FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Braverman sacked
Braverman sacked
Jump to: Newest in thread
Braverman has been sacked.
How long do we think before the lunatic right tories lean on Sunak and he's forced to re-employ her in a different role? I'm guessing that after Home Secretary she won't settle for anything less than Chancellor. Or will she just go straight for Rishi out, Braverman as PM? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Braverman has been sacked.
How long do we think before the lunatic right tories lean on Sunak and he's forced to re-employ her in a different role? I'm guessing that after Home Secretary she won't settle for anything less than Chancellor. Or will she just go straight for Rishi out, Braverman as PM?"
I doubt there will be any more shuffles before the election. I expect it in May following a budget which they hope will be a vote winner |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Braverman has been sacked.
How long do we think before the lunatic right tories lean on Sunak and he's forced to re-employ her in a different role? I'm guessing that after Home Secretary she won't settle for anything less than Chancellor. Or will she just go straight for Rishi out, Braverman as PM?"
Aaaah right wing...must be lunatic. Nice bit of bigotry to start a thread. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Braverman has been sacked.
How long do we think before the lunatic right tories lean on Sunak and he's forced to re-employ her in a different role? I'm guessing that after Home Secretary she won't settle for anything less than Chancellor. Or will she just go straight for Rishi out, Braverman as PM?
Aaaah right wing...must be lunatic. Nice bit of bigotry to start a thread."
Not really meaning run of the mill ordinary right of centre conservatives. More thinking the ones that support Patel, Braverman, Farage, Lee Anderson etc. The ones that are chasing ever more extreme policies, without realising that they have already gone past the vast majority of their traditional supporter base. The ones that are so far right wing that they make Margaret Thatcher look like a communist.
Also: Can I take it then that if I do a search of forum posts, I will never find a single instance of you using less than favourable adjectives about left wing politicians and supporters? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Braverman has been sacked.
How long do we think before the lunatic right tories lean on Sunak and he's forced to re-employ her in a different role? I'm guessing that after Home Secretary she won't settle for anything less than Chancellor. Or will she just go straight for Rishi out, Braverman as PM?
Aaaah right wing...must be lunatic. Nice bit of bigotry to start a thread."
I think you misread. That's not what was said. "the lunatic right tories", specifically distinguishing them from the 'right Tories '.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Braverman has been sacked.
How long do we think before the lunatic right tories lean on Sunak and he's forced to re-employ her in a different role? I'm guessing that after Home Secretary she won't settle for anything less than Chancellor. Or will she just go straight for Rishi out, Braverman as PM?
Aaaah right wing...must be lunatic. Nice bit of bigotry to start a thread.
Not really meaning run of the mill ordinary right of centre conservatives. More thinking the ones that support Patel, Braverman, Farage, Lee Anderson etc. The ones that are chasing ever more extreme policies, without realising that they have already gone past the vast majority of their traditional supporter base. The ones that are so far right wing that they make Margaret Thatcher look like a communist.
Also: Can I take it then that if I do a search of forum posts, I will never find a single instance of you using less than favourable adjectives about left wing politicians and supporters?"
Quite something when you consider braverman and Lee Anderson in farages camp and lunatic right.
Like I said
Nice bit of bigotry to open up with falling them lunatics. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Braverman has been sacked.
How long do we think before the lunatic right tories lean on Sunak and he's forced to re-employ her in a different role? I'm guessing that after Home Secretary she won't settle for anything less than Chancellor. Or will she just go straight for Rishi out, Braverman as PM?
Aaaah right wing...must be lunatic. Nice bit of bigotry to start a thread.
Not really meaning run of the mill ordinary right of centre conservatives. More thinking the ones that support Patel, Braverman, Farage, Lee Anderson etc. The ones that are chasing ever more extreme policies, without realising that they have already gone past the vast majority of their traditional supporter base. The ones that are so far right wing that they make Margaret Thatcher look like a communist.
Also: Can I take it then that if I do a search of forum posts, I will never find a single instance of you using less than favourable adjectives about left wing politicians and supporters?
Quite something when you consider braverman and Lee Anderson in farages camp and lunatic right.
Like I said
Nice bit of bigotry to open up with falling them lunatics."
I still struggle with left and right and relative rankings. What makes Farage further right ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oversfunCouple
over a year ago
city centre |
"Braverman has been sacked.
How long do we think before the lunatic right tories lean on Sunak and he's forced to re-employ her in a different role? I'm guessing that after Home Secretary she won't settle for anything less than Chancellor. Or will she just go straight for Rishi out, Braverman as PM?
Aaaah right wing...must be lunatic. Nice bit of bigotry to start a thread."
When did calling someone right wing beckome bigoted ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Braverman has been sacked.
How long do we think before the lunatic right tories lean on Sunak and he's forced to re-employ her in a different role? I'm guessing that after Home Secretary she won't settle for anything less than Chancellor. Or will she just go straight for Rishi out, Braverman as PM?
Aaaah right wing...must be lunatic. Nice bit of bigotry to start a thread.
Not really meaning run of the mill ordinary right of centre conservatives. More thinking the ones that support Patel, Braverman, Farage, Lee Anderson etc. The ones that are chasing ever more extreme policies, without realising that they have already gone past the vast majority of their traditional supporter base. The ones that are so far right wing that they make Margaret Thatcher look like a communist.
Also: Can I take it then that if I do a search of forum posts, I will never find a single instance of you using less than favourable adjectives about left wing politicians and supporters?
Quite something when you consider braverman and Lee Anderson in farages camp and lunatic right.
Like I said
Nice bit of bigotry to open up with falling them lunatics.I still struggle with left and right and relative rankings. What makes Farage further right ? "
Farages ukip manifesto
UKIP recognises the benefits of limited, controlled immigration.
• UKIP will leave the EU, and take back control of our borders. Work per-
mits will be permitted to fill skills gaps in the UK jobs market.
• We will introduce an Australian-style points system to control immigra-
tion. This system will treat all migrants equally, wherever they come from
in the world.
• Time-limited work permits will be granted to fill skills gaps in the UK
jobs market.
• Migrants must have approved health insurance. They will only be eligi-
ble for benefits, or able to apply for permanent residence, after they have
paid tax and National Insurance for five years.
• UKIP will reinstate the primary purpose rule for bringing foreign spous-
es and children to the UK.
• UKIP will not offer an amnesty for illegal immigrants or those gaining
British passports through fraud.
• UKIP will return to the principles of the UN Convention of Refugees
which serves to protect the most vulnerable.
• UKIP will regularly review the immigration impact on Northern Ireland
communities relevant to numbers, school places, health appointments,
benefits and crime.
UKIP recognises and values a unifying British culture, which is open and
inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain and British values,
regardless of their ethnic or religious background.
• UKIP will ensure that the law is rigorously enforced in relation to ‘cultur-
al’ practices which are illegal in Britain, such as forced marriages, FGM
and so-called ‘honour killings’.
• We will review the BBC Licence Fee with a view to its reduction. Prose-
cution of non-payments of the Licence Fee would be taken out of the crimi-
nal sphere and made a civil offence.
• UKIP will amend the smoking ban to give pubs and clubs the choice to
open smoking rooms properly ventilated and separated from non-smoking
areas. Workers will not be required to enter when these areas are in use.
• UKIP opposes the prevention of local legal expressions of cultural identi-
ty by the Parades Commission.
UKIP will repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 which costs the economy
£18bn a year.
• UKIP supports a diverse energy market including coal, nuclear, shale
gas, geo-thermal, tidal, solar, conventional gas and oil.
• We will scrap the Large Combustion Plant Directive and encourage the
re-development of British power stations, as well as industrial units provid-
ing on-site power generation.
• UKIP supports the development of shale gas with proper safeguards for
the local environment. Community Improvement Levy money from the de-
velopment of shale gas fields will be earmarked for lower council taxes or
community projects within the local authority being developed.
• There will be no new subsidies for wind farms and solar arrays.
• UKIP will abolish green taxes and charges in order to reduce fuel bills.
I think quite a lot of these policies would be considered further right than a lot of what braverman has backed I parliament votes or spoken about.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Braverman has been sacked.
How long do we think before the lunatic right tories lean on Sunak and he's forced to re-employ her in a different role? I'm guessing that after Home Secretary she won't settle for anything less than Chancellor. Or will she just go straight for Rishi out, Braverman as PM?
Aaaah right wing...must be lunatic. Nice bit of bigotry to start a thread.
Not really meaning run of the mill ordinary right of centre conservatives. More thinking the ones that support Patel, Braverman, Farage, Lee Anderson etc. The ones that are chasing ever more extreme policies, without realising that they have already gone past the vast majority of their traditional supporter base. The ones that are so far right wing that they make Margaret Thatcher look like a communist.
Also: Can I take it then that if I do a search of forum posts, I will never find a single instance of you using less than favourable adjectives about left wing politicians and supporters?
Quite something when you consider braverman and Lee Anderson in farages camp and lunatic right.
Like I said
Nice bit of bigotry to open up with falling them lunatics.I still struggle with left and right and relative rankings. What makes Farage further right ?
Farages ukip manifesto
UKIP recognises the benefits of limited, controlled immigration.
• UKIP will leave the EU, and take back control of our borders. Work per-
mits will be permitted to fill skills gaps in the UK jobs market.
• We will introduce an Australian-style points system to control immigra-
tion. This system will treat all migrants equally, wherever they come from
in the world.
• Time-limited work permits will be granted to fill skills gaps in the UK
jobs market.
• Migrants must have approved health insurance. They will only be eligi-
ble for benefits, or able to apply for permanent residence, after they have
paid tax and National Insurance for five years.
• UKIP will reinstate the primary purpose rule for bringing foreign spous-
es and children to the UK.
• UKIP will not offer an amnesty for illegal immigrants or those gaining
British passports through fraud.
• UKIP will return to the principles of the UN Convention of Refugees
which serves to protect the most vulnerable.
• UKIP will regularly review the immigration impact on Northern Ireland
communities relevant to numbers, school places, health appointments,
benefits and crime.
UKIP recognises and values a unifying British culture, which is open and
inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain and British values,
regardless of their ethnic or religious background.
• UKIP will ensure that the law is rigorously enforced in relation to ‘cultur-
al’ practices which are illegal in Britain, such as forced marriages, FGM
and so-called ‘honour killings’.
• We will review the BBC Licence Fee with a view to its reduction. Prose-
cution of non-payments of the Licence Fee would be taken out of the crimi-
nal sphere and made a civil offence.
• UKIP will amend the smoking ban to give pubs and clubs the choice to
open smoking rooms properly ventilated and separated from non-smoking
areas. Workers will not be required to enter when these areas are in use.
• UKIP opposes the prevention of local legal expressions of cultural identi-
ty by the Parades Commission.
UKIP will repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 which costs the economy
£18bn a year.
• UKIP supports a diverse energy market including coal, nuclear, shale
gas, geo-thermal, tidal, solar, conventional gas and oil.
• We will scrap the Large Combustion Plant Directive and encourage the
re-development of British power stations, as well as industrial units provid-
ing on-site power generation.
• UKIP supports the development of shale gas with proper safeguards for
the local environment. Community Improvement Levy money from the de-
velopment of shale gas fields will be earmarked for lower council taxes or
community projects within the local authority being developed.
• There will be no new subsidies for wind farms and solar arrays.
• UKIP will abolish green taxes and charges in order to reduce fuel bills.
I think quite a lot of these policies would be considered further right than a lot of what braverman has backed I parliament votes or spoken about.
"
which ones specifically? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Then again. So many have called nigel far right in these threads over the last 6 months. Are we now backtracking on this and calling a female Indian for right in the uk."
This feels like an opportunity to learn something about how non-racists work.
We can judge a person on their actions and the things they say, not on their ethnicity, gender or country of origin.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Then again. So many have called nigel far right in these threads over the last 6 months. Are we now backtracking on this and calling a female Indian for right in the uk."
The progressives in this forum think Farage is an extreme far right politician.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oversfunCouple
over a year ago
city centre |
"Braverman has been sacked.
How long do we think before the lunatic right tories lean on Sunak and he's forced to re-employ her in a different role? I'm guessing that after Home Secretary she won't settle for anything less than Chancellor. Or will she just go straight for Rishi out, Braverman as PM?
Aaaah right wing...must be lunatic. Nice bit of bigotry to start a thread.
When did calling someone right wing beckome bigoted ?"
no answer then ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Then again. So many have called nigel far right in these threads over the last 6 months. Are we now backtracking on this and calling a female Indian for right in the uk.
The progressives in this forum think Farage is an extreme far right politician.
"
When he posed next to a poster that aped exactly a propaganda film from the Nazis it's probably ok to label him as extreme far right.
Google Nigel Garage Breaking Point Nazi
Then go to images. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Braverman is right wing. Farage is right wing. Not sure where the delineation point is to define Far Right but they are certainly further right than traditional Tories."
Yep, Farage is not extreme far right, he provokes but is the right of centre.
He rattles people and that is why he has been successful. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Got to say that’s a strongly worded letter
It was a very good resignation letter, stated her position well. "
Is she right about the party needing to move further to the right. Ramp up the anti-immigrant rhetoric more. In order to win the next election? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Got to say that’s a strongly worded letter
It was a very good resignation letter, stated her position well.
Is she right about the party needing to move further to the right. Ramp up the anti-immigrant rhetoric more. In order to win the next election?"
I think all that matters is power. To be in Govt. The ideology of the party that currently calls itself The Conservatives have been all over the shop since Johnson. I think they have lost any true identity in the pursuit of popularism. Sunak is a busted flush. Shame actually as regardless of your/our/my politics, I at least welcomed what I thought was going to be the return of grown ups after the kindergarten years of Johnson/Truss (well Kindergarten month in her case). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Got to say that’s a strongly worded letter
It was a very good resignation letter, stated her position well.
Is she right about the party needing to move further to the right. Ramp up the anti-immigrant rhetoric more. In order to win the next election?"
I think she is right to call out the fact that the Tory party promised to stop people from entering the country illegally and she has not been supported in making that a reality by a prime minister who pledged to do that very thing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Got to say that’s a strongly worded letter
It was a very good resignation letter, stated her position well.
Is she right about the party needing to move further to the right. Ramp up the anti-immigrant rhetoric more. In order to win the next election?
I think she is right to call out the fact that the Tory party promised to stop people from entering the country illegally and she has not been supported in making that a reality by a prime minister who pledged to do that very thing."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Got to say that’s a strongly worded letter
It was a very good resignation letter, stated her position well.
Is she right about the party needing to move further to the right. Ramp up the anti-immigrant rhetoric more. In order to win the next election?
I think she is right to call out the fact that the Tory party promised to stop people from entering the country illegally and she has not been supported in making that a reality by a prime minister who pledged to do that very thing."
Sunak must have known something like this would have happened and calculated that its less damaging than not sacking her. Still seems very damaging to me though given what she has said about his promises. Again SKS is the winner in all of this |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Got to say that’s a strongly worded letter
It was a very good resignation letter, stated her position well.
Is she right about the party needing to move further to the right. Ramp up the anti-immigrant rhetoric more. In order to win the next election?
I think she is right to call out the fact that the Tory party promised to stop people from entering the country illegally and she has not been supported in making that a reality by a prime minister who pledged to do that very thing.
Sunak must have known something like this would have happened and calculated that its less damaging than not sacking her. Still seems very damaging to me though given what she has said about his promises. Again SKS is the winner in all of this "
Her resignation letter indicated to me that Sunak would be a good labour PM.
I have no idea why any one left of centre wouldn’t embrace Sunak as one of their own. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
We are just over 12 months from the general election and the tories are losing in the polls especially in the redwall boroughs so she has been sacked to deflect the country from what has been a terrible 8 years of leadership especially since Cameron announced the referendum in 2016. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Got to say that’s a strongly worded letter
It was a very good resignation letter, stated her position well.
Is she right about the party needing to move further to the right. Ramp up the anti-immigrant rhetoric more. In order to win the next election?
I think she is right to call out the fact that the Tory party promised to stop people from entering the country illegally and she has not been supported in making that a reality by a prime minister who pledged to do that very thing."
Didn't Theresa May when Home Secretary make the same promises ?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Got to say that’s a strongly worded letter
It was a very good resignation letter, stated her position well.
Is she right about the party needing to move further to the right. Ramp up the anti-immigrant rhetoric more. In order to win the next election?
I think she is right to call out the fact that the Tory party promised to stop people from entering the country illegally and she has not been supported in making that a reality by a prime minister who pledged to do that very thing."
I find that a strange move from her.
Obviously the Tories, right or further right don't want the boat crossings to stop. If they did, they would lose a large part of both their vote winning rhetoric, and their main distraction tactic.
People entering the country illegally play a vital role in keeping the Tories in power. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Got to say that’s a strongly worded letter
It was a very good resignation letter, stated her position well.
Is she right about the party needing to move further to the right. Ramp up the anti-immigrant rhetoric more. In order to win the next election?
I think she is right to call out the fact that the Tory party promised to stop people from entering the country illegally and she has not been supported in making that a reality by a prime minister who pledged to do that very thing.
I find that a strange move from her.
Obviously the Tories, right or further right don't want the boat crossings to stop. If they did, they would lose a large part of both their vote winning rhetoric, and their main distraction tactic.
People entering the country illegally play a vital role in keeping the Tories in power."
I find it strange that you think a 'large part' of Tory voters fall for rhetoric and distraction.
If they Tories did manage to get immigration to a manageable level, they could easily switch to 'vote Labour to open borders'.
Honestly, the disdain you show some people is ridiculous. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Got to say that’s a strongly worded letter
It was a very good resignation letter, stated her position well.
Is she right about the party needing to move further to the right. Ramp up the anti-immigrant rhetoric more. In order to win the next election?
I think she is right to call out the fact that the Tory party promised to stop people from entering the country illegally and she has not been supported in making that a reality by a prime minister who pledged to do that very thing.
I find that a strange move from her.
Obviously the Tories, right or further right don't want the boat crossings to stop. If they did, they would lose a large part of both their vote winning rhetoric, and their main distraction tactic.
People entering the country illegally play a vital role in keeping the Tories in power.
I find it strange that you think a 'large part' of Tory voters fall for rhetoric and distraction.
If they Tories did manage to get immigration to a manageable level, they could easily switch to 'vote Labour to open borders'.
Honestly, the disdain you show some people is ridiculous. "
***************************************
And puerile, usually.
It's terribly sad to witness. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Got to say that’s a strongly worded letter
It was a very good resignation letter, stated her position well.
Is she right about the party needing to move further to the right. Ramp up the anti-immigrant rhetoric more. In order to win the next election?
I think she is right to call out the fact that the Tory party promised to stop people from entering the country illegally and she has not been supported in making that a reality by a prime minister who pledged to do that very thing.
I find that a strange move from her.
Obviously the Tories, right or further right don't want the boat crossings to stop. If they did, they would lose a large part of both their vote winning rhetoric, and their main distraction tactic.
People entering the country illegally play a vital role in keeping the Tories in power."
What I find strange is the people who do not want law and order when it suits them.
These forums have been awash with anger at the suggestion that people who decide to live in tents and offered help to move into a more stable lifestyle is verging on Nazi regimes of past.
Anger at the lack of funding for homeless people being left without shelter, but ignoring those who are offered shelter as that’s their right.
Ignoring the evident rise in antisemitic hate crime in the country, but bang the drum for freedoms and still somehow manage to wind into the narrative nazis…. Blows my mind, and yet here we are spending billions on people who enter the country illegally, spending millions on protecting people from each other via police overtime through mindless social media driven protests hellbent on division, and still it is all the fault of the government who needs this to keep us controlled…
It seems you are being controlled by the actions those you support in favour of those who have been elected to support us, because you don’t agree with the colour of their tie. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Got to say that’s a strongly worded letter
It was a very good resignation letter, stated her position well.
Is she right about the party needing to move further to the right. Ramp up the anti-immigrant rhetoric more. In order to win the next election?
I think she is right to call out the fact that the Tory party promised to stop people from entering the country illegally and she has not been supported in making that a reality by a prime minister who pledged to do that very thing.
I find that a strange move from her.
Obviously the Tories, right or further right don't want the boat crossings to stop. If they did, they would lose a large part of both their vote winning rhetoric, and their main distraction tactic.
People entering the country illegally play a vital role in keeping the Tories in power.
What I find strange is the people who do not want law and order when it suits them.
These forums have been awash with anger at the suggestion that people who decide to live in tents and offered help to move into a more stable lifestyle is verging on Nazi regimes of past.
"
I'm not sure if you're being ironic to demonstrate the kind of thing we're talking about, or if you're being serious.
Homelessness is not a lifestyle choice.
"
Anger at the lack of funding for homeless people being left without shelter, but ignoring those who are offered shelter as that’s their right.
Ignoring the evident rise in antisemitic hate crime in the country, but bang the drum for freedoms and still somehow manage to wind into the narrative nazis…. Blows my mind, and yet here we are spending billions on people who enter the country illegally, spending millions on protecting people from each other via police overtime through mindless social media driven protests hellbent on division, and still it is all the fault of the government who needs this to keep us controlled…
It seems you are being controlled by the actions those you support in favour of those who have been elected to support us, because you don’t agree with the colour of their tie."
Not sure what the rest of this angry rant is about. Are you suggesting that the Tories do want to stop illegal immigration but can't be arsed ?
Why is that more plausible than the more obvious conclusion that it's much more useful for them to keep using immigration as a tool? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Got to say that’s a strongly worded letter
It was a very good resignation letter, stated her position well.
Is she right about the party needing to move further to the right. Ramp up the anti-immigrant rhetoric more. In order to win the next election?
I think she is right to call out the fact that the Tory party promised to stop people from entering the country illegally and she has not been supported in making that a reality by a prime minister who pledged to do that very thing.
I find that a strange move from her.
Obviously the Tories, right or further right don't want the boat crossings to stop. If they did, they would lose a large part of both their vote winning rhetoric, and their main distraction tactic.
People entering the country illegally play a vital role in keeping the Tories in power.
What I find strange is the people who do not want law and order when it suits them.
These forums have been awash with anger at the suggestion that people who decide to live in tents and offered help to move into a more stable lifestyle is verging on Nazi regimes of past.
I'm not sure if you're being ironic to demonstrate the kind of thing we're talking about, or if you're being serious.
Homelessness is not a lifestyle choice.
Anger at the lack of funding for homeless people being left without shelter, but ignoring those who are offered shelter as that’s their right.
Ignoring the evident rise in antisemitic hate crime in the country, but bang the drum for freedoms and still somehow manage to wind into the narrative nazis…. Blows my mind, and yet here we are spending billions on people who enter the country illegally, spending millions on protecting people from each other via police overtime through mindless social media driven protests hellbent on division, and still it is all the fault of the government who needs this to keep us controlled…
It seems you are being controlled by the actions those you support in favour of those who have been elected to support us, because you don’t agree with the colour of their tie.
Not sure what the rest of this angry rant is about. Are you suggesting that the Tories do want to stop illegal immigration but can't be arsed ?
Why is that more plausible than the more obvious conclusion that it's much more useful for them to keep using immigration as a tool?"
My point is, it others use immigration as a tool as much as the government.
You can’t see it from your side of the fence |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Got to say that’s a strongly worded letter
It was a very good resignation letter, stated her position well.
Is she right about the party needing to move further to the right. Ramp up the anti-immigrant rhetoric more. In order to win the next election?
I think she is right to call out the fact that the Tory party promised to stop people from entering the country illegally and she has not been supported in making that a reality by a prime minister who pledged to do that very thing.
I find that a strange move from her.
Obviously the Tories, right or further right don't want the boat crossings to stop. If they did, they would lose a large part of both their vote winning rhetoric, and their main distraction tactic.
People entering the country illegally play a vital role in keeping the Tories in power.
What I find strange is the people who do not want law and order when it suits them.
These forums have been awash with anger at the suggestion that people who decide to live in tents and offered help to move into a more stable lifestyle is verging on Nazi regimes of past.
I'm not sure if you're being ironic to demonstrate the kind of thing we're talking about, or if you're being serious.
Homelessness is not a lifestyle choice.
Anger at the lack of funding for homeless people being left without shelter, but ignoring those who are offered shelter as that’s their right.
Ignoring the evident rise in antisemitic hate crime in the country, but bang the drum for freedoms and still somehow manage to wind into the narrative nazis…. Blows my mind, and yet here we are spending billions on people who enter the country illegally, spending millions on protecting people from each other via police overtime through mindless social media driven protests hellbent on division, and still it is all the fault of the government who needs this to keep us controlled…
It seems you are being controlled by the actions those you support in favour of those who have been elected to support us, because you don’t agree with the colour of their tie.
Not sure what the rest of this angry rant is about. Are you suggesting that the Tories do want to stop illegal immigration but can't be arsed ?
Why is that more plausible than the more obvious conclusion that it's much more useful for them to keep using immigration as a tool?
My point is, it others use immigration as a tool as much as the government.
You can’t see it from your side of the fence"
Of course they do.
My side of the fence is the, 'don't get distracted by the anti-immigrant rhetoric.'
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Got to say that’s a strongly worded letter
It was a very good resignation letter, stated her position well.
Is she right about the party needing to move further to the right. Ramp up the anti-immigrant rhetoric more. In order to win the next election?
I think she is right to call out the fact that the Tory party promised to stop people from entering the country illegally and she has not been supported in making that a reality by a prime minister who pledged to do that very thing.
I find that a strange move from her.
Obviously the Tories, right or further right don't want the boat crossings to stop. If they did, they would lose a large part of both their vote winning rhetoric, and their main distraction tactic.
People entering the country illegally play a vital role in keeping the Tories in power.
What I find strange is the people who do not want law and order when it suits them.
These forums have been awash with anger at the suggestion that people who decide to live in tents and offered help to move into a more stable lifestyle is verging on Nazi regimes of past.
I'm not sure if you're being ironic to demonstrate the kind of thing we're talking about, or if you're being serious.
Homelessness is not a lifestyle choice.
Anger at the lack of funding for homeless people being left without shelter, but ignoring those who are offered shelter as that’s their right.
Ignoring the evident rise in antisemitic hate crime in the country, but bang the drum for freedoms and still somehow manage to wind into the narrative nazis…. Blows my mind, and yet here we are spending billions on people who enter the country illegally, spending millions on protecting people from each other via police overtime through mindless social media driven protests hellbent on division, and still it is all the fault of the government who needs this to keep us controlled…
It seems you are being controlled by the actions those you support in favour of those who have been elected to support us, because you don’t agree with the colour of their tie.
Not sure what the rest of this angry rant is about. Are you suggesting that the Tories do want to stop illegal immigration but can't be arsed ?
Why is that more plausible than the more obvious conclusion that it's much more useful for them to keep using immigration as a tool?
My point is, it others use immigration as a tool as much as the government.
You can’t see it from your side of the fence
Of course they do.
My side of the fence is the, 'don't get distracted by the anti-immigrant rhetoric.'
"
Your side of the fence is as distracted as the other side of the fence, trust me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Got to say that’s a strongly worded letter
It was a very good resignation letter, stated her position well.
Is she right about the party needing to move further to the right. Ramp up the anti-immigrant rhetoric more. In order to win the next election?
I think she is right to call out the fact that the Tory party promised to stop people from entering the country illegally and she has not been supported in making that a reality by a prime minister who pledged to do that very thing.
I find that a strange move from her.
Obviously the Tories, right or further right don't want the boat crossings to stop. If they did, they would lose a large part of both their vote winning rhetoric, and their main distraction tactic.
People entering the country illegally play a vital role in keeping the Tories in power.
What I find strange is the people who do not want law and order when it suits them.
These forums have been awash with anger at the suggestion that people who decide to live in tents and offered help to move into a more stable lifestyle is verging on Nazi regimes of past.
I'm not sure if you're being ironic to demonstrate the kind of thing we're talking about, or if you're being serious.
Homelessness is not a lifestyle choice.
Anger at the lack of funding for homeless people being left without shelter, but ignoring those who are offered shelter as that’s their right.
Ignoring the evident rise in antisemitic hate crime in the country, but bang the drum for freedoms and still somehow manage to wind into the narrative nazis…. Blows my mind, and yet here we are spending billions on people who enter the country illegally, spending millions on protecting people from each other via police overtime through mindless social media driven protests hellbent on division, and still it is all the fault of the government who needs this to keep us controlled…
It seems you are being controlled by the actions those you support in favour of those who have been elected to support us, because you don’t agree with the colour of their tie.
Not sure what the rest of this angry rant is about. Are you suggesting that the Tories do want to stop illegal immigration but can't be arsed ?
Why is that more plausible than the more obvious conclusion that it's much more useful for them to keep using immigration as a tool?
My point is, it others use immigration as a tool as much as the government.
You can’t see it from your side of the fence
Of course they do.
My side of the fence is the, 'don't get distracted by the anti-immigrant rhetoric.'
Your side of the fence is as distracted as the other side of the fence, trust me."
Do you have an example of where the 'don't get distracted by the anti-immigrant rhetoric' side of the fence gets distracted by something? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man
over a year ago
Near Maidenhead |
"Homelessness is not a lifestyle choice.
"
Yes. I was amazed when I heard that Braveman remark.
I thought, John Bird out of The Big Issue magazine is not going to be very impressed.
It seems that every issue of The Big Issue someone says, "I never thought that homelessness would happen to me".
Oh, and look at Harriet Sergeant's book Among The Hoods.
Can you imagine not being able to read? Not being able to read is a big predictor of all kinds of problems.
Harriet Sergeant, a journalist, made an unlikely friendship with a teenage gang.
She saw the bedroom of one of the boys who had a pile of letters about council tax, or something like that, in a carrier bag that he hadn't read because he couldn't read.
The letters said something like, a debt to do with housing is about to be reclassified as yours unless you reply to this letter.
Sergeant wrote, "My head swam. How on earth was he going to get out of this debt?"
From job centres and the care system to prison and failing schools: it's stories like that that lead to homelessness and the Government is firmly involved? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man
over a year ago
Near Maidenhead |
"stop people from entering the country illegally"
But there's no way to apply for asylum in the UK outside of the UK, if I understand it correctly.
You have to get to the UK somehow.
If you did it by hiding on a container ship without paying, for instance, then what?
If you can prove that you had to because your life was in danger, then there was no crime and it wasn't unlawful and a path to citizenship is open to you.
It has to be this way because otherwise there would be no path to citizenship.
Also it has to be this way because of the conventions that the UK is signed up to and even helped to write in the first place, I believe.
Correct me if I'm wrong? Tomorrow, Wednesday the 15th, we'll hear a bit more about this from the court judgement.
The other day I was in someone's house who had a book about human rights. The author of the book called for people to be allowed to apply for asylum somewhere outside of the UK so that they don't have to attempt dangerous journeys. He hasn't been given his wish, is that correct? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Glad to hear on the news at 1 that the tent fiasco (fining charities) was a no go."
Are you condoning an unchallenged choice to allow the building of tent villages wherever a group of people decide to build them, regardless of the impact on the people or businesses in that location, out of their choice? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Just read an article (sky) discussing SB's letter to the PM. It then goes on to add that (from Downing Street) the PM has reduced the number of boats to the UK by a third this year through legislation. Really? News to me.
I'll assume more BS. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Homelessness is not a lifestyle choice.
Yes. I was amazed when I heard that Braveman remark.
I thought, John Bird out of The Big Issue magazine is not going to be very impressed.
It seems that every issue of The Big Issue someone says, "I never thought that homelessness would happen to me".
Oh, and look at Harriet Sergeant's book Among The Hoods.
Can you imagine not being able to read? Not being able to read is a big predictor of all kinds of problems.
Harriet Sergeant, a journalist, made an unlikely friendship with a teenage gang.
She saw the bedroom of one of the boys who had a pile of letters about council tax, or something like that, in a carrier bag that he hadn't read because he couldn't read.
The letters said something like, a debt to do with housing is about to be reclassified as yours unless you reply to this letter.
Sergeant wrote, "My head swam. How on earth was he going to get out of this debt?"
From job centres and the care system to prison and failing schools: it's stories like that that lead to homelessness and the Government is firmly involved?"
Do you recognise that some people have decided to live in tents, making them legally homeless? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But there's no way to apply for asylum in the UK outside of the UK, if I understand it correctly.
You have to get to the UK somehow.
If you did it by hiding on a container ship without paying, for instance, then what?
If you can prove that you had to because your life was in danger, then there was no crime and it wasn't unlawful and a path to citizenship is open to you."
That's incorrect. If you enter the country without permission, you have committed a crime. If you are subsequently granted asylum, then you can't be prosecuted for that crime, but the act was still unlawful.
"The other day I was in someone's house who had a book about human rights. The author of the book called for people to be allowed to apply for asylum somewhere outside of the UK so that they don't have to attempt dangerous journeys. He hasn't been given his wish, is that correct?"
No one *has* to attempt the dangerous journey. They could just apply in a European country, and avoid the dangerous channel crossing. They choose to take the risk because they want to be in the UK, not because their lives are at risk in France or Belgium. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Glad to hear on the news at 1 that the tent fiasco (fining charities) was a no go.
Are you condoning an unchallenged choice to allow the building of tent villages wherever a group of people decide to build them, regardless of the impact on the people or businesses in that location, out of their choice?"
Give it a rest!
I applaud the fact that charities will not be fined if they donate a tent. Just cos YOU want to believe all these gazillions of tents  exist to create drug fuelled communities and upset the locals.
Lifestyle choice my arse! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Glad to hear on the news at 1 that the tent fiasco (fining charities) was a no go.
Are you condoning an unchallenged choice to allow the building of tent villages wherever a group of people decide to build them, regardless of the impact on the people or businesses in that location, out of their choice?
Give it a rest!
I applaud the fact that charities will not be fined if they donate a tent. Just cos YOU want to believe all these gazillions of tents exist to create drug fuelled communities and upset the locals.
Lifestyle choice my arse!"
What do you mean, give it a rest? You comment in a public forum and expect only replies that support your views or don't bother replying?
You have your view I have mine, I like to try and keep things civilised...
Going back to the point, you have obviously not encountered drug addicts in tents and doorways, if you had you would know it is not great for them or for the people who need to navigate through them or have them on their doorsteps.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Glad to hear on the news at 1 that the tent fiasco (fining charities) was a no go.
Are you condoning an unchallenged choice to allow the building of tent villages wherever a group of people decide to build them, regardless of the impact on the people or businesses in that location, out of their choice?
Give it a rest!
I applaud the fact that charities will not be fined if they donate a tent. Just cos YOU want to believe all these gazillions of tents exist to create drug fuelled communities and upset the locals.
Lifestyle choice my arse!"
I for one agree with that chap.
People just decide to leave their houses, inject crack into their eyeballs and move into tent villages purely to annoy residents of posh places. Any rational person would choose this course of action.
Anyone who says that maybe the government and the police shouldn't further demonise the most vulnerable people in society are basically erecting the tents themselves. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man
over a year ago
Near Maidenhead |
"Are you condoning an unchallenged choice to allow the building of tent villages"
Well it's just that punitive measures against charities is a little bit legally problematic.
Also there is quite a lot of privatisation of public space. The Space Hijackers comedic-anarchic group drew attention to this with their stunt at More London near Tower Bridge.
They pretended to be security guards until the real security guards turned up. "No busking. No skating. No protesting. No cycling. Have a nice day!" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just read an article (sky) discussing SB's letter to the PM. It then goes on to add that (from Downing Street) the PM has reduced the number of boats to the UK by a third this year through legislation. Really? News to me.
I'll assume more BS."
The latest article I could find was Sept. That showed the crossings down by 20% year on year until that point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Glad to hear on the news at 1 that the tent fiasco (fining charities) was a no go.
Are you condoning an unchallenged choice to allow the building of tent villages wherever a group of people decide to build them, regardless of the impact on the people or businesses in that location, out of their choice?
Give it a rest!
I applaud the fact that charities will not be fined if they donate a tent. Just cos YOU want to believe all these gazillions of tents exist to create drug fuelled communities and upset the locals.
Lifestyle choice my arse!
I for one agree with that chap.
People just decide to leave their houses, inject crack into their eyeballs and move into tent villages purely to annoy residents of posh places. Any rational person would choose this course of action.
Anyone who says that maybe the government and the police shouldn't further demonise the most vulnerable people in society are basically erecting the tents themselves. "
One word answer will do..
Would you be happy for people to erect tents on your doorstep and live there? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Are you condoning an unchallenged choice to allow the building of tent villages
Well it's just that punitive measures against charities is a little bit legally problematic.
Also there is quite a lot of privatisation of public space. The Space Hijackers comedic-anarchic group drew attention to this with their stunt at More London near Tower Bridge.
They pretended to be security guards until the real security guards turned up. "No busking. No skating. No protesting. No cycling. Have a nice day!""
Was that yes or no? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oversfunCouple
over a year ago
city centre |
"Glad to hear on the news at 1 that the tent fiasco (fining charities) was a no go.
Are you condoning an unchallenged choice to allow the building of tent villages wherever a group of people decide to build them, regardless of the impact on the people or businesses in that location, out of their choice?"
Is it illegal? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Glad to hear on the news at 1 that the tent fiasco (fining charities) was a no go.
Are you condoning an unchallenged choice to allow the building of tent villages wherever a group of people decide to build them, regardless of the impact on the people or businesses in that location, out of their choice?
Is it illegal?"
Should it be? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Glad to hear on the news at 1 that the tent fiasco (fining charities) was a no go.
Are you condoning an unchallenged choice to allow the building of tent villages wherever a group of people decide to build them, regardless of the impact on the people or businesses in that location, out of their choice?
Give it a rest!
I applaud the fact that charities will not be fined if they donate a tent. Just cos YOU want to believe all these gazillions of tents exist to create drug fuelled communities and upset the locals.
Lifestyle choice my arse!
What do you mean, give it a rest? You comment in a public forum and expect only replies that support your views or don't bother replying?
You have your view I have mine, I like to try and keep things civilised...
Going back to the point, you have obviously not encountered drug addicts in tents and doorways, if you had you would know it is not great for them or for the people who need to navigate through them or have them on their doorsteps.
"
I asked you questions in a prior post that you chose to ignore but you rattle on with the same spiel over and over.
I've been in London and seen the cardboard cities tha come out of an evening. When I saw on the news the tents instead of the people, I actually thought it was more aesthetically pleasing. So don't give me the "choice" rubbish. The difference is that these poor buggers have some tiny protection against the elements while YOU worry about how the locals might act. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man
over a year ago
Near Maidenhead |
"They could just apply in a European country, and avoid the dangerous channel crossing."
But what if you don't have any relatives in France, but you do in England?
And what if you don't know any French, but you do know some English?
Those are two reasons for making the effort, and spending thousands of euros, to attempt a crossing to the UK.
When I was at school, the head boy came from a British-Iranian family. He was unusual because his family didn't have a television.
After all that colonising, and looting, the British have spread their language across the world.
The British have been involved in lots of places, like around Syria (the north to France, the south to Britain, the Sykes-Picot line, the broken promises after WW1 that ignored the tribal boundaries and was the reason why Lawrence of Arabia was so upset and went to Clouds Hill in Dorset).
In Germany last week, my host family told me that they have needed a doctor and they have found someone in Germany who is good, he's originally from Syria and his German language isn't as fluent as it could be.
Why does Germany not have so many people in the rest of the world who know German? Perhaps part of the reason is because after WW1 Germany lost its colonies, like Cameroon. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Glad to hear on the news at 1 that the tent fiasco (fining charities) was a no go.
Are you condoning an unchallenged choice to allow the building of tent villages wherever a group of people decide to build them, regardless of the impact on the people or businesses in that location, out of their choice?
Give it a rest!
I applaud the fact that charities will not be fined if they donate a tent. Just cos YOU want to believe all these gazillions of tents exist to create drug fuelled communities and upset the locals.
Lifestyle choice my arse!
What do you mean, give it a rest? You comment in a public forum and expect only replies that support your views or don't bother replying?
You have your view I have mine, I like to try and keep things civilised...
Going back to the point, you have obviously not encountered drug addicts in tents and doorways, if you had you would know it is not great for them or for the people who need to navigate through them or have them on their doorsteps.
I asked you questions in a prior post that you chose to ignore but you rattle on with the same spiel over and over.
I've been in London and seen the cardboard cities tha come out of an evening. When I saw on the news the tents instead of the people, I actually thought it was more aesthetically pleasing. So don't give me the "choice" rubbish. The difference is that these poor buggers have some tiny protection against the elements while YOU worry about how the locals might act."
Which tells me you have no experience of this, just emotion. Unless I have got that wrong, I will leave it there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oversfunCouple
over a year ago
city centre |
"Glad to hear on the news at 1 that the tent fiasco (fining charities) was a no go.
Are you condoning an unchallenged choice to allow the building of tent villages wherever a group of people decide to build them, regardless of the impact on the people or businesses in that location, out of their choice?
Is it illegal?
Should it be?"
can you answer the question pls |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man
over a year ago
Near Maidenhead |
"Would you be happy for people to erect tents on your doorstep and live there?"
I'll have a go.
No.
No, I would not be happy.
Of course not.
But, and of course, here's the but. I would like to live in a rule-of-law country.
What is meant by my "doorstep"? Literally on my private property? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man
over a year ago
Near Maidenhead |
Perhaps I should be like Alan Bennett who tolerated Miss Shepherd, a homeless woman who lived her van on his driveway, for 20 years.
Very well, then. If I do get someone living on my doorstep, in a tent, then I shall put up with it, and keep notes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Glad to hear on the news at 1 that the tent fiasco (fining charities) was a no go.
Are you condoning an unchallenged choice to allow the building of tent villages wherever a group of people decide to build them, regardless of the impact on the people or businesses in that location, out of their choice?
Give it a rest!
I applaud the fact that charities will not be fined if they donate a tent. Just cos YOU want to believe all these gazillions of tents exist to create drug fuelled communities and upset the locals.
Lifestyle choice my arse!
What do you mean, give it a rest? You comment in a public forum and expect only replies that support your views or don't bother replying?
You have your view I have mine, I like to try and keep things civilised...
Going back to the point, you have obviously not encountered drug addicts in tents and doorways, if you had you would know it is not great for them or for the people who need to navigate through them or have them on their doorsteps.
I asked you questions in a prior post that you chose to ignore but you rattle on with the same spiel over and over.
I've been in London and seen the cardboard cities tha come out of an evening. When I saw on the news the tents instead of the people, I actually thought it was more aesthetically pleasing. So don't give me the "choice" rubbish. The difference is that these poor buggers have some tiny protection against the elements while YOU worry about how the locals might act.
Which tells me you have no experience of this, just emotion. Unless I have got that wrong, I will leave it there. "
No experience... Obviously not as cardboard isn't a tent
I have empathy! There by the grace of God...
Btw I hope you never have the misfortune of taking up this unenviable lifestyle choice because a local might not like it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Glad to hear on the news at 1 that the tent fiasco (fining charities) was a no go.
Are you condoning an unchallenged choice to allow the building of tent villages wherever a group of people decide to build them, regardless of the impact on the people or businesses in that location, out of their choice?
Give it a rest!
I applaud the fact that charities will not be fined if they donate a tent. Just cos YOU want to believe all these gazillions of tents exist to create drug fuelled communities and upset the locals.
Lifestyle choice my arse!
I for one agree with that chap.
People just decide to leave their houses, inject crack into their eyeballs and move into tent villages purely to annoy residents of posh places. Any rational person would choose this course of action.
Anyone who says that maybe the government and the police shouldn't further demonise the most vulnerable people in society are basically erecting the tents themselves.
One word answer will do..
Would you be happy for people to erect tents on your doorstep and live there?"
Thereisnodoorsteptomyhouse |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The trouble I have with a lot of the issues is that we can often have common ground on issues yet the policies that get put forward show little in the way of solving. It's headlines.
We can agree that we want to stop the organised crime on crossings.
But Rwanda is a drop in the ocean if it's about having a place to send rejections. It cant see it's a deterrent. Especially as ten pirates have the upper hand on propaganda. It's a policy that sounds tough... But isn't... And is largely unworkable without carving out large parts of echr. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
... And other parts of international law. Is that really a great policy to have tabled without having done the groundwork on this ? It seems as it stands it will be a damp squib.
We can agree that we'd like to reduce homeless. But the "policy" that was tested before the kinda speach didn't major on the schemes to help re-home, or manage addictions or ptsd, or whatever. It was focussed on simply preventing tents and going after charities. There may have been a load of great detail on the help side.
So its less "don't you care about" more about whether you believe that HMG actually care and back it with policies that are workable and effective. I think the current government fails on this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ony 2016Man
over a year ago
Huddersfield /derby cinemas |
Following on from the last time Braverman left a Government position , due to breaking The Ministerial Code , Sunak talked on the steps of Downing Street about integrity, then gave her a job within 6 days , so those of you celebrating today should bide your time , she maybe reinstated by the weekend  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Authoritarian / Despotic regimes do rather tend to get the horn for punitive punishment. It's typically inelegant and scatter-gunned in practice, but it's easy to execute, and the resulting photos of heavy-handed tactics usually result in certain tranches of the media proclaiming "Something Being Done. At Last!".
The end result is desperate people are pushed further in abject poverty, fuelling increased crime. Which then provokes more punitive punishment.
It's a system that is eternally geared to create the ills which it seeks to resolve. Ironically, it is the architect of its own demise.
Capitalism needs to oppress people, in order to make the goods cheap enough to sell back to the same people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No one *has* to attempt the dangerous journey. They could just apply in a European country, and avoid the dangerous channel crossing. They choose to take the risk because they want to be in the UK, not because their lives are at risk in France or Belgium."
"But what if you don't have any relatives in France, but you do in England?
And what if you don't know any French, but you do know some English?"
Those are both good reasons for someone to *want* to come to the UK, not reasons to *have* to come to the UK. If someone is going to apply for asylum, those reasons are not sufficient. To be granted asylum they have to be fleeing from a dangerous situation.
You really are very good at taking people's quotes out of context, and answering the bits you want to. I've reinstated the rest of my quote above. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But Rwanda is a drop in the ocean if it's about having a place to send rejections."
It's not about that. The idea behind the scheme is that all irregular entrants can be sent to Rwanda without any need for the UK to consider their case. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
I have to laugh how gullible people are to this. It’s a sound bite for god’s sake! It’s only use is to gain votes and nothing else.