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 |
"Rwanda was already a total waste of money! The changing French political landscape may well fall into Starmer’s hands if (as predicated) NR get into power; the French want migrants less than we do! The UK solution was always to stop them leaving France in the first place." Ah but that might mean France is no longer a safe country and they want to get across the channel even more! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hard to see anything changing. Labour will likely scrap the Rwanda scheme which will bring a surge in channel crossings. The main difference will be that Labour will ease asylum applications resulting in the 'illegal' numbers falling. " They might recruit sufficient numbers of staff to adequately and more quickly process asylum applications, which would be a good start. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Rwanda was already a total waste of money! The changing French political landscape may well fall into Starmer’s hands if (as predicated) NR get into power; the French want migrants less than we do! The UK solution was always to stop them leaving France in the first place." If France do go that way they may well close their borders with the rest of Europe, certainly those on the right see Schengen as a problem.. If they do that then yes that would have an effect.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hard to see anything changing. Labour will likely scrap the Rwanda scheme which will bring a surge in channel crossings. The main difference will be that Labour will ease asylum applications resulting in the 'illegal' numbers falling. They might recruit sufficient numbers of staff to adequately and more quickly process asylum applications, which would be a good start." Yes, fair enough, but what happens to bogus and failed asylum applicants? If they just stay anyway, what's the point of speeding-up the process? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hard to see anything changing. Labour will likely scrap the Rwanda scheme which will bring a surge in channel crossings. The main difference will be that Labour will ease asylum applications resulting in the 'illegal' numbers falling. " The success rate for asylum applications is already between 60% and 70% what Labour will do is invest in processing. That won’t change the numbers of people arriving ‘illegally’, merely allow successful applicants to become tax payers, and unsuccessful applicants to be returned to their country of origin. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hard to see anything changing. Labour will likely scrap the Rwanda scheme which will bring a surge in channel crossings. The main difference will be that Labour will ease asylum applications resulting in the 'illegal' numbers falling. They might recruit sufficient numbers of staff to adequately and more quickly process asylum applications, which would be a good start. Yes, fair enough, but what happens to bogus and failed asylum applicants? If they just stay anyway, what's the point of speeding-up the process?" We eat them. It’s the only way and probably a better deterrent than Rwanda. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hard to see anything changing. Labour will likely scrap the Rwanda scheme which will bring a surge in channel crossings. The main difference will be that Labour will ease asylum applications resulting in the 'illegal' numbers falling. The success rate for asylum applications is already between 60% and 70% what Labour will do is invest in processing. That won’t change the numbers of people arriving ‘illegally’, merely allow successful applicants to become tax payers, and unsuccessful applicants to be returned to their country of origin." How do you return 30% when you don't know where they have come from. If they don't want to be returned they are not going to tell you where they have come from. So I guess they will be stuck hear in camps. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hard to see anything changing. Labour will likely scrap the Rwanda scheme which will bring a surge in channel crossings. The main difference will be that Labour will ease asylum applications resulting in the 'illegal' numbers falling. The success rate for asylum applications is already between 60% and 70% what Labour will do is invest in processing. That won’t change the numbers of people arriving ‘illegally’, merely allow successful applicants to become tax payers, and unsuccessful applicants to be returned to their country of origin. How do you return 30% when you don't know where they have come from. If they don't want to be returned they are not going to tell you where they have come from. So I guess they will be stuck hear in camps. " Exactly this, most illegal migrants are told to rip up their documents and refuse to admit their country of origin or birth! Given this issue, it’s a straight choice of stopping them leaving France, with or without the co-operation of the French; or house them in the worst possible conditions to simply remove the prospect of a perceived better life in the UK. Draconian, perhaps, but I’m yet to be convinced of any other reality. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So if the UK scrap Rwanda I guess Rwanda will be very happy cash in and no work done, lol. But what is the plan to control the small boats now. " there is no plan | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hard to see anything changing. Labour will likely scrap the Rwanda scheme which will bring a surge in channel crossings. The main difference will be that Labour will ease asylum applications resulting in the 'illegal' numbers falling. They might recruit sufficient numbers of staff to adequately and more quickly process asylum applications, which would be a good start. Yes, fair enough, but what happens to bogus and failed asylum applicants? If they just stay anyway, what's the point of speeding-up the process? We eat them. It’s the only way and probably a better deterrent than Rwanda." Yes I can see the case as a deterrent and for public nutrition too. But it's not very British. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hard to see anything changing. Labour will likely scrap the Rwanda scheme which will bring a surge in channel crossings. The main difference will be that Labour will ease asylum applications resulting in the 'illegal' numbers falling. The success rate for asylum applications is already between 60% and 70% what Labour will do is invest in processing. That won’t change the numbers of people arriving ‘illegally’, merely allow successful applicants to become tax payers, and unsuccessful applicants to be returned to their country of origin. How do you return 30% when you don't know where they have come from. If they don't want to be returned they are not going to tell you where they have come from. So I guess they will be stuck hear in camps. Exactly this, most illegal migrants are told to rip up their documents and refuse to admit their country of origin or birth! Given this issue, it’s a straight choice of stopping them leaving France, with or without the co-operation of the French; or house them in the worst possible conditions to simply remove the prospect of a perceived better life in the UK. Draconian, perhaps, but I’m yet to be convinced of any other reality." If a migrant refuses to reveal their country of birth they are unable to claim asylum, previously we would’ve been able to send them back to France but then Brexit happened. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If a migrant refuses to reveal their country of birth they are unable to claim asylum ..." But they can apply for asylum if they say that they are from a repressive country. If we subsequently find that to be untrue, and they won't change their story, where do we send them back to? "previously we would’ve been able to send them back to France but then Brexit happened." Previously, if they had already applied in an EU country, we could send them back to that country to deal with. However if they hadn't applied elsewhere in the EU, we couldn't just send them back to France. If that were true the whole Brexit issue wouldn't have arisen in the first place. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hard to see anything changing. Labour will likely scrap the Rwanda scheme which will bring a surge in channel crossings. The main difference will be that Labour will ease asylum applications resulting in the 'illegal' numbers falling. The success rate for asylum applications is already between 60% and 70% what Labour will do is invest in processing. That won’t change the numbers of people arriving ‘illegally’, merely allow successful applicants to become tax payers, and unsuccessful applicants to be returned to their country of origin. How do you return 30% when you don't know where they have come from. If they don't want to be returned they are not going to tell you where they have come from. So I guess they will be stuck hear in camps. Exactly this, most illegal migrants are told to rip up their documents and refuse to admit their country of origin or birth! Given this issue, it’s a straight choice of stopping them leaving France, with or without the co-operation of the French; or house them in the worst possible conditions to simply remove the prospect of a perceived better life in the UK. Draconian, perhaps, but I’m yet to be convinced of any other reality." Where does this story originate from? No-one can claim asylum if they can’t say where they are from and why they are seeking asylum. I think that saying people rip up their papers and refuse to admit where they are from is just a trope that people have started to believe even though it falls apart at the first level of scrutiny. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think that saying people rip up their papers and refuse to admit where they are from is just a trope that people have started to believe even though it falls apart at the first level of scrutiny." No one is saying that. What they are saying is that the migrants dump all their papers, and claim to be from a country where they are repressed. If caught out (e.g. by not knowing that country's language), they then refuse to say where they are really from. If we don't know where they're from, we can't send them back there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think that saying people rip up their papers and refuse to admit where they are from is just a trope that people have started to believe even though it falls apart at the first level of scrutiny. No one is saying that. What they are saying is that the migrants dump all their papers, and claim to be from a country where they are repressed. If caught out (e.g. by not knowing that country's language), they then refuse to say where they are really from. If we don't know where they're from, we can't send them back there." This, and the scale of applications As of June 2023, the total ‘work in progress’ asylum caseload consisted of 215,500 cases. Of these, 138,000 cases were awaiting an initial decision https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hard to see anything changing. Labour will likely scrap the Rwanda scheme which will bring a surge in channel crossings. The main difference will be that Labour will ease asylum applications resulting in the 'illegal' numbers falling. The success rate for asylum applications is already between 60% and 70% what Labour will do is invest in processing. That won’t change the numbers of people arriving ‘illegally’, merely allow successful applicants to become tax payers, and unsuccessful applicants to be returned to their country of origin." That leaves 30 to 40% of an ever increasing number that fail the process. Those that pass may become tax payers but then again may not and just claim benefits. There never seems to be figures for those that arrive by this method and either work or don't work. It's usually just mixed with legal migration. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hard to see anything changing. Labour will likely scrap the Rwanda scheme which will bring a surge in channel crossings. The main difference will be that Labour will ease asylum applications resulting in the 'illegal' numbers falling. The success rate for asylum applications is already between 60% and 70% what Labour will do is invest in processing. That won’t change the numbers of people arriving ‘illegally’, merely allow successful applicants to become tax payers, and unsuccessful applicants to be returned to their country of origin. How do you return 30% when you don't know where they have come from. If they don't want to be returned they are not going to tell you where they have come from. So I guess they will be stuck hear in camps. Exactly this, most illegal migrants are told to rip up their documents and refuse to admit their country of origin or birth! Given this issue, it’s a straight choice of stopping them leaving France, with or without the co-operation of the French; or house them in the worst possible conditions to simply remove the prospect of a perceived better life in the UK. Draconian, perhaps, but I’m yet to be convinced of any other reality. If a migrant refuses to reveal their country of birth they are unable to claim asylum, previously we would’ve been able to send them back to France but then Brexit happened." So we can't send them home as don't know where home is, and as you say can't send them back to France, So what do you do with them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the ridiculous accusations that up to half boat arrivals intend to just scrounge and claim benefits which is unlikely to be true, let’s expand that. The dependants who arrive by plane, who are probably allowed to claim benefits from day one, outnumber boat arrivals by at least 20 to one . If people think this is all about benefits then many people are looking in the wrong direction. Lots of red meat accusations . Lets hope Labour ignore the ridiculous rhetoric of the likes of Farage and Braverman and approach it in a bit more of a practical grown up way. " There's plenty of healthy locals who've worked out that they can sit on their backsides and live comfortably on benefits so why every other tom fuck and harry. Your grown up approach seems to rely solely upon open borders and if the ridiculous rhetoric of braverman and farage is the desire of the majority, you'll have to accept it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"379 more arrived in boats this week £400million Rwanda scheme will be written off next week Uk taxpayers will continue to pay to house migrants at £8million a day, plus subsistence, health, legal etc https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats-last-7-days" Money well spent???? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Rusty’s idea, make a military unit of the immigrants Would this be acceptable, or a deterrent https://m.youtube.com/shorts/-YQYp3CNg_I" Wasn't a good idea in the US civil war | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hard to see anything changing. Labour will likely scrap the Rwanda scheme which will bring a surge in channel crossings. The main difference will be that Labour will ease asylum applications resulting in the 'illegal' numbers falling. The success rate for asylum applications is already between 60% and 70% what Labour will do is invest in processing. That won’t change the numbers of people arriving ‘illegally’, merely allow successful applicants to become tax payers, and unsuccessful applicants to be returned to their country of origin. How do you return 30% when you don't know where they have come from. If they don't want to be returned they are not going to tell you where they have come from. So I guess they will be stuck hear in camps. Exactly this, most illegal migrants are told to rip up their documents and refuse to admit their country of origin or birth! Given this issue, it’s a straight choice of stopping them leaving France, with or without the co-operation of the French; or house them in the worst possible conditions to simply remove the prospect of a perceived better life in the UK. Draconian, perhaps, but I’m yet to be convinced of any other reality. Where does this story originate from? No-one can claim asylum if they can’t say where they are from and why they are seeking asylum. I think that saying people rip up their papers and refuse to admit where they are from is just a trope that people have started to believe even though it falls apart at the first level of scrutiny." It’s not a “story”, my comments are from personal experience. Long story short, my team called me as they’d opened a European HGV, at least ten people rushed security to clamber out and run across fields. We called Kent police who told us to call Border Force, even gave me the number, I called them who told me to call Kent Police; no joke, the police then told me it’s a “civil matter” because the HGV was on our property and to offer Border Force our CCTV, we did, they never bothered to collect it. As a business we had to change company policy and open all European deliveries by road outside company gates; we had four more instances that year and we simply let them walk away; one of them was almost killed running across the road in the dark. Found SIM cards from France and the packaging for UK SIM cards, plus clothes, remnants of food, they’d shit/watered in a bucket and ripped papers to mix with the contents! Illegal migrants know exactly what they’re doing, the gang masters educate them before stowing them away; appreciate Channel boats are a different prospect as they wait to be rescued in UK waters. Stopping them leaving France is the only solution, as I said, with or without the French government agreement. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hard to see anything changing. Labour will likely scrap the Rwanda scheme which will bring a surge in channel crossings. The main difference will be that Labour will ease asylum applications resulting in the 'illegal' numbers falling. The success rate for asylum applications is already between 60% and 70% what Labour will do is invest in processing. That won’t change the numbers of people arriving ‘illegally’, merely allow successful applicants to become tax payers, and unsuccessful applicants to be returned to their country of origin. How do you return 30% when you don't know where they have come from. If they don't want to be returned they are not going to tell you where they have come from. So I guess they will be stuck hear in camps. Exactly this, most illegal migrants are told to rip up their documents and refuse to admit their country of origin or birth! Given this issue, it’s a straight choice of stopping them leaving France, with or without the co-operation of the French; or house them in the worst possible conditions to simply remove the prospect of a perceived better life in the UK. Draconian, perhaps, but I’m yet to be convinced of any other reality. If a migrant refuses to reveal their country of birth they are unable to claim asylum, previously we would’ve been able to send them back to France but then Brexit happened. So we can't send them home as don't know where home is, and as you say can't send them back to France, So what do you do with them." Labour wont stop high immigration, it was hardly ever mentioned in their manifesto and even if it was it was vague why it baffles me why you voted for them | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what do you do with them. Labour wont stop high immigration, it was hardly ever mentioned in their manifesto and even if it was it was vague why it baffles me why you voted for them" I didn’t vote because I don’t live in the UK anymore, that said, surely nobody can argue the Tories hadn’t given up; Sunak couldn’t lead his way out of a wet paper bag on any given day. Labour can’t do any worse no matter what/who your political persuasion. The UK is fucked, measured by every single “real world” metric; wait until Reeve’s statement to the House detailing just how much the Tories have hidden in the books post Covid and housing migrants in Travelodges. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Would a DNA test prove where they was from if they refused to say ?" No! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hard to see anything changing. Labour will likely scrap the Rwanda scheme which will bring a surge in channel crossings. The main difference will be that Labour will ease asylum applications resulting in the 'illegal' numbers falling. The success rate for asylum applications is already between 60% and 70% what Labour will do is invest in processing. That won’t change the numbers of people arriving ‘illegally’, merely allow successful applicants to become tax payers, and unsuccessful applicants to be returned to their country of origin. How do you return 30% when you don't know where they have come from. If they don't want to be returned they are not going to tell you where they have come from. So I guess they will be stuck hear in camps. Exactly this, most illegal migrants are told to rip up their documents and refuse to admit their country of origin or birth! Given this issue, it’s a straight choice of stopping them leaving France, with or without the co-operation of the French; or house them in the worst possible conditions to simply remove the prospect of a perceived better life in the UK. Draconian, perhaps, but I’m yet to be convinced of any other reality. If a migrant refuses to reveal their country of birth they are unable to claim asylum, previously we would’ve been able to send them back to France but then Brexit happened. So we can't send them home as don't know where home is, and as you say can't send them back to France, So what do you do with them. Labour wont stop high immigration, it was hardly ever mentioned in their manifesto and even if it was it was vague why it baffles me why you voted for them" Labour won't stop immigration, legal or otherwise. They will merely legitimise and justify immigration so the headline numbers appear lower. They'll attempt a conjuring trick. But with Farage snapping at their heels, they'll find it hard to pull off, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Would a DNA test prove where they was from if they refused to say ? No!" But combined with tooth and hair analysis would give a pretty good idea. Then just send them to the worst country in the general region they are from. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. " Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So if the UK scrap Rwanda I guess Rwanda will be very happy cash in and no work done, lol. But what is the plan to control the small boats now. " If France gets a right wing government tomorrow will the direction of the small boats reverse? Ribs full of right wing Tories and Reform voters who can't stand our Labour Government heading to France for a better life under La Penn! Labour wants to build several new towns. I suppose politically its not possible to ask illegal immigrants to build them and get settlement rights after five years? I'm told most are fit young men. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hard to see anything changing. Labour will likely scrap the Rwanda scheme which will bring a surge in channel crossings. The main difference will be that Labour will ease asylum applications resulting in the 'illegal' numbers falling. The success rate for asylum applications is already between 60% and 70% what Labour will do is invest in processing. That won’t change the numbers of people arriving ‘illegally’, merely allow successful applicants to become tax payers, and unsuccessful applicants to be returned to their country of origin. How do you return 30% when you don't know where they have come from. If they don't want to be returned they are not going to tell you where they have come from. So I guess they will be stuck hear in camps. Exactly this, most illegal migrants are told to rip up their documents and refuse to admit their country of origin or birth! Given this issue, it’s a straight choice of stopping them leaving France, with or without the co-operation of the French; or house them in the worst possible conditions to simply remove the prospect of a perceived better life in the UK. Draconian, perhaps, but I’m yet to be convinced of any other reality. If a migrant refuses to reveal their country of birth they are unable to claim asylum, previously we would’ve been able to send them back to France but then Brexit happened. So we can't send them home as don't know where home is, and as you say can't send them back to France, So what do you do with them. Labour wont stop high immigration, it was hardly ever mentioned in their manifesto and even if it was it was vague why it baffles me why you voted for them Labour won't stop immigration, legal or otherwise. They will merely legitimise and justify immigration so the headline numbers appear lower. They'll attempt a conjuring trick. But with Farage snapping at their heels, they'll find it hard to pull off, " And with a shortage of housing that will mean more on the streets. It's a numbers game and it just doesn't not fit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Would a DNA test prove where they was from if they refused to say ?" No. Those DNA tests that claim to tell you where your ancestors came from are nonsense. Send the same DNA to different companies, and you get different results. The people interviewing them will be able to make a 99% determination, but that won't be accepted by the courts, after the lawyers come in to handle the appeal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"During the first and second world war our brave young men and women fought and gave their lives to make this country a great place to live. They fought against evil and won. All these young men should be doing the same in there own countries and oppose their enemies. They don't do that though. They come over here. I think there's a case to let them come over but take them straight to the euro tunnel and walk them back to France. " Unfortunately, the UK ceased to be ‘a great place to live’ a good few years ago. Illegal immigration is simply one of the variables that plays into a country going backwards with zero growth; it’s certainly not the only problem facing Starmer and his new cabinet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Would a DNA test prove where they was from if they refused to say ? No! But combined with tooth and hair analysis would give a pretty good idea. Then just send them to the worst country in the general region they are from." Doesn’t work like that. The majority of us Brits could end up in either Scandinavia or Germany! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the ridiculous accusations that up to half boat arrivals intend to just scrounge and claim benefits which is unlikely to be true, let’s expand that. The dependants who arrive by plane, who are probably allowed to claim benefits from day one, outnumber boat arrivals by at least 20 to one . If people think this is all about benefits then many people are looking in the wrong direction. Lots of red meat accusations . Lets hope Labour ignore the ridiculous rhetoric of the likes of Farage and Braverman and approach it in a bit more of a practical grown up way. There's plenty of healthy locals who've worked out that they can sit on their backsides and live comfortably on benefits so why every other tom fuck and harry. Your grown up approach seems to rely solely upon open borders and if the ridiculous rhetoric of braverman and farage is the desire of the majority, you'll have to accept it " I’m pretty certain I didn’t advocate open borders if you read my post again. The asylum seekers being processed in France if they will allow us would sift out the ones who can quickly be put to work and identify the undesirables. Less boat people means less attractive for the boat organisers. It’s not rocket science. What are we doing about the over 300k dependants arriving by plane each year? Both these routes need scrutiny and the grown up approach as I mentioned. What would Farage have to complain about if we had a managed immigration system? Nothing. We’d also get a lot of useful workers if we processed those already here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"During the first and second world war our brave young men and women fought and gave their lives to make this country a great place to live. They fought against evil and won. All these young men should be doing the same in there own countries and oppose their enemies. They don't do that though. They come over here. I think there's a case to let them come over but take them straight to the euro tunnel and walk them back to France. " You do know who fought on our side from dozens of other countries during that war? We have caused a lot of the strife in the Middle East through our intervention in Iraq oh and let’s not forget Libya snd Afghanistan. What would you say to those innocents in Gaza on the receiving end of British weapons? Perhaps you’d say pick up an old rifle and take on those Russian bombers in Syria? FFS the I’m alright Jack attitude of so many when we are complicit in so much devastation is obscene. Those British soldiers in both world wars fought and died to protect other countries too or did you forget that? We weren’t invaded. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"During the first and second world war our brave young men and women fought and gave their lives to make this country a great place to live. They fought against evil and won. All these young men should be doing the same in there own countries and oppose their enemies. They don't do that though. They come over here. I think there's a case to let them come over but take them straight to the euro tunnel and walk them back to France. " Not all those seeking asylum are fleeing from war, there's many countries where being gay, being a journalist or speaking out about a government brings persecution and worse.. Not everywhere is as tolerant or has a legal system which protects people like we and other democracies do.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hard to see anything changing. Labour will likely scrap the Rwanda scheme which will bring a surge in channel crossings. The main difference will be that Labour will ease asylum applications resulting in the 'illegal' numbers falling. The success rate for asylum applications is already between 60% and 70% what Labour will do is invest in processing. That won’t change the numbers of people arriving ‘illegally’, merely allow successful applicants to become tax payers, and unsuccessful applicants to be returned to their country of origin. How do you return 30% when you don't know where they have come from. If they don't want to be returned they are not going to tell you where they have come from. So I guess they will be stuck hear in camps. Exactly this, most illegal migrants are told to rip up their documents and refuse to admit their country of origin or birth! Given this issue, it’s a straight choice of stopping them leaving France, with or without the co-operation of the French; or house them in the worst possible conditions to simply remove the prospect of a perceived better life in the UK. Draconian, perhaps, but I’m yet to be convinced of any other reality. If a migrant refuses to reveal their country of birth they are unable to claim asylum, previously we would’ve been able to send them back to France but then Brexit happened. So we can't send them home as don't know where home is, and as you say can't send them back to France, So what do you do with them. Labour wont stop high immigration, it was hardly ever mentioned in their manifesto and even if it was it was vague why it baffles me why you voted for them Labour won't stop immigration, legal or otherwise. They will merely legitimise and justify immigration so the headline numbers appear lower. They'll attempt a conjuring trick. But with Farage snapping at their heels, they'll find it hard to pull off, And with a shortage of housing that will mean more on the streets. It's a numbers game and it just doesn't not fit." The housing shortage is a big challenge. What I am wondering is what happens to asylum seekers immediately after being accepted with regards to accommodation. Up until then they are in hotels or similar but when they are accepted they still need a place to live but may not be entitled to the hotel anymore. Is it the local council job to find them a place. If so who pays | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hard to see anything changing. Labour will likely scrap the Rwanda scheme which will bring a surge in channel crossings. The main difference will be that Labour will ease asylum applications resulting in the 'illegal' numbers falling. The success rate for asylum applications is already between 60% and 70% what Labour will do is invest in processing. That won’t change the numbers of people arriving ‘illegally’, merely allow successful applicants to become tax payers, and unsuccessful applicants to be returned to their country of origin. How do you return 30% when you don't know where they have come from. If they don't want to be returned they are not going to tell you where they have come from. So I guess they will be stuck hear in camps. Exactly this, most illegal migrants are told to rip up their documents and refuse to admit their country of origin or birth! Given this issue, it’s a straight choice of stopping them leaving France, with or without the co-operation of the French; or house them in the worst possible conditions to simply remove the prospect of a perceived better life in the UK. Draconian, perhaps, but I’m yet to be convinced of any other reality. If a migrant refuses to reveal their country of birth they are unable to claim asylum, previously we would’ve been able to send them back to France but then Brexit happened. So we can't send them home as don't know where home is, and as you say can't send them back to France, So what do you do with them. Labour wont stop high immigration, it was hardly ever mentioned in their manifesto and even if it was it was vague why it baffles me why you voted for them Labour won't stop immigration, legal or otherwise. They will merely legitimise and justify immigration so the headline numbers appear lower. They'll attempt a conjuring trick. But with Farage snapping at their heels, they'll find it hard to pull off, And with a shortage of housing that will mean more on the streets. It's a numbers game and it just doesn't not fit. The housing shortage is a big challenge. What I am wondering is what happens to asylum seekers immediately after being accepted with regards to accommodation. Up until then they are in hotels or similar but when they are accepted they still need a place to live but may not be entitled to the hotel anymore. Is it the local council job to find them a place. If so who pays" If as everyone says they are single men then they are on their own. As with those who arrive by plane they have to find their own accommodation no matter how crap it may be. Building more houses will help the majority as it will reduce prices in relation to income. But that’s a whole new discussion. We have a lot of empty properties which need bringing into use or penalise those who own them but refuse to put them to use. Oversea investors perhaps? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hard to see anything changing. Labour will likely scrap the Rwanda scheme which will bring a surge in channel crossings. The main difference will be that Labour will ease asylum applications resulting in the 'illegal' numbers falling. The success rate for asylum applications is already between 60% and 70% what Labour will do is invest in processing. That won’t change the numbers of people arriving ‘illegally’, merely allow successful applicants to become tax payers, and unsuccessful applicants to be returned to their country of origin. How do you return 30% when you don't know where they have come from. If they don't want to be returned they are not going to tell you where they have come from. So I guess they will be stuck hear in camps. Exactly this, most illegal migrants are told to rip up their documents and refuse to admit their country of origin or birth! Given this issue, it’s a straight choice of stopping them leaving France, with or without the co-operation of the French; or house them in the worst possible conditions to simply remove the prospect of a perceived better life in the UK. Draconian, perhaps, but I’m yet to be convinced of any other reality. If a migrant refuses to reveal their country of birth they are unable to claim asylum, previously we would’ve been able to send them back to France but then Brexit happened. So we can't send them home as don't know where home is, and as you say can't send them back to France, So what do you do with them. Labour wont stop high immigration, it was hardly ever mentioned in their manifesto and even if it was it was vague why it baffles me why you voted for them Labour won't stop immigration, legal or otherwise. They will merely legitimise and justify immigration so the headline numbers appear lower. They'll attempt a conjuring trick. But with Farage snapping at their heels, they'll find it hard to pull off, And with a shortage of housing that will mean more on the streets. It's a numbers game and it just doesn't not fit. The housing shortage is a big challenge. What I am wondering is what happens to asylum seekers immediately after being accepted with regards to accommodation. Up until then they are in hotels or similar but when they are accepted they still need a place to live but may not be entitled to the hotel anymore. Is it the local council job to find them a place. If so who pays" It is what you have said in your last sentence. On the funding we are paid by LHA but I know there are various central government pots which fund LHA so to avoid misinformation it’s probably dependant on council/ housing assn funding. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’m pretty certain I didn’t advocate open borders if you read my post again. The asylum seekers being processed in France if they will allow us would sift out the ones who can quickly be put to work and identify the undesirables. " It's not that easy though? How exactly are you going to find who is willing to work and who is not? And the current refugee conventions wouldn't allow you to filter out people based on their ability to work either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’m pretty certain I didn’t advocate open borders if you read my post again. The asylum seekers being processed in France if they will allow us would sift out the ones who can quickly be put to work and identify the undesirables. It's not that easy though? How exactly are you going to find who is willing to work and who is not? And the current refugee conventions wouldn't allow you to filter out people based on their ability to work either." I’m Not saying that’s how you filter . Firstly you asses their claim then when they are allowed in, rather than put them in a hostel and forget check their skills if they have any and push them through a job processing scheme. I know if two top level technical nurses who weren’t allowed to work until their assessment was done . It took over two years. Ridiculous. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time labour were in power, how many came in from Europe? Wages were lowered, rich got richer History will repeat itself " The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time labour were in power, how many came in from Europe? Wages were lowered, rich got richer History will repeat itself The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . " But my statement remains fact unless you can prove otherwise? Labour don't give 2 shits about the working class | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Building more houses will help the majority as it will reduce prices in relation to income. But that’s a whole new discussion. We have a lot of empty properties which need bringing into use or penalise those who own them but refuse to put them to use. Oversea investors perhaps? " There are 1.6 million households (not ppl) on local authority waiting lists the council houses. This list was 1.1m in 2010. In 2012 the government used the localism act to remove 137,000 from those lists and prevent some people being added under ‘no reasonable prospect of being housed’. 2.3 million council houses and flats have been sold on RTB since 1979. The forecast for the next 10 years (before change government) is that one new social housing unit would be built for every six sold on right to buy. Then add 139,000 in temporary (hotel/holidaylet) accommodation ( Plymouth council alone has 350) New figures released (Thursday 16th May) show that 92,114 households in England have received a Section 21 or ‘no-fault’ eviction notice since April 2019, when the UK Government first promised to end no-fault evictions. (Crises) More people, from wherever, uk or abroad. impacts on these increasing housing waiting lists. Councils across the country have acute problems with allocating housing. 379 people arrived on boats this week. The empty properties, last time I looked the ONS said 206,000, about 1% of uk dwelling stock. Some in probate, people gone into care, up for sale, divorce etc. I’d agree some lock up and leave but to let/investor purchases but not as many as some would have believe. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’m pretty certain I didn’t advocate open borders if you read my post again. The asylum seekers being processed in France if they will allow us would sift out the ones who can quickly be put to work and identify the undesirables. It's not that easy though? How exactly are you going to find who is willing to work and who is not? And the current refugee conventions wouldn't allow you to filter out people based on their ability to work either. I’m Not saying that’s how you filter . Firstly you asses their claim then when they are allowed in, rather than put them in a hostel and forget check their skills if they have any and push them through a job processing scheme. I know if two top level technical nurses who weren’t allowed to work until their assessment was done . It took over two years. Ridiculous. " I don't expect that to make a big difference though. People with the kind of skills you mention are rare. The employment rate of refugees with right to work was at 52% and even the ones which work scored lower than national average on both number of hours and earnings. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hard to see anything changing. Labour will likely scrap the Rwanda scheme which will bring a surge in channel crossings. The main difference will be that Labour will ease asylum applications resulting in the 'illegal' numbers falling. The success rate for asylum applications is already between 60% and 70% what Labour will do is invest in processing. That won’t change the numbers of people arriving ‘illegally’, merely allow successful applicants to become tax payers, and unsuccessful applicants to be returned to their country of origin. How do you return 30% when you don't know where they have come from. If they don't want to be returned they are not going to tell you where they have come from. So I guess they will be stuck hear in camps. Exactly this, most illegal migrants are told to rip up their documents and refuse to admit their country of origin or birth! Given this issue, it’s a straight choice of stopping them leaving France, with or without the co-operation of the French; or house them in the worst possible conditions to simply remove the prospect of a perceived better life in the UK. Draconian, perhaps, but I’m yet to be convinced of any other reality. If a migrant refuses to reveal their country of birth they are unable to claim asylum, previously we would’ve been able to send them back to France but then Brexit happened. So we can't send them home as don't know where home is, and as you say can't send them back to France, So what do you do with them. Labour wont stop high immigration, it was hardly ever mentioned in their manifesto and even if it was it was vague why it baffles me why you voted for them Labour won't stop immigration, legal or otherwise. They will merely legitimise and justify immigration so the headline numbers appear lower. They'll attempt a conjuring trick. But with Farage snapping at their heels, they'll find it hard to pull off, And with a shortage of housing that will mean more on the streets. It's a numbers game and it just doesn't not fit. The housing shortage is a big challenge. What I am wondering is what happens to asylum seekers immediately after being accepted with regards to accommodation. Up until then they are in hotels or similar but when they are accepted they still need a place to live but may not be entitled to the hotel anymore. Is it the local council job to find them a place. If so who pays If as everyone says they are single men then they are on their own. As with those who arrive by plane they have to find their own accommodation no matter how crap it may be. Building more houses will help the majority as it will reduce prices in relation to income. But that’s a whole new discussion. We have a lot of empty properties which need bringing into use or penalise those who own them but refuse to put them to use. Oversea investors perhaps? " Big risk of them being accepted and finding themselves on the streets then which is another problem. May be why so few find work. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% ." What's your evidence for this claim? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Would a DNA test prove where they was from if they refused to say ? No! But combined with tooth and hair analysis would give a pretty good idea. Then just send them to the worst country in the general region they are from. Doesn’t work like that. The majority of us Brits could end up in either Scandinavia or Germany! " Not with the tooth and hair analysis. However good those places are, we are stuck here as we are British Citizens. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Would a DNA test prove where they was from if they refused to say ? No! But combined with tooth and hair analysis would give a pretty good idea. Then just send them to the worst country in the general region they are from. Doesn’t work like that. The majority of us Brits could end up in either Scandinavia or Germany! Not with the tooth and hair analysis. However good those places are, we are stuck here as we are British Citizens." Ah ok interesting. How does tooth and hair analysis work? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what do you do with them. Labour wont stop high immigration, it was hardly ever mentioned in their manifesto and even if it was it was vague why it baffles me why you voted for them I didn’t vote because I don’t live in the UK anymore, that said, surely nobody can argue the Tories hadn’t given up; Sunak couldn’t lead his way out of a wet paper bag on any given day. Labour can’t do any worse no matter what/who your political persuasion. The UK is fucked, measured by every single “real world” metric; wait until Reeve’s statement to the House detailing just how much the Tories have hidden in the books post Covid and housing migrants in Travelodges. " Agree re tories giving up. If sunak was that assured of Rwanda policy, the GE would have been called after the first flight that was due in July. It would have been an ace up their sleeves. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly." Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job  . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"During the first and second world war our brave young men and women fought and gave their lives to make this country a great place to live. They fought against evil and won. All these young men should be doing the same in there own countries and oppose their enemies. They don't do that though. They come over here. I think there's a case to let them come over but take them straight to the euro tunnel and walk them back to France. You do know who fought on our side from dozens of other countries during that war? We have caused a lot of the strife in the Middle East through our intervention in Iraq oh and let’s not forget Libya snd Afghanistan. What would you say to those innocents in Gaza on the receiving end of British weapons? Perhaps you’d say pick up an old rifle and take on those Russian bombers in Syria? FFS the I’m alright Jack attitude of so many when we are complicit in so much devastation is obscene. Those British soldiers in both world wars fought and died to protect other countries too or did you forget that? We weren’t invaded. " -------------------------- Excellent post  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job ."And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly? It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight. However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit. We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what do you do with them. Labour wont stop high immigration, it was hardly ever mentioned in their manifesto and even if it was it was vague why it baffles me why you voted for them I didn’t vote because I don’t live in the UK anymore, that said, surely nobody can argue the Tories hadn’t given up; Sunak couldn’t lead his way out of a wet paper bag on any given day. Labour can’t do any worse no matter what/who your political persuasion. The UK is fucked, measured by every single “real world” metric; wait until Reeve’s statement to the House detailing just how much the Tories have hidden in the books post Covid and housing migrants in Travelodges. Agree re tories giving up. If sunak was that assured of Rwanda policy, the GE would have been called after the first flight that was due in July. It would have been an ace up their sleeves." It was doomed from the get go but Rwanda is happy cash in the bank. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We can kick around the pros and cons of immigration on forums like this as much as we like, but the fact is, the electorate are largely anti-immigration, both legal and illegal. The issue was a major determinant in the GE this week (by Reform taking Tory votes). If Labour fail to grasp the issue, expect to see Reform with +50 seats next GE." What do you mean by largely? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We can kick around the pros and cons of immigration on forums like this as much as we like, but the fact is, the electorate are largely anti-immigration, both legal and illegal. The issue was a major determinant in the GE this week (by Reform taking Tory votes). If Labour fail to grasp the issue, expect to see Reform with +50 seats next GE." ------------------------------------------ The other issue that some fail to grasp is that the Tories lost support to the Liberals too, many of whom didn't like the party lurching to the right. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers."--------------------------------- Maybe the 'traitorous lawyers' were following the rule of law and high standards to its application? Which 'so called charities' are also complicit? They don't create legislation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers."News flash, there was never any chance of throwing Rwanda plan doing anything. Except energising an element of the electorate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers.
---------------------------------
Maybe the 'traitorous lawyers' were following the rule of law and high standards to its application? Which 'so called charities' are also complicit? They don't create legislation. "Indeed, one of the common threads running through the last 5 years is how poorly drawn up the legislation was, almost certainly down to the fact they tried to exclude civil servants who inconvenienced them by advising that legislation wouldn’t work because it was illegal, or open to legal challenge. Which incidentally is part of a civil servant’s job. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers.
---------------------------------
Maybe the 'traitorous lawyers' were following the rule of law and high standards to its application? Which 'so called charities' are also complicit? They don't create legislation.
Indeed, one of the common threads running through the last 5 years is how poorly drawn up the legislation was, almost certainly down to the fact they tried to exclude civil servants who inconvenienced them by advising that legislation wouldn’t work because it was illegal, or open to legal challenge. Which incidentally is part of a civil servant’s job."Hence my initial comment about the country being soft. The law should have been changed at the start to say Rwanda us safe, that the processing centre is in Rwanda, that everyone gets shipped yhete and that if you arrive illegally in this country you will never have the right to stay. However, even with an 80 seat majority, the left-leaning softies in the Conservative party ensured failure. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers.
---------------------------------
Maybe the 'traitorous lawyers' were following the rule of law and high standards to its application? Which 'so called charities' are also complicit? They don't create legislation.
Indeed, one of the common threads running through the last 5 years is how poorly drawn up the legislation was, almost certainly down to the fact they tried to exclude civil servants who inconvenienced them by advising that legislation wouldn’t work because it was illegal, or open to legal challenge. Which incidentally is part of a civil servant’s job.
Hence my initial comment about the country being soft.
The law should have been changed at the start to say Rwanda us safe, that the processing centre is in Rwanda, that everyone gets shipped yhete and that if you arrive illegally in this country you will never have the right to stay.
However, even with an 80 seat majority, the left-leaning softies in the Conservative party ensured failure."I would suggest that if you have to pass a law to say somewhere is safe because the courts have judged it isn’t, then you should probably look again as to whether it’s safe or not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The short answer to this is No. We can't stop illegal migration until we leave the UN refugee convention or it is rewritten. " Still, best to preemptively blame Labour. I think it is in Labours interest to reduce illegal immigration. It would take away the biggest vote winner for Reform and the Tories. They'd have to think of some different rhetoric to bash people with. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers."We want the Ministers acting mature but don't expect it of the electorate, that's humorous. Just how is SKS a leech or a traitor? Sore loser? My rationale re Rwanda can be seen in the post above the one you quoted. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what do you do with them. Labour wont stop high immigration, it was hardly ever mentioned in their manifesto and even if it was it was vague why it baffles me why you voted for them I didn’t vote because I don’t live in the UK anymore, that said, surely nobody can argue the Tories hadn’t given up; Sunak couldn’t lead his way out of a wet paper bag on any given day. Labour can’t do any worse no matter what/who your political persuasion. The UK is fucked, measured by every single “real world” metric; wait until Reeve’s statement to the House detailing just how much the Tories have hidden in the books post Covid and housing migrants in Travelodges. Agree re tories giving up. If sunak was that assured of Rwanda policy, the GE would have been called after the first flight that was due in July. It would have been an ace up their sleeves. It was doomed from the get go but Rwanda is happy cash in the bank." Moot point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The short answer to this is No. We can't stop illegal migration until we leave the UN refugee convention or it is rewritten. Still, best to preemptively blame Labour. I think it is in Labours interest to reduce illegal immigration. It would take away the biggest vote winner for Reform and the Tories. They'd have to think of some different rhetoric to bash people with." What about being in the nation's interest, and following the rule of law? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The short answer to this is No. We can't stop illegal migration until we leave the UN refugee convention or it is rewritten. Still, best to preemptively blame Labour. I think it is in Labours interest to reduce illegal immigration. It would take away the biggest vote winner for Reform and the Tories. They'd have to think of some different rhetoric to bash people with. What about being in the nation's interest, and following the rule of law?" Can always change the law to suit | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The short answer to this is No. We can't stop illegal migration until we leave the UN refugee convention or it is rewritten. Still, best to preemptively blame Labour. I think it is in Labours interest to reduce illegal immigration. It would take away the biggest vote winner for Reform and the Tories. They'd have to think of some different rhetoric to bash people with." I can't see labour doing this, there is no negotiation with people wanting to enter by illegal means and we can't break conventions we have signed up to. Rewriting the convention would be the better option in theory, as it would still supply protections to those that need them, however getting all signatories to agree would be harder than leaving it. Rock and hard place. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim?" Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’m pretty certain I didn’t advocate open borders if you read my post again. The asylum seekers being processed in France if they will allow us would sift out the ones who can quickly be put to work and identify the undesirables. It's not that easy though? How exactly are you going to find who is willing to work and who is not? And the current refugee conventions wouldn't allow you to filter out people based on their ability to work either. I’m Not saying that’s how you filter . Firstly you asses their claim then when they are allowed in, rather than put them in a hostel and forget check their skills if they have any and push them through a job processing scheme. I know if two top level technical nurses who weren’t allowed to work until their assessment was done . It took over two years. Ridiculous. I don't expect that to make a big difference though. People with the kind of skills you mention are rare. The employment rate of refugees with right to work was at 52% and even the ones which work scored lower than national average on both number of hours and earnings." You may be right but would you rather keep that 50% in a hostel or have them contributing tax? The remainder can be trained to join the workforce quickly even if it’s just basic labouring, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. " On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions)." That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. Instead of looking at how they have been successful, they would rather take it away from them and jail them for their greed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. Instead of looking at how they have been successful, they would rather take it away from them and jail them for their greed. " No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. Instead of looking at how they have been successful, they would rather take it away from them and jail them for their greed. No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality." okay | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The short answer to this is No. We can't stop illegal migration until we leave the UN refugee convention or it is rewritten. Still, best to preemptively blame Labour. I think it is in Labours interest to reduce illegal immigration. It would take away the biggest vote winner for Reform and the Tories. They'd have to think of some different rhetoric to bash people with. What about being in the nation's interest, and following the rule of law?" Very low down the list of priorities. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The short answer to this is No. We can't stop illegal migration until we leave the UN refugee convention or it is rewritten. Still, best to preemptively blame Labour. I think it is in Labours interest to reduce illegal immigration. It would take away the biggest vote winner for Reform and the Tories. They'd have to think of some different rhetoric to bash people with. I can't see labour doing this, there is no negotiation with people wanting to enter by illegal means and we can't break conventions we have signed up to. Rewriting the convention would be the better option in theory, as it would still supply protections to those that need them, however getting all signatories to agree would be harder than leaving it. Rock and hard place. " Fair enough. For me, it's not about doing anything, it's about the use of anti-immigrant rhetoric as a tool as the Tories and Farage have done. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. Instead of looking at how they have been successful, they would rather take it away from them and jail them for their greed. " Just a wee bit of exaggeration there lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers.
We want the Ministers acting mature but don't expect it of the electorate, that's humorous. Just how is SKS a leech or a traitor? Sore loser?
My rationale re Rwanda can be seen in the post above the one you quoted."Starmer is a traitorous leech because he is a human rights lawyer. He has helped people who have no rights to stay in the UK to circumvent deportation. He also voted in the commons too many times to count against any plan to reduce illegal migration. All while not having any plans himself to deal with the urgent issue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"traitorous leech because he is a human rights lawyer. " Welcome to British culture in 2024. What a time to be alive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. Instead of looking at how they have been successful, they would rather take it away from them and jail them for their greed. No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality. okay "What’s saddest about this is that you can’t conceive of people feeling that way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers.
We want the Ministers acting mature but don't expect it of the electorate, that's humorous. Just how is SKS a leech or a traitor? Sore loser?
My rationale re Rwanda can be seen in the post above the one you quoted.
Starmer is a traitorous leech because he is a human rights lawyer. He has helped people who have no rights to stay in the UK to circumvent deportation.
He also voted in the commons too many times to count against any plan to reduce illegal migration.
All while not having any plans himself to deal with the urgent issue."Would you rather we do away the human rights? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers.
We want the Ministers acting mature but don't expect it of the electorate, that's humorous. Just how is SKS a leech or a traitor? Sore loser?
My rationale re Rwanda can be seen in the post above the one you quoted.
Starmer is a traitorous leech because he is a human rights lawyer. He has helped people who have no rights to stay in the UK to circumvent deportation.
He also voted in the commons too many times to count against any plan to reduce illegal migration.
All while not having any plans himself to deal with the urgent issue.
Would you rather we do away the human rights?"No, but they should not be used for things they were never intended for. The system is currently being abused and manipulated by those who have minority agendas. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions)." Global picture of your example is far worse https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/21/world-26-richest-people-own-as-much-as-poorest-50-per-cent-oxfam-report | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers.
We want the Ministers acting mature but don't expect it of the electorate, that's humorous. Just how is SKS a leech or a traitor? Sore loser?
My rationale re Rwanda can be seen in the post above the one you quoted.
Starmer is a traitorous leech because he is a human rights lawyer. He has helped people who have no rights to stay in the UK to circumvent deportation.
He also voted in the commons too many times to count against any plan to reduce illegal migration.
All while not having any plans himself to deal with the urgent issue."If they had no rights under the law to stay in the UK how could a lawyer help them to stay? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers.
We want the Ministers acting mature but don't expect it of the electorate, that's humorous. Just how is SKS a leech or a traitor? Sore loser?
My rationale re Rwanda can be seen in the post above the one you quoted.
Starmer is a traitorous leech because he is a human rights lawyer. He has helped people who have no rights to stay in the UK to circumvent deportation.
He also voted in the commons too many times to count against any plan to reduce illegal migration.
All while not having any plans himself to deal with the urgent issue.
Would you rather we do away the human rights?
No, but they should not be used for things they were never intended for.
The system is currently being abused and manipulated by those who have minority agendas."Agendas such as ensuring humans have human rights? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers.
We want the Ministers acting mature but don't expect it of the electorate, that's humorous. Just how is SKS a leech or a traitor? Sore loser?
My rationale re Rwanda can be seen in the post above the one you quoted.
Starmer is a traitorous leech because he is a human rights lawyer. He has helped people who have no rights to stay in the UK to circumvent deportation.
He also voted in the commons too many times to count against any plan to reduce illegal migration.
All while not having any plans himself to deal with the urgent issue.
Would you rather we do away the human rights?
No, but they should not be used for things they were never intended for.
The system is currently being abused and manipulated by those who have minority agendas.
Agendas such as ensuring humans have human rights?"Or follow the money... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers.
We want the Ministers acting mature but don't expect it of the electorate, that's humorous. Just how is SKS a leech or a traitor? Sore loser?
My rationale re Rwanda can be seen in the post above the one you quoted.
Starmer is a traitorous leech because he is a human rights lawyer. He has helped people who have no rights to stay in the UK to circumvent deportation.
He also voted in the commons too many times to count against any plan to reduce illegal migration.
All while not having any plans himself to deal with the urgent issue.
Would you rather we do away the human rights?
No, but they should not be used for things they were never intended for.
The system is currently being abused and manipulated by those who have minority agendas.
Agendas such as ensuring humans have human rights?
Or follow the money..."It's a big moneymaking scam, nothing to do with human rights? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers.
We want the Ministers acting mature but don't expect it of the electorate, that's humorous. Just how is SKS a leech or a traitor? Sore loser?
My rationale re Rwanda can be seen in the post above the one you quoted.
Starmer is a traitorous leech because he is a human rights lawyer. He has helped people who have no rights to stay in the UK to circumvent deportation.
He also voted in the commons too many times to count against any plan to reduce illegal migration.
All while not having any plans himself to deal with the urgent issue.
If they had no rights under the law to stay in the UK how could a lawyer help them to stay?"By finding all the loopholes in laws that are no longer fit for purpose. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 . I think the new government will be better managers of the public purse | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers.
We want the Ministers acting mature but don't expect it of the electorate, that's humorous. Just how is SKS a leech or a traitor? Sore loser?
My rationale re Rwanda can be seen in the post above the one you quoted.
Starmer is a traitorous leech because he is a human rights lawyer. He has helped people who have no rights to stay in the UK to circumvent deportation.
He also voted in the commons too many times to count against any plan to reduce illegal migration.
All while not having any plans himself to deal with the urgent issue.
Would you rather we do away the human rights?
No, but they should not be used for things they were never intended for.
The system is currently being abused and manipulated by those who have minority agendas."You know the phrase ‘human rights’ isn’t short for ‘human rights for British people’ yeah? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers.
We want the Ministers acting mature but don't expect it of the electorate, that's humorous. Just how is SKS a leech or a traitor? Sore loser?
My rationale re Rwanda can be seen in the post above the one you quoted.
Starmer is a traitorous leech because he is a human rights lawyer. He has helped people who have no rights to stay in the UK to circumvent deportation.
He also voted in the commons too many times to count against any plan to reduce illegal migration.
All while not having any plans himself to deal with the urgent issue.
If they had no rights under the law to stay in the UK how could a lawyer help them to stay?
By finding all the loopholes in laws that are no longer fit for purpose."What loopholes? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I do wonder what has changed in 15 years that resulted in successful claims going from about 30pc to 80pc... Has someone created more loopholes since then ? Maybe lowered the bar ? Or is it a function of global instability ? " And why are some countries (including in Europe) still around the 30%? That's a more reasonable number. Also, we seem to accept some who have been rejected elsewhere, that shouldn't happen at all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" By finding all the loopholes in laws that are no longer fit for purpose. What loopholes?" Right to family life, shouldn't be here in the first place so shouldn't have set up a family. Conversion to Christianity. Pretty much all the clauses are loose so can be abused. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Building more houses will help the majority as it will reduce prices in relation to income. But that’s a whole new discussion. We have a lot of empty properties which need bringing into use or penalise those who own them but refuse to put them to use. Oversea investors perhaps? There are 1.6 million households (not ppl) on local authority waiting lists the council houses. This list was 1.1m in 2010. In 2012 the government used the localism act to remove 137,000 from those lists and prevent some people being added under ‘no reasonable prospect of being housed’. 2.3 million council houses and flats have been sold on RTB since 1979. The forecast for the next 10 years (before change government) is that one new social housing unit would be built for every six sold on right to buy. Then add 139,000 in temporary (hotel/holidaylet) accommodation ( Plymouth council alone has 350) New figures released (Thursday 16th May) show that 92,114 households in England have received a Section 21 or ‘no-fault’ eviction notice since April 2019, when the UK Government first promised to end no-fault evictions. (Crises) More people, from wherever, uk or abroad. impacts on these increasing housing waiting lists. Councils across the country have acute problems with allocating housing. 379 people arrived on boats this week. The empty properties, last time I looked the ONS said 206,000, about 1% of uk dwelling stock. Some in probate, people gone into care, up for sale, divorce etc. I’d agree some lock up and leave but to let/investor purchases but not as many as some would have believe. " Interesting stats I agree. You could however assume at least four people whether a family or four single guys could live in even a modest house. That could easily deal with the full asylum back log if just 50,000 house were available. I own property to rent but not a major housing landlord. I like the scheme in some councils whereby if my property is empty for six months I can get a discount on the council tax. Then however they double it if it remains empty. I would say they maybe they should triple it after another twelve months empty. Obviously if it as you say probate or up for sale ( prove it) etc. then it’s exempt but why allow empty residential property when the need is so great? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I do wonder what has changed in 15 years that resulted in successful claims going from about 30pc to 80pc... Has someone created more loopholes since then ? Maybe lowered the bar ? Or is it a function of global instability ? " I think your last point is relevant. Why do you need asylum if your country is not unstable. Lots of countries now sadly are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" By finding all the loopholes in laws that are no longer fit for purpose. What loopholes? Right to family life, shouldn't be here in the first place so shouldn't have set up a family. Conversion to Christianity. Pretty much all the clauses are loose so can be abused." the first isn't the boat people amd probably not the second, but I do take your point (as over half of claims aren't from boat crossings). It does suggest a possible hole in the ongoing monitoring we have of other "legal" routes eg overstaying visas. I wonder how many go down this 'loophole'. One to research ! And possibly a better place to start than getting distracted by boat crossings and the Rwanda scheme | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers.
We want the Ministers acting mature but don't expect it of the electorate, that's humorous. Just how is SKS a leech or a traitor? Sore loser?
My rationale re Rwanda can be seen in the post above the one you quoted.
Starmer is a traitorous leech because he is a human rights lawyer. He has helped people who have no rights to stay in the UK to circumvent deportation.
He also voted in the commons too many times to count against any plan to reduce illegal migration.
All while not having any plans himself to deal with the urgent issue.
If they had no rights under the law to stay in the UK how could a lawyer help them to stay?"I and I believe there others think we should look after our own first when you see so meany homeless. Sure if the NHS was not being swamped day in and day out, every one could get a GP appointment, adorable housing for all. And don't put this down to 14 years of Conservative government the truth is we are full. Labourer is talking about new towns but we need to build City's Milton Keynes was the last new one we need one a year for the next 5 years | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" By finding all the loopholes in laws that are no longer fit for purpose. What loopholes? Right to family life, shouldn't be here in the first place so shouldn't have set up a family. Conversion to Christianity. Pretty much all the clauses are loose so can be abused." So you’re saying people don’t have the right to fall in love or believe in the Christian god? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers.
We want the Ministers acting mature but don't expect it of the electorate, that's humorous. Just how is SKS a leech or a traitor? Sore loser?
My rationale re Rwanda can be seen in the post above the one you quoted.
Starmer is a traitorous leech because he is a human rights lawyer. He has helped people who have no rights to stay in the UK to circumvent deportation.
He also voted in the commons too many times to count against any plan to reduce illegal migration.
All while not having any plans himself to deal with the urgent issue.
If they had no rights under the law to stay in the UK how could a lawyer help them to stay?
I and I believe there others think we should look after our own first when you see so meany homeless. Sure if the NHS was not being swamped day in and day out, every one could get a GP appointment, adorable housing for all.
And don't put this down to 14 years of Conservative government the truth is we are full.
Labourer is talking about new towns but we need to build City's Milton Keynes was the last new one we need one a year for the next 5 years "I know it’s a very simple and convenient to blame illegal immigrants for the NHS being ‘swamped’ but it really isn’t their fault. There are 8 million people on the waiting lists for treatment, this has not been caused by a couple of hundred thousand refugees who haven’t had their claims processed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Immigration has several problems exacerbated by the previous 14 years. We should staff and resource the assessments, which were allowed to skyrocket in backlogs. I don't see an easy answer to gangs and the boats they fill, unless tackled in France effectively. We must have legal routes though, as it's not suitable at present. Rwanda was a gimmick and expensive public money draining tool. Just the flights of the government officials cost £hundreds of thousands for them to get a photo . I think the new government will be better managers of the public purse"If you want to stop the gangs send a sip for people to bord that way there not paying gangs, you could also photo people on said ship. And educate them on what the UK is really like. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers.
We want the Ministers acting mature but don't expect it of the electorate, that's humorous. Just how is SKS a leech or a traitor? Sore loser?
My rationale re Rwanda can be seen in the post above the one you quoted.
Starmer is a traitorous leech because he is a human rights lawyer. He has helped people who have no rights to stay in the UK to circumvent deportation.
He also voted in the commons too many times to count against any plan to reduce illegal migration.
All while not having any plans himself to deal with the urgent issue.
If they had no rights under the law to stay in the UK how could a lawyer help them to stay?
I and I believe there others think we should look after our own first when you see so meany homeless. Sure if the NHS was not being swamped day in and day out, every one could get a GP appointment, adorable housing for all.
And don't put this down to 14 years of Conservative government the truth is we are full.
Labourer is talking about new towns but we need to build City's Milton Keynes was the last new one we need one a year for the next 5 years
I know it’s a very simple and convenient to blame illegal immigrants for the NHS being ‘swamped’ but it really isn’t their fault. There are 8 million people on the waiting lists for treatment, this has not been caused by a couple of hundred thousand refugees who haven’t had their claims processed."So if 200,000 have not been prosed how meany have been processed in the last 10 years and are now hear as residents. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I and I believe there others think we should look after our own first when you see so meany homeless. " Do you think if the government increased the hate directed towards immigrants that they would magically suddenly give a shit about dealing with homelessness? " Sure if the NHS was not being swamped day in and day out, every one could get a GP appointment, adorable housing for all. And don't put this down to 14 years of Conservative government the truth is we are full. " I'm not sure if you're being ironic or not. But there are people who believe that the problems in the country have absolutely nothing to do with mismanagement by those with all the power and money, and are all caused by some people in a small boat over there. Classic distraction, tried and trusted. " Labourer is talking about new towns but we need to build City's Milton Keynes was the last new one we need one a year for the next 5 years " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers.
We want the Ministers acting mature but don't expect it of the electorate, that's humorous. Just how is SKS a leech or a traitor? Sore loser?
My rationale re Rwanda can be seen in the post above the one you quoted.
Starmer is a traitorous leech because he is a human rights lawyer. He has helped people who have no rights to stay in the UK to circumvent deportation.
He also voted in the commons too many times to count against any plan to reduce illegal migration.
All while not having any plans himself to deal with the urgent issue.
If they had no rights under the law to stay in the UK how could a lawyer help them to stay?
I and I believe there others think we should look after our own first when you see so meany homeless. Sure if the NHS was not being swamped day in and day out, every one could get a GP appointment, adorable housing for all.
And don't put this down to 14 years of Conservative government the truth is we are full.
Labourer is talking about new towns but we need to build City's Milton Keynes was the last new one we need one a year for the next 5 years
I know it’s a very simple and convenient to blame illegal immigrants for the NHS being ‘swamped’ but it really isn’t their fault. There are 8 million people on the waiting lists for treatment, this has not been caused by a couple of hundred thousand refugees who haven’t had their claims processed.
So if 200,000 have not been prosed how meany have been processed in the last 10 years and are now hear as residents."387k. Of which over half have been here for 15 years plus. (As at 2022) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. Instead of looking at how they have been successful, they would rather take it away from them and jail them for their greed. No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality. okay
What’s saddest about this is that you can’t conceive of people feeling that way."Making assumptions again…. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers.
We want the Ministers acting mature but don't expect it of the electorate, that's humorous. Just how is SKS a leech or a traitor? Sore loser?
My rationale re Rwanda can be seen in the post above the one you quoted.
Starmer is a traitorous leech because he is a human rights lawyer. He has helped people who have no rights to stay in the UK to circumvent deportation.
He also voted in the commons too many times to count against any plan to reduce illegal migration.
All while not having any plans himself to deal with the urgent issue.
If they had no rights under the law to stay in the UK how could a lawyer help them to stay?
I and I believe there others think we should look after our own first when you see so meany homeless. Sure if the NHS was not being swamped day in and day out, every one could get a GP appointment, adorable housing for all.
And don't put this down to 14 years of Conservative government the truth is we are full.
Labourer is talking about new towns but we need to build City's Milton Keynes was the last new one we need one a year for the next 5 years "thisnfeels like we are conflating all immigration with asylum seekers. I'm not sure why this isn't at the feet if the government tho. Unless we out it at the feet of the electorate that continued to vote for someone whom promises one thing and delivers another. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I and I believe there others think we should look after our own first when you see so meany homeless. Do you think if the government increased the hate directed towards immigrants that they would magically suddenly give a shit about dealing with homelessness? Sure if the NHS was not being swamped day in and day out, every one could get a GP appointment, adorable housing for all. And don't put this down to 14 years of Conservative government the truth is we are full. I'm not sure if you're being ironic or not. But there are people who believe that the problems in the country have absolutely nothing to do with mismanagement by those with all the power and money, and are all caused by some people in a small boat over there. Classic distraction, tried and trusted. Labourer is talking about new towns but we need to build City's Milton Keynes was the last new one we need one a year for the next 5 years " I don't think it's caused by the small boats I think it's more about an exploding population 1800 to 1901 UK went from 10 million to 38 million. We are now at 68million there or there abouts we are now growing in numbers quicker then infrastructure can be built. Something will have to give. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" By finding all the loopholes in laws that are no longer fit for purpose. What loopholes? Right to family life, shouldn't be here in the first place so shouldn't have set up a family. Conversion to Christianity. Pretty much all the clauses are loose so can be abused. So you’re saying people don’t have the right to fall in love or believe in the Christian god?" They have a right to do whatever they want but not to then use something as an excuse to game the system. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I and I believe there others think we should look after our own first when you see so meany homeless. Do you think if the government increased the hate directed towards immigrants that they would magically suddenly give a shit about dealing with homelessness? Sure if the NHS was not being swamped day in and day out, every one could get a GP appointment, adorable housing for all. And don't put this down to 14 years of Conservative government the truth is we are full. I'm not sure if you're being ironic or not. But there are people who believe that the problems in the country have absolutely nothing to do with mismanagement by those with all the power and money, and are all caused by some people in a small boat over there. Classic distraction, tried and trusted. Labourer is talking about new towns but we need to build City's Milton Keynes was the last new one we need one a year for the next 5 years I don't think it's caused by the small boats I think it's more about an exploding population 1800 to 1901 UK went from 10 million to 38 million. We are now at 68million there or there abouts we are now growing in numbers quicker then infrastructure can be built. Something will have to give." I wonder how people in 1901 felt. Possibly we were full (I saw this view in the tfl museum recently) Thanks for clarifying that you meant all immigration (well population growth). It gets confusing when in a thread that seeme focussed on Rwanda and asylum seekers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I and I believe there others think we should look after our own first when you see so meany homeless. Do you think if the government increased the hate directed towards immigrants that they would magically suddenly give a shit about dealing with homelessness? Sure if the NHS was not being swamped day in and day out, every one could get a GP appointment, adorable housing for all. And don't put this down to 14 years of Conservative government the truth is we are full. I'm not sure if you're being ironic or not. But there are people who believe that the problems in the country have absolutely nothing to do with mismanagement by those with all the power and money, and are all caused by some people in a small boat over there. Classic distraction, tried and trusted. Labourer is talking about new towns but we need to build City's Milton Keynes was the last new one we need one a year for the next 5 years I don't think it's caused by the small boats I think it's more about an exploding population 1800 to 1901 UK went from 10 million to 38 million. We are now at 68million there or there abouts we are now growing in numbers quicker then infrastructure can be built. Something will have to give." Fair enough, not sure why the "something" should be some people in a small boat. Maybe start to claim tax from those who keep their funds in offshore tax havens. Or stop handing billions of public money to friends and family of the government for dodgy PPE. Etc etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers.
We want the Ministers acting mature but don't expect it of the electorate, that's humorous. Just how is SKS a leech or a traitor? Sore loser?
My rationale re Rwanda can be seen in the post above the one you quoted.
Starmer is a traitorous leech because he is a human rights lawyer. He has helped people who have no rights to stay in the UK to circumvent deportation.
He also voted in the commons too many times to count against any plan to reduce illegal migration.
All while not having any plans himself to deal with the urgent issue.
If they had no rights under the law to stay in the UK how could a lawyer help them to stay?
I and I believe there others think we should look after our own first when you see so meany homeless. Sure if the NHS was not being swamped day in and day out, every one could get a GP appointment, adorable housing for all.
And don't put this down to 14 years of Conservative government the truth is we are full.
Labourer is talking about new towns but we need to build City's Milton Keynes was the last new one we need one a year for the next 5 years
I know it’s a very simple and convenient to blame illegal immigrants for the NHS being ‘swamped’ but it really isn’t their fault. There are 8 million people on the waiting lists for treatment, this has not been caused by a couple of hundred thousand refugees who haven’t had their claims processed."So let them come and use a broken system they will have to wait like all the rest. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. Instead of looking at how they have been successful, they would rather take it away from them and jail them for their greed. No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality. okay
What’s saddest about this is that you can’t conceive of people feeling that way.
Making assumptions again…. "No, just firming a view on the available information. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. Instead of looking at how they have been successful, they would rather take it away from them and jail them for their greed. No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality. okay
What’s saddest about this is that you can’t conceive of people feeling that way.
Making assumptions again….
No, just firming a view on the available information. "Forming | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers.
We want the Ministers acting mature but don't expect it of the electorate, that's humorous. Just how is SKS a leech or a traitor? Sore loser?
My rationale re Rwanda can be seen in the post above the one you quoted.
Starmer is a traitorous leech because he is a human rights lawyer. He has helped people who have no rights to stay in the UK to circumvent deportation.
He also voted in the commons too many times to count against any plan to reduce illegal migration.
All while not having any plans himself to deal with the urgent issue.
If they had no rights under the law to stay in the UK how could a lawyer help them to stay?
I and I believe there others think we should look after our own first when you see so meany homeless. Sure if the NHS was not being swamped day in and day out, every one could get a GP appointment, adorable housing for all.
And don't put this down to 14 years of Conservative government the truth is we are full.
Labourer is talking about new towns but we need to build City's Milton Keynes was the last new one we need one a year for the next 5 years
I know it’s a very simple and convenient to blame illegal immigrants for the NHS being ‘swamped’ but it really isn’t their fault. There are 8 million people on the waiting lists for treatment, this has not been caused by a couple of hundred thousand refugees who haven’t had their claims processed.
So let them come and use a broken system they will have to wait like all the rest."They do have to wait like the rest of us. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. Instead of looking at how they have been successful, they would rather take it away from them and jail them for their greed. No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality. okay
What’s saddest about this is that you can’t conceive of people feeling that way.
Making assumptions again….
No, just firming a view on the available information.
Forming"You have made assumptions. When i said okay this was exactly what it meant. You are a socialist and there is no point me telling you what you think. And here we are, you telling me what I think, go figure. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. Instead of looking at how they have been successful, they would rather take it away from them and jail them for their greed. No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality." So apart from the rich just helping the poor how can leveling up be done. Some poor work there way to a better life some are happy not to work and live the life of there perants how where on the social. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers.
We want the Ministers acting mature but don't expect it of the electorate, that's humorous. Just how is SKS a leech or a traitor? Sore loser?
My rationale re Rwanda can be seen in the post above the one you quoted.
Starmer is a traitorous leech because he is a human rights lawyer. He has helped people who have no rights to stay in the UK to circumvent deportation.
He also voted in the commons too many times to count against any plan to reduce illegal migration.
All while not having any plans himself to deal with the urgent issue.
If they had no rights under the law to stay in the UK how could a lawyer help them to stay?
I and I believe there others think we should look after our own first when you see so meany homeless. Sure if the NHS was not being swamped day in and day out, every one could get a GP appointment, adorable housing for all.
And don't put this down to 14 years of Conservative government the truth is we are full.
Labourer is talking about new towns but we need to build City's Milton Keynes was the last new one we need one a year for the next 5 years
I know it’s a very simple and convenient to blame illegal immigrants for the NHS being ‘swamped’ but it really isn’t their fault. There are 8 million people on the waiting lists for treatment, this has not been caused by a couple of hundred thousand refugees who haven’t had their claims processed.
So let them come and use a broken system they will have to wait like all the rest.
They do have to wait like the rest of us."About Brook House and Tinsley House Brook House opened in March 2009 and is located on the south perimeter of Gatwick Airport. It has the capacity to hold 448 adult male residents, in en-suite bedrooms on 5 separate units that are connected by a communal corridor where facilities such as healthcare, gym, visits, education and recreational activities are located. Each residential unit has showers, a dining area, a Skype facility and access to a courtyard. Tinsley House opened in 1996 and was the first purpose-built IRC in the UK. It is located approx. half a mile from Brook House on the perimeter of Gatwick Airport. The centre underwent significant refurbishment in 2017 and has the capacity for 162 adult male residents in shared bedrooms with access to communal facilities such as a library, IT suite, gym, healthcare, a dining room and a courtyard. Both centres have dedicated welfare teams of officers trained to assist residents with accessing legal support, getting property or money transferred and other matters that may require resolution prior to leaving the UK. So if poor had support like this I'd be more ok but in Hastings there is no IT suit, no dedicated welfare unit, etc at the 4 Courts there are 96 flats in each block and it's damp full of bed bugs, and very little support for any one and if the lifts brake and your on the 16th floor with young children that's a clime with a bugy.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% ." "What's your evidence for this claim?" "Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles." So you're not going to tell us then. Fair enough. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions)." "That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth." "No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality." If that's true, why do so many socialists lead with 'it's terrible that rich people exist', and only mention poverty as an afterthought, or as above, not at all? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. So you're not going to tell us then. Fair enough." And how many are self-made like Richerd Brason. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers.
We want the Ministers acting mature but don't expect it of the electorate, that's humorous. Just how is SKS a leech or a traitor? Sore loser?
My rationale re Rwanda can be seen in the post above the one you quoted.
Starmer is a traitorous leech because he is a human rights lawyer. He has helped people who have no rights to stay in the UK to circumvent deportation.
He also voted in the commons too many times to count against any plan to reduce illegal migration.
All while not having any plans himself to deal with the urgent issue.
If they had no rights under the law to stay in the UK how could a lawyer help them to stay?
I and I believe there others think we should look after our own first when you see so meany homeless. Sure if the NHS was not being swamped day in and day out, every one could get a GP appointment, adorable housing for all.
And don't put this down to 14 years of Conservative government the truth is we are full.
Labourer is talking about new towns but we need to build City's Milton Keynes was the last new one we need one a year for the next 5 years "Adorable housing - I want one . Cannot think what you meant to put. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers.
We want the Ministers acting mature but don't expect it of the electorate, that's humorous. Just how is SKS a leech or a traitor? Sore loser?
My rationale re Rwanda can be seen in the post above the one you quoted.
Starmer is a traitorous leech because he is a human rights lawyer. He has helped people who have no rights to stay in the UK to circumvent deportation.
He also voted in the commons too many times to count against any plan to reduce illegal migration.
All while not having any plans himself to deal with the urgent issue.
If they had no rights under the law to stay in the UK how could a lawyer help them to stay?
I and I believe there others think we should look after our own first when you see so meany homeless. Sure if the NHS was not being swamped day in and day out, every one could get a GP appointment, adorable housing for all.
And don't put this down to 14 years of Conservative government the truth is we are full.
Labourer is talking about new towns but we need to build City's Milton Keynes was the last new one we need one a year for the next 5 years
Adorable housing - I want one . Cannot think what you meant to put."Sorry what bit are yiu referring to?? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality. If that's true, why do so many socialists lead with 'it's terrible that rich people exist', and only mention poverty as an afterthought, or as above, not at all?" People have the maddest views of socialists on here. It's like McCarthy era in the US. 'I heard Socialists want to train pigeons to shit on Rolls Royce cars.' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality. If that's true, why do so many socialists lead with 'it's terrible that rich people exist', and only mention poverty as an afterthought, or as above, not at all? People have the maddest views of socialists on here. It's like McCarthy era in the US. 'I heard Socialists want to train pigeons to shit on Rolls Royce cars.'" No there trains to shit on range rover's and porches down in the south. And it's not pigeons its seagulls. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality. If that's true, why do so many socialists lead with 'it's terrible that rich people exist', and only mention poverty as an afterthought, or as above, not at all? People have the maddest views of socialists on here. It's like McCarthy era in the US. 'I heard Socialists want to train pigeons to shit on Rolls Royce cars.' No there trains to shit on range rover's and porches down in the south. And it's not pigeons its seagulls." Marxist seagulls. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. Instead of looking at how they have been successful, they would rather take it away from them and jail them for their greed. No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality." And yet no one would go out and give out their own money to help out people. All of them keep blaming the government while the socialists could get together and make a huge impact on issues they "say" they care about. They speak a lot of words. But none of their actions align with what they speak. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. Instead of looking at how they have been successful, they would rather take it away from them and jail them for their greed. No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality. And yet no one would go out and give out their own money to help out people. All of them keep blaming the government while the socialists could get together and make a huge impact on issues they "say" they care about. They speak a lot of words. But none of their actions align with what they speak." They could fund housing for homeless easy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers.
We want the Ministers acting mature but don't expect it of the electorate, that's humorous. Just how is SKS a leech or a traitor? Sore loser?
My rationale re Rwanda can be seen in the post above the one you quoted.
Starmer is a traitorous leech because he is a human rights lawyer. He has helped people who have no rights to stay in the UK to circumvent deportation.
He also voted in the commons too many times to count against any plan to reduce illegal migration.
All while not having any plans himself to deal with the urgent issue.
If they had no rights under the law to stay in the UK how could a lawyer help them to stay?
I and I believe there others think we should look after our own first when you see so meany homeless. Sure if the NHS was not being swamped day in and day out, every one could get a GP appointment, adorable housing for all.
Adorable housing - I want one . Cannot think what you meant to put.
Sorry what bit are yiu referring to??"Clearer? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. Instead of looking at how they have been successful, they would rather take it away from them and jail them for their greed. No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality. And yet no one would go out and give out their own money to help out people. All of them keep blaming the government while the socialists could get together and make a huge impact on issues they "say" they care about. They speak a lot of words. But none of their actions align with what they speak. They could fund housing for homeless easy " They could but they won't. It's either because they never cared about the poor and are driven by envy of the rich or because they just want to blame the government and shift responsibility so that they can justify their own inaction for a cause they virtue signal a lot about. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Set up processing in France, The figure for successful applicants is ultimately well over 80% . Those who pass the test put them to work quickly. Those who don’t send them away but because the 80% get here on a ferry there won’t be enough left to justify the trouble or risk of the criminal gangs. They will find another scheme and the rejections will either settle in mainland Europe or go home if it’s safe to do so. Rwanda was never a solution as the numbers were so small the risk of coming was still well worth it. Rwanda was a deterrent, and would have worked if this country wasn't so soft. Instead of saying that as 80% are successful, just open the borders, we need to ask why we are accepting such a high percentage. It is much higher than the EU average and over 3 times the world average. It must be because our rules are too lax, or are applied too generously. We also get many applicants who have failed elsewhere. They should be automatically rejected - fail to get asylum in one country should mean rejected everywhere else. Appeals should also be stopped. Rejected should mean deportation quickly. Rwanda would have worked? Don't give up your day job .
And why wouldn't it, if it was implemented properly?
It should have been "Arrive illegally by boat, and the processing centre is in Rwanda". No questions asked, transport provided from the beach to the plane, clothes can dry on the flight.
However the traitorous leeches, otherwise known as the human rights lawyers, did everything to stop it. So called "charities" are also complicit.
We now have a traitorous leech as prime minister, so there is no chance of any plan reducing numbers.
We want the Ministers acting mature but don't expect it of the electorate, that's humorous. Just how is SKS a leech or a traitor? Sore loser?
My rationale re Rwanda can be seen in the post above the one you quoted.
Starmer is a traitorous leech because he is a human rights lawyer. He has helped people who have no rights to stay in the UK to circumvent deportation.
He also voted in the commons too many times to count against any plan to reduce illegal migration.
All while not having any plans himself to deal with the urgent issue.
If they had no rights under the law to stay in the UK how could a lawyer help them to stay?
I and I believe there others think we should look after our own first when you see so meany homeless. Sure if the NHS was not being swamped day in and day out, every one could get a GP appointment, adorable housing for all.
Adorable housing - I want one . Cannot think what you meant to put.
Sorry what bit are yiu referring to??
Clearer?"Sorry Affordable housing.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. Instead of looking at how they have been successful, they would rather take it away from them and jail them for their greed. No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality. And yet no one would go out and give out their own money to help out people. All of them keep blaming the government while the socialists could get together and make a huge impact on issues they "say" they care about. They speak a lot of words. But none of their actions align with what they speak. They could fund housing for homeless easy They could but they won't. It's either because they never cared about the poor and are driven by envy of the rich or because they just want to blame the government and shift responsibility so that they can justify their own inaction for a cause they virtue signal a lot about." I know I've said this before. But this view of left wing people or socialist is so far off the mark it's ridiculous. Left wing people want the state to create a society that has opportunities for people to make something of their lives. To treat the most vulnerable elements of society with dignity and respect. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. Instead of looking at how they have been successful, they would rather take it away from them and jail them for their greed. No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality. And yet no one would go out and give out their own money to help out people. All of them keep blaming the government while the socialists could get together and make a huge impact on issues they "say" they care about. They speak a lot of words. But none of their actions align with what they speak. They could fund housing for homeless easy They could but they won't. It's either because they never cared about the poor and are driven by envy of the rich or because they just want to blame the government and shift responsibility so that they can justify their own inaction for a cause they virtue signal a lot about. I know I've said this before. But this view of left wing people or socialist is so far off the mark it's ridiculous. Left wing people want the state to create a society that has opportunities for people to make something of their lives. To treat the most vulnerable elements of society with dignity and respect. " And yet none of you personally go out and do anything about it, which I have explained above. If you really care about it, there are numerous ways to go out and fix the issues yourself instead of virtue signalling on the internet and blaming governments for your inaction. How can the state create opportunities magically? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. Instead of looking at how they have been successful, they would rather take it away from them and jail them for their greed. No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality. And yet no one would go out and give out their own money to help out people. All of them keep blaming the government while the socialists could get together and make a huge impact on issues they "say" they care about. They speak a lot of words. But none of their actions align with what they speak. They could fund housing for homeless easy They could but they won't. It's either because they never cared about the poor and are driven by envy of the rich or because they just want to blame the government and shift responsibility so that they can justify their own inaction for a cause they virtue signal a lot about. I know I've said this before. But this view of left wing people or socialist is so far off the mark it's ridiculous. Left wing people want the state to create a society that has opportunities for people to make something of their lives. To treat the most vulnerable elements of society with dignity and respect. And yet none of you personally go out and do anything about it, " We do, we vote accordingly. But you mean we should pay out of our pockets for the failure of the government to look after the interests of the most vulnerable people in society? " which I have explained above. If you really care about it, there are numerous ways to go out and fix the issues yourself instead of virtue signalling on the internet and blaming governments for your inaction. How can the state create opportunities magically? " Sooooo ridiculously far from the mark. The reason I occasionally reply, I'm interested how you got to this bizarre view point. Are you aware that it's unorthodox, do you genuinely believe this stuff? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We do, we vote accordingly. But you mean we should pay out of our pockets for the failure of the government to look after the interests of the most vulnerable people in society? " Anyone can vote. If you really care about an issue, you will pay out of your own pockets. Government can't do magic to look after people. They need money and people to solve the issues. " Sooooo ridiculously far from the mark. The reason I occasionally reply, I'm interested how you got to this bizarre view point. Are you aware that it's unorthodox, do you genuinely believe this stuff?" It's definitely not unorthodox. As I have mentioned before, some popular philosphers share the same opinion. I am yet to see any on the left who can refute these views with their actions. Just like you are doing now, all I see is mental gymnastics to justify why you wouldn't make a personal sacrifice for a cause you say that you care about. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do people really believe (epecially to the Labour voters in here) that Keir Starmer will bring immigration levels down?" Nobody will because nobody has the will to do it. As I've pointed out numerous times the method is there, but no-one wants to follow the Australian way | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We do, we vote accordingly. But you mean we should pay out of our pockets for the failure of the government to look after the interests of the most vulnerable people in society? Anyone can vote. If you really care about an issue, you will pay out of your own pockets. Government can't do magic to look after people. They need money and people to solve the issues. Sooooo ridiculously far from the mark. The reason I occasionally reply, I'm interested how you got to this bizarre view point. Are you aware that it's unorthodox, do you genuinely believe this stuff? It's definitely not unorthodox. As I have mentioned before, some popular philosphers share the same opinion. I am yet to see any on the left who can refute these views with their actions. Just like you are doing now, all I see is mental gymnastics to justify why you wouldn't make a personal sacrifice for a cause you say that you care about." Your views are so outlandish it's hard to believe anyone actually thinks this. But fair play to you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody will because nobody has the will to do it. As I've pointed out numerous times the method is there, but no-one wants to follow the Australian way" And as has been pointed out to you numerous times, the Australian way relies upon having several thousand miles of open sea between you and the country where the immigrants come from. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's either because they never cared about the poor and are driven by envy of the rich or because they just want to blame the government and shift responsibility so that they can justify their own inaction for a cause they virtue signal a lot about." "I know I've said this before. But this view of left wing people or socialist is so far off the mark it's ridiculous. Left wing people want the state to create a society that has opportunities for people to make something of their lives. To treat the most vulnerable elements of society with dignity and respect." How about the policy to remove the charitable VAT exemption from non-state schools? That's very popular with the left, and it will decrease opportunities for poorer people. If your explanation is correct, why do left leaners support this policy? It makes complete sense if they are just following the politics of envy, but you say that isn't true. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's either because they never cared about the poor and are driven by envy of the rich or because they just want to blame the government and shift responsibility so that they can justify their own inaction for a cause they virtue signal a lot about. I know I've said this before. But this view of left wing people or socialist is so far off the mark it's ridiculous. Left wing people want the state to create a society that has opportunities for people to make something of their lives. To treat the most vulnerable elements of society with dignity and respect. How about the policy to remove the charitable VAT exemption from non-state schools? That's very popular with the left, and it will decrease opportunities for poorer people. If your explanation is correct, why do left leaners support this policy? It makes complete sense if they are just following the politics of envy, but you say that isn't true." I can't answer this subjective question that doesn't necessarily decrease opportunities for people on behalf of those people who support this policy, as I am not one of the people who has an opinion on this policy. However if you think this proves that the guy with the bonkers views of left wing people is correct. Fair play to you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do people really believe (epecially to the Labour voters in here) that Keir Starmer will bring immigration levels down?" Not a Labour voter and no they won't it's a hard nut to crak, but an easy one for opposition to pick holes in when it dose not work. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do people really believe (epecially to the Labour voters in here) that Keir Starmer will bring immigration levels down? Nobody will because nobody has the will to do it. As I've pointed out numerous times the method is there, but no-one wants to follow the Australian way" didn't Australia have deals with the countries they were sending them back to? With people coming direct ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's either because they never cared about the poor and are driven by envy of the rich or because they just want to blame the government and shift responsibility so that they can justify their own inaction for a cause they virtue signal a lot about. I know I've said this before. But this view of left wing people or socialist is so far off the mark it's ridiculous. Left wing people want the state to create a society that has opportunities for people to make something of their lives. To treat the most vulnerable elements of society with dignity and respect. How about the policy to remove the charitable VAT exemption from non-state schools? That's very popular with the left, and it will decrease opportunities for poorer people. If your explanation is correct, why do left leaners support this policy? It makes complete sense if they are just following the politics of envy, but you say that isn't true." by poorer, it often means those who can no longer afford fees (so still largely middle class if shelling out 15k a year net) or the handful of scholarships. The question is then balance. Does a few people closing the gap make up for the gap being there? (This policy is an interesting psych experiment as I wonder how it would be perceived if the Tories offered new tax breaks to public schools...) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We do, we vote accordingly. But you mean we should pay out of our pockets for the failure of the government to look after the interests of the most vulnerable people in society? Anyone can vote. If you really care about an issue, you will pay out of your own pockets. Government can't do magic to look after people. They need money and people to solve the issues. Sooooo ridiculously far from the mark. The reason I occasionally reply, I'm interested how you got to this bizarre view point. Are you aware that it's unorthodox, do you genuinely believe this stuff? It's definitely not unorthodox. As I have mentioned before, some popular philosphers share the same opinion. I am yet to see any on the left who can refute these views with their actions. Just like you are doing now, all I see is mental gymnastics to justify why you wouldn't make a personal sacrifice for a cause you say that you care about. Your views are so outlandish it's hard to believe anyone actually thinks this. But fair play to you. " I will stop believing when socialists or left wingers have a good refutation to prove that they indeed care about the causes they claim to care about. And as I mentioned above, it's not an outlandish claim either. Some popular philosophers(Nietzsche and Dostoevsky) mention the exact thing. Even in popular political debates, "politics of envy" is a commonly used phrase to criticise the left. So my views aren't outlandish. As I talk with more and more left wingers or socialists like you who try to run away from giving an explanation for why they wouldn't open their wallet for the causes they support, my confidence in these views are only strengthened further. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Labour will do what they did in the Bliar years, leave the door wide open to anyone who wants to come here. That will teach all those fascists a lesson, won’t it? Public housing, education, the NHS, non skilled employment, et al will take a massive hit. They will raid pension funds, and actually tax state pensions. They have promised to make things better, and they will. Just not for working class Brits of any race or sexual persuasion. " You’ve simply articulated exactly what the Tories have achieved in the last five years; other than raising pension funds! When will people realise that Boris bankrupted the UK with Covid payments for doing fuck all, this money has to paid back no matter what. There’s no such thing as free money, never was, nor will be! BTW, I’m not a Labour supporter, I didn’t even vote! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Labour will do what they did in the Bliar years, leave the door wide open to anyone who wants to come here. That will teach all those fascists a lesson, won’t it? Public housing, education, the NHS, non skilled employment, et al will take a massive hit. They will raid pension funds, and actually tax state pensions. They have promised to make things better, and they will. Just not for working class Brits of any race or sexual persuasion. You’ve simply articulated exactly what the Tories have achieved in the last five years; other than raising pension funds! When will people realise that Boris bankrupted the UK with Covid payments for doing fuck all, this money has to paid back no matter what. There’s no such thing as free money, never was, nor will be! BTW, I’m not a Labour supporter, I didn’t even vote!" Boris was way out of his depth, especially where Covid was concerned. His advisers were also inept to say the least. As someone who worked all the way through the pandemic, (except for ten days when I had Covid myself,) I couldn’t understand why people were able to take the piss out of the furlough scheme like they did. I know a cabbie who took six months off! I didn’t vote either, there was no Reform candidate in my area, and there was no chance of me voting for any of the others. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. Instead of looking at how they have been successful, they would rather take it away from them and jail them for their greed. No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality. And yet no one would go out and give out their own money to help out people. All of them keep blaming the government while the socialists could get together and make a huge impact on issues they "say" they care about. They speak a lot of words. But none of their actions align with what they speak. They could fund housing for homeless easy They could but they won't. It's either because they never cared about the poor and are driven by envy of the rich or because they just want to blame the government and shift responsibility so that they can justify their own inaction for a cause they virtue signal a lot about. I know I've said this before. But this view of left wing people or socialist is so far off the mark it's ridiculous. Left wing people want the state to create a society that has opportunities for people to make something of their lives. To treat the most vulnerable elements of society with dignity and respect. And yet none of you personally go out and do anything about it, which I have explained above. If you really care about it, there are numerous ways to go out and fix the issues yourself instead of virtue signalling on the internet and blaming governments for your inaction. How can the state create opportunities magically? " And how can individuals do the same? That's what it seems like you're saying. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Labour will do what they did in the Bliar years, leave the door wide open to anyone who wants to come here. That will teach all those fascists a lesson, won’t it? Public housing, education, the NHS, non skilled employment, et al will take a massive hit. They will raid pension funds, and actually tax state pensions. They have promised to make things better, and they will. Just not for working class Brits of any race or sexual persuasion. " Sounds like the past 14 years but yeah let's assume Labour will be worse  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. Instead of looking at how they have been successful, they would rather take it away from them and jail them for their greed. No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality. And yet no one would go out and give out their own money to help out people. All of them keep blaming the government while the socialists could get together and make a huge impact on issues they "say" they care about. They speak a lot of words. But none of their actions align with what they speak. They could fund housing for homeless easy They could but they won't. It's either because they never cared about the poor and are driven by envy of the rich or because they just want to blame the government and shift responsibility so that they can justify their own inaction for a cause they virtue signal a lot about. I know I've said this before. But this view of left wing people or socialist is so far off the mark it's ridiculous. Left wing people want the state to create a society that has opportunities for people to make something of their lives. To treat the most vulnerable elements of society with dignity and respect. And yet none of you personally go out and do anything about it, which I have explained above. If you really care about it, there are numerous ways to go out and fix the issues yourself instead of virtue signalling on the internet and blaming governments for your inaction. How can the state create opportunities magically? And how can individuals do the same? That's what it seems like you're saying." They can overpay tax, that is a simple way of contributing more, if enough people who claim they care do that, problems solved. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. Instead of looking at how they have been successful, they would rather take it away from them and jail them for their greed. No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality. And yet no one would go out and give out their own money to help out people. All of them keep blaming the government while the socialists could get together and make a huge impact on issues they "say" they care about. They speak a lot of words. But none of their actions align with what they speak. They could fund housing for homeless easy They could but they won't. It's either because they never cared about the poor and are driven by envy of the rich or because they just want to blame the government and shift responsibility so that they can justify their own inaction for a cause they virtue signal a lot about. I know I've said this before. But this view of left wing people or socialist is so far off the mark it's ridiculous. Left wing people want the state to create a society that has opportunities for people to make something of their lives. To treat the most vulnerable elements of society with dignity and respect. And yet none of you personally go out and do anything about it, which I have explained above. If you really care about it, there are numerous ways to go out and fix the issues yourself instead of virtue signalling on the internet and blaming governments for your inaction. How can the state create opportunities magically? And how can individuals do the same? That's what it seems like you're saying." You care about homelessness? Hunger? Orphaned children? There are charities for every one of them. They are much more efficient at operating than governments. You can donate to them. Even if you believe government should spend money on solving this, you can overpay taxes. Yet none of the people who claim to care about these issues want to do any of these. At least in my personal life, I have noticed my right wing friends doing a lot for charity than any of my left wing friends. I have also seen some statistics from US that Republican voters tend to donate more for charity than Democrat voters. I guess taking personal responsibility has much more effect on these issues than pointing fingers at government all the time? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. Instead of looking at how they have been successful, they would rather take it away from them and jail them for their greed. No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality. And yet no one would go out and give out their own money to help out people. All of them keep blaming the government while the socialists could get together and make a huge impact on issues they "say" they care about. They speak a lot of words. But none of their actions align with what they speak. They could fund housing for homeless easy They could but they won't. It's either because they never cared about the poor and are driven by envy of the rich or because they just want to blame the government and shift responsibility so that they can justify their own inaction for a cause they virtue signal a lot about. I know I've said this before. But this view of left wing people or socialist is so far off the mark it's ridiculous. Left wing people want the state to create a society that has opportunities for people to make something of their lives. To treat the most vulnerable elements of society with dignity and respect. And yet none of you personally go out and do anything about it, which I have explained above. If you really care about it, there are numerous ways to go out and fix the issues yourself instead of virtue signalling on the internet and blaming governments for your inaction. How can the state create opportunities magically? And how can individuals do the same? That's what it seems like you're saying. They can overpay tax, that is a simple way of contributing more, if enough people who claim they care do that, problems solved. " You mean for wealthier people to volunteer to pay more tax? None of them ‘care’ that much! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. Instead of looking at how they have been successful, they would rather take it away from them and jail them for their greed. No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality. And yet no one would go out and give out their own money to help out people. All of them keep blaming the government while the socialists could get together and make a huge impact on issues they "say" they care about. They speak a lot of words. But none of their actions align with what they speak. They could fund housing for homeless easy They could but they won't. It's either because they never cared about the poor and are driven by envy of the rich or because they just want to blame the government and shift responsibility so that they can justify their own inaction for a cause they virtue signal a lot about. I know I've said this before. But this view of left wing people or socialist is so far off the mark it's ridiculous. Left wing people want the state to create a society that has opportunities for people to make something of their lives. To treat the most vulnerable elements of society with dignity and respect. And yet none of you personally go out and do anything about it, which I have explained above. If you really care about it, there are numerous ways to go out and fix the issues yourself instead of virtue signalling on the internet and blaming governments for your inaction. How can the state create opportunities magically? And how can individuals do the same? That's what it seems like you're saying. You care about homelessness? Hunger? Orphaned children? There are charities for every one of them. They are much more efficient at operating than governments. You can donate to them. Even if you believe government should spend money on solving this, you can overpay taxes. Yet none of the people who claim to care about these issues want to do any of these. At least in my personal life, I have noticed my right wing friends doing a lot for charity than any of my left wing friends. I have also seen some statistics from US that Republican voters tend to donate more for charity than Democrat voters. I guess taking personal responsibility has much more effect on these issues than pointing fingers at government all the time?" Perhaps they have less disposable income (if any). After uni, I was looking forward to a decent income. Shit happens and I can only work part time. My income is poor, certainly a great deal less than the living wage. Should I pay more taxes because I care about social issues? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. Instead of looking at how they have been successful, they would rather take it away from them and jail them for their greed. No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality. And yet no one would go out and give out their own money to help out people. All of them keep blaming the government while the socialists could get together and make a huge impact on issues they "say" they care about. They speak a lot of words. But none of their actions align with what they speak. They could fund housing for homeless easy They could but they won't. It's either because they never cared about the poor and are driven by envy of the rich or because they just want to blame the government and shift responsibility so that they can justify their own inaction for a cause they virtue signal a lot about. I know I've said this before. But this view of left wing people or socialist is so far off the mark it's ridiculous. Left wing people want the state to create a society that has opportunities for people to make something of their lives. To treat the most vulnerable elements of society with dignity and respect. And yet none of you personally go out and do anything about it, which I have explained above. If you really care about it, there are numerous ways to go out and fix the issues yourself instead of virtue signalling on the internet and blaming governments for your inaction. How can the state create opportunities magically? And how can individuals do the same? That's what it seems like you're saying. They can overpay tax, that is a simple way of contributing more, if enough people who claim they care do that, problems solved. You mean for wealthier people to volunteer to pay more tax? None of them ‘care’ that much! "I wouldn't imagine that is aligned to left or right. Most people want to find tax loopholes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. Instead of looking at how they have been successful, they would rather take it away from them and jail them for their greed. No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality. And yet no one would go out and give out their own money to help out people. All of them keep blaming the government while the socialists could get together and make a huge impact on issues they "say" they care about. They speak a lot of words. But none of their actions align with what they speak. They could fund housing for homeless easy They could but they won't. It's either because they never cared about the poor and are driven by envy of the rich or because they just want to blame the government and shift responsibility so that they can justify their own inaction for a cause they virtue signal a lot about. I know I've said this before. But this view of left wing people or socialist is so far off the mark it's ridiculous. Left wing people want the state to create a society that has opportunities for people to make something of their lives. To treat the most vulnerable elements of society with dignity and respect. And yet none of you personally go out and do anything about it, which I have explained above. If you really care about it, there are numerous ways to go out and fix the issues yourself instead of virtue signalling on the internet and blaming governments for your inaction. How can the state create opportunities magically? And how can individuals do the same? That's what it seems like you're saying. You care about homelessness? Hunger? Orphaned children? There are charities for every one of them. They are much more efficient at operating than governments. You can donate to them. Even if you believe government should spend money on solving this, you can overpay taxes. Yet none of the people who claim to care about these issues want to do any of these. At least in my personal life, I have noticed my right wing friends doing a lot for charity than any of my left wing friends. I have also seen some statistics from US that Republican voters tend to donate more for charity than Democrat voters. I guess taking personal responsibility has much more effect on these issues than pointing fingers at government all the time? Perhaps they have less disposable income (if any). After uni, I was looking forward to a decent income. Shit happens and I can only work part time. My income is poor, certainly a great deal less than the living wage. Should I pay more taxes because I care about social issues?" I think that is the point being made, many on the left want others to pick up the cost for the things they care about, not themselves. An overpayment of £5 a month could improve services, it is easy to do too and if everyone did this it would put millions into the governments coffers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. Instead of looking at how they have been successful, they would rather take it away from them and jail them for their greed. No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality. And yet no one would go out and give out their own money to help out people. All of them keep blaming the government while the socialists could get together and make a huge impact on issues they "say" they care about. They speak a lot of words. But none of their actions align with what they speak. They could fund housing for homeless easy They could but they won't. It's either because they never cared about the poor and are driven by envy of the rich or because they just want to blame the government and shift responsibility so that they can justify their own inaction for a cause they virtue signal a lot about. I know I've said this before. But this view of left wing people or socialist is so far off the mark it's ridiculous. Left wing people want the state to create a society that has opportunities for people to make something of their lives. To treat the most vulnerable elements of society with dignity and respect. And yet none of you personally go out and do anything about it, which I have explained above. If you really care about it, there are numerous ways to go out and fix the issues yourself instead of virtue signalling on the internet and blaming governments for your inaction. How can the state create opportunities magically? And how can individuals do the same? That's what it seems like you're saying. You care about homelessness? Hunger? Orphaned children? There are charities for every one of them. They are much more efficient at operating than governments. You can donate to them. Even if you believe government should spend money on solving this, you can overpay taxes. Yet none of the people who claim to care about these issues want to do any of these. At least in my personal life, I have noticed my right wing friends doing a lot for charity than any of my left wing friends. I have also seen some statistics from US that Republican voters tend to donate more for charity than Democrat voters. I guess taking personal responsibility has much more effect on these issues than pointing fingers at government all the time? Perhaps they have less disposable income (if any). After uni, I was looking forward to a decent income. Shit happens and I can only work part time. My income is poor, certainly a great deal less than the living wage. Should I pay more taxes because I care about social issues?" You do what you can. People who have more money can do what they can. How is getting the government to force money out of other people to solve some issue in the society in the most inefficient way possible any better? The country does not have unlimited productivity to solve all the problems. Who decides how much tax anyone has to pay? And who decides how we prioritise the spending among the numerous problems we have? Each and every person has a different answer to the question and we end up collecting arbitrary taxes, spending them on arbitrary issues without solving any of them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The last time the gap between the haves and the have nots was this big was in Victorian times. The Tory party have overseen a huge shift of wealth to the richest 1% . What's your evidence for this claim? Reading data provided by independent analysis which is part of one of my roles. You can Google and will quickly find how wealth has shifted. It’s been a constant for the last thirty years. My statement pointed at the Tory party but in balance Tony Blair didn’t stop the increase in the gap. On LK today, the union boss remarked about the disparity of wealth - the 5 richest families having 500billion pounds between them which is equivalent to the wealth of 33 million (minions). That is what a socialist loses sleep over, an extremely rare and insignificant number of people with wealth. Instead of looking at how they have been successful, they would rather take it away from them and jail them for their greed. No, what socialists lose sleep over is the massive amount of people in poverty, and the horrendous inequality. And yet no one would go out and give out their own money to help out people. All of them keep blaming the government while the socialists could get together and make a huge impact on issues they "say" they care about. They speak a lot of words. But none of their actions align with what they speak. They could fund housing for homeless easy They could but they won't. It's either because they never cared about the poor and are driven by envy of the rich or because they just want to blame the government and shift responsibility so that they can justify their own inaction for a cause they virtue signal a lot about. I know I've said this before. But this view of left wing people or socialist is so far off the mark it's ridiculous. Left wing people want the state to create a society that has opportunities for people to make something of their lives. To treat the most vulnerable elements of society with dignity and respect. And yet none of you personally go out and do anything about it, which I have explained above. If you really care about it, there are numerous ways to go out and fix the issues yourself instead of virtue signalling on the internet and blaming governments for your inaction. How can the state create opportunities magically? And how can individuals do the same? That's what it seems like you're saying. They can overpay tax, that is a simple way of contributing more, if enough people who claim they care do that, problems solved. You mean for wealthier people to volunteer to pay more tax? None of them ‘care’ that much!
I wouldn't imagine that is aligned to left or right. Most people want to find tax loopholes."Indeed, and nobody got wealthy by giving money away. Or for that matter by being at all generous. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
