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 |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This has come off the back of a thread in the lounge.. From what I could make out there were people saying that Far Left doesn't exist in UK politics where as we've seen a rise in Far Right. Everyone agree??" What exactly did they say was a rise in far right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This has come off the back of a thread in the lounge.. From what I could make out there were people saying that Far Left doesn't exist in UK politics where as we've seen a rise in Far Right. Everyone agree?? What exactly did they say was a rise in far right? " This is an copy and paste : Far left would, as has been said, be communism. Nobody is advocating that. Whereas there's most definitely a rise in far right attitudes and politics across the globe. I'm more interested in the UK, than 'across the globe' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This has come off the back of a thread in the lounge.. From what I could make out there were people saying that Far Left doesn't exist in UK politics where as we've seen a rise in Far Right. Everyone agree?? What exactly did they say was a rise in far right? This is an copy and paste : Far left would, as has been said, be communism. Nobody is advocating that. Whereas there's most definitely a rise in far right attitudes and politics across the globe. I'm more interested in the UK, than 'across the globe'" The problem I'm seeing with this statement and others here, it is old school thinking, the landscape has changed. The methods being used to close down and challenge have become more and more extreme as they get replicated by other groups who spring up in the defence of the worlds wrongs. The group antifa is a good example of this and the rise of this movement logically thinking must be associated with a rise in far right, or why would it be more of a thing? Personally I think the real issue is people have become less tolerant and the divide is wider than ever and making it feel others are "far" from your point of view. I think virtue signalling is damaging on either end of the divide, people who make it their life work to spot, attack or over defend for their social self point scoring. They are very much a wedge. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government." Bang on | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government." OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This has come off the back of a thread in the lounge.. From what I could make out there were people saying that Far Left doesn't exist in UK politics where as we've seen a rise in Far Right. Everyone agree??" There are some political parties bordering on very right wing. UKIP, Reform etc. But I don't see them as "far right". There are no far left political parties, that I know of. Pride Cymru and the Greens are the only truly left parties (that I can think of). There are plenty of non-political far left and far right groups. But don't seem to be represented at national level. All of which is opinion, this stuff is subjective. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. " I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. " This is it. The conversation has lost all meaning and sense of reality. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government." That is an interesting take on things. Can you describe the attributes of a conservative and right wing government? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing"." Prioritising disaster capitalism during the pandemic. Prioritising multinational corporations & billionaires over British people. Blaming everything on immigrants. Using austerity to crush the poorest elements of society. Etc etc. Usual Tory stuff. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Prioritising disaster capitalism during the pandemic. Prioritising multinational corporations & billionaires over British people. Blaming everything on immigrants. Using austerity to crush the poorest elements of society. Etc etc. Usual Tory stuff. " "Usual Tory stuff...." That really does say enough for any rational person to take the above 'answers' as what they really are........ Just cheap random remarks. Sorry. My opinion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing"." Austerity isn't a right wing policy? Trickle down economics, de regulation, targeting minorities? Are you a troll?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. " Yes, most tory voters in knowing they have most likely also been fucked over by people they have openly given support the last 10+ years, and in an attempt to save embarrassment by association with the disaster and failure that the current government have served up, have now distanced themselves and claim there is nobody who represents them.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Austerity isn't a right wing policy? Trickle down economics, de regulation, targeting minorities? Are you a troll? "can you expand on this, headlines with no substance behind them is hard to follow your exact points. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Austerity isn't a right wing policy? Trickle down economics, de regulation, targeting minorities? Are you a troll? "What "austerity"? Can you not count? What "de-regulation"? What "minorities" have been targeted and how? I suggest you try harder with more than vacuous rhetoric. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This has come off the back of a thread in the lounge.. From what I could make out there were people saying that Far Left doesn't exist in UK politics where as we've seen a rise in Far Right. Everyone agree??" The far right has always been there. And so has the far left. I dont think they're any more prominent then they have been before. I think we can all spot the far right a mile off if you're right of centra politically. I'd say there a lot more reluctance to admit there's a far left. Though i think the central lone in politics has certainly shifted left i the last few years. Many people would now consider maggies reign as far far far right. When they call boris, suella and rishi far right. It always makes me chuckle. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government." This is mainly correct. Particularly with regards tkecpnomics. There's been very little right of centre economics over the last few years. Immigration has definitely seen a more left wing approach. And i welcome it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The main parties are not "far" anything, adding "Far" is simply adding cheap impact to bolster a personal opinion. " Agreed. It's a lazy term | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Austerity isn't a right wing policy? Trickle down economics, de regulation, targeting minorities? Are you a troll? "Austerity was an e.u advocatiom that all the economies had to abide by. The economics of the uk haven't been trickle down. There's been no de regulation. What are you saying is targeting minorities? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing"." Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda "That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular. Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government. Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?"Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her "Anti-immigration would be far right policy. Wanting to process asylum seekers off shore isn't anti-immigration. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Anti-immigration would be far right policy. Wanting to process asylum seekers off shore isn't anti-immigration."Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right, Braverman is trying really hard to be far right, bless her | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Anti-immigration would be far right policy. Wanting to process asylum seekers off shore isn't anti-immigration.
Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right, Braverman is trying really hard to be far right, bless her "Try having an adult debate from time to time. Just repeating the same thing over and over soesnt make it true. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Anti-immigration would be far right policy. Wanting to process asylum seekers off shore isn't anti-immigration.
Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right, Braverman is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Try having an adult debate from time to time. Just repeating the same thing over and over soesnt make it true. "Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Anti-immigration would be far right policy. Wanting to process asylum seekers off shore isn't anti-immigration.
Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right, Braverman is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Try having an adult debate from time to time. Just repeating the same thing over and over soesnt make it true.
Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her "I have read your comments. Repeating yourself doesn't make something true. As I've said, anti-immigration would be considered far right | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her "Can you please explain why/how rejecting illegal immigrants is far right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Anti-immigration would be far right policy. Wanting to process asylum seekers off shore isn't anti-immigration.
Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right, Braverman is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Try having an adult debate from time to time. Just repeating the same thing over and over soesnt make it true.
Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
I have read your comments. Repeating yourself doesn't make something true.
As I've said, anti-immigration would be considered far right"It’s really simple, the Home Secretary is trying to be far right , why? Also, sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is also far right , | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Anti-immigration would be far right policy. Wanting to process asylum seekers off shore isn't anti-immigration.
Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right, Braverman is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Try having an adult debate from time to time. Just repeating the same thing over and over soesnt make it true.
Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
I have read your comments. Repeating yourself doesn't make something true.
As I've said, anti-immigration would be considered far right
It’s really simple, the Home Secretary is trying to be far right , why? Also, sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is also far right , "I see you're on form today 
Can you explain why sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Can you please explain why/how rejecting illegal immigrants is far right?"Can you explain why they are trying to send them to Rwanda? These are not asylum seekers who have been denied asylum and have been legally devised ‘illegal ‘ , | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Can you please explain why/how rejecting illegal immigrants is far right?
Can you explain why they are trying to send them to Rwanda? These are not asylum seekers who have been denied asylum and have been legally devised ‘illegal ‘ , "A simple “no” would have sufficed.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Anti-immigration would be far right policy. Wanting to process asylum seekers off shore isn't anti-immigration.
Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right, Braverman is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Try having an adult debate from time to time. Just repeating the same thing over and over soesnt make it true.
Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
I have read your comments. Repeating yourself doesn't make something true.
As I've said, anti-immigration would be considered far right
It’s really simple, the Home Secretary is trying to be far right , why? Also, sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is also far right ,
I see you're on form today
Can you explain why sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right?"They haven’t sent any, they never will, but they are trying to, why? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Anti-immigration would be far right policy. Wanting to process asylum seekers off shore isn't anti-immigration.
Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right, Braverman is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Try having an adult debate from time to time. Just repeating the same thing over and over soesnt make it true.
Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
I have read your comments. Repeating yourself doesn't make something true.
As I've said, anti-immigration would be considered far right"You're being 'goaded' in an attempt to get you to post some disallowed comment. Happened before from a few on here, unfortunately. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Anti-immigration would be far right policy. Wanting to process asylum seekers off shore isn't anti-immigration.
Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right, Braverman is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Try having an adult debate from time to time. Just repeating the same thing over and over soesnt make it true.
Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
I have read your comments. Repeating yourself doesn't make something true.
As I've said, anti-immigration would be considered far right
It’s really simple, the Home Secretary is trying to be far right , why? Also, sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is also far right ,
I see you're on form today
Can you explain why sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right?
They haven’t sent any, they never will, but they are trying to, why? "The why doesn't matter. Back up your claim that's it's a far right policy. Actually, scrap that, you can't | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Can you please explain why/how rejecting illegal immigrants is far right?
Can you explain why they are trying to send them to Rwanda? These are not asylum seekers who have been denied asylum and have been legally devised ‘illegal ‘ ,
A simple “no” would have sufficed. "I explained it. Braverman uses far right rhetoric and is trying to appeal to the far right voters, bless her, btw , she is wasting her time, the far right will never vote for Sunak | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Anti-immigration would be far right policy. Wanting to process asylum seekers off shore isn't anti-immigration.
Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right, Braverman is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Try having an adult debate from time to time. Just repeating the same thing over and over soesnt make it true.
Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
I have read your comments. Repeating yourself doesn't make something true.
As I've said, anti-immigration would be considered far right
It’s really simple, the Home Secretary is trying to be far right , why? Also, sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is also far right ,
I see you're on form today
Can you explain why sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right?
They haven’t sent any, they never will, but they are trying to, why?
The why doesn't matter. Back up your claim that's it's a far right policy.
Actually, scrap that, you can't "I have already give you an explanation, it’s not my fault that you can not read or understand, educate yourself then get back to me | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Anti-immigration would be far right policy. Wanting to process asylum seekers off shore isn't anti-immigration.
Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right, Braverman is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Try having an adult debate from time to time. Just repeating the same thing over and over soesnt make it true.
Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
I have read your comments. Repeating yourself doesn't make something true.
As I've said, anti-immigration would be considered far right
You're being 'goaded' in an attempt to get you to post some disallowed comment.
Happened before from a few on here, unfortunately. "Goad? Say what you really think | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Can you please explain why/how rejecting illegal immigrants is far right?
Can you explain why they are trying to send them to Rwanda? These are not asylum seekers who have been denied asylum and have been legally devised ‘illegal ‘ ,
A simple “no” would have sufficed.
I explained it. Braverman uses far right rhetoric and is trying to appeal to the far right voters, bless her, btw , she is wasting her time, the far right will never vote for Sunak "You didn’t actually, but I’ll go off this latest update. What far right rhetoric does she use and how exactly is she trying to appeal to the far right? Can you please give a few examples as genuinely interested in case I’ve missed something. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Anti-immigration would be far right policy. Wanting to process asylum seekers off shore isn't anti-immigration.
Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right, Braverman is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Try having an adult debate from time to time. Just repeating the same thing over and over soesnt make it true.
Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
I have read your comments. Repeating yourself doesn't make something true.
As I've said, anti-immigration would be considered far right
It’s really simple, the Home Secretary is trying to be far right , why? Also, sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is also far right ,
I see you're on form today
Can you explain why sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right?
They haven’t sent any, they never will, but they are trying to, why?
The why doesn't matter. Back up your claim that's it's a far right policy.
Actually, scrap that, you can't
I have already give you an explanation, it’s not my fault that you can not read or understand, educate yourself then get back to me "You have given no explanation on why you think it's a far right policy. Come on, this is your moment to shine | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Can you please explain why/how rejecting illegal immigrants is far right?
Can you explain why they are trying to send them to Rwanda? These are not asylum seekers who have been denied asylum and have been legally devised ‘illegal ‘ ,
A simple “no” would have sufficed.
I explained it. Braverman uses far right rhetoric and is trying to appeal to the far right voters, bless her, btw , she is wasting her time, the far right will never vote for Sunak
You didn’t actually, but I’ll go off this latest update.
What far right rhetoric does she use and how exactly is she trying to appeal to the far right? Can you please give a few examples as genuinely interested in case I’ve missed something. "She ‘dreams’ of sending planes of asylum seekers to Rwanda. She has been called out by a holocaust survivor for using rhetoric that sounds like the nazis , her rhetoric was labelled racist by Tory peer Baroness Warsi. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Anti-immigration would be far right policy. Wanting to process asylum seekers off shore isn't anti-immigration.
Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right, Braverman is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Try having an adult debate from time to time. Just repeating the same thing over and over soesnt make it true.
Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
I have read your comments. Repeating yourself doesn't make something true.
As I've said, anti-immigration would be considered far right
It’s really simple, the Home Secretary is trying to be far right , why? Also, sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is also far right ,
I see you're on form today
Can you explain why sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right?
They haven’t sent any, they never will, but they are trying to, why?
The why doesn't matter. Back up your claim that's it's a far right policy.
Actually, scrap that, you can't
I have already give you an explanation, it’s not my fault that you can not read or understand, educate yourself then get back to me
You have given no explanation on why you think it's a far right policy.
Come on, this is your moment to shine "It’s not my fault you don’t understand , | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Can you please explain why/how rejecting illegal immigrants is far right?
Can you explain why they are trying to send them to Rwanda? These are not asylum seekers who have been denied asylum and have been legally devised ‘illegal ‘ ,
A simple “no” would have sufficed.
I explained it. Braverman uses far right rhetoric and is trying to appeal to the far right voters, bless her, btw , she is wasting her time, the far right will never vote for Sunak
You didn’t actually, but I’ll go off this latest update.
What far right rhetoric does she use and how exactly is she trying to appeal to the far right? Can you please give a few examples as genuinely interested in case I’ve missed something.
She ‘dreams’ of sending planes of asylum seekers to Rwanda. She has been called out by a holocaust survivor for using rhetoric that sounds like the nazis , her rhetoric was labelled racist by Tory peer Baroness Warsi. "So again you’re not able to provide examples. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s not my fault you don’t understand , "Then surely you’d want to help people understand and win them round to your logic/way of thinking? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s not my fault you don’t understand ,
Then surely you’d want to help people understand and win them round to your logic/way of thinking?"I don’t have time, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s not my fault you don’t understand ,
Then surely you’d want to help people understand and win them round to your logic/way of thinking?
I don’t have time, "Surely it’s not that hard? You’ve had plenty of time to point out already. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don’t have time" Says the man that's posted 10 times in the last 20 minutes. Mind you, they were all the same sentence, just with the words jumbled round a bit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Anti-immigration would be far right policy. Wanting to process asylum seekers off shore isn't anti-immigration.
Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right, Braverman is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Try having an adult debate from time to time. Just repeating the same thing over and over soesnt make it true.
Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
I have read your comments. Repeating yourself doesn't make something true.
As I've said, anti-immigration would be considered far right
It’s really simple, the Home Secretary is trying to be far right , why? Also, sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is also far right ,
I see you're on form today
Can you explain why sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right?
They haven’t sent any, they never will, but they are trying to, why?
The why doesn't matter. Back up your claim that's it's a far right policy.
Actually, scrap that, you can't
I have already give you an explanation, it’s not my fault that you can not read or understand, educate yourself then get back to me
You have given no explanation on why you think it's a far right policy.
Come on, this is your moment to shine
It’s not my fault you don’t understand , "Every single one of your words are here: "Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda" "Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her" "Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right, Braverman is trying really hard to be far right, bless her" "Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her" "It’s really simple, the Home Secretary is trying to be far right , why? Also, sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is also far right" "I explained it. Braverman uses far right rhetoric and is trying to appeal to the far right voters, bless her, btw , she is wasting her time, the far right will never vote for Sunak" "Can you explain why they are trying to send them to Rwanda? These are not asylum seekers who have been denied asylum and have been legally devised ‘illegal " "They haven’t sent any, they never will, but they are trying to, why?" "I have already give you an explanation, it’s not my fault that you can not read or understand, educate yourself then get back to me" "Goad? Say what you really think" "She ‘dreams’ of sending planes of asylum seekers to Rwanda. She has been called out by a holocaust survivor for using rhetoric that sounds like the nazis , her rhetoric was labelled racist by Tory peer Baroness Warsi." "It’s not my fault you don’t understand" At which point do you explain why this would be classed as a far right policy? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don’t have time Says the man that's posted 10 times in the last 20 minutes. Mind you, they were all the same sentence, just with the words jumbled round a bit." Thanks for reading them all | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Anti-immigration would be far right policy. Wanting to process asylum seekers off shore isn't anti-immigration.
Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right, Braverman is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Try having an adult debate from time to time. Just repeating the same thing over and over soesnt make it true.
Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
I have read your comments. Repeating yourself doesn't make something true.
As I've said, anti-immigration would be considered far right
It’s really simple, the Home Secretary is trying to be far right , why? Also, sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is also far right ,
I see you're on form today
Can you explain why sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right?
They haven’t sent any, they never will, but they are trying to, why?
The why doesn't matter. Back up your claim that's it's a far right policy.
Actually, scrap that, you can't
I have already give you an explanation, it’s not my fault that you can not read or understand, educate yourself then get back to me
You have given no explanation on why you think it's a far right policy.
Come on, this is your moment to shine
It’s not my fault you don’t understand ,
Every single one of your words are here:
"Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda"
"Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her"
"Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right, Braverman is trying really hard to be far right, bless her"
"Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her"
"It’s really simple, the Home Secretary is trying to be far right , why? Also, sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is also far right"
"I explained it. Braverman uses far right rhetoric and is trying to appeal to the far right voters, bless her, btw , she is wasting her time, the far right will never vote for Sunak"
"Can you explain why they are trying to send them to Rwanda? These are not asylum seekers who have been denied asylum and have been legally devised ‘illegal "
"They haven’t sent any, they never will, but they are trying to, why?"
"I have already give you an explanation, it’s not my fault that you can not read or understand, educate yourself then get back to me"
"Goad? Say what you really think"
"She ‘dreams’ of sending planes of asylum seekers to Rwanda. She has been called out by a holocaust survivor for using rhetoric that sounds like the nazis , her rhetoric was labelled racist by Tory peer Baroness Warsi."
"It’s not my fault you don’t understand"
At which point do you explain why this would be classed as a far right policy?"Got to go, second half of the city game has started, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don’t have time Says the man that's posted 10 times in the last 20 minutes. Mind you, they were all the same sentence, just with the words jumbled round a bit. Thanks for reading them all "Ah so you’re just trolling. Fair enough. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Got to go, second half of the city game has started, "Translation: Ah crap my logic has been found wanting. EJECT! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Got to go, second half of the city game has started," You posted 11 times during the first half. What makes you think the game will suddenly become more engrossing? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Got to go, second half of the city game has started, You posted 11 times during the first half. What makes you think the game will suddenly become more engrossing?" His logic/argument is going about as well as Arsenal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Imagine taking the time to copy and paste someone's obviously very casual comments and think you're the one coming out looking good." Imagine not engaging in a debate in good faith and not backing up your spurious claims… | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Imagine taking the time to copy and paste someone's obviously very casual comments and think you're the one coming out looking good." It took all of 2 mins. All I was asking for was him to back up his claim. As for thinking I'm the one coming out looking good? Not sure I've actually posted since, until now that is. You're welcome  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The main parties are not "far" anything, adding "Far" is simply adding cheap impact to bolster a personal opinion. " In rare agreement with you. Although there are groups in the UK who appear to be far right or far left. I don't see them politically represented at national level. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Austerity isn't a right wing policy? Trickle down economics, de regulation, targeting minorities? Are you a troll?
Austerity was an e.u advocatiom that all the economies had to abide by.
The economics of the uk haven't been trickle down.
There's been no de regulation.
What are you saying is targeting minorities?"No deregulation ? Are you sure…just about everything’s been deregulated from env protection, h&s etc with devastating consequences. That’s disaster capitalism ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This has come off the back of a thread in the lounge.. From what I could make out there were people saying that Far Left doesn't exist in UK politics where as we've seen a rise in Far Right. Everyone agree??" Left and Right are poor descriptors now. Economic and social policies used to be politically tied. That is no longer the case. There is now also seems to be very little deep thought behind politics. It's no longer about deeply held views. It's about what the polls say and how the public can be cynically manipulated to obtain and retain power. Government social policy has moved progressively more rightwards. The rhetoric has become more cruel and victimising. There is a return to blaming "the other". Economics is very fractured. The majority remains fairly centrist, with an acceptance of the free market and the need for functioning public services. There are very right wing, free market elements. However, economic execution has been poor. More so in recent years. Corruption, in politics, appears to have become worse. More in recent years. The far left doesn't exist in politics although you could argue that it does in civil society with a number of active anti-capitalist groups. The far right does seem to exist in political social policy. Neither exists in political economics in the UK. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Anti-immigration would be far right policy. Wanting to process asylum seekers off shore isn't anti-immigration.
Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right, Braverman is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Try having an adult debate from time to time. Just repeating the same thing over and over soesnt make it true.
Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
I have read your comments. Repeating yourself doesn't make something true.
As I've said, anti-immigration would be considered far right
You're being 'goaded' in an attempt to get you to post some disallowed comment.
Happened before from a few on here, unfortunately.
Goad? Say what you really think "Don't you understand a simple but little used word....? Goad..... AS A NOUN..... It describes a verbalisation to encourage an act...... i.e. "you are being goaded into posting a written rebuke" (esp. one which may break forum rules leading to a possible ban) * AS A VERB..... (I'm possibly a little 'rusty' here with my English...!).....To provoke by constant criticism, to prod, urge, needle. * I've witnessed this baiting many times in this particular forum, I say it's done simply because it CAN be done with full anonimity for the perpetrator(s) Maybe some get a hit out of it, I don't know, it just winds serious contributors up. That said..... reality...... It's just a free forum on an adult sex site. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Anti-immigration would be far right policy. Wanting to process asylum seekers off shore isn't anti-immigration.
Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right, Braverman is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Try having an adult debate from time to time. Just repeating the same thing over and over soesnt make it true.
Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
I have read your comments. Repeating yourself doesn't make something true.
As I've said, anti-immigration would be considered far right
You're being 'goaded' in an attempt to get you to post some disallowed comment.
Happened before from a few on here, unfortunately.
Goad? Say what you really think
Don't you understand a simple but little used word....?
Goad..... AS A NOUN..... It describes a verbalisation to encourage an act...... i.e. "you are being goaded into posting a written rebuke" (esp. one which may break forum rules leading to a possible ban)
*
AS A VERB..... (I'm possibly a little 'rusty' here with my English...!).....To provoke by constant criticism, to prod, urge, needle.
*
I've witnessed this baiting many times in this particular forum, I say it's done simply because it CAN be done with full anonimity for the perpetrator(s)
Maybe some get a hit out of it, I don't know, it just winds serious contributors up.
That said..... reality...... It's just a free forum on an adult sex site. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda "*Illegal. migrants* | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her "Deporting people whoe entered your coutnrynillegally and without right to stay is far right | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Deporting people whoe entered your coutnrynillegally and without right to stay is far right "So they are planning on processing them first? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Deporting people whoe entered your coutnrynillegally and without right to stay is far right
So they are planning on processing them first? "That was always in tbe MoU You get sent to Rwanda when you fail asylum | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This has come off the back of a thread in the lounge.. From what I could make out there were people saying that Far Left doesn't exist in UK politics where as we've seen a rise in Far Right. Everyone agree?? Left and Right are poor descriptors now. Economic and social policies used to be politically tied. That is no longer the case. There is now also seems to be very little deep thought behind politics. It's no longer about deeply held views. It's about what the polls say and how the public can be cynically manipulated to obtain and retain power. Government social policy has moved progressively more rightwards. The rhetoric has become more cruel and victimising. There is a return to blaming "the other". Economics is very fractured. The majority remains fairly centrist, with an acceptance of the free market and the need for functioning public services. There are very right wing, free market elements. However, economic execution has been poor. More so in recent years. Corruption, in politics, appears to have become worse. More in recent years. The far left doesn't exist in politics although you could argue that it does in civil society with a number of active anti-capitalist groups. The far right does seem to exist in political social policy. Neither exists in political economics in the UK." So you agree that the far left doesn't exist but the far right does? Breaking it down, neither exist in economic policy but far right exists in social policy. Which social policies would you deem far right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Anti-immigration would be far right policy. Wanting to process asylum seekers off shore isn't anti-immigration.
Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right, Braverman is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Try having an adult debate from time to time. Just repeating the same thing over and over soesnt make it true.
Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
I have read your comments. Repeating yourself doesn't make something true.
As I've said, anti-immigration would be considered far right
You're being 'goaded' in an attempt to get you to post some disallowed comment.
Happened before from a few on here, unfortunately.
Goad? Say what you really think
Don't you understand a simple but little used word....?
Goad..... AS A NOUN..... It describes a verbalisation to encourage an act...... i.e. "you are being goaded into posting a written rebuke" (esp. one which may break forum rules leading to a possible ban)
*
AS A VERB..... (I'm possibly a little 'rusty' here with my English...!).....To provoke by constant criticism, to prod, urge, needle.
*
I've witnessed this baiting many times in this particular forum, I say it's done simply because it CAN be done with full anonimity for the perpetrator(s)
Maybe some get a hit out of it, I don't know, it just winds serious contributors up.
That said..... reality...... It's just a free forum on an adult sex site. "Enquiring as to what is driving s persons opinions and asking them to verify the existence of what they claim is goading? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This has come off the back of a thread in the lounge.. From what I could make out there were people saying that Far Left doesn't exist in UK politics where as we've seen a rise in Far Right. Everyone agree?? Left and Right are poor descriptors now. Economic and social policies used to be politically tied. That is no longer the case. There is now also seems to be very little deep thought behind politics. It's no longer about deeply held views. It's about what the polls say and how the public can be cynically manipulated to obtain and retain power. Government social policy has moved progressively more rightwards. The rhetoric has become more cruel and victimising. There is a return to blaming "the other". Economics is very fractured. The majority remains fairly centrist, with an acceptance of the free market and the need for functioning public services. There are very right wing, free market elements. However, economic execution has been poor. More so in recent years. Corruption, in politics, appears to have become worse. More in recent years. The far left doesn't exist in politics although you could argue that it does in civil society with a number of active anti-capitalist groups. The far right does seem to exist in political social policy. Neither exists in political economics in the UK." What would you describe as far left? Why would you say it doesnt exist. If some one was a holocaust denier and refused to condemn hitters actions. Would you call them far right for example? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Anti-immigration would be far right policy. Wanting to process asylum seekers off shore isn't anti-immigration.
Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right, Braverman is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Try having an adult debate from time to time. Just repeating the same thing over and over soesnt make it true.
Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
I have read your comments. Repeating yourself doesn't make something true.
As I've said, anti-immigration would be considered far right
You're being 'goaded' in an attempt to get you to post some disallowed comment.
Happened before from a few on here, unfortunately.
Goad? Say what you really think
Don't you understand a simple but little used word....?
Goad..... AS A NOUN..... It describes a verbalisation to encourage an act...... i.e. "you are being goaded into posting a written rebuke" (esp. one which may break forum rules leading to a possible ban)
*
AS A VERB..... (I'm possibly a little 'rusty' here with my English...!).....To provoke by constant criticism, to prod, urge, needle.
*
I've witnessed this baiting many times in this particular forum, I say it's done simply because it CAN be done with full anonimity for the perpetrator(s)
Maybe some get a hit out of it, I don't know, it just winds serious contributors up.
That said..... reality...... It's just a free forum on an adult sex site.
Enquiring as to what is driving s persons opinions and asking them to verify the existence of what they claim is goading?"It's just deflection A not so subtle way of admitting you've lost the argument. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first? "Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point."They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Anti-immigration would be far right policy. Wanting to process asylum seekers off shore isn't anti-immigration.
Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right, Braverman is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Try having an adult debate from time to time. Just repeating the same thing over and over soesnt make it true.
Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
I have read your comments. Repeating yourself doesn't make something true.
As I've said, anti-immigration would be considered far right
You're being 'goaded' in an attempt to get you to post some disallowed comment.
Happened before from a few on here, unfortunately.
Goad? Say what you really think
Don't you understand a simple but little used word....?
Goad..... AS A NOUN..... It describes a verbalisation to encourage an act...... i.e. "you are being goaded into posting a written rebuke" (esp. one which may break forum rules leading to a possible ban)
*
AS A VERB..... (I'm possibly a little 'rusty' here with my English...!).....To provoke by constant criticism, to prod, urge, needle.
*
I've witnessed this baiting many times in this particular forum, I say it's done simply because it CAN be done with full anonimity for the perpetrator(s)
Maybe some get a hit out of it, I don't know, it just winds serious contributors up.
That said..... reality...... It's just a free forum on an adult sex site.
Enquiring as to what is driving s persons opinions and asking them to verify the existence of what they claim is goading?"No. You were, in my (much) considered opinion, being deliberately provoked. Hence, 'goading' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK "I never said they weren’t. Now please kindly go back and answer the other rebuttals if you’re trying to debate in good faith. Again I’m going to hazard a guess you won’t. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The UK, like other countries, especially the USA, has been pulled much further to the right, often aided by right wing media interests, such as the Murdoch empire. This has pulled the left leaning parties with them. Some unsavory leaders, including Trump, Johnson, Truss, Orban et al, have transformed politics, such that lies, hatred are common and democracy has been weakened very badly. " I'm not sure that is correct, the right look further right because of a minority of left wing activists that influence corporate and political parties with passive agressive campaigns. They have reached the point that their normal is often violent, disruptive, bigoted and controlling. Part of the widening divide is nobody voted for such things and that is why we no longer have communist or marxist parties. The vast majority of people don't want them. Far right in this country is not accepted either, you need look no further than the likes of Robinson and those types that have gone before him, they get nowhere to the credit of the people in the UK. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK "No they won't. Read the MoU. They are being sent there after failing our processes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Anti-immigration would be far right policy. Wanting to process asylum seekers off shore isn't anti-immigration.
Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right, Braverman is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Try having an adult debate from time to time. Just repeating the same thing over and over soesnt make it true.
Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
I have read your comments. Repeating yourself doesn't make something true.
As I've said, anti-immigration would be considered far right
You're being 'goaded' in an attempt to get you to post some disallowed comment.
Happened before from a few on here, unfortunately.
Goad? Say what you really think
Don't you understand a simple but little used word....?
Goad..... AS A NOUN..... It describes a verbalisation to encourage an act...... i.e. "you are being goaded into posting a written rebuke" (esp. one which may break forum rules leading to a possible ban)
*
AS A VERB..... (I'm possibly a little 'rusty' here with my English...!).....To provoke by constant criticism, to prod, urge, needle.
*
I've witnessed this baiting many times in this particular forum, I say it's done simply because it CAN be done with full anonimity for the perpetrator(s)
Maybe some get a hit out of it, I don't know, it just winds serious contributors up.
That said..... reality...... It's just a free forum on an adult sex site.
Enquiring as to what is driving s persons opinions and asking them to verify the existence of what they claim is goading?
No.
You were, in my (much) considered opinion, being deliberately provoked.
Hence, 'goading'"You think I was provoked or provoking? What particular question did you feel was goading? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Anti-immigration would be far right policy. Wanting to process asylum seekers off shore isn't anti-immigration.
Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right, Braverman is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Try having an adult debate from time to time. Just repeating the same thing over and over soesnt make it true.
Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
I have read your comments. Repeating yourself doesn't make something true.
As I've said, anti-immigration would be considered far right
You're being 'goaded' in an attempt to get you to post some disallowed comment.
Happened before from a few on here, unfortunately.
Goad? Say what you really think
Don't you understand a simple but little used word....?
Goad..... AS A NOUN..... It describes a verbalisation to encourage an act...... i.e. "you are being goaded into posting a written rebuke" (esp. one which may break forum rules leading to a possible ban)
*
AS A VERB..... (I'm possibly a little 'rusty' here with my English...!).....To provoke by constant criticism, to prod, urge, needle.
*
I've witnessed this baiting many times in this particular forum, I say it's done simply because it CAN be done with full anonimity for the perpetrator(s)
Maybe some get a hit out of it, I don't know, it just winds serious contributors up.
That said..... reality...... It's just a free forum on an adult sex site.
Enquiring as to what is driving s persons opinions and asking them to verify the existence of what they claim is goading?
No.
You were, in my (much) considered opinion, being deliberately provoked.
Hence, 'goading'
You think I was provoked or provoking?
What particular question did you feel was goading?"I think Eva was actually saying I was being goaded. I don't mind it though, its childish. Would be nice if the questions I asked were answered, that way we can actually have discussion (not aimed at you) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Anti-immigration would be far right policy. Wanting to process asylum seekers off shore isn't anti-immigration.
Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is far right, Braverman is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
Try having an adult debate from time to time. Just repeating the same thing over and over soesnt make it true.
Try reading, sending asylum seekers is far right, tbh, Sunak isn’t far right, but his Home Secretary is trying really hard to be far right, bless her
I have read your comments. Repeating yourself doesn't make something true.
As I've said, anti-immigration would be considered far right
You're being 'goaded' in an attempt to get you to post some disallowed comment.
Happened before from a few on here, unfortunately.
Goad? Say what you really think
Don't you understand a simple but little used word....?
Goad..... AS A NOUN..... It describes a verbalisation to encourage an act...... i.e. "you are being goaded into posting a written rebuke" (esp. one which may break forum rules leading to a possible ban)
*
AS A VERB..... (I'm possibly a little 'rusty' here with my English...!).....To provoke by constant criticism, to prod, urge, needle.
*
I've witnessed this baiting many times in this particular forum, I say it's done simply because it CAN be done with full anonimity for the perpetrator(s)
Maybe some get a hit out of it, I don't know, it just winds serious contributors up.
That said..... reality...... It's just a free forum on an adult sex site.
Enquiring as to what is driving s persons opinions and asking them to verify the existence of what they claim is goading?
No.
You were, in my (much) considered opinion, being deliberately provoked.
Hence, 'goading'
You think I was provoked or provoking?
What particular question did you feel was goading?
I think Eva was actually saying I was being goaded.
I don't mind it though, its childish. Would be nice if the questions I asked were answered, that way we can actually have discussion (not aimed at you)" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK" "No they won't. Read the MoU. They are being sent there after failing our processes." It all depends on the definition of the word 'processed'. As I understand it, if they make an application for asylum here, they will be assessed here. If that application is initially rejected, they will be deported to Rwanda. They will then be able to appeal the rejection and continue their application whilst outside the UK. So 'processing' happens both here, and in Rwanda. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK No they won't. Read the MoU. They are being sent there after failing our processes. It all depends on the definition of the word 'processed'. As I understand it, if they make an application for asylum here, they will be assessed here. If that application is initially rejected, they will be deported to Rwanda. They will then be able to appeal the rejection and continue their application whilst outside the UK. So 'processing' happens both here, and in Rwanda." I believe a verdict on the appeal is expected today. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK No they won't. Read the MoU. They are being sent there after failing our processes. It all depends on the definition of the word 'processed'. As I understand it, if they make an application for asylum here, they will be assessed here. If that application is initially rejected, they will be deported to Rwanda. They will then be able to appeal the rejection and continue their application whilst outside the UK. So 'processing' happens both here, and in Rwanda. I believe a verdict on the appeal is expected today." Yup | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As we have gone down the tangent of asylum...Jenrick said Labour left office with backlog of 450,000 asylum cases. The number was in fact, under 19,000. The UK Statistics Authority has told the minister that his figure is wrong but he refuses to correct it because BBC reported 450k figure so "it's legitimate"! Tory gaslighting! Oh and Jennick also said Sudanese asylum seekers can go down UNHCR route forcing them to issue a statement... “UNHCR wishes to clarify that there is no mechanism through which refugees can approach UNHCR with the intention of seeking asylum in the U.K. There is no asylum visa or ‘queue’ for the U.K.”" There definitely weren't 450k asylum seekers. But I believe Jenrick was quoting the then home secretary John Reid from Labour's figure? That what is in hansard anyway. The unhcr clarified what I have said all along which is great. Individuals can be resettled without being in the uk through the ukrs when they are in a safe country. They then go on to say refugees can get visas for studying and tourism An absolutely fantastic day for this forum as what I have said for 6.mo ths is finally clarified by unhcr | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As we have gone down the tangent of asylum...Jenrick said Labour left office with backlog of 450,000 asylum cases. The number was in fact, under 19,000. The UK Statistics Authority has told the minister that his figure is wrong but he refuses to correct it because BBC reported 450k figure so "it's legitimate"! Tory gaslighting! Oh and Jennick also said Sudanese asylum seekers can go down UNHCR route forcing them to issue a statement... “UNHCR wishes to clarify that there is no mechanism through which refugees can approach UNHCR with the intention of seeking asylum in the U.K. There is no asylum visa or ‘queue’ for the U.K.” There definitely weren't 450k asylum seekers. But I believe Jenrick was quoting the then home secretary John Reid from Labour's figure? That what is in hansard anyway. The unhcr clarified what I have said all along which is great. Individuals can be resettled without being in the uk through the ukrs when they are in a safe country. They then go on to say refugees can get visas for studying and tourism An absolutely fantastic day for this forum as what I have said for 6.mo ths is finally clarified by unhcr "Do you have a link tod the following?: "The unhcr clarified what I have said all along which is great. Individuals can be resettled without being in the uk through the ukrs when they are in a safe country. They then go on to say refugees can get visas for studying and tourism" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes. "the summary of ten Oct doc says "their claims for asylum in the UK would not be considered, though they would be able to claim asylum in Rwanda". In my reading anyone sent through to Rwanda will not have had their application considered by the UK. It's straight to Rwanda. Which bit leads to your view? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes. the summary of ten Oct doc says "their claims for asylum in the UK would not be considered, though they would be able to claim asylum in Rwanda".
In my reading anyone sent through to Rwanda will not have had their application considered by the UK. It's straight to Rwanda.
Which bit leads to your view? "Their claim isn't being considered because they can't prove their right to claim. They are thus able to claim asylum in Rwanda. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes. the summary of ten Oct doc says "their claims for asylum in the UK would not be considered, though they would be able to claim asylum in Rwanda".
In my reading anyone sent through to Rwanda will not have had their application considered by the UK. It's straight to Rwanda.
Which bit leads to your view?
Their claim isn't being considered because they can't prove their right to claim.
They are thus able to claim asylum in Rwanda.
"that feels circular to me. How do you know they can't prove their right if they won't have their claim considered. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes. the summary of ten Oct doc says "their claims for asylum in the UK would not be considered, though they would be able to claim asylum in Rwanda".
In my reading anyone sent through to Rwanda will not have had their application considered by the UK. It's straight to Rwanda.
Which bit leads to your view?
Their claim isn't being considered because they can't prove their right to claim.
They are thus able to claim asylum in Rwanda.
that feels circular to me. How do you know they can't prove their right if they won't have their claim considered. "Because they are arriving without ID. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Deporting people whoe entered your coutnrynillegally and without right to stay is far right "They have been made "illegal" by progressively removing all other options. On the simplest level it can be considered "illegal" to cross a border without documents, bit the chances of you having documents fleeing the destruction of your home by a hostile Government might be considered slim. The intent is to not accept refugees unless there is no way to avoid it and to make as much noise about doing so as possible. That is socially right wing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Deporting people whoe entered your coutnrynillegally and without right to stay is far right
They have been made "illegal" by progressively removing all other options.
On the simplest level it can be considered "illegal" to cross a border without documents, bit the chances of you having documents fleeing the destruction of your home by a hostile Government might be considered slim.
The intent is to not accept refugees unless there is no way to avoid it and to make as much noise about doing so as possible. That is socially right wing."What options. The unhcr lists them there... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes."Wrong, they will be processed in Rwanda, otherwise what is the point of the scheme | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes.
Wrong, they will be processed in Rwanda, otherwise what is the point of the scheme "Sorry but no. Thats not what the MoU says. They are being sent there when they have no right to claim asylum in tje uk. The uk isn't processing them in Rwanda. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes.
Wrong, they will be processed in Rwanda, otherwise what is the point of the scheme "to clarify its processed in Rwanda by Rwanda as part of any claim in Rwanda. They arent being processed in Rwanda by the UK for UK refugee status. Imo this isbt about reducing admin costs. It's stepping away from our civic international duty wrt supporting refugees | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Deporting people whoe entered your coutnrynillegally and without right to stay is far right
They have been made "illegal" by progressively removing all other options.
On the simplest level it can be considered "illegal" to cross a border without documents, bit the chances of you having documents fleeing the destruction of your home by a hostile Government might be considered slim.
The intent is to not accept refugees unless there is no way to avoid it and to make as much noise about doing so as possible. That is socially right wing."no it is not socially right wing, it is bang in the middle. They have broken the law of the land, whether you like that law or not. Where do you draw the line on people being allowed to break the law? Who decides that this law can be broken and this one can't? You say those fleeing are not likely to have documentation when they leave their homes, are you saying the 98% of people who crossed the channel without documentation were all fleeing a hostile government destroying their homes? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes.
Wrong, they will be processed in Rwanda, otherwise what is the point of the scheme to clarify its processed in Rwanda by Rwanda as part of any claim in Rwanda. They arent being processed in Rwanda by the UK for UK refugee status.
Imo this isbt about reducing admin costs. It's stepping away from our civic international duty wrt supporting refugees"Claims in Rwanda will be for resettlement in Rwanda. The uk will take some back if Rwanda and the committee feel we should re look lr also if Rwanda da has seekers from toehr coutnries it deems it can't protect or better serve. For example I belive( my own thinking) this may be say if a medical conditions arises I'm a previously deported person that Rwanda can't treat themselves or help alleviate. We will take genuine asylum seekers in. But we are first closing g the door tk non genuine seekers. See Albanians. We deported nearly 4000 false claims this month. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes.
Wrong, they will be processed in Rwanda, otherwise what is the point of the scheme "Still waiting… | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes.
Wrong, they will be processed in Rwanda, otherwise what is the point of the scheme to clarify its processed in Rwanda by Rwanda as part of any claim in Rwanda. They arent being processed in Rwanda by the UK for UK refugee status.
Imo this isbt about reducing admin costs. It's stepping away from our civic international duty wrt supporting refugees
Claims in Rwanda will be for resettlement in Rwanda.
The uk will take some back if Rwanda and the committee feel we should re look lr also if Rwanda da has seekers from toehr coutnries it deems it can't protect or better serve.
For example I belive( my own thinking) this may be say if a medical conditions arises I'm a previously deported person that Rwanda can't treat themselves or help alleviate.
We will take genuine asylum seekers in. But we are first closing g the door tk non genuine seekers.
See Albanians.
We deported nearly 4000 false claims this month."how do you separate true and false claims without considering them. No ID doesn't make it false. Has HMG even stated which cases will be sent? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Deporting people whoe entered your coutnrynillegally and without right to stay is far right
They have been made "illegal" by progressively removing all other options.
On the simplest level it can be considered "illegal" to cross a border without documents, bit the chances of you having documents fleeing the destruction of your home by a hostile Government might be considered slim.
The intent is to not accept refugees unless there is no way to avoid it and to make as much noise about doing so as possible. That is socially right wing.
no it is not socially right wing, it is bang in the middle.
They have broken the law of the land, whether you like that law or not. Where do you draw the line on people being allowed to break the law? Who decides that this law can be broken and this one can't?
You say those fleeing are not likely to have documentation when they leave their homes, are you saying the 98% of people who crossed the channel without documentation were all fleeing a hostile government destroying their homes?
"The UNHCR are clear in how refugees should be treated. Not economic migrants. Refugees and those fleeing persecution. If there are no legal routes, with or without documentation, then everyone is "illegal". That is what is being done. We've been through this before. If you could process people closer to where they are or use our foreign aid spending properly then they will not try to get here except via controlled routes. There will be no people smuggling model except for trafficking or economic migrants. The Government is calling everyone "illegal" because it is a convenient dog whistle to get everyone angry and scared. That is is not what "the middle" does. You may think of yourself as moderate and therefore this interpretation is uncomfortable for you, but it is what is happening. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes.
Wrong, they will be processed in Rwanda, otherwise what is the point of the scheme to clarify its processed in Rwanda by Rwanda as part of any claim in Rwanda. They arent being processed in Rwanda by the UK for UK refugee status.
Imo this isbt about reducing admin costs. It's stepping away from our civic international duty wrt supporting refugees
Claims in Rwanda will be for resettlement in Rwanda.
The uk will take some back if Rwanda and the committee feel we should re look lr also if Rwanda da has seekers from toehr coutnries it deems it can't protect or better serve.
For example I belive( my own thinking) this may be say if a medical conditions arises I'm a previously deported person that Rwanda can't treat themselves or help alleviate.
We will take genuine asylum seekers in. But we are first closing g the door tk non genuine seekers.
See Albanians.
We deported nearly 4000 false claims this month.how do you separate true and false claims without considering them. No ID doesn't make it false.
Has HMG even stated which cases will be sent? "I know EasyUK said someone fleeing wouldn't think to grab their ID but not having ID is the issue here. Plenty of folk will argue that anyone fleeing won't think to grab ID. Plenty of folk including myself will argue it takes less than 2 mins to grab your passport. Plenty arriving seem to have bags with them so if they have time to pack bags, they have time to pack ID. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes.
Wrong, they will be processed in Rwanda, otherwise what is the point of the scheme
Still waiting… "I am not here to educate are you, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Denying false claims is a centrist policy. Almost 50% of illegal arrivals were Albanian last year with very few any right to claim asylum. Sending them back is not right wing. It's centrist. Denying genuine refugees like Afghans with passports fleeing Afghanistan or Ukrainians entering the UK would be very right of centre. Not allowing in Ukrainians last year with passports and visas and processing them I f rance was right of centre. And I wasn't happy with it " Denying false claims is perfectly reasonable. Allowing no "legal" routes and therefore making everyone "illegal" and automatically deporting them is not "centrist". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes.
Wrong, they will be processed in Rwanda, otherwise what is the point of the scheme
Still waiting…
I am not here to educate are you, "Translation: I can’t backup any of my claims. Fair enough, shall take that as you just bowing out of the debate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes.
Wrong, they will be processed in Rwanda, otherwise what is the point of the scheme
Still waiting…
I am not here to educate are you, "Obviously not here to back up your claims either. You're constant drivel without any substance is not only detailing but boring too. I have asked you directly where you explained your stance and yet you just drone on without any explanation. Do you actually care to give one? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fast and feisty Google the below and you'll probs get it pop up. The UNHCR statement went on to say: “UNHCR works in partnership with a number of governments on its global resettlement scheme. Resettlement is made available only for a very limited number of refugees who have left their own countries and been identified as particularly at risk in the countries where they initially sought refuge, and cannot integrate there or return home. “It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. There is no application process for resettlement – refugees at heightened risk are identified by UNHCR through our ongoing protection programmes in countries of asylum. “Currently, new resettlement opportunities to the UK are minimal, and there is no quota for any nationality currently in place. Resettlement arrivals in the UK – mostly of cases referred pre-pandemic – currently stand at a rate of around 100 individuals arriving in the UK per month. “The overwhelming majority of refugees have no access to such pathways to the UK. The vast majority of refugees remain in countries neighbouring their own or apply for asylum elsewhere, with only a very small number seeking protection in the UK.” On Parliament’s own website, it explains how to claim asylum in the UK: “A person must be physically in the UK. It is not possible to apply from outside the country, and there is no asylum visa. “A person cannot obtain a visa with the explicit purpose of seeking asylum. Therefore, for individuals who do not have visa-free travel to the UK, they must enter either irregularly, such as by a small boat; by using false documents; or on a visa for some other purpose, such as tourism or study" When I have more time I need to read and re-read what you have said previously and what it says here and try to figure out if this really does support what you have claimed because right now for the life of me it simply doesn’t?!?! It is the opposite in fact? Feeling like you are gaslighting or I have simply become really thick | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Denying false claims is a centrist policy. Almost 50% of illegal arrivals were Albanian last year with very few any right to claim asylum. Sending them back is not right wing. It's centrist. Denying genuine refugees like Afghans with passports fleeing Afghanistan or Ukrainians entering the UK would be very right of centre. Not allowing in Ukrainians last year with passports and visas and processing them I f rance was right of centre. And I wasn't happy with it Denying false claims is perfectly reasonable. Allowing no "legal" routes and therefore making everyone "illegal" and automatically deporting them is not "centrist"." Who was automatically deported? How do we find out if the claims are legit or not without any sort of ID? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes.
Wrong, they will be processed in Rwanda, otherwise what is the point of the scheme to clarify its processed in Rwanda by Rwanda as part of any claim in Rwanda. They arent being processed in Rwanda by the UK for UK refugee status.
Imo this isbt about reducing admin costs. It's stepping away from our civic international duty wrt supporting refugees
Claims in Rwanda will be for resettlement in Rwanda.
The uk will take some back if Rwanda and the committee feel we should re look lr also if Rwanda da has seekers from toehr coutnries it deems it can't protect or better serve.
For example I belive( my own thinking) this may be say if a medical conditions arises I'm a previously deported person that Rwanda can't treat themselves or help alleviate.
We will take genuine asylum seekers in. But we are first closing g the door tk non genuine seekers.
See Albanians.
We deported nearly 4000 false claims this month.how do you separate true and false claims without considering them. No ID doesn't make it false.
Has HMG even stated which cases will be sent? "You interview. Ask for evidence. Can they speak the language gauge. Do they have a social media presence. Do they have a bank account. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Deporting people whoe entered your coutnrynillegally and without right to stay is far right
They have been made "illegal" by progressively removing all other options.
On the simplest level it can be considered "illegal" to cross a border without documents, bit the chances of you having documents fleeing the destruction of your home by a hostile Government might be considered slim.
The intent is to not accept refugees unless there is no way to avoid it and to make as much noise about doing so as possible. That is socially right wing.
no it is not socially right wing, it is bang in the middle.
They have broken the law of the land, whether you like that law or not. Where do you draw the line on people being allowed to break the law? Who decides that this law can be broken and this one can't?
You say those fleeing are not likely to have documentation when they leave their homes, are you saying the 98% of people who crossed the channel without documentation were all fleeing a hostile government destroying their homes?
The UNHCR are clear in how refugees should be treated.
Not economic migrants. Refugees and those fleeing persecution.
If there are no legal routes, with or without documentation, then everyone is "illegal".
That is what is being done.
We've been through this before. If you could process people closer to where they are or use our foreign aid spending properly then they will not try to get here except via controlled routes. There will be no people smuggling model except for trafficking or economic migrants.
The Government is calling everyone "illegal" because it is a convenient dog whistle to get everyone angry and scared. That is is not what "the middle" does. You may think of yourself as moderate and therefore this interpretation is uncomfortable for you, but it is what is happening."Yes they are. We treat the as such. Then when they can t prove they are such. We remove them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes.
Wrong, they will be processed in Rwanda, otherwise what is the point of the scheme to clarify its processed in Rwanda by Rwanda as part of any claim in Rwanda. They arent being processed in Rwanda by the UK for UK refugee status.
Imo this isbt about reducing admin costs. It's stepping away from our civic international duty wrt supporting refugees
Claims in Rwanda will be for resettlement in Rwanda.
The uk will take some back if Rwanda and the committee feel we should re look lr also if Rwanda da has seekers from toehr coutnries it deems it can't protect or better serve.
For example I belive( my own thinking) this may be say if a medical conditions arises I'm a previously deported person that Rwanda can't treat themselves or help alleviate.
We will take genuine asylum seekers in. But we are first closing g the door tk non genuine seekers.
See Albanians.
We deported nearly 4000 false claims this month.how do you separate true and false claims without considering them. No ID doesn't make it false.
Has HMG even stated which cases will be sent?
I know EasyUK said someone fleeing wouldn't think to grab their ID but not having ID is the issue here.
Plenty of folk will argue that anyone fleeing won't think to grab ID. Plenty of folk including myself will argue it takes less than 2 mins to grab your passport. Plenty arriving seem to have bags with them so if they have time to pack bags, they have time to pack ID.
"The problem you have is if they're fleeing and can't grab I'd. How do they have 5k to pay a smuggler? Have you ver tried removing 5k from your bank account without ID? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Denying false claims is a centrist policy. Almost 50% of illegal arrivals were Albanian last year with very few any right to claim asylum. Sending them back is not right wing. It's centrist. Denying genuine refugees like Afghans with passports fleeing Afghanistan or Ukrainians entering the UK would be very right of centre. Not allowing in Ukrainians last year with passports and visas and processing them I f rance was right of centre. And I wasn't happy with it Denying false claims is perfectly reasonable. Allowing no "legal" routes and therefore making everyone "illegal" and automatically deporting them is not "centrist"." The unhcr clarified the legal routes in their statement. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So then. You buy a plane ticket to the uk( as I said all along) and can then apply for asylum on arrival and yes for the pedants a visa is needed but you can just get a tourist one. There are ways of being resettled without coming to the UK available to 1% of refugees.( about 1m people) " Therein lies the problem as you appear to be looking at this from a very privileged Western mentality. Oh just buy a plane ticket! Oh just get a tourist visa! Explain how someone just does those things in places like Afghanistan or Syria? Explain the responsibilities placed on airlines for the transportation of passengers travelling under false pretence? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Left is running the country. All the major political parties in the UK are now left wing. The Far Right only exists in the minds of the Left as a means to point score. Everyone who disagrees with them is "Literally Hitler". It's a means of shutting down discussion. What the Left refers to as Far Right is just right of centre. It shows how far leftwards politics has moved in the UK and across the Western world. This government has printed and spent more money than any government in history, and raised taxes to the highest level in seventy years. It's done nothing to reduce immigration, reduce the size or cost of the state, reform failing institutions like the NHS, police, BBC, reduce the regulatory burden on business, or keep woke ideology out of our society and schools. That isn't a Conservative or right wing government. OP. I think this answers your question in a way. Politics has been pulled so far to the right that the current right wing conservative government is considered by some to be left wing. I'd certainly be interested in hearing which policies this government has actually enacted which you consider to be "right wing". Trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
That's not an enacted policy, that's just rhetoric. Though if enacted it would be hugely popular.
Given that immigration is now at 540k net, the highest on record, I'd have thought you'd be full of praise for the government.
Or are you aiming for 1 or 2 million?
Hugely popular? Have you conducted a poll? It is a far right policy. Braverman is trying be far right, bless her
Deporting people whoe entered your coutnrynillegally and without right to stay is far right
They have been made "illegal" by progressively removing all other options.
On the simplest level it can be considered "illegal" to cross a border without documents, bit the chances of you having documents fleeing the destruction of your home by a hostile Government might be considered slim.
The intent is to not accept refugees unless there is no way to avoid it and to make as much noise about doing so as possible. That is socially right wing.
no it is not socially right wing, it is bang in the middle.
They have broken the law of the land, whether you like that law or not. Where do you draw the line on people being allowed to break the law? Who decides that this law can be broken and this one can't?
You say those fleeing are not likely to have documentation when they leave their homes, are you saying the 98% of people who crossed the channel without documentation were all fleeing a hostile government destroying their homes?
The UNHCR are clear in how refugees should be treated.
Not economic migrants. Refugees and those fleeing persecution.
If there are no legal routes, with or without documentation, then everyone is "illegal".
That is what is being done.
We've been through this before. If you could process people closer to where they are or use our foreign aid spending properly then they will not try to get here except via controlled routes. There will be no people smuggling model except for trafficking or economic migrants.
The Government is calling everyone "illegal" because it is a convenient dog whistle to get everyone angry and scared. That is is not what "the middle" does. You may think of yourself as moderate and therefore this interpretation is uncomfortable for you, but it is what is happening."A simple question: What do you with the people that failed the clearing process closer to home, or failed at a legal route when they continue to cross in small boats? What's the plan? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fast and feisty Google the below and you'll probs get it pop up. The UNHCR statement went on to say: “UNHCR works in partnership with a number of governments on its global resettlement scheme. Resettlement is made available only for a very limited number of refugees who have left their own countries and been identified as particularly at risk in the countries where they initially sought refuge, and cannot integrate there or return home. “It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. There is no application process for resettlement – refugees at heightened risk are identified by UNHCR through our ongoing protection programmes in countries of asylum. “Currently, new resettlement opportunities to the UK are minimal, and there is no quota for any nationality currently in place. Resettlement arrivals in the UK – mostly of cases referred pre-pandemic – currently stand at a rate of around 100 individuals arriving in the UK per month. “The overwhelming majority of refugees have no access to such pathways to the UK. The vast majority of refugees remain in countries neighbouring their own or apply for asylum elsewhere, with only a very small number seeking protection in the UK.” On Parliament’s own website, it explains how to claim asylum in the UK: “A person must be physically in the UK. It is not possible to apply from outside the country, and there is no asylum visa. “A person cannot obtain a visa with the explicit purpose of seeking asylum. Therefore, for individuals who do not have visa-free travel to the UK, they must enter either irregularly, such as by a small boat; by using false documents; or on a visa for some other purpose, such as tourism or study When I have more time I need to read and re-read what you have said previously and what it says here and try to figure out if this really does support what you have claimed because right now for the life of me it simply doesn’t?!?! It is the opposite in fact? Feeling like you are gaslighting or I have simply become really thick "Nope. It says exactly what I told you before. It's not my fault you didn't listen | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the summary of ten Oct doc says "their claims for asylum in the UK would not be considered, though they would be able to claim asylum in Rwanda". In my reading anyone sent through to Rwanda will not have had their application considered by the UK. It's straight to Rwanda. Which bit leads to your view? " https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9724/ It basically says that an asylum claim will be assessed to see if it meets the right criteria. If it doesn't, it will be denied (under the technical 'not considered' rule), and the applicant becomes eligible for the Rwanda removals plan. This means that their claim is assessed in the UK, and any subsequent appeal would have to be made from outside the UK. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So then. You buy a plane ticket to the uk( as I said all along) and can then apply for asylum on arrival and yes for the pedants a visa is needed but you can just get a tourist one. There are ways of being resettled without coming to the UK available to 1% of refugees.( about 1m people) Therein lies the problem as you appear to be looking at this from a very privileged Western mentality. Oh just buy a plane ticket! Oh just get a tourist visa! Explain how someone just does those things in places like Afghanistan or Syria? Explain the responsibilities placed on airlines for the transportation of passengers travelling under false pretence? " How quickly do you think these things happen. The 15k fleeing Afghanistan arrived with passports and ID and they were immediately evacuated in operation pitting. You can supply digital photos for such things. You can also go to embassies who can arrange such things. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes.
Wrong, they will be processed in Rwanda, otherwise what is the point of the scheme
Still waiting…
I am not here to educate are you,
Obviously not here to back up your claims either.
You're constant drivel without any substance is not only detailing but boring too.
I have asked you directly where you explained your stance and yet you just drone on without any explanation. Do you actually care to give one?"Thanks for reading my posts | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Denying false claims is a centrist policy. Almost 50% of illegal arrivals were Albanian last year with very few any right to claim asylum. Sending them back is not right wing. It's centrist. Denying genuine refugees like Afghans with passports fleeing Afghanistan or Ukrainians entering the UK would be very right of centre. Not allowing in Ukrainians last year with passports and visas and processing them I f rance was right of centre. And I wasn't happy with it Denying false claims is perfectly reasonable. Allowing no "legal" routes and therefore making everyone "illegal" and automatically deporting them is not "centrist"." You have made a sweeping statement that everyone is illegal, when they are not. There are a number of safe routes and and schemes for people to enter the UK. If people who do not qualify for those schemes or routes enter the country via illegal means, they have made themselves illegal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Denying false claims is a centrist policy. Almost 50% of illegal arrivals were Albanian last year with very few any right to claim asylum. Sending them back is not right wing. It's centrist. Denying genuine refugees like Afghans with passports fleeing Afghanistan or Ukrainians entering the UK would be very right of centre. Not allowing in Ukrainians last year with passports and visas and processing them I f rance was right of centre. And I wasn't happy with it Denying false claims is perfectly reasonable. Allowing no "legal" routes and therefore making everyone "illegal" and automatically deporting them is not "centrist". You have made a sweeping statement that everyone is illegal, when they are not. There are a number of safe routes and and schemes for people to enter the UK. If people who do not qualify for those schemes or routes enter the country via illegal means, they have made themselves illegal. " Never saw this. Thanks for replying. Again easy seemingly couldn't read what was written. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes.
Wrong, they will be processed in Rwanda, otherwise what is the point of the scheme to clarify its processed in Rwanda by Rwanda as part of any claim in Rwanda. They arent being processed in Rwanda by the UK for UK refugee status.
Imo this isbt about reducing admin costs. It's stepping away from our civic international duty wrt supporting refugees
Claims in Rwanda will be for resettlement in Rwanda.
The uk will take some back if Rwanda and the committee feel we should re look lr also if Rwanda da has seekers from toehr coutnries it deems it can't protect or better serve.
For example I belive( my own thinking) this may be say if a medical conditions arises I'm a previously deported person that Rwanda can't treat themselves or help alleviate.
We will take genuine asylum seekers in. But we are first closing g the door tk non genuine seekers.
See Albanians.
We deported nearly 4000 false claims this month.how do you separate true and false claims without considering them. No ID doesn't make it false.
Has HMG even stated which cases will be sent?
I know EasyUK said someone fleeing wouldn't think to grab their ID but not having ID is the issue here.
Plenty of folk will argue that anyone fleeing won't think to grab ID. Plenty of folk including myself will argue it takes less than 2 mins to grab your passport. Plenty arriving seem to have bags with them so if they have time to pack bags, they have time to pack ID.
"one can debate of this is true for all cases. I can envision cases where passports are taken by the authorities say, or whereby one never had a passport. But that's an aside. How do you determine a false versus valid claim without considering the claim on some form? I can't square that off. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes.
Wrong, they will be processed in Rwanda, otherwise what is the point of the scheme
Still waiting…
I am not here to educate are you,
Obviously not here to back up your claims either.
You're constant drivel without any substance is not only detailing but boring too.
I have asked you directly where you explained your stance and yet you just drone on without any explanation. Do you actually care to give one?
Thanks for reading my posts "Is that a 'no I do not care to give an explanation' or a 'no, I can't actually back up my claims'? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes.
Wrong, they will be processed in Rwanda, otherwise what is the point of the scheme to clarify its processed in Rwanda by Rwanda as part of any claim in Rwanda. They arent being processed in Rwanda by the UK for UK refugee status.
Imo this isbt about reducing admin costs. It's stepping away from our civic international duty wrt supporting refugees
Claims in Rwanda will be for resettlement in Rwanda.
The uk will take some back if Rwanda and the committee feel we should re look lr also if Rwanda da has seekers from toehr coutnries it deems it can't protect or better serve.
For example I belive( my own thinking) this may be say if a medical conditions arises I'm a previously deported person that Rwanda can't treat themselves or help alleviate.
We will take genuine asylum seekers in. But we are first closing g the door tk non genuine seekers.
See Albanians.
We deported nearly 4000 false claims this month.how do you separate true and false claims without considering them. No ID doesn't make it false.
Has HMG even stated which cases will be sent?
I know EasyUK said someone fleeing wouldn't think to grab their ID but not having ID is the issue here.
Plenty of folk will argue that anyone fleeing won't think to grab ID. Plenty of folk including myself will argue it takes less than 2 mins to grab your passport. Plenty arriving seem to have bags with them so if they have time to pack bags, they have time to pack ID.
one can debate of this is true for all cases. I can envision cases where passports are taken by the authorities say, or whereby one never had a passport.
But that's an aside.
How do you determine a false versus valid claim without considering the claim on some form? I can't square that off. "98% of people crossing on small boats had no formal ID or documentation to prove who they are, that is approx 44K people. We can go around in circles all day long but the glaring and very obvious conclusion is they are not legitimate and are hoping to play the system, which they are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes.
Wrong, they will be processed in Rwanda, otherwise what is the point of the scheme to clarify its processed in Rwanda by Rwanda as part of any claim in Rwanda. They arent being processed in Rwanda by the UK for UK refugee status.
Imo this isbt about reducing admin costs. It's stepping away from our civic international duty wrt supporting refugees
Claims in Rwanda will be for resettlement in Rwanda.
The uk will take some back if Rwanda and the committee feel we should re look lr also if Rwanda da has seekers from toehr coutnries it deems it can't protect or better serve.
For example I belive( my own thinking) this may be say if a medical conditions arises I'm a previously deported person that Rwanda can't treat themselves or help alleviate.
We will take genuine asylum seekers in. But we are first closing g the door tk non genuine seekers.
See Albanians.
We deported nearly 4000 false claims this month.how do you separate true and false claims without considering them. No ID doesn't make it false.
Has HMG even stated which cases will be sent?
I know EasyUK said someone fleeing wouldn't think to grab their ID but not having ID is the issue here.
Plenty of folk will argue that anyone fleeing won't think to grab ID. Plenty of folk including myself will argue it takes less than 2 mins to grab your passport. Plenty arriving seem to have bags with them so if they have time to pack bags, they have time to pack ID.
one can debate of this is true for all cases. I can envision cases where passports are taken by the authorities say, or whereby one never had a passport.
But that's an aside.
How do you determine a false versus valid claim without considering the claim on some form? I can't square that off. "As stated most jave time to grab I'd Again have you ever tried withdrawing 5k from a bank without ID or a bank card It's bloody difficult Banks have ID on your profile when you set it up. If you arrive by small boat you must have paid 5k at least to a smuggler. So either you have a bank card, some form of ID and you jave a bank. I can't square how come one has 6k euros but couldn't grab their ID before fleeing a country | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes.
Wrong, they will be processed in Rwanda, otherwise what is the point of the scheme to clarify its processed in Rwanda by Rwanda as part of any claim in Rwanda. They arent being processed in Rwanda by the UK for UK refugee status.
Imo this isbt about reducing admin costs. It's stepping away from our civic international duty wrt supporting refugees
Claims in Rwanda will be for resettlement in Rwanda.
The uk will take some back if Rwanda and the committee feel we should re look lr also if Rwanda da has seekers from toehr coutnries it deems it can't protect or better serve.
For example I belive( my own thinking) this may be say if a medical conditions arises I'm a previously deported person that Rwanda can't treat themselves or help alleviate.
We will take genuine asylum seekers in. But we are first closing g the door tk non genuine seekers.
See Albanians.
We deported nearly 4000 false claims this month.how do you separate true and false claims without considering them. No ID doesn't make it false.
Has HMG even stated which cases will be sent?
I know EasyUK said someone fleeing wouldn't think to grab their ID but not having ID is the issue here.
Plenty of folk will argue that anyone fleeing won't think to grab ID. Plenty of folk including myself will argue it takes less than 2 mins to grab your passport. Plenty arriving seem to have bags with them so if they have time to pack bags, they have time to pack ID.
one can debate of this is true for all cases. I can envision cases where passports are taken by the authorities say, or whereby one never had a passport.
But that's an aside.
How do you determine a false versus valid claim without considering the claim on some form? I can't square that off. "As far as Discretion posted above, claims are considered. What authorities are taking passports? Albanian? Because whether we like it or not, Albanians are the issue in the majority. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes.
Wrong, they will be processed in Rwanda, otherwise what is the point of the scheme to clarify its processed in Rwanda by Rwanda as part of any claim in Rwanda. They arent being processed in Rwanda by the UK for UK refugee status.
Imo this isbt about reducing admin costs. It's stepping away from our civic international duty wrt supporting refugees
Claims in Rwanda will be for resettlement in Rwanda.
The uk will take some back if Rwanda and the committee feel we should re look lr also if Rwanda da has seekers from toehr coutnries it deems it can't protect or better serve.
For example I belive( my own thinking) this may be say if a medical conditions arises I'm a previously deported person that Rwanda can't treat themselves or help alleviate.
We will take genuine asylum seekers in. But we are first closing g the door tk non genuine seekers.
See Albanians.
We deported nearly 4000 false claims this month.how do you separate true and false claims without considering them. No ID doesn't make it false.
Has HMG even stated which cases will be sent?
I know EasyUK said someone fleeing wouldn't think to grab their ID but not having ID is the issue here.
Plenty of folk will argue that anyone fleeing won't think to grab ID. Plenty of folk including myself will argue it takes less than 2 mins to grab your passport. Plenty arriving seem to have bags with them so if they have time to pack bags, they have time to pack ID.
one can debate of this is true for all cases. I can envision cases where passports are taken by the authorities say, or whereby one never had a passport.
But that's an aside.
How do you determine a false versus valid claim without considering the claim on some form? I can't square that off.
98% of people crossing on small boats had no formal ID or documentation to prove who they are, that is approx 44K people.
We can go around in circles all day long but the glaring and very obvious conclusion is they are not legitimate and are hoping to play the system, which they are. "is that true for 100pc of all cases. If so, doesn't that mean 98pc boat cases are rejected, and where can I see this. I accept people may try an play the system. I dont yet accept as proven that they all are. That needs to be proven imo. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the summary of ten Oct doc says "their claims for asylum in the UK would not be considered, though they would be able to claim asylum in Rwanda". In my reading anyone sent through to Rwanda will not have had their application considered by the UK. It's straight to Rwanda. Which bit leads to your view? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9724/ It basically says that an asylum claim will be assessed to see if it meets the right criteria. If it doesn't, it will be denied (under the technical 'not considered' rule), and the applicant becomes eligible for the Rwanda removals plan. This means that their claim is assessed in the UK, and any subsequent appeal would have to be made from outside the UK." What criteria? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does any one want to walk I to a ba k tomorrow. And upload the video of the. Getting g laughed out when they request 5k from their account without ID or a bank card? " Eh? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the summary of ten Oct doc says "their claims for asylum in the UK would not be considered, though they would be able to claim asylum in Rwanda". In my reading anyone sent through to Rwanda will not have had their application considered by the UK. It's straight to Rwanda. Which bit leads to your view? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9724/ It basically says that an asylum claim will be assessed to see if it meets the right criteria. If it doesn't, it will be denied (under the technical 'not considered' rule), and the applicant becomes eligible for the Rwanda removals plan. This means that their claim is assessed in the UK, and any subsequent appeal would have to be made from outside the UK. What criteria?" Before asking questions answer one’s already put to you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the summary of ten Oct doc says "their claims for asylum in the UK would not be considered, though they would be able to claim asylum in Rwanda". In my reading anyone sent through to Rwanda will not have had their application considered by the UK. It's straight to Rwanda. Which bit leads to your view? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9724/ It basically says that an asylum claim will be assessed to see if it meets the right criteria. If it doesn't, it will be denied (under the technical 'not considered' rule), and the applicant becomes eligible for the Rwanda removals plan. This means that their claim is assessed in the UK, and any subsequent appeal would have to be made from outside the UK. What criteria? Before asking questions answer one’s already put to you. " Agreed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fast and feisty Google the below and you'll probs get it pop up. The UNHCR statement went on to say: “UNHCR works in partnership with a number of governments on its global resettlement scheme. Resettlement is made available only for a very limited number of refugees who have left their own countries and been identified as particularly at risk in the countries where they initially sought refuge, and cannot integrate there or return home. “It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. There is no application process for resettlement – refugees at heightened risk are identified by UNHCR through our ongoing protection programmes in countries of asylum. “Currently, new resettlement opportunities to the UK are minimal, and there is no quota for any nationality currently in place. Resettlement arrivals in the UK – mostly of cases referred pre-pandemic – currently stand at a rate of around 100 individuals arriving in the UK per month. “The overwhelming majority of refugees have no access to such pathways to the UK. The vast majority of refugees remain in countries neighbouring their own or apply for asylum elsewhere, with only a very small number seeking protection in the UK.” On Parliament’s own website, it explains how to claim asylum in the UK: “A person must be physically in the UK. It is not possible to apply from outside the country, and there is no asylum visa. “A person cannot obtain a visa with the explicit purpose of seeking asylum. Therefore, for individuals who do not have visa-free travel to the UK, they must enter either irregularly, such as by a small boat; by using false documents; or on a visa for some other purpose, such as tourism or study When I have more time I need to read and re-read what you have said previously and what it says here and try to figure out if this really does support what you have claimed because right now for the life of me it simply doesn’t?!?! It is the opposite in fact? Feeling like you are gaslighting or I have simply become really thick
Nope. It says exactly what I told you before.
It's not my fault you didn't listen"As I said I need to look back but pretty certain you were claiming there were legal routes to claim asylum from outside of the UK meaning nobody needed to enter the UK and that they could apply from abroad? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the summary of ten Oct doc says "their claims for asylum in the UK would not be considered, though they would be able to claim asylum in Rwanda". In my reading anyone sent through to Rwanda will not have had their application considered by the UK. It's straight to Rwanda. Which bit leads to your view? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9724/ It basically says that an asylum claim will be assessed to see if it meets the right criteria. If it doesn't, it will be denied (under the technical 'not considered' rule), and the applicant becomes eligible for the Rwanda removals plan. This means that their claim is assessed in the UK, and any subsequent appeal would have to be made from outside the UK." Looks like this covers 100 people since 2021. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So then. You buy a plane ticket to the uk( as I said all along) and can then apply for asylum on arrival and yes for the pedants a visa is needed but you can just get a tourist one. There are ways of being resettled without coming to the UK available to 1% of refugees.( about 1m people) Therein lies the problem as you appear to be looking at this from a very privileged Western mentality. Oh just buy a plane ticket! Oh just get a tourist visa! Explain how someone just does those things in places like Afghanistan or Syria? Explain the responsibilities placed on airlines for the transportation of passengers travelling under false pretence? How quickly do you think these things happen. The 15k fleeing Afghanistan arrived with passports and ID and they were immediately evacuated in operation pitting. You can supply digital photos for such things. You can also go to embassies who can arrange such things. " You haven’t answered my questions. You have cited a single situation based around the emergency withdrawal of UK from Afghanistan. What happens NOW? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does any one want to walk I to a ba k tomorrow. And upload the video of the. Getting g laughed out when they request 5k from their account without ID or a bank card? " does it count if I get a parent to get the money for me from their bank account ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9724/ It basically says that an asylum claim will be assessed to see if it meets the right criteria. If it doesn't, it will be denied (under the technical 'not considered' rule), and the applicant becomes eligible for the Rwanda removals plan. This means that their claim is assessed in the UK, and any subsequent appeal would have to be made from outside the UK." "What criteria?" The criteria laid out in detail in the link that I posted. Here it is again: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9724/ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes.
Wrong, they will be processed in Rwanda, otherwise what is the point of the scheme to clarify its processed in Rwanda by Rwanda as part of any claim in Rwanda. They arent being processed in Rwanda by the UK for UK refugee status.
Imo this isbt about reducing admin costs. It's stepping away from our civic international duty wrt supporting refugees
Claims in Rwanda will be for resettlement in Rwanda.
The uk will take some back if Rwanda and the committee feel we should re look lr also if Rwanda da has seekers from toehr coutnries it deems it can't protect or better serve.
For example I belive( my own thinking) this may be say if a medical conditions arises I'm a previously deported person that Rwanda can't treat themselves or help alleviate.
We will take genuine asylum seekers in. But we are first closing g the door tk non genuine seekers.
See Albanians.
We deported nearly 4000 false claims this month.how do you separate true and false claims without considering them. No ID doesn't make it false.
Has HMG even stated which cases will be sent?
I know EasyUK said someone fleeing wouldn't think to grab their ID but not having ID is the issue here.
Plenty of folk will argue that anyone fleeing won't think to grab ID. Plenty of folk including myself will argue it takes less than 2 mins to grab your passport. Plenty arriving seem to have bags with them so if they have time to pack bags, they have time to pack ID.
one can debate of this is true for all cases. I can envision cases where passports are taken by the authorities say, or whereby one never had a passport.
But that's an aside.
How do you determine a false versus valid claim without considering the claim on some form? I can't square that off.
98% of people crossing on small boats had no formal ID or documentation to prove who they are, that is approx 44K people.
We can go around in circles all day long but the glaring and very obvious conclusion is they are not legitimate and are hoping to play the system, which they are. is that true for 100pc of all cases. If so, doesn't that mean 98pc boat cases are rejected, and where can I see this.
I accept people may try an play the system. I dont yet accept as proven that they all are. That needs to be proven imo.
"No they are not all rejected, there are legitimate people amongst them, however the processing times and means of entry are creating a real problem for those that are legitimate. We need to be honest about this, the vast majority are coming here based on promises and lies of work, housing, wealth and being able to bring family here once accepted. The smuggling gangs sell them the dream and become millionaires. These people are paying a lot of money, risking their lives and disrupting those that really do need refuge. They could be naive, chancers or desperate, those reasons are not enough to be allowed to stay, however harsh. So many workarounds are mentioned on here, process in France, open this route etc, if they fail those options my money is still on them crossing in small boats and we are now back to square one. I know nobody that wants to refuse refuge to those who needs it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fast and feisty Google the below and you'll probs get it pop up. The UNHCR statement went on to say: “UNHCR works in partnership with a number of governments on its global resettlement scheme. Resettlement is made available only for a very limited number of refugees who have left their own countries and been identified as particularly at risk in the countries where they initially sought refuge, and cannot integrate there or return home. “It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. There is no application process for resettlement – refugees at heightened risk are identified by UNHCR through our ongoing protection programmes in countries of asylum. “Currently, new resettlement opportunities to the UK are minimal, and there is no quota for any nationality currently in place. Resettlement arrivals in the UK – mostly of cases referred pre-pandemic – currently stand at a rate of around 100 individuals arriving in the UK per month. “The overwhelming majority of refugees have no access to such pathways to the UK. The vast majority of refugees remain in countries neighbouring their own or apply for asylum elsewhere, with only a very small number seeking protection in the UK.” On Parliament’s own website, it explains how to claim asylum in the UK: “A person must be physically in the UK. It is not possible to apply from outside the country, and there is no asylum visa. “A person cannot obtain a visa with the explicit purpose of seeking asylum. Therefore, for individuals who do not have visa-free travel to the UK, they must enter either irregularly, such as by a small boat; by using false documents; or on a visa for some other purpose, such as tourism or study When I have more time I need to read and re-read what you have said previously and what it says here and try to figure out if this really does support what you have claimed because right now for the life of me it simply doesn’t?!?! It is the opposite in fact? Feeling like you are gaslighting or I have simply become really thick
Nope. It says exactly what I told you before.
It's not my fault you didn't listen
As I said I need to look back but pretty certain you were claiming there were legal routes to claim asylum from outside of the UK meaning nobody needed to enter the UK and that they could apply from abroad?"Echr confirms this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does any one want to walk I to a ba k tomorrow. And upload the video of the. Getting g laughed out when they request 5k from their account without ID or a bank card? does it count if I get a parent to get the money for me from their bank account ? " Feel free to send any one you want into a bank to get 5k out in the uk without ID or a bank card. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fast and feisty Google the below and you'll probs get it pop up. The UNHCR statement went on to say: “UNHCR works in partnership with a number of governments on its global resettlement scheme. Resettlement is made available only for a very limited number of refugees who have left their own countries and been identified as particularly at risk in the countries where they initially sought refuge, and cannot integrate there or return home. “It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. There is no application process for resettlement – refugees at heightened risk are identified by UNHCR through our ongoing protection programmes in countries of asylum. “Currently, new resettlement opportunities to the UK are minimal, and there is no quota for any nationality currently in place. Resettlement arrivals in the UK – mostly of cases referred pre-pandemic – currently stand at a rate of around 100 individuals arriving in the UK per month. “The overwhelming majority of refugees have no access to such pathways to the UK. The vast majority of refugees remain in countries neighbouring their own or apply for asylum elsewhere, with only a very small number seeking protection in the UK.” On Parliament’s own website, it explains how to claim asylum in the UK: “A person must be physically in the UK. It is not possible to apply from outside the country, and there is no asylum visa. “A person cannot obtain a visa with the explicit purpose of seeking asylum. Therefore, for individuals who do not have visa-free travel to the UK, they must enter either irregularly, such as by a small boat; by using false documents; or on a visa for some other purpose, such as tourism or study When I have more time I need to read and re-read what you have said previously and what it says here and try to figure out if this really does support what you have claimed because right now for the life of me it simply doesn’t?!?! It is the opposite in fact? Feeling like you are gaslighting or I have simply become really thick
Nope. It says exactly what I told you before.
It's not my fault you didn't listen
As I said I need to look back but pretty certain you were claiming there were legal routes to claim asylum from outside of the UK meaning nobody needed to enter the UK and that they could apply from abroad?
Echr confirms this."The European Court of Human Rights confirms that asylum seekers can claim asylum from outside of the UK? Really? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fast and feisty Google the below and you'll probs get it pop up. The UNHCR statement went on to say: “UNHCR works in partnership with a number of governments on its global resettlement scheme. Resettlement is made available only for a very limited number of refugees who have left their own countries and been identified as particularly at risk in the countries where they initially sought refuge, and cannot integrate there or return home. “It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. There is no application process for resettlement – refugees at heightened risk are identified by UNHCR through our ongoing protection programmes in countries of asylum. “Currently, new resettlement opportunities to the UK are minimal, and there is no quota for any nationality currently in place. Resettlement arrivals in the UK – mostly of cases referred pre-pandemic – currently stand at a rate of around 100 individuals arriving in the UK per month. “The overwhelming majority of refugees have no access to such pathways to the UK. The vast majority of refugees remain in countries neighbouring their own or apply for asylum elsewhere, with only a very small number seeking protection in the UK.” On Parliament’s own website, it explains how to claim asylum in the UK: “A person must be physically in the UK. It is not possible to apply from outside the country, and there is no asylum visa. “A person cannot obtain a visa with the explicit purpose of seeking asylum. Therefore, for individuals who do not have visa-free travel to the UK, they must enter either irregularly, such as by a small boat; by using false documents; or on a visa for some other purpose, such as tourism or study When I have more time I need to read and re-read what you have said previously and what it says here and try to figure out if this really does support what you have claimed because right now for the life of me it simply doesn’t?!?! It is the opposite in fact? Feeling like you are gaslighting or I have simply become really thick
Nope. It says exactly what I told you before.
It's not my fault you didn't listen
As I said I need to look back but pretty certain you were claiming there were legal routes to claim asylum from outside of the UK meaning nobody needed to enter the UK and that they could apply from abroad?
Echr confirms this.
The European Court of Human Rights confirms that asylum seekers can claim asylum from outside of the UK? Really?"Sorry unhcr Wrong acronym | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fast and feisty Google the below and you'll probs get it pop up. The UNHCR statement went on to say: “UNHCR works in partnership with a number of governments on its global resettlement scheme. Resettlement is made available only for a very limited number of refugees who have left their own countries and been identified as particularly at risk in the countries where they initially sought refuge, and cannot integrate there or return home. “It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. There is no application process for resettlement – refugees at heightened risk are identified by UNHCR through our ongoing protection programmes in countries of asylum. “Currently, new resettlement opportunities to the UK are minimal, and there is no quota for any nationality currently in place. Resettlement arrivals in the UK – mostly of cases referred pre-pandemic – currently stand at a rate of around 100 individuals arriving in the UK per month. “The overwhelming majority of refugees have no access to such pathways to the UK. The vast majority of refugees remain in countries neighbouring their own or apply for asylum elsewhere, with only a very small number seeking protection in the UK.” On Parliament’s own website, it explains how to claim asylum in the UK: “A person must be physically in the UK. It is not possible to apply from outside the country, and there is no asylum visa. “A person cannot obtain a visa with the explicit purpose of seeking asylum. Therefore, for individuals who do not have visa-free travel to the UK, they must enter either irregularly, such as by a small boat; by using false documents; or on a visa for some other purpose, such as tourism or study When I have more time I need to read and re-read what you have said previously and what it says here and try to figure out if this really does support what you have claimed because right now for the life of me it simply doesn’t?!?! It is the opposite in fact? Feeling like you are gaslighting or I have simply become really thick
Nope. It says exactly what I told you before.
It's not my fault you didn't listen
As I said I need to look back but pretty certain you were claiming there were legal routes to claim asylum from outside of the UK meaning nobody needed to enter the UK and that they could apply from abroad?
Echr confirms this.
The European Court of Human Rights confirms that asylum seekers can claim asylum from outside of the UK? Really?
Sorry unhcr
Wrong acronym "That isn’t what UNCHR have said! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fast and feisty Google the below and you'll probs get it pop up. The UNHCR statement went on to say: “UNHCR works in partnership with a number of governments on its global resettlement scheme. Resettlement is made available only for a very limited number of refugees who have left their own countries and been identified as particularly at risk in the countries where they initially sought refuge, and cannot integrate there or return home. “It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. There is no application process for resettlement – refugees at heightened risk are identified by UNHCR through our ongoing protection programmes in countries of asylum. “Currently, new resettlement opportunities to the UK are minimal, and there is no quota for any nationality currently in place. Resettlement arrivals in the UK – mostly of cases referred pre-pandemic – currently stand at a rate of around 100 individuals arriving in the UK per month. “The overwhelming majority of refugees have no access to such pathways to the UK. The vast majority of refugees remain in countries neighbouring their own or apply for asylum elsewhere, with only a very small number seeking protection in the UK.” On Parliament’s own website, it explains how to claim asylum in the UK: “A person must be physically in the UK. It is not possible to apply from outside the country, and there is no asylum visa. “A person cannot obtain a visa with the explicit purpose of seeking asylum. Therefore, for individuals who do not have visa-free travel to the UK, they must enter either irregularly, such as by a small boat; by using false documents; or on a visa for some other purpose, such as tourism or study When I have more time I need to read and re-read what you have said previously and what it says here and try to figure out if this really does support what you have claimed because right now for the life of me it simply doesn’t?!?! It is the opposite in fact? Feeling like you are gaslighting or I have simply become really thick
Nope. It says exactly what I told you before.
It's not my fault you didn't listen
As I said I need to look back but pretty certain you were claiming there were legal routes to claim asylum from outside of the UK meaning nobody needed to enter the UK and that they could apply from abroad?
Echr confirms this.
The European Court of Human Rights confirms that asylum seekers can claim asylum from outside of the UK? Really?
Sorry unhcr
Wrong acronym
That isn’t what UNCHR have said!"It is | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does any one want to walk I to a ba k tomorrow. And upload the video of the. Getting g laughed out when they request 5k from their account without ID or a bank card? does it count if I get a parent to get the money for me from their bank account ? Feel free to send any one you want into a bank to get 5k out in the uk without ID or a bank card. " not what I mean. My parents can use their ID to get the money. And give it to me. As your point is I can't get passage to the UK without ID. Bank of mum and dad would mean I can. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fast and feisty Google the below and you'll probs get it pop up. The UNHCR statement went on to say: “UNHCR works in partnership with a number of governments on its global resettlement scheme. Resettlement is made available only for a very limited number of refugees who have left their own countries and been identified as particularly at risk in the countries where they initially sought refuge, and cannot integrate there or return home. “It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. There is no application process for resettlement – refugees at heightened risk are identified by UNHCR through our ongoing protection programmes in countries of asylum. “Currently, new resettlement opportunities to the UK are minimal, and there is no quota for any nationality currently in place. Resettlement arrivals in the UK – mostly of cases referred pre-pandemic – currently stand at a rate of around 100 individuals arriving in the UK per month. “The overwhelming majority of refugees have no access to such pathways to the UK. The vast majority of refugees remain in countries neighbouring their own or apply for asylum elsewhere, with only a very small number seeking protection in the UK.” On Parliament’s own website, it explains how to claim asylum in the UK: “A person must be physically in the UK. It is not possible to apply from outside the country, and there is no asylum visa. “A person cannot obtain a visa with the explicit purpose of seeking asylum. Therefore, for individuals who do not have visa-free travel to the UK, they must enter either irregularly, such as by a small boat; by using false documents; or on a visa for some other purpose, such as tourism or study When I have more time I need to read and re-read what you have said previously and what it says here and try to figure out if this really does support what you have claimed because right now for the life of me it simply doesn’t?!?! It is the opposite in fact? Feeling like you are gaslighting or I have simply become really thick
Nope. It says exactly what I told you before.
It's not my fault you didn't listen
As I said I need to look back but pretty certain you were claiming there were legal routes to claim asylum from outside of the UK meaning nobody needed to enter the UK and that they could apply from abroad?
Echr confirms this.
The European Court of Human Rights confirms that asylum seekers can claim asylum from outside of the UK? Really?
Sorry unhcr
Wrong acronym
That isn’t what UNCHR have said!
It is"Ok they ARE saying they help a small (tiny) number (c.1%) so are you saying the other 99% are not legitimate asylum seekers? They say (you posted)... "The UNHCR statement went on to say: “UNHCR works in partnership with a number of governments on its global resettlement scheme. Resettlement is made available only for a very limited number of refugees who have left their own countries and been identified as particularly at risk in the countries where they initially sought refuge, and cannot integrate there or return home. “It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. There is no application process for resettlement – refugees at heightened risk are identified by UNHCR through our ongoing protection programmes in countries of asylum. “Currently, new resettlement opportunities to the UK are minimal, and there is no quota for any nationality currently in place. Resettlement arrivals in the UK – mostly of cases referred pre-pandemic – currently stand at a rate of around 100 individuals arriving in the UK per month. “The overwhelming majority of refugees have no access to such pathways to the UK. The vast majority of refugees remain in countries neighbouring their own or apply for asylum elsewhere, with only a very small number seeking protection in the UK.”" So reading that it appears that technically there are routes but open to very very few and clearly inadequate considering the volume of the challenges in hand. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fast and feisty Google the below and you'll probs get it pop up. The UNHCR statement went on to say: “UNHCR works in partnership with a number of governments on its global resettlement scheme. Resettlement is made available only for a very limited number of refugees who have left their own countries and been identified as particularly at risk in the countries where they initially sought refuge, and cannot integrate there or return home. “It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. There is no application process for resettlement – refugees at heightened risk are identified by UNHCR through our ongoing protection programmes in countries of asylum. “Currently, new resettlement opportunities to the UK are minimal, and there is no quota for any nationality currently in place. Resettlement arrivals in the UK – mostly of cases referred pre-pandemic – currently stand at a rate of around 100 individuals arriving in the UK per month. “The overwhelming majority of refugees have no access to such pathways to the UK. The vast majority of refugees remain in countries neighbouring their own or apply for asylum elsewhere, with only a very small number seeking protection in the UK.” On Parliament’s own website, it explains how to claim asylum in the UK: “A person must be physically in the UK. It is not possible to apply from outside the country, and there is no asylum visa. “A person cannot obtain a visa with the explicit purpose of seeking asylum. Therefore, for individuals who do not have visa-free travel to the UK, they must enter either irregularly, such as by a small boat; by using false documents; or on a visa for some other purpose, such as tourism or study When I have more time I need to read and re-read what you have said previously and what it says here and try to figure out if this really does support what you have claimed because right now for the life of me it simply doesn’t?!?! It is the opposite in fact? Feeling like you are gaslighting or I have simply become really thick
Nope. It says exactly what I told you before.
It's not my fault you didn't listen
As I said I need to look back but pretty certain you were claiming there were legal routes to claim asylum from outside of the UK meaning nobody needed to enter the UK and that they could apply from abroad?
Echr confirms this.
The European Court of Human Rights confirms that asylum seekers can claim asylum from outside of the UK? Really?
Sorry unhcr
Wrong acronym
That isn’t what UNCHR have said!
It is
Ok they ARE saying they help a small (tiny) number (c.1%) so are you saying the other 99% are not legitimate asylum seekers?
They say (you posted)...
The UNHCR statement went on to say: “UNHCR works in partnership with a number of governments on its global resettlement scheme. Resettlement is made available only for a very limited number of refugees who have left their own countries and been identified as particularly at risk in the countries where they initially sought refuge, and cannot integrate there or return home.
“It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. There is no application process for resettlement – refugees at heightened risk are identified by UNHCR through our ongoing protection programmes in countries of asylum.
“Currently, new resettlement opportunities to the UK are minimal, and there is no quota for any nationality currently in place. Resettlement arrivals in the UK – mostly of cases referred pre-pandemic – currently stand at a rate of around 100 individuals arriving in the UK per month.
“The overwhelming majority of refugees have no access to such pathways to the UK. The vast majority of refugees remain in countries neighbouring their own or apply for asylum elsewhere, with only a very small number seeking protection in the UK.”
So reading that it appears that technically there are routes but open to very very few and clearly inadequate considering the volume of the challenges in hand."There we go | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does any one want to walk I to a ba k tomorrow. And upload the video of the. Getting g laughed out when they request 5k from their account without ID or a bank card? does it count if I get a parent to get the money for me from their bank account ? Feel free to send any one you want into a bank to get 5k out in the uk without ID or a bank card. not what I mean. My parents can use their ID to get the money. And give it to me. As your point is I can't get passage to the UK without ID. Bank of mum and dad would mean I can. " ID is still required.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does any one want to walk I to a ba k tomorrow. And upload the video of the. Getting g laughed out when they request 5k from their account without ID or a bank card? does it count if I get a parent to get the money for me from their bank account ? Feel free to send any one you want into a bank to get 5k out in the uk without ID or a bank card. not what I mean. My parents can use their ID to get the money. And give it to me. As your point is I can't get passage to the UK without ID. Bank of mum and dad would mean I can. " So you can't prove where you're from. But ylu jave a cellphone you either bought or have on contract and you can contact people to help you pay from something...those same people who can help your prove who you are? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes.
Wrong, they will be processed in Rwanda, otherwise what is the point of the scheme to clarify its processed in Rwanda by Rwanda as part of any claim in Rwanda. They arent being processed in Rwanda by the UK for UK refugee status.
Imo this isbt about reducing admin costs. It's stepping away from our civic international duty wrt supporting refugees
Claims in Rwanda will be for resettlement in Rwanda.
The uk will take some back if Rwanda and the committee feel we should re look lr also if Rwanda da has seekers from toehr coutnries it deems it can't protect or better serve.
For example I belive( my own thinking) this may be say if a medical conditions arises I'm a previously deported person that Rwanda can't treat themselves or help alleviate.
We will take genuine asylum seekers in. But we are first closing g the door tk non genuine seekers.
See Albanians.
We deported nearly 4000 false claims this month.how do you separate true and false claims without considering them. No ID doesn't make it false.
Has HMG even stated which cases will be sent?
I know EasyUK said someone fleeing wouldn't think to grab their ID but not having ID is the issue here.
Plenty of folk will argue that anyone fleeing won't think to grab ID. Plenty of folk including myself will argue it takes less than 2 mins to grab your passport. Plenty arriving seem to have bags with them so if they have time to pack bags, they have time to pack ID.
one can debate of this is true for all cases. I can envision cases where passports are taken by the authorities say, or whereby one never had a passport.
But that's an aside.
How do you determine a false versus valid claim without considering the claim on some form? I can't square that off.
98% of people crossing on small boats had no formal ID or documentation to prove who they are, that is approx 44K people.
We can go around in circles all day long but the glaring and very obvious conclusion is they are not legitimate and are hoping to play the system, which they are. is that true for 100pc of all cases. If so, doesn't that mean 98pc boat cases are rejected, and where can I see this.
I accept people may try an play the system. I dont yet accept as proven that they all are. That needs to be proven imo.
No they are not all rejected, there are legitimate people amongst them, however the processing times and means of entry are creating a real problem for those that are legitimate.
We need to be honest about this, the vast majority are coming here based on promises and lies of work, housing, wealth and being able to bring family here once accepted. The smuggling gangs sell them the dream and become millionaires. These people are paying a lot of money, risking their lives and disrupting those that really do need refuge.
They could be naive, chancers or desperate, those reasons are not enough to be allowed to stay, however harsh.
So many workarounds are mentioned on here, process in France, open this route etc, if they fail those options my money is still on them crossing in small boats and we are now back to square one.
I know nobody that wants to refuse refuge to those who needs it."we are on agreement on so much here. But the fact that some cases are legitimate means applying a blanket rule as suggested by some is taking bone as well as fat. It's a flawed approach to the issue. Because I disagree with the proposal doesn't mean I disagree there is an issue we need to address. However, I fear the approach is not one of a middle ground govenment being a bit shit, but a right wing government looking to package up a poor outcome through pretending its addressing a middle ground issue. As you say, other workarounds have been mentioned. Yet the one taken forward is the one that could result in rejecting refuge to thousands with a need. I need convincing otherwise... I'm not there yet and am surprised others are if they truly want to help those in need. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fast and feisty Google the below and you'll probs get it pop up. The UNHCR statement went on to say: “UNHCR works in partnership with a number of governments on its global resettlement scheme. Resettlement is made available only for a very limited number of refugees who have left their own countries and been identified as particularly at risk in the countries where they initially sought refuge, and cannot integrate there or return home. “It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. There is no application process for resettlement – refugees at heightened risk are identified by UNHCR through our ongoing protection programmes in countries of asylum. “Currently, new resettlement opportunities to the UK are minimal, and there is no quota for any nationality currently in place. Resettlement arrivals in the UK – mostly of cases referred pre-pandemic – currently stand at a rate of around 100 individuals arriving in the UK per month. “The overwhelming majority of refugees have no access to such pathways to the UK. The vast majority of refugees remain in countries neighbouring their own or apply for asylum elsewhere, with only a very small number seeking protection in the UK.” On Parliament’s own website, it explains how to claim asylum in the UK: “A person must be physically in the UK. It is not possible to apply from outside the country, and there is no asylum visa. “A person cannot obtain a visa with the explicit purpose of seeking asylum. Therefore, for individuals who do not have visa-free travel to the UK, they must enter either irregularly, such as by a small boat; by using false documents; or on a visa for some other purpose, such as tourism or study When I have more time I need to read and re-read what you have said previously and what it says here and try to figure out if this really does support what you have claimed because right now for the life of me it simply doesn’t?!?! It is the opposite in fact? Feeling like you are gaslighting or I have simply become really thick
Nope. It says exactly what I told you before.
It's not my fault you didn't listen
As I said I need to look back but pretty certain you were claiming there were legal routes to claim asylum from outside of the UK meaning nobody needed to enter the UK and that they could apply from abroad?
Echr confirms this.
The European Court of Human Rights confirms that asylum seekers can claim asylum from outside of the UK? Really?
Sorry unhcr
Wrong acronym
That isn’t what UNCHR have said!
It is
Ok they ARE saying they help a small (tiny) number (c.1%) so are you saying the other 99% are not legitimate asylum seekers?
They say (you posted)...
The UNHCR statement went on to say: “UNHCR works in partnership with a number of governments on its global resettlement scheme. Resettlement is made available only for a very limited number of refugees who have left their own countries and been identified as particularly at risk in the countries where they initially sought refuge, and cannot integrate there or return home.
“It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. There is no application process for resettlement – refugees at heightened risk are identified by UNHCR through our ongoing protection programmes in countries of asylum.
“Currently, new resettlement opportunities to the UK are minimal, and there is no quota for any nationality currently in place. Resettlement arrivals in the UK – mostly of cases referred pre-pandemic – currently stand at a rate of around 100 individuals arriving in the UK per month.
“The overwhelming majority of refugees have no access to such pathways to the UK. The vast majority of refugees remain in countries neighbouring their own or apply for asylum elsewhere, with only a very small number seeking protection in the UK.”
So reading that it appears that technically there are routes but open to very very few and clearly inadequate considering the volume of the challenges in hand."There are routes open and schemes too, controlled immigration. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes.
Wrong, they will be processed in Rwanda, otherwise what is the point of the scheme to clarify its processed in Rwanda by Rwanda as part of any claim in Rwanda. They arent being processed in Rwanda by the UK for UK refugee status.
Imo this isbt about reducing admin costs. It's stepping away from our civic international duty wrt supporting refugees
Claims in Rwanda will be for resettlement in Rwanda.
The uk will take some back if Rwanda and the committee feel we should re look lr also if Rwanda da has seekers from toehr coutnries it deems it can't protect or better serve.
For example I belive( my own thinking) this may be say if a medical conditions arises I'm a previously deported person that Rwanda can't treat themselves or help alleviate.
We will take genuine asylum seekers in. But we are first closing g the door tk non genuine seekers.
See Albanians.
We deported nearly 4000 false claims this month.how do you separate true and false claims without considering them. No ID doesn't make it false.
Has HMG even stated which cases will be sent?
I know EasyUK said someone fleeing wouldn't think to grab their ID but not having ID is the issue here.
Plenty of folk will argue that anyone fleeing won't think to grab ID. Plenty of folk including myself will argue it takes less than 2 mins to grab your passport. Plenty arriving seem to have bags with them so if they have time to pack bags, they have time to pack ID.
one can debate of this is true for all cases. I can envision cases where passports are taken by the authorities say, or whereby one never had a passport.
But that's an aside.
How do you determine a false versus valid claim without considering the claim on some form? I can't square that off.
98% of people crossing on small boats had no formal ID or documentation to prove who they are, that is approx 44K people.
We can go around in circles all day long but the glaring and very obvious conclusion is they are not legitimate and are hoping to play the system, which they are. is that true for 100pc of all cases. If so, doesn't that mean 98pc boat cases are rejected, and where can I see this.
I accept people may try an play the system. I dont yet accept as proven that they all are. That needs to be proven imo.
No they are not all rejected, there are legitimate people amongst them, however the processing times and means of entry are creating a real problem for those that are legitimate.
We need to be honest about this, the vast majority are coming here based on promises and lies of work, housing, wealth and being able to bring family here once accepted. The smuggling gangs sell them the dream and become millionaires. These people are paying a lot of money, risking their lives and disrupting those that really do need refuge.
They could be naive, chancers or desperate, those reasons are not enough to be allowed to stay, however harsh.
So many workarounds are mentioned on here, process in France, open this route etc, if they fail those options my money is still on them crossing in small boats and we are now back to square one.
I know nobody that wants to refuse refuge to those who needs it.we are on agreement on so much here. But the fact that some cases are legitimate means applying a blanket rule as suggested by some is taking bone as well as fat. It's a flawed approach to the issue. Because I disagree with the proposal doesn't mean I disagree there is an issue we need to address.
However, I fear the approach is not one of a middle ground govenment being a bit shit, but a right wing government looking to package up a poor outcome through pretending its addressing a middle ground issue. As you say, other workarounds have been mentioned. Yet the one taken forward is the one that could result in rejecting refuge to thousands with a need. I need convincing otherwise... I'm not there yet and am surprised others are if they truly want to help those in need. "Why do you think genuine people will be turned way? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So they are planning on processing them first?
Are you going to answer what others put to you? Going to guess not as there’s no way you can back up your point.
They will be processed in Rwanda not in the UK
No they won't.
Read the MoU.
They are being sent there after failing our processes.
Wrong, they will be processed in Rwanda, otherwise what is the point of the scheme to clarify its processed in Rwanda by Rwanda as part of any claim in Rwanda. They arent being processed in Rwanda by the UK for UK refugee status.
Imo this isbt about reducing admin costs. It's stepping away from our civic international duty wrt supporting refugees
Claims in Rwanda will be for resettlement in Rwanda.
The uk will take some back if Rwanda and the committee feel we should re look lr also if Rwanda da has seekers from toehr coutnries it deems it can't protect or better serve.
For example I belive( my own thinking) this may be say if a medical conditions arises I'm a previously deported person that Rwanda can't treat themselves or help alleviate.
We will take genuine asylum seekers in. But we are first closing g the door tk non genuine seekers.
See Albanians.
We deported nearly 4000 false claims this month.how do you separate true and false claims without considering them. No ID doesn't make it false.
Has HMG even stated which cases will be sent?
I know EasyUK said someone fleeing wouldn't think to grab their ID but not having ID is the issue here.
Plenty of folk will argue that anyone fleeing won't think to grab ID. Plenty of folk including myself will argue it takes less than 2 mins to grab your passport. Plenty arriving seem to have bags with them so if they have time to pack bags, they have time to pack ID.
one can debate of this is true for all cases. I can envision cases where passports are taken by the authorities say, or whereby one never had a passport.
But that's an aside.
How do you determine a false versus valid claim without considering the claim on some form? I can't square that off.
98% of people crossing on small boats had no formal ID or documentation to prove who they are, that is approx 44K people.
We can go around in circles all day long but the glaring and very obvious conclusion is they are not legitimate and are hoping to play the system, which they are. is that true for 100pc of all cases. If so, doesn't that mean 98pc boat cases are rejected, and where can I see this.
I accept people may try an play the system. I dont yet accept as proven that they all are. That needs to be proven imo.
No they are not all rejected, there are legitimate people amongst them, however the processing times and means of entry are creating a real problem for those that are legitimate.
We need to be honest about this, the vast majority are coming here based on promises and lies of work, housing, wealth and being able to bring family here once accepted. The smuggling gangs sell them the dream and become millionaires. These people are paying a lot of money, risking their lives and disrupting those that really do need refuge.
They could be naive, chancers or desperate, those reasons are not enough to be allowed to stay, however harsh.
So many workarounds are mentioned on here, process in France, open this route etc, if they fail those options my money is still on them crossing in small boats and we are now back to square one.
I know nobody that wants to refuse refuge to those who needs it.we are on agreement on so much here. But the fact that some cases are legitimate means applying a blanket rule as suggested by some is taking bone as well as fat. It's a flawed approach to the issue. Because I disagree with the proposal doesn't mean I disagree there is an issue we need to address.
However, I fear the approach is not one of a middle ground govenment being a bit shit, but a right wing government looking to package up a poor outcome through pretending its addressing a middle ground issue. As you say, other workarounds have been mentioned. Yet the one taken forward is the one that could result in rejecting refuge to thousands with a need. I need convincing otherwise... I'm not there yet and am surprised others are if they truly want to help those in need. "If you look at problem for what it is, it is the large number of people making the crossing that are bottle necking processing and stretching the ability to house and feed them due to the bottle neck. I have supplied an overview of the Home Secretary duties in the new illegal migration bill. I think it is important to take in the implications and reasoning. "By introducing the new bill it will create two new legal duties for the Home Secretary. The first is to make arrangements for the removal of people who entered the country illegally after 7 March 2023, if they have no permission to be in the UK and did not come directly from a place where they fear persecution. If someone arriving in the UK meets those conditions, the Home Secretary’s second duty is to refuse to process any asylum claim they make, as well as any claim that a removal to their home country is in breach of their human rights" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Denying false claims is a centrist policy. Almost 50% of illegal arrivals were Albanian last year with very few any right to claim asylum. Sending them back is not right wing. It's centrist. Denying genuine refugees like Afghans with passports fleeing Afghanistan or Ukrainians entering the UK would be very right of centre. Not allowing in Ukrainians last year with passports and visas and processing them I f rance was right of centre. And I wasn't happy with it Denying false claims is perfectly reasonable. Allowing no "legal" routes and therefore making everyone "illegal" and automatically deporting them is not "centrist". Who was automatically deported? How do we find out if the claims are legit or not without any sort of ID?" That is the proposal for the "Illegal Migration Bill". Even that is a dog whistle. However much you say otherwise. "1. The Illegal Migration Bill will change the law so that people who come to the UK illegally will not be able to stay. Instead, they will be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or a safe third country like Rwanda. Crucially, the Home Secretary will be under a legal duty to make arrangements for the removal of illegal entrants falling within the scheme." "3. People who enter the UK illegally will not have their asylum claim determined in the UK, and they will not be able to make a life here. Once removed, they will not be allowed to come back to the UK again." "4. If they cannot be returned to their home country, their asylum claim will be considered by a safe third country, such as Rwanda." https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/illegal-migration-bill-overarching-factsheet#:~:text=The%20Illegal%20Migration%20Bill%20will%20change%20the%20law%20so%20that,safe%20third%20country%20like%20Rwanda. I don't care how they assess people's claims without identification. It doesn't matter. They manage to do so now. They used to be much quicker when properly funded. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But if they come from a safe country first Such as France?" So by being the furthest away we can get away with not helping anyone? Is that the argument? There are all sorts of reasons that someone may have links to the UK rather than somewhere else. Family here. Speak English. Have established communities here already. Think we might actually be open and welcoming. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But if they come from a safe country first Such as France?" If they have not followed UK immigration control, under the new illegal immigration bill they would be either returned to their country of origin or to a safe 3rd country such as Rwanda. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Denying false claims is a centrist policy. Almost 50% of illegal arrivals were Albanian last year with very few any right to claim asylum. Sending them back is not right wing. It's centrist. Denying genuine refugees like Afghans with passports fleeing Afghanistan or Ukrainians entering the UK would be very right of centre. Not allowing in Ukrainians last year with passports and visas and processing them I f rance was right of centre. And I wasn't happy with it Denying false claims is perfectly reasonable. Allowing no "legal" routes and therefore making everyone "illegal" and automatically deporting them is not "centrist". Who was automatically deported? How do we find out if the claims are legit or not without any sort of ID? That is the proposal for the "Illegal Migration Bill". Even that is a dog whistle. However much you say otherwise. "1. The Illegal Migration Bill will change the law so that people who come to the UK illegally will not be able to stay. Instead, they will be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or a safe third country like Rwanda. Crucially, the Home Secretary will be under a legal duty to make arrangements for the removal of illegal entrants falling within the scheme." "3. People who enter the UK illegally will not have their asylum claim determined in the UK, and they will not be able to make a life here. Once removed, they will not be allowed to come back to the UK again." "4. If they cannot be returned to their home country, their asylum claim will be considered by a safe third country, such as Rwanda." https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/illegal-migration-bill-overarching-factsheet#:~:text=The%20Illegal%20Migration%20Bill%20will%20change%20the%20law%20so%20that,safe%20third%20country%20like%20Rwanda. I don't care how they assess people's claims without identification. It doesn't matter. They manage to do so now. They used to be much quicker when properly funded." They don't manage to assess atm though, do they? Thats why the process takes so long. Because they're struggling with identifying people. Have you seen the increase in claims? It's got nothing to do with funding. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But if they come from a safe country first Such as France? So by being the furthest away we can get away with not helping anyone? Is that the argument? There are all sorts of reasons that someone may have links to the UK rather than somewhere else. Family here. Speak English. Have established communities here already. Think we might actually be open and welcoming." The UK has helped 480K people settle over the last 7 years through legal channels. That is not a definition of "not helping anyone". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But if they come from a safe country first Such as France? So by being the furthest away we can get away with not helping anyone? Is that the argument? There are all sorts of reasons that someone may have links to the UK rather than somewhere else. Family here. Speak English. Have established communities here already. Think we might actually be open and welcoming. The UK has helped 480K people settle over the last 7 years through legal channels. That is not a definition of "not helping anyone". " It's the same old argument. This thread was actually nothing to do with asylum seekers but as per usual it was directed in that way because we can't have any proper discussion without the Government being called 'far right'because of their immigration policy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Denying false claims is a centrist policy. Almost 50% of illegal arrivals were Albanian last year with very few any right to claim asylum. Sending them back is not right wing. It's centrist. Denying genuine refugees like Afghans with passports fleeing Afghanistan or Ukrainians entering the UK would be very right of centre. Not allowing in Ukrainians last year with passports and visas and processing them I f rance was right of centre. And I wasn't happy with it Denying false claims is perfectly reasonable. Allowing no "legal" routes and therefore making everyone "illegal" and automatically deporting them is not "centrist". Who was automatically deported? How do we find out if the claims are legit or not without any sort of ID? That is the proposal for the "Illegal Migration Bill". Even that is a dog whistle. However much you say otherwise. "1. The Illegal Migration Bill will change the law so that people who come to the UK illegally will not be able to stay. Instead, they will be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or a safe third country like Rwanda. Crucially, the Home Secretary will be under a legal duty to make arrangements for the removal of illegal entrants falling within the scheme." "3. People who enter the UK illegally will not have their asylum claim determined in the UK, and they will not be able to make a life here. Once removed, they will not be allowed to come back to the UK again." "4. If they cannot be returned to their home country, their asylum claim will be considered by a safe third country, such as Rwanda." https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/illegal-migration-bill-overarching-factsheet#:~:text=The%20Illegal%20Migration%20Bill%20will%20change%20the%20law%20so%20that,safe%20third%20country%20like%20Rwanda. I don't care how they assess people's claims without identification. It doesn't matter. They manage to do so now. They used to be much quicker when properly funded." It does matter how they assess claims with no ID, that is what is causing such a bottleneck and tensions in local communities. It goes way beyond this, if a bad actor slips though the net which security services have said is most likely, it will make the situation even worse for genuine asylum seekers. That is why it matters, that is why they need ID, to get help quickly, be processed quickly and to gain asylum. To say it is not important is not correct. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
