Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy." Hahahahaha  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"See the last thread locked just as discussion on ECHR was about to kick in. So for context for any who do not know... ECHR is NOT an EU institution. Founded in 1953 and Originally proposed by Winston Churchill and drafted mainly by British lawyers, the Convention was based on the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was signed in Rome in 1950 and came into force in 1953. Interestingly Boris Johnson is the grandson of Sir James Fawcett, a member of the European Commission for Human Rights for 20 years and its president for half that time. The ECHR is not “some foreign court” as some are trying to to declare. It is an international body to which the UK is a founding member and member/signatory. " And our great leader wants to remove us from this agreement for his self serving agenda. His baseline morals are forever dropping lower and lower dragging this country’s standing down with him. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy." You do know it’s been a Tory policy to defund the police don’t you? It’s only because of the subsequent continuous rise in crime they are back peddling now frantically trying to find the 21000 police they cut. The Government claimed that crime was down in the numbers but failed to include fraud as that wasn’t seen as a crime statistic. Really?? If someone clones your credit card it’s not a crime?? Who knew! When you add fraud the crime figure increase is very bad. More lies to hide the reality. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy." Lol. Most ridiculous post so far. Well done! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy. Lol. Most ridiculous post so far. Well done!" But you get the point? You don’t like it but you get it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy. You do know it’s been a Tory policy to defund the police don’t you? It’s only because of the subsequent continuous rise in crime they are back peddling now frantically trying to find the 21000 police they cut. The Government claimed that crime was down in the numbers but failed to include fraud as that wasn’t seen as a crime statistic. Really?? If someone clones your credit card it’s not a crime?? Who knew! When you add fraud the crime figure increase is very bad. More lies to hide the reality. " I guess fraud also includes scams too, add those into the figures and it would seem we have the worst crime figures in the world .would that give a true picture of crime in the country? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy. Lol. Most ridiculous post so far. Well done! But you get the point? You don’t like it but you get it? " What is the ‘point’ ? The OP is obviously very confused | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy. Lol. Most ridiculous post so far. Well done! But you get the point? You don’t like it but you get it? " Yeah. The point is, this guy is getting the US and the UK confused with the "defund the police" stuff. And he somehow thinks people trying to claim asylum in the UK is somehow comparable to a fictional scenario of someone hanging about near his house. There's nothing to get, like, dislike. It's just utterly ridiculous. Which actually, in fairness, is what I like. So yes, I like it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy. Lol. Most ridiculous post so far. Well done! But you get the point? You don’t like it but you get it? Yeah. The point is, this guy is getting the US and the UK confused with the "defund the police" stuff. And he somehow thinks people trying to claim asylum in the UK is somehow comparable to a fictional scenario of someone hanging about near his house. There's nothing to get, like, dislike. It's just utterly ridiculous. Which actually, in fairness, is what I like. So yes, I like it." easy to be dismissive and rude with anonymity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy. Lol. Most ridiculous post so far. Well done! But you get the point? You don’t like it but you get it? Yeah. The point is, this guy is getting the US and the UK confused with the "defund the police" stuff. And he somehow thinks people trying to claim asylum in the UK is somehow comparable to a fictional scenario of someone hanging about near his house. There's nothing to get, like, dislike. It's just utterly ridiculous. Which actually, in fairness, is what I like. So yes, I like it. easy to be dismissive and rude with anonymity. " His post is funny though. Are we no longer allowed to enjoy the more outlandish ridiculous stuff people post, isn't that the entire point of the political forum? I've always enjoyed the Trump is a good president, Brexit was a good idea, covid is a plandemic stuff. But this is next level ridiculous. It's great. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy." You didn't repeat "hypocrisy" you only said it once. At the bottom, where you claimed it was a repeat. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy. Lol. Most ridiculous post so far. Well done! But you get the point? You don’t like it but you get it? Yeah. The point is, this guy is getting the US and the UK confused with the "defund the police" stuff. And he somehow thinks people trying to claim asylum in the UK is somehow comparable to a fictional scenario of someone hanging about near his house. There's nothing to get, like, dislike. It's just utterly ridiculous. Which actually, in fairness, is what I like. So yes, I like it. easy to be dismissive and rude with anonymity. His post is funny though. Are we no longer allowed to enjoy the more outlandish ridiculous stuff people post, isn't that the entire point of the political forum? I've always enjoyed the Trump is a good president, Brexit was a good idea, covid is a plandemic stuff. But this is next level ridiculous. It's great." There is a reality in the OP, it might not be an altogether accurate view but it echos a majority view towards illegal immigration within this country. A lot of pushback has come from high profile places, putting the deportation plan under the microscope, this will, and has chipped away at the majority view, but only in the plan. However, the view that this country should not be so accommodating to illegal immigrants, is still front and centre to the majority of people in this country. It is a very emotive subject and I would suggest one that has no perfect answer, for all involved. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy. Lol. Most ridiculous post so far. Well done! But you get the point? You don’t like it but you get it? Yeah. The point is, this guy is getting the US and the UK confused with the "defund the police" stuff. And he somehow thinks people trying to claim asylum in the UK is somehow comparable to a fictional scenario of someone hanging about near his house. There's nothing to get, like, dislike. It's just utterly ridiculous. Which actually, in fairness, is what I like. So yes, I like it. easy to be dismissive and rude with anonymity. His post is funny though. Are we no longer allowed to enjoy the more outlandish ridiculous stuff people post, isn't that the entire point of the political forum? I've always enjoyed the Trump is a good president, Brexit was a good idea, covid is a plandemic stuff. But this is next level ridiculous. It's great. There is a reality in the OP, it might not be an altogether accurate view but it echos a majority view towards illegal immigration within this country. A lot of pushback has come from high profile places, putting the deportation plan under the microscope, this will, and has chipped away at the majority view, but only in the plan. However, the view that this country should not be so accommodating to illegal immigrants, is still front and centre to the majority of people in this country. It is a very emotive subject and I would suggest one that has no perfect answer, for all involved. " The perfect solution beach-coach-plane gone. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy. Lol. Most ridiculous post so far. Well done! But you get the point? You don’t like it but you get it? Yeah. The point is, this guy is getting the US and the UK confused with the "defund the police" stuff. And he somehow thinks people trying to claim asylum in the UK is somehow comparable to a fictional scenario of someone hanging about near his house. There's nothing to get, like, dislike. It's just utterly ridiculous. Which actually, in fairness, is what I like. So yes, I like it. easy to be dismissive and rude with anonymity. His post is funny though. Are we no longer allowed to enjoy the more outlandish ridiculous stuff people post, isn't that the entire point of the political forum? I've always enjoyed the Trump is a good president, Brexit was a good idea, covid is a plandemic stuff. But this is next level ridiculous. It's great. There is a reality in the OP, it might not be an altogether accurate view but it echos a majority view towards illegal immigration within this country. A lot of pushback has come from high profile places, putting the deportation plan under the microscope, this will, and has chipped away at the majority view, but only in the plan. However, the view that this country should not be so accommodating to illegal immigrants, is still front and centre to the majority of people in this country. It is a very emotive subject and I would suggest one that has no perfect answer, for all involved. " 100% agree. A lot of people have been convinced to be scared of and blame everything on immigrants, instead of looking at the government. By and large, the same people who lack empathy for immigrants are the same who defend everything the government does, no matter how abhorrent. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy. Lol. Most ridiculous post so far. Well done! But you get the point? You don’t like it but you get it? Yeah. The point is, this guy is getting the US and the UK confused with the "defund the police" stuff. And he somehow thinks people trying to claim asylum in the UK is somehow comparable to a fictional scenario of someone hanging about near his house. There's nothing to get, like, dislike. It's just utterly ridiculous. Which actually, in fairness, is what I like. So yes, I like it. easy to be dismissive and rude with anonymity. His post is funny though. Are we no longer allowed to enjoy the more outlandish ridiculous stuff people post, isn't that the entire point of the political forum? I've always enjoyed the Trump is a good president, Brexit was a good idea, covid is a plandemic stuff. But this is next level ridiculous. It's great. There is a reality in the OP, it might not be an altogether accurate view but it echos a majority view towards illegal immigration within this country. A lot of pushback has come from high profile places, putting the deportation plan under the microscope, this will, and has chipped away at the majority view, but only in the plan. However, the view that this country should not be so accommodating to illegal immigrants, is still front and centre to the majority of people in this country. It is a very emotive subject and I would suggest one that has no perfect answer, for all involved. The perfect solution beach-coach-plane gone." PMSL | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy. Lol. Most ridiculous post so far. Well done! But you get the point? You don’t like it but you get it? Yeah. The point is, this guy is getting the US and the UK confused with the "defund the police" stuff. And he somehow thinks people trying to claim asylum in the UK is somehow comparable to a fictional scenario of someone hanging about near his house. There's nothing to get, like, dislike. It's just utterly ridiculous. Which actually, in fairness, is what I like. So yes, I like it. easy to be dismissive and rude with anonymity. His post is funny though. Are we no longer allowed to enjoy the more outlandish ridiculous stuff people post, isn't that the entire point of the political forum? I've always enjoyed the Trump is a good president, Brexit was a good idea, covid is a plandemic stuff. But this is next level ridiculous. It's great. There is a reality in the OP, it might not be an altogether accurate view but it echos a majority view towards illegal immigration within this country. A lot of pushback has come from high profile places, putting the deportation plan under the microscope, this will, and has chipped away at the majority view, but only in the plan. However, the view that this country should not be so accommodating to illegal immigrants, is still front and centre to the majority of people in this country. It is a very emotive subject and I would suggest one that has no perfect answer, for all involved. The perfect solution beach-coach-plane gone." Lol. Making less sense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy. Such a sweeping generalisation. Lol. Most ridiculous post so far. Well done! But you get the point? You don’t like it but you get it? Yeah. The point is, this guy is getting the US and the UK confused with the "defund the police" stuff. And he somehow thinks people trying to claim asylum in the UK is somehow comparable to a fictional scenario of someone hanging about near his house. There's nothing to get, like, dislike. It's just utterly ridiculous. Which actually, in fairness, is what I like. So yes, I like it. easy to be dismissive and rude with anonymity. His post is funny though. Are we no longer allowed to enjoy the more outlandish ridiculous stuff people post, isn't that the entire point of the political forum? I've always enjoyed the Trump is a good president, Brexit was a good idea, covid is a plandemic stuff. But this is next level ridiculous. It's great. There is a reality in the OP, it might not be an altogether accurate view but it echos a majority view towards illegal immigration within this country. A lot of pushback has come from high profile places, putting the deportation plan under the microscope, this will, and has chipped away at the majority view, but only in the plan. However, the view that this country should not be so accommodating to illegal immigrants, is still front and centre to the majority of people in this country. It is a very emotive subject and I would suggest one that has no perfect answer, for all involved. 100% agree. A lot of people have been convinced to be scared of and blame everything on immigrants, instead of looking at the government. By and large, the same people who lack empathy for immigrants are the same who defend everything the government does, no matter how abhorrent." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy. Lol. Most ridiculous post so far. Well done! But you get the point? You don’t like it but you get it? Yeah. The point is, this guy is getting the US and the UK confused with the "defund the police" stuff. And he somehow thinks people trying to claim asylum in the UK is somehow comparable to a fictional scenario of someone hanging about near his house. There's nothing to get, like, dislike. It's just utterly ridiculous. Which actually, in fairness, is what I like. So yes, I like it. easy to be dismissive and rude with anonymity. His post is funny though. Are we no longer allowed to enjoy the more outlandish ridiculous stuff people post, isn't that the entire point of the political forum? I've always enjoyed the Trump is a good president, Brexit was a good idea, covid is a plandemic stuff. But this is next level ridiculous. It's great. There is a reality in the OP, it might not be an altogether accurate view but it echos a majority view towards illegal immigration within this country. A lot of pushback has come from high profile places, putting the deportation plan under the microscope, this will, and has chipped away at the majority view, but only in the plan. However, the view that this country should not be so accommodating to illegal immigrants, is still front and centre to the majority of people in this country. It is a very emotive subject and I would suggest one that has no perfect answer, for all involved. The perfect solution beach-coach-plane gone." Until people stop thinking like Alf Garnett, the perfect answer will certainly not be found. You owe it to yourself to think of solutions more constructively, that way you might come to a position that encourages support of your views and one that might be worthy of debate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy. Lol. Most ridiculous post so far. Well done! But you get the point? You don’t like it but you get it? Yeah. The point is, this guy is getting the US and the UK confused with the "defund the police" stuff. And he somehow thinks people trying to claim asylum in the UK is somehow comparable to a fictional scenario of someone hanging about near his house. There's nothing to get, like, dislike. It's just utterly ridiculous. Which actually, in fairness, is what I like. So yes, I like it. easy to be dismissive and rude with anonymity. His post is funny though. Are we no longer allowed to enjoy the more outlandish ridiculous stuff people post, isn't that the entire point of the political forum? I've always enjoyed the Trump is a good president, Brexit was a good idea, covid is a plandemic stuff. But this is next level ridiculous. It's great. There is a reality in the OP, it might not be an altogether accurate view but it echos a majority view towards illegal immigration within this country. A lot of pushback has come from high profile places, putting the deportation plan under the microscope, this will, and has chipped away at the majority view, but only in the plan. However, the view that this country should not be so accommodating to illegal immigrants, is still front and centre to the majority of people in this country. It is a very emotive subject and I would suggest one that has no perfect answer, for all involved. The perfect solution beach-coach-plane gone. Until people stop thinking like Alf Garnett, the perfect answer will certainly not be found. You owe it to yourself to think of solutions more constructively, that way you might come to a position that encourages support of your views and one that might be worthy of debate. " Unfortunately that is the only solution ‘they’ have, ‘they’ need to be educated, but some of them are beyond help | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy. Lol. Most ridiculous post so far. Well done! But you get the point? You don’t like it but you get it? Yeah. The point is, this guy is getting the US and the UK confused with the "defund the police" stuff. And he somehow thinks people trying to claim asylum in the UK is somehow comparable to a fictional scenario of someone hanging about near his house. There's nothing to get, like, dislike. It's just utterly ridiculous. Which actually, in fairness, is what I like. So yes, I like it. easy to be dismissive and rude with anonymity. His post is funny though. Are we no longer allowed to enjoy the more outlandish ridiculous stuff people post, isn't that the entire point of the political forum? I've always enjoyed the Trump is a good president, Brexit was a good idea, covid is a plandemic stuff. But this is next level ridiculous. It's great. There is a reality in the OP, it might not be an altogether accurate view but it echos a majority view towards illegal immigration within this country. A lot of pushback has come from high profile places, putting the deportation plan under the microscope, this will, and has chipped away at the majority view, but only in the plan. However, the view that this country should not be so accommodating to illegal immigrants, is still front and centre to the majority of people in this country. It is a very emotive subject and I would suggest one that has no perfect answer, for all involved. The perfect solution beach-coach-plane gone. Until people stop thinking like Alf Garnett, the perfect answer will certainly not be found. You owe it to yourself to think of solutions more constructively, that way you might come to a position that encourages support of your views and one that might be worthy of debate. " No we need more people thinking like Enoch not less.And if you believe he was a racist,you need to educate your self. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy. You do know it’s been a Tory policy to defund the police don’t you? It’s only because of the subsequent continuous rise in crime they are back peddling now frantically trying to find the 21000 police they cut. The Government claimed that crime was down in the numbers but failed to include fraud as that wasn’t seen as a crime statistic. Really?? If someone clones your credit card it’s not a crime?? Who knew! When you add fraud the crime figure increase is very bad. More lies to hide the reality. I guess fraud also includes scams too, add those into the figures and it would seem we have the worst crime figures in the world .would that give a true picture of crime in the country?" I don’t know where we stand in the world Costa. I’m hoping we’re doing better than most but genuinely don’t know . I seem to remember reading that for violent crime we are amongst the top five safest large population countries in the world although we have a large fear of crime rate. ( nervous people) For financial crime I believe we are top ten in Europe or western economies. I can’t remember the list description. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy. Lol. Most ridiculous post so far. Well done! But you get the point? You don’t like it but you get it? Yeah. The point is, this guy is getting the US and the UK confused with the "defund the police" stuff. And he somehow thinks people trying to claim asylum in the UK is somehow comparable to a fictional scenario of someone hanging about near his house. There's nothing to get, like, dislike. It's just utterly ridiculous. Which actually, in fairness, is what I like. So yes, I like it. easy to be dismissive and rude with anonymity. His post is funny though. Are we no longer allowed to enjoy the more outlandish ridiculous stuff people post, isn't that the entire point of the political forum? I've always enjoyed the Trump is a good president, Brexit was a good idea, covid is a plandemic stuff. But this is next level ridiculous. It's great. There is a reality in the OP, it might not be an altogether accurate view but it echos a majority view towards illegal immigration within this country. A lot of pushback has come from high profile places, putting the deportation plan under the microscope, this will, and has chipped away at the majority view, but only in the plan. However, the view that this country should not be so accommodating to illegal immigrants, is still front and centre to the majority of people in this country. It is a very emotive subject and I would suggest one that has no perfect answer, for all involved. The perfect solution beach-coach-plane gone. Until people stop thinking like Alf Garnett, the perfect answer will certainly not be found. You owe it to yourself to think of solutions more constructively, that way you might come to a position that encourages support of your views and one that might be worthy of debate. No we need more people thinking like Enoch not less.And if you believe he was a racist,you need to educate your self." Do you hate all refugees ? What about the white ones? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy. Lol. Most ridiculous post so far. Well done! But you get the point? You don’t like it but you get it? Yeah. The point is, this guy is getting the US and the UK confused with the "defund the police" stuff. And he somehow thinks people trying to claim asylum in the UK is somehow comparable to a fictional scenario of someone hanging about near his house. There's nothing to get, like, dislike. It's just utterly ridiculous. Which actually, in fairness, is what I like. So yes, I like it. easy to be dismissive and rude with anonymity. His post is funny though. Are we no longer allowed to enjoy the more outlandish ridiculous stuff people post, isn't that the entire point of the political forum? I've always enjoyed the Trump is a good president, Brexit was a good idea, covid is a plandemic stuff. But this is next level ridiculous. It's great. There is a reality in the OP, it might not be an altogether accurate view but it echos a majority view towards illegal immigration within this country. A lot of pushback has come from high profile places, putting the deportation plan under the microscope, this will, and has chipped away at the majority view, but only in the plan. However, the view that this country should not be so accommodating to illegal immigrants, is still front and centre to the majority of people in this country. It is a very emotive subject and I would suggest one that has no perfect answer, for all involved. The perfect solution beach-coach-plane gone. Until people stop thinking like Alf Garnett, the perfect answer will certainly not be found. You owe it to yourself to think of solutions more constructively, that way you might come to a position that encourages support of your views and one that might be worthy of debate. No we need more people thinking like Enoch not less.And if you believe he was a racist,you need to educate your self. Do you hate all refugees ? What about the white ones? " Just the illegal ones what ever colour.And I give a straight answer,that you seem incapable of. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy. Lol. Most ridiculous post so far. Well done! But you get the point? You don’t like it but you get it? Yeah. The point is, this guy is getting the US and the UK confused with the "defund the police" stuff. And he somehow thinks people trying to claim asylum in the UK is somehow comparable to a fictional scenario of someone hanging about near his house. There's nothing to get, like, dislike. It's just utterly ridiculous. Which actually, in fairness, is what I like. So yes, I like it. easy to be dismissive and rude with anonymity. His post is funny though. Are we no longer allowed to enjoy the more outlandish ridiculous stuff people post, isn't that the entire point of the political forum? I've always enjoyed the Trump is a good president, Brexit was a good idea, covid is a plandemic stuff. But this is next level ridiculous. It's great. There is a reality in the OP, it might not be an altogether accurate view but it echos a majority view towards illegal immigration within this country. A lot of pushback has come from high profile places, putting the deportation plan under the microscope, this will, and has chipped away at the majority view, but only in the plan. However, the view that this country should not be so accommodating to illegal immigrants, is still front and centre to the majority of people in this country. It is a very emotive subject and I would suggest one that has no perfect answer, for all involved. The perfect solution beach-coach-plane gone. Until people stop thinking like Alf Garnett, the perfect answer will certainly not be found. You owe it to yourself to think of solutions more constructively, that way you might come to a position that encourages support of your views and one that might be worthy of debate. No we need more people thinking like Enoch not less.And if you believe he was a racist,you need to educate your self. Do you hate all refugees ? What about the white ones? Just the illegal ones what ever colour.And I give a straight answer,that you seem incapable of." They are only illegal when they have been denied asylum, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy. Lol. Most ridiculous post so far. Well done! But you get the point? You don’t like it but you get it? Yeah. The point is, this guy is getting the US and the UK confused with the "defund the police" stuff. And he somehow thinks people trying to claim asylum in the UK is somehow comparable to a fictional scenario of someone hanging about near his house. There's nothing to get, like, dislike. It's just utterly ridiculous. Which actually, in fairness, is what I like. So yes, I like it. easy to be dismissive and rude with anonymity. His post is funny though. Are we no longer allowed to enjoy the more outlandish ridiculous stuff people post, isn't that the entire point of the political forum? I've always enjoyed the Trump is a good president, Brexit was a good idea, covid is a plandemic stuff. But this is next level ridiculous. It's great. There is a reality in the OP, it might not be an altogether accurate view but it echos a majority view towards illegal immigration within this country. A lot of pushback has come from high profile places, putting the deportation plan under the microscope, this will, and has chipped away at the majority view, but only in the plan. However, the view that this country should not be so accommodating to illegal immigrants, is still front and centre to the majority of people in this country. It is a very emotive subject and I would suggest one that has no perfect answer, for all involved. " Yes it’s amazing what a bias description from ministers can do to distort the reality . The government repeatedly say illegal immigrants and firstly they are not illegal. Secondly out of 500k immigrants a year arriving in the U.K. the number rejected is around 3000. The majority of those rejections arrive by plane. Yes using false passports etc. the highest percentage of rejections is from India ( planes and not for long soon as the doors will be opened for a trade deal) So the government is spending hundreds of millions and ramping up racism due to what will be in effect around a 1500 rejections a year arriving by boat . In addition 30,000 people who are legally aloud to be here will not be welcome and just shipped to another country with which they have no connection without any questions on their reason for fleeing their home country . It’s a government who are devoid of ideas for the economy and being exposed as incapable of running the country jumping on a right wing band wagon of yet more anti brown people feelings. The financial and number reality of all this clearly shows it’s not a problem of any significance and yet the whole government are jumping up and down. Why aren’t they giving the same effort to the cost of living crisis or our shrinking economy? Because they are not capable but don’t want that on the front pages. It’s all racist jingoism and bullshit. We need workers and they want to work. What is wrong with an economic migrant anyway? We have hundreds or thousands of lazy bastards here who clearly don’t want the 1.4m jobs on offer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The system as it is cannot continue as we don't have the housing or services to accommodate such large amounts of people. Hundreds of single males every day. Something has to change. Unless anyone has a better plan than Rwanda that's the best option put forward so far. Rwanda is not the hell-hole middle class activists would have you believe. They want people to help build their country." Is it really the best system . Is it cost effective ? How many immigrants can it accommodate? What do we do with the people who are sent in exchange from Rwanda? Will is stop the channel crossings ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a better idea than doing nothing at this point." It’s costing a fortune, what is the main ‘aim’ of the plan? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No we need more people thinking like Enoch not less.And if you believe he was a racist,you need to educate your self." When a person spreads fear and horror of people of colour, invading our cities and towns, and creating local populations to act upon that ‘invasion’ through race hate, race violence, burning houses of ethic minorities, that continues today, yes he was clearly a racist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy. Lol. Most ridiculous post so far. Well done! But you get the point? You don’t like it but you get it? Yeah. The point is, this guy is getting the US and the UK confused with the "defund the police" stuff. And he somehow thinks people trying to claim asylum in the UK is somehow comparable to a fictional scenario of someone hanging about near his house. There's nothing to get, like, dislike. It's just utterly ridiculous. Which actually, in fairness, is what I like. So yes, I like it. easy to be dismissive and rude with anonymity. His post is funny though. Are we no longer allowed to enjoy the more outlandish ridiculous stuff people post, isn't that the entire point of the political forum? I've always enjoyed the Trump is a good president, Brexit was a good idea, covid is a plandemic stuff. But this is next level ridiculous. It's great. There is a reality in the OP, it might not be an altogether accurate view but it echos a majority view towards illegal immigration within this country. A lot of pushback has come from high profile places, putting the deportation plan under the microscope, this will, and has chipped away at the majority view, but only in the plan. However, the view that this country should not be so accommodating to illegal immigrants, is still front and centre to the majority of people in this country. It is a very emotive subject and I would suggest one that has no perfect answer, for all involved. The perfect solution beach-coach-plane gone. Until people stop thinking like Alf Garnett, the perfect answer will certainly not be found. You owe it to yourself to think of solutions more constructively, that way you might come to a position that encourages support of your views and one that might be worthy of debate. No we need more people thinking like Enoch not less.And if you believe he was a racist,you need to educate your self." Lol. At least you're open and honest about your hate and bigotry. Fair play. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a better idea than doing nothing at this point." This is the main point. Anyone with a half functioning brain can tell this Rwanda plan is fucking ridiculous waste of money. But the aim is to appease the far right elements who vote Tory. As this thread and others confirm. It's working a treat. Big pat on the back and secret handshakes back at Tory HQ. Job done. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No we need more people thinking like Enoch not less.And if you believe he was a racist,you need to educate your self. When a person spreads fear and horror of people of colour, invading our cities and towns, and creating local populations to act upon that ‘invasion’ through race hate, race violence, burning houses of ethic minorities, that continues today, yes he was clearly a racist. " Isnt that exactly what people are doing on here about Rwanda by spreading mis information about the country? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No we need more people thinking like Enoch not less.And if you believe he was a racist,you need to educate your self. When a person spreads fear and horror of people of colour, invading our cities and towns, and creating local populations to act upon that ‘invasion’ through race hate, race violence, burning houses of ethic minorities, that continues today, yes he was clearly a racist. Isnt that exactly what people are doing on here about Rwanda by spreading mis information about the country?" No | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No we need more people thinking like Enoch not less.And if you believe he was a racist,you need to educate your self. When a person spreads fear and horror of people of colour, invading our cities and towns, and creating local populations to act upon that ‘invasion’ through race hate, race violence, burning houses of ethic minorities, that continues today, yes he was clearly a racist. Isnt that exactly what people are doing on here about Rwanda by spreading mis information about the country? No " care to elaborate ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No we need more people thinking like Enoch not less.And if you believe he was a racist,you need to educate your self. When a person spreads fear and horror of people of colour, invading our cities and towns, and creating local populations to act upon that ‘invasion’ through race hate, race violence, burning houses of ethic minorities, that continues today, yes he was clearly a racist. Isnt that exactly what people are doing on here about Rwanda by spreading mis information about the country?" I though they were sending immigrants to Rwanda as a deterrent?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No we need more people thinking like Enoch not less.And if you believe he was a racist,you need to educate your self. When a person spreads fear and horror of people of colour, invading our cities and towns, and creating local populations to act upon that ‘invasion’ through race hate, race violence, burning houses of ethic minorities, that continues today, yes he was clearly a racist. Isnt that exactly what people are doing on here about Rwanda by spreading mis information about the country? I though they were sending immigrants to Rwanda as a deterrent? "It doesn't mean its a bad country though does it? The deterrent is they will not be staying in the uk and have paid all their money for nothing. Its really not that hard to understand. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No we need more people thinking like Enoch not less.And if you believe he was a racist,you need to educate your self. When a person spreads fear and horror of people of colour, invading our cities and towns, and creating local populations to act upon that ‘invasion’ through race hate, race violence, burning houses of ethic minorities, that continues today, yes he was clearly a racist. Isnt that exactly what people are doing on here about Rwanda by spreading mis information about the country? No care to elaborate ?" Nobody is besmirching Rwanda that is leading to race hate that leads to death, hurt or pain. I thought you’d be smart enough to realise that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No we need more people thinking like Enoch not less.And if you believe he was a racist,you need to educate your self. When a person spreads fear and horror of people of colour, invading our cities and towns, and creating local populations to act upon that ‘invasion’ through race hate, race violence, burning houses of ethic minorities, that continues today, yes he was clearly a racist. Isnt that exactly what people are doing on here about Rwanda by spreading mis information about the country? I though they were sending immigrants to Rwanda as a deterrent? It doesn't mean its a bad country though does it? The deterrent is they will not be staying in the uk and have paid all their money for nothing. Its really not that hard to understand."Ah, so Rwanda is really nice but not as nice as the UK? Btw, what are we going to do with the people they send back from Rwanda? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No we need more people thinking like Enoch not less.And if you believe he was a racist,you need to educate your self. When a person spreads fear and horror of people of colour, invading our cities and towns, and creating local populations to act upon that ‘invasion’ through race hate, race violence, burning houses of ethic minorities, that continues today, yes he was clearly a racist. Isnt that exactly what people are doing on here about Rwanda by spreading mis information about the country? No care to elaborate ? Nobody is besmirching Rwanda that is leading to race hate that leads to death, hurt or pain. I thought you’d be smart enough to realise that. " You may not be but there seems to be plenty of people who are opposed to it,im just wondering why? it seems a safe country even Arsenal (starmers team) are asking everyone to visit it at every game.yet no one seemed bothered about refugees being sent to Turkey.Is it because its Africa? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No we need more people thinking like Enoch not less.And if you believe he was a racist,you need to educate your self. When a person spreads fear and horror of people of colour, invading our cities and towns, and creating local populations to act upon that ‘invasion’ through race hate, race violence, burning houses of ethic minorities, that continues today, yes he was clearly a racist. Isnt that exactly what people are doing on here about Rwanda by spreading mis information about the country? I though they were sending immigrants to Rwanda as a deterrent? It doesn't mean its a bad country though does it? The deterrent is they will not be staying in the uk and have paid all their money for nothing. Its really not that hard to understand.
Ah, so Rwanda is really nice but not as nice as the UK? Btw, what are we going to do with the people they send back from Rwanda? "See you are understanding deterrent now a bit like taking a chance on booking a holiday to the Seychelles but there's a good chance you could end up in Benidorm both nice both safe but not what you want. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No we need more people thinking like Enoch not less.And if you believe he was a racist,you need to educate your self. When a person spreads fear and horror of people of colour, invading our cities and towns, and creating local populations to act upon that ‘invasion’ through race hate, race violence, burning houses of ethic minorities, that continues today, yes he was clearly a racist. Isnt that exactly what people are doing on here about Rwanda by spreading mis information about the country? I though they were sending immigrants to Rwanda as a deterrent? It doesn't mean its a bad country though does it? The deterrent is they will not be staying in the uk and have paid all their money for nothing. Its really not that hard to understand.
Ah, so Rwanda is really nice but not as nice as the UK? Btw, what are we going to do with the people they send back from Rwanda? See you are understanding deterrent now a bit like taking a chance on booking a holiday to the Seychelles but there's a good chance you could end up in Benidorm both nice both safe but not what you want. "Are you saying that Rwanda is a worse place to live than the UK? What are we doing with the people they send back from Rwanda? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No we need more people thinking like Enoch not less.And if you believe he was a racist,you need to educate your self. When a person spreads fear and horror of people of colour, invading our cities and towns, and creating local populations to act upon that ‘invasion’ through race hate, race violence, burning houses of ethic minorities, that continues today, yes he was clearly a racist. Isnt that exactly what people are doing on here about Rwanda by spreading mis information about the country? I though they were sending immigrants to Rwanda as a deterrent? It doesn't mean its a bad country though does it? The deterrent is they will not be staying in the uk and have paid all their money for nothing. Its really not that hard to understand.
Ah, so Rwanda is really nice but not as nice as the UK? Btw, what are we going to do with the people they send back from Rwanda? See you are understanding deterrent now a bit like taking a chance on booking a holiday to the Seychelles but there's a good chance you could end up in Benidorm both nice both safe but not what you want.
Are you saying that Rwanda is a worse place to live than the UK? What are we doing with the people they send back from Rwanda? "No totally missed the point yet again im saying you end up somewhere where you didnt want to be.How did you come to that conclusion do you think benidorm is worse than the seychells ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The system as it is cannot continue as we don't have the housing or services to accommodate such large amounts of people. Hundreds of single males every day. Something has to change. Unless anyone has a better plan than Rwanda that's the best option put forward so far. Rwanda is not the hell-hole middle class activists would have you believe. They want people to help build their country." Where are we putting the 550k other immigrants then? The ones who are put to work pay for their own accommodation . The only reason they are struggling for secure centre did the lack of staff working in immigration now. If we didn’t have the two year delay ( this governments watch) it would be just a few thousand a year needing accommodation which isn’t a problem. The lack of space to accommodate those waiting to be processed is the governments failure to process not a massive increase in immigrants. Your buying into the governments of overwhelmed or illegal message which just isn’t true. A better plan ? Offer a safe route which puts people to work quicker and stops the traffickers business model. It’s not rocket science. Build the centre in Calais so those who have made the long journey who are obviously prepared to work hard to achieve get a safe option chance. They’ve spent weeks of hardship in many cases getting here and look a the whining going on over a few hours waiting at airports by U.K. travellers here recently. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No we need more people thinking like Enoch not less.And if you believe he was a racist,you need to educate your self. When a person spreads fear and horror of people of colour, invading our cities and towns, and creating local populations to act upon that ‘invasion’ through race hate, race violence, burning houses of ethic minorities, that continues today, yes he was clearly a racist. Isnt that exactly what people are doing on here about Rwanda by spreading mis information about the country? I though they were sending immigrants to Rwanda as a deterrent? It doesn't mean its a bad country though does it? The deterrent is they will not be staying in the uk and have paid all their money for nothing. Its really not that hard to understand.
Ah, so Rwanda is really nice but not as nice as the UK? Btw, what are we going to do with the people they send back from Rwanda? See you are understanding deterrent now a bit like taking a chance on booking a holiday to the Seychelles but there's a good chance you could end up in Benidorm both nice both safe but not what you want.
Are you saying that Rwanda is a worse place to live than the UK? What are we doing with the people they send back from Rwanda? No totally missed the point yet again im saying you end up somewhere where you didnt want to be.How did you come to that conclusion do you think benidorm is worse than the seychells ? "So if Rwanda is really nice , just as good as the UK then it won’t be a very good deterrent, which has been proven , 444 crossed the channel yesterday, it’s working well | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do racists hate the suggestion being labelled as a racist. They should own it. Lol " True, maybe they are racist ‘snowflakes’ , to scared to admit they are bigots because they are scared of offending someone  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They are only illegal when they have been denied asylum, " They are guilty of an offence, under section 24(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971, as soon as they set foot on a beach. Being granted asylum shields them from prosecution for that offence, but it doesn't make their actions legal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They are only illegal when they have been denied asylum, They are guilty of an offence, under section 24(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971, as soon as they set foot on a beach. Being granted asylum shields them from prosecution for that offence, but it doesn't make their actions legal." So they can’t be prosecuted? , thanks for clearing that up  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do racists hate the suggestion being labelled as a racist. They should own it. Lol " In fairness to the OP. He's pretty open about it. Saying you want more people to think like Enoch Powells, which is hating "black" people, is pretty straight forward. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s costing a fortune, what is the main ‘aim’ of the plan? " Not everything is about money. Do you know how much it is costing to house the tens of thousands who have arrived this year alone? Nevermind the hotel or housing, but the strain on services and increases in crime? Not everything is about cost. Sometimes it's a simple matter of normal folk not wanting their local communities changed by the government dumping lots of single males into their area with no money or support. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s costing a fortune, what is the main ‘aim’ of the plan? Not everything is about money. Do you know how much it is costing to house the tens of thousands who have arrived this year alone? Nevermind the hotel or housing, but the strain on services and increases in crime? Not everything is about cost. Sometimes it's a simple matter of normal folk not wanting their local communities changed by the government dumping lots of single males into their area with no money or support." Who are these people who don't like foreigners? I don't know anyone who thinks like that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't know anyone who thinks like that." Don't try and pretend that you would be happy for lots of poorly educated, resourceless and single males to be dumped in your area. Ignore the fact they are foreign, it's not about that! Would you honestly want a large probation hostel placed in your local area? You are full of it to suggest you would be. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't know anyone who thinks like that. Don't try and pretend that you would be happy for lots of poorly educated, resourceless and single males to be dumped in your area. Ignore the fact they are foreign, it's not about that! Would you honestly want a large probation hostel placed in your local area? You are full of it to suggest you would be." How many have been ‘dumped’ in Newcastle under Lyme? Btw, where are they going to ‘dump’ all the people that they are bringing back from Rwanda? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s costing a fortune, what is the main ‘aim’ of the plan? Not everything is about money. Do you know how much it is costing to house the tens of thousands who have arrived this year alone? Nevermind the hotel or housing, but the strain on services and increases in crime? Not everything is about cost. Sometimes it's a simple matter of normal folk not wanting their local communities changed by the government dumping lots of single males into their area with no money or support." Your simple matters have far reaching consequences with a not so great outlook. for example, do the normal folk you know want to stop the local population having children with no means of support and dumping them into the area too? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"... out of 500k immigrants a year arriving in the U.K. the number rejected is around 3000." But that 500k figure includes all immigrants, e.g. students arriving to study, Australians coming here for the culture, people with visas coming here to work, etc. Last year, there were 48,540 asylum applications, there were 14,704 asylum and humanitarian aid grants, and there was a backlog of 81,978 cases which hadn't had an initial decision. Figures from the Home Office - https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2021/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't know anyone who thinks like that. Don't try and pretend that you would be happy for lots of poorly educated, resourceless and single males to be dumped in your area. Ignore the fact they are foreign, it's not about that! Would you honestly want a large probation hostel placed in your local area? You are full of it to suggest you would be." I dunno, I don't read media that publish articles designed to scare people into thinking large groups of "poorly educated, resourceless single males" are being "dumped" around the place. So I can't comment on your fictional scenario. Because it's not real life. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How many have been ‘dumped’ in Newcastle under Lyme?" Hundreds. In the last few years the area has changed a lot. Knife crime is up as is child sexual exploitation. Rwanda would give them jobs and a chance to prove they want a new life. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How many have been ‘dumped’ in Newcastle under Lyme? Hundreds. In the last few years the area has changed a lot. Knife crime is up as is child sexual exploitation. Rwanda would give them jobs and a chance to prove they want a new life." Why would things be rosier for them in Rwanda than in Newcastle under Lyme? Seems like a catastrophic failure of the government, rather than the fault of some foreigners. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So I can't comment on your fictional scenario. Because it's not real life. " No you're just a typical person who dismisses opinions they don't like and picks and chooses facts to suit their own view. That said, you also dont live in a northern town so dont know the impact it has had. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How many have been ‘dumped’ in Newcastle under Lyme? Hundreds. In the last few years the area has changed a lot. Knife crime is up as is child sexual exploitation. Rwanda would give them jobs and a chance to prove they want a new life." So you would prefer if they ‘dump’ the people sent back from Rwanda in your area instead ? Do you know why this government have decided to ‘dump’ so many of these people in Newcastle under lyne? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So I can't comment on your fictional scenario. Because it's not real life. No you're just a typical person who dismisses opinions they don't like and picks and chooses facts to suit their own view. That said, you also dont live in a northern town so dont know the impact it has had." I live in a northern town , it has had no impact on my life, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So I can't comment on your fictional scenario. Because it's not real life. No you're just a typical person who dismisses opinions they don't like and picks and chooses facts to suit their own view. That said, you also dont live in a northern town so dont know the impact it has had." I have, and do know the impact. Your opinions are based on a false view of the world. There aren't these groups being dumped. But let's for one second pretend they are. Why are they the target of your ire, instead of the government? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How many have been ‘dumped’ in Newcastle under Lyme? Hundreds. In the last few years the area has changed a lot. Knife crime is up as is child sexual exploitation. Rwanda would give them jobs and a chance to prove they want a new life." Crime has risen everywhere due to police budget cuts Child sexual exploitation isn’t caused by foreigners. Plenty of ‘indigenous’ sickos What is so bad if your community demographic changes by a few hundred people ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So I can't comment on your fictional scenario. Because it's not real life. No you're just a typical person who dismisses opinions they don't like and picks and chooses facts to suit their own view. That said, you also dont live in a northern town so dont know the impact it has had. I live in a northern town , it has had no impact on my life, " There are lots of unpleasant people where I live. Usually people who are prejudice against foreigners. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Illegal migration, I used to visit different factories within the group, and at one of them there was an abandoned factory over the road, full of illegal migrants who got feed by the locals of the same faith and at 7 O'clock AM they all pilled out to stand against the wall for the arrival of vans to collect them to go to work for individuals who use them for sl@ve labour, with the council knowing what is going on. That is illegal economic migration in the UK. " So you’re not bothered about the guy employing them who’s probably rich and paying at below minimum wage just those being exploited because they are vulnerable and have no rights or choice. What if they were registered and both they and the owner paid tax? Would that be ok? Punishing the victims is not the answer is it? Maybe the distraught families of those who died in Grenfell should be fined for being poorer and living there, not the disgusting arseholes who lied to put cheaper cladding up to make more money! Is that what you’re saying? The cost to prosecute is holding off any action yet on Grenfell. Liz truss spent £350k on a private plane to Australia. Priti Patel has handed over £150m to Rwanda as a deposit. Hundreds of thousands on art. New paint job for Boris’ plane. £37B down the toilet of track and trace. ( no effort to reclaim) Furlough fraud, £11b written off due to interest on bonds because Sunak didn’t insure which he was told to. Etc etc Why is it there’s always unlimited taxpayers money for the Government’s ridiculous failed policies and their obscene expenses and yet reluctance to spend on helping or defending the poor? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"... out of 500k immigrants a year arriving in the U.K. the number rejected is around 3000. But that 500k figure includes all immigrants, e.g. students arriving to study, Australians coming here for the culture, people with visas coming here to work, etc. Last year, there were 48,540 asylum applications, there were 14,704 asylum and humanitarian aid grants, and there was a backlog of 81,978 cases which hadn't had an initial decision. Figures from the Home Office - https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2021/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to" Indeed it does and does it include economic migrants who arrive and are allowed to stay because “they are allowed to work “ and don’t cost the tax payer a penny. The backlog according to the government library is now in excess of 120k. Just think if we are accepting 90% how much money and tax we are losing due to government incompetence. If they were working they cost nothing and don’t need a bed paying for. Yes we’ve been through this and the final figure from the boat arrivals is just less than half off the rejected figure so 1500 or less. Of the 48540 how many came by plane?. Over 50% The vast majority if we take your figure is over 80% are granted asylum relatively quickly ( well we’re before the system was cut back) the final figure reject is very low. So why are we spending hundreds of millions on a few thousand people? The rate of acceptance for boat people is in excess of 80% as the 80% is an average including aircraft. Given the India, Bangladesh and Pakistan are above 90% rejection rates and aircraft arrivals are greater then the average for rejection on boat arrivals must be lower than 10% The costs of accommodation are down to Priti patels failure to process quickly. It’s that simple. Adding flights and cash for Rwanda is just moving the money rather than addressing the actual issue of government failure. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How many have been ‘dumped’ in Newcastle under Lyme? Hundreds. In the last few years the area has changed a lot. Knife crime is up as is child sexual exploitation. Rwanda would give them jobs and a chance to prove they want a new life." So why don’t we give them jobs? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How many have been ‘dumped’ in Newcastle under Lyme? Hundreds. In the last few years the area has changed a lot. Knife crime is up as is child sexual exploitation. Rwanda would give them jobs and a chance to prove they want a new life. So why don’t we give them jobs? " Because they would start to complain about ‘refugees coming over here stealing our jobs’ you can’t win with these people | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Illegal migration, I used to visit different factories within the group, and at one of them there was an abandoned factory over the road, full of illegal migrants who got feed by the locals of the same faith and at 7 O'clock AM they all pilled out to stand against the wall for the arrival of vans to collect them to go to work for individuals who use them for sl@ve labour, with the council knowing what is going on. That is illegal economic migration in the UK. So you’re not bothered about the guy employing them who’s probably rich and paying at below minimum wage just those being exploited because they are vulnerable and have no rights or choice. What if they were registered and both they and the owner paid tax? Would that be ok? Punishing the victims is not the answer is it? Maybe the distraught families of those who died in Grenfell should be fined for being poorer and living there, not the disgusting arseholes who lied to put cheaper cladding up to make more money! Is that what you’re saying? The cost to prosecute is holding off any action yet on Grenfell. Liz truss spent £350k on a private plane to Australia. Priti Patel has handed over £150m to Rwanda as a deposit. Hundreds of thousands on art. New paint job for Boris’ plane. £37B down the toilet of track and trace. ( no effort to reclaim) Furlough fraud, £11b written off due to interest on bonds because Sunak didn’t insure which he was told to. Etc etc Why is it there’s always unlimited taxpayers money for the Government’s ridiculous failed policies and their obscene expenses and yet reluctance to spend on helping or defending the poor? " Cracking post | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"See the last thread locked just as discussion on ECHR was about to kick in. So for context for any who do not know... ECHR is NOT an EU institution. Founded in 1953 and Originally proposed by Winston Churchill and drafted mainly by British lawyers, the Convention was based on the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was signed in Rome in 1950 and came into force in 1953. Interestingly Boris Johnson is the grandson of Sir James Fawcett, a member of the European Commission for Human Rights for 20 years and its president for half that time. The ECHR is not “some foreign court” as some are trying to to declare. It is an international body to which the UK is a founding member and member/signatory. " Thank you for explaining. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Illegal migration, I used to visit different factories within the group, and at one of them there was an abandoned factory over the road, full of illegal migrants who got feed by the locals of the same faith and at 7 O'clock AM they all pilled out to stand against the wall for the arrival of vans to collect them to go to work for individuals who use them for sl@ve labour, with the council knowing what is going on. That is illegal economic migration in the UK. So you’re not bothered about the guy employing them who’s probably rich and paying at below minimum wage just those being exploited because they are vulnerable and have no rights or choice. What if they were registered and both they and the owner paid tax? Would that be ok? Punishing the victims is not the answer is it? Maybe the distraught families of those who died in Grenfell should be fined for being poorer and living there, not the disgusting arseholes who lied to put cheaper cladding up to make more money! Is that what you’re saying? The cost to prosecute is holding off any action yet on Grenfell. Liz truss spent £350k on a private plane to Australia. Priti Patel has handed over £150m to Rwanda as a deposit. Hundreds of thousands on art. New paint job for Boris’ plane. £37B down the toilet of track and trace. ( no effort to reclaim) Furlough fraud, £11b written off due to interest on bonds because Sunak didn’t insure which he was told to. Etc etc Why is it there’s always unlimited taxpayers money for the Government’s ridiculous failed policies and their obscene expenses and yet reluctance to spend on helping or defending the poor? " You are not suggesting spending UK taxpayers money to fund the worlds poor are you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Illegal migration, I used to visit different factories within the group, and at one of them there was an abandoned factory over the road, full of illegal migrants who got feed by the locals of the same faith and at 7 O'clock AM they all pilled out to stand against the wall for the arrival of vans to collect them to go to work for individuals who use them for sl@ve labour, with the council knowing what is going on. That is illegal economic migration in the UK. So you’re not bothered about the guy employing them who’s probably rich and paying at below minimum wage just those being exploited because they are vulnerable and have no rights or choice. What if they were registered and both they and the owner paid tax? Would that be ok? Punishing the victims is not the answer is it? Maybe the distraught families of those who died in Grenfell should be fined for being poorer and living there, not the disgusting arseholes who lied to put cheaper cladding up to make more money! Is that what you’re saying? The cost to prosecute is holding off any action yet on Grenfell. Liz truss spent £350k on a private plane to Australia. Priti Patel has handed over £150m to Rwanda as a deposit. Hundreds of thousands on art. New paint job for Boris’ plane. £37B down the toilet of track and trace. ( no effort to reclaim) Furlough fraud, £11b written off due to interest on bonds because Sunak didn’t insure which he was told to. Etc etc Why is it there’s always unlimited taxpayers money for the Government’s ridiculous failed policies and their obscene expenses and yet reluctance to spend on helping or defending the poor? You are not suggesting spending UK taxpayers money to fund the worlds poor are you? " It would be better used then on a duff track and trace app or billions of failed PPE stock l | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Illegal migration, I used to visit different factories within the group, and at one of them there was an abandoned factory over the road, full of illegal migrants who got feed by the locals of the same faith and at 7 O'clock AM they all pilled out to stand against the wall for the arrival of vans to collect them to go to work for individuals who use them for sl@ve labour, with the council knowing what is going on. That is illegal economic migration in the UK. So you’re not bothered about the guy employing them who’s probably rich and paying at below minimum wage just those being exploited because they are vulnerable and have no rights or choice. What if they were registered and both they and the owner paid tax? Would that be ok? Punishing the victims is not the answer is it? Maybe the distraught families of those who died in Grenfell should be fined for being poorer and living there, not the disgusting arseholes who lied to put cheaper cladding up to make more money! Is that what you’re saying? The cost to prosecute is holding off any action yet on Grenfell. Liz truss spent £350k on a private plane to Australia. Priti Patel has handed over £150m to Rwanda as a deposit. Hundreds of thousands on art. New paint job for Boris’ plane. £37B down the toilet of track and trace. ( no effort to reclaim) Furlough fraud, £11b written off due to interest on bonds because Sunak didn’t insure which he was told to. Etc etc Why is it there’s always unlimited taxpayers money for the Government’s ridiculous failed policies and their obscene expenses and yet reluctance to spend on helping or defending the poor? " Of course I am bothered. When they are being exploited by the men in the vans because the men who are of the same fairh in the vans know they have no legal right to be in the uk. They need a ni number to pay tax which the people I mentioned obviously do not, I know what, I will start a company or a car wash solely using illegal imigrants I will pull up and they will pile into the van to make me loads of money through exploitation. That is illegal migration in the UK, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Too many people have this straw-man idea of what a person who disagrees with mass immigration is. Brand folk racists if you want, we aren't the ones using the term "foreigner"." If you weren’t racist, you wouldn’t accept the term. But it seems you’re ok with it . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Of course I am bothered. When they are being exploited by the men in the vans because the men who are of the same fairh in the vans know they have no legal right to be in the uk. They need a ni number to pay tax which the people I mentioned obviously do not, I know what, I will start a company or a car wash solely using illegal imigrants I will pull up and they will pile into the van to make me loads of money through exploitation. That is illegal migration in the UK, " You’re concerned about modern slav-ery and the people be exploited. That’s really good of you. So perhaps lobby your MP and share them your concerns that the Home Office need to streamline their asylum processing , work with France and work with other countries where migrants come from and stop them entering Europe. Think big picture | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No we need more people thinking like Enoch not less.And if you believe he was a racist,you need to educate your self. When a person spreads fear and horror of people of colour, invading our cities and towns, and creating local populations to act upon that ‘invasion’ through race hate, race violence, burning houses of ethic minorities, that continues today, yes he was clearly a racist. Isnt that exactly what people are doing on here about Rwanda by spreading mis information about the country? I though they were sending immigrants to Rwanda as a deterrent? It doesn't mean its a bad country though does it? The deterrent is they will not be staying in the uk and have paid all their money for nothing. Its really not that hard to understand.
Ah, so Rwanda is really nice but not as nice as the UK? Btw, what are we going to do with the people they send back from Rwanda? See you are understanding deterrent now a bit like taking a chance on booking a holiday to the Seychelles but there's a good chance you could end up in Benidorm both nice both safe but not what you want.
Are you saying that Rwanda is a worse place to live than the UK? What are we doing with the people they send back from Rwanda? No totally missed the point yet again im saying you end up somewhere where you didnt want to be.How did you come to that conclusion do you think benidorm is worse than the seychells ?
So if Rwanda is really nice , just as good as the UK then it won’t be a very good deterrent, which has been proven , 444 crossed the channel yesterday, it’s working well "Again failing to see the point if they wanted to go to Rwanda they would have.I really cant see how you constantly fail to see what is written life must be so challenging for you either that or are you are just looking for someone to talk to?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Too many people have this straw-man idea of what a person who disagrees with mass immigration is. Brand folk racists if you want, we aren't the ones using the term "foreigner". If you weren’t racist, you wouldn’t accept the term. But it seems you’re ok with it . " Aren't you the guy that said those Ukrainian soldiers deserved death in another thread? Cannot see a single thing that we posted that suggests we are racist. Having an opinion that is different does not make a person racist, and neither does making the assertion that we don't owe these people anything either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Too many people have this straw-man idea of what a person who disagrees with mass immigration is. Brand folk racists if you want, we aren't the ones using the term "foreigner". If you weren’t racist, you wouldn’t accept the term. But it seems you’re ok with it . Aren't you the guy that said those Ukrainian soldiers deserved death in another thread? Cannot see a single thing that we posted that suggests we are racist. Having an opinion that is different does not make a person racist, and neither does making the assertion that we don't owe these people anything either." I didn’t say those Ukrainian soldiers deserved to die. You wrote : “Brand folk racists if you want, we aren't the ones using the term "foreigner".” So I did just that . If you understand global politics and trade. You’ll understand that some of our foreign policies have an adverse effect to other countries. If we complain about Libya, Syria , Iraq , Afghanistan. Well just look at the Wars we poured fuel on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Of course I am bothered. When they are being exploited by the men in the vans because the men who are of the same fairh in the vans know they have no legal right to be in the uk. They need a ni number to pay tax which the people I mentioned obviously do not, I know what, I will start a company or a car wash solely using illegal imigrants I will pull up and they will pile into the van to make me loads of money through exploitation. That is illegal migration in the UK, You’re concerned about modern slav-ery and the people be exploited. That’s really good of you. So perhaps lobby your MP and share them your concerns that the Home Office need to streamline their asylum processing , work with France and work with other countries where migrants come from and stop them entering Europe. Think big picture " If there was no illegal migration there would be no explanation. Genuine migrants are not exploited. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How many have been ‘dumped’ in Newcastle under Lyme? Hundreds. In the last few years the area has changed a lot. Knife crime is up as is child sexual exploitation. Rwanda would give them jobs and a chance to prove they want a new life. So why don’t we give them jobs? Because they would start to complain about ‘refugees coming over here stealing our jobs’ you can’t win with these people " And at a time when there's 1.3 million vacancies, jobs for which the Exchequer will receive tax and NI contributions.. We have an ageing population and birth rates are predicted globally to fall so there's clearly issues which present opportunities for potential solutions but with the current mindset of those in power who only seem intent on appeasing their right wing donors and readers of the daily hate it's a mess which will impact all in future apart from the likes of Boris and Mogg.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Think big picture If there was no illegal migration there would be no explanation. Genuine migrants are not exploited. " Genuine asylum seekers aren’t allowed to work, whilst their case is being checked. Because of the slow process of the Home Office, it takes years. And then they’re given the right to remain because they’re genuine. Living on a pittance is something nobody wants. The Home Office policy is helping them to be exploited. The problem is there is a lot of misinformation and inaccuracies that people don’t understand. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Think big picture If there was no illegal migration there would be no explanation. Genuine migrants are not exploited. Genuine asylum seekers aren’t allowed to work, whilst their case is being checked. Because of the slow process of the Home Office, it takes years. And then they’re given the right to remain because they’re genuine. Living on a pittance is something nobody wants. The Home Office policy is helping them to be exploited. The problem is there is a lot of misinformation and inaccuracies that people don’t understand. " I know what I saw illegal migrants being exploited by people of the same faith. The UK government are not doing the exploration. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Too many people have this straw-man idea of what a person who disagrees with mass immigration is. Brand folk racists if you want, we aren't the ones using the term "foreigner"." Does using the word "foreigner" in conversation, to describe someone who is from another country, make you more racist than being prejudice against foreigners? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Too many people have this straw-man idea of what a person who disagrees with mass immigration is. Brand folk racists if you want, we aren't the ones using the term "foreigner". Does using the word "foreigner" in conversation, to describe someone who is from another country, make you more racist than being prejudice against foreigners?" It’s all about context. When you use the term is it in a positive manner or in a derogatory manner? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Think big picture If there was no illegal migration there would be no explanation. Genuine migrants are not exploited. Genuine asylum seekers aren’t allowed to work, whilst their case is being checked. Because of the slow process of the Home Office, it takes years. And then they’re given the right to remain because they’re genuine. Living on a pittance is something nobody wants. The Home Office policy is helping them to be exploited. The problem is there is a lot of misinformation and inaccuracies that people don’t understand. I know what I saw illegal migrants being exploited by people of the same faith. The UK government are not doing the exploration." Exploiters come in all shapes, colours , ethnicities. Did you want to comment about the slow Home Office processing ? Do you you agree like me that the Home Office needs to process the genuine alyssum seekers quickly, so they can have proper jobs that we aren’t willing to do ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Think big picture If there was no illegal migration there would be no explanation. Genuine migrants are not exploited. Genuine asylum seekers aren’t allowed to work, whilst their case is being checked. Because of the slow process of the Home Office, it takes years. And then they’re given the right to remain because they’re genuine. Living on a pittance is something nobody wants. The Home Office policy is helping them to be exploited. The problem is there is a lot of misinformation and inaccuracies that people don’t understand. I know what I saw illegal migrants being exploited by people of the same faith. The UK government are not doing the exploration." This type of activity happens all over the world. People herd together and find comfort in commonality. Unfortunately there are many wolves in the pack, looking to exploit the vulnerable. Noticing those people and noticing they were being exploited, what action have you taken? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Illegal migration, I used to visit different factories within the group, and at one of them there was an abandoned factory over the road, full of illegal migrants who got feed by the locals of the same faith and at 7 O'clock AM they all pilled out to stand against the wall for the arrival of vans to collect them to go to work for individuals who use them for sl@ve labour, with the council knowing what is going on. That is illegal economic migration in the UK. So you’re not bothered about the guy employing them who’s probably rich and paying at below minimum wage just those being exploited because they are vulnerable and have no rights or choice. What if they were registered and both they and the owner paid tax? Would that be ok? Punishing the victims is not the answer is it? Maybe the distraught families of those who died in Grenfell should be fined for being poorer and living there, not the disgusting arseholes who lied to put cheaper cladding up to make more money! Is that what you’re saying? The cost to prosecute is holding off any action yet on Grenfell. Liz truss spent £350k on a private plane to Australia. Priti Patel has handed over £150m to Rwanda as a deposit. Hundreds of thousands on art. New paint job for Boris’ plane. £37B down the toilet of track and trace. ( no effort to reclaim) Furlough fraud, £11b written off due to interest on bonds because Sunak didn’t insure which he was told to. Etc etc Why is it there’s always unlimited taxpayers money for the Government’s ridiculous failed policies and their obscene expenses and yet reluctance to spend on helping or defending the poor? Of course I am bothered. When they are being exploited by the men in the vans because the men who are of the same fairh in the vans know they have no legal right to be in the uk. They need a ni number to pay tax which the people I mentioned obviously do not, I know what, I will start a company or a car wash solely using illegal imigrants I will pull up and they will pile into the van to make me loads of money through exploitation. That is illegal migration in the UK, " And just think if they had arrived through a safe organised route they would indeed by paying tax. Are you missing that blatantly obvious point on purpose? Blocking safe routes encourages unsafe routes it’s that simple. They are I would guess just wanting to work. Give them a legal option and I’m sure they will take it. The lazy unemployed are happily sitting at home on the do,e watching day time tv and you accuse the poor exploited of being of lesser worth. The ones who arrive by boats are only illegal if they fail to claim asylum. So that’s definitely not the 90% majority. The biggest illegal routes are by air on forged or copy passports being used by relatives etc. or over stay students and holiday makers. The biggest three highest reject rated countries I will state again. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh. Not Syria, not Iraq. As for you going into business not sure you could manage the accounts if you struggle to understand statistics. But crack on we all love a worker. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Think big picture If there was no illegal migration there would be no explanation. Genuine migrants are not exploited. Genuine asylum seekers aren’t allowed to work, whilst their case is being checked. Because of the slow process of the Home Office, it takes years. And then they’re given the right to remain because they’re genuine. Living on a pittance is something nobody wants. The Home Office policy is helping them to be exploited. The problem is there is a lot of misinformation and inaccuracies that people don’t understand. I know what I saw illegal migrants being exploited by people of the same faith. The UK government are not doing the exploration." You keep saying same faith . Did you ask them this? Or were you just assuming by the colour of their skin? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No we need more people thinking like Enoch not less.And if you believe he was a racist,you need to educate your self. When a person spreads fear and horror of people of colour, invading our cities and towns, and creating local populations to act upon that ‘invasion’ through race hate, race violence, burning houses of ethic minorities, that continues today, yes he was clearly a racist. Isnt that exactly what people are doing on here about Rwanda by spreading mis information about the country? I though they were sending immigrants to Rwanda as a deterrent? It doesn't mean its a bad country though does it? The deterrent is they will not be staying in the uk and have paid all their money for nothing. Its really not that hard to understand.
Ah, so Rwanda is really nice but not as nice as the UK? Btw, what are we going to do with the people they send back from Rwanda? See you are understanding deterrent now a bit like taking a chance on booking a holiday to the Seychelles but there's a good chance you could end up in Benidorm both nice both safe but not what you want.
Are you saying that Rwanda is a worse place to live than the UK? What are we doing with the people they send back from Rwanda? No totally missed the point yet again im saying you end up somewhere where you didnt want to be.How did you come to that conclusion do you think benidorm is worse than the seychells ?
So if Rwanda is really nice , just as good as the UK then it won’t be a very good deterrent, which has been proven , 444 crossed the channel yesterday, it’s working well Again failing to see the point if they wanted to go to Rwanda they would have.I really cant see how you constantly fail to see what is written life must be so challenging for you either that or are you are just looking for someone to talk to? "PMSL, you must have been distraught when the plane was grounded last night, I still haven’t found out what we are going to do with the people who are sent back here from Rwanda, they must be devastated having to come here | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Too many people have this straw-man idea of what a person who disagrees with mass immigration is. Brand folk racists if you want, we aren't the ones using the term "foreigner"." How would you describe ‘mass immigration’ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Think big picture If there was no illegal migration there would be no explanation. Genuine migrants are not exploited. Genuine asylum seekers aren’t allowed to work, whilst their case is being checked. Because of the slow process of the Home Office, it takes years. And then they’re given the right to remain because they’re genuine. Living on a pittance is something nobody wants. The Home Office policy is helping them to be exploited. The problem is there is a lot of misinformation and inaccuracies that people don’t understand. I know what I saw illegal migrants being exploited by people of the same faith. The UK government are not doing the exploration. You keep saying same faith . Did you ask them this? Or were you just assuming by the colour of their skin? " It could well be a fair assumption or an educated guess. I think both are still allowed? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Think big picture If there was no illegal migration there would be no explanation. Genuine migrants are not exploited. Genuine asylum seekers aren’t allowed to work, whilst their case is being checked. Because of the slow process of the Home Office, it takes years. And then they’re given the right to remain because they’re genuine. Living on a pittance is something nobody wants. The Home Office policy is helping them to be exploited. The problem is there is a lot of misinformation and inaccuracies that people don’t understand. I know what I saw illegal migrants being exploited by people of the same faith. The UK government are not doing the exploration. You keep saying same faith . Did you ask them this? Or were you just assuming by the colour of their skin? It could well be a fair assumption or an educated guess. I think both are still allowed? " You are correct, assumptions like the above can be made. Luckily, many people don't as they know they are painting their own narrative based on their biases. I could walk into the centre Marlow on a Sunday afternoon to watch a game of local cricket, I could make an assumption that all of the players being white and playing cricket are all of the same faith. The reality could be very different, from Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and so on. Our friend from Dudley saw what he saw, applied his own bias and is now socialising it as fact. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Think big picture If there was no illegal migration there would be no explanation. Genuine migrants are not exploited. Genuine asylum seekers aren’t allowed to work, whilst their case is being checked. Because of the slow process of the Home Office, it takes years. And then they’re given the right to remain because they’re genuine. Living on a pittance is something nobody wants. The Home Office policy is helping them to be exploited. The problem is there is a lot of misinformation and inaccuracies that people don’t understand. I know what I saw illegal migrants being exploited by people of the same faith. The UK government are not doing the exploration. You keep saying same faith . Did you ask them this? Or were you just assuming by the colour of their skin? It could well be a fair assumption or an educated guess. I think both are still allowed? " So you have no idea Pleased your honest about it so credit to you there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Think big picture If there was no illegal migration there would be no explanation. Genuine migrants are not exploited. Genuine asylum seekers aren’t allowed to work, whilst their case is being checked. Because of the slow process of the Home Office, it takes years. And then they’re given the right to remain because they’re genuine. Living on a pittance is something nobody wants. The Home Office policy is helping them to be exploited. The problem is there is a lot of misinformation and inaccuracies that people don’t understand. I know what I saw illegal migrants being exploited by people of the same faith. The UK government are not doing the exploration. You keep saying same faith . Did you ask them this? Or were you just assuming by the colour of their skin? It could well be a fair assumption or an educated guess. I think both are still allowed? You are correct, assumptions like the above can be made. Luckily, many people don't as they know they are painting their own narrative based on their biases. I could walk into the centre Marlow on a Sunday afternoon to watch a game of local cricket, I could make an assumption that all of the players being white and playing cricket are all of the same faith. The reality could be very different, from Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and so on. Our friend from Dudley saw what he saw, applied his own bias and is now socialising it as fact." Over egging it somewhat. You know where he’s coming from but for some strange reason known only to you , you choose to make an issue. Marlow is pretty multi culti these days, especially cricket. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Think big picture If there was no illegal migration there would be no explanation. Genuine migrants are not exploited. Genuine asylum seekers aren’t allowed to work, whilst their case is being checked. Because of the slow process of the Home Office, it takes years. And then they’re given the right to remain because they’re genuine. Living on a pittance is something nobody wants. The Home Office policy is helping them to be exploited. The problem is there is a lot of misinformation and inaccuracies that people don’t understand. I know what I saw illegal migrants being exploited by people of the same faith. The UK government are not doing the exploration. You keep saying same faith . Did you ask them this? Or were you just assuming by the colour of their skin? It could well be a fair assumption or an educated guess. I think both are still allowed? So you have no idea Pleased your honest about it so credit to you there. "Why so sarcastic? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Think big picture If there was no illegal migration there would be no explanation. Genuine migrants are not exploited. Genuine asylum seekers aren’t allowed to work, whilst their case is being checked. Because of the slow process of the Home Office, it takes years. And then they’re given the right to remain because they’re genuine. Living on a pittance is something nobody wants. The Home Office policy is helping them to be exploited. The problem is there is a lot of misinformation and inaccuracies that people don’t understand. I know what I saw illegal migrants being exploited by people of the same faith. The UK government are not doing the exploration. You keep saying same faith . Did you ask them this? Or were you just assuming by the colour of their skin? It could well be a fair assumption or an educated guess. I think both are still allowed? You are correct, assumptions like the above can be made. Luckily, many people don't as they know they are painting their own narrative based on their biases. I could walk into the centre Marlow on a Sunday afternoon to watch a game of local cricket, I could make an assumption that all of the players being white and playing cricket are all of the same faith. The reality could be very different, from Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and so on. Our friend from Dudley saw what he saw, applied his own bias and is now socialising it as fact. Over egging it somewhat. You know where he’s coming from but for some strange reason known only to you , you choose to make an issue. Marlow is pretty multi culti these days, especially cricket." I do know exactly where he is coming from so I applied the same logic as he did, look at a group of people and make a blanket statement. You may have your own thoughts on this whole debacle, but Surely you can see that he used one tainted stroke in his appraisal of the situation he saw. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Think big picture If there was no illegal migration there would be no explanation. Genuine migrants are not exploited. Genuine asylum seekers aren’t allowed to work, whilst their case is being checked. Because of the slow process of the Home Office, it takes years. And then they’re given the right to remain because they’re genuine. Living on a pittance is something nobody wants. The Home Office policy is helping them to be exploited. The problem is there is a lot of misinformation and inaccuracies that people don’t understand. I know what I saw illegal migrants being exploited by people of the same faith. The UK government are not doing the exploration. You keep saying same faith . Did you ask them this? Or were you just assuming by the colour of their skin? It could well be a fair assumption or an educated guess. I think both are still allowed? You are correct, assumptions like the above can be made. Luckily, many people don't as they know they are painting their own narrative based on their biases. I could walk into the centre Marlow on a Sunday afternoon to watch a game of local cricket, I could make an assumption that all of the players being white and playing cricket are all of the same faith. The reality could be very different, from Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and so on. Our friend from Dudley saw what he saw, applied his own bias and is now socialising it as fact." Infact the whole factory were I visited came to the same conclusion, they are illegal migrants been exploited by individual business men who know they can exploit them, by the way they never turned up on Friday. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy. Lol. Most ridiculous post so far. Well done! But you get the point? You don’t like it but you get it? Yeah. The point is, this guy is getting the US and the UK confused with the "defund the police" stuff. And he somehow thinks people trying to claim asylum in the UK is somehow comparable to a fictional scenario of someone hanging about near his house. There's nothing to get, like, dislike. It's just utterly ridiculous. Which actually, in fairness, is what I like. So yes, I like it. easy to be dismissive and rude with anonymity. His post is funny though. Are we no longer allowed to enjoy the more outlandish ridiculous stuff people post, isn't that the entire point of the political forum? I've always enjoyed the Trump is a good president, Brexit was a good idea, covid is a plandemic stuff. But this is next level ridiculous. It's great. There is a reality in the OP, it might not be an altogether accurate view but it echos a majority view towards illegal immigration within this country. A lot of pushback has come from high profile places, putting the deportation plan under the microscope, this will, and has chipped away at the majority view, but only in the plan. However, the view that this country should not be so accommodating to illegal immigrants, is still front and centre to the majority of people in this country. It is a very emotive subject and I would suggest one that has no perfect answer, for all involved. The perfect solution beach-coach-plane gone. Until people stop thinking like Alf Garnett, the perfect answer will certainly not be found. You owe it to yourself to think of solutions more constructively, that way you might come to a position that encourages support of your views and one that might be worthy of debate. No we need more people thinking like Enoch not less.And if you believe he was a racist,you need to educate your self. Do you hate all refugees ? What about the white ones? Just the illegal ones what ever colour.And I give a straight answer,that you seem incapable of." Just like the the Americans who can now fly here for free medical treatment, due to this stupid ECHR decision. If you arrive in the UK without the correct documentation and / or via a non recognised route, you are immediately illegal, not when asylum fails. The rules have changed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The ones who arrive by boats are only illegal if they fail to claim asylum. So that’s definitely not the 90% majority." Again, any non-UK citizen that sets foot on a UK beach without leave to do so is guilty of an offence under section 24(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971. If they are granted asylum, the 1951 Refugee Convention states (article 31) that they cannot be prosecuted, but it doesn't make their actions legal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Think big picture If there was no illegal migration there would be no explanation. Genuine migrants are not exploited. Genuine asylum seekers aren’t allowed to work, whilst their case is being checked. Because of the slow process of the Home Office, it takes years. And then they’re given the right to remain because they’re genuine. Living on a pittance is something nobody wants. The Home Office policy is helping them to be exploited. The problem is there is a lot of misinformation and inaccuracies that people don’t understand. I know what I saw illegal migrants being exploited by people of the same faith. The UK government are not doing the exploration. You keep saying same faith . Did you ask them this? Or were you just assuming by the colour of their skin? It could well be a fair assumption or an educated guess. I think both are still allowed? You are correct, assumptions like the above can be made. Luckily, many people don't as they know they are painting their own narrative based on their biases. I could walk into the centre Marlow on a Sunday afternoon to watch a game of local cricket, I could make an assumption that all of the players being white and playing cricket are all of the same faith. The reality could be very different, from Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and so on. Our friend from Dudley saw what he saw, applied his own bias and is now socialising it as fact. Over egging it somewhat. You know where he’s coming from but for some strange reason known only to you , you choose to make an issue. Marlow is pretty multi culti these days, especially cricket. I do know exactly where he is coming from so I applied the same logic as he did, look at a group of people and make a blanket statement. You may have your own thoughts on this whole debacle, but Surely you can see that he used one tainted stroke in his appraisal of the situation he saw. " Why tainted? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The ones who arrive by boats are only illegal if they fail to claim asylum. So that’s definitely not the 90% majority. Again, any non-UK citizen that sets foot on a UK beach without leave to do so is guilty of an offence under section 24(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971. If they are granted asylum, the 1951 Refugee Convention states (article 31) that they cannot be prosecuted, but it doesn't make their actions legal." There is no visa for coming to the UK to claim asylum. So due to the governments short sighted policy, victims don’t have a choice. Let’s not forget the UK it’s self is planning to break the EU Agreement that is legally binding. And wasn’t there a law about not having parties not long ago | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No we need more people thinking like Enoch not less.And if you believe he was a racist,you need to educate your self. When a person spreads fear and horror of people of colour, invading our cities and towns, and creating local populations to act upon that ‘invasion’ through race hate, race violence, burning houses of ethic minorities, that continues today, yes he was clearly a racist. Isnt that exactly what people are doing on here about Rwanda by spreading mis information about the country? I though they were sending immigrants to Rwanda as a deterrent? It doesn't mean its a bad country though does it? The deterrent is they will not be staying in the uk and have paid all their money for nothing. Its really not that hard to understand.
Ah, so Rwanda is really nice but not as nice as the UK? Btw, what are we going to do with the people they send back from Rwanda? See you are understanding deterrent now a bit like taking a chance on booking a holiday to the Seychelles but there's a good chance you could end up in Benidorm both nice both safe but not what you want.
Are you saying that Rwanda is a worse place to live than the UK? What are we doing with the people they send back from Rwanda? No totally missed the point yet again im saying you end up somewhere where you didnt want to be.How did you come to that conclusion do you think benidorm is worse than the seychells ?
So if Rwanda is really nice , just as good as the UK then it won’t be a very good deterrent, which has been proven , 444 crossed the channel yesterday, it’s working well Again failing to see the point if they wanted to go to Rwanda they would have.I really cant see how you constantly fail to see what is written life must be so challenging for you either that or are you are just looking for someone to talk to?
PMSL, you must have been distraught when the plane was grounded last night, I still haven’t found out what we are going to do with the people who are sent back here from Rwanda, they must be devastated having to come here "Why would i be distraught? you do need to get a grip on your perceived perceptions of how people think. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The ones who arrive by boats are only illegal if they fail to claim asylum. So that’s definitely not the 90% majority. Again, any non-UK citizen that sets foot on a UK beach without leave to do so is guilty of an offence under section 24(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971. If they are granted asylum, the 1951 Refugee Convention states (article 31) that they cannot be prosecuted, but it doesn't make their actions legal. There is no visa for coming to the UK to claim asylum. So due to the governments short sighted policy, victims don’t have a choice. Let’s not forget the UK it’s self is planning to break the EU Agreement that is legally binding. And wasn’t there a law about not having parties not long ago " People are in their rights to board a plane get to the uk and claim asylum thats the way it works but they dont have a right to pay a human trafficker its really not that hard to understand.Im pretty sure a Ryan air flight is cheaper and a lot safer than a rubber dinghy in the channel. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The ones who arrive by boats are only illegal if they fail to claim asylum. So that’s definitely not the 90% majority. Again, any non-UK citizen that sets foot on a UK beach without leave to do so is guilty of an offence under section 24(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971. If they are granted asylum, the 1951 Refugee Convention states (article 31) that they cannot be prosecuted, but it doesn't make their actions legal. There is no visa for coming to the UK to claim asylum. So due to the governments short sighted policy, victims don’t have a choice. Let’s not forget the UK it’s self is planning to break the EU Agreement that is legally binding. And wasn’t there a law about not having parties not long ago People are in their rights to board a plane get to the uk and claim asylum thats the way it works but they dont have a right to pay a human trafficker its really not that hard to understand.Im pretty sure a Ryan air flight is cheaper and a lot safer than a rubber dinghy in the channel. " ...and how do they get visas to board a plane? Many will not have passports either - it's not as though they planned a holiday trip ! These people, if refugees, are fleeing persecution not a visit to the dentist! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The ones who arrive by boats are only illegal if they fail to claim asylum. So that’s definitely not the 90% majority. Again, any non-UK citizen that sets foot on a UK beach without leave to do so is guilty of an offence under section 24(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971. If they are granted asylum, the 1951 Refugee Convention states (article 31) that they cannot be prosecuted, but it doesn't make their actions legal. There is no visa for coming to the UK to claim asylum. So due to the governments short sighted policy, victims don’t have a choice. Let’s not forget the UK it’s self is planning to break the EU Agreement that is legally binding. And wasn’t there a law about not having parties not long ago People are in their rights to board a plane get to the uk and claim asylum thats the way it works but they dont have a right to pay a human trafficker its really not that hard to understand.Im pretty sure a Ryan air flight is cheaper and a lot safer than a rubber dinghy in the channel. ...and how do they get visas to board a plane? Many will not have passports either - it's not as though they planned a holiday trip ! These people, if refugees, are fleeing persecution not a visit to the dentist!" Do you need a visa to visit the uk from europe ? thats news to me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The ones who arrive by boats are only illegal if they fail to claim asylum. So that’s definitely not the 90% majority. Again, any non-UK citizen that sets foot on a UK beach without leave to do so is guilty of an offence under section 24(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971. If they are granted asylum, the 1951 Refugee Convention states (article 31) that they cannot be prosecuted, but it doesn't make their actions legal. There is no visa for coming to the UK to claim asylum. So due to the governments short sighted policy, victims don’t have a choice. Let’s not forget the UK it’s self is planning to break the EU Agreement that is legally binding. And wasn’t there a law about not having parties not long ago People are in their rights to board a plane get to the uk and claim asylum thats the way it works but they dont have a right to pay a human trafficker its really not that hard to understand.Im pretty sure a Ryan air flight is cheaper and a lot safer than a rubber dinghy in the channel. ...and how do they get visas to board a plane? Many will not have passports either - it's not as though they planned a holiday trip ! These people, if refugees, are fleeing persecution not a visit to the dentist!Do you need a visa to visit the uk from europe ? thats news to me." You need a visa to visit the UK if your are from Iran, Syria etc. Did you not know that - oh dear... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The ones who arrive by boats are only illegal if they fail to claim asylum. So that’s definitely not the 90% majority. Again, any non-UK citizen that sets foot on a UK beach without leave to do so is guilty of an offence under section 24(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971. If they are granted asylum, the 1951 Refugee Convention states (article 31) that they cannot be prosecuted, but it doesn't make their actions legal. There is no visa for coming to the UK to claim asylum. So due to the governments short sighted policy, victims don’t have a choice. Let’s not forget the UK it’s self is planning to break the EU Agreement that is legally binding. And wasn’t there a law about not having parties not long ago People are in their rights to board a plane get to the uk and claim asylum thats the way it works but they dont have a right to pay a human trafficker its really not that hard to understand.Im pretty sure a Ryan air flight is cheaper and a lot safer than a rubber dinghy in the channel. ...and how do they get visas to board a plane? Many will not have passports either - it's not as though they planned a holiday trip ! These people, if refugees, are fleeing persecution not a visit to the dentist!Do you need a visa to visit the uk from europe ? thats news to me. You need a visa to visit the UK if your are from Iran, Syria etc. Did you not know that - oh dear..." well instead of paying a trafficker apply for a visa they are usually granted if you have a return ticket. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No we need more people thinking like Enoch not less.And if you believe he was a racist,you need to educate your self. When a person spreads fear and horror of people of colour, invading our cities and towns, and creating local populations to act upon that ‘invasion’ through race hate, race violence, burning houses of ethic minorities, that continues today, yes he was clearly a racist. Isnt that exactly what people are doing on here about Rwanda by spreading mis information about the country? I though they were sending immigrants to Rwanda as a deterrent? It doesn't mean its a bad country though does it? The deterrent is they will not be staying in the uk and have paid all their money for nothing. Its really not that hard to understand.
Ah, so Rwanda is really nice but not as nice as the UK? Btw, what are we going to do with the people they send back from Rwanda? See you are understanding deterrent now a bit like taking a chance on booking a holiday to the Seychelles but there's a good chance you could end up in Benidorm both nice both safe but not what you want.
Are you saying that Rwanda is a worse place to live than the UK? What are we doing with the people they send back from Rwanda? No totally missed the point yet again im saying you end up somewhere where you didnt want to be.How did you come to that conclusion do you think benidorm is worse than the seychells ?
So if Rwanda is really nice , just as good as the UK then it won’t be a very good deterrent, which has been proven , 444 crossed the channel yesterday, it’s working well Again failing to see the point if they wanted to go to Rwanda they would have.I really cant see how you constantly fail to see what is written life must be so challenging for you either that or are you are just looking for someone to talk to?
PMSL, you must have been distraught when the plane was grounded last night, I still haven’t found out what we are going to do with the people who are sent back here from Rwanda, they must be devastated having to come here Why would i be distraught? you do need to get a grip on your perceived perceptions of how people think. "Because your a die hard Tory who will support anything your leaders want, have we worked out what will happen to the people that are sent here from Rwanda? Those poor people, being forcibly sent to the UK, the Rwanda government must be using this threat as a deterrent | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The ones who arrive by boats are only illegal if they fail to claim asylum. So that’s definitely not the 90% majority. Again, any non-UK citizen that sets foot on a UK beach without leave to do so is guilty of an offence under section 24(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971. If they are granted asylum, the 1951 Refugee Convention states (article 31) that they cannot be prosecuted, but it doesn't make their actions legal. There is no visa for coming to the UK to claim asylum. So due to the governments short sighted policy, victims don’t have a choice. Let’s not forget the UK it’s self is planning to break the EU Agreement that is legally binding. And wasn’t there a law about not having parties not long ago People are in their rights to board a plane get to the uk and claim asylum thats the way it works but they dont have a right to pay a human trafficker its really not that hard to understand.Im pretty sure a Ryan air flight is cheaper and a lot safer than a rubber dinghy in the channel. ...and how do they get visas to board a plane? Many will not have passports either - it's not as though they planned a holiday trip ! These people, if refugees, are fleeing persecution not a visit to the dentist!Do you need a visa to visit the uk from europe ? thats news to me. You need a visa to visit the UK if your are from Iran, Syria etc. Did you not know that - oh dear...well instead of paying a trafficker apply for a visa they are usually granted if you have a return ticket." And how do they board a plane without a pass port ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you need a visa to visit the uk from europe ? thats news to me." Yes, some people do. Whether you need a visa or not depends on your nationality, not your point of embarkation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some arrived to day brought in by the RNLI wouldn't get off "They were probably hoping the boat would take them straight to London. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Think big picture If there was no illegal migration there would be no explanation. Genuine migrants are not exploited. Genuine asylum seekers aren’t allowed to work, whilst their case is being checked. Because of the slow process of the Home Office, it takes years. And then they’re given the right to remain because they’re genuine. Living on a pittance is something nobody wants. The Home Office policy is helping them to be exploited. The problem is there is a lot of misinformation and inaccuracies that people don’t understand. I know what I saw illegal migrants being exploited by people of the same faith. The UK government are not doing the exploration. You keep saying same faith . Did you ask them this? Or were you just assuming by the colour of their skin? It could well be a fair assumption or an educated guess. I think both are still allowed? So you have no idea Pleased your honest about it so credit to you there.
Why so sarcastic? "I wasn’t trying to be I was being genuine . You could have made up sone nonsense about seeing them going to the mosque or you spoke to them. I genuinely was being honest. Hence the thumb. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The ones who arrive by boats are only illegal if they fail to claim asylum. So that’s definitely not the 90% majority. Again, any non-UK citizen that sets foot on a UK beach without leave to do so is guilty of an offence under section 24(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971. If they are granted asylum, the 1951 Refugee Convention states (article 31) that they cannot be prosecuted, but it doesn't make their actions legal." Are people arriving in the U.K. to claim asylum illegal? Do our laws allow for them to be prosecuted like a criminal and will they have a criminal record if they are granted asylum? So until they are refused permission formally then there is no crime. How do they get notice of not being allowed ? Is there a sign in Calais? You are only guilty of a crime if prosecuted and found guilty. Until that moment you can have dinner with the queen and still not be guilty. If you speed you are committing a crime but to be prosecuted or fined proof has to be available. Until that evidence is available and proven then technical there is no offence in a court of law. You’re trying to quote regulations over criminal acts and they are not the same ex | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The ones who arrive by boats are only illegal if they fail to claim asylum. So that’s definitely not the 90% majority. Again, any non-UK citizen that sets foot on a UK beach without leave to do so is guilty of an offence under section 24(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971. If they are granted asylum, the 1951 Refugee Convention states (article 31) that they cannot be prosecuted, but it doesn't make their actions legal. Are people arriving in the U.K. to claim asylum illegal? Do our laws allow for them to be prosecuted like a criminal and will they have a criminal record if they are granted asylum? So until they are refused permission formally then there is no crime. How do they get notice of not being allowed ? Is there a sign in Calais? You are only guilty of a crime if prosecuted and found guilty. Until that moment you can have dinner with the queen and still not be guilty. If you speed you are committing a crime but to be prosecuted or fined proof has to be available. Until that evidence is available and proven then technical there is no offence in a court of law. You’re trying to quote regulations over criminal acts and they are not the same ex " So what's your take on grooming gangs ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The ones who arrive by boats are only illegal if they fail to claim asylum. So that’s definitely not the 90% majority. Again, any non-UK citizen that sets foot on a UK beach without leave to do so is guilty of an offence under section 24(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971. If they are granted asylum, the 1951 Refugee Convention states (article 31) that they cannot be prosecuted, but it doesn't make their actions legal. Are people arriving in the U.K. to claim asylum illegal? Do our laws allow for them to be prosecuted like a criminal and will they have a criminal record if they are granted asylum? So until they are refused permission formally then there is no crime. How do they get notice of not being allowed ? Is there a sign in Calais? You are only guilty of a crime if prosecuted and found guilty. Until that moment you can have dinner with the queen and still not be guilty. If you speed you are committing a crime but to be prosecuted or fined proof has to be available. Until that evidence is available and proven then technical there is no offence in a court of law. You’re trying to quote regulations over criminal acts and they are not the same ex So what's your take on grooming gangs ?" So your comparing asylum seekers with grooming gangs? Maybe you’re an advocate of lynch mobs too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some arrived to day brought in by the RNLI wouldn't get off "Good to see my RNLI donation is being put to good use, I will make another one now after hearing this | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The ones who arrive by boats are only illegal if they fail to claim asylum. So that’s definitely not the 90% majority. Again, any non-UK citizen that sets foot on a UK beach without leave to do so is guilty of an offence under section 24(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971. If they are granted asylum, the 1951 Refugee Convention states (article 31) that they cannot be prosecuted, but it doesn't make their actions legal. Are people arriving in the U.K. to claim asylum illegal? Do our laws allow for them to be prosecuted like a criminal and will they have a criminal record if they are granted asylum? So until they are refused permission formally then there is no crime. How do they get notice of not being allowed ? Is there a sign in Calais? You are only guilty of a crime if prosecuted and found guilty. Until that moment you can have dinner with the queen and still not be guilty. If you speed you are committing a crime but to be prosecuted or fined proof has to be available. Until that evidence is available and proven then technical there is no offence in a court of law. You’re trying to quote regulations over criminal acts and they are not the same ex So what's your take on grooming gangs ? So your comparing asylum seekers with grooming gangs? Maybe you’re an advocate of lynch mobs too. " That's not what I asked,but answer to your reply any ever touched my kids they would live to regret it,and they would wish they was dead,surprisingly what you can get done with very little money. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The ones who arrive by boats are only illegal if they fail to claim asylum. So that’s definitely not the 90% majority. Again, any non-UK citizen that sets foot on a UK beach without leave to do so is guilty of an offence under section 24(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971. If they are granted asylum, the 1951 Refugee Convention states (article 31) that they cannot be prosecuted, but it doesn't make their actions legal. Are people arriving in the U.K. to claim asylum illegal? Do our laws allow for them to be prosecuted like a criminal and will they have a criminal record if they are granted asylum? So until they are refused permission formally then there is no crime. How do they get notice of not being allowed ? Is there a sign in Calais? You are only guilty of a crime if prosecuted and found guilty. Until that moment you can have dinner with the queen and still not be guilty. If you speed you are committing a crime but to be prosecuted or fined proof has to be available. Until that evidence is available and proven then technical there is no offence in a court of law. You’re trying to quote regulations over criminal acts and they are not the same ex So what's your take on grooming gangs ? So your comparing asylum seekers with grooming gangs? Maybe you’re an advocate of lynch mobs too. That's not what I asked,but answer to your reply any ever touched my kids they would live to regret it,and they would wish they was dead,surprisingly what you can get done with very little money." I’ve heard there’s a shortage of flakes for ice creams too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Again, any non-UK citizen that sets foot on a UK beach without leave to do so is guilty of an offence under section 24(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971. If they are granted asylum, the 1951 Refugee Convention states (article 31) that they cannot be prosecuted, but it doesn't make their actions legal." "Are people arriving in the U.K. to claim asylum illegal?" It's complex, but yes, most of them arriving in small boats are illegal. "Do our laws allow for them to be prosecuted like a criminal and will they have a criminal record if they are granted asylum?" Yes our laws allow them to be prosecuted like a criminal, because they are criminals. In practice, there's no point pursuing a prosecution whilst an asylum application is pending. If they are granted asylum, they are immune from prosecution for immigration offences. If they are not granted asylum, we'd rather deport them that bother with a court case and prison sentence. So in practice, none of them are brought to court. There's also the complication that giving them a criminal record would give them another ground for an asylum appeal, as they might be persecuted for that in their home country. "So until they are refused permission formally then there is no crime." No. Formally the crime exists at the point the act is committed. Not being prosecuted for it does not mean that no crime occurred. "How do they get notice of not being allowed ? Is there a sign in Calais?" The law here (and as far as I know everywhere) is that ignorance of the law is no defence. "You are only guilty of a crime if prosecuted and found guilty. Until that moment you can have dinner with the queen and still not be guilty." This is where we get into the difference between 'guilty', and 'found guilty'. In legal parlance a person is 'guilty' of committing a crime at the point that they do so. However the legal system treats them as innocent unless they are 'found guilty'. If you are found innocent, then clearly you were never guilty. If you are found guilty, then you were guilty at the point you committed the act, not when a court proves it so. The Immigration Act 1971 says "A person who is not a British citizen shall be guilty of an offence ... if contrary to this Act he knowingly enters the United Kingdom ... without leave". "If you speed you are committing a crime but to be prosecuted or fined proof has to be available." Yes, but in legal speak you are guilty of the offence, but if there is no evidence you cannot be proved guilty, so you are not punished. "Until that evidence is available and proven then technical there is no offence in a court of law." If you assaulted a person in the street, and no evidence could be found to prosecute you, do you think most people would say that no offence has been committed? Would you describe yourself as not guilty? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Think big picture If there was no illegal migration there would be no explanation. Genuine migrants are not exploited. Genuine asylum seekers aren’t allowed to work, whilst their case is being checked. Because of the slow process of the Home Office, it takes years. And then they’re given the right to remain because they’re genuine. Living on a pittance is something nobody wants. The Home Office policy is helping them to be exploited. The problem is there is a lot of misinformation and inaccuracies that people don’t understand. I know what I saw illegal migrants being exploited by people of the same faith. The UK government are not doing the exploration. You keep saying same faith . Did you ask them this? Or were you just assuming by the colour of their skin? It could well be a fair assumption or an educated guess. I think both are still allowed? So you have no idea Pleased your honest about it so credit to you there.
Why so sarcastic?
I wasn’t trying to be I was being genuine . You could have made up sone nonsense about seeing them going to the mosque or you spoke to them. I genuinely was being honest. Hence the thumb. "You are confusing me with another poster | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Think big picture If there was no illegal migration there would be no explanation. Genuine migrants are not exploited. Genuine asylum seekers aren’t allowed to work, whilst their case is being checked. Because of the slow process of the Home Office, it takes years. And then they’re given the right to remain because they’re genuine. Living on a pittance is something nobody wants. The Home Office policy is helping them to be exploited. The problem is there is a lot of misinformation and inaccuracies that people don’t understand. I know what I saw illegal migrants being exploited by people of the same faith. The UK government are not doing the exploration. You keep saying same faith . Did you ask them this? Or were you just assuming by the colour of their skin? It could well be a fair assumption or an educated guess. I think both are still allowed? So you have no idea Pleased your honest about it so credit to you there.
Why so sarcastic?
I wasn’t trying to be I was being genuine . You could have made up sone nonsense about seeing them going to the mosque or you spoke to them. I genuinely was being honest. Hence the thumb.
You are confusing me with another poster"I should either concentrate or sign off My mistake so apologies | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Again, any non-UK citizen that sets foot on a UK beach without leave to do so is guilty of an offence under section 24(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971. If they are granted asylum, the 1951 Refugee Convention states (article 31) that they cannot be prosecuted, but it doesn't make their actions legal. Are people arriving in the U.K. to claim asylum illegal? It's complex, but yes, most of them arriving in small boats are illegal. Do our laws allow for them to be prosecuted like a criminal and will they have a criminal record if they are granted asylum? Yes our laws allow them to be prosecuted like a criminal, because they are criminals. In practice, there's no point pursuing a prosecution whilst an asylum application is pending. If they are granted asylum, they are immune from prosecution for immigration offences. If they are not granted asylum, we'd rather deport them that bother with a court case and prison sentence. So in practice, none of them are brought to court. There's also the complication that giving them a criminal record would give them another ground for an asylum appeal, as they might be persecuted for that in their home country. So until they are refused permission formally then there is no crime. No. Formally the crime exists at the point the act is committed. Not being prosecuted for it does not mean that no crime occurred. How do they get notice of not being allowed ? Is there a sign in Calais? The law here (and as far as I know everywhere) is that ignorance of the law is no defence. You are only guilty of a crime if prosecuted and found guilty. Until that moment you can have dinner with the queen and still not be guilty. This is where we get into the difference between 'guilty', and 'found guilty'. In legal parlance a person is 'guilty' of committing a crime at the point that they do so. However the legal system treats them as innocent unless they are 'found guilty'. If you are found innocent, then clearly you were never guilty. If you are found guilty, then you were guilty at the point you committed the act, not when a court proves it so. The Immigration Act 1971 says "A person who is not a British citizen shall be guilty of an offence ... if contrary to this Act he knowingly enters the United Kingdom ... without leave". If you speed you are committing a crime but to be prosecuted or fined proof has to be available. Yes, but in legal speak you are guilty of the offence, but if there is no evidence you cannot be proved guilty, so you are not punished. Until that evidence is available and proven then technical there is no offence in a court of law. If you assaulted a person in the street, and no evidence could be found to prosecute you, do you think most people would say that no offence has been committed? Would you describe yourself as not guilty?" Yes | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The principal of innocent until proven guilty exists for a very very good reason ..." It's almost as though you're deliberately misunderstanding. The principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' comes from article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1988, in which section 2 states “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”. The saying doesn't mean that you *are* innocent until proven guilty, it means that you will be treated as though you were innocent, until your guilt is proven. So I'll ask again. Imagine a situation in which you assault someone in the street, and I discover them and take them to the police, but they can't remember anything about their attacker. At this point I can say that an offence has been committed, but I don't know who did it. Now from your point of view, has an offence been committed? Would you, with full knowledge of your actions, consider yourself to be 'not guilty'? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The principal of innocent until proven guilty exists for a very very good reason ... It's almost as though you're deliberately misunderstanding. The principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' comes from article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1988, in which section 2 states “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”. The saying doesn't mean that you *are* innocent until proven guilty, it means that you will be treated as though you were innocent, until your guilt is proven. So I'll ask again. Imagine a situation in which you assault someone in the street, and I discover them and take them to the police, but they can't remember anything about their attacker. At this point I can say that an offence has been committed, but I don't know who did it. Now from your point of view, has an offence been committed? Would you, with full knowledge of your actions, consider yourself to be 'not guilty'?" The human rights act that says you have no rights other than what is written after that statement. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you assaulted a person in the street, and no evidence could be found to prosecute you, do you think most people would say that no offence has been committed? Would you describe yourself as not guilty?" "Yes" Just to make sure I understand you. If you had assaulted a man on the street, leaving him with a broken nose, and no one had seen you do it, you think that most people would agree that no offence has been committed? And also you would not consider yourself to be guilty of any offence? Have I got that right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' comes from article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1988, in which section 2 states “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”." "The human rights act that says you have no rights other than what is written after that statement." I'm not sure where you get that idea. Paragraph 3 of article 6 lists 5 rights that each accused person has, and states that they are a minimum, not a complete list. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy. Lol. Most ridiculous post so far. Well done! But you get the point? You don’t like it but you get it? Yeah. The point is, this guy is getting the US and the UK confused with the "defund the police" stuff. And he somehow thinks people trying to claim asylum in the UK is somehow comparable to a fictional scenario of someone hanging about near his house. There's nothing to get, like, dislike. It's just utterly ridiculous. Which actually, in fairness, is what I like. So yes, I like it. easy to be dismissive and rude with anonymity. His post is funny though. Are we no longer allowed to enjoy the more outlandish ridiculous stuff people post, isn't that the entire point of the political forum? I've always enjoyed the Trump is a good president, Brexit was a good idea, covid is a plandemic stuff. But this is next level ridiculous. It's great. There is a reality in the OP, it might not be an altogether accurate view but it echos a majority view towards illegal immigration within this country. A lot of pushback has come from high profile places, putting the deportation plan under the microscope, this will, and has chipped away at the majority view, but only in the plan. However, the view that this country should not be so accommodating to illegal immigrants, is still front and centre to the majority of people in this country. It is a very emotive subject and I would suggest one that has no perfect answer, for all involved. " Is it a "majority" view? The majority of us don't want those fleeing war and persecution to be offered asylum in the UK? Where did you come about this information? Is it illegal for someone to arrive with a tourist visa and then claim asylum "legal" or "illegal"? Why is arriving on a boat worse? What negative emotions do you have about genuine refugees who are assessed to be worthy of asylum? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The ones who arrive by boats are only illegal if they fail to claim asylum. So that’s definitely not the 90% majority. Again, any non-UK citizen that sets foot on a UK beach without leave to do so is guilty of an offence under section 24(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971. If they are granted asylum, the 1951 Refugee Convention states (article 31) that they cannot be prosecuted, but it doesn't make their actions legal. There is no visa for coming to the UK to claim asylum. So due to the governments short sighted policy, victims don’t have a choice. Let’s not forget the UK it’s self is planning to break the EU Agreement that is legally binding. And wasn’t there a law about not having parties not long ago People are in their rights to board a plane get to the uk and claim asylum thats the way it works but they dont have a right to pay a human trafficker its really not that hard to understand.Im pretty sure a Ryan air flight is cheaper and a lot safer than a rubber dinghy in the channel. ...and how do they get visas to board a plane? Many will not have passports either - it's not as though they planned a holiday trip ! These people, if refugees, are fleeing persecution not a visit to the dentist!Do you need a visa to visit the uk from europe ? thats news to me. You need a visa to visit the UK if your are from Iran, Syria etc. Did you not know that - oh dear...well instead of paying a trafficker apply for a visa they are usually granted if you have a return ticket." Really? How does an Afghan or Iranian or Yemeni get a visa or a passport? Have you applied for visas as someone from that part of the world? Do you actually know what the process is there, or are you making an assumption without knowledge? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy." I don't think that I would. I would probably say hello and ask what they wanted. Are you afraid of people in general? Is there a reason that you dear refugees? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you assaulted a person in the street, and no evidence could be found to prosecute you, do you think most people would say that no offence has been committed? Would you describe yourself as not guilty? Yes Just to make sure I understand you. If you had assaulted a man on the street, leaving him with a broken nose, and no one had seen you do it, you think that most people would agree that no offence has been committed? And also you would not consider yourself to be guilty of any offence? Have I got that right?" In the eyes of the law , I am innocent until proven guilty | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you assaulted a person in the street, and no evidence could be found to prosecute you, do you think most people would say that no offence has been committed? Would you describe yourself as not guilty?" "Yes" "Just to make sure I understand you. If you had assaulted a man on the street, leaving him with a broken nose, and no one had seen you do it, you think that most people would agree that no offence has been committed? And also you would not consider yourself to be guilty of any offence? Have I got that right?" "In the eyes of the law , I am innocent until proven guilty " Do you believe that in the eyes of the law no offence has been committed? And I wasn't asking about how the legal system would treat you, I'm asking about you personally. Would you consider yourself not guilty? Would you consider that no offence had been committed? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you assaulted a person in the street, and no evidence could be found to prosecute you, do you think most people would say that no offence has been committed? Would you describe yourself as not guilty? Yes Just to make sure I understand you. If you had assaulted a man on the street, leaving him with a broken nose, and no one had seen you do it, you think that most people would agree that no offence has been committed? And also you would not consider yourself to be guilty of any offence? Have I got that right? In the eyes of the law , I am innocent until proven guilty Do you believe that in the eyes of the law no offence has been committed? And I wasn't asking about how the legal system would treat you, I'm asking about you personally. Would you consider yourself not guilty? Would you consider that no offence had been committed?" if I punched somebody and broke their nose what would I be guilty off? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How would you describe ‘mass immigration’ " The movement of a large group of people from one area to another. It's not where they're from or what background they have. It's the illegal and dishonest way they are entering the country. Some have probably had a very hard time. But most of the males shown on the media, left and right leaning, all seem to arrive in a far less dishevelled appearance than some folk in our own poorer areas. The most frustrating thing is the attitude of simply accepting the current state of affairs and doing nothing. You would think people in a developed country could come up with ideas on their own without simply complaining about solutions the government think of. If anyone has a better idea shout up. Maybe as some folk have suggested it is just an incompetent home office? If that's the case then perhaps a clear out and re-hire session is long overdue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How would you describe ‘mass immigration’ The movement of a large group of people from one area to another. It's not where they're from or what background they have. It's the illegal and dishonest way they are entering the country. Some have probably had a very hard time. But most of the males shown on the media, left and right leaning, all seem to arrive in a far less dishevelled appearance than some folk in our own poorer areas. The most frustrating thing is the attitude of simply accepting the current state of affairs and doing nothing. You would think people in a developed country could come up with ideas on their own without simply complaining about solutions the government think of. If anyone has a better idea shout up. Maybe as some folk have suggested it is just an incompetent home office? If that's the case then perhaps a clear out and re-hire session is long overdue." Definitely, if the Home Secretary only solution to this ‘problem’ is to send a few hundred immigrants to Rwanda in exchange for a few hundred immigrants from Rwanda then she is definitely suited to the job | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How would you describe ‘mass immigration’ The movement of a large group of people from one area to another. It's not where they're from or what background they have. It's the illegal and dishonest way they are entering the country. Some have probably had a very hard time. But most of the males shown on the media, left and right leaning, all seem to arrive in a far less dishevelled appearance than some folk in our own poorer areas. The most frustrating thing is the attitude of simply accepting the current state of affairs and doing nothing. You would think people in a developed country could come up with ideas on their own without simply complaining about solutions the government think of. If anyone has a better idea shout up. Maybe as some folk have suggested it is just an incompetent home office? If that's the case then perhaps a clear out and re-hire session is long overdue. Definitely, if the Home Secretary only solution to this ‘problem’ is to send a few hundred immigrants to Rwanda in exchange for a few hundred immigrants from Rwanda then she is definitely suited to the job " Not suited | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' comes from article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1988, in which section 2 states “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”. The human rights act that says you have no rights other than what is written after that statement. I'm not sure where you get that idea. Paragraph 3 of article 6 lists 5 rights that each accused person has, and states that they are a minimum, not a complete list." You have to start somewhere ie you have no rights other than what is written after, or you have undeniable rights and the human rights act takes away rights. The human rights act just keeps the lawyers in jobs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How would you describe ‘mass immigration’ The movement of a large group of people from one area to another. It's not where they're from or what background they have. It's the illegal and dishonest way they are entering the country. Some have probably had a very hard time. But most of the males shown on the media, left and right leaning, all seem to arrive in a far less dishevelled appearance than some folk in our own poorer areas. The most frustrating thing is the attitude of simply accepting the current state of affairs and doing nothing. You would think people in a developed country could come up with ideas on their own without simply complaining about solutions the government think of. If anyone has a better idea shout up. Maybe as some folk have suggested it is just an incompetent home office? If that's the case then perhaps a clear out and re-hire session is long overdue." The key is "shown in the media". Have a think about why this is showing you males dressed less disheveled. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How would you describe ‘mass immigration’ The movement of a large group of people from one area to another. It's not where they're from or what background they have. It's the illegal and dishonest way they are entering the country. Ten of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of young men, economic migrants, arriving by a dangerous and unlawful route. From another continent with different cultures and beliefs. No ID - how did they cross a continent? No idea if they are mad, bad or whatever. None look disheveled or desperate. Some even clutch and carry a child as they know that increases their chances. They know how to play the game and take advantage. History shows that large numbers of young men with nothing to do or little hope leads to social unrest. Recent history also shows that large groups of young black men leads to an increase in stabbings. Let’s call it for what it is - an illegal invasion. Diversity and inclusion - we are told it’s a good thing, we’ll take a look at Harlow as one example. Twenty years ago, not a perfect town but any violence was really just at chucking out time, a few punches thrown, black eyes, bloody nose type of thing. Now, multiple stabbings , murders, all caused by people from overseas - Africa, Asia, East Europe. How has that ‘improved’ anything? I believe in open borders, my heart and mind is liberal. I want to live in France. I am not a narrow minded right wing fascist. I do not read the Daily Mail ( or Daily Fail as some twits say) If people of another race or colour moved next to me I would welcome them, I would go out of my way to help them, I would be neighbourly, we would get on. This country has a proud record of helping those in need and we are a better nation for it. The situation in the channel is disgraceful, we are being taken for fools, our good nature is being abused and it needs to stop. Some have probably had a very hard time. But most of the males shown on the media, left and right leaning, all seem to arrive in a far less dishevelled appearance than some folk in our own poorer areas. The most frustrating thing is the attitude of simply accepting the current state of affairs and doing nothing. You would think people in a developed country could come up with ideas on their own without simply complaining about solutions the government think of. If anyone has a better idea shout up. Maybe as some folk have suggested it is just an incompetent home office? If that's the case then perhaps a clear out and re-hire session is long overdue. The key is "shown in the media". Have a think about why this is showing you males dressed less disheveled. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How would you describe ‘mass immigration’ The movement of a large group of people from one area to another. It's not where they're from or what background they have. It's the illegal and dishonest way they are entering the country. Ten of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of young men, economic migrants, arriving by a dangerous and unlawful route. From another continent with different cultures and beliefs. No ID - how did they cross a continent? No idea if they are mad, bad or whatever. None look disheveled or desperate. Some even clutch and carry a child as they know that increases their chances. They know how to play the game and take advantage. History shows that large numbers of young men with nothing to do or little hope leads to social unrest. Recent history also shows that large groups of young black men leads to an increase in stabbings. Let’s call it for what it is - an illegal invasion. Diversity and inclusion - we are told it’s a good thing, we’ll take a look at Harlow as one example. Twenty years ago, not a perfect town but any violence was really just at chucking out time, a few punches thrown, black eyes, bloody nose type of thing. Now, multiple stabbings , murders, all caused by people from overseas - Africa, Asia, East Europe. How has that ‘improved’ anything? I believe in open borders, my heart and mind is liberal. I want to live in France. I am not a narrow minded right wing fascist. I do not read the Daily Mail ( or Daily Fail as some twits say) If people of another race or colour moved next to me I would welcome them, I would go out of my way to help them, I would be neighbourly, we would get on. This country has a proud record of helping those in need and we are a better nation for it. The situation in the channel is disgraceful, we are being taken for fools, our good nature is being abused and it needs to stop. Some have probably had a very hard time. But most of the males shown on the media, left and right leaning, all seem to arrive in a far less dishevelled appearance than some folk in our own poorer areas. The most frustrating thing is the attitude of simply accepting the current state of affairs and doing nothing. You would think people in a developed country could come up with ideas on their own without simply complaining about solutions the government think of. If anyone has a better idea shout up. Maybe as some folk have suggested it is just an incompetent home office? If that's the case then perhaps a clear out and re-hire session is long overdue. The key is "shown in the media". Have a think about why this is showing you males dressed less disheveled. " Can't see which is your comment as it's all within the quotes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just to make sure I understand you. If you had assaulted a man on the street, leaving him with a broken nose, and no one had seen you do it, you think that most people would agree that no offence has been committed? And also you would not consider yourself to be guilty of any offence? Have I got that right?" "In the eyes of the law , I am innocent until proven guilty" "I wasn't asking about how the legal system would treat you, I'm asking about you personally. Would you consider yourself not guilty? Would you consider that no offence had been committed?" "if I punched somebody and broke their nose what would I be guilty off? " You would be guilty of Grievous Bodily Harm (section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861). Would you say that you were not guilty of that offence? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You have to start somewhere ie you have no rights other than what is written after, or you have undeniable rights and the human rights act takes away rights. The human rights act just keeps the lawyers in jobs." I'm not sure what you mean by "written after". Do you mean 'those that are written down'? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Interesting bit in illegal But I still don't see how someone can apply for asylum without breaking the law, especially where they don't have ID and / or a passport (the GC recognises that refuggess are unlikely to be able to comply with legal entry)" If they have a passport, they can apply for a tourist visa, board a plane or a ship, and then claim asylum when they arrive. If they don't have a passport, they would need to break the law to enter the UK. But that isn't a barrier to claiming asylum. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just to make sure I understand you. If you had assaulted a man on the street, leaving him with a broken nose, and no one had seen you do it, you think that most people would agree that no offence has been committed? And also you would not consider yourself to be guilty of any offence? Have I got that right? In the eyes of the law , I am innocent until proven guilty I wasn't asking about how the legal system would treat you, I'm asking about you personally. Would you consider yourself not guilty? Would you consider that no offence had been committed? if I punched somebody and broke their nose what would I be guilty off? You would be guilty of Grievous Bodily Harm (section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861). Would you say that you were not guilty of that offence?" Are you sure? It could be attempted murder, it could be self defence , i may have ‘diminished responsibilities’ You are quoting an offence that is enshrined in law and the only way I would be ‘guilty ‘ of that offence is if it was proven in a court of law or I pleaded guilty after being charge. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You have to start somewhere ie you have no rights other than what is written after, or you have undeniable rights and the human rights act takes away rights. The human rights act just keeps the lawyers in jobs. I'm not sure what you mean by "written after". Do you mean 'those that are written down'?" Does the human rights act say you have undeniable rights as a human being or does it present some written text to be your human rights. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How would you describe ‘mass immigration’ The movement of a large group of people from one area to another. It's not where they're from or what background they have. It's the illegal and dishonest way they are entering the country. Some have probably had a very hard time. But most of the males shown on the media, left and right leaning, all seem to arrive in a far less dishevelled appearance than some folk in our own poorer areas. The most frustrating thing is the attitude of simply accepting the current state of affairs and doing nothing. You would think people in a developed country could come up with ideas on their own without simply complaining about solutions the government think of. If anyone has a better idea shout up. Maybe as some folk have suggested it is just an incompetent home office? If that's the case then perhaps a clear out and re-hire session is long overdue." How does someone "legally" come to the UK to request asylum? Can they put it on their visa application "honestly"? How do you travel from a warzone without documentation? The solution is to assess applications closer to conflict zones and prioritise the most in need. If you do not apply first, you are indefinitely detained. Smuggling no longer rational but we can still behave humanely. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't know anyone who thinks like that. Don't try and pretend that you would be happy for lots of poorly educated, resourceless and single males to be dumped in your area. Ignore the fact they are foreign, it's not about that! Would you honestly want a large probation hostel placed in your local area? You are full of it to suggest you would be." You could argue they'd be ideal for recruitment into the British Army. We're short of soldiers; so, why not? Learn English, get trained in what British values are supposed to be, given a job, a home, becoming a taxpayer, learning a skill, being part of an organisation that nobody publicly criticises. Obviously, this only really applies, mostly to fit young men - but maybe offering someone UK citizenship if they volunteer to serve for 15 years (if they're capable of it) is an idea? Only kidding. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"99.5 % of you came home from work and found strangers outside your door would walk past and phone the police,it's not brave keyboard warriors but real life, just like those wanting to defund the police,when they got confronted who did they turn to yep the police,ill repeat hypocrisy. Lol. Most ridiculous post so far. Well done! But you get the point? You don’t like it but you get it? Yeah. The point is, this guy is getting the US and the UK confused with the "defund the police" stuff. And he somehow thinks people trying to claim asylum in the UK is somehow comparable to a fictional scenario of someone hanging about near his house. There's nothing to get, like, dislike. It's just utterly ridiculous. Which actually, in fairness, is what I like. So yes, I like it. easy to be dismissive and rude with anonymity. His post is funny though. Are we no longer allowed to enjoy the more outlandish ridiculous stuff people post, isn't that the entire point of the political forum? I've always enjoyed the Trump is a good president, Brexit was a good idea, covid is a plandemic stuff. But this is next level ridiculous. It's great. There is a reality in the OP, it might not be an altogether accurate view but it echos a majority view towards illegal immigration within this country. A lot of pushback has come from high profile places, putting the deportation plan under the microscope, this will, and has chipped away at the majority view, but only in the plan. However, the view that this country should not be so accommodating to illegal immigrants, is still front and centre to the majority of people in this country. It is a very emotive subject and I would suggest one that has no perfect answer, for all involved. Is it a "majority" view? The majority of us don't want those fleeing war and persecution to be offered asylum in the UK? Where did you come about this information? Is it illegal for someone to arrive with a tourist visa and then claim asylum "legal" or "illegal"? Why is arriving on a boat worse? What negative emotions do you have about genuine refugees who are assessed to be worthy of asylum?" I think you might need to read my post again... The majority of people in this country do worry about illegal immigration, do they put all immigration under the same heading, a lot of the time, yes. The Rwanda deportation scheme has had a positive effect in that it has given people sharp focus into how the government is handling their worries. The views of the public are straight forward and have been polled many times, people are worried about refugees crossing the channel in small boats and putting their lives at risk. They are also worried about the impact asylum seekers may have on their society. They also think the government is not handling the situation very well. Put the hype of Farage going to sea to expose the crossings, the media playing into fears and the incompetence of our government who see this as a vote winner, and we have got the mess we have here today. I mentioned it was emotive, it is, and it is bringing out the worst in people. I don't believe a situation of hundreds of people risking their lives every day to make it onto a beach in this country can go unchallenged, it needs to be stopped, but it needs to be a considered response that is not a one size fits all and you are either all in or all out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The principal of innocent until proven guilty exists for a very very good reason ... It's almost as though you're deliberately misunderstanding. The principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' comes from article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1988, in which section 2 states “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”. The saying doesn't mean that you *are* innocent until proven guilty, it means that you will be treated as though you were innocent, until your guilt is proven. So I'll ask again. Imagine a situation in which you assault someone in the street, and I discover them and take them to the police, but they can't remember anything about their attacker. At this point I can say that an offence has been committed, but I don't know who did it. Now from your point of view, has an offence been committed? Would you, with full knowledge of your actions, consider yourself to be 'not guilty'?" If you don’t know who did it how can anyone be accused of being guilty? You’re also assuming the assault was without mitigation or in self defence so your assuming guiltily of assault. How do you know the person you found who strangely can’t remember anything didn’t start the fight? You’re arrested under suspicion as the offence is not proven . So if an offence isn’t proven how can you say it happened? Yes I’m being argumentative but you’re trying to say they are all guilty however when asylum is accepted they are removed from that guilty assumption and the date of arrival is therefore not a point of a criminal act. It’s dismissed . Nothing to see here. I’m not segueing with your principal of a potential offence but you are assuming guilt. Is that a kangaroo court I see? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just to make sure I understand you. If you had assaulted a man on the street, leaving him with a broken nose, and no one had seen you do it, you think that most people would agree that no offence has been committed? And also you would not consider yourself to be guilty of any offence? Have I got that right?" "In the eyes of the law , I am innocent until proven guilty" "I wasn't asking about how the legal system would treat you, I'm asking about you personally. Would you consider yourself not guilty? Would you consider that no offence had been committed?" "if I punched somebody and broke their nose what would I be guilty off? " "You would be guilty of Grievous Bodily Harm (section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861). Would you say that you were not guilty of that offence?" "Are you sure?" It's a hypothetical situation that I invented, so yes I'm sure. But I'm not the one making judgements, I'm asking you to tell us how you think. If you assaulted a man (i.e. attacked him as the aggressor), but weren't found guilty in court. Would you consider that you weren't guilty? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does the human rights act say you have undeniable rights as a human being or does it present some written text to be your human rights." The Human Rights Act 1998 lists various rights which UK citizens have. It doesn't list all of them, nor does it claim that there exist any 'undeniable' rights. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The reason I am going on about it is to hopefully get yourself to realise that the "" human rights act is only used by governments, mainly western governments as a tool and a ruse to accuse leaders of other countries of human rights abuses ..." Ah. Right. Now I see where you are going. Sorry for being obtuse. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just to make sure I understand you. If you had assaulted a man on the street, leaving him with a broken nose, and no one had seen you do it, you think that most people would agree that no offence has been committed? And also you would not consider yourself to be guilty of any offence? Have I got that right? In the eyes of the law , I am innocent until proven guilty I wasn't asking about how the legal system would treat you, I'm asking about you personally. Would you consider yourself not guilty? Would you consider that no offence had been committed? if I punched somebody and broke their nose what would I be guilty off? You would be guilty of Grievous Bodily Harm (section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861). Would you say that you were not guilty of that offence? Are you sure? It's a hypothetical situation that I invented, so yes I'm sure. But I'm not the one making judgements, I'm asking you to tell us how you think. If you assaulted a man (i.e. attacked him as the aggressor), but weren't found guilty in court. Would you consider that you weren't guilty?" Yes, because I would be found not guilty of any crime , my opinion is irrelevant ,just like a person who thinks they are innocent and is found guilty in a court , their opinion is irrelevant | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Interesting bit in illegal But I still don't see how someone can apply for asylum without breaking the law, especially where they don't have ID and / or a passport (the GC recognises that refuggess are unlikely to be able to comply with legal entry) If they have a passport, they can apply for a tourist visa, board a plane or a ship, and then claim asylum when they arrive. If they don't have a passport, they would need to break the law to enter the UK. But that isn't a barrier to claiming asylum." I agree it's not a barrier. But people get so hung up on illegal immigrants, that they forget that there are limited "legal" options to ask for help. In the spirit of crap analogies, it's like making it illegal to see a doctor unless you have £1m in the bank, and then shouting at poor people who go to a backstreet doctor when ill. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does the human rights act say you have undeniable rights as a human being or does it present some written text to be your human rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 lists various rights which UK citizens have. It doesn't list all of them, nor does it claim that there exist any 'undeniable' rights." I will stick with my undeniable rights and undeniable responsibility for my actions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"... you’re trying to say they are all guilty however when asylum is accepted they are removed from that guilty assumption and the date of arrival is therefore not a point of a criminal act." That's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that they are guilty of the offence at the point that they commit it. If they subsequently have their asylum claim accepted, they are still guilty of the offence, but they cannot be prosecuted for it, so they will never be 'found guilty'. At no point does anyone in authority make an assumption of guilt, they just record the facts and wait to see if a prosecution is warranted. In practice it is almost never in the public interest to prosecute these people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"... you’re trying to say they are all guilty however when asylum is accepted they are removed from that guilty assumption and the date of arrival is therefore not a point of a criminal act. That's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that they are guilty of the offence at the point that they commit it. If they subsequently have their asylum claim accepted, they are still guilty of the offence, but they cannot be prosecuted for it, so they will never be 'found guilty'. At no point does anyone in authority make an assumption of guilt, they just record the facts and wait to see if a prosecution is warranted. In practice it is almost never in the public interest to prosecute these people." As we are dealing with hypotheticals , is a police officer guilty of a speeding offence if they travel at 60 mph in a 30 mph zone when dealing with an emergency? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As we are dealing with hypotheticals ..." We're very much getting sidetracked here. I'll just accept that some people have an unusual definition of the word 'guilty' and leave it there. The point I keep trying to make is that if someone has done something which is contrary to the law, there is nothing in the 1951 convention that makes it permissible for them to have done so. Article 31 just states that no penalties should be imposed on account of their illegal entry (it actually uses the words "illegal entry"). People arriving by small boat are entering illegally. As such they are 'illegal immigrants'. That doesn't make them any less deserving than any other asylum case. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As we are dealing with hypotheticals ... We're very much getting sidetracked here. I'll just accept that some people have an unusual definition of the word 'guilty' and leave it there. The point I keep trying to make is that if someone has done something which is contrary to the law, there is nothing in the 1951 convention that makes it permissible for them to have done so. Article 31 just states that no penalties should be imposed on account of their illegal entry (it actually uses the words "illegal entry"). People arriving by small boat are entering illegally. As such they are 'illegal immigrants'. That doesn't make them any less deserving than any other asylum case." They only become illegal when they are denied asylum, it really is as simple as that . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People arriving by small boat are entering illegally. As such they are 'illegal immigrants'. That doesn't make them any less deserving than any other asylum case." By what other means can they arrive? If there were safe routes then these people would not have to risk their lives crossing the channel in small boats. You know it, I know it and the UK Goverment knows it. The UK has shut down any alternatives. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They only become illegal when they are denied asylum, it really is as simple as that . " It really isn't. I've quoted the law, and explained why they are illegal. If you'd tried to justify your position I might have more respect for it, but you just keep blindly repeating the same thing. Saying something over and over won't make it true. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They only become illegal when they are denied asylum, it really is as simple as that . It really isn't. I've quoted the law, and explained why they are illegal. If you'd tried to justify your position I might have more respect for it, but you just keep blindly repeating the same thing. Saying something over and over won't make it true." How does this apply to immigrants who have arrived here legally but are denied asylum ? I get what your saying but they are immigrants that have technically arrived here illegally, you wouldn’t keep referring to any person who has been convicted of a crime as a criminal (technically they are) . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But I would suggest that the works illegal is emotionally loaded and even more so the teem illegal immigrants." I'd agree with that, 'illegal immigrants' is certainly a loaded term, and it gets used by the right to help deny claims. Sadly, it's also an accurate term. "Shipping off people who need our help, and are forced to break the law in order to ask for our it may not be quite as clearly cut a fair treatment." The question is, do they need our help? It can easily be argued that they come from France, and could get help there, so they don't need our help. How do we determine their motives for risking the journey to Britain? "Supporting Rwanda as a designation for illegal immigrants may be partly be seen as a acceptable as a "consequence" for breaking the law. But if you can't apply a penalty for refugees breaking the law then you are flying close to the wind here. It's either a deterant (so a negative versus remaining in the UK) and so a penalty. Or it's not." Good point. If deportation to Rwanda is a punishment, then it's against the law. If it is just an administrative measure that protects the UK and doesn't harm refugees, then it's not against the law. It'll take the courts to decide. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
