FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Are the government doing the right thing with asylum seekers?
Are the government doing the right thing with asylum seekers?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not?" Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. " if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. " And these immigrants come through how many safe countries before boarding boats? Lots | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. " You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. "disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus. If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"70 % of the gangs who are profiting from this are operating in the UK, how many have been arrested and prosecuted " Where did you get those figures from ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"70 % of the gangs who are profiting from this are operating in the UK, how many have been arrested and prosecuted Where did you get those figures from ?" Oh don't worry about him. His figures are rarely even close, let alone correct  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
"You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves. It is their action that has caused the change | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change "Why don’t they arrest and convict these criminals? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change "imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy). You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground. "Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried "Arrest and prosecute the criminals who are responsible, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried
Arrest and prosecute the criminals who are responsible, "There’s the headline, what’s the detail / process for arresting and prosecuting | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried
Arrest and prosecute the criminals who are responsible,
There’s the headline, what’s the detail / process for arresting and prosecuting "The same process for all criminals, why are they allowed to break the law and get away with it,? the money they have earned will be used to finance other crimes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried
Arrest and prosecute the criminals who are responsible,
There’s the headline, what’s the detail / process for arresting and prosecuting
The same process for all criminals, why are they allowed to break the law and get away with it,? the money they have earned will be used to finance other crimes "You are saying 45000 people can arrive here illegally and then go through our legal system. I’m not being harsh, but you are coming across as someone who has little understanding of the implications that your idea would carry. I’m feeling you say throw away lines, if you’re not can you let me know how this arrest and prosecution actually works, costs and what is needed to support this year on year? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"70 % of the gangs who are profiting from this are operating in the UK, how many have been arrested and prosecuted Where did you get those figures from ? Oh don't worry about him. His figures are rarely even close, let alone correct "No comment | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried "I have in another thread. Essentially set up processing centres near hotspots. And a furnace one for the remainder. the former helps check you are from where you say you are. The latter removes the crossing which is probably the costly bit of any journey and so one that inducds the most serv1tude (and therefore turns someone into a modern sl@ve). Ideas taken from labour btw. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried
Arrest and prosecute the criminals who are responsible,
There’s the headline, what’s the detail / process for arresting and prosecuting
The same process for all criminals, why are they allowed to break the law and get away with it,? the money they have earned will be used to finance other crimes
You are saying 45000 people can arrive here illegally and then go through our legal system. I’m not being harsh, but you are coming across as someone who has little understanding of the implications that your idea would carry.
I’m feeling you say throw away lines, if you’re not can you let me know how this arrest and prosecution actually works, costs and what is needed to support this year on year?
"These gangs are responsible, these gangs are making £100s of millions from human trafficking, these gangs will only stop when they are arrested and prosecuted, why isnt this the government top priority ? Stop the gangs, stop the crossings | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried
Arrest and prosecute the criminals who are responsible,
There’s the headline, what’s the detail / process for arresting and prosecuting
The same process for all criminals, why are they allowed to break the law and get away with it,? the money they have earned will be used to finance other crimes
You are saying 45000 people can arrive here illegally and then go through our legal system. I’m not being harsh, but you are coming across as someone who has little understanding of the implications that your idea would carry.
I’m feeling you say throw away lines, if you’re not can you let me know how this arrest and prosecution actually works, costs and what is needed to support this year on year?
"Socialist don’t worry when it’s someone else’s money | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"70 % of the gangs who are profiting from this are operating in the UK, how many have been arrested and prosecuted Where did you get those figures from ?" https://news.sky.com/story/amp/a-people-smuggler-who-sends-migrants-across-the-channel-reveals-how-the-small-boats-trade-works-12806865 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm still waiting for his answer" https://news.sky.com/story/amp/a-people-smuggler-who-sends-migrants-across-the-channel-reveals-how-the-small-boats-trade-works-12806865 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried I have in another thread. Essentially set up processing centres near hotspots. And a furnace one for the remainder. the former helps check you are from where you say you are. The latter removes the crossing which is probably the costly bit of any journey and so one that inducds the most serv1tude (and therefore turns someone into a modern sl@ve).
Ideas taken from labour btw. "Sounds good, now how do you make sure they go through the centres and not simply hop in a boat? Now assuming those intent on getting here that don’t qualify are going to continue arriving illegally, what’s the plan? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's not an answer,wheres the 70%" You can’t read then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried
Arrest and prosecute the criminals who are responsible,
There’s the headline, what’s the detail / process for arresting and prosecuting
The same process for all criminals, why are they allowed to break the law and get away with it,? the money they have earned will be used to finance other crimes
You are saying 45000 people can arrive here illegally and then go through our legal system. I’m not being harsh, but you are coming across as someone who has little understanding of the implications that your idea would carry.
I’m feeling you say throw away lines, if you’re not can you let me know how this arrest and prosecution actually works, costs and what is needed to support this year on year?
These gangs are responsible, these gangs are making £100s of millions from human trafficking, these gangs will only stop when they are arrested and prosecuted, why isnt this the government top priority ? Stop the gangs, stop the crossings "Great target the gangs, what are you doing with those who are using the gangs to enter illegally? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried I have in another thread. Essentially set up processing centres near hotspots. And a furnace one for the remainder. the former helps check you are from where you say you are. The latter removes the crossing which is probably the costly bit of any journey and so one that inducds the most serv1tude (and therefore turns someone into a modern sl@ve).
Ideas taken from labour btw.
Sounds good, now how do you make sure they go through the centres and not simply hop in a boat?
Now assuming those intent on getting here that don’t qualify are going to continue arriving illegally, what’s the plan?"The gangs are laughing at a UK government who are to busy attracting the victims while the perpetrators make millions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried
Arrest and prosecute the criminals who are responsible,
There’s the headline, what’s the detail / process for arresting and prosecuting
The same process for all criminals, why are they allowed to break the law and get away with it,? the money they have earned will be used to finance other crimes
You are saying 45000 people can arrive here illegally and then go through our legal system. I’m not being harsh, but you are coming across as someone who has little understanding of the implications that your idea would carry.
I’m feeling you say throw away lines, if you’re not can you let me know how this arrest and prosecution actually works, costs and what is needed to support this year on year?
These gangs are responsible, these gangs are making £100s of millions from human trafficking, these gangs will only stop when they are arrested and prosecuted, why isnt this the government top priority ? Stop the gangs, stop the crossings
Great target the gangs, what are you doing with those who are using the gangs to enter illegally? "They won’t be entering illegally if you stop the gangs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried I have in another thread. Essentially set up processing centres near hotspots. And a furnace one for the remainder. the former helps check you are from where you say you are. The latter removes the crossing which is probably the costly bit of any journey and so one that inducds the most serv1tude (and therefore turns someone into a modern sl@ve).
Ideas taken from labour btw.
Sounds good, now how do you make sure they go through the centres and not simply hop in a boat?
Now assuming those intent on getting here that don’t qualify are going to continue arriving illegally, what’s the plan?
The gangs are laughing at a UK government who are to busy attracting the victims while the perpetrators make millions "Attacking | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried
Arrest and prosecute the criminals who are responsible,
There’s the headline, what’s the detail / process for arresting and prosecuting
The same process for all criminals, why are they allowed to break the law and get away with it,? the money they have earned will be used to finance other crimes
You are saying 45000 people can arrive here illegally and then go through our legal system. I’m not being harsh, but you are coming across as someone who has little understanding of the implications that your idea would carry.
I’m feeling you say throw away lines, if you’re not can you let me know how this arrest and prosecution actually works, costs and what is needed to support this year on year?
These gangs are responsible, these gangs are making £100s of millions from human trafficking, these gangs will only stop when they are arrested and prosecuted, why isnt this the government top priority ? Stop the gangs, stop the crossings
Great target the gangs, what are you doing with those who are using the gangs to enter illegally?
They won’t be entering illegally if you stop the gangs "How are any government in any country dealing with organised criminal gangs? You have a very black and white take on things, which doesn’t represent the reality of life. I admire your appetite for being vocal and opposing to anything the government suggests but that’s not helpful in discussing things in a meaningful manner. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried
Arrest and prosecute the criminals who are responsible,
There’s the headline, what’s the detail / process for arresting and prosecuting
The same process for all criminals, why are they allowed to break the law and get away with it,? the money they have earned will be used to finance other crimes
You are saying 45000 people can arrive here illegally and then go through our legal system. I’m not being harsh, but you are coming across as someone who has little understanding of the implications that your idea would carry.
I’m feeling you say throw away lines, if you’re not can you let me know how this arrest and prosecution actually works, costs and what is needed to support this year on year?
These gangs are responsible, these gangs are making £100s of millions from human trafficking, these gangs will only stop when they are arrested and prosecuted, why isnt this the government top priority ? Stop the gangs, stop the crossings
Great target the gangs, what are you doing with those who are using the gangs to enter illegally?
They won’t be entering illegally if you stop the gangs
How are any government in any country dealing with organised criminal gangs? You have a very black and white take on things, which doesn’t represent the reality of life.
I admire your appetite for being vocal and opposing to anything the government suggests but that’s not helpful in discussing things in a meaningful manner. "I couldn’t care less what ‘other countries are doing’ we have a criminal gang making £100s of millions from human trafficking in the UK and they are laughing at the government. Apparently this is a huge problem, the top priority should be arresting and prosecuting these gangs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried
Arrest and prosecute the criminals who are responsible,
There’s the headline, what’s the detail / process for arresting and prosecuting
The same process for all criminals, why are they allowed to break the law and get away with it,? the money they have earned will be used to finance other crimes
You are saying 45000 people can arrive here illegally and then go through our legal system. I’m not being harsh, but you are coming across as someone who has little understanding of the implications that your idea would carry.
I’m feeling you say throw away lines, if you’re not can you let me know how this arrest and prosecution actually works, costs and what is needed to support this year on year?
These gangs are responsible, these gangs are making £100s of millions from human trafficking, these gangs will only stop when they are arrested and prosecuted, why isnt this the government top priority ? Stop the gangs, stop the crossings
Great target the gangs, what are you doing with those who are using the gangs to enter illegally?
They won’t be entering illegally if you stop the gangs
How are any government in any country dealing with organised criminal gangs? You have a very black and white take on things, which doesn’t represent the reality of life.
I admire your appetite for being vocal and opposing to anything the government suggests but that’s not helpful in discussing things in a meaningful manner.
I couldn’t care less what ‘other countries are doing’ we have a criminal gang making £100s of millions from human trafficking in the UK and they are laughing at the government. Apparently this is a huge problem, the top priority should be arresting and prosecuting these gangs "I’ve got that, I’m still not sure you have understood your own solution’s implications | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried
Arrest and prosecute the criminals who are responsible,
There’s the headline, what’s the detail / process for arresting and prosecuting
The same process for all criminals, why are they allowed to break the law and get away with it,? the money they have earned will be used to finance other crimes
You are saying 45000 people can arrive here illegally and then go through our legal system. I’m not being harsh, but you are coming across as someone who has little understanding of the implications that your idea would carry.
I’m feeling you say throw away lines, if you’re not can you let me know how this arrest and prosecution actually works, costs and what is needed to support this year on year?
These gangs are responsible, these gangs are making £100s of millions from human trafficking, these gangs will only stop when they are arrested and prosecuted, why isnt this the government top priority ? Stop the gangs, stop the crossings
Great target the gangs, what are you doing with those who are using the gangs to enter illegally?
They won’t be entering illegally if you stop the gangs
How are any government in any country dealing with organised criminal gangs? You have a very black and white take on things, which doesn’t represent the reality of life.
I admire your appetite for being vocal and opposing to anything the government suggests but that’s not helpful in discussing things in a meaningful manner.
I couldn’t care less what ‘other countries are doing’ we have a criminal gang making £100s of millions from human trafficking in the UK and they are laughing at the government. Apparently this is a huge problem, the top priority should be arresting and prosecuting these gangs
I’ve got that, I’m still not sure you have understood your own solution’s implications "It’s simple, the tories are blaming the gangs, the tories are the party of law and order, the tories have claimed we have thousands of ‘extra’ police , prosecuting the gangs should be there number one priority, this is a ‘huge’ issue (apparently). Stop the gangs, stop crossing, because I can assure you that nothing will change whilst they are allowed to operate, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried
Arrest and prosecute the criminals who are responsible,
There’s the headline, what’s the detail / process for arresting and prosecuting
The same process for all criminals, why are they allowed to break the law and get away with it,? the money they have earned will be used to finance other crimes
You are saying 45000 people can arrive here illegally and then go through our legal system. I’m not being harsh, but you are coming across as someone who has little understanding of the implications that your idea would carry.
I’m feeling you say throw away lines, if you’re not can you let me know how this arrest and prosecution actually works, costs and what is needed to support this year on year?
These gangs are responsible, these gangs are making £100s of millions from human trafficking, these gangs will only stop when they are arrested and prosecuted, why isnt this the government top priority ? Stop the gangs, stop the crossings
Great target the gangs, what are you doing with those who are using the gangs to enter illegally?
They won’t be entering illegally if you stop the gangs
How are any government in any country dealing with organised criminal gangs? You have a very black and white take on things, which doesn’t represent the reality of life.
I admire your appetite for being vocal and opposing to anything the government suggests but that’s not helpful in discussing things in a meaningful manner.
I couldn’t care less what ‘other countries are doing’ we have a criminal gang making £100s of millions from human trafficking in the UK and they are laughing at the government. Apparently this is a huge problem, the top priority should be arresting and prosecuting these gangs
I’ve got that, I’m still not sure you have understood your own solution’s implications
It’s simple, the tories are blaming the gangs, the tories are the party of law and order, the tories have claimed we have thousands of ‘extra’ police , prosecuting the gangs should be there number one priority, this is a ‘huge’ issue (apparently). Stop the gangs, stop crossing, because I can assure you that nothing will change whilst they are allowed to operate, "As I said, I’ve got that. You’re failing consistently to answer how you will deal with those people using the gang’s services. It was hiding in lorries, now it’s small boats and lorries. The demand for illegal entry drives the gangs and one will replace the other. I’m having to spell it out to you, you tell me the whole plan | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried
Arrest and prosecute the criminals who are responsible,
There’s the headline, what’s the detail / process for arresting and prosecuting
The same process for all criminals, why are they allowed to break the law and get away with it,? the money they have earned will be used to finance other crimes
You are saying 45000 people can arrive here illegally and then go through our legal system. I’m not being harsh, but you are coming across as someone who has little understanding of the implications that your idea would carry.
I’m feeling you say throw away lines, if you’re not can you let me know how this arrest and prosecution actually works, costs and what is needed to support this year on year?
These gangs are responsible, these gangs are making £100s of millions from human trafficking, these gangs will only stop when they are arrested and prosecuted, why isnt this the government top priority ? Stop the gangs, stop the crossings
Great target the gangs, what are you doing with those who are using the gangs to enter illegally?
They won’t be entering illegally if you stop the gangs
How are any government in any country dealing with organised criminal gangs? You have a very black and white take on things, which doesn’t represent the reality of life.
I admire your appetite for being vocal and opposing to anything the government suggests but that’s not helpful in discussing things in a meaningful manner.
I couldn’t care less what ‘other countries are doing’ we have a criminal gang making £100s of millions from human trafficking in the UK and they are laughing at the government. Apparently this is a huge problem, the top priority should be arresting and prosecuting these gangs
I’ve got that, I’m still not sure you have understood your own solution’s implications
It’s simple, the tories are blaming the gangs, the tories are the party of law and order, the tories have claimed we have thousands of ‘extra’ police , prosecuting the gangs should be there number one priority, this is a ‘huge’ issue (apparently). Stop the gangs, stop crossing, because I can assure you that nothing will change whilst they are allowed to operate,
As I said, I’ve got that. You’re failing consistently to answer how you will deal with those people using the gang’s services. It was hiding in lorries, now it’s small boats and lorries. The demand for illegal entry drives the gangs and one will replace the other.
I’m having to spell it out to you, you tell me the whole plan "Why are you expecting me to tell you how the police work? If they are illegal then the gangs won’t give a shit if they are deported, and how will they stop them from just disappearing when they arrive? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried
Arrest and prosecute the criminals who are responsible,
There’s the headline, what’s the detail / process for arresting and prosecuting
The same process for all criminals, why are they allowed to break the law and get away with it,? the money they have earned will be used to finance other crimes
You are saying 45000 people can arrive here illegally and then go through our legal system. I’m not being harsh, but you are coming across as someone who has little understanding of the implications that your idea would carry.
I’m feeling you say throw away lines, if you’re not can you let me know how this arrest and prosecution actually works, costs and what is needed to support this year on year?
These gangs are responsible, these gangs are making £100s of millions from human trafficking, these gangs will only stop when they are arrested and prosecuted, why isnt this the government top priority ? Stop the gangs, stop the crossings
Great target the gangs, what are you doing with those who are using the gangs to enter illegally?
They won’t be entering illegally if you stop the gangs
How are any government in any country dealing with organised criminal gangs? You have a very black and white take on things, which doesn’t represent the reality of life.
I admire your appetite for being vocal and opposing to anything the government suggests but that’s not helpful in discussing things in a meaningful manner.
I couldn’t care less what ‘other countries are doing’ we have a criminal gang making £100s of millions from human trafficking in the UK and they are laughing at the government. Apparently this is a huge problem, the top priority should be arresting and prosecuting these gangs
I’ve got that, I’m still not sure you have understood your own solution’s implications
It’s simple, the tories are blaming the gangs, the tories are the party of law and order, the tories have claimed we have thousands of ‘extra’ police , prosecuting the gangs should be there number one priority, this is a ‘huge’ issue (apparently). Stop the gangs, stop crossing, because I can assure you that nothing will change whilst they are allowed to operate,
As I said, I’ve got that. You’re failing consistently to answer how you will deal with those people using the gang’s services. It was hiding in lorries, now it’s small boats and lorries. The demand for illegal entry drives the gangs and one will replace the other.
I’m having to spell it out to you, you tell me the whole plan
Why are you expecting me to tell you how the police work? If they are illegal then the gangs won’t give a shit if they are deported, and how will they stop them from just disappearing when they arrive? "I did try to get to the bottom of your one liners, black and white ideas. I failed
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried
Arrest and prosecute the criminals who are responsible,
There’s the headline, what’s the detail / process for arresting and prosecuting
The same process for all criminals, why are they allowed to break the law and get away with it,? the money they have earned will be used to finance other crimes
You are saying 45000 people can arrive here illegally and then go through our legal system. I’m not being harsh, but you are coming across as someone who has little understanding of the implications that your idea would carry.
I’m feeling you say throw away lines, if you’re not can you let me know how this arrest and prosecution actually works, costs and what is needed to support this year on year?
These gangs are responsible, these gangs are making £100s of millions from human trafficking, these gangs will only stop when they are arrested and prosecuted, why isnt this the government top priority ? Stop the gangs, stop the crossings
Great target the gangs, what are you doing with those who are using the gangs to enter illegally?
They won’t be entering illegally if you stop the gangs
How are any government in any country dealing with organised criminal gangs? You have a very black and white take on things, which doesn’t represent the reality of life.
I admire your appetite for being vocal and opposing to anything the government suggests but that’s not helpful in discussing things in a meaningful manner.
I couldn’t care less what ‘other countries are doing’ we have a criminal gang making £100s of millions from human trafficking in the UK and they are laughing at the government. Apparently this is a huge problem, the top priority should be arresting and prosecuting these gangs
I’ve got that, I’m still not sure you have understood your own solution’s implications
It’s simple, the tories are blaming the gangs, the tories are the party of law and order, the tories have claimed we have thousands of ‘extra’ police , prosecuting the gangs should be there number one priority, this is a ‘huge’ issue (apparently). Stop the gangs, stop crossing, because I can assure you that nothing will change whilst they are allowed to operate,
As I said, I’ve got that. You’re failing consistently to answer how you will deal with those people using the gang’s services. It was hiding in lorries, now it’s small boats and lorries. The demand for illegal entry drives the gangs and one will replace the other.
I’m having to spell it out to you, you tell me the whole plan
Why are you expecting me to tell you how the police work? If they are illegal then the gangs won’t give a shit if they are deported, and how will they stop them from just disappearing when they arrive?
I did try to get to the bottom of your one liners, black and white ideas. I failed
"Have a read of the link from sky news, these gangs are laughing at the UK government | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried I have in another thread. Essentially set up processing centres near hotspots. And a furnace one for the remainder. the former helps check you are from where you say you are. The latter removes the crossing which is probably the costly bit of any journey and so one that inducds the most serv1tude (and therefore turns someone into a modern sl@ve).
Ideas taken from labour btw.
Sounds good, now how do you make sure they go through the centres and not simply hop in a boat?
Now assuming those intent on getting here that don’t qualify are going to continue arriving illegally, what’s the plan?"if you have safe and easy ways to apply, then it is easier to say that non regular entry counts against you. Why have you chosen to cross that way rather than go to the safe camp down the road. I'd be a lot more comfortable saying boat entry results in a no if there is a legal alternative everyone can apply. That leaves those who are seeking to remain as illegals. Happy they get deported. We won't be throwing out babies with bathwater once we have separated the babies and the water. Once asylum seekers have safe and cheaper ways if applying for asylum, and the risk reward pay off for true illegals becomes penal, the crossings will stop and gangs will lose revenue. All round wins IMO. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried I have in another thread. Essentially set up processing centres near hotspots. And a furnace one for the remainder. the former helps check you are from where you say you are. The latter removes the crossing which is probably the costly bit of any journey and so one that inducds the most serv1tude (and therefore turns someone into a modern sl@ve).
Ideas taken from labour btw.
Sounds good, now how do you make sure they go through the centres and not simply hop in a boat?
Now assuming those intent on getting here that don’t qualify are going to continue arriving illegally, what’s the plan?if you have safe and easy ways to apply, then it is easier to say that non regular entry counts against you. Why have you chosen to cross that way rather than go to the safe camp down the road. I'd be a lot more comfortable saying boat entry results in a no if there is a legal alternative everyone can apply.
That leaves those who are seeking to remain as illegals. Happy they get deported. We won't be throwing out babies with bathwater once we have separated the babies and the water.
Once asylum seekers have safe and cheaper ways if applying for asylum, and the risk reward pay off for true illegals becomes penal, the crossings will stop and gangs will lose revenue. All round wins IMO.
"I understand your argument and it stacks up on paper. However, illegal routes will remain, nothing has changed, unless as you say we turn away every single illegal entry. That’s the proposed plan form the government, so I see you have agreement to the governments approach as long as safe channels are open for asylum. I would suggest an asylum seeker has a safe channel, it might not be to the UK but it is safe and legal. Where does this leave your argument? Are we now okay to accept the government’s approach of deporting all illegal entries? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried I have in another thread. Essentially set up processing centres near hotspots. And a furnace one for the remainder. the former helps check you are from where you say you are. The latter removes the crossing which is probably the costly bit of any journey and so one that inducds the most serv1tude (and therefore turns someone into a modern sl@ve).
Ideas taken from labour btw.
Sounds good, now how do you make sure they go through the centres and not simply hop in a boat?
Now assuming those intent on getting here that don’t qualify are going to continue arriving illegally, what’s the plan?if you have safe and easy ways to apply, then it is easier to say that non regular entry counts against you. Why have you chosen to cross that way rather than go to the safe camp down the road. I'd be a lot more comfortable saying boat entry results in a no if there is a legal alternative everyone can apply.
That leaves those who are seeking to remain as illegals. Happy they get deported. We won't be throwing out babies with bathwater once we have separated the babies and the water.
Once asylum seekers have safe and cheaper ways if applying for asylum, and the risk reward pay off for true illegals becomes penal, the crossings will stop and gangs will lose revenue. All round wins IMO.
"This sums up why the government are in reality doing nothing to solve the problems except punishing the victims to say they are tough on immigrants. Braverman rages about the cost of housing refugees but doesn’t increase the processing to reduce costs so why not? Safe routes don’t exist so how can refugees use them? If they were available the smugglers would be out of business. It’s all to whip up a blame culture towards those who cannot defend themselves. Everything the legal arrivals do and say to aide their cases is more than likely legal. This is proven by the acceptance rate. Tax avoidance by the richest 1% of this country runs into hundreds of billions. Does the government and media treat those legally entitled tax avoiders who in comparison intentionally take far more money from the state year after year, with the same accusing rhetoric? After all both actions, asylum seeking and tax avoidance are legal. The migrants in fact are a better bet overall as they mostly want to work and not be a burden to the state, as they want a better safer life. The facts show immigrants allowed to work contribute more in tax than they take on benefits. Can tax avoiders say the same? I don’t see Rishi and Braverman complaining about the annual tax avoidance cost to the state. Both are legal so what’s the problem? It’s just admin in reality . Sadly failing badly on immigrant processing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried I have in another thread. Essentially set up processing centres near hotspots. And a furnace one for the remainder. the former helps check you are from where you say you are. The latter removes the crossing which is probably the costly bit of any journey and so one that inducds the most serv1tude (and therefore turns someone into a modern sl@ve).
Ideas taken from labour btw.
Sounds good, now how do you make sure they go through the centres and not simply hop in a boat?
Now assuming those intent on getting here that don’t qualify are going to continue arriving illegally, what’s the plan?if you have safe and easy ways to apply, then it is easier to say that non regular entry counts against you. Why have you chosen to cross that way rather than go to the safe camp down the road. I'd be a lot more comfortable saying boat entry results in a no if there is a legal alternative everyone can apply.
That leaves those who are seeking to remain as illegals. Happy they get deported. We won't be throwing out babies with bathwater once we have separated the babies and the water.
Once asylum seekers have safe and cheaper ways if applying for asylum, and the risk reward pay off for true illegals becomes penal, the crossings will stop and gangs will lose revenue. All round wins IMO.
I understand your argument and it stacks up on paper.
However, illegal routes will remain, nothing has changed, unless as you say we turn away every single illegal entry. That’s the proposed plan form the government, so I see you have agreement to the governments approach as long as safe channels are open for asylum.
I would suggest an asylum seeker has a safe channel, it might not be to the UK but it is safe and legal.
Where does this leave your argument? Are we now okay to accept the government’s approach of deporting all illegal entries? "I want asylum seekers to have a safe and legal way to apply for asylum in the UK. A) we have signed up to Geneva. And b) it's the humanitarian thing to do. Leaving others to sort out a global issue we often play a part in is poor imo. A lack of empathy and good will I don't associate with Britain. Until one can do this legally into the uk on all cases we create the need for irregular entry. And so I'm not okay with HMG approach. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried I have in another thread. Essentially set up processing centres near hotspots. And a furnace one for the remainder. the former helps check you are from where you say you are. The latter removes the crossing which is probably the costly bit of any journey and so one that inducds the most serv1tude (and therefore turns someone into a modern sl@ve).
Ideas taken from labour btw.
Sounds good, now how do you make sure they go through the centres and not simply hop in a boat?
Now assuming those intent on getting here that don’t qualify are going to continue arriving illegally, what’s the plan?if you have safe and easy ways to apply, then it is easier to say that non regular entry counts against you. Why have you chosen to cross that way rather than go to the safe camp down the road. I'd be a lot more comfortable saying boat entry results in a no if there is a legal alternative everyone can apply.
That leaves those who are seeking to remain as illegals. Happy they get deported. We won't be throwing out babies with bathwater once we have separated the babies and the water.
Once asylum seekers have safe and cheaper ways if applying for asylum, and the risk reward pay off for true illegals becomes penal, the crossings will stop and gangs will lose revenue. All round wins IMO.
I understand your argument and it stacks up on paper.
However, illegal routes will remain, nothing has changed, unless as you say we turn away every single illegal entry. That’s the proposed plan form the government, so I see you have agreement to the governments approach as long as safe channels are open for asylum.
I would suggest an asylum seeker has a safe channel, it might not be to the UK but it is safe and legal.
Where does this leave your argument? Are we now okay to accept the government’s approach of deporting all illegal entries? I want asylum seekers to have a safe and legal way to apply for asylum in the UK. A) we have signed up to Geneva. And b) it's the humanitarian thing to do.
Leaving others to sort out a global issue we often play a part in is poor imo. A lack of empathy and good will I don't associate with Britain.
Until one can do this legally into the uk on all cases we create the need for irregular entry. And so I'm not okay with HMG approach. "How many other countries have the rules you aspire for the UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite clear that the govt strategy is working very very well! As a distraction from the UK shitshow we are all living through. People in the UK, supposedly the 5/6th richest country in the world, cannot afford to heat their homes. Inflation is being exploited by businesses to make record profits while the govt blames workers wanting a decent pay rise. Corruption in our govt, our public servants, has been normalised. A few privileged connected individuals have exploited that corruption to seriously enrich themselves at the expense of tax payers. But no... Look over here... People in boats!!!!! Just look at the number of threads and 000s of words in the Fab forums alone. The distraction is working a treat! " Unfortunately it is a real situation that people are concerned about and have been for many many years. The real issue is the tories use this to demonstrate any weaknesses in labour’s policies and it works every time because there are more who want tougher border controls than don’t. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried
Arrest and prosecute the criminals who are responsible, "Can you name said criminals and more importantly give evidence it was them. I bet some one knows them but evidence that will hold up in a court will be thin on the ground. You would almost need to do an undercover sting and that would only get the middle man. They are working a system that is protected by intellectual law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lol exactly, although i would try to stop them leaving France purely from a safety point of view, the channel is a nasty dangerous and busy bit of water, you don't want overloaded small boats trying to cross at night, i suspect there already have been hundreds drowned but once they are in the water, they are gone and don't wash up ashore " As said in another post send a ship to pick them up. Boots stop at that point. Process on said ship in non UK water then failed application back to safe port. Take an AI photo with biermtrics like you do for passport of all that that board. Anyone how passes is allowed in. Personly I would give each a £2,000 pre loaded card and tell them that's there lot find a home and work. If found to brack the law auto deportation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite clear that the govt strategy is working very very well! As a distraction from the UK shitshow we are all living through. People in the UK, supposedly the 5/6th richest country in the world, cannot afford to heat their homes. Inflation is being exploited by businesses to make record profits while the govt blames workers wanting a decent pay rise. Corruption in our govt, our public servants, has been normalised. A few privileged connected individuals have exploited that corruption to seriously enrich themselves at the expense of tax payers. But no... Look over here... People in boats!!!!! Just look at the number of threads and 000s of words in the Fab forums alone. The distraction is working a treat! Unfortunately it is a real situation that people are concerned about and have been for many many years. The real issue is the tories use this to demonstrate any weaknesses in labour’s policies and it works every time because there are more who want tougher border controls than don’t. " It IS a real issue yes. And people ARE concerned yes. But is it proportional to all the other issues the country is facing? I would argue not. It has been very effectively weaponised and getting worse with the use of inflammatory language. On a related note (but that thread maxed out on posts)... Just imagine a conversation between Lineker and Sharp about ethics and impartiality. Lineker commented on language being used being comparable to 1930s Germany (it is that is true). Sharp arranged an £800k loan for the then PM then secured the job of BBC Chairman. Which is worse? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not? Legitimate asylum seekers, yes. Those playing the asylum system, no. Those playing the asylum system are overwhelming the authorities who can’t deal with them. They’ve been tutored to give them maximum opportunity in passing tests and questions on arrival and at processing making it extremely hard to reject them. The upshot of this is the government is looking to introduce tougher measures and unfortunately those seeking asylum for genuine reasons are going to feel the impact from this the most. if the system can be gamed then that suggests the interview process can be improved. If a company's recruitment porcess could be gamed, you'd change it. Rather than blame those who learnt how to answer questions. Imo the wider comments are not great. Removing sl@very as a reason for claiming asylum. That's awful. Especially as we are creating the demand for sl@very because of our approach to how one can claim asylum. Saying the crossees jump the queue is bullshit. One, for many it's the only route (so no queue to jump). But also, we have control of the queue. It's emotional working playing to unfairnes with no substance. The fact that we can't say the approach complies with human rights is embarrassing. You’re absolutely right if it can be gamed it should be changed, that is what yesterday’s announcement was about, changing the system. disagree that was what was announced. That wasn't closing loopholes or tightening up shortcomings. But giving up and throwing everyone under the bus.
If one can be coached through an interview, improve the interview process. Don't stop recruiting because it's too hard
You are entitled to disagree but I feel where you see blame is not in correct place.. the process is being changed to stop the activities of criminals and those using their services. Will they succeed who knows, but what I do know is because of the vast numbers of people arriving here who really shouldn’t be they have effectively closed the door on themselves.
It is their action that has caused the change imo you are condemning the needy because of those who may be gaming the system. They (gamers) are bringing it on themselves (tryely needy).
You can stop the criminal activity in many ways. Making something "more illegal" rarely works with criminals. It just forces it further underground.
Explain how you stop those playing the system, because many governments have tried
Arrest and prosecute the criminals who are responsible,
Can you name said criminals and more importantly give evidence it was them.
I bet some one knows them but evidence that will hold up in a court will be thin on the ground.
You would almost need to do an undercover sting and that would only get the middle man.
They are working a system that is protected by intellectual law."Yes, do an undercover operation, whatever it takes, that is what they do with drug dealers and organised crime . We keep getting told that this is a huge issue costing billions, the government should be throwing everything they have at it to catch and stop these gangs . People are deluded If you think this new law (if it ever gets used) will stop these gangs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its ethical.. but at the end of the day, our country and our people born here are struggling.. everyone is struggling but our own government and taxes should surely go to helping those who are already here. I dont know the answer, there are no easy answers in life." Do you think reducing the number of immigrants will suddenly change government policy towards British people? It could be argued that the government should help British people regardless. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its ethical.. but at the end of the day, our country and our people born here are struggling.. everyone is struggling but our own government and taxes should surely go to helping those who are already here. I dont know the answer, there are no easy answers in life." I agree that everyone is struggling, money is tight, however , did you know that tax lost due to fraid, non payment and avoidance costs £35 billion a year , 10 times the cost of housing these migrants | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its ethical.. but at the end of the day, our country and our people born here are struggling.. everyone is struggling but our own government and taxes should surely go to helping those who are already here. I dont know the answer, there are no easy answers in life. I agree that everyone is struggling, money is tight, however , did you know that tax lost due to fraid, non payment and avoidance costs £35 billion a year , 10 times the cost of housing these migrants " Fraud | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its ethical.. but at the end of the day, our country and our people born here are struggling.. everyone is struggling but our own government and taxes should surely go to helping those who are already here. I dont know the answer, there are no easy answers in life. I agree that everyone is struggling, money is tight, however , did you know that tax lost due to fraid, non payment and avoidance costs £35 billion a year , 10 times the cost of housing these migrants " It would be a hundred times more if the waiting list was processed drastically reducing the cost , Bad government blaming the defenceless. How proud of our government are we.. oh yes not at all. Shame on this despicable bunch. Gary Lineker is just telling the truth and gets vilified . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem we face is that our asylum system is being abused by criminals and economic migrants masquerading as asylum seekers. That benefits nobody, except criminals and asylum lawyers." This is not untrue. Has Government policy made this better or worse? What do the figures say? Does their latest "solution" look any different to what has happened before? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite clear that the govt strategy is working very very well! As a distraction from the UK shitshow we are all living through. People in the UK, supposedly the 5/6th richest country in the world, cannot afford to heat their homes. Inflation is being exploited by businesses to make record profits while the govt blames workers wanting a decent pay rise. Corruption in our govt, our public servants, has been normalised. A few privileged connected individuals have exploited that corruption to seriously enrich themselves at the expense of tax payers. But no... Look over here... People in boats!!!!! Just look at the number of threads and 000s of words in the Fab forums alone. The distraction is working a treat! Unfortunately it is a real situation that people are concerned about and have been for many many years. The real issue is the tories use this to demonstrate any weaknesses in labour’s policies and it works every time because there are more who want tougher border controls than don’t. " I guess that if this is not a high priority / important topic for the voters as the government claim and others disagree with then the government are wasting a lot of political capital on a dud policy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not?" No. The "strategy" has clearly not worked as numbers have risen dramatically. Cutting off organised routes for refugees and those fleeing persecution led to clandestine routes. As they exist the gangs now simply ship more people over from wherever they can convince them. This Government have created a problem that they are failing to solve. Deterrence does not work if people don't know, or are so desperate that they don't care or just aren't bothered. If you have applications for asylum or refugee status outside the UK (the closer to the source the better) then there is no reason for people to be smuggled. Anyone who is smuggled has no appeal to make. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite clear that the govt strategy is working very very well! As a distraction from the UK shitshow we are all living through. People in the UK, supposedly the 5/6th richest country in the world, cannot afford to heat their homes. Inflation is being exploited by businesses to make record profits while the govt blames workers wanting a decent pay rise. Corruption in our govt, our public servants, has been normalised. A few privileged connected individuals have exploited that corruption to seriously enrich themselves at the expense of tax payers. But no... Look over here... People in boats!!!!! Just look at the number of threads and 000s of words in the Fab forums alone. The distraction is working a treat! Unfortunately it is a real situation that people are concerned about and have been for many many years. The real issue is the tories use this to demonstrate any weaknesses in labour’s policies and it works every time because there are more who want tougher border controls than don’t. I guess that if this is not a high priority / important topic for the voters as the government claim and others disagree with then the government are wasting a lot of political capital on a dud policy" Immigration and especially illegal immigration has been a priority of UK citizens for decades, it isn’t a conservative only issue since election, labour and all parties have struggled with this topic over the years. A grown up conversation can’t happen on here due to the polarisation that immigration has on the population and is reflected on every thread concerning immigration, refugees and asylum. Luckily for us in the UK we have elected representatives that make the grown up decisions on our behalf… How long before the “I didn’t vote for” comments kick in | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"did you know that tax lost due to fraud, non payment and avoidance costs £35 billion a year , 10 times the cost of housing these migrants " That's the 2019 figure. The latest one is £32bn. However, that's an estimate by HMRC. The last time they had an opportunity to verify one of their estimates was when they predicted that £3.2bn would be recovered from Swiss bank accounts under a new deal with the Swiss authorities in 2012. At the end of the investigation they found that only £782mn had been hidden away. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"did you know that tax lost due to fraud, non payment and avoidance costs £35 billion a year , 10 times the cost of housing these migrants That's the 2019 figure. The latest one is £32bn. However, that's an estimate by HMRC. The last time they had an opportunity to verify one of their estimates was when they predicted that £3.2bn would be recovered from Swiss bank accounts under a new deal with the Swiss authorities in 2012. At the end of the investigation they found that only £782mn had been hidden away." Ok, £32 billion, a lot of money | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem we face is that our asylum system is being abused by criminals and economic migrants masquerading as asylum seekers. That benefits nobody, except criminals and asylum lawyers. This is not untrue. Has Government policy made this better or worse? What do the figures say? Does their latest "solution" look any different to what has happened before?" The Government always said their hands were tied by ECHR rules. But here we are 7 year after Brexit still having the same discussion and watching gormlessly as our borders are violated. We are paying the French £millions to police their border but seemingly can't police our own. It's a complete mess. As for a solution, I have no idea, but I voted for politicians who are supposed to lead and manage our nation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its ethical.. but at the end of the day, our country and our people born here are struggling.. everyone is struggling but our own government and taxes should surely go to helping those who are already here. I dont know the answer, there are no easy answers in life." The Government are not choosing to help asylum seekers and refugees over you, me and everyone else. It is quite evident that they don’t give a flying fuck about anyone and treat everybody with the same disdain. Throughout the 20th Century, Britain had a proud history of helping vulnerable and displaced people and it has always been people on the right who have opposed it. The Daily Mail in particular did its best to turn us against Jewish people, people from the Caribbean, Ugandan Asians and Vietnamese boat people - to name but a few. The Daily Mail was wrong back then, and the Daily Mail and similar media outlets are wrong now. People talk about British values and right up there at the top of those values are compassion, fairness and honesty. These virtues appear to be lost at the moment as the Government and their right wing gobshite client journalists go out of their way (and are seemingly succeeding) to convince the “hard of thinking” that a problem that the Government itself has created can only be solved by showing a lack of compassion, fairness and honesty. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its ethical.. but at the end of the day, our country and our people born here are struggling.. everyone is struggling but our own government and taxes should surely go to helping those who are already here. I dont know the answer, there are no easy answers in life. The Government are not choosing to help asylum seekers and refugees over you, me and everyone else. It is quite evident that they don’t give a flying fuck about anyone and treat everybody with the same disdain. Throughout the 20th Century, Britain had a proud history of helping vulnerable and displaced people and it has always been people on the right who have opposed it. The Daily Mail in particular did its best to turn us against Jewish people, people from the Caribbean, Ugandan Asians and Vietnamese boat people - to name but a few. The Daily Mail was wrong back then, and the Daily Mail and similar media outlets are wrong now. People talk about British values and right up there at the top of those values are compassion, fairness and honesty. These virtues appear to be lost at the moment as the Government and their right wing gobshite client journalists go out of their way (and are seemingly succeeding) to convince the “hard of thinking” that a problem that the Government itself has created can only be solved by showing a lack of compassion, fairness and honesty." Well said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its ethical.. but at the end of the day, our country and our people born here are struggling.. everyone is struggling but our own government and taxes should surely go to helping those who are already here. I dont know the answer, there are no easy answers in life. The Government are not choosing to help asylum seekers and refugees over you, me and everyone else. It is quite evident that they don’t give a flying fuck about anyone and treat everybody with the same disdain. Throughout the 20th Century, Britain had a proud history of helping vulnerable and displaced people and it has always been people on the right who have opposed it. The Daily Mail in particular did its best to turn us against Jewish people, people from the Caribbean, Ugandan Asians and Vietnamese boat people - to name but a few. The Daily Mail was wrong back then, and the Daily Mail and similar media outlets are wrong now. People talk about British values and right up there at the top of those values are compassion, fairness and honesty. These virtues appear to be lost at the moment as the Government and their right wing gobshite client journalists go out of their way (and are seemingly succeeding) to convince the “hard of thinking” that a problem that the Government itself has created can only be solved by showing a lack of compassion, fairness and honesty." Ah "the hard of thinking". It had to be someone's fault I suppose. So do the hard of thinking make up the majority of the UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its ethical.. but at the end of the day, our country and our people born here are struggling.. everyone is struggling but our own government and taxes should surely go to helping those who are already here. I dont know the answer, there are no easy answers in life. The Government are not choosing to help asylum seekers and refugees over you, me and everyone else. It is quite evident that they don’t give a flying fuck about anyone and treat everybody with the same disdain. Throughout the 20th Century, Britain had a proud history of helping vulnerable and displaced people and it has always been people on the right who have opposed it. The Daily Mail in particular did its best to turn us against Jewish people, people from the Caribbean, Ugandan Asians and Vietnamese boat people - to name but a few. The Daily Mail was wrong back then, and the Daily Mail and similar media outlets are wrong now. People talk about British values and right up there at the top of those values are compassion, fairness and honesty. These virtues appear to be lost at the moment as the Government and their right wing gobshite client journalists go out of their way (and are seemingly succeeding) to convince the “hard of thinking” that a problem that the Government itself has created can only be solved by showing a lack of compassion, fairness and honesty. Ah "the hard of thinking". It had to be someone's fault I suppose. So do the hard of thinking make up the majority of the UK? " I happen to think that the majority of the U.K. can see very clearly that the Government is gaslighting them and understand that the boat problem is a problem of the government’s own making. Most people know that the biggest problems we are facing are being caused by people in Whitehall , not by people in small boats. There are however a section of society who are notoriously “hard of thinking” and for decades they have been so successfully groomed by right wing media outlets that they don’t even know they have been groomed. Why don’t you just try to look outside of your bubble of bias and look what is actually happening and ask yourself why. You may have to look outside if your favourite media channels - but that might not be a bad thing ?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather support our own people of this country, the 271,000 recorded as homeless in England, that including 123,000 children. Xxx" Why have this government allowed 271,000 people to become homeless? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather support our own people of this country, the 271,000 recorded as homeless in England, that including 123,000 children. Xxx" Do you really believe that it is a binary choice as to whether to help the U.K. homeless or deal with asylum seekers? The last Labour Government all but eradicated homelessness. They had a policy to do so. The way that a Government deals with its most vulnerable citizens tells you everything that you need to know about its priorities. This Government has presided over 13 years of ever increasing numbers of homeless people. If they wanted to do something about homeless people they would. They care nothing for people who are destitute. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather support our own people of this country, the 271,000 recorded as homeless in England, that including 123,000 children. Xxx Do you really believe that it is a binary choice as to whether to help the U.K. homeless or deal with asylum seekers? The last Labour Government all but eradicated homelessness. They had a policy to do so. The way that a Government deals with its most vulnerable citizens tells you everything that you need to know about its priorities. This Government has presided over 13 years of ever increasing numbers of homeless people. If they wanted to do something about homeless people they would. They care nothing for people who are destitute." Labour all but eradicated rough sleeping which is a serious achievement but it's not the same as eradicating homelessness. We see this line trotted out often and it's simply highly inaccurate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather support our own people of this country, the 271,000 recorded as homeless in England, that including 123,000 children. Xxx Do you really believe that it is a binary choice as to whether to help the U.K. homeless or deal with asylum seekers? The last Labour Government all but eradicated homelessness. They had a policy to do so. The way that a Government deals with its most vulnerable citizens tells you everything that you need to know about its priorities. This Government has presided over 13 years of ever increasing numbers of homeless people. If they wanted to do something about homeless people they would. They care nothing for people who are destitute. Labour all but eradicated rough sleeping which is a serious achievement but it's not the same as eradicating homelessness. We see this line trotted out often and it's simply highly inaccurate." It has got worse in the last ten years though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather support our own people of this country, the 271,000 recorded as homeless in England, that including 123,000 children. Xxx Do you really believe that it is a binary choice as to whether to help the U.K. homeless or deal with asylum seekers? The last Labour Government all but eradicated homelessness. They had a policy to do so. The way that a Government deals with its most vulnerable citizens tells you everything that you need to know about its priorities. This Government has presided over 13 years of ever increasing numbers of homeless people. If they wanted to do something about homeless people they would. They care nothing for people who are destitute." Oh ok is this the this Labour government that took part in an illegal war in Iraq killing thousands?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather support our own people of this country, the 271,000 recorded as homeless in England, that including 123,000 children. Xxx Do you really believe that it is a binary choice as to whether to help the U.K. homeless or deal with asylum seekers? The last Labour Government all but eradicated homelessness. They had a policy to do so. The way that a Government deals with its most vulnerable citizens tells you everything that you need to know about its priorities. This Government has presided over 13 years of ever increasing numbers of homeless people. If they wanted to do something about homeless people they would. They care nothing for people who are destitute. Oh ok is this the this Labour government that took part in an illegal war in Iraq killing thousands??" Supported by the tories | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather support our own people of this country, the 271,000 recorded as homeless in England, that including 123,000 children. Xxx Do you really believe that it is a binary choice as to whether to help the U.K. homeless or deal with asylum seekers? The last Labour Government all but eradicated homelessness. They had a policy to do so. The way that a Government deals with its most vulnerable citizens tells you everything that you need to know about its priorities. This Government has presided over 13 years of ever increasing numbers of homeless people. If they wanted to do something about homeless people they would. They care nothing for people who are destitute. Oh ok is this the this Labour government that took part in an illegal war in Iraq killing thousands??" And what has that go to do with homeless people? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather support our own people of this country, the 271,000 recorded as homeless in England, that including 123,000 children. Xxx Do you really believe that it is a binary choice as to whether to help the U.K. homeless or deal with asylum seekers? The last Labour Government all but eradicated homelessness. They had a policy to do so. The way that a Government deals with its most vulnerable citizens tells you everything that you need to know about its priorities. This Government has presided over 13 years of ever increasing numbers of homeless people. If they wanted to do something about homeless people they would. They care nothing for people who are destitute. Oh ok is this the this Labour government that took part in an illegal war in Iraq killing thousands?? And what has that go to do with homeless people? " So you admit the party you support murder thousands of Iraq civilians in an illegal war? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather support our own people of this country, the 271,000 recorded as homeless in England, that including 123,000 children. Xxx Do you really believe that it is a binary choice as to whether to help the U.K. homeless or deal with asylum seekers? The last Labour Government all but eradicated homelessness. They had a policy to do so. The way that a Government deals with its most vulnerable citizens tells you everything that you need to know about its priorities. This Government has presided over 13 years of ever increasing numbers of homeless people. If they wanted to do something about homeless people they would. They care nothing for people who are destitute. Labour all but eradicated rough sleeping which is a serious achievement but it's not the same as eradicating homelessness. We see this line trotted out often and it's simply highly inaccurate. It has got worse in the last ten years though " No doubt it has got worse. That doesn't remove the fact that the statement is inaccurate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather support our own people of this country, the 271,000 recorded as homeless in England, that including 123,000 children. Xxx Do you really believe that it is a binary choice as to whether to help the U.K. homeless or deal with asylum seekers? The last Labour Government all but eradicated homelessness. They had a policy to do so. The way that a Government deals with its most vulnerable citizens tells you everything that you need to know about its priorities. This Government has presided over 13 years of ever increasing numbers of homeless people. If they wanted to do something about homeless people they would. They care nothing for people who are destitute. Oh ok is this the this Labour government that took part in an illegal war in Iraq killing thousands?? And what has that go to do with homeless people? So you admit the party you support murder thousands of Iraq civilians in an illegal war?" Yeah, supported by the Tories . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d rather support our own people of this country, the 271,000 recorded as homeless in England, that including 123,000 children. Xxx Do you really believe that it is a binary choice as to whether to help the U.K. homeless or deal with asylum seekers? The last Labour Government all but eradicated homelessness. They had a policy to do so. The way that a Government deals with its most vulnerable citizens tells you everything that you need to know about its priorities. This Government has presided over 13 years of ever increasing numbers of homeless people. If they wanted to do something about homeless people they would. They care nothing for people who are destitute. Oh ok is this the this Labour government that took part in an illegal war in Iraq killing thousands?? And what has that go to do with homeless people? So you admit the party you support murder thousands of Iraq civilians in an illegal war?" Btw, I wasn’t old enough to vote in 2001 and have voted for the Lib Dem’s in the last 2 elections | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its ethical.. but at the end of the day, our country and our people born here are struggling.. everyone is struggling but our own government and taxes should surely go to helping those who are already here. I dont know the answer, there are no easy answers in life. The Government are not choosing to help asylum seekers and refugees over you, me and everyone else. It is quite evident that they don’t give a flying fuck about anyone and treat everybody with the same disdain. Throughout the 20th Century, Britain had a proud history of helping vulnerable and displaced people and it has always been people on the right who have opposed it. The Daily Mail in particular did its best to turn us against Jewish people, people from the Caribbean, Ugandan Asians and Vietnamese boat people - to name but a few. The Daily Mail was wrong back then, and the Daily Mail and similar media outlets are wrong now. People talk about British values and right up there at the top of those values are compassion, fairness and honesty. These virtues appear to be lost at the moment as the Government and their right wing gobshite client journalists go out of their way (and are seemingly succeeding) to convince the “hard of thinking” that a problem that the Government itself has created can only be solved by showing a lack of compassion, fairness and honesty. Ah "the hard of thinking". It had to be someone's fault I suppose. So do the hard of thinking make up the majority of the UK? I happen to think that the majority of the U.K. can see very clearly that the Government is gaslighting them and understand that the boat problem is a problem of the government’s own making. Most people know that the biggest problems we are facing are being caused by people in Whitehall , not by people in small boats. There are however a section of society who are notoriously “hard of thinking” and for decades they have been so successfully groomed by right wing media outlets that they don’t even know they have been groomed. Why don’t you just try to look outside of your bubble of bias and look what is actually happening and ask yourself why. You may have to look outside if your favourite media channels - but that might not be a bad thing ?? "Your making assumptions on my political bias. I don't live in a bubble, I'm quite aware of what's going on. So based on that, what have the left put in place to counteract these people that are hard of thinking. All I see is postings on a swinger forum from disgruntled left supporters, trying to justify what should happen. But nothing ever does. At least the Conservative government have a bit of continuity in gas lighting and controlling the media. Come on on supporters of the left, you can do your country proud | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its ethical.. but at the end of the day, our country and our people born here are struggling.. everyone is struggling but our own government and taxes should surely go to helping those who are already here. I dont know the answer, there are no easy answers in life. The Government are not choosing to help asylum seekers and refugees over you, me and everyone else. It is quite evident that they don’t give a flying fuck about anyone and treat everybody with the same disdain. Throughout the 20th Century, Britain had a proud history of helping vulnerable and displaced people and it has always been people on the right who have opposed it. The Daily Mail in particular did its best to turn us against Jewish people, people from the Caribbean, Ugandan Asians and Vietnamese boat people - to name but a few. The Daily Mail was wrong back then, and the Daily Mail and similar media outlets are wrong now. People talk about British values and right up there at the top of those values are compassion, fairness and honesty. These virtues appear to be lost at the moment as the Government and their right wing gobshite client journalists go out of their way (and are seemingly succeeding) to convince the “hard of thinking” that a problem that the Government itself has created can only be solved by showing a lack of compassion, fairness and honesty. Ah "the hard of thinking". It had to be someone's fault I suppose. So do the hard of thinking make up the majority of the UK? I happen to think that the majority of the U.K. can see very clearly that the Government is gaslighting them and understand that the boat problem is a problem of the government’s own making. Most people know that the biggest problems we are facing are being caused by people in Whitehall , not by people in small boats. There are however a section of society who are notoriously “hard of thinking” and for decades they have been so successfully groomed by right wing media outlets that they don’t even know they have been groomed. Why don’t you just try to look outside of your bubble of bias and look what is actually happening and ask yourself why. You may have to look outside if your favourite media channels - but that might not be a bad thing ??
Your making assumptions on my political bias.
I don't live in a bubble, I'm quite aware of what's going on.
So based on that, what have the left put in place to counteract these people that are hard of thinking.
All I see is postings on a swinger forum from disgruntled left supporters, trying to justify what should happen. But nothing ever does.
At least the Conservative government have a bit of continuity in gas lighting and controlling the media.
Come on on supporters of the left, you can do your country proud "Tbf, Labour has a plan, but they are not in government , but I agree, they should just come up with something bold, unworkable and unrealistic and then blame everyone else | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its ethical.. but at the end of the day, our country and our people born here are struggling.. everyone is struggling but our own government and taxes should surely go to helping those who are already here. I dont know the answer, there are no easy answers in life. The Government are not choosing to help asylum seekers and refugees over you, me and everyone else. It is quite evident that they don’t give a flying fuck about anyone and treat everybody with the same disdain. Throughout the 20th Century, Britain had a proud history of helping vulnerable and displaced people and it has always been people on the right who have opposed it. The Daily Mail in particular did its best to turn us against Jewish people, people from the Caribbean, Ugandan Asians and Vietnamese boat people - to name but a few. The Daily Mail was wrong back then, and the Daily Mail and similar media outlets are wrong now. People talk about British values and right up there at the top of those values are compassion, fairness and honesty. These virtues appear to be lost at the moment as the Government and their right wing gobshite client journalists go out of their way (and are seemingly succeeding) to convince the “hard of thinking” that a problem that the Government itself has created can only be solved by showing a lack of compassion, fairness and honesty. Ah "the hard of thinking". It had to be someone's fault I suppose. So do the hard of thinking make up the majority of the UK? I happen to think that the majority of the U.K. can see very clearly that the Government is gaslighting them and understand that the boat problem is a problem of the government’s own making. Most people know that the biggest problems we are facing are being caused by people in Whitehall , not by people in small boats. There are however a section of society who are notoriously “hard of thinking” and for decades they have been so successfully groomed by right wing media outlets that they don’t even know they have been groomed. Why don’t you just try to look outside of your bubble of bias and look what is actually happening and ask yourself why. You may have to look outside if your favourite media channels - but that might not be a bad thing ??
Your making assumptions on my political bias.
I don't live in a bubble, I'm quite aware of what's going on.
So based on that, what have the left put in place to counteract these people that are hard of thinking.
All I see is postings on a swinger forum from disgruntled left supporters, trying to justify what should happen. But nothing ever does.
At least the Conservative government have a bit of continuity in gas lighting and controlling the media.
Come on on supporters of the left, you can do your country proud
Tbf, Labour has a plan, but they are not in government , but I agree, they should just come up with something bold, unworkable and unrealistic and then blame everyone else "Hey I voted for the SNP and look how that turned out. There needs to be a powerful opposition. Like you say, until Labour come up with workable solutions the Conservative government are just coasting with minimal effort. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its ethical.. but at the end of the day, our country and our people born here are struggling.. everyone is struggling but our own government and taxes should surely go to helping those who are already here. I dont know the answer, there are no easy answers in life. The Government are not choosing to help asylum seekers and refugees over you, me and everyone else. It is quite evident that they don’t give a flying fuck about anyone and treat everybody with the same disdain. Throughout the 20th Century, Britain had a proud history of helping vulnerable and displaced people and it has always been people on the right who have opposed it. The Daily Mail in particular did its best to turn us against Jewish people, people from the Caribbean, Ugandan Asians and Vietnamese boat people - to name but a few. The Daily Mail was wrong back then, and the Daily Mail and similar media outlets are wrong now. People talk about British values and right up there at the top of those values are compassion, fairness and honesty. These virtues appear to be lost at the moment as the Government and their right wing gobshite client journalists go out of their way (and are seemingly succeeding) to convince the “hard of thinking” that a problem that the Government itself has created can only be solved by showing a lack of compassion, fairness and honesty. Ah "the hard of thinking". It had to be someone's fault I suppose. So do the hard of thinking make up the majority of the UK? I happen to think that the majority of the U.K. can see very clearly that the Government is gaslighting them and understand that the boat problem is a problem of the government’s own making. Most people know that the biggest problems we are facing are being caused by people in Whitehall , not by people in small boats. There are however a section of society who are notoriously “hard of thinking” and for decades they have been so successfully groomed by right wing media outlets that they don’t even know they have been groomed. Why don’t you just try to look outside of your bubble of bias and look what is actually happening and ask yourself why. You may have to look outside if your favourite media channels - but that might not be a bad thing ??
Your making assumptions on my political bias.
I don't live in a bubble, I'm quite aware of what's going on.
So based on that, what have the left put in place to counteract these people that are hard of thinking.
All I see is postings on a swinger forum from disgruntled left supporters, trying to justify what should happen. But nothing ever does.
At least the Conservative government have a bit of continuity in gas lighting and controlling the media.
Come on on supporters of the left, you can do your country proud
Tbf, Labour has a plan, but they are not in government , but I agree, they should just come up with something bold, unworkable and unrealistic and then blame everyone else
Hey I voted for the SNP and look how that turned out.
There needs to be a powerful opposition.
Like you say, until Labour come up with workable solutions the Conservative government are just coasting with minimal effort.
"Tbh, they don’t need to be workable, they just need to lie more often, seems to work | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People can’t help themselves from trotting out their whataboutism! Homelessness in the UK has risen under the Tory Govt since 2010. Fact. Labour Govt 1997-2010 tackled homelessness and massively reduced it (apparently almost eradicating rough sleeping - I did not know that). Fact. Yeah but Iraq War! Erm ok yes not a good thing at all but aren’t we discussing homelessness? Aren’t we trying to discuss the connection between funding for tackling homelessness and Asylum Seekers? *sigh* "Yeah, but, what about Corbyn | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People can’t help themselves from trotting out their whataboutism! Homelessness in the UK has risen under the Tory Govt since 2010. Fact. Labour Govt 1997-2010 tackled homelessness and massively reduced it (apparently almost eradicating rough sleeping - I did not know that). Fact. Yeah but Iraq War! Erm ok yes not a good thing at all but aren’t we discussing homelessness? Aren’t we trying to discuss the connection between funding for tackling homelessness and Asylum Seekers? *sigh* "The facts are hard to swallow for some. Homelessness increased under Labour by 33% in the first 6 years, then they managed to drop it by 69% (69% of the higher figure, so for those who like to argue about semantics, it wasn't 'actually 69%) Since the Conservatives come to power in 2010 Homelessness has increased over 500%. 500%  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People can’t help themselves from trotting out their whataboutism! Homelessness in the UK has risen under the Tory Govt since 2010. Fact. Labour Govt 1997-2010 tackled homelessness and massively reduced it (apparently almost eradicating rough sleeping - I did not know that). Fact. Yeah but Iraq War! Erm ok yes not a good thing at all but aren’t we discussing homelessness? Aren’t we trying to discuss the connection between funding for tackling homelessness and Asylum Seekers? *sigh*
The facts are hard to swallow for some.
Homelessness increased under Labour by 33% in the first 6 years, then they managed to drop it by 69% (69% of the higher figure, so for those who like to argue about semantics, it wasn't 'actually 69%)
Since the Conservatives come to power in 2010 Homelessness has increased over 500%.
500% "In the fifth/sixth richest economy in the world! Disgusting! Regardless of the colour of their tie, our politicians should be ashamed. Do you know one of the other connections/indirect causes? Mental health and substance abuse/dependency. Severe cuts in support services under the Tory govt as part of austerity has had a knock on effect resulting in increased homelessness. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People can’t help themselves from trotting out their whataboutism! Homelessness in the UK has risen under the Tory Govt since 2010. Fact. Labour Govt 1997-2010 tackled homelessness and massively reduced it (apparently almost eradicating rough sleeping - I did not know that). Fact. Yeah but Iraq War! Erm ok yes not a good thing at all but aren’t we discussing homelessness? Aren’t we trying to discuss the connection between funding for tackling homelessness and Asylum Seekers? *sigh*
The facts are hard to swallow for some.
Homelessness increased under Labour by 33% in the first 6 years, then they managed to drop it by 69% (69% of the higher figure, so for those who like to argue about semantics, it wasn't 'actually 69%)
Since the Conservatives come to power in 2010 Homelessness has increased over 500%.
500%
In the fifth/sixth richest economy in the world! Disgusting! Regardless of the colour of their tie, our politicians should be ashamed.
Do you know one of the other connections/indirect causes? Mental health and substance abuse/dependency. Severe cuts in support services under the Tory govt as part of austerity has had a knock on effect resulting in increased homelessness."YEAH BUT LOOK OVER HERE IT’S A DINGHY FULL OF FOREIGNERS | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People can’t help themselves from trotting out their whataboutism! Homelessness in the UK has risen under the Tory Govt since 2010. Fact. Labour Govt 1997-2010 tackled homelessness and massively reduced it (apparently almost eradicating rough sleeping - I did not know that). Fact. Yeah but Iraq War! Erm ok yes not a good thing at all but aren’t we discussing homelessness? Aren’t we trying to discuss the connection between funding for tackling homelessness and Asylum Seekers? *sigh*
The facts are hard to swallow for some.
Homelessness increased under Labour by 33% in the first 6 years, then they managed to drop it by 69% (69% of the higher figure, so for those who like to argue about semantics, it wasn't 'actually 69%)
Since the Conservatives come to power in 2010 Homelessness has increased over 500%.
500%
In the fifth/sixth richest economy in the world! Disgusting! Regardless of the colour of their tie, our politicians should be ashamed.
Do you know one of the other connections/indirect causes? Mental health and substance abuse/dependency. Severe cuts in support services under the Tory govt as part of austerity has had a knock on effect resulting in increased homelessness."I only quickly searched for those figures, I haven't looked I to causation. I would guess that the cost of living, lack of social housing plus cuts/harder to get actual meaningful social security benefits has had a monumental effect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People can’t help themselves from trotting out their whataboutism! Homelessness in the UK has risen under the Tory Govt since 2010. Fact. Labour Govt 1997-2010 tackled homelessness and massively reduced it (apparently almost eradicating rough sleeping - I did not know that). Fact. Yeah but Iraq War! Erm ok yes not a good thing at all but aren’t we discussing homelessness? Aren’t we trying to discuss the connection between funding for tackling homelessness and Asylum Seekers? *sigh* "I think it’s connected don’t you ? As of 2020, 9.2 million Iraqis are internally displaced or refugees abroad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People can’t help themselves from trotting out their whataboutism! Homelessness in the UK has risen under the Tory Govt since 2010. Fact. Labour Govt 1997-2010 tackled homelessness and massively reduced it (apparently almost eradicating rough sleeping - I did not know that). Fact. Yeah but Iraq War! Erm ok yes not a good thing at all but aren’t we discussing homelessness? Aren’t we trying to discuss the connection between funding for tackling homelessness and Asylum Seekers? *sigh*
I think it’s connected don’t you ?
As of 2020, 9.2 million Iraqis are internally displaced or refugees abroad."How many are in the UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People can’t help themselves from trotting out their whataboutism! Homelessness in the UK has risen under the Tory Govt since 2010. Fact. Labour Govt 1997-2010 tackled homelessness and massively reduced it (apparently almost eradicating rough sleeping - I did not know that). Fact. Yeah but Iraq War! Erm ok yes not a good thing at all but aren’t we discussing homelessness? Aren’t we trying to discuss the connection between funding for tackling homelessness and Asylum Seekers? *sigh*
I think it’s connected don’t you ?
As of 2020, 9.2 million Iraqis are internally displaced or refugees abroad.
How many are in the UK? "Google it, If your mate Tory Blair hadn’t joined Bush In destroying a country and killing thousands, the majority of issues now with refugees/terrorist states would not of happened? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People can’t help themselves from trotting out their whataboutism! Homelessness in the UK has risen under the Tory Govt since 2010. Fact. Labour Govt 1997-2010 tackled homelessness and massively reduced it (apparently almost eradicating rough sleeping - I did not know that). Fact. Yeah but Iraq War! Erm ok yes not a good thing at all but aren’t we discussing homelessness? Aren’t we trying to discuss the connection between funding for tackling homelessness and Asylum Seekers? *sigh*
I think it’s connected don’t you ?
As of 2020, 9.2 million Iraqis are internally displaced or refugees abroad.
How many are in the UK?
Google it,
If your mate Tory Blair hadn’t joined Bush In destroying a country and killing thousands, the majority of issues now with refugees/terrorist states would not of happened? "Supported by the tories | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People can’t help themselves from trotting out their whataboutism! Homelessness in the UK has risen under the Tory Govt since 2010. Fact. Labour Govt 1997-2010 tackled homelessness and massively reduced it (apparently almost eradicating rough sleeping - I did not know that). Fact. Yeah but Iraq War! Erm ok yes not a good thing at all but aren’t we discussing homelessness? Aren’t we trying to discuss the connection between funding for tackling homelessness and Asylum Seekers? *sigh*
I think it’s connected don’t you ?
As of 2020, 9.2 million Iraqis are internally displaced or refugees abroad.
How many are in the UK?
Google it,
If your mate Tory Blair hadn’t joined Bush In destroying a country and killing thousands, the majority of issues now with refugees/terrorist states would not of happened?
Supported by the tories "Yes I heard you’ve got a tee shirt saying the same | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People can’t help themselves from trotting out their whataboutism! Homelessness in the UK has risen under the Tory Govt since 2010. Fact. Labour Govt 1997-2010 tackled homelessness and massively reduced it (apparently almost eradicating rough sleeping - I did not know that). Fact. Yeah but Iraq War! Erm ok yes not a good thing at all but aren’t we discussing homelessness? Aren’t we trying to discuss the connection between funding for tackling homelessness and Asylum Seekers? *sigh*
I think it’s connected don’t you ?
As of 2020, 9.2 million Iraqis are internally displaced or refugees abroad.
How many are in the UK? "That's figure is wildly different depending on who is asked. The ONS estimate 60k. Whereas the Iraqi embassy estimate 400k. Not all of these will be refugees of course. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People can’t help themselves from trotting out their whataboutism! Homelessness in the UK has risen under the Tory Govt since 2010. Fact. Labour Govt 1997-2010 tackled homelessness and massively reduced it (apparently almost eradicating rough sleeping - I did not know that). Fact. Yeah but Iraq War! Erm ok yes not a good thing at all but aren’t we discussing homelessness? Aren’t we trying to discuss the connection between funding for tackling homelessness and Asylum Seekers? *sigh*
I think it’s connected don’t you ?
As of 2020, 9.2 million Iraqis are internally displaced or refugees abroad.
How many are in the UK?
That's figure is wildly different depending on who is asked. The ONS estimate 60k. Whereas the Iraqi embassy estimate 400k.
Not all of these will be refugees of course."Fair enough, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem!" We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ???" Who did you vote for in 2001? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ???" Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Who did you vote for in 2001? " And why is that your business?? We all know who you voted for | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Who did you vote for in 2001? And why is that your business?? We all know who you voted for "I didn’t, I wasn’t old enough, anyway, the British parliament approved the war | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. " Labour was the ruling party and the Iraq war was triggered by lies of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, by America. Happy joined in by Tory Blair and his cronies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. Labour was the ruling party and the Iraq war was triggered by lies of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, by America. Happy joined in by Tory Blair and his cronies. " It needed the support of the tories to get through parliament | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. Labour was the ruling party and the Iraq war was triggered by lies of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, by America. Happy joined in by Tory Blair and his cronies. " I'm fully aware of what happened. You're arguing you didn't sanction it. You never do regardless of who the ruling party is | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. Labour was the ruling party and the Iraq war was triggered by lies of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, by America. Happy joined in by Tory Blair and his cronies. I'm fully aware of what happened. You're arguing you didn't sanction it. You never do regardless of who the ruling party is" Keeping thread going but replying to dontforgetme... Despite voting for Labour in 97 and 2001, I was one of the million people who marched along Piccadilly to Hyde Park for the anti-war rally shouting “not in my name”. (Incidentally that won’t be allowed in future if this govt have their way). If you were truly against the war then you would surely be even more of the opinion our country, the UK, had a moral duty to those people impacted? You cannot take on the mantle of policing the world then forsake the responsibilities that come with that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. Labour was the ruling party and the Iraq war was triggered by lies of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, by America. Happy joined in by Tory Blair and his cronies. I'm fully aware of what happened. You're arguing you didn't sanction it. You never do regardless of who the ruling party is Keeping thread going but replying to dontforgetme... Despite voting for Labour in 97 and 2001, I was one of the million people who marched along Piccadilly to Hyde Park for the anti-war rally shouting “not in my name”. (Incidentally that won’t be allowed in future if this govt have their way). If you were truly against the war then you would surely be even more of the opinion our country, the UK, had a moral duty to those people impacted? You cannot take on the mantle of policing the world then forsake the responsibilities that come with that. " I didn't particularly like the idea of going to war, but fair play to Mr Blair when he came out to visit, he sold that shit like it like fidget spinners  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. Labour was the ruling party and the Iraq war was triggered by lies of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, by America. Happy joined in by Tory Blair and his cronies. I'm fully aware of what happened. You're arguing you didn't sanction it. You never do regardless of who the ruling party is" I’m debating not arguing, but I do understand you call it arguing when someone disagrees with you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. Labour was the ruling party and the Iraq war was triggered by lies of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, by America. Happy joined in by Tory Blair and his cronies. I'm fully aware of what happened. You're arguing you didn't sanction it. You never do regardless of who the ruling party is Keeping thread going but replying to dontforgetme... Despite voting for Labour in 97 and 2001, I was one of the million people who marched along Piccadilly to Hyde Park for the anti-war rally shouting “not in my name”. (Incidentally that won’t be allowed in future if this govt have their way). If you were truly against the war then you would surely be even more of the opinion our country, the UK, had a moral duty to those people impacted? You cannot take on the mantle of policing the world then forsake the responsibilities that come with that. " So how many unvetted asylum seekers can we send you live in your home ?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. Labour was the ruling party and the Iraq war was triggered by lies of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, by America. Happy joined in by Tory Blair and his cronies. I'm fully aware of what happened. You're arguing you didn't sanction it. You never do regardless of who the ruling party is I’m debating not arguing, but I do understand you call it arguing when someone disagrees with you. " You don't understand me at all. You don't know anything about me. 'What is the difference between debate and arguing? 'Debate' carries the idea of more intellectual discussion about disagreement when used this way, as opposed to 'argument', which implies a more emotion driven quarrel. In general, 'Argument' means a line of reasoning or evidence in support of an issue or opinion.' I would 'debate' that been much more emotional on the subject than I have  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. Labour was the ruling party and the Iraq war was triggered by lies of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, by America. Happy joined in by Tory Blair and his cronies. I'm fully aware of what happened. You're arguing you didn't sanction it. You never do regardless of who the ruling party is Keeping thread going but replying to dontforgetme... Despite voting for Labour in 97 and 2001, I was one of the million people who marched along Piccadilly to Hyde Park for the anti-war rally shouting “not in my name”. (Incidentally that won’t be allowed in future if this govt have their way). If you were truly against the war then you would surely be even more of the opinion our country, the UK, had a moral duty to those people impacted? You cannot take on the mantle of policing the world then forsake the responsibilities that come with that. So how many unvetted asylum seekers can we send you live in your home ??" How many homeless people can we send you yours | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. Labour was the ruling party and the Iraq war was triggered by lies of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, by America. Happy joined in by Tory Blair and his cronies. I'm fully aware of what happened. You're arguing you didn't sanction it. You never do regardless of who the ruling party is I’m debating not arguing, but I do understand you call it arguing when someone disagrees with you. You don't understand me at all. You don't know anything about me. 'What is the difference between debate and arguing? 'Debate' carries the idea of more intellectual discussion about disagreement when used this way, as opposed to 'argument', which implies a more emotion driven quarrel. In general, 'Argument' means a line of reasoning or evidence in support of an issue or opinion.' I would 'debate' that been much more emotional on the subject than I have "Yet your the one the mentioned the term arguing if the first place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. Labour was the ruling party and the Iraq war was triggered by lies of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, by America. Happy joined in by Tory Blair and his cronies. I'm fully aware of what happened. You're arguing you didn't sanction it. You never do regardless of who the ruling party is I’m debating not arguing, but I do understand you call it arguing when someone disagrees with you. You don't understand me at all. You don't know anything about me. 'What is the difference between debate and arguing? 'Debate' carries the idea of more intellectual discussion about disagreement when used this way, as opposed to 'argument', which implies a more emotion driven quarrel. In general, 'Argument' means a line of reasoning or evidence in support of an issue or opinion.' I would 'debate' that been much more emotional on the subject than I have
Yet your the one the mentioned the term arguing if the first place. "Did you read what I wrote? I used the word 'arguing' because you seem to be quite emotional about this subject. You're welcome | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. Labour was the ruling party and the Iraq war was triggered by lies of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, by America. Happy joined in by Tory Blair and his cronies. I'm fully aware of what happened. You're arguing you didn't sanction it. You never do regardless of who the ruling party is I’m debating not arguing, but I do understand you call it arguing when someone disagrees with you. You don't understand me at all. You don't know anything about me. 'What is the difference between debate and arguing? 'Debate' carries the idea of more intellectual discussion about disagreement when used this way, as opposed to 'argument', which implies a more emotion driven quarrel. In general, 'Argument' means a line of reasoning or evidence in support of an issue or opinion.' I would 'debate' that been much more emotional on the subject than I have
Yet your the one the mentioned the term arguing if the first place.
Did you read what I wrote? I used the word 'arguing' because you seem to be quite emotional about this subject. You're welcome "Not emotionally at all . You make a statement that I don’t know you, or anything about you. But you make assumptions about myself with knowing nothing about me. Bit unfair don’t you think ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. Labour was the ruling party and the Iraq war was triggered by lies of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, by America. Happy joined in by Tory Blair and his cronies. I'm fully aware of what happened. You're arguing you didn't sanction it. You never do regardless of who the ruling party is I’m debating not arguing, but I do understand you call it arguing when someone disagrees with you. You don't understand me at all. You don't know anything about me. 'What is the difference between debate and arguing? 'Debate' carries the idea of more intellectual discussion about disagreement when used this way, as opposed to 'argument', which implies a more emotion driven quarrel. In general, 'Argument' means a line of reasoning or evidence in support of an issue or opinion.' I would 'debate' that been much more emotional on the subject than I have
Yet your the one the mentioned the term arguing if the first place.
Did you read what I wrote? I used the word 'arguing' because you seem to be quite emotional about this subject. You're welcome
Not emotionally at all . You make a statement that I don’t know you, or anything about you. But you make assumptions about myself with knowing nothing about me. Bit unfair don’t you think ?"I made an observation from your written words, that's what most do on forums. There's no other way. If I got it wrong then I'll accept that. Do care to read back and you'll understand how I came to my assumption. BTW, when you say things like 'I understand you do this when someone disagrees with you', that implies you know something about me. We've never had an interaction before so not sure how you came to that assumption so early on in out exchange. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. Labour was the ruling party and the Iraq war was triggered by lies of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, by America. Happy joined in by Tory Blair and his cronies. I'm fully aware of what happened. You're arguing you didn't sanction it. You never do regardless of who the ruling party is Keeping thread going but replying to dontforgetme... Despite voting for Labour in 97 and 2001, I was one of the million people who marched along Piccadilly to Hyde Park for the anti-war rally shouting “not in my name”. (Incidentally that won’t be allowed in future if this govt have their way). If you were truly against the war then you would surely be even more of the opinion our country, the UK, had a moral duty to those people impacted? You cannot take on the mantle of policing the world then forsake the responsibilities that come with that. So how many unvetted asylum seekers can we send you live in your home ??" Absolutely none. But I have proposed dome sensible common sense solutions to helping reduce this issue on the thread... https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1426911#message_34687573 Worth a read, especially in reference to unvetted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. Labour was the ruling party and the Iraq war was triggered by lies of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, by America. Happy joined in by Tory Blair and his cronies. I'm fully aware of what happened. You're arguing you didn't sanction it. You never do regardless of who the ruling party is I’m debating not arguing, but I do understand you call it arguing when someone disagrees with you. You don't understand me at all. You don't know anything about me. 'What is the difference between debate and arguing? 'Debate' carries the idea of more intellectual discussion about disagreement when used this way, as opposed to 'argument', which implies a more emotion driven quarrel. In general, 'Argument' means a line of reasoning or evidence in support of an issue or opinion.' I would 'debate' that been much more emotional on the subject than I have
Yet your the one the mentioned the term arguing if the first place.
Did you read what I wrote? I used the word 'arguing' because you seem to be quite emotional about this subject. You're welcome
Not emotionally at all . You make a statement that I don’t know you, or anything about you. But you make assumptions about myself with knowing nothing about me. Bit unfair don’t you think ?
I made an observation from your written words, that's what most do on forums. There's no other way.
If I got it wrong then I'll accept that. Do care to read back and you'll understand how I came to my assumption.
BTW, when you say things like 'I understand you do this when someone disagrees with you', that implies you know something about me. We've never had an interaction before so not sure how you came to that assumption so early on in out exchange."I meant “you” as in lefties. You are a leftie aren’t you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. Labour was the ruling party and the Iraq war was triggered by lies of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, by America. Happy joined in by Tory Blair and his cronies. I'm fully aware of what happened. You're arguing you didn't sanction it. You never do regardless of who the ruling party is I’m debating not arguing, but I do understand you call it arguing when someone disagrees with you. You don't understand me at all. You don't know anything about me. 'What is the difference between debate and arguing? 'Debate' carries the idea of more intellectual discussion about disagreement when used this way, as opposed to 'argument', which implies a more emotion driven quarrel. In general, 'Argument' means a line of reasoning or evidence in support of an issue or opinion.' I would 'debate' that been much more emotional on the subject than I have
Yet your the one the mentioned the term arguing if the first place.
Did you read what I wrote? I used the word 'arguing' because you seem to be quite emotional about this subject. You're welcome
Not emotionally at all . You make a statement that I don’t know you, or anything about you. But you make assumptions about myself with knowing nothing about me. Bit unfair don’t you think ?
I made an observation from your written words, that's what most do on forums. There's no other way.
If I got it wrong then I'll accept that. Do care to read back and you'll understand how I came to my assumption.
BTW, when you say things like 'I understand you do this when someone disagrees with you', that implies you know something about me. We've never had an interaction before so not sure how you came to that assumption so early on in out exchange.
I meant “you” as in lefties. You are a leftie aren’t you? "Hahaha. You have me so very wrong. Most on here would say I'm a righty. I'm actually a centrist though, maybe just right of centre. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. Labour was the ruling party and the Iraq war was triggered by lies of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, by America. Happy joined in by Tory Blair and his cronies. I'm fully aware of what happened. You're arguing you didn't sanction it. You never do regardless of who the ruling party is I’m debating not arguing, but I do understand you call it arguing when someone disagrees with you. You don't understand me at all. You don't know anything about me. 'What is the difference between debate and arguing? 'Debate' carries the idea of more intellectual discussion about disagreement when used this way, as opposed to 'argument', which implies a more emotion driven quarrel. In general, 'Argument' means a line of reasoning or evidence in support of an issue or opinion.' I would 'debate' that been much more emotional on the subject than I have
Yet your the one the mentioned the term arguing if the first place.
Did you read what I wrote? I used the word 'arguing' because you seem to be quite emotional about this subject. You're welcome
Not emotionally at all . You make a statement that I don’t know you, or anything about you. But you make assumptions about myself with knowing nothing about me. Bit unfair don’t you think ?
I made an observation from your written words, that's what most do on forums. There's no other way.
If I got it wrong then I'll accept that. Do care to read back and you'll understand how I came to my assumption.
BTW, when you say things like 'I understand you do this when someone disagrees with you', that implies you know something about me. We've never had an interaction before so not sure how you came to that assumption so early on in out exchange.
I meant “you” as in lefties. You are a leftie aren’t you? "LOL you must be new here. We have a broad church. Some are far left, left, centre left, centrist, centre right, right, far right. Politics isn’t binary you know | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. Labour was the ruling party and the Iraq war was triggered by lies of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, by America. Happy joined in by Tory Blair and his cronies. I'm fully aware of what happened. You're arguing you didn't sanction it. You never do regardless of who the ruling party is I’m debating not arguing, but I do understand you call it arguing when someone disagrees with you. You don't understand me at all. You don't know anything about me. 'What is the difference between debate and arguing? 'Debate' carries the idea of more intellectual discussion about disagreement when used this way, as opposed to 'argument', which implies a more emotion driven quarrel. In general, 'Argument' means a line of reasoning or evidence in support of an issue or opinion.' I would 'debate' that been much more emotional on the subject than I have
Yet your the one the mentioned the term arguing if the first place.
Did you read what I wrote? I used the word 'arguing' because you seem to be quite emotional about this subject. You're welcome
Not emotionally at all . You make a statement that I don’t know you, or anything about you. But you make assumptions about myself with knowing nothing about me. Bit unfair don’t you think ?
I made an observation from your written words, that's what most do on forums. There's no other way.
If I got it wrong then I'll accept that. Do care to read back and you'll understand how I came to my assumption.
BTW, when you say things like 'I understand you do this when someone disagrees with you', that implies you know something about me. We've never had an interaction before so not sure how you came to that assumption so early on in out exchange.
I meant “you” as in lefties. You are a leftie aren’t you?
Hahaha. You have me so very wrong. Most on here would say I'm a righty. I'm actually a centrist though, maybe just right of centre."You’ve been rumbled! From now on you are a “leftie” and no amount of protestation will convince anyone otherwise!!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. Labour was the ruling party and the Iraq war was triggered by lies of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, by America. Happy joined in by Tory Blair and his cronies. I'm fully aware of what happened. You're arguing you didn't sanction it. You never do regardless of who the ruling party is I’m debating not arguing, but I do understand you call it arguing when someone disagrees with you. You don't understand me at all. You don't know anything about me. 'What is the difference between debate and arguing? 'Debate' carries the idea of more intellectual discussion about disagreement when used this way, as opposed to 'argument', which implies a more emotion driven quarrel. In general, 'Argument' means a line of reasoning or evidence in support of an issue or opinion.' I would 'debate' that been much more emotional on the subject than I have
Yet your the one the mentioned the term arguing if the first place.
Did you read what I wrote? I used the word 'arguing' because you seem to be quite emotional about this subject. You're welcome
Not emotionally at all . You make a statement that I don’t know you, or anything about you. But you make assumptions about myself with knowing nothing about me. Bit unfair don’t you think ?
I made an observation from your written words, that's what most do on forums. There's no other way.
If I got it wrong then I'll accept that. Do care to read back and you'll understand how I came to my assumption.
BTW, when you say things like 'I understand you do this when someone disagrees with you', that implies you know something about me. We've never had an interaction before so not sure how you came to that assumption so early on in out exchange.
I meant “you” as in lefties. You are a leftie aren’t you?
LOL you must be new here. We have a broad church. Some are far left, left, centre left, centrist, centre right, right, far right. Politics isn’t binary you know "No way is there other political theories and parties. Well I never! Perhaps you can share your views with the unvetted asylum seekers your putting up in your homes . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. Labour was the ruling party and the Iraq war was triggered by lies of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, by America. Happy joined in by Tory Blair and his cronies. I'm fully aware of what happened. You're arguing you didn't sanction it. You never do regardless of who the ruling party is I’m debating not arguing, but I do understand you call it arguing when someone disagrees with you. You don't understand me at all. You don't know anything about me. 'What is the difference between debate and arguing? 'Debate' carries the idea of more intellectual discussion about disagreement when used this way, as opposed to 'argument', which implies a more emotion driven quarrel. In general, 'Argument' means a line of reasoning or evidence in support of an issue or opinion.' I would 'debate' that been much more emotional on the subject than I have
Yet your the one the mentioned the term arguing if the first place.
Did you read what I wrote? I used the word 'arguing' because you seem to be quite emotional about this subject. You're welcome
Not emotionally at all . You make a statement that I don’t know you, or anything about you. But you make assumptions about myself with knowing nothing about me. Bit unfair don’t you think ?
I made an observation from your written words, that's what most do on forums. There's no other way.
If I got it wrong then I'll accept that. Do care to read back and you'll understand how I came to my assumption.
BTW, when you say things like 'I understand you do this when someone disagrees with you', that implies you know something about me. We've never had an interaction before so not sure how you came to that assumption so early on in out exchange.
I meant “you” as in lefties. You are a leftie aren’t you?
Hahaha. You have me so very wrong. Most on here would say I'm a righty. I'm actually a centrist though, maybe just right of centre.
You’ve been rumbled! From now on you are a “leftie” and no amount of protestation will convince anyone otherwise!!!!" you better tell some of the actual left round here, not too sure they're gonna start agreeing with me though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. Labour was the ruling party and the Iraq war was triggered by lies of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, by America. Happy joined in by Tory Blair and his cronies. I'm fully aware of what happened. You're arguing you didn't sanction it. You never do regardless of who the ruling party is I’m debating not arguing, but I do understand you call it arguing when someone disagrees with you. You don't understand me at all. You don't know anything about me. 'What is the difference between debate and arguing? 'Debate' carries the idea of more intellectual discussion about disagreement when used this way, as opposed to 'argument', which implies a more emotion driven quarrel. In general, 'Argument' means a line of reasoning or evidence in support of an issue or opinion.' I would 'debate' that been much more emotional on the subject than I have
Yet your the one the mentioned the term arguing if the first place.
Did you read what I wrote? I used the word 'arguing' because you seem to be quite emotional about this subject. You're welcome
Not emotionally at all . You make a statement that I don’t know you, or anything about you. But you make assumptions about myself with knowing nothing about me. Bit unfair don’t you think ?
I made an observation from your written words, that's what most do on forums. There's no other way.
If I got it wrong then I'll accept that. Do care to read back and you'll understand how I came to my assumption.
BTW, when you say things like 'I understand you do this when someone disagrees with you', that implies you know something about me. We've never had an interaction before so not sure how you came to that assumption so early on in out exchange.
I meant “you” as in lefties. You are a leftie aren’t you?
Hahaha. You have me so very wrong. Most on here would say I'm a righty. I'm actually a centrist though, maybe just right of centre.
You’ve been rumbled! From now on you are a “leftie” and no amount of protestation will convince anyone otherwise!!!!
you better tell some of the actual left round here, not too sure they're gonna start agreeing with me though "Hell could freeze over of course | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. Labour was the ruling party and the Iraq war was triggered by lies of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, by America. Happy joined in by Tory Blair and his cronies. I'm fully aware of what happened. You're arguing you didn't sanction it. You never do regardless of who the ruling party is I’m debating not arguing, but I do understand you call it arguing when someone disagrees with you. You don't understand me at all. You don't know anything about me. 'What is the difference between debate and arguing? 'Debate' carries the idea of more intellectual discussion about disagreement when used this way, as opposed to 'argument', which implies a more emotion driven quarrel. In general, 'Argument' means a line of reasoning or evidence in support of an issue or opinion.' I would 'debate' that been much more emotional on the subject than I have
Yet your the one the mentioned the term arguing if the first place.
Did you read what I wrote? I used the word 'arguing' because you seem to be quite emotional about this subject. You're welcome
Not emotionally at all . You make a statement that I don’t know you, or anything about you. But you make assumptions about myself with knowing nothing about me. Bit unfair don’t you think ?
I made an observation from your written words, that's what most do on forums. There's no other way.
If I got it wrong then I'll accept that. Do care to read back and you'll understand how I came to my assumption.
BTW, when you say things like 'I understand you do this when someone disagrees with you', that implies you know something about me. We've never had an interaction before so not sure how you came to that assumption so early on in out exchange.
I meant “you” as in lefties. You are a leftie aren’t you?
LOL you must be new here. We have a broad church. Some are far left, left, centre left, centrist, centre right, right, far right. Politics isn’t binary you know
No way is there other political theories and parties. Well I never!
Perhaps you can share your views with the unvetted asylum seekers your putting up in your homes . "Hard to believe in this binary tribalist world we seem to live in! Actually a lot of the back and forth in here is actually intended as pub banter. Trouble is it gets lost in translation. And...some people take everything too seriously! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I understand that the government is doing shouldn't affect legitimate asylum seekers whatsoever - it's all about tackling the problem of people smuggling and illegal economic migrants" The issue, if you dig just a bit deeper, is there are no longer any legal safe channels for applying for asylum in the UK. Contrary to popular belief you cannot apply outside the UK or at a British Embassy. So you have to be on UK soil to claim asylum in the UK but you cannot enter the UK legally to claim asylum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I understand that the government is doing shouldn't affect legitimate asylum seekers whatsoever - it's all about tackling the problem of people smuggling and illegal economic migrants" That would imply that all those current arriving by boat are ‘illegal economic migrants’, 70 % are not | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I understand that the government is doing shouldn't affect legitimate asylum seekers whatsoever - it's all about tackling the problem of people smuggling and illegal economic migrants" You're mistaken. What the government is doing is using fear of immigrants to garner support from those of the more anti-immigrant persuasion. It has absolutely zero to do with tackling "the problem of people smuggling and illegal economic migrants". Imagine if they "solved" this "problem", they'd lose one of their most valuable PR assets. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I understand that the government is doing shouldn't affect legitimate asylum seekers whatsoever - it's all about tackling the problem of people smuggling and illegal economic migrants The issue, if you dig just a bit deeper, is there are no longer any legal safe channels for applying for asylum in the UK. Contrary to popular belief you cannot apply outside the UK or at a British Embassy. So you have to be on UK soil to claim asylum in the UK but you cannot enter the UK legally to claim asylum." As posted above a UK ship application center docks and anyone can get on how is seeking asylum possess on bord failed returned awarded let in to UK if it dose not go into UK water they could be returned. But will then try the small boat trip. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As posted above a UK ship application center docks and anyone can get on how is seeking asylum possess on bord failed returned awarded let in to UK if it dose not go into UK water they could be returned. But will then try the small boat trip." You may be underestimating how long it takes to process asylum claimants. Especially if they turn up with no identification, unable to speak English, and from a country that doesn't want to acknowledge their existence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. Labour was the ruling party and the Iraq war was triggered by lies of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, by America. Happy joined in by Tory Blair and his cronies. I'm fully aware of what happened. You're arguing you didn't sanction it. You never do regardless of who the ruling party is Keeping thread going but replying to dontforgetme... Despite voting for Labour in 97 and 2001, I was one of the million people who marched along Piccadilly to Hyde Park for the anti-war rally shouting “not in my name”. (Incidentally that won’t be allowed in future if this govt have their way). If you were truly against the war then you would surely be even more of the opinion our country, the UK, had a moral duty to those people impacted? You cannot take on the mantle of policing the world then forsake the responsibilities that come with that. So how many unvetted asylum seekers can we send you live in your home ?? Absolutely none. But I have proposed dome sensible common sense solutions to helping reduce this issue on the thread... https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1426911#message_34687573 Worth a read, especially in reference to unvetted." I shall have a read | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. Labour was the ruling party and the Iraq war was triggered by lies of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, by America. Happy joined in by Tory Blair and his cronies. I'm fully aware of what happened. You're arguing you didn't sanction it. You never do regardless of who the ruling party is Keeping thread going but replying to dontforgetme... Despite voting for Labour in 97 and 2001, I was one of the million people who marched along Piccadilly to Hyde Park for the anti-war rally shouting “not in my name”. (Incidentally that won’t be allowed in future if this govt have their way). If you were truly against the war then you would surely be even more of the opinion our country, the UK, had a moral duty to those people impacted? You cannot take on the mantle of policing the world then forsake the responsibilities that come with that. " I also voted Labour in 97 and 01 and I too was one of the million people who marched along Piccadilly to Hyde Park for the anti-war rally shouting “not in my name”. Imagine! It might even have been more than a million. I vowed never to vote Labour again and I haven't. You're right we need to take some responsibility, but never forget it was a Labour PM who went hand in hand with Bush into such unfathomable and destructive meddling in another continent, whilst flinging open without control the doors to the unvetted of Europe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite clear that the govt strategy is working very very well! As a distraction from the UK shitshow we are all living through. People in the UK, supposedly the 5/6th richest country in the world, cannot afford to heat their homes. Inflation is being exploited by businesses to make record profits while the govt blames workers wanting a decent pay rise. Corruption in our govt, our public servants, has been normalised. A few privileged connected individuals have exploited that corruption to seriously enrich themselves at the expense of tax payers. But no... Look over here... People in boats!!!!! Just look at the number of threads and 000s of words in the Fab forums alone. The distraction is working a treat! Unfortunately it is a real situation that people are concerned about and have been for many many years. The real issue is the tories use this to demonstrate any weaknesses in labour’s policies and it works every time because there are more who want tougher border controls than don’t. It IS a real issue yes. And people ARE concerned yes. But is it proportional to all the other issues the country is facing? I would argue not. It has been very effectively weaponised and getting worse with the use of inflammatory language. On a related note (but that thread maxed out on posts)... Just imagine a conversation between Lineker and Sharp about ethics and impartiality. Lineker commented on language being used being comparable to 1930s Germany (it is that is true). Sharp arranged an £800k loan for the then PM then secured the job of BBC Chairman. Which is worse? " Isn't that the kind of whataboutery you frequently deplore? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite clear that the govt strategy is working very very well! As a distraction from the UK shitshow we are all living through. People in the UK, supposedly the 5/6th richest country in the world, cannot afford to heat their homes. Inflation is being exploited by businesses to make record profits while the govt blames workers wanting a decent pay rise. Corruption in our govt, our public servants, has been normalised. A few privileged connected individuals have exploited that corruption to seriously enrich themselves at the expense of tax payers. But no... Look over here... People in boats!!!!! Just look at the number of threads and 000s of words in the Fab forums alone. The distraction is working a treat! Unfortunately it is a real situation that people are concerned about and have been for many many years. The real issue is the tories use this to demonstrate any weaknesses in labour’s policies and it works every time because there are more who want tougher border controls than don’t. I guess that if this is not a high priority / important topic for the voters as the government claim and others disagree with then the government are wasting a lot of political capital on a dud policy Immigration and especially illegal immigration has been a priority of UK citizens for decades, it isn’t a conservative only issue since election, labour and all parties have struggled with this topic over the years. A grown up conversation can’t happen on here due to the polarisation that immigration has on the population and is reflected on every thread concerning immigration, refugees and asylum. Luckily for us in the UK we have elected representatives that make the grown up decisions on our behalf… How long before the “I didn’t vote for” comments kick in "Most people I know consider this an important issue. Of course that's not very scientific but the government seem to agree and if they have it wrong then they are just wasting their own time on this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite clear that the govt strategy is working very very well! As a distraction from the UK shitshow we are all living through. People in the UK, supposedly the 5/6th richest country in the world, cannot afford to heat their homes. Inflation is being exploited by businesses to make record profits while the govt blames workers wanting a decent pay rise. Corruption in our govt, our public servants, has been normalised. A few privileged connected individuals have exploited that corruption to seriously enrich themselves at the expense of tax payers. But no... Look over here... People in boats!!!!! Just look at the number of threads and 000s of words in the Fab forums alone. The distraction is working a treat! Unfortunately it is a real situation that people are concerned about and have been for many many years. The real issue is the tories use this to demonstrate any weaknesses in labour’s policies and it works every time because there are more who want tougher border controls than don’t. It IS a real issue yes. And people ARE concerned yes. But is it proportional to all the other issues the country is facing? I would argue not. It has been very effectively weaponised and getting worse with the use of inflammatory language. On a related note (but that thread maxed out on posts)... Just imagine a conversation between Lineker and Sharp about ethics and impartiality. Lineker commented on language being used being comparable to 1930s Germany (it is that is true). Sharp arranged an £800k loan for the then PM then secured the job of BBC Chairman. Which is worse? Isn't that the kind of whataboutery you frequently deplore? "Ha ha touche | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure of the breakdown of asylum seeking boat people by country of origin but a good chunk are Afghans. I believe another big chunk was Albanians? And Syrians? Probably Iraqis too? Without doubt the Iraq War is one of the causes but it is not THE cause. Destabilisation of the Middle East generally is to blame. The UK has indeed played a part in that. I would argue that means we have a moral duty to help address the problem! We??? I disagree? I’m didn’t sanction/vote for an illegal war ??? Why do we always here 'illegal war'? War is war whether 'legal or illegal' and you never sanction it. Those decisions are made for us by the ruling party. Labour was the ruling party and the Iraq war was triggered by lies of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, by America. Happy joined in by Tory Blair and his cronies. I'm fully aware of what happened. You're arguing you didn't sanction it. You never do regardless of who the ruling party is Keeping thread going but replying to dontforgetme... Despite voting for Labour in 97 and 2001, I was one of the million people who marched along Piccadilly to Hyde Park for the anti-war rally shouting “not in my name”. (Incidentally that won’t be allowed in future if this govt have their way). If you were truly against the war then you would surely be even more of the opinion our country, the UK, had a moral duty to those people impacted? You cannot take on the mantle of policing the world then forsake the responsibilities that come with that. I also voted Labour in 97 and 01 and I too was one of the million people who marched along Piccadilly to Hyde Park for the anti-war rally shouting “not in my name”. Imagine! It might even have been more than a million. I vowed never to vote Labour again and I haven't. You're right we need to take some responsibility, but never forget it was a Labour PM who went hand in hand with Bush into such unfathomable and destructive meddling in another continent, whilst flinging open without control the doors to the unvetted of Europe. " Blair trashed his legacy. It all started so well. Huge achievements in the first term and start of second term. But he was Bush’s lapdog and cannot be forgiven for Iraq and WMD. I also agree he went too far with immigration allowing Eastern Europeans access to the UK before other EU countries did causing a huge influx. He should have been more measured and cautious. Just goes to show though that the Brexit sovereignty argument was bollocks! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Look up Dame Stephanie Shirley. A refugee. One amongst many who have brought so much. We don't want people who could become her anymore because they are being demonised for short-term political gain." Can we call her Steve, she adopted that name
Anyway, no argument, she was and probably still is an inspiration to many. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Look up Dame Stephanie Shirley. A refugee. One amongst many who have brought so much. We don't want people who could become her anymore because they are being demonised for short-term political gain." The interview she gave on the High Performance podcast is quite amazing. One statistic; 44 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. Regardless, quite an incredible person to learn about and from. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty straightforward. Does this strategy work? If not why not?" Yes they are | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To answer the OPs question yes as nobody is talking about stanley johnstone Strikes Cost of living Budget etc The usual distraction tactics are working well aided and abeted by thier client journos and comentaters in the MSM " also... HMG are looking to relax restrictions on foreign works in construction industry (as a starter). It's classic slight of hand. Look folks, we are trying to be super strict stopping foreign folk from entering. While shipping in thousands. Ironically to do the jobs that many cited as being "st0len" by the Eastern Europeans. They are undoing brexit by the backdoor. And leavers seem to be more worried about fighting with remainers than protecting what they voted for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The amount of racists on here is shameful" Can you point us to the racism on this thread. It's normally called out pretty quickly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The amount of racists on here is shameful Can you point us to the racism on this thread. It's normally called out pretty quickly." There is none. How many asylum seekers can a country let in with the current housing crisis? I would assume living in a tent city in the UK would be horrible. Per capita the UK has more of a homeless problem then here and we take in millions more. So explain how people are to afford housing when everyone wants to take in more people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The amount of racists on here is shameful Can you point us to the racism on this thread. It's normally called out pretty quickly. There is none. How many asylum seekers can a country let in with the current housing crisis? I would assume living in a tent city in the UK would be horrible. Per capita the UK has more of a homeless problem then here and we take in millions more. So explain how people are to afford housing when everyone wants to take in more people. " I'll clear this one up for you. The government simply does not care about housing British people. Changing the laws for asylum seeks with have absolutely zero effect on the issues we're facing with housing. The government will not suddenly start caring. The single and only reason this is happening, is for the Tories to grow support amongst the anti-immigrant section of their support. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would say concentrate on the current homeless both here and there before you invite others in. It's not racist by any means. Take care of your own first. We just adding to a situation that is already out of control. " As above, never going to happen regardless what happens with this proposed law to make it harder for asylum seekers. The government could have done something about housing over the past 12 years. But they didn't. The simply don't give a fuck. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The amount of racists on here is shameful Can you point us to the racism on this thread. It's normally called out pretty quickly. There is none. How many asylum seekers can a country let in with the current housing crisis? I would assume living in a tent city in the UK would be horrible. Per capita the UK has more of a homeless problem then here and we take in millions more. So explain how people are to afford housing when everyone wants to take in more people. I'll clear this one up for you. The government simply does not care about housing British people. Changing the laws for asylum seeks with have absolutely zero effect on the issues we're facing with housing. The government will not suddenly start caring. The single and only reason this is happening, is for the Tories to grow support amongst the anti-immigrant section of their support. " I own 2 houses .... Maybe it's different here I do not know. But taking in the extra burden of other countries which exasperates the current housing and homelessness is a bad freaking idea. It's just creating more homelessness. So one country is having issues. It's another countries fault. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The amount of racists on here is shameful Can you point us to the racism on this thread. It's normally called out pretty quickly. There is none. How many asylum seekers can a country let in with the current housing crisis? I would assume living in a tent city in the UK would be horrible. Per capita the UK has more of a homeless problem then here and we take in millions more. So explain how people are to afford housing when everyone wants to take in more people. I'll clear this one up for you. The government simply does not care about housing British people. Changing the laws for asylum seeks with have absolutely zero effect on the issues we're facing with housing. The government will not suddenly start caring. The single and only reason this is happening, is for the Tories to grow support amongst the anti-immigrant section of their support. I own 2 houses .... Maybe it's different here I do not know. But taking in the extra burden of other countries which exasperates the current housing and homelessness is a bad freaking idea. It's just creating more homelessness. So one country is having issues. It's another countries fault." It's barely related. The government will do nothing about the housing crisis either way. This is only to gain support from those who blame immigrants for all the problems. Nothing more, nothing less. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To answer the OPs question yes as nobody is talking about stanley johnstone Strikes Cost of living Budget etc The usual distraction tactics are working well aided and abeted by thier client journos and comentaters in the MSM " Striks are linked with the cost of living. Housing is not helped my immigration. And also pushes up costs. There is only so much land and only so meny skilled trades people to build them. To put it simply there are to meany in too smaller place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The amount of racists on here is shameful Can you point us to the racism on this thread. It's normally called out pretty quickly. There is none. How many asylum seekers can a country let in with the current housing crisis? I would assume living in a tent city in the UK would be horrible. Per capita the UK has more of a homeless problem then here and we take in millions more. So explain how people are to afford housing when everyone wants to take in more people. I'll clear this one up for you. The government simply does not care about housing British people. Changing the laws for asylum seeks with have absolutely zero effect on the issues we're facing with housing. The government will not suddenly start caring. The single and only reason this is happening, is for the Tories to grow support amongst the anti-immigrant section of their support. I own 2 houses .... Maybe it's different here I do not know. But taking in the extra burden of other countries which exasperates the current housing and homelessness is a bad freaking idea. It's just creating more homelessness. So one country is having issues. It's another countries fault. It's barely related. The government will do nothing about the housing crisis either way. This is only to gain support from those who blame immigrants for all the problems. Nothing more, nothing less." they are part of the problem. You are a tiny island with limited resources. Take care of the current homeless first. Just like here they should take priority. Yet you want to invite more to exasperate the situation. Do you understand the ignorance? Welcome to the US or UK here live off the streets. It's counter productive don't you think ? Hey we can't take care of our own. Yet here is a open door to stupidity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The amount of racists on here is shameful Can you point us to the racism on this thread. It's normally called out pretty quickly. There is none. How many asylum seekers can a country let in with the current housing crisis? I would assume living in a tent city in the UK would be horrible. Per capita the UK has more of a homeless problem then here and we take in millions more. So explain how people are to afford housing when everyone wants to take in more people. I'll clear this one up for you. The government simply does not care about housing British people. Changing the laws for asylum seeks with have absolutely zero effect on the issues we're facing with housing. The government will not suddenly start caring. The single and only reason this is happening, is for the Tories to grow support amongst the anti-immigrant section of their support. I own 2 houses .... Maybe it's different here I do not know. But taking in the extra burden of other countries which exasperates the current housing and homelessness is a bad freaking idea. It's just creating more homelessness. So one country is having issues. It's another countries fault. It's barely related. The government will do nothing about the housing crisis either way. This is only to gain support from those who blame immigrants for all the problems. Nothing more, nothing less.they are part of the problem. You are a tiny island with limited resources. Take care of the current homeless first. Just like here they should take priority. Yet you want to invite more to exasperate the situation. Do you understand the ignorance? Welcome to the US or UK here live off the streets. It's counter productive don't you think ? Hey we can't take care of our own. Yet here is a open door to stupidity. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So keep whining on asylum issues. Yes it might make you feel important. In reality it's not. When your own can't even afford basic housing. You just adding to a situation that is already exasperated. Yet everyone wants to make it worse. Then some will cry foul and ask why it's like this. " lockdown your borders save the current homeless.. deny access until that is achieved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So keep whining on asylum issues. Yes it might make you feel important. In reality it's not. When your own can't even afford basic housing. You just adding to a situation that is already exasperated. Yet everyone wants to make it worse. Then some will cry foul and ask why it's like this. lockdown your borders save the current homeless.. deny access until that is achieved. " It's not racist currently there are families of every colour. So that narrative goes out the window. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So keep whining on asylum issues. Yes it might make you feel important. In reality it's not. When your own can't even afford basic housing. You just adding to a situation that is already exasperated. Yet everyone wants to make it worse. Then some will cry foul and ask why it's like this. lockdown your borders save the current homeless.. deny access until that is achieved. " How is the question laws make it hard to lock them down | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So keep whining on asylum issues. Yes it might make you feel important. In reality it's not. When your own can't even afford basic housing. You just adding to a situation that is already exasperated. Yet everyone wants to make it worse. Then some will cry foul and ask why it's like this. " Ship them to the US that might help | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So keep whining on asylum issues. Yes it might make you feel important. In reality it's not. When your own can't even afford basic housing. You just adding to a situation that is already exasperated. Yet everyone wants to make it worse. Then some will cry foul and ask why it's like this. lockdown your borders save the current homeless.. deny access until that is achieved. How is the question laws make it hard to lock them down " Empathy is the issue and public perception. The majority can say fuck it to the current issues with homelessness. Yet you show a dingy being turned back by a warship and all hell will break loose. 300000 homeless against 25 on a dingy. Yet those 25 win the hearts and minds not the 300000. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So keep whining on asylum issues. Yes it might make you feel important. In reality it's not. When your own can't even afford basic housing. You just adding to a situation that is already exasperated. Yet everyone wants to make it worse. Then some will cry foul and ask why it's like this. lockdown your borders save the current homeless.. deny access until that is achieved. How is the question laws make it hard to lock them down Empathy is the issue and public perception. The majority can say fuck it to the current issues with homelessness. Yet you show a dingy being turned back by a warship and all hell will break loose. 300000 homeless against 25 on a dingy. Yet those 25 win the hearts and minds not the 300000. " I take it you know if the dingy is in UK water it is a UK problem and would be against maritime law to send it back? And the UK cannot enter French water to tern a dingy back as its not there water there is no nomans water? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So keep whining on asylum issues. Yes it might make you feel important. In reality it's not. When your own can't even afford basic housing. You just adding to a situation that is already exasperated. Yet everyone wants to make it worse. Then some will cry foul and ask why it's like this. Ship them to the US that might help " I say fly our immigration there alot of people will change their opinions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So keep whining on asylum issues. Yes it might make you feel important. In reality it's not. When your own can't even afford basic housing. You just adding to a situation that is already exasperated. Yet everyone wants to make it worse. Then some will cry foul and ask why it's like this. lockdown your borders save the current homeless.. deny access until that is achieved. How is the question laws make it hard to lock them down Empathy is the issue and public perception. The majority can say fuck it to the current issues with homelessness. Yet you show a dingy being turned back by a warship and all hell will break loose. 300000 homeless against 25 on a dingy. Yet those 25 win the hearts and minds not the 300000. I take it you know if the dingy is in UK water it is a UK problem and would be against maritime law to send it back? And the UK cannot enter French water to tern a dingy back as its not there water there is no nomans water?" So what is your solution if anyone was there was a PM ? If I was president I would shut the borders down. Deny access until the current homeless can have adequate housing and stability. That in itself is humane. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So keep whining on asylum issues. Yes it might make you feel important. In reality it's not. When your own can't even afford basic housing. You just adding to a situation that is already exasperated. Yet everyone wants to make it worse. Then some will cry foul and ask why it's like this. lockdown your borders save the current homeless.. deny access until that is achieved. How is the question laws make it hard to lock them down Empathy is the issue and public perception. The majority can say fuck it to the current issues with homelessness. Yet you show a dingy being turned back by a warship and all hell will break loose. 300000 homeless against 25 on a dingy. Yet those 25 win the hearts and minds not the 300000. I take it you know if the dingy is in UK water it is a UK problem and would be against maritime law to send it back? And the UK cannot enter French water to tern a dingy back as its not there water there is no nomans water? So what is your solution if anyone was there was a PM ? If I was president I would shut the borders down. Deny access until the current homeless can have adequate housing and stability. That in itself is humane. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So keep whining on asylum issues. Yes it might make you feel important. In reality it's not. When your own can't even afford basic housing. You just adding to a situation that is already exasperated. Yet everyone wants to make it worse. Then some will cry foul and ask why it's like this. lockdown your borders save the current homeless.. deny access until that is achieved. How is the question laws make it hard to lock them down Empathy is the issue and public perception. The majority can say fuck it to the current issues with homelessness. Yet you show a dingy being turned back by a warship and all hell will break loose. 300000 homeless against 25 on a dingy. Yet those 25 win the hearts and minds not the 300000. I take it you know if the dingy is in UK water it is a UK problem and would be against maritime law to send it back? And the UK cannot enter French water to tern a dingy back as its not there water there is no nomans water? So what is your solution if anyone was there was a PM ? If I was president I would shut the borders down. Deny access until the current homeless can have adequate housing and stability. That in itself is humane. "Yup I am the ranting raging idiot to some. Take my thoughts as you will.Keep going on your current wishlist. You are part of a major problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The amount of racists on here is shameful Can you point us to the racism on this thread. It's normally called out pretty quickly. There is none. How many asylum seekers can a country let in with the current housing crisis? I would assume living in a tent city in the UK would be horrible. Per capita the UK has more of a homeless problem then here and we take in millions more. So explain how people are to afford housing when everyone wants to take in more people. I'll clear this one up for you. The government simply does not care about housing British people. Changing the laws for asylum seeks with have absolutely zero effect on the issues we're facing with housing. The government will not suddenly start caring. The single and only reason this is happening, is for the Tories to grow support amongst the anti-immigrant section of their support. I own 2 houses .... Maybe it's different here I do not know. But taking in the extra burden of other countries which exasperates the current housing and homelessness is a bad freaking idea. It's just creating more homelessness. So one country is having issues. It's another countries fault. It's barely related. The government will do nothing about the housing crisis either way. This is only to gain support from those who blame immigrants for all the problems. Nothing more, nothing less.they are part of the problem. You are a tiny island with limited resources. Take care of the current homeless first. Just like here they should take priority. Yet you want to invite more to exasperate the situation. Do you understand the ignorance? Welcome to the US or UK here live off the streets. It's counter productive don't you think ? Hey we can't take care of our own. Yet here is a open door to stupidity. " None of this has anything to do with homelessness. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So keep whining on asylum issues. Yes it might make you feel important. In reality it's not. When your own can't even afford basic housing. You just adding to a situation that is already exasperated. Yet everyone wants to make it worse. Then some will cry foul and ask why it's like this. lockdown your borders save the current homeless.. deny access until that is achieved. How is the question laws make it hard to lock them down Empathy is the issue and public perception. The majority can say fuck it to the current issues with homelessness. Yet you show a dingy being turned back by a warship and all hell will break loose. 300000 homeless against 25 on a dingy. Yet those 25 win the hearts and minds not the 300000. I take it you know if the dingy is in UK water it is a UK problem and would be against maritime law to send it back? And the UK cannot enter French water to tern a dingy back as its not there water there is no nomans water? So what is your solution if anyone was there was a PM ? If I was president I would shut the borders down. Deny access until the current homeless can have adequate housing and stability. That in itself is humane. Yup I am the ranting raging idiot to some. Take my thoughts as you will.Keep going on your current wishlist. You are part of a major problem. "Ok I stated my intentions as president. What is your solution as a PM ? Take care of the current homeless or add to the current homeless due to public perception. Everyone should have affordable housing. Period ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So keep whining on asylum issues. Yes it might make you feel important. In reality it's not. When your own can't even afford basic housing. You just adding to a situation that is already exasperated. Yet everyone wants to make it worse. Then some will cry foul and ask why it's like this. lockdown your borders save the current homeless.. deny access until that is achieved. How is the question laws make it hard to lock them down Empathy is the issue and public perception. The majority can say fuck it to the current issues with homelessness. Yet you show a dingy being turned back by a warship and all hell will break loose. 300000 homeless against 25 on a dingy. Yet those 25 win the hearts and minds not the 300000. I take it you know if the dingy is in UK water it is a UK problem and would be against maritime law to send it back? And the UK cannot enter French water to tern a dingy back as its not there water there is no nomans water? So what is your solution if anyone was there was a PM ? If I was president I would shut the borders down. Deny access until the current homeless can have adequate housing and stability. That in itself is humane. Yup I am the ranting raging idiot to some. Take my thoughts as you will.Keep going on your current wishlist. You are part of a major problem. Ok I stated my intentions as president. What is your solution as a PM ? Take care of the current homeless or add to the current homeless due to public perception. Everyone should have affordable housing. Period ..."Why do you think if we stopped immigration that the government would suddenly magically give a shit about homeless people? They don't know, they wouldn't then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*now." Still trying? I don't bother anymore. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So keep whining on asylum issues. Yes it might make you feel important. In reality it's not. When your own can't even afford basic housing. You just adding to a situation that is already exasperated. Yet everyone wants to make it worse. Then some will cry foul and ask why it's like this. lockdown your borders save the current homeless.. deny access until that is achieved. How is the question laws make it hard to lock them down Empathy is the issue and public perception. The majority can say fuck it to the current issues with homelessness. Yet you show a dingy being turned back by a warship and all hell will break loose. 300000 homeless against 25 on a dingy. Yet those 25 win the hearts and minds not the 300000. I take it you know if the dingy is in UK water it is a UK problem and would be against maritime law to send it back? And the UK cannot enter French water to tern a dingy back as its not there water there is no nomans water? So what is your solution if anyone was there was a PM ? If I was president I would shut the borders down. Deny access until the current homeless can have adequate housing and stability. That in itself is humane. Yup I am the ranting raging idiot to some. Take my thoughts as you will.Keep going on your current wishlist. You are part of a major problem. Ok I stated my intentions as president. What is your solution as a PM ? Take care of the current homeless or add to the current homeless due to public perception. Everyone should have affordable housing. Period ...
Why do you think if we stopped immigration that the government would suddenly magically give a shit about homeless people?
They don't know, they wouldn't then. "isn't that the crisis that should be pressed? Not immigration? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
