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 |  |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The 'offshore processing' notion is so ambiguous . . . * If people apply for immigration status lawfully now in the country of their current residency - then how has labour changed that - they are already doing it. * If people want to come here and think that they will be refused. They will hardly apply in the first place. * If they apply and are refused - chances are they will find an illegal way instead. So. What does 'offshore processing' really mean? " My take is rather than house them in UK hotels and barges, house them in offshore residences that are cheaper. Process them there. If accepted, bring em back to UK. If not deport from wherever they were staying. Let difference to Rwanda is WE not the host are processing and they get asylum in UK not host country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The 'offshore processing' notion is so ambiguous . . . * If people apply for immigration status lawfully now in the country of their current residency - then how has labour changed that - they are already doing it. * If people want to come here and think that they will be refused. They will hardly apply in the first place. * If they apply and are refused - chances are they will find an illegal way instead. So. What does 'offshore processing' really mean? My take is rather than house them in UK hotels and barges, house them in offshore residences that are cheaper. Process them there. If accepted, bring em back to UK. If not deport from wherever they were staying. Let difference to Rwanda is WE not the host are processing and they get asylum in UK not host country. " And an Offshore Residence is what? IOW IOM? Jersey? Oil-Platform? Wouldn't that just be Rwanda by any other name? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The 'offshore processing' notion is so ambiguous . . . * If people apply for immigration status lawfully now in the country of their current residency - then how has labour changed that - they are already doing it. * If people want to come here and think that they will be refused. They will hardly apply in the first place. * If they apply and are refused - chances are they will find an illegal way instead. So. What does 'offshore processing' really mean? My take is rather than house them in UK hotels and barges, house them in offshore residences that are cheaper. Process them there. If accepted, bring em back to UK. If not deport from wherever they were staying. Let difference to Rwanda is WE not the host are processing and they get asylum in UK not host country. And an Offshore Residence is what? IOW IOM? Jersey? Oil-Platform? Wouldn't that just be Rwanda by any other name? " Albania is looking promising for the 3rd party country of choice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The 'offshore processing' notion is so ambiguous . . . * If people apply for immigration status lawfully now in the country of their current residency - then how has labour changed that - they are already doing it. * If people want to come here and think that they will be refused. They will hardly apply in the first place. * If they apply and are refused - chances are they will find an illegal way instead. So. What does 'offshore processing' really mean? My take is rather than house them in UK hotels and barges, house them in offshore residences that are cheaper. Process them there. If accepted, bring em back to UK. If not deport from wherever they were staying. Let difference to Rwanda is WE not the host are processing and they get asylum in UK not host country. And an Offshore Residence is what? IOW IOM? Jersey? Oil-Platform? Wouldn't that just be Rwanda by any other name? Albania is looking promising for the 3rd party country of choice. " So. Rwanda by any other name. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The 'offshore processing' notion is so ambiguous . . . * If people apply for immigration status lawfully now in the country of their current residency - then how has labour changed that - they are already doing it. * If people want to come here and think that they will be refused. They will hardly apply in the first place. * If they apply and are refused - chances are they will find an illegal way instead. So. What does 'offshore processing' really mean? My take is rather than house them in UK hotels and barges, house them in offshore residences that are cheaper. Process them there. If accepted, bring em back to UK. If not deport from wherever they were staying. Let difference to Rwanda is WE not the host are processing and they get asylum in UK not host country. And an Offshore Residence is what? IOW IOM? Jersey? Oil-Platform? Wouldn't that just be Rwanda by any other name? Albania is looking promising for the 3rd party country of choice. So. Rwanda by any other name." I think so. I think Starmer feels that his ideas will float because he is an all round better person than what went before. Will shuffling the deck and dealing the same cards be accepted by the leftist progressives who want open border polices is the litmus test. The only way we can take action without having our hands tied is to either leave the 1951 refugee convention or push for a re-write, bringing it up to date for the world we live in today. Anything else we do will always be a compromise and open to loophole exploitation | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And an Offshore Residence is what? IOW IOM? Jersey? Oil-Platform? Wouldn't that just be Rwanda by any other name? " ********************************** Weeeeeell....., Regarding the English channel, there's at least three old but well built Napoleonic forts, (I'm sure there are others similar), oh, and just around the corner in the Thames estuary, there's the Maunsell forts to be had.... A bit of sweeping and decorating would make anyone welcome, surely...??! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Migrants are supposed to seek asylum/immigration in the first country they arrive at..." That's not true. They can travel through safe countries and apply in whichever country they can get to, as long as they have travelled "directly". So if they travel all through Europe, walking part of the way every day, and eventually arrive in the UK and claim asylum, that's OK. But if they stop for 3 months in France, that's not 'directly' and it's not OK. "... so let's say that's France. They should apply for asylum/immigration there. Then if accepted and if they wanted to, then apply for the same status to the UK." If they have already got asylum in France, they would be ineligible for asylum in the UK (or anywhere else), as there is no threat to them from their new host country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And an Offshore Residence is what? IOW IOM? Jersey? Oil-Platform? Wouldn't that just be Rwanda by any other name? ********************************** Weeeeeell....., Regarding the English channel, there's at least three old but well built Napoleonic forts, (I'm sure there are others similar), oh, and just around the corner in the Thames estuary, there's the Maunsell forts to be had.... A bit of sweeping and decorating would make anyone welcome, surely...??!" That wouldn't count as offshore though - in fact if you placed anyone there you have already taken responsibility for them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"See. Here's the thing: Migrants are supposed to seek asylum/immigration in the first country they arrive at, so let's say that's France. They should apply for asylum/immigration there." Apparently not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"See. Here's the thing: Migrants are supposed to seek asylum/immigration in the first country they arrive at, so let's say that's France. They should apply for asylum/immigration there. Apparently not. " And we have paid millions and millions and millions to help them NOT do it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And an Offshore Residence is what? IOW IOM? Jersey? Oil-Platform? Wouldn't that just be Rwanda by any other name? ********************************** Weeeeeell....., Regarding the English channel, there's at least three old but well built Napoleonic forts, (I'm sure there are others similar), oh, and just around the corner in the Thames estuary, there's the Maunsell forts to be had.... A bit of sweeping and decorating would make anyone welcome, surely...??! That wouldn't count as offshore though - in fact if you placed anyone there you have already taken responsibility for them." ********************************** Curses, you're quite correct Dear, my impetuousity had the better of me there....!!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Regarding the English channel, there's at least three old but well built Napoleonic forts, (I'm sure there are others similar), oh, and just around the corner in the Thames estuary, there's the Maunsell forts to be had.... A bit of sweeping and decorating would make anyone welcome, surely...??!" "That wouldn't count as offshore though - in fact if you placed anyone there you have already taken responsibility for them." Prince Michael of Sealand would very much disagree. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Regarding the English channel, there's at least three old but well built Napoleonic forts, (I'm sure there are others similar), oh, and just around the corner in the Thames estuary, there's the Maunsell forts to be had.... A bit of sweeping and decorating would make anyone welcome, surely...??! That wouldn't count as offshore though - in fact if you placed anyone there you have already taken responsibility for them. Prince Michael of Sealand would very much disagree." He can disagree all he like but . . . Maunsell forts, is still considered UK territory  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And an Offshore Residence is what? IOW IOM? Jersey? Oil-Platform? Wouldn't that just be Rwanda by any other name? ********************************** Weeeeeell....., Regarding the English channel, there's at least three old but well built Napoleonic forts, (I'm sure there are others similar), oh, and just around the corner in the Thames estuary, there's the Maunsell forts to be had.... A bit of sweeping and decorating would make anyone welcome, surely...??! That wouldn't count as offshore though - in fact if you placed anyone there you have already taken responsibility for them. ********************************** Curses, you're quite correct Dear, my impetuousity had the better of me there....!! " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We already give millions to France to stop them crossing yet we see more and more come over what will this new border team do better ?" The UN predict another 1.2bn entering Europe by 2080. We’ve seen nothing yet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And an Offshore Residence is what? IOW IOM? Jersey? Oil-Platform? Wouldn't that just be Rwanda by any other name? ********************************** Weeeeeell....., Regarding the English channel, there's at least three old but well built Napoleonic forts, (I'm sure there are others similar), oh, and just around the corner in the Thames estuary, there's the Maunsell forts to be had.... A bit of sweeping and decorating would make anyone welcome, surely...??! That wouldn't count as offshore though - in fact if you placed anyone there you have already taken responsibility for them." You should try walking it! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The 'offshore processing' notion is so ambiguous . . . * If people apply for immigration status lawfully now in the country of their current residency - then how has labour changed that - they are already doing it. * If people want to come here and think that they will be refused. They will hardly apply in the first place. * If they apply and are refused - chances are they will find an illegal way instead. So. What does 'offshore processing' really mean? My take is rather than house them in UK hotels and barges, house them in offshore residences that are cheaper. Process them there. If accepted, bring em back to UK. If not deport from wherever they were staying. Let difference to Rwanda is WE not the host are processing and they get asylum in UK not host country. And an Offshore Residence is what? IOW IOM? Jersey? Oil-Platform? Wouldn't that just be Rwanda by any other name? Albania is looking promising for the 3rd party country of choice. So. Rwanda by any other name." I think the difference is that not only would the UK be doing the processing but successful applicants get to come to the uk. In the Rwanda scheme a successful applicant would be given asylum in Rwanda and not return to the UK. What less clear about this off shore idea is what happens to those that are not successful but can't send them back as don't know where they came from for sure. Also will it really be cheaper than what is currently happening. How does it tie in with the other scheme of one in one out. Is it just trying to hide the problem rather than solving it. Lots to ponder I guess | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The 'offshore processing' notion is so ambiguous . . . * If people apply for immigration status lawfully now in the country of their current residency - then how has labour changed that - they are already doing it. * If people want to come here and think that they will be refused. They will hardly apply in the first place. * If they apply and are refused - chances are they will find an illegal way instead. So. What does 'offshore processing' really mean? My take is rather than house them in UK hotels and barges, house them in offshore residences that are cheaper. Process them there. If accepted, bring em back to UK. If not deport from wherever they were staying. Let difference to Rwanda is WE not the host are processing and they get asylum in UK not host country. And an Offshore Residence is what? IOW IOM? Jersey? Oil-Platform? Wouldn't that just be Rwanda by any other name? Albania is looking promising for the 3rd party country of choice. So. Rwanda by any other name. I think the difference is that not only would the UK be doing the processing but successful applicants get to come to the uk. In the Rwanda scheme a successful applicant would be given asylum in Rwanda and not return to the UK. What less clear about this off shore idea is what happens to those that are not successful but can't send them back as don't know where they came from for sure. Also will it really be cheaper than what is currently happening. How does it tie in with the other scheme of one in one out. Is it just trying to hide the problem rather than solving it. Lots to ponder I guess" that's my understanding as I tried to explain earlier. Tej difference between Rwanda is not where it's taking place but who is responsible for the processing. And Rwanda was unsafe because they have shown themselves to not process on accordance with international laws. Will it be cheaper ? That's find out. I can imagine it's cheoaer than hotels. I can also imagine that when we do the swap of the best crosdere will take the EU based seeker to the new processing place. And let's not forget that people who cross only make up about half of asylum seekers we get. So even if we break the gangs entity, we still have others to process. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could never understand the Rwanda idea, don't we own the Falklands? Perfect ... develop the island with infrastructure etc Or even a few islands off the coast of Scotland... Though to be honest, it will be comedy in action watching Labour control immigration... could always ask Blair for advice" Wouldn't even know were to start on the suggestion of the Falklands As for immigration under Blair, EU freedom of movement was very different than the "boat people" that what this thread is about. Oh FYI EU freedom of movement is part of the Treaty of Maastricht signed in 1992 under John major. You know what I give up I can't help being stupid  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could never understand the Rwanda idea, don't we own the Falklands? Perfect ... develop the island with infrastructure etc Or even a few islands off the coast of Scotland... Though to be honest, it will be comedy in action watching Labour control immigration... could always ask Blair for advice" Why comedy? Because they might try something grown up and cut back on the bullshit anti-immigrant rhetoric? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could never understand the Rwanda idea, don't we own the Falklands? Perfect ... develop the island with infrastructure etc Or even a few islands off the coast of Scotland... Though to be honest, it will be comedy in action watching Labour control immigration... could always ask Blair for advice Why comedy? Because they might try something grown up and cut back on the bullshit anti-immigrant rhetoric?" And if it don't work? Hasn't he pledged to cut down on immigration? Why do that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could never understand the Rwanda idea, don't we own the Falklands? Perfect ... develop the island with infrastructure etc Or even a few islands off the coast of Scotland... Though to be honest, it will be comedy in action watching Labour control immigration... could always ask Blair for advice Why comedy? Because they might try something grown up and cut back on the bullshit anti-immigrant rhetoric? And if it don't work? Hasn't he pledged to cut down on immigration? Why do that?" Immigration levels are set by the government. Or are you talking about illegal immigration? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could never understand the Rwanda idea, don't we own the Falklands? Perfect ... develop the island with infrastructure etc Or even a few islands off the coast of Scotland... Though to be honest, it will be comedy in action watching Labour control immigration... could always ask Blair for advice Why comedy? Because they might try something grown up and cut back on the bullshit anti-immigrant rhetoric? And if it don't work? Hasn't he pledged to cut down on immigration? Why do that? Immigration levels are set by the government. Or are you talking about illegal immigration?" I don't think starmer knows the difference, he's done pledges to please the red wall but, now in government... has to get results | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could never understand the Rwanda idea, don't we own the Falklands? Perfect ... develop the island with infrastructure etc Or even a few islands off the coast of Scotland... Though to be honest, it will be comedy in action watching Labour control immigration... could always ask Blair for advice Why comedy? Because they might try something grown up and cut back on the bullshit anti-immigrant rhetoric? And if it don't work? Hasn't he pledged to cut down on immigration? Why do that? Immigration levels are set by the government. Or are you talking about illegal immigration? I don't think starmer knows the difference, he's done pledges to please the red wall but, now in government... has to get results " Results on what? Of course he knows the difference. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could never understand the Rwanda idea, don't we own the Falklands? Perfect ... develop the island with infrastructure etc Or even a few islands off the coast of Scotland... Though to be honest, it will be comedy in action watching Labour control immigration... could always ask Blair for advice Why comedy? Because they might try something grown up and cut back on the bullshit anti-immigrant rhetoric? And if it don't work? Hasn't he pledged to cut down on immigration? Why do that? Immigration levels are set by the government. Or are you talking about illegal immigration? I don't think starmer knows the difference, he's done pledges to please the red wall but, now in government... has to get results Results on what? Of course he knows the difference. " Don't! You're making yourself look stupid  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could never understand the Rwanda idea, don't we own the Falklands? Perfect ... develop the island with infrastructure etc Or even a few islands off the coast of Scotland... Though to be honest, it will be comedy in action watching Labour control immigration... could always ask Blair for advice Why comedy? Because they might try something grown up and cut back on the bullshit anti-immigrant rhetoric? And if it don't work? Hasn't he pledged to cut down on immigration? Why do that? Immigration levels are set by the government. Or are you talking about illegal immigration? I don't think starmer knows the difference, he's done pledges to please the red wall but, now in government... has to get results Results on what? Of course he knows the difference. Don't! You're making yourself look stupid "I've no idea what the other guy is saying.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could never understand the Rwanda idea, don't we own the Falklands? Perfect ... develop the island with infrastructure etc Or even a few islands off the coast of Scotland... Though to be honest, it will be comedy in action watching Labour control immigration... could always ask Blair for advice Why comedy? Because they might try something grown up and cut back on the bullshit anti-immigrant rhetoric? And if it don't work? Hasn't he pledged to cut down on immigration? Why do that? Immigration levels are set by the government. Or are you talking about illegal immigration? I don't think starmer knows the difference, he's done pledges to please the red wall but, now in government... has to get results Results on what? Of course he knows the difference. Don't! You're making yourself look stupid
I've no idea what the other guy is saying. "Well yes You are stupid to think you can win an argument here. You can present facts, figures, proof but if someone has decided the sky is green and everybody else is wrong then you are stupid to think you can make them see otherwise "Arguing with an idiot creates 2 idiots" Mark twain | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could never understand the Rwanda idea, don't we own the Falklands? Perfect ... develop the island with infrastructure etc Or even a few islands off the coast of Scotland... Though to be honest, it will be comedy in action watching Labour control immigration... could always ask Blair for advice Why comedy? Because they might try something grown up and cut back on the bullshit anti-immigrant rhetoric? And if it don't work? Hasn't he pledged to cut down on immigration? Why do that? Immigration levels are set by the government. Or are you talking about illegal immigration? I don't think starmer knows the difference, he's done pledges to please the red wall but, now in government... has to get results Results on what? Of course he knows the difference. Don't! You're making yourself look stupid
I've no idea what the other guy is saying.
Well yes
You are stupid to think you can win an argument here. You can present facts, figures, proof but if someone has decided the sky is green and everybody else is wrong then you are stupid to think you can make them see otherwise
"Arguing with an idiot creates 2 idiots"
Mark twain "Fair enough, I don't even know what the point being made is though. The point keeps changing with every post. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could never understand the Rwanda idea, don't we own the Falklands? Perfect ... develop the island with infrastructure etc Or even a few islands off the coast of Scotland... Though to be honest, it will be comedy in action watching Labour control immigration... could always ask Blair for advice Why comedy? Because they might try something grown up and cut back on the bullshit anti-immigrant rhetoric? And if it don't work? Hasn't he pledged to cut down on immigration? Why do that? Immigration levels are set by the government. Or are you talking about illegal immigration? I don't think starmer knows the difference, he's done pledges to please the red wall but, now in government... has to get results Results on what? Of course he knows the difference. Don't! You're making yourself look stupid
I've no idea what the other guy is saying.
Well yes
You are stupid to think you can win an argument here. You can present facts, figures, proof but if someone has decided the sky is green and everybody else is wrong then you are stupid to think you can make them see otherwise
"Arguing with an idiot creates 2 idiots"
Mark twain
Fair enough, I don't even know what the point being made is though. The point keeps changing with every post."Bit like the "establishment" that sabotaged brexit and are trying to turn the country to an Islamic state. Never did get an answer to who the establishment are. I was stupid to even ask | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could never understand the Rwanda idea, don't we own the Falklands? Perfect ... develop the island with infrastructure etc Or even a few islands off the coast of Scotland... Though to be honest, it will be comedy in action watching Labour control immigration... could always ask Blair for advice Why comedy? Because they might try something grown up and cut back on the bullshit anti-immigrant rhetoric? And if it don't work? Hasn't he pledged to cut down on immigration? Why do that? Immigration levels are set by the government. Or are you talking about illegal immigration? I don't think starmer knows the difference, he's done pledges to please the red wall but, now in government... has to get results Results on what? Of course he knows the difference. Don't! You're making yourself look stupid
I've no idea what the other guy is saying.
Well yes
You are stupid to think you can win an argument here. You can present facts, figures, proof but if someone has decided the sky is green and everybody else is wrong then you are stupid to think you can make them see otherwise
"Arguing with an idiot creates 2 idiots"
Mark twain
Fair enough, I don't even know what the point being made is though. The point keeps changing with every post.
Bit like the "establishment" that sabotaged brexit and are trying to turn the country to an Islamic state. Never did get an answer to who the establishment are. I was stupid to even ask" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual some of you folks missed the point about the Rwanda Policy. While it was set up to deport illegal migrants to Rwanda (although none were taken there) the bigger picture was whoever decided to come to the country illegally would of been put off into going to a third world to be dealt with. " Do you really believe that or are you on a wind up? " I rather it was tried and tested first then ditched completely with no better alternative from Labour. Its not been a month yet but already I want the Labour Party out of government because I dont think I deal with them being in power for 5 more years of their foolery" In fairness you didn't want a Labour government in the first place. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual some of you folks missed the point about the Rwanda Policy. While it was set up to deport illegal migrants to Rwanda (although none were taken there) the bigger picture was whoever decided to come to the country illegally would of been put off into going to a third world to be dealt with. Do you really believe that or are you on a wind up? I rather it was tried and tested first then ditched completely with no better alternative from Labour. Its not been a month yet but already I want the Labour Party out of government because I dont think I deal with them being in power for 5 more years of their foolery In fairness you didn't want a Labour government in the first place. " Come on then Johnny boy, since you seem to have an answer for everything, what is your solution? I'm all ears | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual some of you folks missed the point about the Rwanda Policy. While it was set up to deport illegal migrants to Rwanda (although none were taken there) the bigger picture was whoever decided to come to the country illegally would of been put off into going to a third world to be dealt with. Do you really believe that or are you on a wind up? I rather it was tried and tested first then ditched completely with no better alternative from Labour. Its not been a month yet but already I want the Labour Party out of government because I dont think I deal with them being in power for 5 more years of their foolery In fairness you didn't want a Labour government in the first place. Come on then Johnny boy, since you seem to have an answer for everything, what is your solution? I'm all ears " The solution? This chap previously said before the election that he didn't want Labour to be in power. He still doesn't. He's probably going to have to wait for another election. Or start writing to his MP in the meantime to effect change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual some of you folks missed the point about the Rwanda Policy. While it was set up to deport illegal migrants to Rwanda (although none were taken there) the bigger picture was whoever decided to come to the country illegally would of been put off into going to a third world to be dealt with. I rather it was tried and tested first then ditched completely with no better alternative from Labour. Its not been a month yet but already I want the Labour Party out of government because I dont think I deal with them being in power for 5 more years of their foolery" although no one went, is to be a deterrent? Imo the Tories had enough time to show whether this was viable or not, and provide evidence for the deterrence. In the end they managed to fall over at every stage. They didnt even front up a number of expected deportations to make this seem like a deterrence. I can I shine the gangs were laughing at us as it could easily be spun as showing how few ideas the UK had. It's not been a month yet and you expect labour to have all the answers. Even reform gave themselves 100 days to enact quick fixes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How long does Labour get before they can no longer blame the Tories for the country’s ongoing problems?" 10 years and 1 day | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual some of you folks missed the point about the Rwanda Policy. While it was set up to deport illegal migrants to Rwanda (although none were taken there) the bigger picture was whoever decided to come to the country illegally would of been put off into going to a third world to be dealt with. I rather it was tried and tested first then ditched completely with no better alternative from Labour. Its not been a month yet but already I want the Labour Party out of government because I dont think I deal with them being in power for 5 more years of their fooleryalthough no one went, is to be a deterrent? Imo the Tories had enough time to show whether this was viable or not, and provide evidence for the deterrence. In the end they managed to fall over at every stage. They didnt even front up a number of expected deportations to make this seem like a deterrence. I can I shine the gangs were laughing at us as it could easily be spun as showing how few ideas the UK had. It's not been a month yet and you expect labour to have all the answers. Even reform gave themselves 100 days to enact quick fixes. " I think you should consider what the Irish would say about Rwanda being a deterrent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual some of you folks missed the point about the Rwanda Policy. While it was set up to deport illegal migrants to Rwanda (although none were taken there) the bigger picture was whoever decided to come to the country illegally would of been put off into going to a third world to be dealt with. I rather it was tried and tested first then ditched completely with no better alternative from Labour. Its not been a month yet but already I want the Labour Party out of government because I dont think I deal with them being in power for 5 more years of their fooleryalthough no one went, is to be a deterrent? Imo the Tories had enough time to show whether this was viable or not, and provide evidence for the deterrence. In the end they managed to fall over at every stage. They didnt even front up a number of expected deportations to make this seem like a deterrence. I can I shine the gangs were laughing at us as it could easily be spun as showing how few ideas the UK had. It's not been a month yet and you expect labour to have all the answers. Even reform gave themselves 100 days to enact quick fixes. I think you should consider what the Irish would say about Rwanda being a deterrent." I imagine Ireland has it's own agenda here. But I don't think that message will be the one that potential crossers would get to hear. The gangs are smarter than that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual some of you folks missed the point about the Rwanda Policy. While it was set up to deport illegal migrants to Rwanda (although none were taken there) the bigger picture was whoever decided to come to the country illegally would of been put off into going to a third world to be dealt with. I rather it was tried and tested first then ditched completely with no better alternative from Labour. Its not been a month yet but already I want the Labour Party out of government because I dont think I deal with them being in power for 5 more years of their fooleryalthough no one went, is to be a deterrent? Imo the Tories had enough time to show whether this was viable or not, and provide evidence for the deterrence. In the end they managed to fall over at every stage. They didnt even front up a number of expected deportations to make this seem like a deterrence. I can I shine the gangs were laughing at us as it could easily be spun as showing how few ideas the UK had. It's not been a month yet and you expect labour to have all the answers. Even reform gave themselves 100 days to enact quick fixes. I think you should consider what the Irish would say about Rwanda being a deterrent.I imagine Ireland has it's own agenda here. But I don't think that message will be the one that potential crossers would get to hear. The gangs are smarter than that. " The reason they had an influx was according to many making the crossing, Rwanda threats. So the message did get through, in fact we saw an increase as the timeline started to come in and Sunak promised to get a plane off the ground. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How long does Labour get before they can no longer blame the Tories for the country’s ongoing problems?" Ah welcome back. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual some of you folks missed the point about the Rwanda Policy. While it was set up to deport illegal migrants to Rwanda (although none were taken there) the bigger picture was whoever decided to come to the country illegally would of been put off into going to a third world to be dealt with. I rather it was tried and tested first then ditched completely with no better alternative from Labour. Its not been a month yet but already I want the Labour Party out of government because I dont think I deal with them being in power for 5 more years of their fooleryalthough no one went, is to be a deterrent? Imo the Tories had enough time to show whether this was viable or not, and provide evidence for the deterrence. In the end they managed to fall over at every stage. They didnt even front up a number of expected deportations to make this seem like a deterrence. I can I shine the gangs were laughing at us as it could easily be spun as showing how few ideas the UK had. It's not been a month yet and you expect labour to have all the answers. Even reform gave themselves 100 days to enact quick fixes. I think you should consider what the Irish would say about Rwanda being a deterrent." They would laugh at the people who believed it was anything other than an attempt to attract voters from people who are obsessed with blaming immigrants for everything. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual some of you folks missed the point about the Rwanda Policy. While it was set up to deport illegal migrants to Rwanda (although none were taken there) the bigger picture was whoever decided to come to the country illegally would of been put off into going to a third world to be dealt with. I rather it was tried and tested first then ditched completely with no better alternative from Labour. Its not been a month yet but already I want the Labour Party out of government because I dont think I deal with them being in power for 5 more years of their fooleryalthough no one went, is to be a deterrent? Imo the Tories had enough time to show whether this was viable or not, and provide evidence for the deterrence. In the end they managed to fall over at every stage. They didnt even front up a number of expected deportations to make this seem like a deterrence. I can I shine the gangs were laughing at us as it could easily be spun as showing how few ideas the UK had. It's not been a month yet and you expect labour to have all the answers. Even reform gave themselves 100 days to enact quick fixes. I think you should consider what the Irish would say about Rwanda being a deterrent.I imagine Ireland has it's own agenda here. But I don't think that message will be the one that potential crossers would get to hear. The gangs are smarter than that. The reason they had an influx was according to many making the crossing, Rwanda threats. So the message did get through, in fact we saw an increase as the timeline started to come in and Sunak promised to get a plane off the ground." which time period (eg dates) should I be looking at ? The 2022-2024 numbers look kinda similar shape. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How long does Labour get before they can no longer blame the Tories for the country’s ongoing problems?" Margaret Thatcher went on for years blaming Labour or telling us how they would break the country again. Sunak spent his entire election campaign telling us what Labour would or wouldn't be doing. Labour should reveal whatever they inherit, but attacking the previous government becomes a turn-off fairly quickly. I suspect Labour will leave Farage to continue to attack the Tories anyway. Reform has said it wants to destroy the Tories, not Labour. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual some of you folks missed the point about the Rwanda Policy. While it was set up to deport illegal migrants to Rwanda (although none were taken there) the bigger picture was whoever decided to come to the country illegally would of been put off into going to a third world to be dealt with. I rather it was tried and tested first then ditched completely with no better alternative from Labour. Its not been a month yet but already I want the Labour Party out of government because I dont think I deal with them being in power for 5 more years of their fooleryalthough no one went, is to be a deterrent? Imo the Tories had enough time to show whether this was viable or not, and provide evidence for the deterrence. In the end they managed to fall over at every stage. They didnt even front up a number of expected deportations to make this seem like a deterrence. I can I shine the gangs were laughing at us as it could easily be spun as showing how few ideas the UK had. It's not been a month yet and you expect labour to have all the answers. Even reform gave themselves 100 days to enact quick fixes. I think you should consider what the Irish would say about Rwanda being a deterrent.I imagine Ireland has it's own agenda here. But I don't think that message will be the one that potential crossers would get to hear. The gangs are smarter than that. The reason they had an influx was according to many making the crossing, Rwanda threats. So the message did get through, in fact we saw an increase as the timeline started to come in and Sunak promised to get a plane off the ground.which time period (eg dates) should I be looking at ? The 2022-2024 numbers look kinda similar shape. " I know you love your figures But try looking at the news reports and interviews from around April, the Irish seem convinced Rwanda is having an effect.
Like this statement: Deputy Irish premier Micheal Martin claimed on Friday there had been a rise in migrants crossing the border from Northern Ireland into the Republic over fears of being sent on a one-way flight to the east African nation | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual some of you folks missed the point about the Rwanda Policy. While it was set up to deport illegal migrants to Rwanda (although none were taken there) the bigger picture was whoever decided to come to the country illegally would of been put off into going to a third world to be dealt with. I rather it was tried and tested first then ditched completely with no better alternative from Labour. Its not been a month yet but already I want the Labour Party out of government because I dont think I deal with them being in power for 5 more years of their fooleryalthough no one went, is to be a deterrent? Imo the Tories had enough time to show whether this was viable or not, and provide evidence for the deterrence. In the end they managed to fall over at every stage. They didnt even front up a number of expected deportations to make this seem like a deterrence. I can I shine the gangs were laughing at us as it could easily be spun as showing how few ideas the UK had. It's not been a month yet and you expect labour to have all the answers. Even reform gave themselves 100 days to enact quick fixes. I think you should consider what the Irish would say about Rwanda being a deterrent.I imagine Ireland has it's own agenda here. But I don't think that message will be the one that potential crossers would get to hear. The gangs are smarter than that. The reason they had an influx was according to many making the crossing, Rwanda threats. So the message did get through, in fact we saw an increase as the timeline started to come in and Sunak promised to get a plane off the ground.which time period (eg dates) should I be looking at ? The 2022-2024 numbers look kinda similar shape. I know you love your figures But try looking at the news reports and interviews from around April, the Irish seem convinced Rwanda is having an effect.
Like this statement: Deputy Irish premier Micheal Martin claimed on Friday there had been a rise in migrants crossing the border from Northern Ireland into the Republic over fears of being sent on a one-way flight to the east African nation "oh sorry, spike in UK to Ireland. Who knew the UK was a war zone  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual some of you folks missed the point about the Rwanda Policy. While it was set up to deport illegal migrants to Rwanda (although none were taken there) the bigger picture was whoever decided to come to the country illegally would of been put off into going to a third world to be dealt with. I rather it was tried and tested first then ditched completely with no better alternative from Labour. Its not been a month yet but already I want the Labour Party out of government because I dont think I deal with them being in power for 5 more years of their fooleryalthough no one went, is to be a deterrent? Imo the Tories had enough time to show whether this was viable or not, and provide evidence for the deterrence. In the end they managed to fall over at every stage. They didnt even front up a number of expected deportations to make this seem like a deterrence. I can I shine the gangs were laughing at us as it could easily be spun as showing how few ideas the UK had. It's not been a month yet and you expect labour to have all the answers. Even reform gave themselves 100 days to enact quick fixes. I think you should consider what the Irish would say about Rwanda being a deterrent.I imagine Ireland has it's own agenda here. But I don't think that message will be the one that potential crossers would get to hear. The gangs are smarter than that. The reason they had an influx was according to many making the crossing, Rwanda threats. So the message did get through, in fact we saw an increase as the timeline started to come in and Sunak promised to get a plane off the ground.which time period (eg dates) should I be looking at ? The 2022-2024 numbers look kinda similar shape. I know you love your figures But try looking at the news reports and interviews from around April, the Irish seem convinced Rwanda is having an effect.
Like this statement: Deputy Irish premier Micheal Martin claimed on Friday there had been a rise in migrants crossing the border from Northern Ireland into the Republic over fears of being sent on a one-way flight to the east African nation oh sorry, spike in UK to Ireland. Who knew the UK was a war zone "but my pou t was whether the message got to those who were thinking of crossing to the UK. Not those in the UK. (Hence my confusion) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual some of you folks missed the point about the Rwanda Policy. While it was set up to deport illegal migrants to Rwanda (although none were taken there) the bigger picture was whoever decided to come to the country illegally would of been put off into going to a third world to be dealt with. I rather it was tried and tested first then ditched completely with no better alternative from Labour. Its not been a month yet but already I want the Labour Party out of government because I dont think I deal with them being in power for 5 more years of their fooleryalthough no one went, is to be a deterrent? Imo the Tories had enough time to show whether this was viable or not, and provide evidence for the deterrence. In the end they managed to fall over at every stage. They didnt even front up a number of expected deportations to make this seem like a deterrence. I can I shine the gangs were laughing at us as it could easily be spun as showing how few ideas the UK had. It's not been a month yet and you expect labour to have all the answers. Even reform gave themselves 100 days to enact quick fixes. I think you should consider what the Irish would say about Rwanda being a deterrent.I imagine Ireland has it's own agenda here. But I don't think that message will be the one that potential crossers would get to hear. The gangs are smarter than that. The reason they had an influx was according to many making the crossing, Rwanda threats. So the message did get through, in fact we saw an increase as the timeline started to come in and Sunak promised to get a plane off the ground.which time period (eg dates) should I be looking at ? The 2022-2024 numbers look kinda similar shape. I know you love your figures But try looking at the news reports and interviews from around April, the Irish seem convinced Rwanda is having an effect.
Like this statement: Deputy Irish premier Micheal Martin claimed on Friday there had been a rise in migrants crossing the border from Northern Ireland into the Republic over fears of being sent on a one-way flight to the east African nation oh sorry, spike in UK to Ireland. Who knew the UK was a war zone but my pou t was whether the message got to those who were thinking of crossing to the UK. Not those in the UK. (Hence my confusion) "I think it did, with the numbers rising ahead of any court hearings or potential dates, from memory. it would have played right into the smugglers hands, get over quickly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual some of you folks missed the point about the Rwanda Policy. While it was set up to deport illegal migrants to Rwanda (although none were taken there) the bigger picture was whoever decided to come to the country illegally would of been put off into going to a third world to be dealt with. I rather it was tried and tested first then ditched completely with no better alternative from Labour. Its not been a month yet but already I want the Labour Party out of government because I dont think I deal with them being in power for 5 more years of their fooleryalthough no one went, is to be a deterrent? Imo the Tories had enough time to show whether this was viable or not, and provide evidence for the deterrence. In the end they managed to fall over at every stage. They didnt even front up a number of expected deportations to make this seem like a deterrence. I can I shine the gangs were laughing at us as it could easily be spun as showing how few ideas the UK had. It's not been a month yet and you expect labour to have all the answers. Even reform gave themselves 100 days to enact quick fixes. I think you should consider what the Irish would say about Rwanda being a deterrent.I imagine Ireland has it's own agenda here. But I don't think that message will be the one that potential crossers would get to hear. The gangs are smarter than that. The reason they had an influx was according to many making the crossing, Rwanda threats. So the message did get through, in fact we saw an increase as the timeline started to come in and Sunak promised to get a plane off the ground.which time period (eg dates) should I be looking at ? The 2022-2024 numbers look kinda similar shape. I know you love your figures But try looking at the news reports and interviews from around April, the Irish seem convinced Rwanda is having an effect.
Like this statement: Deputy Irish premier Micheal Martin claimed on Friday there had been a rise in migrants crossing the border from Northern Ireland into the Republic over fears of being sent on a one-way flight to the east African nation oh sorry, spike in UK to Ireland. Who knew the UK was a war zone but my pou t was whether the message got to those who were thinking of crossing to the UK. Not those in the UK. (Hence my confusion)
I think it did, with the numbers rising ahead of any court hearings or potential dates, from memory.
it would have played right into the smugglers hands, get over quickly.
"no doubt the smugglers charged more for next day delivery... So the net effect of Rwanda was to make the smugglers richer ... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual some of you folks missed the point about the Rwanda Policy. While it was set up to deport illegal migrants to Rwanda (although none were taken there) the bigger picture was whoever decided to come to the country illegally would of been put off into going to a third world to be dealt with. I rather it was tried and tested first then ditched completely with no better alternative from Labour. Its not been a month yet but already I want the Labour Party out of government because I dont think I deal with them being in power for 5 more years of their fooleryalthough no one went, is to be a deterrent? Imo the Tories had enough time to show whether this was viable or not, and provide evidence for the deterrence. In the end they managed to fall over at every stage. They didnt even front up a number of expected deportations to make this seem like a deterrence. I can I shine the gangs were laughing at us as it could easily be spun as showing how few ideas the UK had. It's not been a month yet and you expect labour to have all the answers. Even reform gave themselves 100 days to enact quick fixes. I think you should consider what the Irish would say about Rwanda being a deterrent.I imagine Ireland has it's own agenda here. But I don't think that message will be the one that potential crossers would get to hear. The gangs are smarter than that. The reason they had an influx was according to many making the crossing, Rwanda threats. So the message did get through, in fact we saw an increase as the timeline started to come in and Sunak promised to get a plane off the ground.which time period (eg dates) should I be looking at ? The 2022-2024 numbers look kinda similar shape. I know you love your figures But try looking at the news reports and interviews from around April, the Irish seem convinced Rwanda is having an effect.
Like this statement: Deputy Irish premier Micheal Martin claimed on Friday there had been a rise in migrants crossing the border from Northern Ireland into the Republic over fears of being sent on a one-way flight to the east African nation oh sorry, spike in UK to Ireland. Who knew the UK was a war zone but my pou t was whether the message got to those who were thinking of crossing to the UK. Not those in the UK. (Hence my confusion)
I think it did, with the numbers rising ahead of any court hearings or potential dates, from memory.
it would have played right into the smugglers hands, get over quickly.
no doubt the smugglers charged more for next day delivery... So the net effect of Rwanda was to make the smugglers richer ... "More than likely, that is what happens when projects hit delays, it becomes more costly somewhere in the chain. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual some of you folks missed the point about the Rwanda Policy. While it was set up to deport illegal migrants to Rwanda (although none were taken there) the bigger picture was whoever decided to come to the country illegally would of been put off into going to a third world to be dealt with. I rather it was tried and tested first then ditched completely with no better alternative from Labour. Its not been a month yet but already I want the Labour Party out of government because I dont think I deal with them being in power for 5 more years of their fooleryalthough no one went, is to be a deterrent? Imo the Tories had enough time to show whether this was viable or not, and provide evidence for the deterrence. In the end they managed to fall over at every stage. They didnt even front up a number of expected deportations to make this seem like a deterrence. I can I shine the gangs were laughing at us as it could easily be spun as showing how few ideas the UK had. It's not been a month yet and you expect labour to have all the answers. Even reform gave themselves 100 days to enact quick fixes. I think you should consider what the Irish would say about Rwanda being a deterrent.I imagine Ireland has it's own agenda here. But I don't think that message will be the one that potential crossers would get to hear. The gangs are smarter than that. The reason they had an influx was according to many making the crossing, Rwanda threats. So the message did get through, in fact we saw an increase as the timeline started to come in and Sunak promised to get a plane off the ground.which time period (eg dates) should I be looking at ? The 2022-2024 numbers look kinda similar shape. I know you love your figures But try looking at the news reports and interviews from around April, the Irish seem convinced Rwanda is having an effect.
Like this statement: Deputy Irish premier Micheal Martin claimed on Friday there had been a rise in migrants crossing the border from Northern Ireland into the Republic over fears of being sent on a one-way flight to the east African nation "They certainly blamed the Rwanda policy for the influx and were feeling the effects. Given the recent violence in southern Ireland against asylum accommodation it looks like they are still having a few problems. That or they are also mad right wing nut jobs as well | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
