bloody immigrants. Boris mislead parliament .. bloody immigrants. NI better off in the EU shhh bloody immigrants. How ironic that Brexit has meant we can’t send anyone back ..
Taking back control of our borders indeed!!
I’m going to disagree with the right winger comments! Brexit was won thanks to the numbers of Left leaning voters in the northern Red Wall power house who wanted to take control of the borders, it formed their decision and their reasoning to vote leave the EU, so much so they voted Tory in 2019.
Yes you’re right that was too sweeping I agree as ms y left wingers believed it was the immigrants who were to blame for everything when in fact it was our constant stockily bad governments year after year. .
The rest of the comments of rallying their core and the blatant racist element of our society still stands.
I’m not so sure.
If a person feels that thousands of people travelling to the UK by illegal means is wrong, does that make them a racist?
I’ve mentioned earlier, the laws in the UK are set and the reality is they are breaking the law, even if you don’t agree.
I’m afraid that your view is a minority view, if it wasn’t tories and Labour alike would not be putting the issue on their priority lists.
I’m not singing you out, you reply in a calm manner allowing for easier conversation, to be fair most have on this thread which makes a refreshing change
Sorry for my fat finger typos.
Firstly there has been a lot of debate on here over this.
It is not illegal to arrive in the country without permission. The routes are called unusual by the United Nations and Human right law, not illegal.
Illegality only happens if the those arriving fail to claim asylum at the earliest opportunity after arrival.
I’m not suggesting all people against immigrants are racist but many are.
What if you were told 40,000 doctors and nurses were arriving by boats. Would they be hounded?
The fact is many of those arriving have skills we need and those that don’t are wanting to work,
The colour of their skin and method of arriving leads to extremely bias media stirring up a feeling of resentment such as they are taking our jobs or a million Turks are coming. Note not a million workers or again skilled doctors and nurses. Just Turks. Just Syrians, Just Arabs.
The narrative is racist or cx at least bigoted however hard people try to cover it up.
I appreciate the reasonable approach but a reasonable approach is absent from both our government and most of our media.
I think you saying my view is a minority needs a bit of evidence please?
If your views were in the majority the government and opposition would have a welcome to the UK agenda, as both parties don’t I’m confident that it is a minority view.
The vote winner is important and to appease the masses is the vote winner.
That’s not evidence that’s opinion .
Labour won’t say anything too controversial over anything because the bias media will slaughter him even if he said we need to look at this afresh.
To claim that’s labour supporting the present demonisation of immigrants is just plain wrong .
The problem is not massive increase in immigrants when you actually look at the numbers it’s the massive backlog and the inability to send back the 2-3000 rejected per year now we’re are out or the EU .
Amazing how we could control our borders far more efficiently when part of the Dublin agreement . Now our own government has full control it’s worse than ever.
It would be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic.
Independence is a myth.
A formal safe system would sort this instantly and source urgently needed workers.
No party would dismiss the will of the people to put it on power, as mentioned in a few posts it plays to the masses and can be rolled out to secure voters.
If that was not the case and the majority of people wanted a more lenient approach, it would be on the agenda.
I could be argued that the ruling party and their supporting press direct the will of the people.
Of course it could and happens, because the majority of people in the UK do not want the tax burden or the blatant breaking of UK laws.
Minorities that want no immigration or immigrants are not in game, they will not succeed, nor will those that want to Trow open the borders to anyone who cares to travel here.
The solution is complex as is the problem, but only seeing it from one side creates the very thing that keeps the tories in power for now. Labour will not allow illegal entry to happen either or they can say goodbye to their faithful who will vote Tory again.
There is only one side to this. The Tories using immigration to whip up support for their party. That's all it is.
"The tax burden" is an excellent example. As we all know, immigration has a net increase on the amount of tax generated and has a overall positive impact.
Why Do you think the Labour voters abandoned the party to vote conservative to make brexit a leave vote?
Because they believed that a very simple solution to an extremely complex problem was the answer. "get brexit done".
You are not in my opinion, acknowledging that the issue of illegal crossings is not just a Tory voter issue. The idea that brexit was decided by racist right wing conservatives is a misleading one, it was decided by Labour voters who did the unthinkable and switched sides to make sure it happened in 2019.
The immigration and control of borders is a concern across the political spectrum and peoples of the UK, if that is ignored it will never be resolved and political posturing will win the day.
"I see what you're saying. Sure, of course labour voters are swept up in the relentless barrage of anti immigrant propaganda. 100% agree with you. The point is. This is a Tory policy. It's only political posturing, that's all they need it to be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a thought Set up offices on the continent ( that’s what we used to do) Allow people to apply for asylum through safe routes and the boats disappear. Those who are rejected are so few it would not be worth the trouble for smugglers to help them. This mess is a creation of this government to rally the right wing. It also gives them someone to blame when they need a distraction from bad news. Boris’ dad gets a knighthood.. bloody immigrants. Boris mislead parliament .. bloody immigrants. NI better off in the EU shhh bloody immigrants. How ironic that Brexit has meant we can’t send anyone back ..
Taking back control of our borders indeed!!
I’m going to disagree with the right winger comments! Brexit was won thanks to the numbers of Left leaning voters in the northern Red Wall power house who wanted to take control of the borders, it formed their decision and their reasoning to vote leave the EU, so much so they voted Tory in 2019.
Yes you’re right that was too sweeping I agree as ms y left wingers believed it was the immigrants who were to blame for everything when in fact it was our constant stockily bad governments year after year. .
The rest of the comments of rallying their core and the blatant racist element of our society still stands.
I’m not so sure.
If a person feels that thousands of people travelling to the UK by illegal means is wrong, does that make them a racist?
I’ve mentioned earlier, the laws in the UK are set and the reality is they are breaking the law, even if you don’t agree.
I’m afraid that your view is a minority view, if it wasn’t tories and Labour alike would not be putting the issue on their priority lists.
I’m not singing you out, you reply in a calm manner allowing for easier conversation, to be fair most have on this thread which makes a refreshing change
Sorry for my fat finger typos.
Firstly there has been a lot of debate on here over this.
It is not illegal to arrive in the country without permission. The routes are called unusual by the United Nations and Human right law, not illegal.
Illegality only happens if the those arriving fail to claim asylum at the earliest opportunity after arrival.
I’m not suggesting all people against immigrants are racist but many are.
What if you were told 40,000 doctors and nurses were arriving by boats. Would they be hounded?
The fact is many of those arriving have skills we need and those that don’t are wanting to work,
The colour of their skin and method of arriving leads to extremely bias media stirring up a feeling of resentment such as they are taking our jobs or a million Turks are coming. Note not a million workers or again skilled doctors and nurses. Just Turks. Just Syrians, Just Arabs.
The narrative is racist or cx at least bigoted however hard people try to cover it up.
I appreciate the reasonable approach but a reasonable approach is absent from both our government and most of our media.
I think you saying my view is a minority needs a bit of evidence please?
If your views were in the majority the government and opposition would have a welcome to the UK agenda, as both parties don’t I’m confident that it is a minority view.
The vote winner is important and to appease the masses is the vote winner.
That’s not evidence that’s opinion .
Labour won’t say anything too controversial over anything because the bias media will slaughter him even if he said we need to look at this afresh.
To claim that’s labour supporting the present demonisation of immigrants is just plain wrong .
The problem is not massive increase in immigrants when you actually look at the numbers it’s the massive backlog and the inability to send back the 2-3000 rejected per year now we’re are out or the EU .
Amazing how we could control our borders far more efficiently when part of the Dublin agreement . Now our own government has full control it’s worse than ever.
It would be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic.
Independence is a myth.
A formal safe system would sort this instantly and source urgently needed workers.
No party would dismiss the will of the people to put it on power, as mentioned in a few posts it plays to the masses and can be rolled out to secure voters.
If that was not the case and the majority of people wanted a more lenient approach, it would be on the agenda.
I could be argued that the ruling party and their supporting press direct the will of the people.
Of course it could and happens, because the majority of people in the UK do not want the tax burden or the blatant breaking of UK laws.
Minorities that want no immigration or immigrants are not in game, they will not succeed, nor will those that want to Trow open the borders to anyone who cares to travel here.
The solution is complex as is the problem, but only seeing it from one side creates the very thing that keeps the tories in power for now. Labour will not allow illegal entry to happen either or they can say goodbye to their faithful who will vote Tory again.
There is only one side to this. The Tories using immigration to whip up support for their party. That's all it is.
"The tax burden" is an excellent example. As we all know, immigration has a net increase on the amount of tax generated and has a overall positive impact.
Why Do you think the Labour voters abandoned the party to vote conservative to make brexit a leave vote?
Because they believed that a very simple solution to an extremely complex problem was the answer. "get brexit done".
You are not in my opinion, acknowledging that the issue of illegal crossings is not just a Tory voter issue. The idea that brexit was decided by racist right wing conservatives is a misleading one, it was decided by Labour voters who did the unthinkable and switched sides to make sure it happened in 2019.
The immigration and control of borders is a concern across the political spectrum and peoples of the UK, if that is ignored it will never be resolved and political posturing will win the day.
"Sorry but you’re failing to point out the litany of lies spouted about how much better off those labour strong holds would be. People who have suffered a lower and lower standard of living were very vulnerable to the bullshit spread by Boris and his media friends, The promise of £350m for the NHS the being a prime example. Boris actually sitting on that bus admitted to a reporter it was a lie but carried on regardless. People believed him. The farmers believed his promises. The fishermen believed his promises. Brexit will lead to more levelling up for those labour constituencies. More police, more doctors etc etc It was all lies. So not all Tory voters were fixated by immigrants and neither were all labour voters. Most voters are starting to realise their mistake in believing. Some sadly are becoming more cult like. Those who still believe immigration is the route of this country’s problems are still being lead by the nose. It is not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a thought Set up offices on the continent ( that’s what we used to do) Allow people to apply for asylum through safe routes and the boats disappear. Those who are rejected are so few it would not be worth the trouble for smugglers to help them. This mess is a creation of this government to rally the right wing. It also gives them someone to blame when they need a distraction from bad news. Boris’ dad gets a knighthood.. bloody immigrants. Boris mislead parliament .. bloody immigrants. NI better off in the EU shhh bloody immigrants. How ironic that Brexit has meant we can’t send anyone back ..
Taking back control of our borders indeed!!
I’m going to disagree with the right winger comments! Brexit was won thanks to the numbers of Left leaning voters in the northern Red Wall power house who wanted to take control of the borders, it formed their decision and their reasoning to vote leave the EU, so much so they voted Tory in 2019.
Yes you’re right that was too sweeping I agree as ms y left wingers believed it was the immigrants who were to blame for everything when in fact it was our constant stockily bad governments year after year. .
The rest of the comments of rallying their core and the blatant racist element of our society still stands.
I’m not so sure.
If a person feels that thousands of people travelling to the UK by illegal means is wrong, does that make them a racist?
I’ve mentioned earlier, the laws in the UK are set and the reality is they are breaking the law, even if you don’t agree.
I’m afraid that your view is a minority view, if it wasn’t tories and Labour alike would not be putting the issue on their priority lists.
I’m not singing you out, you reply in a calm manner allowing for easier conversation, to be fair most have on this thread which makes a refreshing change
Sorry for my fat finger typos.
Firstly there has been a lot of debate on here over this.
It is not illegal to arrive in the country without permission. The routes are called unusual by the United Nations and Human right law, not illegal.
Illegality only happens if the those arriving fail to claim asylum at the earliest opportunity after arrival.
I’m not suggesting all people against immigrants are racist but many are.
What if you were told 40,000 doctors and nurses were arriving by boats. Would they be hounded?
The fact is many of those arriving have skills we need and those that don’t are wanting to work,
The colour of their skin and method of arriving leads to extremely bias media stirring up a feeling of resentment such as they are taking our jobs or a million Turks are coming. Note not a million workers or again skilled doctors and nurses. Just Turks. Just Syrians, Just Arabs.
The narrative is racist or cx at least bigoted however hard people try to cover it up.
I appreciate the reasonable approach but a reasonable approach is absent from both our government and most of our media.
I think you saying my view is a minority needs a bit of evidence please?
If your views were in the majority the government and opposition would have a welcome to the UK agenda, as both parties don’t I’m confident that it is a minority view.
The vote winner is important and to appease the masses is the vote winner.
That’s not evidence that’s opinion .
Labour won’t say anything too controversial over anything because the bias media will slaughter him even if he said we need to look at this afresh.
To claim that’s labour supporting the present demonisation of immigrants is just plain wrong .
The problem is not massive increase in immigrants when you actually look at the numbers it’s the massive backlog and the inability to send back the 2-3000 rejected per year now we’re are out or the EU .
Amazing how we could control our borders far more efficiently when part of the Dublin agreement . Now our own government has full control it’s worse than ever.
It would be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic.
Independence is a myth.
A formal safe system would sort this instantly and source urgently needed workers.
No party would dismiss the will of the people to put it on power, as mentioned in a few posts it plays to the masses and can be rolled out to secure voters.
If that was not the case and the majority of people wanted a more lenient approach, it would be on the agenda.
The majority of people had no interest in Brexit or the EU I til they were told that they had to make a decision about it.
The closeness of the vote indicates a coin toss in a yes/no decision.
When did immigration start being defined as "a problem"?
Immigration started to be a problem when people realised it was not possible to house and feed the volume of people coming in to the UK and the growth of the population as it is.
In 1900 population was 32milion now its 67milion 80 years it might be close to 120 million the penny don't fit the slot."When did they "realise" this? There were 1.1 million immigrants to the UK last year. There were irregular immigrants 35,000 who arrived by small boats in the same year. There were 13,000 by all routes in 2018. 625,000 immigrated to the UK. Has UK Government policy improved anything? Why is so much focus, time and money being placed on irregular immigration? Why are there so many immigrants coming by normal means if people "realise" that it causes such a problem? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a thought Set up offices on the continent ( that’s what we used to do) Allow people to apply for asylum through safe routes and the boats disappear. Those who are rejected are so few it would not be worth the trouble for smugglers to help them. This mess is a creation of this government to rally the right wing. It also gives them someone to blame when they need a distraction from bad news. Boris’ dad gets a knighthood.. bloody immigrants. Boris mislead parliament .. bloody immigrants. NI better off in the EU shhh bloody immigrants. How ironic that Brexit has meant we can’t send anyone back ..
Taking back control of our borders indeed!!
I’m going to disagree with the right winger comments! Brexit was won thanks to the numbers of Left leaning voters in the northern Red Wall power house who wanted to take control of the borders, it formed their decision and their reasoning to vote leave the EU, so much so they voted Tory in 2019.
Yes you’re right that was too sweeping I agree as ms y left wingers believed it was the immigrants who were to blame for everything when in fact it was our constant stockily bad governments year after year. .
The rest of the comments of rallying their core and the blatant racist element of our society still stands.
I’m not so sure.
If a person feels that thousands of people travelling to the UK by illegal means is wrong, does that make them a racist?
I’ve mentioned earlier, the laws in the UK are set and the reality is they are breaking the law, even if you don’t agree.
I’m afraid that your view is a minority view, if it wasn’t tories and Labour alike would not be putting the issue on their priority lists.
I’m not singing you out, you reply in a calm manner allowing for easier conversation, to be fair most have on this thread which makes a refreshing change
Sorry for my fat finger typos.
Firstly there has been a lot of debate on here over this.
It is not illegal to arrive in the country without permission. The routes are called unusual by the United Nations and Human right law, not illegal.
Illegality only happens if the those arriving fail to claim asylum at the earliest opportunity after arrival.
I’m not suggesting all people against immigrants are racist but many are.
What if you were told 40,000 doctors and nurses were arriving by boats. Would they be hounded?
The fact is many of those arriving have skills we need and those that don’t are wanting to work,
The colour of their skin and method of arriving leads to extremely bias media stirring up a feeling of resentment such as they are taking our jobs or a million Turks are coming. Note not a million workers or again skilled doctors and nurses. Just Turks. Just Syrians, Just Arabs.
The narrative is racist or cx at least bigoted however hard people try to cover it up.
I appreciate the reasonable approach but a reasonable approach is absent from both our government and most of our media.
I think you saying my view is a minority needs a bit of evidence please?
If your views were in the majority the government and opposition would have a welcome to the UK agenda, as both parties don’t I’m confident that it is a minority view.
The vote winner is important and to appease the masses is the vote winner.
That’s not evidence that’s opinion .
Labour won’t say anything too controversial over anything because the bias media will slaughter him even if he said we need to look at this afresh.
To claim that’s labour supporting the present demonisation of immigrants is just plain wrong .
The problem is not massive increase in immigrants when you actually look at the numbers it’s the massive backlog and the inability to send back the 2-3000 rejected per year now we’re are out or the EU .
Amazing how we could control our borders far more efficiently when part of the Dublin agreement . Now our own government has full control it’s worse than ever.
It would be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic.
Independence is a myth.
A formal safe system would sort this instantly and source urgently needed workers.
No party would dismiss the will of the people to put it on power, as mentioned in a few posts it plays to the masses and can be rolled out to secure voters.
If that was not the case and the majority of people wanted a more lenient approach, it would be on the agenda.
I could be argued that the ruling party and their supporting press direct the will of the people.
Of course it could and happens, because the majority of people in the UK do not want the tax burden or the blatant breaking of UK laws.
Minorities that want no immigration or immigrants are not in game, they will not succeed, nor will those that want to Trow open the borders to anyone who cares to travel here.
The solution is complex as is the problem, but only seeing it from one side creates the very thing that keeps the tories in power for now. Labour will not allow illegal entry to happen either or they can say goodbye to their faithful who will vote Tory again.
There is only one side to this. The Tories using immigration to whip up support for their party. That's all it is.
"The tax burden" is an excellent example. As we all know, immigration has a net increase on the amount of tax generated and has a overall positive impact.
Why Do you think the Labour voters abandoned the party to vote conservative to make brexit a leave vote?
Because they believed that a very simple solution to an extremely complex problem was the answer. "get brexit done".
You are not in my opinion, acknowledging that the issue of illegal crossings is not just a Tory voter issue. The idea that brexit was decided by racist right wing conservatives is a misleading one, it was decided by Labour voters who did the unthinkable and switched sides to make sure it happened in 2019.
The immigration and control of borders is a concern across the political spectrum and peoples of the UK, if that is ignored it will never be resolved and political posturing will win the day.
Sorry but you’re failing to point out the litany of lies spouted about how much better off those labour strong holds would be.
People who have suffered a lower and lower standard of living were very vulnerable to the bullshit spread by Boris and his media friends,
The promise of £350m for the NHS the being a prime example. Boris actually sitting on that bus admitted to a reporter it was a lie but carried on regardless. People believed him. The farmers believed his promises. The fishermen believed his promises. Brexit will lead to more levelling up for those labour constituencies. More police, more doctors etc etc
It was all lies.
So not all Tory voters were fixated by immigrants and neither were all labour voters. Most voters are starting to realise their mistake in believing. Some sadly are becoming more cult like.
Those who still believe immigration is the route of this country’s problems are still being lead by the nose. It is not. "whether you like it or not millions of people think it is and want action. Those people can likely swing an election to the party that resonates with their feelings, this is why the Tory party have begun the push to the GE and picking up those voters who fell by the side over the last 3 years. I don’t for one moment believe that it is only tories who want to stop the boat crossings, and that is where are differences come to the surface, I don’t put those concerned about the costs, the activity in the racist bucket! A minority, will be but others not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does his ‘new’ plan still involve Rwanda? " I answered that further up
It is being challenged in court today I think, if it goes through again as legal, Braverman will no doubt start banging that drum.
If not, they will use it show how in their opinion they’re doing everything they can even though their hands are tied.
Spin spin | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does his ‘new’ plan still involve Rwanda? I answered that further up
It is being challenged in court today I think, if it goes through again as legal, Braverman will no doubt start banging that drum.
If not, they will use it show how in their opinion they’re doing everything they can even though their hands are tied.
Spin spin "So where are they going to send them ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does his ‘new’ plan still involve Rwanda? I answered that further up
It is being challenged in court today I think, if it goes through again as legal, Braverman will no doubt start banging that drum.
If not, they will use it show how in their opinion they’re doing everything they can even though their hands are tied.
Spin spin
So where are they going to send them ? "Who and when? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We think a lot of you really overestimate the support for Conservatives from folk who want unvetted mass immigration stopped. Granted, many likely voted for the current lot but unless their IQ's are sub-85 even an idiot can see the government has done NOTHING to stop it. This latest announcement is just more of the same placations due to bad news or elections coming up. We don't think it will work this time though, more people are beginning to realise it's just blue, red, green, yellow, and grey varieties of Labour anyway. They all drink at the same bars, go to the same clubs, and send their kids to the same schools..." Agreed, it is easier to put everything in a box and label it bad Tory. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does his ‘new’ plan still involve Rwanda? I answered that further up
It is being challenged in court today I think, if it goes through again as legal, Braverman will no doubt start banging that drum.
If not, they will use it show how in their opinion they’re doing everything they can even though their hands are tied.
Spin spin
So where are they going to send them ?
Who and when? "From today and Asylum seekers arriving by boat? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We think a lot of you really overestimate the support for Conservatives from folk who want unvetted mass immigration stopped. Granted, many likely voted for the current lot but unless their IQ's are sub-85 even an idiot can see the government has done NOTHING to stop it. This latest announcement is just more of the same placations due to bad news or elections coming up. We don't think it will work this time though, more people are beginning to realise it's just blue, red, green, yellow, and grey varieties of Labour anyway. They all drink at the same bars, go to the same clubs, and send their kids to the same schools... Agreed, it is easier to put everything in a box and label it bad Tory. " The tories have been in charge for the last 13 years, why is this labours fault? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We think a lot of you really overestimate the support for Conservatives from folk who want unvetted mass immigration stopped. Granted, many likely voted for the current lot but unless their IQ's are sub-85 even an idiot can see the government has done NOTHING to stop it. This latest announcement is just more of the same placations due to bad news or elections coming up. We don't think it will work this time though, more people are beginning to realise it's just blue, red, green, yellow, and grey varieties of Labour anyway. They all drink at the same bars, go to the same clubs, and send their kids to the same schools... Agreed, it is easier to put everything in a box and label it bad Tory. The tories have been in charge for the last 13 years, why is this labours fault? " Who said it was labours fault? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We think a lot of you really overestimate the support for Conservatives from folk who want unvetted mass immigration stopped. Granted, many likely voted for the current lot but unless their IQ's are sub-85 even an idiot can see the government has done NOTHING to stop it. This latest announcement is just more of the same placations due to bad news or elections coming up. We don't think it will work this time though, more people are beginning to realise it's just blue, red, green, yellow, and grey varieties of Labour anyway. They all drink at the same bars, go to the same clubs, and send their kids to the same schools... Agreed, it is easier to put everything in a box and label it bad Tory. The tories have been in charge for the last 13 years, why is this labours fault? Who said it was labours fault? " Why are you agreeing with the claim that labour and Tories are the same? Labour have a different solution to this problem and labour haven’t been in government since 2010 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories have been in charge for the last 13 years, why is this labours fault? " Not saying this problem is any one parties fault. What we are saying is none of the parties will do anything to stop it. Is that clear enough or do we need to clap out the syllables? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We think a lot of you really overestimate the support for Conservatives from folk who want unvetted mass immigration stopped. Granted, many likely voted for the current lot but unless their IQ's are sub-85 even an idiot can see the government has done NOTHING to stop it. This latest announcement is just more of the same placations due to bad news or elections coming up. We don't think it will work this time though, more people are beginning to realise it's just blue, red, green, yellow, and grey varieties of Labour anyway. They all drink at the same bars, go to the same clubs, and send their kids to the same schools... Agreed, it is easier to put everything in a box and label it bad Tory. The tories have been in charge for the last 13 years, why is this labours fault? Who said it was labours fault? Why are you agreeing with the claim that labour and Tories are the same? Labour have a different solution to this problem and labour haven’t been in government since 2010 " I wasn’t, I was agreeing that the resistance to boat crossings and immigration is not just a Tory voter thing, it is across all voters for all parties. That has been my point from the start, and that is how the tories hoover up the voters, by people putting those with concerns into the bad tory box. The more I think of it the more it makes me think that this labelling everyone right wing for showing concern over the boat crossings and costs to the tax payer, the more it could push those people into actually voting tory and keeping them in power…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories have been in charge for the last 13 years, why is this labours fault? Not saying this problem is any one parties fault. What we are saying is none of the parties will do anything to stop it. Is that clear enough or do we need to clap out the syllables?" Labour have a different solution and haven’t been in power for 13 years , do I need to clap out the syllables | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We think a lot of you really overestimate the support for Conservatives from folk who want unvetted mass immigration stopped. Granted, many likely voted for the current lot but unless their IQ's are sub-85 even an idiot can see the government has done NOTHING to stop it. This latest announcement is just more of the same placations due to bad news or elections coming up. We don't think it will work this time though, more people are beginning to realise it's just blue, red, green, yellow, and grey varieties of Labour anyway. They all drink at the same bars, go to the same clubs, and send their kids to the same schools... Agreed, it is easier to put everything in a box and label it bad Tory. The tories have been in charge for the last 13 years, why is this labours fault? Who said it was labours fault? Why are you agreeing with the claim that labour and Tories are the same? Labour have a different solution to this problem and labour haven’t been in government since 2010 I wasn’t, I was agreeing that the resistance to boat crossings and immigration is not just a Tory voter thing, it is across all voters for all parties. That has been my point from the start, and that is how the tories hoover up the voters, by people putting those with concerns into the bad tory box. The more I think of it the more it makes me think that this labelling everyone right wing for showing concern over the boat crossings and costs to the tax payer, the more it could push those people into actually voting tory and keeping them in power…." The problem has got worse under the Tories, can you explain why people will vote for them ? They are more likely to vote for the reform party | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We think a lot of you really overestimate the support for Conservatives from folk who want unvetted mass immigration stopped. Granted, many likely voted for the current lot but unless their IQ's are sub-85 even an idiot can see the government has done NOTHING to stop it. This latest announcement is just more of the same placations due to bad news or elections coming up. We don't think it will work this time though, more people are beginning to realise it's just blue, red, green, yellow, and grey varieties of Labour anyway. They all drink at the same bars, go to the same clubs, and send their kids to the same schools... Agreed, it is easier to put everything in a box and label it bad Tory. The tories have been in charge for the last 13 years, why is this labours fault? Who said it was labours fault? Why are you agreeing with the claim that labour and Tories are the same? Labour have a different solution to this problem and labour haven’t been in government since 2010 I wasn’t, I was agreeing that the resistance to boat crossings and immigration is not just a Tory voter thing, it is across all voters for all parties. That has been my point from the start, and that is how the tories hoover up the voters, by people putting those with concerns into the bad tory box. The more I think of it the more it makes me think that this labelling everyone right wing for showing concern over the boat crossings and costs to the tax payer, the more it could push those people into actually voting tory and keeping them in power…. The problem has got worse under the Tories, can you explain why people will vote for them ? They are more likely to vote for the reform party "Because they have tough policies, it is really that simple. Nobody needs tell anyone who they voted for or why…. They hoover them up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories have been in charge for the last 13 years, why is this labours fault? Not saying this problem is any one parties fault. What we are saying is none of the parties will do anything to stop it. Is that clear enough or do we need to clap out the syllables?" Doesn’t matter how you communicate the labour supporting socialists won’t listen | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour have a different solution and haven’t been in power for 13 years , do I need to clap out the syllables "Bet you this 'plan' involves some harsh words, some placations, and absolutely no real action. They will of course be placed amongst poor working class communities because who cares about the poor in this country eh? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We think a lot of you really overestimate the support for Conservatives from folk who want unvetted mass immigration stopped. Granted, many likely voted for the current lot but unless their IQ's are sub-85 even an idiot can see the government has done NOTHING to stop it. This latest announcement is just more of the same placations due to bad news or elections coming up. We don't think it will work this time though, more people are beginning to realise it's just blue, red, green, yellow, and grey varieties of Labour anyway. They all drink at the same bars, go to the same clubs, and send their kids to the same schools... Agreed, it is easier to put everything in a box and label it bad Tory. The tories have been in charge for the last 13 years, why is this labours fault? Who said it was labours fault? Why are you agreeing with the claim that labour and Tories are the same? Labour have a different solution to this problem and labour haven’t been in government since 2010 I wasn’t, I was agreeing that the resistance to boat crossings and immigration is not just a Tory voter thing, it is across all voters for all parties. That has been my point from the start, and that is how the tories hoover up the voters, by people putting those with concerns into the bad tory box. The more I think of it the more it makes me think that this labelling everyone right wing for showing concern over the boat crossings and costs to the tax payer, the more it could push those people into actually voting tory and keeping them in power…. The problem has got worse under the Tories, can you explain why people will vote for them ? They are more likely to vote for the reform party
Because they have tough policies, it is really that simple.
Nobody needs tell anyone who they voted for or why…. They hoover them up "I disagree, if your main reason for voting is to solve the boat migrant ‘problem’ you will vote for the reform party who have tougher policies . Why would you vote for a party who talk tough but don’t solve the problem ? The tories are going to be held to account by the likes of Farage and they will lose votes to the reform party . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour have a different solution and haven’t been in power for 13 years , do I need to clap out the syllables
Bet you this 'plan' involves some harsh words, some placations, and absolutely no real action. They will of course be placed amongst poor working class communities because who cares about the poor in this country eh?"They are currently placed with poor working class people . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We think a lot of you really overestimate the support for Conservatives from folk who want unvetted mass immigration stopped. Granted, many likely voted for the current lot but unless their IQ's are sub-85 even an idiot can see the government has done NOTHING to stop it. This latest announcement is just more of the same placations due to bad news or elections coming up. We don't think it will work this time though, more people are beginning to realise it's just blue, red, green, yellow, and grey varieties of Labour anyway. They all drink at the same bars, go to the same clubs, and send their kids to the same schools... Agreed, it is easier to put everything in a box and label it bad Tory. The tories have been in charge for the last 13 years, why is this labours fault? Who said it was labours fault? Why are you agreeing with the claim that labour and Tories are the same? Labour have a different solution to this problem and labour haven’t been in government since 2010 I wasn’t, I was agreeing that the resistance to boat crossings and immigration is not just a Tory voter thing, it is across all voters for all parties. That has been my point from the start, and that is how the tories hoover up the voters, by people putting those with concerns into the bad tory box. The more I think of it the more it makes me think that this labelling everyone right wing for showing concern over the boat crossings and costs to the tax payer, the more it could push those people into actually voting tory and keeping them in power…. The problem has got worse under the Tories, can you explain why people will vote for them ? They are more likely to vote for the reform party
Because they have tough policies, it is really that simple.
Nobody needs tell anyone who they voted for or why…. They hoover them up
I disagree, if your main reason for voting is to solve the boat migrant ‘problem’ you will vote for the reform party who have tougher policies . Why would you vote for a party who talk tough but don’t solve the problem ? The tories are going to be held to account by the likes of Farage and they will lose votes to the reform party . "Because as the crux of my posts, the concern is across all party voters, the main 2 parties will pick up voters based on their immigration policies, the tories know that tough has won the day before. By mentioning Farage and Reform party you are saying anyone who has concerns about this issue are very right, maybe far right, that is not true or those parties would have a far greater slice of the vote, and they don’t. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We think a lot of you really overestimate the support for Conservatives from folk who want unvetted mass immigration stopped. Granted, many likely voted for the current lot but unless their IQ's are sub-85 even an idiot can see the government has done NOTHING to stop it. This latest announcement is just more of the same placations due to bad news or elections coming up. We don't think it will work this time though, more people are beginning to realise it's just blue, red, green, yellow, and grey varieties of Labour anyway. They all drink at the same bars, go to the same clubs, and send their kids to the same schools... Agreed, it is easier to put everything in a box and label it bad Tory. The tories have been in charge for the last 13 years, why is this labours fault? Who said it was labours fault? Why are you agreeing with the claim that labour and Tories are the same? Labour have a different solution to this problem and labour haven’t been in government since 2010 I wasn’t, I was agreeing that the resistance to boat crossings and immigration is not just a Tory voter thing, it is across all voters for all parties. That has been my point from the start, and that is how the tories hoover up the voters, by people putting those with concerns into the bad tory box. The more I think of it the more it makes me think that this labelling everyone right wing for showing concern over the boat crossings and costs to the tax payer, the more it could push those people into actually voting tory and keeping them in power…. The problem has got worse under the Tories, can you explain why people will vote for them ? They are more likely to vote for the reform party
Because they have tough policies, it is really that simple.
Nobody needs tell anyone who they voted for or why…. They hoover them up
I disagree, if your main reason for voting is to solve the boat migrant ‘problem’ you will vote for the reform party who have tougher policies . Why would you vote for a party who talk tough but don’t solve the problem ? The tories are going to be held to account by the likes of Farage and they will lose votes to the reform party .
Because as the crux of my posts, the concern is across all party voters, the main 2 parties will pick up voters based on their immigration policies, the tories know that tough has won the day before.
By mentioning Farage and Reform party you are saying anyone who has concerns about this issue are very right, maybe far right, that is not true or those parties would have a far greater slice of the vote, and they don’t. "If your ‘main ‘ concern is the boat migrants then you will vote reform, I honestly think the vast majority of people have very little or no interest in the ‘problem’ . If the tories keep talking tough and making false promises they will be held to account, exposed as bull shitters and lose votes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a thought Set up offices on the continent ( that’s what we used to do) Allow people to apply for asylum through safe routes and the boats disappear. Those who are rejected are so few it would not be worth the trouble for smugglers to help them. This mess is a creation of this government to rally the right wing. It also gives them someone to blame when they need a distraction from bad news. Boris’ dad gets a knighthood.. bloody immigrants. Boris mislead parliament .. bloody immigrants. NI better off in the EU shhh bloody immigrants. How ironic that Brexit has meant we can’t send anyone back ..
Taking back control of our borders indeed!!
I’m going to disagree with the right winger comments! Brexit was won thanks to the numbers of Left leaning voters in the northern Red Wall power house who wanted to take control of the borders, it formed their decision and their reasoning to vote leave the EU, so much so they voted Tory in 2019.
Yes you’re right that was too sweeping I agree as ms y left wingers believed it was the immigrants who were to blame for everything when in fact it was our constant stockily bad governments year after year. .
The rest of the comments of rallying their core and the blatant racist element of our society still stands.
I’m not so sure.
If a person feels that thousands of people travelling to the UK by illegal means is wrong, does that make them a racist?
I’ve mentioned earlier, the laws in the UK are set and the reality is they are breaking the law, even if you don’t agree.
I’m afraid that your view is a minority view, if it wasn’t tories and Labour alike would not be putting the issue on their priority lists.
I’m not singing you out, you reply in a calm manner allowing for easier conversation, to be fair most have on this thread which makes a refreshing change
Sorry for my fat finger typos.
Firstly there has been a lot of debate on here over this.
It is not illegal to arrive in the country without permission. The routes are called unusual by the United Nations and Human right law, not illegal.
Illegality only happens if the those arriving fail to claim asylum at the earliest opportunity after arrival.
I’m not suggesting all people against immigrants are racist but many are.
What if you were told 40,000 doctors and nurses were arriving by boats. Would they be hounded?
The fact is many of those arriving have skills we need and those that don’t are wanting to work,
The colour of their skin and method of arriving leads to extremely bias media stirring up a feeling of resentment such as they are taking our jobs or a million Turks are coming. Note not a million workers or again skilled doctors and nurses. Just Turks. Just Syrians, Just Arabs.
The narrative is racist or cx at least bigoted however hard people try to cover it up.
I appreciate the reasonable approach but a reasonable approach is absent from both our government and most of our media.
I think you saying my view is a minority needs a bit of evidence please?
If your views were in the majority the government and opposition would have a welcome to the UK agenda, as both parties don’t I’m confident that it is a minority view.
The vote winner is important and to appease the masses is the vote winner.
That’s not evidence that’s opinion .
Labour won’t say anything too controversial over anything because the bias media will slaughter him even if he said we need to look at this afresh.
To claim that’s labour supporting the present demonisation of immigrants is just plain wrong .
The problem is not massive increase in immigrants when you actually look at the numbers it’s the massive backlog and the inability to send back the 2-3000 rejected per year now we’re are out or the EU .
Amazing how we could control our borders far more efficiently when part of the Dublin agreement . Now our own government has full control it’s worse than ever.
It would be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic.
Independence is a myth.
A formal safe system would sort this instantly and source urgently needed workers.
No party would dismiss the will of the people to put it on power, as mentioned in a few posts it plays to the masses and can be rolled out to secure voters.
If that was not the case and the majority of people wanted a more lenient approach, it would be on the agenda.
I could be argued that the ruling party and their supporting press direct the will of the people.
Of course it could and happens, because the majority of people in the UK do not want the tax burden or the blatant breaking of UK laws.
Minorities that want no immigration or immigrants are not in game, they will not succeed, nor will those that want to Trow open the borders to anyone who cares to travel here.
The solution is complex as is the problem, but only seeing it from one side creates the very thing that keeps the tories in power for now. Labour will not allow illegal entry to happen either or they can say goodbye to their faithful who will vote Tory again.
There is only one side to this. The Tories using immigration to whip up support for their party. That's all it is.
"The tax burden" is an excellent example. As we all know, immigration has a net increase on the amount of tax generated and has a overall positive impact.
Why Do you think the Labour voters abandoned the party to vote conservative to make brexit a leave vote?
Because they believed that a very simple solution to an extremely complex problem was the answer. "get brexit done".
You are not in my opinion, acknowledging that the issue of illegal crossings is not just a Tory voter issue. The idea that brexit was decided by racist right wing conservatives is a misleading one, it was decided by Labour voters who did the unthinkable and switched sides to make sure it happened in 2019.
The immigration and control of borders is a concern across the political spectrum and peoples of the UK, if that is ignored it will never be resolved and political posturing will win the day.
Sorry but you’re failing to point out the litany of lies spouted about how much better off those labour strong holds would be.
People who have suffered a lower and lower standard of living were very vulnerable to the bullshit spread by Boris and his media friends,
The promise of £350m for the NHS the being a prime example. Boris actually sitting on that bus admitted to a reporter it was a lie but carried on regardless. People believed him. The farmers believed his promises. The fishermen believed his promises. Brexit will lead to more levelling up for those labour constituencies. More police, more doctors etc etc
It was all lies.
So not all Tory voters were fixated by immigrants and neither were all labour voters. Most voters are starting to realise their mistake in believing. Some sadly are becoming more cult like.
Those who still believe immigration is the route of this country’s problems are still being lead by the nose. It is not.
whether you like it or not millions of people think it is and want action. Those people can likely swing an election to the party that resonates with their feelings, this is why the Tory party have begun the push to the GE and picking up those voters who fell by the side over the last 3 years.
I don’t for one moment believe that it is only tories who want to stop the boat crossings, and that is where are differences come to the surface, I don’t put those concerned about the costs, the activity in the racist bucket! A minority, will be but others not.
"I feel like we're virtually in agreement. It's the same old pattern. Step 1 - Media and Tory spin: 'you know what you need to be afraid of, you know who causes all your problems, it's them foriegners there, coming over here' etc. Step 2 - Tories: 'look at all these things we're doing about immigrants, aren't we great' Step 3 - People vote Tory. Step 4 - nothing much changes (they have no interest in endangering one of their main vote winners. IE an immigration "problem"). Step 5 - usual Tory sleaze, corruption, disastrous policy etc. Back to step 1. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power." Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories have been in charge for the last 13 years, why is this labours fault? Not saying this problem is any one parties fault. What we are saying is none of the parties will do anything to stop it. Is that clear enough or do we need to clap out the syllables? Doesn’t matter how you communicate the labour supporting socialists won’t listen" Why is it only socialists who don't blame Labour, who haven't been in power for 12 years, for current issues? Seems like an extremely bizarre claim. Even for the Fab forums. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants. "Who do you trust?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??"I don’t agree that these ‘boat migrants’ are a big problem, however , I want them to be treated fairly and processed quickly , | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??"Who do you trust ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ? "Come answer the Question? You seem to have an answer for everything else | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else "On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ? "Explain Labour plan to us again please. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ?
Explain Labour plan to us again please. "Do you have google? Who do you trust? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ?
Explain Labour plan to us again please.
Do you have google?
Who do you trust? "No sorry | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ? "What is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ?
What is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?"Yvette Cooper did an interview explaining their plan, you should watch that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ?
What is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
Yvette Cooper did an interview explaining their plan, you should watch that "Why are you refusing to enlighten us? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ?
What is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
Yvette Cooper did an interview explaining their plan, you should watch that
Why are you refusing to enlighten us?"Why can’t you watch the interview. ? It is on yahoo news | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ?
What is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?"We are hoping for an answer to that question as well | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ?
What is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
We are hoping for an answer to that question as well "Watch the interview with Yvette Cooper | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ?
What is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
Yvette Cooper did an interview explaining their plan, you should watch that
Why are you refusing to enlighten us?
Why can’t you watch the interview. ? It is on yahoo news "I've watched it. Cross boarder police unit - Good luck working with the French. Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? All of this tells us nothing. So I'll ask again, what is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ?
What is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
Yvette Cooper did an interview explaining their plan, you should watch that
Why are you refusing to enlighten us?
Why can’t you watch the interview. ? It is on yahoo news
I've watched it.
Cross boarder police unit - Good luck working with the French.
Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France.
A complete overhaul - what does that mean?
End hotel use - where else should they stay?
All of this tells us nothing.
So I'll ask again, what is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?"That is the plan, so, who do you trust to deliver the best solution? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ?
What is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
Yvette Cooper did an interview explaining their plan, you should watch that
Why are you refusing to enlighten us?
Why can’t you watch the interview. ? It is on yahoo news
I've watched it.
Cross boarder police unit - Good luck working with the French.
Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France.
A complete overhaul - what does that mean?
End hotel use - where else should they stay?
All of this tells us nothing.
So I'll ask again, what is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
That is the plan, so, who do you trust to deliver the best solution? "I don't see a workable plan there, I just picked it apart in less than 2 mins so I imagine someone with much more intellect than myself can destroy it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ?
What is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
Yvette Cooper did an interview explaining their plan, you should watch that
Why are you refusing to enlighten us?
Why can’t you watch the interview. ? It is on yahoo news
I've watched it.
Cross boarder police unit - Good luck working with the French.
Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France.
A complete overhaul - what does that mean?
End hotel use - where else should they stay?
All of this tells us nothing.
So I'll ask again, what is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
That is the plan, so, who do you trust to deliver the best solution?
I don't see a workable plan there, I just picked it apart in less than 2 mins so I imagine someone with much more intellect than myself can destroy it."Ok, so you don’t think it will work, so, , Who do you trust to deliver the best solution? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ?
What is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
Yvette Cooper did an interview explaining their plan, you should watch that
Why are you refusing to enlighten us?
Why can’t you watch the interview. ? It is on yahoo news
I've watched it.
Cross boarder police unit - Good luck working with the French.
Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France.
A complete overhaul - what does that mean?
End hotel use - where else should they stay?
All of this tells us nothing.
So I'll ask again, what is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
That is the plan, so, who do you trust to deliver the best solution?
I don't see a workable plan there, I just picked it apart in less than 2 mins so I imagine someone with much more intellect than myself can destroy it.
Ok, so you don’t think it will work, so, , Who do you trust to deliver the best solution? "Why do you keep asking me that question? I don't see either plan working at the moment. How can it work? We have no jurisdiction in France to go after the gangs, the French police have never been too fussed so why would they now? What does a complete overhaul actually mean? It's very light on any details. If we stop housing asylum seekers in hotels, where will we house them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ?
What is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
Yvette Cooper did an interview explaining their plan, you should watch that
Why are you refusing to enlighten us?
Why can’t you watch the interview. ? It is on yahoo news
I've watched it.
Cross boarder police unit - Good luck working with the French.
Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France.
A complete overhaul - what does that mean?
End hotel use - where else should they stay?
All of this tells us nothing.
So I'll ask again, what is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
That is the plan, so, who do you trust to deliver the best solution? "So the illegal war in Iraq supported by the then Labour Party, which is commonly known as one of the main factors for mass immigration. Now the current Labour Party is the answer to the problem.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ?
What is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
Yvette Cooper did an interview explaining their plan, you should watch that
Why are you refusing to enlighten us?
Why can’t you watch the interview. ? It is on yahoo news
I've watched it.
Cross boarder police unit - Good luck working with the French.
Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France.
A complete overhaul - what does that mean?
End hotel use - where else should they stay?
All of this tells us nothing.
So I'll ask again, what is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
That is the plan, so, who do you trust to deliver the best solution?
I don't see a workable plan there, I just picked it apart in less than 2 mins so I imagine someone with much more intellect than myself can destroy it.
Ok, so you don’t think it will work, so, , Who do you trust to deliver the best solution?
Why do you keep asking me that question?
I don't see either plan working at the moment.
How can it work? We have no jurisdiction in France to go after the gangs, the French police have never been too fussed so why would they now?
What does a complete overhaul actually mean? It's very light on any details.
If we stop housing asylum seekers in hotels, where will we house them?"Because at the next election (if you think boat migrants are a priority) you have a choice , which party offers the best solution ? I have already stated that it isn’t a priority for me but if I it was I prefer labours plan | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ?
What is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
Yvette Cooper did an interview explaining their plan, you should watch that
Why are you refusing to enlighten us?
Why can’t you watch the interview. ? It is on yahoo news
I've watched it.
Cross boarder police unit - Good luck working with the French.
Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France.
A complete overhaul - what does that mean?
End hotel use - where else should they stay?
All of this tells us nothing.
So I'll ask again, what is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
That is the plan, so, who do you trust to deliver the best solution?
So the illegal war in Iraq supported by the then Labour Party, which is commonly known as one of the main factors for mass immigration. Now the current Labour Party is the answer to the problem. "The Iraq war was 20 years ago, since then we have had 13 years of Tory governments | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ?
What is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
Yvette Cooper did an interview explaining their plan, you should watch that
Why are you refusing to enlighten us?
Why can’t you watch the interview. ? It is on yahoo news
I've watched it.
Cross boarder police unit - Good luck working with the French.
Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France.
A complete overhaul - what does that mean?
End hotel use - where else should they stay?
All of this tells us nothing.
So I'll ask again, what is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
That is the plan, so, who do you trust to deliver the best solution?
I don't see a workable plan there, I just picked it apart in less than 2 mins so I imagine someone with much more intellect than myself can destroy it.
Ok, so you don’t think it will work, so, , Who do you trust to deliver the best solution?
Why do you keep asking me that question?
I don't see either plan working at the moment.
How can it work? We have no jurisdiction in France to go after the gangs, the French police have never been too fussed so why would they now?
What does a complete overhaul actually mean? It's very light on any details.
If we stop housing asylum seekers in hotels, where will we house them?
Because at the next election (if you think boat migrants are a priority) you have a choice , which party offers the best solution ? I have already stated that it isn’t a priority for me but if I it was I prefer labours plan "I have previously stated that the only plan that works to help asylum seekers and appease the British public is to allow applications from overseas. Can you enlighten me on any of the questions I have? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ?
What is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
Yvette Cooper did an interview explaining their plan, you should watch that
Why are you refusing to enlighten us?
Why can’t you watch the interview. ? It is on yahoo news
I've watched it.
Cross boarder police unit - Good luck working with the French.
Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France.
A complete overhaul - what does that mean?
End hotel use - where else should they stay?
All of this tells us nothing.
So I'll ask again, what is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
That is the plan, so, who do you trust to deliver the best solution?
I don't see a workable plan there, I just picked it apart in less than 2 mins so I imagine someone with much more intellect than myself can destroy it.
Ok, so you don’t think it will work, so, , Who do you trust to deliver the best solution?
Why do you keep asking me that question?
I don't see either plan working at the moment.
How can it work? We have no jurisdiction in France to go after the gangs, the French police have never been too fussed so why would they now?
What does a complete overhaul actually mean? It's very light on any details.
If we stop housing asylum seekers in hotels, where will we house them?
Because at the next election (if you think boat migrants are a priority) you have a choice , which party offers the best solution ? I have already stated that it isn’t a priority for me but if I it was I prefer labours plan
I have previously stated that the only plan that works to help asylum seekers and appease the British public is to allow applications from overseas.
Can you enlighten me on any of the questions I have?"Ok, so , in your opinion (if you can manage one) which of the parties offer the best solution? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ?
What is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
Yvette Cooper did an interview explaining their plan, you should watch that
Why are you refusing to enlighten us?
Why can’t you watch the interview. ? It is on yahoo news
I've watched it.
Cross boarder police unit - Good luck working with the French.
Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France.
A complete overhaul - what does that mean?
End hotel use - where else should they stay?
All of this tells us nothing.
So I'll ask again, what is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
That is the plan, so, who do you trust to deliver the best solution?
I don't see a workable plan there, I just picked it apart in less than 2 mins so I imagine someone with much more intellect than myself can destroy it.
Ok, so you don’t think it will work, so, , Who do you trust to deliver the best solution?
Why do you keep asking me that question?
I don't see either plan working at the moment.
How can it work? We have no jurisdiction in France to go after the gangs, the French police have never been too fussed so why would they now?
What does a complete overhaul actually mean? It's very light on any details.
If we stop housing asylum seekers in hotels, where will we house them?
Because at the next election (if you think boat migrants are a priority) you have a choice , which party offers the best solution ? I have already stated that it isn’t a priority for me but if I it was I prefer labours plan
I have previously stated that the only plan that works to help asylum seekers and appease the British public is to allow applications from overseas.
Can you enlighten me on any of the questions I have?
Ok, so , in your opinion (if you can manage one) which of the parties offer the best solution? "I just answered that question. Neither. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ?
What is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
Yvette Cooper did an interview explaining their plan, you should watch that
Why are you refusing to enlighten us?
Why can’t you watch the interview. ? It is on yahoo news
I've watched it.
Cross boarder police unit - Good luck working with the French.
Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France.
A complete overhaul - what does that mean?
End hotel use - where else should they stay?
All of this tells us nothing.
So I'll ask again, what is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
That is the plan, so, who do you trust to deliver the best solution?
I don't see a workable plan there, I just picked it apart in less than 2 mins so I imagine someone with much more intellect than myself can destroy it.
Ok, so you don’t think it will work, so, , Who do you trust to deliver the best solution?
Why do you keep asking me that question?
I don't see either plan working at the moment.
How can it work? We have no jurisdiction in France to go after the gangs, the French police have never been too fussed so why would they now?
What does a complete overhaul actually mean? It's very light on any details.
If we stop housing asylum seekers in hotels, where will we house them?
Because at the next election (if you think boat migrants are a priority) you have a choice , which party offers the best solution ? I have already stated that it isn’t a priority for me but if I it was I prefer labours plan
I have previously stated that the only plan that works to help asylum seekers and appease the British public is to allow applications from overseas.
Can you enlighten me on any of the questions I have?
Ok, so , in your opinion (if you can manage one) which of the parties offer the best solution?
I just answered that question.
Neither.
"Fair enough , will this influence who you vote for at the next GE? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ?
What is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
Yvette Cooper did an interview explaining their plan, you should watch that
Why are you refusing to enlighten us?
Why can’t you watch the interview. ? It is on yahoo news
I've watched it.
Cross boarder police unit - Good luck working with the French.
Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France.
A complete overhaul - what does that mean?
End hotel use - where else should they stay?
All of this tells us nothing.
So I'll ask again, what is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
That is the plan, so, who do you trust to deliver the best solution?
I don't see a workable plan there, I just picked it apart in less than 2 mins so I imagine someone with much more intellect than myself can destroy it.
Ok, so you don’t think it will work, so, , Who do you trust to deliver the best solution?
Why do you keep asking me that question?
I don't see either plan working at the moment.
How can it work? We have no jurisdiction in France to go after the gangs, the French police have never been too fussed so why would they now?
What does a complete overhaul actually mean? It's very light on any details.
If we stop housing asylum seekers in hotels, where will we house them?
Because at the next election (if you think boat migrants are a priority) you have a choice , which party offers the best solution ? I have already stated that it isn’t a priority for me but if I it was I prefer labours plan
I have previously stated that the only plan that works to help asylum seekers and appease the British public is to allow applications from overseas.
Can you enlighten me on any of the questions I have?
Ok, so , in your opinion (if you can manage one) which of the parties offer the best solution?
I just answered that question.
Neither.
Fair enough , will this influence who you vote for at the next GE? "It may well do of Labour can provide detail. At the moment you're believing in a plan that has no detail. Any chance you'll answer my questions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ?
What is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
Yvette Cooper did an interview explaining their plan, you should watch that
Why are you refusing to enlighten us?
Why can’t you watch the interview. ? It is on yahoo news
I've watched it.
Cross boarder police unit - Good luck working with the French.
Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France.
A complete overhaul - what does that mean?
End hotel use - where else should they stay?
All of this tells us nothing.
So I'll ask again, what is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
That is the plan, so, who do you trust to deliver the best solution?
I don't see a workable plan there, I just picked it apart in less than 2 mins so I imagine someone with much more intellect than myself can destroy it.
Ok, so you don’t think it will work, so, , Who do you trust to deliver the best solution?
Why do you keep asking me that question?
I don't see either plan working at the moment.
How can it work? We have no jurisdiction in France to go after the gangs, the French police have never been too fussed so why would they now?
What does a complete overhaul actually mean? It's very light on any details.
If we stop housing asylum seekers in hotels, where will we house them?
Because at the next election (if you think boat migrants are a priority) you have a choice , which party offers the best solution ? I have already stated that it isn’t a priority for me but if I it was I prefer labours plan
I have previously stated that the only plan that works to help asylum seekers and appease the British public is to allow applications from overseas.
Can you enlighten me on any of the questions I have?
Ok, so , in your opinion (if you can manage one) which of the parties offer the best solution?
I just answered that question.
Neither.
Fair enough , will this influence who you vote for at the next GE?
It may well do of Labour can provide detail.
At the moment you're believing in a plan that has no detail.
Any chance you'll answer my questions?"What questions? If you want time to provide more details then I can’t, I am not in the shadow cabinet | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ?
What is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
Yvette Cooper did an interview explaining their plan, you should watch that
Why are you refusing to enlighten us?
Why can’t you watch the interview. ? It is on yahoo news
I've watched it.
Cross boarder police unit - Good luck working with the French.
Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France.
A complete overhaul - what does that mean?
End hotel use - where else should they stay?
All of this tells us nothing.
So I'll ask again, what is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
That is the plan, so, who do you trust to deliver the best solution?
So the illegal war in Iraq supported by the then Labour Party, which is commonly known as one of the main factors for mass immigration. Now the current Labour Party is the answer to the problem.
The Iraq war was 20 years ago, since then we have had 13 years of Tory governments "You do realise Iran is in another country.? And the immigrants are travelling through Europe to reach the UK. “The distribution of asylum seekers and resettled refugees is highly uneven across the UK. In 2021, the top five most common countries of nationality of people who applied for asylum in the UK were Iran, Iraq, Eritrea, Albania and Syria.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ?
What is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
Yvette Cooper did an interview explaining their plan, you should watch that
Why are you refusing to enlighten us?
Why can’t you watch the interview. ? It is on yahoo news
I've watched it.
Cross boarder police unit - Good luck working with the French.
Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France.
A complete overhaul - what does that mean?
End hotel use - where else should they stay?
All of this tells us nothing.
So I'll ask again, what is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
That is the plan, so, who do you trust to deliver the best solution?
I don't see a workable plan there, I just picked it apart in less than 2 mins so I imagine someone with much more intellect than myself can destroy it.
Ok, so you don’t think it will work, so, , Who do you trust to deliver the best solution?
Why do you keep asking me that question?
I don't see either plan working at the moment.
How can it work? We have no jurisdiction in France to go after the gangs, the French police have never been too fussed so why would they now?
What does a complete overhaul actually mean? It's very light on any details.
If we stop housing asylum seekers in hotels, where will we house them?
Because at the next election (if you think boat migrants are a priority) you have a choice , which party offers the best solution ? I have already stated that it isn’t a priority for me but if I it was I prefer labours plan
I have previously stated that the only plan that works to help asylum seekers and appease the British public is to allow applications from overseas.
Can you enlighten me on any of the questions I have?
Ok, so , in your opinion (if you can manage one) which of the parties offer the best solution?
I just answered that question.
Neither.
Fair enough , will this influence who you vote for at the next GE?
It may well do of Labour can provide detail.
At the moment you're believing in a plan that has no detail.
Any chance you'll answer my questions?
What questions? If you want time to provide more details then I can’t, I am not in the shadow cabinet "I've already asked them twice. This thread is some now so I'll start a new one. Right now you're admitting to trusting labour to deliver a plan that contains only soundbites at the moment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ?
What is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
Yvette Cooper did an interview explaining their plan, you should watch that
Why are you refusing to enlighten us?
Why can’t you watch the interview. ? It is on yahoo news
I've watched it.
Cross boarder police unit - Good luck working with the French.
Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France.
A complete overhaul - what does that mean?
End hotel use - where else should they stay?
All of this tells us nothing.
So I'll ask again, what is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
That is the plan, so, who do you trust to deliver the best solution?
So the illegal war in Iraq supported by the then Labour Party, which is commonly known as one of the main factors for mass immigration. Now the current Labour Party is the answer to the problem.
The Iraq war was 20 years ago, since then we have had 13 years of Tory governments
You do realise Iran is in another country.? And the immigrants are travelling through Europe to reach the UK.
“The distribution of asylum seekers and resettled refugees is highly uneven across the UK. In 2021, the top five most common countries of nationality of people who applied for asylum in the UK were Iran, Iraq, Eritrea, Albania and Syria.”"We are talking about immigrants who arrive by boat In 2022 it was Albanian, what has this got to do with war in Iraq? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform party...another political party? Hey kids! Tired of the old parties? Here, have a new party with minimal support that says all new things but will still do nothing even if it gets in power. Yeah, they are shit, basically UKIP and the Brexit party but they will ‘hoover up’ those who don’t trust the tories to deal with immigrants.
Who do you trust??
Who do you trust ?
Come answer the Question?
You seem to have an answer for everything else
On this issues? I support Labour’s plan, who do you trust ?
What is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
Yvette Cooper did an interview explaining their plan, you should watch that
Why are you refusing to enlighten us?
Why can’t you watch the interview. ? It is on yahoo news
I've watched it.
Cross boarder police unit - Good luck working with the French.
Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France.
A complete overhaul - what does that mean?
End hotel use - where else should they stay?
All of this tells us nothing.
So I'll ask again, what is Labour's plan for dealing with asylum seekers?
That is the plan, so, who do you trust to deliver the best solution?
I don't see a workable plan there, I just picked it apart in less than 2 mins so I imagine someone with much more intellect than myself can destroy it.
Ok, so you don’t think it will work, so, , Who do you trust to deliver the best solution?
Why do you keep asking me that question?
I don't see either plan working at the moment.
How can it work? We have no jurisdiction in France to go after the gangs, the French police have never been too fussed so why would they now?
What does a complete overhaul actually mean? It's very light on any details.
If we stop housing asylum seekers in hotels, where will we house them?
Because at the next election (if you think boat migrants are a priority) you have a choice , which party offers the best solution ? I have already stated that it isn’t a priority for me but if I it was I prefer labours plan
I have previously stated that the only plan that works to help asylum seekers and appease the British public is to allow applications from overseas.
Can you enlighten me on any of the questions I have?
Ok, so , in your opinion (if you can manage one) which of the parties offer the best solution?
I just answered that question.
Neither.
Fair enough , will this influence who you vote for at the next GE?
It may well do of Labour can provide detail.
At the moment you're believing in a plan that has no detail.
Any chance you'll answer my questions?
What questions? If you want time to provide more details then I can’t, I am not in the shadow cabinet
I've already asked them twice. This thread is some now so I'll start a new one.
Right now you're admitting to trusting labour to deliver a plan that contains only soundbites at the moment."And the alternative is a plan from the Tories that only contains sound bites and the Home Secretary has admitted it will ‘test international law’ , btw when did the Rwanda scheme start and how many have been sent | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
