FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > "The will of the people..."
"The will of the people..."
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"It's back... The gaslighting slogan of all slogans. Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Truth is the only "will of the people at the moment" is for the Conservatives to hold a General Election so that the electorate can demonstrate what the will of the people really is. " Sunak and the other right wing Tories who castigate the judiciary do sound like despotic tyrants more and more when their ill judged plans meet the cold hard realities of a modern democracy.. | |||
| |||
"Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto." Take a look at the front page of today's Daily Mail. The main story is about how the lords are trying to stop the bill, and Rishi is standing up to them to get what the people want. Now I'm not suggesting that the Daily Mail is the source of any truth (someone else will do that). But the fact is that it sells a very large number of copies, and it does that by printing what its audience want to read. The fact that they've taken this approach shows that there is a large number of people out there that want to hear that message. If you think that the Rwanda scheme has no support, then you need to step out of the echo chamber. | |||
"Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Take a look at the front page of today's Daily Mail. The main story is about how the lords are trying to stop the bill, and Rishi is standing up to them to get what the people want. Now I'm not suggesting that the Daily Mail is the source of any truth (someone else will do that). But the fact is that it sells a very large number of copies, and it does that by printing what its audience want to read. The fact that they've taken this approach shows that there is a large number of people out there that want to hear that message. If you think that the Rwanda scheme has no support, then you need to step out of the echo chamber." Interesting take but there is another angle. Some folks won’t like this. The Daily Mail actually tells (some) people how to think. In fact all newspapers do. They have an editorial stance and people who consume their writings over many years are eventually indoctrinated to think a certain way. | |||
"Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Take a look at the front page of today's Daily Mail. The main story is about how the lords are trying to stop the bill, and Rishi is standing up to them to get what the people want. Now I'm not suggesting that the Daily Mail is the source of any truth (someone else will do that). But the fact is that it sells a very large number of copies, and it does that by printing what its audience want to read. The fact that they've taken this approach shows that there is a large number of people out there that want to hear that message. If you think that the Rwanda scheme has no support, then you need to step out of the echo chamber." It probably has the support of somewhere between the 10% -15% of the population who are simply terrified racists who will believe anything that they are told will stop the “invasion.” 85%-90% learned about being gaslit in 2016 and won’t fall for the same bullshit again. In any event, the Rwanda plan absolutely does not, and cannot, represent the will of the people when the people have not been asked to vote on it in any form. If we are talking opinion polls, then the only opinion poll that suggests anything about the will of the people is the one that indicates the Conservatives (and their Rwanda policy) have a 20% approval rating amongst the general public and are therefore squatting in office to the detriment of the well-being of the country at large. | |||
"Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Take a look at the front page of today's Daily Mail. The main story is about how the lords are trying to stop the bill, and Rishi is standing up to them to get what the people want. Now I'm not suggesting that the Daily Mail is the source of any truth (someone else will do that). But the fact is that it sells a very large number of copies, and it does that by printing what its audience want to read. The fact that they've taken this approach shows that there is a large number of people out there that want to hear that message. If you think that the Rwanda scheme has no support, then you need to step out of the echo chamber." I agree. A lot of people don't question the Daily Mail (and similar) narrative that's being rammed down their throats, and go along with what they're being told unquestioningly. There's a good reason why fear of foriegners, immigrants etc is used by right wing governments world wide. It's an effective tactic. | |||
"Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Take a look at the front page of today's Daily Mail. The main story is about how the lords are trying to stop the bill, and Rishi is standing up to them to get what the people want. Now I'm not suggesting that the Daily Mail is the source of any truth (someone else will do that). But the fact is that it sells a very large number of copies, and it does that by printing what its audience want to read. The fact that they've taken this approach shows that there is a large number of people out there that want to hear that message. If you think that the Rwanda scheme has no support, then you need to step out of the echo chamber. Interesting take but there is another angle. Some folks won’t like this. The Daily Mail actually tells (some) people how to think. In fact all newspapers do. They have an editorial stance and people who consume their writings over many years are eventually indoctrinated to think a certain way." Isn't that what the esteemed gentleman to whom you replied to, was getting at? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Take a look at the front page of today's Daily Mail. The main story is about how the lords are trying to stop the bill, and Rishi is standing up to them to get what the people want. Now I'm not suggesting that the Daily Mail is the source of any truth (someone else will do that). But the fact is that it sells a very large number of copies, and it does that by printing what its audience want to read. The fact that they've taken this approach shows that there is a large number of people out there that want to hear that message. If you think that the Rwanda scheme has no support, then you need to step out of the echo chamber. Interesting take but there is another angle. Some folks won’t like this. The Daily Mail actually tells (some) people how to think. In fact all newspapers do. They have an editorial stance and people who consume their writings over many years are eventually indoctrinated to think a certain way. Isn't that what the esteemed gentleman to whom you replied to, was getting at? " No the suggestion was that TDM is popular because it says what people want to read and I am saying many of those people only believe they want to read that because of years of indoctrination. I think people have less agency then they believe and are far more influenced by prolonged exposure to some thinking/agendas then they would | |||
"Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Take a look at the front page of today's Daily Mail. The main story is about how the lords are trying to stop the bill, and Rishi is standing up to them to get what the people want. Now I'm not suggesting that the Daily Mail is the source of any truth (someone else will do that). But the fact is that it sells a very large number of copies, and it does that by printing what its audience want to read. The fact that they've taken this approach shows that there is a large number of people out there that want to hear that message. If you think that the Rwanda scheme has no support, then you need to step out of the echo chamber. Interesting take but there is another angle. Some folks won’t like this. The Daily Mail actually tells (some) people how to think. In fact all newspapers do. They have an editorial stance and people who consume their writings over many years are eventually indoctrinated to think a certain way. Isn't that what the esteemed gentleman to whom you replied to, was getting at? No the suggestion was that TDM is popular because it says what people want to read and I am saying many of those people only believe they want to read that because of years of indoctrination. I think people have less agency then they believe and are far more influenced by prolonged exposure to some thinking/agendas then they would" ever care to admit! Hit send too soon | |||
| |||
"Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Take a look at the front page of today's Daily Mail. The main story is about how the lords are trying to stop the bill, and Rishi is standing up to them to get what the people want. Now I'm not suggesting that the Daily Mail is the source of any truth (someone else will do that). But the fact is that it sells a very large number of copies, and it does that by printing what its audience want to read. The fact that they've taken this approach shows that there is a large number of people out there that want to hear that message. If you think that the Rwanda scheme has no support, then you need to step out of the echo chamber. Interesting take but there is another angle. Some folks won’t like this. The Daily Mail actually tells (some) people how to think. In fact all newspapers do. They have an editorial stance and people who consume their writings over many years are eventually indoctrinated to think a certain way. Isn't that what the esteemed gentleman to whom you replied to, was getting at? No the suggestion was that TDM is popular because it says what people want to read and I am saying many of those people only believe they want to read that because of years of indoctrination. I think people have less agency then they believe and are far more influenced by prolonged exposure to some thinking/agendas then they wouldever care to admit! Hit send too soon" I agree with you. And would add. People aren't born to hate and fear foreigners. It's a taught behaviour. | |||
"Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Take a look at the front page of today's Daily Mail. The main story is about how the lords are trying to stop the bill, and Rishi is standing up to them to get what the people want. Now I'm not suggesting that the Daily Mail is the source of any truth (someone else will do that). But the fact is that it sells a very large number of copies, and it does that by printing what its audience want to read. The fact that they've taken this approach shows that there is a large number of people out there that want to hear that message. If you think that the Rwanda scheme has no support, then you need to step out of the echo chamber. Interesting take but there is another angle. Some folks won’t like this. The Daily Mail actually tells (some) people how to think. In fact all newspapers do. They have an editorial stance and people who consume their writings over many years are eventually indoctrinated to think a certain way. Isn't that what the esteemed gentleman to whom you replied to, was getting at? No the suggestion was that TDM is popular because it says what people want to read and I am saying many of those people only believe they want to read that because of years of indoctrination. I think people have less agency then they believe and are far more influenced by prolonged exposure to some thinking/agendas then they wouldever care to admit! Hit send too soon" The same could be said for any media that people consume regularly. Being that the top 3 publications into Q4 2023 are left-leaning publications (newspapers), maybe that why we see so much nonsense  | |||
"Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto." "Take a look at the front page of today's Daily Mail. The main story is about how the lords are trying to stop the bill, and Rishi is standing up to them to get what the people want. Now I'm not suggesting that the Daily Mail is the source of any truth (someone else will do that). But the fact is that it sells a very large number of copies, and it does that by printing what its audience want to read. The fact that they've taken this approach shows that there is a large number of people out there that want to hear that message. If you think that the Rwanda scheme has no support, then you need to step out of the echo chamber." "It probably has the support of somewhere between the 10% -15% of the population who are simply terrified racists who will believe anything that they are told will stop the “invasion.”" It has the support of 42% of the population, with only 39% opposed. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/06/30/726e7/1 Like I say, if you want to engage with other people, you need to step out of your echo chamber. | |||
"No the suggestion was that TDM is popular because it says what people want to read" Birldn is right in this, I was saying that people buy it because it says what they want to hear. Birldn is also correct that people are swayed by the opinions of others, and will allow themselves to be lead by their daily paper. But that's only possible where the opinion doesn't clash with anything else the person believes. If the DM were to switch to promoting socialism tomorrow, it wouldn't change any minds, it would just go out of business. "... and I am saying many of those people only believe they want to read that because of years of indoctrination." This is where _irldn veers off into conspiracy theory. The idea that the DM is carefully choosing their stories to lead the population in a particular direction is foolish. All they do is follow popular trends, to keep themselves where the money is. | |||
"Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Take a look at the front page of today's Daily Mail. The main story is about how the lords are trying to stop the bill, and Rishi is standing up to them to get what the people want. Now I'm not suggesting that the Daily Mail is the source of any truth (someone else will do that). But the fact is that it sells a very large number of copies, and it does that by printing what its audience want to read. The fact that they've taken this approach shows that there is a large number of people out there that want to hear that message. If you think that the Rwanda scheme has no support, then you need to step out of the echo chamber. It probably has the support of somewhere between the 10% -15% of the population who are simply terrified racists who will believe anything that they are told will stop the “invasion.” It has the support of 42% of the population, with only 39% opposed. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/06/30/726e7/1 Like I say, if you want to engage with other people, you need to step out of your echo chamber." Sad to think of the influence that the media has over people. | |||
"No the suggestion was that TDM is popular because it says what people want to read Birldn is right in this, I was saying that people buy it because it says what they want to hear. Birldn is also correct that people are swayed by the opinions of others, and will allow themselves to be lead by their daily paper. But that's only possible where the opinion doesn't clash with anything else the person believes. If the DM were to switch to promoting socialism tomorrow, it wouldn't change any minds, it would just go out of business. ... and I am saying many of those people only believe they want to read that because of years of indoctrination. This is where _irldn veers off into conspiracy theory. The idea that the DM is carefully choosing their stories to lead the population in a particular direction is foolish. All they do is follow popular trends, to keep themselves where the money is." Is it a conspiracy theory? I mean, it's what is actually happening in plain sight. They clearly carefully choose their stories to push a specific narrative. | |||
"No the suggestion was that TDM is popular because it says what people want to read Birldn is right in this, I was saying that people buy it because it says what they want to hear. Birldn is also correct that people are swayed by the opinions of others, and will allow themselves to be lead by their daily paper. But that's only possible where the opinion doesn't clash with anything else the person believes. If the DM were to switch to promoting socialism tomorrow, it wouldn't change any minds, it would just go out of business. ... and I am saying many of those people only believe they want to read that because of years of indoctrination. This is where _irldn veers off into conspiracy theory. The idea that the DM is carefully choosing their stories to lead the population in a particular direction is foolish. All they do is follow popular trends, to keep themselves where the money is." "Is it a conspiracy theory? I mean, it's what is actually happening in plain sight. They clearly carefully choose their stories to push a specific narrative." I don't believe that's true. They certainly carefully chose their stories to make sure that their readers don't get 'confused', but I think they are doing that in an attempt to stop their readers from looking elsewhere. I don't believe that they are trying to lead them anywhere. In any case, _irldn is suggesting that this is a multi-year plan to achieve ... well, something unspecified. Since they have been printing very much the same sort of stories for well over 100 years now, it seems to be an extremely long-term plan. In my view, a conspiracy theory level plan. | |||
"Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Take a look at the front page of today's Daily Mail. The main story is about how the lords are trying to stop the bill, and Rishi is standing up to them to get what the people want. Now I'm not suggesting that the Daily Mail is the source of any truth (someone else will do that). But the fact is that it sells a very large number of copies, and it does that by printing what its audience want to read. The fact that they've taken this approach shows that there is a large number of people out there that want to hear that message. If you think that the Rwanda scheme has no support, then you need to step out of the echo chamber. Interesting take but there is another angle. Some folks won’t like this. The Daily Mail actually tells (some) people how to think. In fact all newspapers do. They have an editorial stance and people who consume their writings over many years are eventually indoctrinated to think a certain way. Isn't that what the esteemed gentleman to whom you replied to, was getting at? No the suggestion was that TDM is popular because it says what people want to read and I am saying many of those people only believe they want to read that because of years of indoctrination. I think people have less agency then they believe and are far more influenced by prolonged exposure to some thinking/agendas then they wouldever care to admit! Hit send too soon The same could be said for any media that people consume regularly. Being that the top 3 publications into Q4 2023 are left-leaning publications (newspapers), maybe that why we see so much nonsense "You’ll note I said “In fact all newspapers do.” | |||
"Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Take a look at the front page of today's Daily Mail. The main story is about how the lords are trying to stop the bill, and Rishi is standing up to them to get what the people want. Now I'm not suggesting that the Daily Mail is the source of any truth (someone else will do that). But the fact is that it sells a very large number of copies, and it does that by printing what its audience want to read. The fact that they've taken this approach shows that there is a large number of people out there that want to hear that message. If you think that the Rwanda scheme has no support, then you need to step out of the echo chamber. It probably has the support of somewhere between the 10% -15% of the population who are simply terrified racists who will believe anything that they are told will stop the “invasion.” It has the support of 42% of the population, with only 39% opposed. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/06/30/726e7/1 Like I say, if you want to engage with other people, you need to step out of your echo chamber." That survey was conducted in June last year before the policy was deemed unlawful and before the policy was revealed to have cost more than disclosed. NOTHING that has happened since June would have convinced those people to STILL believe it was a good idea. It was never a good idea, it is not a good idea now, and never will be. More and more people are now seeing this. | |||
"Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Take a look at the front page of today's Daily Mail. The main story is about how the lords are trying to stop the bill, and Rishi is standing up to them to get what the people want. Now I'm not suggesting that the Daily Mail is the source of any truth (someone else will do that). But the fact is that it sells a very large number of copies, and it does that by printing what its audience want to read. The fact that they've taken this approach shows that there is a large number of people out there that want to hear that message. If you think that the Rwanda scheme has no support, then you need to step out of the echo chamber. Interesting take but there is another angle. Some folks won’t like this. The Daily Mail actually tells (some) people how to think. In fact all newspapers do. They have an editorial stance and people who consume their writings over many years are eventually indoctrinated to think a certain way. Isn't that what the esteemed gentleman to whom you replied to, was getting at? No the suggestion was that TDM is popular because it says what people want to read and I am saying many of those people only believe they want to read that because of years of indoctrination. I think people have less agency then they believe and are far more influenced by prolonged exposure to some thinking/agendas then they wouldever care to admit! Hit send too soon The same could be said for any media that people consume regularly. Being that the top 3 publications into Q4 2023 are left-leaning publications (newspapers), maybe that why we see so much nonsense
You’ll note I said “In fact all newspapers do.”"Noted 
Do you honestly believe it's 'many' who are indoctrinated?
It would explain a lot. | |||
"No the suggestion was that TDM is popular because it says what people want to read Birldn is right in this, I was saying that people buy it because it says what they want to hear. Birldn is also correct that people are swayed by the opinions of others, and will allow themselves to be lead by their daily paper. But that's only possible where the opinion doesn't clash with anything else the person believes. If the DM were to switch to promoting socialism tomorrow, it wouldn't change any minds, it would just go out of business. ... and I am saying many of those people only believe they want to read that because of years of indoctrination. This is where _irldn veers off into conspiracy theory. The idea that the DM is carefully choosing their stories to lead the population in a particular direction is foolish. All they do is follow popular trends, to keep themselves where the money is." Ah the old “let’s label something a conspiracy theory to try and discredit it” approach.
The editorial stance of any publication will reflect the position of the proprietor. In the case of TDM the family that own it have variously been supportive of the Nazis, Mosley, and were anti-semitic. No doubt there are example of left biased publications too.
If TDM was to change tack towards a socialist bias they would not be stupid as to do it over night. It would be a subtle and slow drawn out process over years. Drip drip drip of ways of thinking to slowly draw support over to your agenda. | |||
"Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Take a look at the front page of today's Daily Mail. The main story is about how the lords are trying to stop the bill, and Rishi is standing up to them to get what the people want. Now I'm not suggesting that the Daily Mail is the source of any truth (someone else will do that). But the fact is that it sells a very large number of copies, and it does that by printing what its audience want to read. The fact that they've taken this approach shows that there is a large number of people out there that want to hear that message. If you think that the Rwanda scheme has no support, then you need to step out of the echo chamber. Interesting take but there is another angle. Some folks won’t like this. The Daily Mail actually tells (some) people how to think. In fact all newspapers do. They have an editorial stance and people who consume their writings over many years are eventually indoctrinated to think a certain way. Isn't that what the esteemed gentleman to whom you replied to, was getting at? No the suggestion was that TDM is popular because it says what people want to read and I am saying many of those people only believe they want to read that because of years of indoctrination. I think people have less agency then they believe and are far more influenced by prolonged exposure to some thinking/agendas then they wouldever care to admit! Hit send too soon The same could be said for any media that people consume regularly. Being that the top 3 publications into Q4 2023 are left-leaning publications (newspapers), maybe that why we see so much nonsense
You’ll note I said “In fact all newspapers do.”
Noted
Do you honestly believe it's 'many' who are indoctrinated?
It would explain a lot. "Yeah actually I do. As I already said, we all have less agency then we want to believe. We are all open to influence, no matter how subtle or prolonged the exposure is. | |||
| |||
"Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Take a look at the front page of today's Daily Mail. The main story is about how the lords are trying to stop the bill, and Rishi is standing up to them to get what the people want. Now I'm not suggesting that the Daily Mail is the source of any truth (someone else will do that). But the fact is that it sells a very large number of copies, and it does that by printing what its audience want to read. The fact that they've taken this approach shows that there is a large number of people out there that want to hear that message. If you think that the Rwanda scheme has no support, then you need to step out of the echo chamber. Interesting take but there is another angle. Some folks won’t like this. The Daily Mail actually tells (some) people how to think. In fact all newspapers do. They have an editorial stance and people who consume their writings over many years are eventually indoctrinated to think a certain way. Isn't that what the esteemed gentleman to whom you replied to, was getting at? No the suggestion was that TDM is popular because it says what people want to read and I am saying many of those people only believe they want to read that because of years of indoctrination. I think people have less agency then they believe and are far more influenced by prolonged exposure to some thinking/agendas then they wouldever care to admit! Hit send too soon The same could be said for any media that people consume regularly. Being that the top 3 publications into Q4 2023 are left-leaning publications (newspapers), maybe that why we see so much nonsense
You’ll note I said “In fact all newspapers do.”
Noted
Do you honestly believe it's 'many' who are indoctrinated?
It would explain a lot.
Yeah actually I do. As I already said, we all have less agency then we want to believe. We are all open to influence, no matter how subtle or prolonged the exposure is."We are all open to influence, however, I get most of my headline news from my phone (samsung). The headlines are random and here's were it's all coming from at this very moment: Sky Local Guardian Evening Standard Sky Sky Local Daily Mail Law Society Gazette BBC Sky Local Guardian Local Guardian BBC Guardian Guardian FT Guardian. I'll stop there, but as you can see, I should be a raving lefty judging by my 'indoctrination', I genuinely don't feel that I'm the only one immune to what you say is happening. | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take." In fairness, you are the target audience for this publicity stunt. People are against it because it's a massive waste of money that won't achieve anything for the country, but will achieve bolstering support for the Tories. | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. In fairness, you are the target audience for this publicity stunt. People are against it because it's a massive waste of money that won't achieve anything for the country, but will achieve bolstering support for the Tories. " Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself | |||
"Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Take a look at the front page of today's Daily Mail. The main story is about how the lords are trying to stop the bill, and Rishi is standing up to them to get what the people want. Now I'm not suggesting that the Daily Mail is the source of any truth (someone else will do that). But the fact is that it sells a very large number of copies, and it does that by printing what its audience want to read. The fact that they've taken this approach shows that there is a large number of people out there that want to hear that message. If you think that the Rwanda scheme has no support, then you need to step out of the echo chamber. Interesting take but there is another angle. Some folks won’t like this. The Daily Mail actually tells (some) people how to think. In fact all newspapers do. They have an editorial stance and people who consume their writings over many years are eventually indoctrinated to think a certain way. Isn't that what the esteemed gentleman to whom you replied to, was getting at? No the suggestion was that TDM is popular because it says what people want to read and I am saying many of those people only believe they want to read that because of years of indoctrination. I think people have less agency then they believe and are far more influenced by prolonged exposure to some thinking/agendas then they wouldever care to admit! Hit send too soon The same could be said for any media that people consume regularly. Being that the top 3 publications into Q4 2023 are left-leaning publications (newspapers), maybe that why we see so much nonsense
You’ll note I said “In fact all newspapers do.”
Noted
Do you honestly believe it's 'many' who are indoctrinated?
It would explain a lot.
Yeah actually I do. As I already said, we all have less agency then we want to believe. We are all open to influence, no matter how subtle or prolonged the exposure is.
We are all open to influence, however, I get most of my headline news from my phone (samsung). The headlines are random and here's were it's all coming from at this very moment:
Sky
Local
Guardian
Evening Standard
Sky
Sky
Local
Daily Mail
Law Society Gazette
BBC
Sky
Local
Guardian
Local
Guardian
BBC
Guardian
Guardian
FT
Guardian.
I'll stop there, but as you can see, I should be a raving lefty judging by my 'indoctrination', I genuinely don't feel that I'm the only one immune to what you say is happening. "You’re old enough to remember a time before smart phones though. And if you start clicking on those news stories in your feed the algorithm will start to profile you  | |||
"Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Take a look at the front page of today's Daily Mail. The main story is about how the lords are trying to stop the bill, and Rishi is standing up to them to get what the people want. Now I'm not suggesting that the Daily Mail is the source of any truth (someone else will do that). But the fact is that it sells a very large number of copies, and it does that by printing what its audience want to read. The fact that they've taken this approach shows that there is a large number of people out there that want to hear that message. If you think that the Rwanda scheme has no support, then you need to step out of the echo chamber. Interesting take but there is another angle. Some folks won’t like this. The Daily Mail actually tells (some) people how to think. In fact all newspapers do. They have an editorial stance and people who consume their writings over many years are eventually indoctrinated to think a certain way. Isn't that what the esteemed gentleman to whom you replied to, was getting at? No the suggestion was that TDM is popular because it says what people want to read and I am saying many of those people only believe they want to read that because of years of indoctrination. I think people have less agency then they believe and are far more influenced by prolonged exposure to some thinking/agendas then they wouldever care to admit! Hit send too soon The same could be said for any media that people consume regularly. Being that the top 3 publications into Q4 2023 are left-leaning publications (newspapers), maybe that why we see so much nonsense
You’ll note I said “In fact all newspapers do.”
Noted
Do you honestly believe it's 'many' who are indoctrinated?
It would explain a lot.
Yeah actually I do. As I already said, we all have less agency then we want to believe. We are all open to influence, no matter how subtle or prolonged the exposure is.
We are all open to influence, however, I get most of my headline news from my phone (samsung). The headlines are random and here's were it's all coming from at this very moment:
Sky
Local
Guardian
Evening Standard
Sky
Sky
Local
Daily Mail
Law Society Gazette
BBC
Sky
Local
Guardian
Local
Guardian
BBC
Guardian
Guardian
FT
Guardian.
I'll stop there, but as you can see, I should be a raving lefty judging by my 'indoctrination', I genuinely don't feel that I'm the only one immune to what you say is happening.
You’re old enough to remember a time before smart phones though. And if you start clicking on those news stories in your feed the algorithm will start to profile you "That's the point. I do click on articles so obviously the algorithm is feeding me what it thinks I want to see (based on click through). Why am I reading so much left wing news but disagree with vast amounts of it? Surely, based on your assertion, I should be agreeing with what I consume. | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. In fairness, you are the target audience for this publicity stunt. People are against it because it's a massive waste of money that won't achieve anything for the country, but will achieve bolstering support for the Tories. Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself" Why would the government wasting millions on a pointless scheme make me feel better about myself? Anyways, it's a waste of money because it's a pointless scheme that has had lots of legal troubles and won't solve any problems. | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take." Rwanda can't process applications safely. I have other other issues with moral duties around numbers of refugees we should be taking, and a view on sending people to a country so recently in turmoil. But I can't see how anyone can be happy to send anyone to a place that our SC has found to be unsafe. And how anyone can support having a law made that is forcing the SC to ignore the facts and accept the force of the government. | |||
"This is where _irldn veers off into conspiracy theory. The idea that the DM is carefully choosing their stories to lead the population in a particular direction is foolish. All they do is follow popular trends, to keep themselves where the money is." . I can categorically state you are wrong on that front. . I am reliably informed that they have a weekly roundtable meeting where the question is asked, "How do we want the readers to feel and think this week ? What stories shall we run to rile them up, get them angry ? What emotions do we want to provoke? How do we want them to feel?" . And I don't single out the DM for this. I am sure other newspapers do the same. Newspapers are there for 3 reasons. . 1. Report on the news 2. Push a narrative 3. Sell more newspapers . Birdldn is on point. | |||
"It probably has the support of somewhere between the 10% -15% of the population who are simply terrified racists who will believe anything that they are told will stop the “invasion.”" "It has the support of 42% of the population, with only 39% opposed. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/06/30/726e7/1" "That survey was conducted in June last year before the policy was deemed unlawful and before the policy was revealed to have cost more than disclosed." Ah, I see. First you claim that there is very little support, and no surveys have been done, then when you are shown a survey that proves the opposite, just claim that it's out of date and doesn't count. "NOTHING that has happened since June would have convinced those people to STILL believe it was a good idea." NOTHING has happened since then that would convince its supporters that it is suddenly a bad idea. Being declared unlawful will just have convinced them that their will is being suppressed by lefty liberals. | |||
"This is where _irldn veers off into conspiracy theory. The idea that the DM is carefully choosing their stories to lead the population in a particular direction is foolish. All they do is follow popular trends, to keep themselves where the money is." "I can categorically state you are wrong on that front. I am reliably informed that they have a weekly roundtable meeting where the question is asked, "How do we want the readers to feel and think this week ? What stories shall we run to rile them up, get them angry ? What emotions do we want to provoke? How do we want them to feel?"" I believe you. I'm absolutely certain that all papers do this. But the key words are "this week". Birldn is claiming that the papers are carrying out a multi-year plan to change the attitudes of their readers. Manipulating what gets reported to keep the readers engaged for the next week is believable. Choosing the social attitudes you want in future decades, and then reporting only the stories that lead in that direction is not a credible claim. | |||
"It probably has the support of somewhere between the 10% -15% of the population who are simply terrified racists who will believe anything that they are told will stop the “invasion.” It has the support of 42% of the population, with only 39% opposed. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/06/30/726e7/1 That survey was conducted in June last year before the policy was deemed unlawful and before the policy was revealed to have cost more than disclosed. Ah, I see. First you claim that there is very little support, and no surveys have been done, then when you are shown a survey that proves the opposite, just claim that it's out of date and doesn't count. NOTHING that has happened since June would have convinced those people to STILL believe it was a good idea. NOTHING has happened since then that would convince its supporters that it is suddenly a bad idea. Being declared unlawful will just have convinced them that their will is being suppressed by lefty liberals." That kind of thinking would be on point for the idiots that still think it is a good idea. | |||
| |||
" I believe you. I'm absolutely certain that all papers do this. But the key words are "this week". Birldn is claiming that the papers are carrying out a multi-year plan to change the attitudes of their readers. Manipulating what gets reported to keep the readers engaged for the next week is believable. Choosing the social attitudes you want in future decades, and then reporting only the stories that lead in that direction is not a credible claim." If, as we agree, papers are doing this on a weekly basis, and this has been occurring over a long period of time, is that not a definition of a multi-year plan by any other name ? But I think I get what Birdldn is getting at. A much more longer term, strategic socio-engineereed message. Long-term propaganda, essentially. . If it happens at a weekly level, you can pretty much bet it's happening at a much higher level over a longer period, and I do mean decades. Because that is how propaganda and social engineering works. This is not a new thing. | |||
"Of course there is another side to this story which I doubt any of the Rwanda plan supporters have even given a thought to, and that is how Rwanda is taking all this nonsense and if (God forbid) flights do start to leave for Rwanda how that plays out on the Continent of Africa. Paul Kagame is trying to establish Rwanda as a serious player on the continent and as an African leader that that can help propel the fortunes of the entire continent forward. My perception of the Rwanda deal is that the Tories want to present Rwanda as the most awful place that anyone can be sent to in the middle of Africa and if the flights start going, that kind of messaging will only increase. There is one thing having a quiet arrangement to deal with refugees and quite another having your country trashed in the world’s media as the dumping ground for Britains unwanted. " Rwanda are, I believe, quite cordial with Russia. Lieutenant General Frank Mushyo Kamanzi is the current Rwandan Ambassador to Russia. Russia and Rwanda have history. I think Kagame is sitting on the fence and courting both. | |||
"This is where _irldn veers off into conspiracy theory. The idea that the DM is carefully choosing their stories to lead the population in a particular direction is foolish. All they do is follow popular trends, to keep themselves where the money is. I can categorically state you are wrong on that front. I am reliably informed that they have a weekly roundtable meeting where the question is asked, "How do we want the readers to feel and think this week ? What stories shall we run to rile them up, get them angry ? What emotions do we want to provoke? How do we want them to feel?" I believe you. I'm absolutely certain that all papers do this. But the key words are "this week". Birldn is claiming that the papers are carrying out a multi-year plan to change the attitudes of their readers. Manipulating what gets reported to keep the readers engaged for the next week is believable. Choosing the social attitudes you want in future decades, and then reporting only the stories that lead in that direction is not a credible claim." Ah, so we're all on the same page except on the timescales. That seems like a minor point that we call agree to disagree on. | |||
"Ah, so we're all on the same page except on the timescales. That seems like a minor point that we call agree to disagree on. " Indeed. And when you consider the House of Habsburg ruled Austria from 1282 until 1918. They also controlled Hungary and Bohemia (1526–1918) and ruled Spain and the Spanish empire for almost two centuries (1504–06, 1516–1700), you start to appreciate the multi-generational plans put in to place centuries before they came to fruition. . Then you realise the longevity of magnate's paper & media empire is highly dependent on being "on message" (or at least not openly hostile) to the government of the day. . Boom. There is your multi-generational "platform". . Birdldn is on point. Someone, somewhere, must have "evidence". | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. In fairness, you are the target audience for this publicity stunt. People are against it because it's a massive waste of money that won't achieve anything for the country, but will achieve bolstering support for the Tories. Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself Why would the government wasting millions on a pointless scheme make me feel better about myself? Anyways, it's a waste of money because it's a pointless scheme that has had lots of legal troubles and won't solve any problems. " You are still not providing an answer other than parroting waste of money.. I'm pretty certain you have no idea about the scheme and who qualifies for the scheme, other than what you have heard on this forum or read on some liberal progressive website. | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take.Rwanda can't process applications safely. I have other other issues with moral duties around numbers of refugees we should be taking, and a view on sending people to a country so recently in turmoil. But I can't see how anyone can be happy to send anyone to a place that our SC has found to be unsafe. And how anyone can support having a law made that is forcing the SC to ignore the facts and accept the force of the government. " Who would we send to Rwanda, should the scheme green light? Also why do the UN use Rwanda in its asylum schemes, is it only unsafe when we think of sending people there? | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. In fairness, you are the target audience for this publicity stunt. People are against it because it's a massive waste of money that won't achieve anything for the country, but will achieve bolstering support for the Tories. Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself Why would the government wasting millions on a pointless scheme make me feel better about myself? Anyways, it's a waste of money because it's a pointless scheme that has had lots of legal troubles and won't solve any problems. You are still not providing an answer other than parroting waste of money.. I'm pretty certain you have no idea about the scheme and who qualifies for the scheme, other than what you have heard on this forum or read on some liberal progressive website." Google Hashi Mohamed. He was a Somalian refugee who came to the U.K. as a child. He is now a Lawyer, author and TV Personality who quite eloquently summarised the failings of the Rwanda scheme on BBC QT last night. It was quite a two minute articulation which was deservedly well applauded. | |||
"Of course there is another side to this story which I doubt any of the Rwanda plan supporters have even given a thought to, and that is how Rwanda is taking all this nonsense and if (God forbid) flights do start to leave for Rwanda how that plays out on the Continent of Africa. Paul Kagame is trying to establish Rwanda as a serious player on the continent and as an African leader that that can help propel the fortunes of the entire continent forward. My perception of the Rwanda deal is that the Tories want to present Rwanda as the most awful place that anyone can be sent to in the middle of Africa and if the flights start going, that kind of messaging will only increase. There is one thing having a quiet arrangement to deal with refugees and quite another having your country trashed in the world’s media as the dumping ground for Britains unwanted. Rwanda are, I believe, quite cordial with Russia. Lieutenant General Frank Mushyo Kamanzi is the current Rwandan Ambassador to Russia. Russia and Rwanda have history. I think Kagame is sitting on the fence and courting both." Some people unfortunately seem incapable of thinking things through. I wonder what they would think if the U.K. agreed to take thousands of people from the southern border of the United States in exchange for a few hundred million pounds? Do we want what America doesn’t want just for a bit of cash? | |||
"Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Take a look at the front page of today's Daily Mail. The main story is about how the lords are trying to stop the bill, and Rishi is standing up to them to get what the people want. Now I'm not suggesting that the Daily Mail is the source of any truth (someone else will do that). But the fact is that it sells a very large number of copies, and it does that by printing what its audience want to read. The fact that they've taken this approach shows that there is a large number of people out there that want to hear that message. If you think that the Rwanda scheme has no support, then you need to step out of the echo chamber. It probably has the support of somewhere between the 10% -15% of the population who are simply terrified racists who will believe anything that they are told will stop the “invasion.” It has the support of 42% of the population, with only 39% opposed. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/06/30/726e7/1 Like I say, if you want to engage with other people, you need to step out of your echo chamber." As yougov was mentioned. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2024/01/18/677e4/1 Over 40pc of people think more migrants come here illegally than legally. This is skewed towards conservatives and/or leavers. I suspect there is a degree of correlation between how big a problem one thinks illegal immigration is, and the support for the Rwanda scheme. I'd also suggest beliefs come from availability bias. Way more stories on boat crossings than legal migration. | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. In fairness, you are the target audience for this publicity stunt. People are against it because it's a massive waste of money that won't achieve anything for the country, but will achieve bolstering support for the Tories. Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself Why would the government wasting millions on a pointless scheme make me feel better about myself? Anyways, it's a waste of money because it's a pointless scheme that has had lots of legal troubles and won't solve any problems. You are still not providing an answer other than parroting waste of money.. I'm pretty certain you have no idea about the scheme and who qualifies for the scheme, other than what you have heard on this forum or read on some liberal progressive website. Google Hashi Mohamed. He was a Somalian refugee who came to the U.K. as a child. He is now a Lawyer, author and TV Personality who quite eloquently summarised the failings of the Rwanda scheme on BBC QT last night. It was quite a two minute articulation which was deservedly well applauded." Watched it and he said nothing really, good speaker and I can see why you liked him. The young lady in the bright green jumper he agreed with, was interesting, they were talking about genuine asylum seekers being sent to Rwanda and she said it is disgusting. Is Rwanda worse than the country they are fleeing for their lives from? I'm all for people having a better life, but I'm not all for, on the terms of the emotional. Until they go out there we will never know if it is a good idea or not, I want it to start so we can see working examples. | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. In fairness, you are the target audience for this publicity stunt. People are against it because it's a massive waste of money that won't achieve anything for the country, but will achieve bolstering support for the Tories. Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself Why would the government wasting millions on a pointless scheme make me feel better about myself? Anyways, it's a waste of money because it's a pointless scheme that has had lots of legal troubles and won't solve any problems. You are still not providing an answer other than parroting waste of money.. I'm pretty certain you have no idea about the scheme and who qualifies for the scheme, other than what you have heard on this forum or read on some liberal progressive website." Nope. Wrong. Try to focus on the topic instead of on me. If there is a question that you want me to answer though, feel free. If it's a classic, barely related question, if you could add context as to why you're asking. It would help when answering. | |||
"Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Take a look at the front page of today's Daily Mail. The main story is about how the lords are trying to stop the bill, and Rishi is standing up to them to get what the people want. Now I'm not suggesting that the Daily Mail is the source of any truth (someone else will do that). But the fact is that it sells a very large number of copies, and it does that by printing what its audience want to read. The fact that they've taken this approach shows that there is a large number of people out there that want to hear that message. If you think that the Rwanda scheme has no support, then you need to step out of the echo chamber. It probably has the support of somewhere between the 10% -15% of the population who are simply terrified racists who will believe anything that they are told will stop the “invasion.” It has the support of 42% of the population, with only 39% opposed. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/06/30/726e7/1 Like I say, if you want to engage with other people, you need to step out of your echo chamber. As yougov was mentioned. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2024/01/18/677e4/1 Over 40pc of people think more migrants come here illegally than legally. This is skewed towards conservatives and/or leavers. I suspect there is a degree of correlation between how big a problem one thinks illegal immigration is, and the support for the Rwanda scheme. I'd also suggest beliefs come from availability bias. Way more stories on boat crossings than legal migration. " Good post. | |||
"This is where _irldn veers off into conspiracy theory. The idea that the DM is carefully choosing their stories to lead the population in a particular direction is foolish. All they do is follow popular trends, to keep themselves where the money is. I can categorically state you are wrong on that front. I am reliably informed that they have a weekly roundtable meeting where the question is asked, "How do we want the readers to feel and think this week ? What stories shall we run to rile them up, get them angry ? What emotions do we want to provoke? How do we want them to feel?" I believe you. I'm absolutely certain that all papers do this. But the key words are "this week". Birldn is claiming that the papers are carrying out a multi-year plan to change the attitudes of their readers. Manipulating what gets reported to keep the readers engaged for the next week is believable. Choosing the social attitudes you want in future decades, and then reporting only the stories that lead in that direction is not a credible claim." To constantly push the agenda of their proprietor is an ongoing long term objective. I am not saying they know what they will saying in 2030 but unless ownership changes, you can guarantee it is going to be what fits with the interests and objectives of the proprietor. The more people they can get to agree with their views, the more likely they are to achieve their objectives. | |||
"... if (God forbid) flights do start to leave for Rwanda ..." Surely you would want them to start. The only reason you've given against the scheme is that it's cost us a lot of money. If some people get deported, at least we'll have something in return for all that outlay. "My perception of the Rwanda deal is that the Tories want to present Rwanda as the most awful place that anyone can be sent to in the middle of Africa and if the flights start going, that kind of messaging will only increase." I think you've got that the wrong way round. All the Tories I can find are saying that Rwanda is a lovely place, with a good rule of law, and plenty of opportunities. It's the Labour lot that are claiming that it's a hellhole of injustice and persecution, and that it would be a human rights abuse to send people out there. | |||
"If, as we agree, papers are doing this on a weekly basis, and this has been occurring over a long period of time, is that not a definition of a multi-year plan by any other name ?" No. If I pick a direction, then take a single step, then pick another direction and take another step, and keep doing that, after a thousand steps I'll be somewhere else, but no one would be able to predict where. Birldn is suggesting that the DM is picking a spot about half a mile away, and then subtly steering their audience to it. That's a very different proposition to deciding what works this week, and then ignoring that the next week and choosing something else. | |||
"If, as we agree, papers are doing this on a weekly basis, and this has been occurring over a long period of time, is that not a definition of a multi-year plan by any other name ? No. If I pick a direction, then take a single step, then pick another direction and take another step, and keep doing that, after a thousand steps I'll be somewhere else, but no one would be able to predict where. Birldn is suggesting that the DM is picking a spot about half a mile away, and then subtly steering their audience to it. That's a very different proposition to deciding what works this week, and then ignoring that the next week and choosing something else." They are. Not sure why you find that a difficult concept. It is called STRATEGY. Businesses make long term plans all the time. That doesn’t stop being opportunistic and deviating from strategy to take advantage of an opportunity. But generally they will work towards their strategy. I hate to do this but I will bring up the EU, or rather the position some newspapers took on the EU. There was an editorial policy to sprinkle anti EU sentiment as liberally and constantly as possible. No matter how seemingly innocuous (bendy bananas) or overt (use of critical language whenever referring to EU bureaucrats etc). It creates a tone of voice and position that slowly but surely will skew the views of their readers to feel the same way as their proprietor. Can’t actually believe you cannot see it? Perhaps it is because I studied history and therefore can accept the concept of long term strategies and slow achievement of objectives? We are way off topic now though I guess? | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. In fairness, you are the target audience for this publicity stunt. People are against it because it's a massive waste of money that won't achieve anything for the country, but will achieve bolstering support for the Tories. Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself Why would the government wasting millions on a pointless scheme make me feel better about myself? Anyways, it's a waste of money because it's a pointless scheme that has had lots of legal troubles and won't solve any problems. You are still not providing an answer other than parroting waste of money.. I'm pretty certain you have no idea about the scheme and who qualifies for the scheme, other than what you have heard on this forum or read on some liberal progressive website. Nope. Wrong. Try to focus on the topic instead of on me. If there is a question that you want me to answer though, feel free. If it's a classic, barely related question, if you could add context as to why you're asking. It would help when answering." Back up... You started your original post to me in a derogatory manner. An please stop with the never ending what is the question, read back digest it and answer it, if you don't want to, refrain yourself. | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. In fairness, you are the target audience for this publicity stunt. People are against it because it's a massive waste of money that won't achieve anything for the country, but will achieve bolstering support for the Tories. Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself Why would the government wasting millions on a pointless scheme make me feel better about myself? Anyways, it's a waste of money because it's a pointless scheme that has had lots of legal troubles and won't solve any problems. You are still not providing an answer other than parroting waste of money.. I'm pretty certain you have no idea about the scheme and who qualifies for the scheme, other than what you have heard on this forum or read on some liberal progressive website. Nope. Wrong. Try to focus on the topic instead of on me. If there is a question that you want me to answer though, feel free. If it's a classic, barely related question, if you could add context as to why you're asking. It would help when answering. Back up... You started your original post to me in a derogatory manner. An please stop with the never ending what is the question, read back digest it and answer it, if you don't want to, refrain yourself." This question? "Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself" Cost so far £240 mil. 161,000 outstanding asylum cases (although this figure is a year or two out of date) Total achievements so far. Nil. Legal problems. Multiple. Total proposed number of humans to be trafficked to Rwanda. 200 per year over the first five years. Or 0.12% of the outstanding claimants. Meanwhile, what has it actually achieved in real terms. Hard to measure, but it's energied the anti-immigrant element of the Tory party support. | |||
"It's back... The gaslighting slogan of all slogans. Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Truth is the only "will of the people at the moment" is for the Conservatives to hold a General Election so that the electorate can demonstrate what the will of the people really is. " At the risk of coming somewhere back to the subject, is there not a mechanism for parliament to force this through if the Lord's continuously reject it or am I getting mixed up | |||
"It's back... The gaslighting slogan of all slogans. Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Truth is the only "will of the people at the moment" is for the Conservatives to hold a General Election so that the electorate can demonstrate what the will of the people really is. " Does he not recognise the distinct smell of hypocrisy when he talks about unelected? Who voted for him? The Lords will (and should) do its job. We can blast it to high heaven about it being unelected, I do. But it serves a purpose. You cannot on the one hand support an upper chamber while expecting it to let your legislation pass without question. Especially in the case of Sunak. There is precedent for a replacement PM to follow on until the end after their predecessor goes, whether they chose to or not. Not one of May, Brown, Callaghan, or Major immediately called an election after becoming PM. Yet, all of them followed the leader that was elected. Sunak didn't. Sunak followed Truss. Who, by the way, was a catastrophe and totally unlike what she replaced in spite of her loyalty to Johnson. None of the names I mentioned before did that. The government have stretched precedent and broken new ground. The Rwanda proposal cannot be found anywhere in the 2019 manifesto and is unlike anything in their document. So why not give the Rwanda proposal an actual chance at democratic accountability and call a general election? | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. In fairness, you are the target audience for this publicity stunt. People are against it because it's a massive waste of money that won't achieve anything for the country, but will achieve bolstering support for the Tories. Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself Why would the government wasting millions on a pointless scheme make me feel better about myself? Anyways, it's a waste of money because it's a pointless scheme that has had lots of legal troubles and won't solve any problems. You are still not providing an answer other than parroting waste of money.. I'm pretty certain you have no idea about the scheme and who qualifies for the scheme, other than what you have heard on this forum or read on some liberal progressive website. Nope. Wrong. Try to focus on the topic instead of on me. If there is a question that you want me to answer though, feel free. If it's a classic, barely related question, if you could add context as to why you're asking. It would help when answering. Back up... You started your original post to me in a derogatory manner. An please stop with the never ending what is the question, read back digest it and answer it, if you don't want to, refrain yourself. This question? "Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself" Cost so far £240 mil. 161,000 outstanding asylum cases (although this figure is a year or two out of date) Total achievements so far. Nil. Legal problems. Multiple. Total proposed number of humans to be trafficked to Rwanda. 200 per year over the first five years. Or 0.12% of the outstanding claimants. Meanwhile, what has it actually achieved in real terms. Hard to measure, but it's energied the anti-immigrant element of the Tory party support. " You are talking about figures in the UK which are not being altered by Rwanda so not relevant until the scheme starts, we know to many people are crossing the channel and entering the country illegally. The numbers you quote are incorrect, total fabrication by the media, you are a champion of media influence awareness, are you not? I’m still waiting to hear why this scheme is not good | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. In fairness, you are the target audience for this publicity stunt. People are against it because it's a massive waste of money that won't achieve anything for the country, but will achieve bolstering support for the Tories. Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself Why would the government wasting millions on a pointless scheme make me feel better about myself? Anyways, it's a waste of money because it's a pointless scheme that has had lots of legal troubles and won't solve any problems. You are still not providing an answer other than parroting waste of money.. I'm pretty certain you have no idea about the scheme and who qualifies for the scheme, other than what you have heard on this forum or read on some liberal progressive website. Nope. Wrong. Try to focus on the topic instead of on me. If there is a question that you want me to answer though, feel free. If it's a classic, barely related question, if you could add context as to why you're asking. It would help when answering. Back up... You started your original post to me in a derogatory manner. An please stop with the never ending what is the question, read back digest it and answer it, if you don't want to, refrain yourself. This question? "Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself" Cost so far £240 mil. 161,000 outstanding asylum cases (although this figure is a year or two out of date) Total achievements so far. Nil. Legal problems. Multiple. Total proposed number of humans to be trafficked to Rwanda. 200 per year over the first five years. Or 0.12% of the outstanding claimants. Meanwhile, what has it actually achieved in real terms. Hard to measure, but it's energied the anti-immigrant element of the Tory party support. You are talking about figures in the UK which are not being altered by Rwanda so not relevant until the scheme starts, we know to many people are crossing the channel and entering the country illegally. The numbers you quote are incorrect, total fabrication by the media, you are a champion of media influence awareness, are you not? I’m still waiting to hear why this scheme is not good" What are the figures? If wasting 100s of millions of tax payers money on a pointless scheme that solves nothing isn't "not good" for you then I guess we're just in disagreement. Maybe some people think spunking all that cash down the toilet is worth it to garner support for the Tories. | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. In fairness, you are the target audience for this publicity stunt. People are against it because it's a massive waste of money that won't achieve anything for the country, but will achieve bolstering support for the Tories. Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself Why would the government wasting millions on a pointless scheme make me feel better about myself? Anyways, it's a waste of money because it's a pointless scheme that has had lots of legal troubles and won't solve any problems. You are still not providing an answer other than parroting waste of money.. I'm pretty certain you have no idea about the scheme and who qualifies for the scheme, other than what you have heard on this forum or read on some liberal progressive website. Nope. Wrong. Try to focus on the topic instead of on me. If there is a question that you want me to answer though, feel free. If it's a classic, barely related question, if you could add context as to why you're asking. It would help when answering. Back up... You started your original post to me in a derogatory manner. An please stop with the never ending what is the question, read back digest it and answer it, if you don't want to, refrain yourself. This question? "Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself" Cost so far £240 mil. 161,000 outstanding asylum cases (although this figure is a year or two out of date) Total achievements so far. Nil. Legal problems. Multiple. Total proposed number of humans to be trafficked to Rwanda. 200 per year over the first five years. Or 0.12% of the outstanding claimants. Meanwhile, what has it actually achieved in real terms. Hard to measure, but it's energied the anti-immigrant element of the Tory party support. You are talking about figures in the UK which are not being altered by Rwanda so not relevant until the scheme starts, we know to many people are crossing the channel and entering the country illegally. The numbers you quote are incorrect, total fabrication by the media, you are a champion of media influence awareness, are you not? I’m still waiting to hear why this scheme is not good What are the figures? If wasting 100s of millions of tax payers money on a pointless scheme that solves nothing isn't "not good" for you then I guess we're just in disagreement. Maybe some people think spunking all that cash down the toilet is worth it to garner support for the Tories. " Tell me how the money is wasted, is your bias based on facts? You continue to add soundbites and anger comments, without presenting an argument. | |||
| |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. In fairness, you are the target audience for this publicity stunt. People are against it because it's a massive waste of money that won't achieve anything for the country, but will achieve bolstering support for the Tories. Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself Why would the government wasting millions on a pointless scheme make me feel better about myself? Anyways, it's a waste of money because it's a pointless scheme that has had lots of legal troubles and won't solve any problems. You are still not providing an answer other than parroting waste of money.. I'm pretty certain you have no idea about the scheme and who qualifies for the scheme, other than what you have heard on this forum or read on some liberal progressive website. Nope. Wrong. Try to focus on the topic instead of on me. If there is a question that you want me to answer though, feel free. If it's a classic, barely related question, if you could add context as to why you're asking. It would help when answering. Back up... You started your original post to me in a derogatory manner. An please stop with the never ending what is the question, read back digest it and answer it, if you don't want to, refrain yourself. This question? "Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself" Cost so far £240 mil. 161,000 outstanding asylum cases (although this figure is a year or two out of date) Total achievements so far. Nil. Legal problems. Multiple. Total proposed number of humans to be trafficked to Rwanda. 200 per year over the first five years. Or 0.12% of the outstanding claimants. Meanwhile, what has it actually achieved in real terms. Hard to measure, but it's energied the anti-immigrant element of the Tory party support. You are talking about figures in the UK which are not being altered by Rwanda so not relevant until the scheme starts, we know to many people are crossing the channel and entering the country illegally. The numbers you quote are incorrect, total fabrication by the media, you are a champion of media influence awareness, are you not? I’m still waiting to hear why this scheme is not good What are the figures? If wasting 100s of millions of tax payers money on a pointless scheme that solves nothing isn't "not good" for you then I guess we're just in disagreement. Maybe some people think spunking all that cash down the toilet is worth it to garner support for the Tories. Tell me how the money is wasted, is your bias based on facts? " £240 mil. Unless that figure is incorrect?feel free to give me the correct figure of how much has been wasted " You continue to add soundbites and anger comments, without presenting an argument." It's all layed out for you with numbers. Not sure what else I can do. All you're doing is turning the argument on me personally instead of discussing the topic. | |||
| |||
"It's back... The gaslighting slogan of all slogans. Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Truth is the only "will of the people at the moment" is for the Conservatives to hold a General Election so that the electorate can demonstrate what the will of the people really is. " I had to laugh when Fiona, on QT, said " but it's not 'stop most of the boats'", talking about Rwanda as a deterrent. It annoys me when the MPs then use Albania as a fantastic example as a deterrent. Different ball game altogether. If you leave Albania, you get returned. If you leave x,y,Z you get sent to Rwanda. Rwanda is an unknown and is likely to be considered better than living fe in x,y,Z. As for 'the will of the people'... What bollocks. Brexit was the will of the people due to the result of the referendum. This is 'the will of the people'S REPRESENTATIVES'. | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take." Minority? Evidence? | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. In fairness, you are the target audience for this publicity stunt. People are against it because it's a massive waste of money that won't achieve anything for the country, but will achieve bolstering support for the Tories. Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself" Ooh judgy | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take.Rwanda can't process applications safely. I have other other issues with moral duties around numbers of refugees we should be taking, and a view on sending people to a country so recently in turmoil. But I can't see how anyone can be happy to send anyone to a place that our SC has found to be unsafe. And how anyone can support having a law made that is forcing the SC to ignore the facts and accept the force of the government. "
"The law is an ass" rings true. | |||
"It annoys me when the MPs then use Albania as a fantastic example as a deterrent. Different ball game altogether. If you leave Albania, you get returned. If you leave x,y,Z you get sent to Rwanda. Rwanda is an unknown and is likely to be considered better than living fe in x,y,Z." The people that came here from Albania were economic migrants. They came here because they could make money more easily than back at home. They quickly learned to play the system and claim all sorts of reasons to prevent their deportation. A community grew up in the UK, word spread back to Albania, and more and more Albanians started to arrive. The recent deal with Albania which allows us to just return these people has completely stopped arrivals from Albania. If they're just going to get sent back, what's the point in taking the risk of the journey? The Rwanda scheme works in exactly the same way to deter economic migrants from other places. Once word spreads, people that want to come here to make money will realise that they'll just end up in Rwanda, so it's not worth the risk of the crossing. Obviously, the Rwanda scheme won't deter genuine refugees, but it's not intended to do that. | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. In fairness, you are the target audience for this publicity stunt. People are against it because it's a massive waste of money that won't achieve anything for the country, but will achieve bolstering support for the Tories. Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself Why would the government wasting millions on a pointless scheme make me feel better about myself? Anyways, it's a waste of money because it's a pointless scheme that has had lots of legal troubles and won't solve any problems. You are still not providing an answer other than parroting waste of money.. I'm pretty certain you have no idea about the scheme and who qualifies for the scheme, other than what you have heard on this forum or read on some liberal progressive website. Nope. Wrong. Try to focus on the topic instead of on me. If there is a question that you want me to answer though, feel free. If it's a classic, barely related question, if you could add context as to why you're asking. It would help when answering. Back up... You started your original post to me in a derogatory manner. An please stop with the never ending what is the question, read back digest it and answer it, if you don't want to, refrain yourself. This question? "Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself" Cost so far £240 mil. 161,000 outstanding asylum cases (although this figure is a year or two out of date) Total achievements so far. Nil. Legal problems. Multiple. Total proposed number of humans to be trafficked to Rwanda. 200 per year over the first five years. Or 0.12% of the outstanding claimants. Meanwhile, what has it actually achieved in real terms. Hard to measure, but it's energied the anti-immigrant element of the Tory party support. You are talking about figures in the UK which are not being altered by Rwanda so not relevant until the scheme starts, we know to many people are crossing the channel and entering the country illegally. The numbers you quote are incorrect, total fabrication by the media, you are a champion of media influence awareness, are you not? I’m still waiting to hear why this scheme is not good What are the figures? If wasting 100s of millions of tax payers money on a pointless scheme that solves nothing isn't "not good" for you then I guess we're just in disagreement. Maybe some people think spunking all that cash down the toilet is worth it to garner support for the Tories. Tell me how the money is wasted, is your bias based on facts? £240 mil. Unless that figure is incorrect?feel free to give me the correct figure of how much has been wasted You continue to add soundbites and anger comments, without presenting an argument. It's all layed out for you with numbers. Not sure what else I can do. All you're doing is turning the argument on me personally instead of discussing the topic. " £240 million, waiting to be used, we need to get using the service we have paid for and start to see if it brings the benefits we hope. The numbers Rwanda can take is not 200, or 100 or any number so low. That number was taken from a representative who answered the question based on the number of people in one facility not the overall scheme, that number is as many as is sent. Now you know the above, what else is there that you think is terrible.. We can go through them one by one of you like. | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. Minority? Evidence?" Brexit is a shining example, the top priority for both big parties. Polling, the majority of people think immigration should be reduced a lot, the polling phrase not mine. look in to some of this yourself, it helps form a more considered understanding | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. In fairness, you are the target audience for this publicity stunt. People are against it because it's a massive waste of money that won't achieve anything for the country, but will achieve bolstering support for the Tories. Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself Why would the government wasting millions on a pointless scheme make me feel better about myself? Anyways, it's a waste of money because it's a pointless scheme that has had lots of legal troubles and won't solve any problems. You are still not providing an answer other than parroting waste of money.. I'm pretty certain you have no idea about the scheme and who qualifies for the scheme, other than what you have heard on this forum or read on some liberal progressive website. Google Hashi Mohamed. He was a Somalian refugee who came to the U.K. as a child. He is now a Lawyer, author and TV Personality who quite eloquently summarised the failings of the Rwanda scheme on BBC QT last night. It was quite a two minute articulation which was deservedly well applauded." The Israel-Rwanda scheme was mentioned (to Rwanda as an option), didn't that fail? | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. In fairness, you are the target audience for this publicity stunt. People are against it because it's a massive waste of money that won't achieve anything for the country, but will achieve bolstering support for the Tories. Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself Why would the government wasting millions on a pointless scheme make me feel better about myself? Anyways, it's a waste of money because it's a pointless scheme that has had lots of legal troubles and won't solve any problems. You are still not providing an answer other than parroting waste of money.. I'm pretty certain you have no idea about the scheme and who qualifies for the scheme, other than what you have heard on this forum or read on some liberal progressive website. Google Hashi Mohamed. He was a Somalian refugee who came to the U.K. as a child. He is now a Lawyer, author and TV Personality who quite eloquently summarised the failings of the Rwanda scheme on BBC QT last night. It was quite a two minute articulation which was deservedly well applauded. The Israel-Rwanda scheme was mentioned (to Rwanda as an option), didn't that fail?" Rhetorical question much... you know it was mentioned you must know the outcome. | |||
"It annoys me when the MPs then use Albania as a fantastic example as a deterrent. Different ball game altogether. If you leave Albania, you get returned. If you leave x,y,Z you get sent to Rwanda. Rwanda is an unknown and is likely to be considered better than living fe in x,y,Z. The people that came here from Albania were economic migrants. They came here because they could make money more easily than back at home. They quickly learned to play the system and claim all sorts of reasons to prevent their deportation. A community grew up in the UK, word spread back to Albania, and more and more Albanians started to arrive. The recent deal with Albania which allows us to just return these people has completely stopped arrivals from Albania. If they're just going to get sent back, what's the point in taking the risk of the journey? The Rwanda scheme works in exactly the same way to deter economic migrants from other places. Once word spreads, people that want to come here to make money will realise that they'll just end up in Rwanda, so it's not worth the risk of the crossing. Obviously, the Rwanda scheme won't deter genuine refugees, but it's not intended to do that." My point still stands but I take your point it has potential to stop the economic migrants. But what percentage are economic? | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. Minority? Evidence? Brexit is a shining example, the top priority for both big parties. Polling, the majority of people think immigration should be reduced a lot, the polling phrase not mine. look in to some of this yourself, it helps form a more considered understanding " Riiiight, thanks for the advice. Don't want or need it. Another poster has already stated there's a common misconception that "the boats" is a larger representation of the total immigration numbers than is. So polling, as a snapshot, can be off base. | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. In fairness, you are the target audience for this publicity stunt. People are against it because it's a massive waste of money that won't achieve anything for the country, but will achieve bolstering support for the Tories. Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself Why would the government wasting millions on a pointless scheme make me feel better about myself? Anyways, it's a waste of money because it's a pointless scheme that has had lots of legal troubles and won't solve any problems. You are still not providing an answer other than parroting waste of money.. I'm pretty certain you have no idea about the scheme and who qualifies for the scheme, other than what you have heard on this forum or read on some liberal progressive website. Google Hashi Mohamed. He was a Somalian refugee who came to the U.K. as a child. He is now a Lawyer, author and TV Personality who quite eloquently summarised the failings of the Rwanda scheme on BBC QT last night. It was quite a two minute articulation which was deservedly well applauded. The Israel-Rwanda scheme was mentioned (to Rwanda as an option), didn't that fail? Rhetorical question much... you know it was mentioned you must know the outcome. " It was encouragement to look into it.  | |||
| |||
"How can Sunak know what the will of the people is? He is another PM who was not elected by the public and got the position through the old boys act of arse lickers. He'll soon learn what the will of the people is when he and his party get wiped out at the next election " A PM is not elected by the public
I agree that the tories will not win form a government at the next election | |||
"How can Sunak know what the will of the people is?" As has been pointed out above, he commissions opinion polls, and then reads the results. | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. Minority? Evidence? Brexit is a shining example, the top priority for both big parties. Polling, the majority of people think immigration should be reduced a lot, the polling phrase not mine. look in to some of this yourself, it helps form a more considered understanding Riiiight, thanks for the advice. Don't want or need it. Another poster has already stated there's a common misconception that "the boats" is a larger representation of the total immigration numbers than is. So polling, as a snapshot, can be off base." Another poster said.... this forum is a poor place for facts but you pick your sources of information as you wish, don't be surprised when your view point falls apart under scrutiny.
| |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. Minority? Evidence? Brexit is a shining example, the top priority for both big parties. Polling, the majority of people think immigration should be reduced a lot, the polling phrase not mine. look in to some of this yourself, it helps form a more considered understanding Riiiight, thanks for the advice. Don't want or need it. Another poster has already stated there's a common misconception that "the boats" is a larger representation of the total immigration numbers than is. So polling, as a snapshot, can be off base. Another poster said.... this forum is a poor place for facts but you pick your sources of information as you wish, don't be surprised when your view point falls apart under scrutiny.
"I have stated points. I haven't stated my viewpoint. Ha! | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. Minority? Evidence? Brexit is a shining example, the top priority for both big parties. Polling, the majority of people think immigration should be reduced a lot, the polling phrase not mine. look in to some of this yourself, it helps form a more considered understanding Riiiight, thanks for the advice. Don't want or need it. Another poster has already stated there's a common misconception that "the boats" is a larger representation of the total immigration numbers than is. So polling, as a snapshot, can be off base. Another poster said.... this forum is a poor place for facts but you pick your sources of information as you wish, don't be surprised when your view point falls apart under scrutiny.
I have stated points. I haven't stated my viewpoint. Ha!"Fair enough. What is your view point? | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. In fairness, you are the target audience for this publicity stunt. People are against it because it's a massive waste of money that won't achieve anything for the country, but will achieve bolstering support for the Tories. Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself Why would the government wasting millions on a pointless scheme make me feel better about myself? Anyways, it's a waste of money because it's a pointless scheme that has had lots of legal troubles and won't solve any problems. You are still not providing an answer other than parroting waste of money.. I'm pretty certain you have no idea about the scheme and who qualifies for the scheme, other than what you have heard on this forum or read on some liberal progressive website. Nope. Wrong. Try to focus on the topic instead of on me. If there is a question that you want me to answer though, feel free. If it's a classic, barely related question, if you could add context as to why you're asking. It would help when answering. Back up... You started your original post to me in a derogatory manner. An please stop with the never ending what is the question, read back digest it and answer it, if you don't want to, refrain yourself. This question? "Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself" Cost so far £240 mil. 161,000 outstanding asylum cases (although this figure is a year or two out of date) Total achievements so far. Nil. Legal problems. Multiple. Total proposed number of humans to be trafficked to Rwanda. 200 per year over the first five years. Or 0.12% of the outstanding claimants. Meanwhile, what has it actually achieved in real terms. Hard to measure, but it's energied the anti-immigrant element of the Tory party support. You are talking about figures in the UK which are not being altered by Rwanda so not relevant until the scheme starts, we know to many people are crossing the channel and entering the country illegally. The numbers you quote are incorrect, total fabrication by the media, you are a champion of media influence awareness, are you not? I’m still waiting to hear why this scheme is not good What are the figures? If wasting 100s of millions of tax payers money on a pointless scheme that solves nothing isn't "not good" for you then I guess we're just in disagreement. Maybe some people think spunking all that cash down the toilet is worth it to garner support for the Tories. Tell me how the money is wasted, is your bias based on facts? £240 mil. Unless that figure is incorrect?feel free to give me the correct figure of how much has been wasted You continue to add soundbites and anger comments, without presenting an argument. It's all layed out for you with numbers. Not sure what else I can do. All you're doing is turning the argument on me personally instead of discussing the topic. £240 million, waiting to be used, we need to get using the service we have paid for and start to see if it brings the benefits we hope. The numbers Rwanda can take is not 200, or 100 or any number so low. That number was taken from a representative who answered the question based on the number of people in one facility not the overall scheme, that number is as many as is sent. Now you know the above, what else is there that you think is terrible.. We can go through them one by one of you like." When you say "now you know the above" you haven't said anything except you believe the number to be inaccurate, and that you hope there will be benefits. Feel free to provide the correct numbers. As it stands it's a lot of money, that is doing fuck all, and is projected to do very little. | |||
"How can Sunak know what the will of the people is? He is another PM who was not elected by the public and got the position through the old boys act of arse lickers. He'll soon learn what the will of the people is when he and his party get wiped out at the next election A PM is not elected by the public
I agree that the tories will not win form a government at the next election"I would agree the PM is not directly elected by the public as a whole but would say they are elected by their constituents so not unelected as some say. However it is true that at a GE you generally know who will be PM if their party wins. This time around we know SKS will be PM | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. In fairness, you are the target audience for this publicity stunt. People are against it because it's a massive waste of money that won't achieve anything for the country, but will achieve bolstering support for the Tories. Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself Why would the government wasting millions on a pointless scheme make me feel better about myself? Anyways, it's a waste of money because it's a pointless scheme that has had lots of legal troubles and won't solve any problems. You are still not providing an answer other than parroting waste of money.. I'm pretty certain you have no idea about the scheme and who qualifies for the scheme, other than what you have heard on this forum or read on some liberal progressive website. Nope. Wrong. Try to focus on the topic instead of on me. If there is a question that you want me to answer though, feel free. If it's a classic, barely related question, if you could add context as to why you're asking. It would help when answering. Back up... You started your original post to me in a derogatory manner. An please stop with the never ending what is the question, read back digest it and answer it, if you don't want to, refrain yourself. This question? "Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself" Cost so far £240 mil. 161,000 outstanding asylum cases (although this figure is a year or two out of date) Total achievements so far. Nil. Legal problems. Multiple. Total proposed number of humans to be trafficked to Rwanda. 200 per year over the first five years. Or 0.12% of the outstanding claimants. Meanwhile, what has it actually achieved in real terms. Hard to measure, but it's energied the anti-immigrant element of the Tory party support. You are talking about figures in the UK which are not being altered by Rwanda so not relevant until the scheme starts, we know to many people are crossing the channel and entering the country illegally. The numbers you quote are incorrect, total fabrication by the media, you are a champion of media influence awareness, are you not? I’m still waiting to hear why this scheme is not good What are the figures? If wasting 100s of millions of tax payers money on a pointless scheme that solves nothing isn't "not good" for you then I guess we're just in disagreement. Maybe some people think spunking all that cash down the toilet is worth it to garner support for the Tories. Tell me how the money is wasted, is your bias based on facts? £240 mil. Unless that figure is incorrect?feel free to give me the correct figure of how much has been wasted You continue to add soundbites and anger comments, without presenting an argument. It's all layed out for you with numbers. Not sure what else I can do. All you're doing is turning the argument on me personally instead of discussing the topic. £240 million, waiting to be used, we need to get using the service we have paid for and start to see if it brings the benefits we hope. The numbers Rwanda can take is not 200, or 100 or any number so low. That number was taken from a representative who answered the question based on the number of people in one facility not the overall scheme, that number is as many as is sent. Now you know the above, what else is there that you think is terrible.. We can go through them one by one of you like. When you say "now you know the above" you haven't said anything except you believe the number to be inaccurate, and that you hope there will be benefits. Feel free to provide the correct numbers. As it stands it's a lot of money, that is doing fuck all, and is projected to do very little." there is no maximum number, I can't be clearer than that. And my point is, yes it is a lot of money doing nothing, and we need to get this scheme up and running to see if it brings the returns or not. | |||
"How can Sunak know what the will of the people is? He is another PM who was not elected by the public and got the position through the old boys act of arse lickers. He'll soon learn what the will of the people is when he and his party get wiped out at the next election A PM is not elected by the public
I agree that the tories will not win form a government at the next election
I would agree the PM is not directly elected by the public as a whole but would say they are elected by their constituents so not unelected as some say. However it is true that at a GE you generally know who will be PM if their party wins. This time around we know SKS will be PM"Understood, but if people are voting for the PM through their MP by proxy they might be shooting themselves in the foot. | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. In fairness, you are the target audience for this publicity stunt. People are against it because it's a massive waste of money that won't achieve anything for the country, but will achieve bolstering support for the Tories. Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself Why would the government wasting millions on a pointless scheme make me feel better about myself? Anyways, it's a waste of money because it's a pointless scheme that has had lots of legal troubles and won't solve any problems. You are still not providing an answer other than parroting waste of money.. I'm pretty certain you have no idea about the scheme and who qualifies for the scheme, other than what you have heard on this forum or read on some liberal progressive website. Nope. Wrong. Try to focus on the topic instead of on me. If there is a question that you want me to answer though, feel free. If it's a classic, barely related question, if you could add context as to why you're asking. It would help when answering. Back up... You started your original post to me in a derogatory manner. An please stop with the never ending what is the question, read back digest it and answer it, if you don't want to, refrain yourself. This question? "Why is it a waste of money, you are not giving me detailed argument, you are just saying things that make you feel better about yourself" Cost so far £240 mil. 161,000 outstanding asylum cases (although this figure is a year or two out of date) Total achievements so far. Nil. Legal problems. Multiple. Total proposed number of humans to be trafficked to Rwanda. 200 per year over the first five years. Or 0.12% of the outstanding claimants. Meanwhile, what has it actually achieved in real terms. Hard to measure, but it's energied the anti-immigrant element of the Tory party support. You are talking about figures in the UK which are not being altered by Rwanda so not relevant until the scheme starts, we know to many people are crossing the channel and entering the country illegally. The numbers you quote are incorrect, total fabrication by the media, you are a champion of media influence awareness, are you not? I’m still waiting to hear why this scheme is not good What are the figures? If wasting 100s of millions of tax payers money on a pointless scheme that solves nothing isn't "not good" for you then I guess we're just in disagreement. Maybe some people think spunking all that cash down the toilet is worth it to garner support for the Tories. Tell me how the money is wasted, is your bias based on facts? £240 mil. Unless that figure is incorrect?feel free to give me the correct figure of how much has been wasted You continue to add soundbites and anger comments, without presenting an argument. It's all layed out for you with numbers. Not sure what else I can do. All you're doing is turning the argument on me personally instead of discussing the topic. £240 million, waiting to be used, we need to get using the service we have paid for and start to see if it brings the benefits we hope. The numbers Rwanda can take is not 200, or 100 or any number so low. That number was taken from a representative who answered the question based on the number of people in one facility not the overall scheme, that number is as many as is sent. Now you know the above, what else is there that you think is terrible.. We can go through them one by one of you like. When you say "now you know the above" you haven't said anything except you believe the number to be inaccurate, and that you hope there will be benefits. Feel free to provide the correct numbers. As it stands it's a lot of money, that is doing fuck all, and is projected to do very little. there is no maximum number, I can't be clearer than that. And my point is, yes it is a lot of money doing nothing, and we need to get this scheme up and running to see if it brings the returns or not." So we don't know any numbers. Fine. We know it cost a lot of money. Aside from riling up people who are further to the right of the Tory party, what would you expect this scheme to achieve or return? | |||
"How can Sunak know what the will of the people is? As has been pointed out above, he commissions opinion polls, and then reads the results." I seem to recall that opinion polls tend to be dismissed on here so that is really a moot point as they clearly tell him nothing | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. Minority? Evidence? Brexit is a shining example, the top priority for both big parties. Polling, the majority of people think immigration should be reduced a lot, the polling phrase not mine. look in to some of this yourself, it helps form a more considered understanding Riiiight, thanks for the advice. Don't want or need it. Another poster has already stated there's a common misconception that "the boats" is a larger representation of the total immigration numbers than is. So polling, as a snapshot, can be off base. Another poster said.... this forum is a poor place for facts but you pick your sources of information as you wish, don't be surprised when your view point falls apart under scrutiny.
I have stated points. I haven't stated my viewpoint. Ha!
Fair enough.
What is your view point?"I think sunak will have egg on his face but he's committed. Whether it's a case of in for a penny, in for a pound, or good money chasing bad - we will have to wait and see. I think it has a small potential but not enough to warrant the outlay. I think sunak is arrogant to create legislation that overrides a legal ruling by the supreme court. It smacks of a small child who loses a game in the playground and so strops off and makes his own rules and hopes other kids will play his game. The U-turn by cruella, the failure of Israel- Rwanda scheme and subsequent what will they do with the refugees, the quandary of whether Rwanda is safe... I think it has too much against it, like the first plain, for it to get off the ground. Btw I don't mind being proved wrong - it'd be great even if it only reduced the boats by 50%. I just cannot see it. It certainly will not STOP the boats. A reduction is the most we can expect. | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. Minority? Evidence? Brexit is a shining example, the top priority for both big parties. Polling, the majority of people think immigration should be reduced a lot, the polling phrase not mine. look in to some of this yourself, it helps form a more considered understanding Riiiight, thanks for the advice. Don't want or need it. Another poster has already stated there's a common misconception that "the boats" is a larger representation of the total immigration numbers than is. So polling, as a snapshot, can be off base. Another poster said.... this forum is a poor place for facts but you pick your sources of information as you wish, don't be surprised when your view point falls apart under scrutiny.
I have stated points. I haven't stated my viewpoint. Ha!
Fair enough.
What is your view point?
I think sunak will have egg on his face but he's committed. Whether it's a case of in for a penny, in for a pound, or good money chasing bad - we will have to wait and see.
I think it has a small potential but not enough to warrant the outlay. I think sunak is arrogant to create legislation that overrides a legal ruling by the supreme court. It smacks of a small child who loses a game in the playground and so strops off and makes his own rules and hopes other kids will play his game.
The U-turn by cruella, the failure of Israel- Rwanda scheme and subsequent what will they do with the refugees, the quandary of whether Rwanda is safe... I think it has too much against it, like the first plain, for it to get off the ground.
Btw I don't mind being proved wrong - it'd be great even if it only reduced the boats by 50%. I just cannot see it. It certainly will not STOP the boats. A reduction is the most we can expect."Plain? Dozy mare. Plane | |||
"How can Sunak know what the will of the people is? He is another PM who was not elected by the public and got the position through the old boys act of arse lickers. He'll soon learn what the will of the people is when he and his party get wiped out at the next election A PM is not elected by the public
I agree that the tories will not win form a government at the next election
I would agree the PM is not directly elected by the public as a whole but would say they are elected by their constituents so not unelected as some say. However it is true that at a GE you generally know who will be PM if their party wins. This time around we know SKS will be PM"I agree with you Leroy. While the technical process does indeed see people voting for an MP in their constituency that is in a political party and the PM is therefore the person whose party has the most MPs, the way the whole thing is handled in the media with such a huge focus on the leaders of the parties, it actually feels more akin to a presidential election. Just look at threads started here focusing on SKS or Sunak. Many people DO vote for the PM in their own minds. | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. Tell me why it shouldn’t happen without spouting out the incorrect folk law numbers that Rwanda can take. Minority? Evidence? Brexit is a shining example, the top priority for both big parties. Polling, the majority of people think immigration should be reduced a lot, the polling phrase not mine. look in to some of this yourself, it helps form a more considered understanding Riiiight, thanks for the advice. Don't want or need it. Another poster has already stated there's a common misconception that "the boats" is a larger representation of the total immigration numbers than is. So polling, as a snapshot, can be off base. Another poster said.... this forum is a poor place for facts but you pick your sources of information as you wish, don't be surprised when your view point falls apart under scrutiny.
I have stated points. I haven't stated my viewpoint. Ha!
Fair enough.
What is your view point?
I think sunak will have egg on his face but he's committed. Whether it's a case of in for a penny, in for a pound, or good money chasing bad - we will have to wait and see.
I think it has a small potential but not enough to warrant the outlay. I think sunak is arrogant to create legislation that overrides a legal ruling by the supreme court. It smacks of a small child who loses a game in the playground and so strops off and makes his own rules and hopes other kids will play his game.
The U-turn by cruella, the failure of Israel- Rwanda scheme and subsequent what will they do with the refugees, the quandary of whether Rwanda is safe... I think it has too much against it, like the first plain, for it to get off the ground.
Btw I don't mind being proved wrong - it'd be great even if it only reduced the boats by 50%. I just cannot see it. It certainly will not STOP the boats. A reduction is the most we can expect." | |||
" And my point is, yes it is a lot of money doing nothing, and we need to get this scheme up and running to see if it brings the returns or not." Sunk-cost fallacy | |||
" And my point is, yes it is a lot of money doing nothing, and we need to get this scheme up and running to see if it brings the returns or not. Sunk-cost fallacy" Absolute nonsense! it’s paid for and waiting to be used, if it doesn’t return spend no more. | |||
| |||
" The "will of the people" regarding Rwanda is that the Bill should be tougher than proposed." Presumably some people do think this, and others differently. "The will of some people but not others" would have been more accurate of Sunak. | |||
" The "will of the people" regarding Rwanda is that the Bill should be tougher than proposed. Presumably some people do think this, and others differently. "The will of some people but not others" would have been more accurate of Sunak." how about, not the will of the minority? I think that has more meaningful feel | |||
" The "will of the people" regarding Rwanda is that the Bill should be tougher than proposed." Given that in recent polling people greatly exaggerated the percentage of illegal immigrants in the U.K., you may well be right. ‘The will of the people’ is irrelevant if they don’t have access to all the facts. | |||
" The "will of the people" regarding Rwanda is that the Bill should be tougher than proposed. Given that in recent polling people greatly exaggerated the percentage of illegal immigrants in the U.K., you may well be right. ‘The will of the people’ is irrelevant if they don’t have access to all the facts. " Polling and exaggerated % you say? If I said 43K arrived last year by small boat illegally, and only 1% of those making the crossing were deported, should we think 42670 people are now legal and we only had 430 illegal entries? How was the question constructed? | |||
" The "will of the people" regarding Rwanda is that the Bill should be tougher than proposed. Given that in recent polling people greatly exaggerated the percentage of illegal immigrants in the U.K., you may well be right. ‘The will of the people’ is irrelevant if they don’t have access to all the facts. Polling and exaggerated % you say? If I said 43K arrived last year by small boat illegally, and only 1% of those making the crossing were deported, should we think 42670 people are now legal and we only had 430 illegal entries? How was the question constructed?" The question was ‘what percentage of migrants to the U.K were here illegally’ I believe. Supporters of all main parties overestimated the percentage greatly. | |||
" The "will of the people" regarding Rwanda is that the Bill should be tougher than proposed. Given that in recent polling people greatly exaggerated the percentage of illegal immigrants in the U.K., you may well be right. ‘The will of the people’ is irrelevant if they don’t have access to all the facts. Polling and exaggerated % you say? If I said 43K arrived last year by small boat illegally, and only 1% of those making the crossing were deported, should we think 42670 people are now legal and we only had 430 illegal entries? How was the question constructed? The question was ‘what percentage of migrants to the U.K were here illegally’ I believe. Supporters of all main parties overestimated the percentage greatly. " Where can we find this poll? Poll links are allowed | |||
" The "will of the people" regarding Rwanda is that the Bill should be tougher than proposed. Given that in recent polling people greatly exaggerated the percentage of illegal immigrants in the U.K., you may well be right. ‘The will of the people’ is irrelevant if they don’t have access to all the facts. Polling and exaggerated % you say? If I said 43K arrived last year by small boat illegally, and only 1% of those making the crossing were deported, should we think 42670 people are now legal and we only had 430 illegal entries? How was the question constructed? The question was ‘what percentage of migrants to the U.K were here illegally’ I believe. Supporters of all main parties overestimated the percentage greatly. " what did they say the answer was? I have just googled this very question and I'm getting numbers from 2 million / 1.2 million / 750K and "we don't know". Considering they lost track of 17K that they did know about, I'm putting my money on nobody knows how many. | |||
"It's back... The gaslighting slogan of all slogans. Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Truth is the only "will of the people at the moment" is for the Conservatives to hold a General Election so that the electorate can demonstrate what the will of the people really is. " Why do you put “unelected” in quotation marks? Is the House of Lords elected? The only people who watch the BBC are leftists. I’m not sure we can read much into the views of a BBC audience. Not exactly likely to be a fair representation of the country. And who cares how the electorate vote in a general election. If they vote Labour it’s just an indication of how thick they are, probably Russian interference, and another election needs to be held as soon a possible to check if they’ve changed their minds. | |||
"It's back... The gaslighting slogan of all slogans. Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Truth is the only "will of the people at the moment" is for the Conservatives to hold a General Election so that the electorate can demonstrate what the will of the people really is. Why do you put “unelected” in quotation marks? Is the House of Lords elected? The only people who watch the BBC are leftists. I’m not sure we can read much into the views of a BBC audience. Not exactly likely to be a fair representation of the country. And who cares how the electorate vote in a general election. If they vote Labour it’s just an indication of how thick they are, probably Russian interference, and another election needs to be held as soon a possible to check if they’ve changed their minds." You do realise trolling/baiting is against forum rules. I'll take the bait and simply assure you, not only do I watch the BBC, I shall vote labour and I'm far from having a low intelligence. | |||
"It's back... The gaslighting slogan of all slogans. Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Truth is the only "will of the people at the moment" is for the Conservatives to hold a General Election so that the electorate can demonstrate what the will of the people really is. Why do you put “unelected” in quotation marks? Is the House of Lords elected? The only people who watch the BBC are leftists. I’m not sure we can read much into the views of a BBC audience. Not exactly likely to be a fair representation of the country. And who cares how the electorate vote in a general election. If they vote Labour it’s just an indication of how thick they are, probably Russian interference, and another election needs to be held as soon a possible to check if they’ve changed their minds. You do realise trolling/baiting is against forum rules. I'll take the bait and simply assure you, not only do I watch the BBC, I shall vote labour and I'm far from having a low intelligence." Well I suppose voting for a party because you think they will give you more cash shows a sort of base intelligence. | |||
"It's back... The gaslighting slogan of all slogans. Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Truth is the only "will of the people at the moment" is for the Conservatives to hold a General Election so that the electorate can demonstrate what the will of the people really is. Why do you put “unelected” in quotation marks? Is the House of Lords elected? The only people who watch the BBC are leftists. I’m not sure we can read much into the views of a BBC audience. Not exactly likely to be a fair representation of the country. And who cares how the electorate vote in a general election. If they vote Labour it’s just an indication of how thick they are, probably Russian interference, and another election needs to be held as soon a possible to check if they’ve changed their minds. You do realise trolling/baiting is against forum rules. I'll take the bait and simply assure you, not only do I watch the BBC, I shall vote labour and I'm far from having a low intelligence. Well I suppose voting for a party because you think they will give you more cash shows a sort of base intelligence." Bless ya cotton socks. | |||
"It's back... The gaslighting slogan of all slogans. Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Truth is the only "will of the people at the moment" is for the Conservatives to hold a General Election so that the electorate can demonstrate what the will of the people really is. Why do you put “unelected” in quotation marks? Is the House of Lords elected? The only people who watch the BBC are leftists. I’m not sure we can read much into the views of a BBC audience. Not exactly likely to be a fair representation of the country. And who cares how the electorate vote in a general election. If they vote Labour it’s just an indication of how thick they are, probably Russian interference, and another election needs to be held as soon a possible to check if they’ve changed their minds." Prove it! Where’s your evidence for those statements Rog? | |||
" The "will of the people" regarding Rwanda is that the Bill should be tougher than proposed. Presumably some people do think this, and others differently. "The will of some people but not others" would have been more accurate of Sunak. how about, not the will of the minority? I think that has more meaningful feel" If you like. But what a sad state this country finds it in when a majority of people are in favour of the government spunking 100s of millions of tax payers money on a scheme to boost their popularity amongst those who are obsessed with immigrants. | |||
"It's back... The gaslighting slogan of all slogans. Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Truth is the only "will of the people at the moment" is for the Conservatives to hold a General Election so that the electorate can demonstrate what the will of the people really is. Why do you put “unelected” in quotation marks? Is the House of Lords elected? The only people who watch the BBC are leftists. I’m not sure we can read much into the views of a BBC audience. Not exactly likely to be a fair representation of the country. And who cares how the electorate vote in a general election. If they vote Labour it’s just an indication of how thick they are, probably Russian interference, and another election needs to be held as soon a possible to check if they’ve changed their minds." That's right. Anyone who watches Blue Planet is a "leftist". And anyone who wants a less corrupt self serving government is "thick". Top notch. | |||
"It's back... The gaslighting slogan of all slogans. Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Truth is the only "will of the people at the moment" is for the Conservatives to hold a General Election so that the electorate can demonstrate what the will of the people really is. Why do you put “unelected” in quotation marks? Is the House of Lords elected? The only people who watch the BBC are leftists. I’m not sure we can read much into the views of a BBC audience. Not exactly likely to be a fair representation of the country. And who cares how the electorate vote in a general election. If they vote Labour it’s just an indication of how thick they are, probably Russian interference, and another election needs to be held as soon a possible to check if they’ve changed their minds. That's right. Anyone who watches Blue Planet is a "leftist". And anyone who wants a less corrupt self serving government is "thick". Top notch. " As I’ve said before I’m struggling to understand why you don’t love this government. Higher immigration than ever before, highest taxes for seventy years, rampant p igacy, nut zero ideologues, foreign wars, woke on the rampage. Surely it’s your fantasy regime! | |||
| |||
"It's back... The gaslighting slogan of all slogans. Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Truth is the only "will of the people at the moment" is for the Conservatives to hold a General Election so that the electorate can demonstrate what the will of the people really is. Why do you put “unelected” in quotation marks? Is the House of Lords elected? The only people who watch the BBC are leftists. I’m not sure we can read much into the views of a BBC audience. Not exactly likely to be a fair representation of the country. And who cares how the electorate vote in a general election. If they vote Labour it’s just an indication of how thick they are, probably Russian interference, and another election needs to be held as soon a possible to check if they’ve changed their minds. That's right. Anyone who watches Blue Planet is a "leftist". And anyone who wants a less corrupt self serving government is "thick". Top notch. As I’ve said before I’m struggling to understand why you don’t love this government. Higher immigration than ever before, highest taxes for seventy years, rampant p igacy, nut zero ideologues, foreign wars, woke on the rampage. Surely it’s your fantasy regime!"As funny as this kind of stuff is, and I could have replied with sarcasm. But I genuinely don't know if you're for real or not, the views you express are so extreme, but you were the same with your previous accounts. When someone expresses views so far detached from reality, there's not really anything to debate. Genuinely hope everything is okay with you, not joking, not being sarcastic. | |||
" The "will of the people" regarding Rwanda is that the Bill should be tougher than proposed. Presumably some people do think this, and others differently. "The will of some people but not others" would have been more accurate of Sunak. how about, not the will of the minority? I think that has more meaningful feel If you like. But what a sad state this country finds it in when a majority of people are in favour of the government spunking 100s of millions of tax payers money on a scheme to boost their popularity amongst those who are obsessed with immigrants. " Your comment is, what a sad state of affairs that the government is spending money on what people are concerned about. Is this why you do not vote for one of the big 2, you have a minority view and they don’t cater for it? | |||
"It's back... The gaslighting slogan of all slogans. Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Truth is the only "will of the people at the moment" is for the Conservatives to hold a General Election so that the electorate can demonstrate what the will of the people really is. Why do you put “unelected” in quotation marks? Is the House of Lords elected? The only people who watch the BBC are leftists. I’m not sure we can read much into the views of a BBC audience. Not exactly likely to be a fair representation of the country. And who cares how the electorate vote in a general election. If they vote Labour it’s just an indication of how thick they are, probably Russian interference, and another election needs to be held as soon a possible to check if they’ve changed their minds. That's right. Anyone who watches Blue Planet is a "leftist". And anyone who wants a less corrupt self serving government is "thick". Top notch. As I’ve said before I’m struggling to understand why you don’t love this government. Higher immigration than ever before, highest taxes for seventy years, rampant p igacy, nut zero ideologues, foreign wars, woke on the rampage. Surely it’s your fantasy regime!
As funny as this kind of stuff is, and I could have replied with sarcasm. But I genuinely don't know if you're for real or not, the views you express are so extreme, but you were the same with your previous accounts.
When someone expresses views so far detached from reality, there's not really anything to debate. Genuinely hope everything is okay with you, not joking, not being sarcastic. "Says the person who thinks he lives in a country where everyone else is an extremist and he is the only moderate one, and who lives 24/7 on the politics forum of a swingers website. But thanks for your concern about my well being. | |||
" The "will of the people" regarding Rwanda is that the Bill should be tougher than proposed. Presumably some people do think this, and others differently. "The will of some people but not others" would have been more accurate of Sunak. how about, not the will of the minority? I think that has more meaningful feel If you like. But what a sad state this country finds it in when a majority of people are in favour of the government spunking 100s of millions of tax payers money on a scheme to boost their popularity amongst those who are obsessed with immigrants. Your comment is, what a sad state of affairs that the government is spending money on what people are concerned about. Is this why you do not vote for one of the big 2, you have a minority view and they don’t cater for it?" Are people concerned about making sure the Tories spunk away 100s of millions of tax payers money making themselves more popular with people who are obsessed with immigrants? Your second question is actually interesting. I answered it somewhere else. My opinion is that our current system of parliamentary democracy is not fit for the purpose of representing British people. While corporations, billionaires, and other interested parties are allowed to donate to political parties and to individual's campaigns. We don't have a government that prioritises doing what's right for the country. They are obligated to do what the people who donated the most want. I know you asked that question as a dig. But actually that is fine because the above is my point of view. So I don't want to vote for Labour or Conservatives because I don't believe that either will have the interests of British people at the forefront of their minds when making decisions or implementing policies. | |||
"It's back... The gaslighting slogan of all slogans. Sunak is advising the "unelected" House of Lords not to interfere with the will of the people and allow his Rwanda bill to pass unhindered. Odd really that on last night's QT, not a single person thought that the Rwandaplan was a good idea and it certainly was not part of the 2029 Conservative manifesto. Truth is the only "will of the people at the moment" is for the Conservatives to hold a General Election so that the electorate can demonstrate what the will of the people really is. Why do you put “unelected” in quotation marks? Is the House of Lords elected? The only people who watch the BBC are leftists. I’m not sure we can read much into the views of a BBC audience. Not exactly likely to be a fair representation of the country. And who cares how the electorate vote in a general election. If they vote Labour it’s just an indication of how thick they are, probably Russian interference, and another election needs to be held as soon a possible to check if they’ve changed their minds. That's right. Anyone who watches Blue Planet is a "leftist". And anyone who wants a less corrupt self serving government is "thick". Top notch. " | |||
" The "will of the people" regarding Rwanda is that the Bill should be tougher than proposed. Presumably some people do think this, and others differently. "The will of some people but not others" would have been more accurate of Sunak. how about, not the will of the minority? I think that has more meaningful feel If you like. But what a sad state this country finds it in when a majority of people are in favour of the government spunking 100s of millions of tax payers money on a scheme to boost their popularity amongst those who are obsessed with immigrants. Your comment is, what a sad state of affairs that the government is spending money on what people are concerned about. Is this why you do not vote for one of the big 2, you have a minority view and they don’t cater for it? Are people concerned about making sure the Tories spunk away 100s of millions of tax payers money making themselves more popular with people who are obsessed with immigrants? Your second question is actually interesting. I answered it somewhere else. My opinion is that our current system of parliamentary democracy is not fit for the purpose of representing British people. While corporations, billionaires, and other interested parties are allowed to donate to political parties and to individual's campaigns. We don't have a government that prioritises doing what's right for the country. They are obligated to do what the people who donated the most want. I know you asked that question as a dig. But actually that is fine because the above is my point of view. So I don't want to vote for Labour or Conservatives because I don't believe that either will have the interests of British people at the forefront of their minds when making decisions or implementing policies. " And with respect, you do understand you are on the fringes, and not representative of the majority of the country as a whole. Not a bad thing being an individual, but I expect you get frustrated when people don’t understand your motivations, as they are not mainstream | |||
" The "will of the people" regarding Rwanda is that the Bill should be tougher than proposed. Presumably some people do think this, and others differently. "The will of some people but not others" would have been more accurate of Sunak. how about, not the will of the minority? I think that has more meaningful feel If you like. But what a sad state this country finds it in when a majority of people are in favour of the government spunking 100s of millions of tax payers money on a scheme to boost their popularity amongst those who are obsessed with immigrants. Your comment is, what a sad state of affairs that the government is spending money on what people are concerned about. Is this why you do not vote for one of the big 2, you have a minority view and they don’t cater for it? Are people concerned about making sure the Tories spunk away 100s of millions of tax payers money making themselves more popular with people who are obsessed with immigrants? Your second question is actually interesting. I answered it somewhere else. My opinion is that our current system of parliamentary democracy is not fit for the purpose of representing British people. While corporations, billionaires, and other interested parties are allowed to donate to political parties and to individual's campaigns. We don't have a government that prioritises doing what's right for the country. They are obligated to do what the people who donated the most want. I know you asked that question as a dig. But actually that is fine because the above is my point of view. So I don't want to vote for Labour or Conservatives because I don't believe that either will have the interests of British people at the forefront of their minds when making decisions or implementing policies. And with respect, you do understand you are on the fringes, and not representative of the majority of the country as a whole. Not a bad thing being an individual, but I expect you get frustrated when people don’t understand your motivations, as they are not mainstream " I don't get frustrated by people who don't understand my motivations. I can get behind anyone whose motivation is to make the country better, fairer, etc for the people who live here. | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. much snipped there is no maximum number, I can't be clearer than that. And my point is, yes it is a lot of money doing nothing, and we need to get this scheme up and running to see if it brings the returns or not." As with many Brexity type folk you appear to be only looking at one side of this arrangement. There clearly must be a maximum number because there isn’t a single leader of any country in the world who would want to be identified as the person who took the unwanted from another country - for cash. From the news stories recently released Paul Kagame is evidently uncomfortable with his country being seen as a landfill. This is just not going to work and if you were prepared to look at the numbers and what the Rwanda Govt might end up being identified as, you would see that. Look at both countries and imagine you were Paul Kigame. Is that how you would want your country seen? With any deal, or arrangement, there are two parties - not one. Rwanda will not allow itself to be labelled as a landfill, dumping ground for all the people that the U.K. doesn’t want. Surely you can see that? | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. much snipped there is no maximum number, I can't be clearer than that. And my point is, yes it is a lot of money doing nothing, and we need to get this scheme up and running to see if it brings the returns or not. As with many Brexity type folk you appear to be only looking at one side of this arrangement. There clearly must be a maximum number because there isn’t a single leader of any country in the world who would want to be identified as the person who took the unwanted from another country - for cash. From the news stories recently released Paul Kagame is evidently uncomfortable with his country being seen as a landfill. This is just not going to work and if you were prepared to look at the numbers and what the Rwanda Govt might end up being identified as, you would see that. Look at both countries and imagine you were Paul Kigame. Is that how you would want your country seen? With any deal, or arrangement, there are two parties - not one. Rwanda will not allow itself to be labelled as a landfill, dumping ground for all the people that the U.K. doesn’t want. Surely you can see that?" Cost and return on investment will be the deciding factor. You fail to acknowledge success in the scheme bringing numbers down. The basics are lost in the emotion | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. much snipped there is no maximum number, I can't be clearer than that. And my point is, yes it is a lot of money doing nothing, and we need to get this scheme up and running to see if it brings the returns or not. As with many Brexity type folk you appear to be only looking at one side of this arrangement. There clearly must be a maximum number because there isn’t a single leader of any country in the world who would want to be identified as the person who took the unwanted from another country - for cash. From the news stories recently released Paul Kagame is evidently uncomfortable with his country being seen as a landfill. This is just not going to work and if you were prepared to look at the numbers and what the Rwanda Govt might end up being identified as, you would see that. Look at both countries and imagine you were Paul Kigame. Is that how you would want your country seen? With any deal, or arrangement, there are two parties - not one. Rwanda will not allow itself to be labelled as a landfill, dumping ground for all the people that the U.K. doesn’t want. Surely you can see that? Cost and return on investment will be the deciding factor. You fail to acknowledge success in the scheme bringing numbers down. The basics are lost in the emotion "As yet there is no success in the Rwanda scheme. | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. much snipped there is no maximum number, I can't be clearer than that. And my point is, yes it is a lot of money doing nothing, and we need to get this scheme up and running to see if it brings the returns or not. As with many Brexity type folk you appear to be only looking at one side of this arrangement. There clearly must be a maximum number because there isn’t a single leader of any country in the world who would want to be identified as the person who took the unwanted from another country - for cash. From the news stories recently released Paul Kagame is evidently uncomfortable with his country being seen as a landfill. This is just not going to work and if you were prepared to look at the numbers and what the Rwanda Govt might end up being identified as, you would see that. Look at both countries and imagine you were Paul Kigame. Is that how you would want your country seen? With any deal, or arrangement, there are two parties - not one. Rwanda will not allow itself to be labelled as a landfill, dumping ground for all the people that the U.K. doesn’t want. Surely you can see that? Cost and return on investment will be the deciding factor. You fail to acknowledge success in the scheme bringing numbers down. The basics are lost in the emotion
As yet there is no success in the Rwanda scheme."We know that, however we have invested and if the scheme starts and reduces the number of small boat crossings the benefits will be seen and numbers going to Rwanda will drop. It really is that simple if it green lights. The proof of success or failure will be measured by fewer crossings and reduced numbers to Rwanda, and nowhere to hide on those figures. | |||
"... there isn’t a single leader of any country in the world who would want to be identified as the person who took the unwanted from another country ... " Really? Have you never heard the words "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore"? The USA seems quite proud of that slogan. "From the news stories recently released Paul Kagame is evidently uncomfortable with his country being seen as a landfill." Would you like to point us to a news story that says that? | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. much snipped there is no maximum number, I can't be clearer than that. And my point is, yes it is a lot of money doing nothing, and we need to get this scheme up and running to see if it brings the returns or not. As with many Brexity type folk you appear to be only looking at one side of this arrangement. There clearly must be a maximum number because there isn’t a single leader of any country in the world who would want to be identified as the person who took the unwanted from another country - for cash. From the news stories recently released Paul Kagame is evidently uncomfortable with his country being seen as a landfill. This is just not going to work and if you were prepared to look at the numbers and what the Rwanda Govt might end up being identified as, you would see that. Look at both countries and imagine you were Paul Kigame. Is that how you would want your country seen? With any deal, or arrangement, there are two parties - not one. Rwanda will not allow itself to be labelled as a landfill, dumping ground for all the people that the U.K. doesn’t want. Surely you can see that? Cost and return on investment will be the deciding factor. You fail to acknowledge success in the scheme bringing numbers down. The basics are lost in the emotion
As yet there is no success in the Rwanda scheme.
We know that, however we have invested and if the scheme starts and reduces the number of small boat crossings the benefits will be seen and numbers going to Rwanda will drop.
It really is that simple if it green lights.
The proof of success or failure will be measured by fewer crossings and reduced numbers to Rwanda, and nowhere to hide on those figures."Your statement is still wrong as it's written in present tense = success now. When you're criticising someone, semantics are important. | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. much snipped there is no maximum number, I can't be clearer than that. And my point is, yes it is a lot of money doing nothing, and we need to get this scheme up and running to see if it brings the returns or not. As with many Brexity type folk you appear to be only looking at one side of this arrangement. There clearly must be a maximum number because there isn’t a single leader of any country in the world who would want to be identified as the person who took the unwanted from another country - for cash. From the news stories recently released Paul Kagame is evidently uncomfortable with his country being seen as a landfill. This is just not going to work and if you were prepared to look at the numbers and what the Rwanda Govt might end up being identified as, you would see that. Look at both countries and imagine you were Paul Kigame. Is that how you would want your country seen? With any deal, or arrangement, there are two parties - not one. Rwanda will not allow itself to be labelled as a landfill, dumping ground for all the people that the U.K. doesn’t want. Surely you can see that? Cost and return on investment will be the deciding factor. You fail to acknowledge success in the scheme bringing numbers down. The basics are lost in the emotion
As yet there is no success in the Rwanda scheme.
We know that, however we have invested and if the scheme starts and reduces the number of small boat crossings the benefits will be seen and numbers going to Rwanda will drop.
It really is that simple if it green lights.
The proof of success or failure will be measured by fewer crossings and reduced numbers to Rwanda, and nowhere to hide on those figures.
Your statement is still wrong as it's written in present tense = success now. When you're criticising someone, semantics are important."There was no criticism in my reply, only explanation. Do you have anything further to add to the discussion we were having, it seems you have run out of ideas? | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. much snipped there is no maximum number, I can't be clearer than that. And my point is, yes it is a lot of money doing nothing, and we need to get this scheme up and running to see if it brings the returns or not. As with many Brexity type folk you appear to be only looking at one side of this arrangement. There clearly must be a maximum number because there isn’t a single leader of any country in the world who would want to be identified as the person who took the unwanted from another country - for cash. From the news stories recently released Paul Kagame is evidently uncomfortable with his country being seen as a landfill. This is just not going to work and if you were prepared to look at the numbers and what the Rwanda Govt might end up being identified as, you would see that. Look at both countries and imagine you were Paul Kigame. Is that how you would want your country seen? With any deal, or arrangement, there are two parties - not one. Rwanda will not allow itself to be labelled as a landfill, dumping ground for all the people that the U.K. doesn’t want. Surely you can see that? Cost and return on investment will be the deciding factor. You fail to acknowledge success in the scheme bringing numbers down. The basics are lost in the emotion
As yet there is no success in the Rwanda scheme."I totally get the anger around this policy and to me it will be stopped yet again in the courts or the courts will stop so many being sent that the deterrent factor is vertically zero. But what I think others are saying is that as it has not actually started then it's not possible to judge yet. A bit like a new factory being built. For ages it is a building site where money is only spent and therefore looks like a waste on the surface. It is not until the factory is complete, workers employed and work commencing that it has a chance of producing a product to make a return on all that investment. Once the factory is fully up and running, people can judge it's success or failure. Just my way of looking at it and I'm sure there are better examples. | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. much snipped there is no maximum number, I can't be clearer than that. And my point is, yes it is a lot of money doing nothing, and we need to get this scheme up and running to see if it brings the returns or not. As with many Brexity type folk you appear to be only looking at one side of this arrangement. There clearly must be a maximum number because there isn’t a single leader of any country in the world who would want to be identified as the person who took the unwanted from another country - for cash. From the news stories recently released Paul Kagame is evidently uncomfortable with his country being seen as a landfill. This is just not going to work and if you were prepared to look at the numbers and what the Rwanda Govt might end up being identified as, you would see that. Look at both countries and imagine you were Paul Kigame. Is that how you would want your country seen? With any deal, or arrangement, there are two parties - not one. Rwanda will not allow itself to be labelled as a landfill, dumping ground for all the people that the U.K. doesn’t want. Surely you can see that? Cost and return on investment will be the deciding factor. You fail to acknowledge success in the scheme bringing numbers down. The basics are lost in the emotion
As yet there is no success in the Rwanda scheme.
I totally get the anger around this policy and to me it will be stopped yet again in the courts or the courts will stop so many being sent that the deterrent factor is vertically zero. But what I think others are saying is that as it has not actually started then it's not possible to judge yet. A bit like a new factory being built. For ages it is a building site where money is only spent and therefore looks like a waste on the surface. It is not until the factory is complete, workers employed and work commencing that it has a chance of producing a product to make a return on all that investment. Once the factory is fully up and running, people can judge it's success or failure. Just my way of looking at it and I'm sure there are better examples. "That is exactly what people are saying, I agree. You cannot say something is a failure until you see it in action. Since the Rwanda plan hasn't been seen in action, it can't be a failure. | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. much snipped there is no maximum number, I can't be clearer than that. And my point is, yes it is a lot of money doing nothing, and we need to get this scheme up and running to see if it brings the returns or not. As with many Brexity type folk you appear to be only looking at one side of this arrangement. There clearly must be a maximum number because there isn’t a single leader of any country in the world who would want to be identified as the person who took the unwanted from another country - for cash. From the news stories recently released Paul Kagame is evidently uncomfortable with his country being seen as a landfill. This is just not going to work and if you were prepared to look at the numbers and what the Rwanda Govt might end up being identified as, you would see that. Look at both countries and imagine you were Paul Kigame. Is that how you would want your country seen? With any deal, or arrangement, there are two parties - not one. Rwanda will not allow itself to be labelled as a landfill, dumping ground for all the people that the U.K. doesn’t want. Surely you can see that? Cost and return on investment will be the deciding factor. You fail to acknowledge success in the scheme bringing numbers down. The basics are lost in the emotion
As yet there is no success in the Rwanda scheme.
We know that, however we have invested and if the scheme starts and reduces the number of small boat crossings the benefits will be seen and numbers going to Rwanda will drop.
It really is that simple if it green lights.
The proof of success or failure will be measured by fewer crossings and reduced numbers to Rwanda, and nowhere to hide on those figures.
Your statement is still wrong as it's written in present tense = success now. When you're criticising someone, semantics are important.
There was no criticism in my reply, only explanation.
Do you have anything further to add to the discussion we were having, it seems you have run out of ideas?""You fail...", you say that's not a criticism?
Debating can run on different lines - that's my response to your patronising. I recognise it, cos I do it. | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. much snipped there is no maximum number, I can't be clearer than that. And my point is, yes it is a lot of money doing nothing, and we need to get this scheme up and running to see if it brings the returns or not. As with many Brexity type folk you appear to be only looking at one side of this arrangement. There clearly must be a maximum number because there isn’t a single leader of any country in the world who would want to be identified as the person who took the unwanted from another country - for cash. From the news stories recently released Paul Kagame is evidently uncomfortable with his country being seen as a landfill. This is just not going to work and if you were prepared to look at the numbers and what the Rwanda Govt might end up being identified as, you would see that. Look at both countries and imagine you were Paul Kigame. Is that how you would want your country seen? With any deal, or arrangement, there are two parties - not one. Rwanda will not allow itself to be labelled as a landfill, dumping ground for all the people that the U.K. doesn’t want. Surely you can see that? Cost and return on investment will be the deciding factor. You fail to acknowledge success in the scheme bringing numbers down. The basics are lost in the emotion
As yet there is no success in the Rwanda scheme.
We know that, however we have invested and if the scheme starts and reduces the number of small boat crossings the benefits will be seen and numbers going to Rwanda will drop.
It really is that simple if it green lights.
The proof of success or failure will be measured by fewer crossings and reduced numbers to Rwanda, and nowhere to hide on those figures.
Your statement is still wrong as it's written in present tense = success now. When you're criticising someone, semantics are important.
There was no criticism in my reply, only explanation.
Do you have anything further to add to the discussion we were having, it seems you have run out of ideas?
"You fail...", you say that's not a criticism?
Debating can run on different lines - that's my response to your patronising. I recognise it, cos I do it. "You need to be clearer what you are replying to, you have either replied to the same earlier message twice, or you are back tracking. Either way I think we are done here, but to say when people are challenged to bring solid arguments to the table it is interesting how quickly the conversation falters as the emotional argument loses its way. | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. much snipped there is no maximum number, I can't be clearer than that. And my point is, yes it is a lot of money doing nothing, and we need to get this scheme up and running to see if it brings the returns or not. As with many Brexity type folk you appear to be only looking at one side of this arrangement. There clearly must be a maximum number because there isn’t a single leader of any country in the world who would want to be identified as the person who took the unwanted from another country - for cash. From the news stories recently released Paul Kagame is evidently uncomfortable with his country being seen as a landfill. This is just not going to work and if you were prepared to look at the numbers and what the Rwanda Govt might end up being identified as, you would see that. Look at both countries and imagine you were Paul Kigame. Is that how you would want your country seen? With any deal, or arrangement, there are two parties - not one. Rwanda will not allow itself to be labelled as a landfill, dumping ground for all the people that the U.K. doesn’t want. Surely you can see that? Cost and return on investment will be the deciding factor. You fail to acknowledge success in the scheme bringing numbers down. The basics are lost in the emotion
As yet there is no success in the Rwanda scheme.
We know that, however we have invested and if the scheme starts and reduces the number of small boat crossings the benefits will be seen and numbers going to Rwanda will drop.
It really is that simple if it green lights.
The proof of success or failure will be measured by fewer crossings and reduced numbers to Rwanda, and nowhere to hide on those figures.
Your statement is still wrong as it's written in present tense = success now. When you're criticising someone, semantics are important.
There was no criticism in my reply, only explanation.
Do you have anything further to add to the discussion we were having, it seems you have run out of ideas?
"You fail...", you say that's not a criticism?
Debating can run on different lines - that's my response to your patronising. I recognise it, cos I do it.
You need to be clearer what you are replying to, you have either replied to the same earlier message twice, or you are back tracking.
Either way I think we are done here, but to say when people are challenged to bring solid arguments to the table it is interesting how quickly the conversation falters as the emotional argument loses its way.
"I'm certainly not back tracking. Perhaps you need to reread your posts in their entirety as then it's clear to what I am referring. You often bring an emotional element to your posts, it's quite amusing psychologically (I haven't the brain power to make specific references but just note that I think you flip flop in these particular arguments). | |||
"I’m in favour of the Rwanda scheme, I can’t understand why a minority of people are so against it. much snipped there is no maximum number, I can't be clearer than that. And my point is, yes it is a lot of money doing nothing, and we need to get this scheme up and running to see if it brings the returns or not. As with many Brexity type folk you appear to be only looking at one side of this arrangement. There clearly must be a maximum number because there isn’t a single leader of any country in the world who would want to be identified as the person who took the unwanted from another country - for cash. From the news stories recently released Paul Kagame is evidently uncomfortable with his country being seen as a landfill. This is just not going to work and if you were prepared to look at the numbers and what the Rwanda Govt might end up being identified as, you would see that. Look at both countries and imagine you were Paul Kigame. Is that how you would want your country seen? With any deal, or arrangement, there are two parties - not one. Rwanda will not allow itself to be labelled as a landfill, dumping ground for all the people that the U.K. doesn’t want. Surely you can see that? Cost and return on investment will be the deciding factor. You fail to acknowledge success in the scheme bringing numbers down. The basics are lost in the emotion
As yet there is no success in the Rwanda scheme.
We know that, however we have invested and if the scheme starts and reduces the number of small boat crossings the benefits will be seen and numbers going to Rwanda will drop.
It really is that simple if it green lights.
The proof of success or failure will be measured by fewer crossings and reduced numbers to Rwanda, and nowhere to hide on those figures.
Your statement is still wrong as it's written in present tense = success now. When you're criticising someone, semantics are important.
There was no criticism in my reply, only explanation.
Do you have anything further to add to the discussion we were having, it seems you have run out of ideas?
"You fail...", you say that's not a criticism?
Debating can run on different lines - that's my response to your patronising. I recognise it, cos I do it.
You need to be clearer what you are replying to, you have either replied to the same earlier message twice, or you are back tracking.
Either way I think we are done here, but to say when people are challenged to bring solid arguments to the table it is interesting how quickly the conversation falters as the emotional argument loses its way.
I'm certainly not back tracking. Perhaps you need to reread your posts in their entirety as then it's clear to what I am referring.
You often bring an emotional element to your posts, it's quite amusing psychologically (I haven't the brain power to make specific references but just note that I think you flip flop in these particular arguments)."Have a lovely day | |||
" You cannot say something is a failure until you see it in action. Since the Rwanda plan hasn't been seen in action, it can't be a failure. " Surely if I invest x in a startup scheme that never starts up, it failed? | |||
" You cannot say something is a failure until you see it in action. Since the Rwanda plan hasn't been seen in action, it can't be a failure. Surely if I invest x in a startup scheme that never starts up, it failed? " It hasn't started YET. It hasnt got past the planning stage. If it never starts, you can call it a failure. | |||
" You cannot say something is a failure until you see it in action. Since the Rwanda plan hasn't been seen in action, it can't be a failure. Surely if I invest x in a startup scheme that never starts up, it failed? It hasn't started YET. It hasnt got past the planning stage. If it never starts, you can call it a failure. " Wouldn’t dream of it | |||
