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 |
"FFS I've just watched a labour MP asking how we can cut benefits of all kinds whilst preparing for war. What is wrong with these fools? The latest review cites 6 subs in ten years and a similar amount of munitions factories. Oooh, I'm sure any potential enemies will be shitting themselves. By the time we have anything in operation they'll be obsolete. We need to be on a war footing now and cut £30bn minimum a year from the wasteful NHS to bolster defence spending and if you're 18-30 without a disability you're doing national service for a couple years paid for by your benefits" Labour are whistling out of their arse holes over this one increasing spending to 3.5 of gdp but if gdp falls there is no increase in spending. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We need to be on a war footing now and cut £30bn minimum a year from the wasteful NHS to bolster defence spending and if you're 18-30 without a disability you're doing national service for a couple years paid for by your benefits" A common theme from those who demand national service is that a) they’re too young to have done it before, and b) they’re too old to do it now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We need to be on a war footing now and cut £30bn minimum a year from the wasteful NHS to bolster defence spending and if you're 18-30 without a disability you're doing national service for a couple years paid for by your benefits A common theme from those who demand national service is that a) they’re too young to have done it before, and b) they’re too old to do it now." The forces leadership don't want national service but clearly state that we need to boost numbers in a well motivated and well equipped professional military. A load of amateurs who don't want to be there running around is not going to deter an aggressor and is basically just going to be another waste of resources. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We need to be on a war footing now and cut £30bn minimum a year from the wasteful NHS to bolster defence spending and if you're 18-30 without a disability you're doing national service for a couple years paid for by your benefits" Less of the wasteful NHS. People need to take responsibility for themselves. The nhs spends £40bn a year treating 25 million salad dodgers, 15 million obese, drug addicts, alcoholics and smokers illnesses and conditions. Another £20bn on cost of malnutrition. One million youth unemployed are not to blame for this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government can’t even stop a few illegal immigrants crossing the Channel. Why they think they are going to be successful in fighting any major war is beyond me. Who exactly do they think is going to be fighting this war for them? The people they’ve spent years denigrating as racists and bigots? Off the scale delusion." MOD threaten to dock your pay if you complain about substandard housing. The state provides hotels for illegal immigrants while veterans can’t get social housing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government can’t even stop a few illegal immigrants crossing the Channel. Why they think they are going to be successful in fighting any major war is beyond me. Who exactly do they think is going to be fighting this war for them? The people they’ve spent years denigrating as racists and bigots? Off the scale delusion. MOD threaten to dock your pay if you complain about substandard housing. The state provides hotels for illegal immigrants while veterans can’t get social housing. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government can’t even stop a few illegal immigrants crossing the Channel. Why they think they are going to be successful in fighting any major war is beyond me. Who exactly do they think is going to be fighting this war for them? The people they’ve spent years denigrating as racists and bigots? Off the scale delusion." Really? You're conveniently forgetting about the Salisbury incident where the Russian government sanctioned and carried out an attack using a highly deadly nerve agent causing the death of innocent civilians,this was carried out under the stewardship of the conservative government and nothing was done other than maybe a few harsh words! Our lack of defence spending over decades and various governments has lead to us to be weakened and in the eyes of would be aggressor's, vulnerable. We need to bolster our defense and capabilities, not in an attempt to make us a superpower but strong enough to withstand an aggressive attempt to take the country. It's not about now it's for the next 50 years to guarantee our citizens don't have to go through what the people of the Ukrainian are currently suffering. I do agree with the comment regarding the boats being allowed to cross. At time has come for a hard stance on this closing the vulnerable areas with the use of military personnel, not for aggressive but proactive reasons. More focus on stopping the people organising the trafficking and providing the boats. Stop all crossings before they start, provide a safe haven within the source countries where they come from allowing a coalition of countries to police it and process asylum applications in a correct and fair manner, so everyone has a responsibility to house those seeking persecution and safety not just two or three countries. Heafty fines and sanctions against counties that ignore this . Example: France just standing back letting people travel unhindered to get to beaches and allowing them to cross. So I think defence spending is vital and sensible, fund's? Well the stopping of ridiculous projects such as smart motorway's and HS2 should provide more than enough money,these projects were only invented to line the pockets of the rich Tory party leaders and their cronies who just happened to be shareholders of companies involved in the projects and land owners who just so happened to own land that had a compulsory purchase order put on on brought back at an inflated price (Johnson) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government can’t even stop a few illegal immigrants crossing the Channel. Why they think they are going to be successful in fighting any major war is beyond me. Who exactly do they think is going to be fighting this war for them? The people they’ve spent years denigrating as racists and bigots? Off the scale delusion. Really? You're conveniently forgetting about the Salisbury incident where the Russian government sanctioned and carried out an attack using a highly deadly nerve agent causing the death of innocent civilians,this was carried out under the stewardship of the conservative government and nothing was done other than maybe a few harsh words! Our lack of defence spending over decades and various governments has lead to us to be weakened and in the eyes of would be aggressor's, vulnerable. We need to bolster our defense and capabilities, not in an attempt to make us a superpower but strong enough to withstand an aggressive attempt to take the country. It's not about now it's for the next 50 years to guarantee our citizens don't have to go through what the people of the Ukrainian are currently suffering. I do agree with the comment regarding the boats being allowed to cross. At time has come for a hard stance on this closing the vulnerable areas with the use of military personnel, not for aggressive but proactive reasons. More focus on stopping the people organising the trafficking and providing the boats. Stop all crossings before they start, provide a safe haven within the source countries where they come from allowing a coalition of countries to police it and process asylum applications in a correct and fair manner, so everyone has a responsibility to house those seeking persecution and safety not just two or three countries. Heafty fines and sanctions against counties that ignore this . Example: France just standing back letting people travel unhindered to get to beaches and allowing them to cross. So I think defence spending is vital and sensible, fund's? Well the stopping of ridiculous projects such as smart motorway's and HS2 should provide more than enough money,these projects were only invented to line the pockets of the rich Tory party leaders and their cronies who just happened to be shareholders of companies involved in the projects and land owners who just so happened to own land that had a compulsory purchase order put on on brought back at an inflated price (Johnson) " I agree with your comments on HS2. Though that was actually an EU project not a Tory project. As for the UK being invaded by other countries, who do you think wants to invade the UK? What does the UK have that anyone else wants? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Stop all crossings before they start, provide a safe haven within the source countries where they come from allowing a coalition of countries to police it and process asylum applications in a correct and fair manner, so everyone has a responsibility to house those seeking persecution and safety not just two or three countries. Heafty fines and sanctions against counties that ignore this . Example: France just standing back letting people travel unhindered to get to beaches and allowing them to cross. " Germany, Spain, Italy, France and Turkey all received more asylum applications than the U.K in 2024. Of course we did once have a pretty good thing going with France where migrants were detained and we had very few boat crossings. Then we decided to ‘take back control’ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government can’t even stop a few illegal immigrants crossing the Channel. Why they think they are going to be successful in fighting any major war is beyond me. Who exactly do they think is going to be fighting this war for them? The people they’ve spent years denigrating as racists and bigots? Off the scale delusion. Really? You're conveniently forgetting about the Salisbury incident where the Russian government sanctioned and carried out an attack using a highly deadly nerve agent causing the death of innocent civilians,this was carried out under the stewardship of the conservative government and nothing was done other than maybe a few harsh words! Our lack of defence spending over decades and various governments has lead to us to be weakened and in the eyes of would be aggressor's, vulnerable. We need to bolster our defense and capabilities, not in an attempt to make us a superpower but strong enough to withstand an aggressive attempt to take the country. It's not about now it's for the next 50 years to guarantee our citizens don't have to go through what the people of the Ukrainian are currently suffering. I do agree with the comment regarding the boats being allowed to cross. At time has come for a hard stance on this closing the vulnerable areas with the use of military personnel, not for aggressive but proactive reasons. More focus on stopping the people organising the trafficking and providing the boats. Stop all crossings before they start, provide a safe haven within the source countries where they come from allowing a coalition of countries to police it and process asylum applications in a correct and fair manner, so everyone has a responsibility to house those seeking persecution and safety not just two or three countries. Heafty fines and sanctions against counties that ignore this . Example: France just standing back letting people travel unhindered to get to beaches and allowing them to cross. So I think defence spending is vital and sensible, fund's? Well the stopping of ridiculous projects such as smart motorway's and HS2 should provide more than enough money,these projects were only invented to line the pockets of the rich Tory party leaders and their cronies who just happened to be shareholders of companies involved in the projects and land owners who just so happened to own land that had a compulsory purchase order put on on brought back at an inflated price (Johnson) I agree with your comments on HS2. Though that was actually an EU project not a Tory project. As for the UK being invaded by other countries, who do you think wants to invade the UK? What does the UK have that anyone else wants? " Well obviously the government is privy to to information regarding potential threats that we don't know, I would imagine that it's intelligence gathered over years leading to the need for a stronger military. Also as you said regards boat's,I think an invasion has already started and been well underway for some time, any threats to security and peace are probably going to come from within,so not sure how a nuclear submarine is going to help with that,I'd definitely want a much stronger police force in place more visibility and accessibility to law enforcement. I've mentioned this previously on a few threads when this sort of subject comes up. A number of years ago Isis threatened to "flood Europe" with 250k holy soldiers young men of fighting age determined to keep their "holy" war going for the next 100years from what I have seen they have kept to their words and have indeed flooded Europe with men of fighting age, continued and regular attacks carried out more frequently by individuals. But imagine 100 or more organised terrorists carrying out an attack similar to that in Paris the result would be catastrophic and horrendous. So I'm all for intelligent, highly trained military and security services able to withstand and counter and prevent attacks from (to quote American terms) both foreign and domestic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government can’t even stop a few illegal immigrants crossing the Channel. Why they think they are going to be successful in fighting any major war is beyond me. Who exactly do they think is going to be fighting this war for them? The people they’ve spent years denigrating as racists and bigots? Off the scale delusion. Really? You're conveniently forgetting about the Salisbury incident where the Russian government sanctioned and carried out an attack using a highly deadly nerve agent causing the death of innocent civilians,this was carried out under the stewardship of the conservative government and nothing was done other than maybe a few harsh words! Our lack of defence spending over decades and various governments has lead to us to be weakened and in the eyes of would be aggressor's, vulnerable. We need to bolster our defense and capabilities, not in an attempt to make us a superpower but strong enough to withstand an aggressive attempt to take the country. It's not about now it's for the next 50 years to guarantee our citizens don't have to go through what the people of the Ukrainian are currently suffering. I do agree with the comment regarding the boats being allowed to cross. At time has come for a hard stance on this closing the vulnerable areas with the use of military personnel, not for aggressive but proactive reasons. More focus on stopping the people organising the trafficking and providing the boats. Stop all crossings before they start, provide a safe haven within the source countries where they come from allowing a coalition of countries to police it and process asylum applications in a correct and fair manner, so everyone has a responsibility to house those seeking persecution and safety not just two or three countries. Heafty fines and sanctions against counties that ignore this . Example: France just standing back letting people travel unhindered to get to beaches and allowing them to cross. So I think defence spending is vital and sensible, fund's? Well the stopping of ridiculous projects such as smart motorway's and HS2 should provide more than enough money,these projects were only invented to line the pockets of the rich Tory party leaders and their cronies who just happened to be shareholders of companies involved in the projects and land owners who just so happened to own land that had a compulsory purchase order put on on brought back at an inflated price (Johnson) I agree with your comments on HS2. Though that was actually an EU project not a Tory project. As for the UK being invaded by other countries, who do you think wants to invade the UK? What does the UK have that anyone else wants? Well obviously the government is privy to to information regarding potential threats that we don't know, I would imagine that it's intelligence gathered over years leading to the need for a stronger military. Also as you said regards boat's,I think an invasion has already started and been well underway for some time, any threats to security and peace are probably going to come from within,so not sure how a nuclear submarine is going to help with that,I'd definitely want a much stronger police force in place more visibility and accessibility to law enforcement. I've mentioned this previously on a few threads when this sort of subject comes up. A number of years ago Isis threatened to "flood Europe" with 250k holy soldiers young men of fighting age determined to keep their "holy" war going for the next 100years from what I have seen they have kept to their words and have indeed flooded Europe with men of fighting age, continued and regular attacks carried out more frequently by individuals. But imagine 100 or more organised terrorists carrying out an attack similar to that in Paris the result would be catastrophic and horrendous. So I'm all for intelligent, highly trained military and security services able to withstand and counter and prevent attacks from (to quote American terms) both foreign and domestic. Threats" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" A number of years ago Isis threatened to "flood Europe" with 250k holy soldiers young men of fighting age determined to keep their "holy" war going for the next 100years from what I have seen they have kept to their words and have indeed flooded Europe with men of fighting age, continued and regular attacks carried out more frequently by individuals. " Isis at its peak had around 200k fighters. By 2015 they were down to 30k. There is literally no evidence of any ‘flood’ of isis soldiers taking over Europe. Since 2020 there have been 3-4 stabbings in Europe (1 in the UK) linked to ISIS, all carried out by individuals pledging their allegiance to the group, with less than a dozen killed - now that’s too many, but 10-12 deaths from 3-4 events in 5 years is a bit unremarkable, and hardly the hallmark of a flood of terrorists on the continent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" A number of years ago Isis threatened to "flood Europe" with 250k holy soldiers young men of fighting age determined to keep their "holy" war going for the next 100years from what I have seen they have kept to their words and have indeed flooded Europe with men of fighting age, continued and regular attacks carried out more frequently by individuals. Isis at its peak had around 200k fighters. By 2015 they were down to 30k. There is literally no evidence of any ‘flood’ of isis soldiers taking over Europe. Since 2020 there have been 3-4 stabbings in Europe (1 in the UK) linked to ISIS, all carried out by individuals pledging their allegiance to the group, with less than a dozen killed - now that’s too many, but 10-12 deaths from 3-4 events in 5 years is a bit unremarkable, and hardly the hallmark of a flood of terrorists on the continent. " Well you carry on burying your head in the sand, if you think that all this single guy's who have infiltrated just about every country in Europe doesn't have at least a small percentage of jihadists hidden within their ranks? They don't need to be directed by Isis by by the their own ideology and beliefs that's proven to be inspired by their actions and words. As I said you don't need hundreds of thousands to cause mayhem,even a small group of organised individuals can result in many deaths. To ignore this threat would be idiotic | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" A number of years ago Isis threatened to "flood Europe" with 250k holy soldiers young men of fighting age determined to keep their "holy" war going for the next 100years from what I have seen they have kept to their words and have indeed flooded Europe with men of fighting age, continued and regular attacks carried out more frequently by individuals. Isis at its peak had around 200k fighters. By 2015 they were down to 30k. There is literally no evidence of any ‘flood’ of isis soldiers taking over Europe. Since 2020 there have been 3-4 stabbings in Europe (1 in the UK) linked to ISIS, all carried out by individuals pledging their allegiance to the group, with less than a dozen killed - now that’s too many, but 10-12 deaths from 3-4 events in 5 years is a bit unremarkable, and hardly the hallmark of a flood of terrorists on the continent. Well you carry on burying your head in the sand, if you think that all this single guy's who have infiltrated just about every country in Europe doesn't have at least a small percentage of jihadists hidden within their ranks? They don't need to be directed by Isis by by the their own ideology and beliefs that's proven to be inspired by their actions and words. As I said you don't need hundreds of thousands to cause mayhem,even a small group of organised individuals can result in many deaths. To ignore this threat would be idiotic " I’m not burying my head in the sand or ignoring anything, I just accept that we can’t not have an asylum system in place. So we need to ensure that the asylum system is fit for purpose. I’d rather see our taxes spent on things that benefit us and also work towards closer military integration with our allies rather than pretending we’re still a superpower. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" A number of years ago Isis threatened to "flood Europe" with 250k holy soldiers young men of fighting age determined to keep their "holy" war going for the next 100years from what I have seen they have kept to their words and have indeed flooded Europe with men of fighting age, continued and regular attacks carried out more frequently by individuals. Isis at its peak had around 200k fighters. By 2015 they were down to 30k. There is literally no evidence of any ‘flood’ of isis soldiers taking over Europe. Since 2020 there have been 3-4 stabbings in Europe (1 in the UK) linked to ISIS, all carried out by individuals pledging their allegiance to the group, with less than a dozen killed - now that’s too many, but 10-12 deaths from 3-4 events in 5 years is a bit unremarkable, and hardly the hallmark of a flood of terrorists on the continent. Well you carry on burying your head in the sand, if you think that all this single guy's who have infiltrated just about every country in Europe doesn't have at least a small percentage of jihadists hidden within their ranks? They don't need to be directed by Isis by by the their own ideology and beliefs that's proven to be inspired by their actions and words. As I said you don't need hundreds of thousands to cause mayhem,even a small group of organised individuals can result in many deaths. To ignore this threat would be idiotic I’m not burying my head in the sand or ignoring anything, I just accept that we can’t not have an asylum system in place. So we need to ensure that the asylum system is fit for purpose. I’d rather see our taxes spent on things that benefit us and also work towards closer military integration with our allies rather than pretending we’re still a superpower." Indeed, and a starting point towards a 'fit for purpose' asylum system is to stop the illegal crossings and criminality behind them. As for 'allies', what like France and the US you mean? I reckon we're better off pretending we're a superpower and looking after ourselves. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" A number of years ago Isis threatened to "flood Europe" with 250k holy soldiers young men of fighting age determined to keep their "holy" war going for the next 100years from what I have seen they have kept to their words and have indeed flooded Europe with men of fighting age, continued and regular attacks carried out more frequently by individuals. Isis at its peak had around 200k fighters. By 2015 they were down to 30k. There is literally no evidence of any ‘flood’ of isis soldiers taking over Europe. Since 2020 there have been 3-4 stabbings in Europe (1 in the UK) linked to ISIS, all carried out by individuals pledging their allegiance to the group, with less than a dozen killed - now that’s too many, but 10-12 deaths from 3-4 events in 5 years is a bit unremarkable, and hardly the hallmark of a flood of terrorists on the continent. Well you carry on burying your head in the sand, if you think that all this single guy's who have infiltrated just about every country in Europe doesn't have at least a small percentage of jihadists hidden within their ranks? They don't need to be directed by Isis by by the their own ideology and beliefs that's proven to be inspired by their actions and words. As I said you don't need hundreds of thousands to cause mayhem,even a small group of organised individuals can result in many deaths. To ignore this threat would be idiotic I’m not burying my head in the sand or ignoring anything, I just accept that we can’t not have an asylum system in place. So we need to ensure that the asylum system is fit for purpose. I’d rather see our taxes spent on things that benefit us and also work towards closer military integration with our allies rather than pretending we’re still a superpower. As for 'allies', what like France and the US you mean? I reckon we're better off pretending we're a superpower and looking after ourselves." You’re naive then, sorry to be blunt but that’s the way it is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" A number of years ago Isis threatened to "flood Europe" with 250k holy soldiers young men of fighting age determined to keep their "holy" war going for the next 100years from what I have seen they have kept to their words and have indeed flooded Europe with men of fighting age, continued and regular attacks carried out more frequently by individuals. Isis at its peak had around 200k fighters. By 2015 they were down to 30k. There is literally no evidence of any ‘flood’ of isis soldiers taking over Europe. Since 2020 there have been 3-4 stabbings in Europe (1 in the UK) linked to ISIS, all carried out by individuals pledging their allegiance to the group, with less than a dozen killed - now that’s too many, but 10-12 deaths from 3-4 events in 5 years is a bit unremarkable, and hardly the hallmark of a flood of terrorists on the continent. Well you carry on burying your head in the sand, if you think that all this single guy's who have infiltrated just about every country in Europe doesn't have at least a small percentage of jihadists hidden within their ranks? They don't need to be directed by Isis by by the their own ideology and beliefs that's proven to be inspired by their actions and words. As I said you don't need hundreds of thousands to cause mayhem,even a small group of organised individuals can result in many deaths. To ignore this threat would be idiotic I’m not burying my head in the sand or ignoring anything, I just accept that we can’t not have an asylum system in place. So we need to ensure that the asylum system is fit for purpose. I’d rather see our taxes spent on things that benefit us and also work towards closer military integration with our allies rather than pretending we’re still a superpower. As for 'allies', what like France and the US you mean? I reckon we're better off pretending we're a superpower and looking after ourselves. You’re naive then, sorry to be blunt but that’s the way it is. " That's precisely the adjective I'd have applied to you  All about perspective I suppose. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" A number of years ago Isis threatened to "flood Europe" with 250k holy soldiers young men of fighting age determined to keep their "holy" war going for the next 100years from what I have seen they have kept to their words and have indeed flooded Europe with men of fighting age, continued and regular attacks carried out more frequently by individuals. Isis at its peak had around 200k fighters. By 2015 they were down to 30k. There is literally no evidence of any ‘flood’ of isis soldiers taking over Europe. " 7/7, Manchester, London Bridge, Westminster, Parsons Green, Streatham and Reading stabbings, Liverpool hospital attacks were not reported to be Isis but Islam at large. It’s unknown what may happen in the future as the Islamic population in the uk grows. Looking around the world they are either fighting each other or somebody else. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" A number of years ago Isis threatened to "flood Europe" with 250k holy soldiers young men of fighting age determined to keep their "holy" war going for the next 100years from what I have seen they have kept to their words and have indeed flooded Europe with men of fighting age, continued and regular attacks carried out more frequently by individuals. Isis at its peak had around 200k fighters. By 2015 they were down to 30k. There is literally no evidence of any ‘flood’ of isis soldiers taking over Europe. 7/7, Manchester, London Bridge, Westminster, Parsons Green, Streatham and Reading stabbings, Liverpool hospital attacks were not reported to be Isis but Islam at large. It’s unknown what may happen in the future as the Islamic population in the uk grows. Looking around the world they are either fighting each other or somebody else. " UK army size circa 73,000 Illegal immigrants crossing by boat since 2018 150,000 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" A number of years ago Isis threatened to "flood Europe" with 250k holy soldiers young men of fighting age determined to keep their "holy" war going for the next 100years from what I have seen they have kept to their words and have indeed flooded Europe with men of fighting age, continued and regular attacks carried out more frequently by individuals. Isis at its peak had around 200k fighters. By 2015 they were down to 30k. There is literally no evidence of any ‘flood’ of isis soldiers taking over Europe. 7/7, Manchester, London Bridge, Westminster, Parsons Green, Streatham and Reading stabbings, Liverpool hospital attacks were not reported to be Isis but Islam at large. It’s unknown what may happen in the future as the Islamic population in the uk grows. Looking around the world they are either fighting each other or somebody else. UK army size circa 73,000 Illegal immigrants crossing by boat since 2018 150,000" 164,000 and double that with what’s been bred since. 2500 mosques preaching the prophets religion of death on the infidel. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"AI and robots are going to beat the Russians it seems. Unless we’ve stumbled into a terminator movie, what does that even mean? Drones are definitely a great tool, but anti drone technology means most don’t get through. The war in Ukraine has proven this. Feet on the ground have to be willing. National service would be a pointless waste of money. Bolstering the reserves would be a much better use of funding. Air superiority is key. The ability to decimate an advancing army while it’s still in Eastern Europe is far more advantageous than boots on the ground shooting at them. A nuclear missile sub is the most deadly killing machine ever invented, but it can only be used as a deterrent. We would never fire first and if the Russians ever did, it’s the end of humanity anyway. All the naysayers can moan about it being a waste of money. You know what, let’s hope it is a waste of money. Cos if we ever need to uses these tools we’re gonna build…… well you can figure it out for yourselves. Happy to pay for the subs from borrowing as it’s a massive capital investment, but day to day spending such as more troops needs to be funded by cuts in overseas aid. We can’t be borrowing more just to give it away. Let them borrow it themselves " All true but had Ukraine’s allies supported them properly id argue none of this may not have been necessary. Western dithering on arming Ukraine has led to Russias advances. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" A nuclear missile sub is the most deadly killing machine ever invented, but it can only be used as a deterrent. We would never fire first and if the Russians ever did, it’s the end of humanity anyway. " We absolutely have to work on nuclear non-proliferation. You’re quite right to say that one nuke launched in anger ends the world, effectively. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Stop all crossings before they start, provide a safe haven within the source countries where they come from allowing a coalition of countries to police it and process asylum applications in a correct and fair manner, so everyone has a responsibility to house those seeking persecution and safety not just two or three countries. Heafty fines and sanctions against counties that ignore this . Example: France just standing back letting people travel unhindered to get to beaches and allowing them to cross. Germany, Spain, Italy, France and Turkey all received more asylum applications than the U.K in 2024. Of course we did once have a pretty good thing going with France where migrants were detained and we had very few boat crossings. Then we decided to ‘take back control’ " You have repeated the statement about very few boat crossing before brexit, a number of times, indicating that brexit has created a rise in people coming here and we had more control of our borders. This is wrong, as been mentioned before. When we were in the EU, any person who had been granted asylum the EU was granted free movement in the EU, that included the UK. They did not need to cross a dangerous sea and pay thousands to gangs to enter the country, they booked a £40 ferry ticket and walked straight in. Those numbers were never counted, post brexit it all became very visible. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" This is wrong, as been mentioned before. When we were in the EU, any person who had been granted asylum the EU was granted free movement in the EU, that included the UK. " And could be returned to the nation in which they claimed asylum. My concern is stopping dangerous boats crossings and criminal gangs who profit from them - not stopping asylum (which we can’t do, and is foolish to pretend we can) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" This is wrong, as been mentioned before. When we were in the EU, any person who had been granted asylum the EU was granted free movement in the EU, that included the UK. And could be returned to the nation in which they claimed asylum. My concern is stopping dangerous boats crossings and criminal gangs who profit from them - not stopping asylum (which we can’t do, and is foolish to pretend we can) " You are mixing up 2 different outcomes, I'm not sure why? Anyone who had been granted asylum in an EU country were not breaking the law by entering the UK. Under EU rules at the time, they had the right to move freely including into the UK as long as they had valid documentation, which they would have if they were granted refugee status. Meaning, the idea that they would be “returned to the nation in which they claimed asylum” didn’t apply if they were already recognised as refugees. There was no legal right to remove them. Nobody is arguing to “stop asylum”, that’s a strawman. The majority of public concern is with the abuse of the asylum process by economic migrants, who use illegal and dangerous routes to enter the UK. The constant arrivals by small boat show a weakness in the asylum conventions that we are bound to by international law. That convention has loopholes that allow basically free movement of anyone that wishes to exploit them, That exploitation is costing the tax payer £11 billion this year, rising to £14billion the following. The strain on local infrastructure and services is being felt up and down the country too. This is not something that is hard to understand, nobody wants to stop genuine asylum, people want economic migrants to be stopped from playing the system. "Economic migrant" is not really the correct phrase either, as that would indicate they are working and delivering benefit back, which they are not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You are mixing up 2 different outcomes, I'm not sure why? Anyone who had been granted asylum in an EU country were not breaking the law by entering the UK. Under EU rules at the time, they had the right to move freely including into the UK as long as they had valid documentation, which they would have if they were granted refugee status. Meaning, the idea that they would be “returned to the nation in which they claimed asylum” didn’t apply if they were already recognised as refugees. There was no legal right to remove them. Nobody is arguing to “stop asylum”, that’s a strawman. The majority of public concern is with the abuse of the asylum process by economic migrants, who use illegal and dangerous routes to enter the UK. The constant arrivals by small boat show a weakness in the asylum conventions that we are bound to by international law. That convention has loopholes that allow basically free movement of anyone that wishes to exploit them, That exploitation is costing the tax payer £11 billion this year, rising to £14billion the following. The strain on local infrastructure and services is being felt up and down the country too. This is not something that is hard to understand, nobody wants to stop genuine asylum, people want economic migrants to be stopped from playing the system. "Economic migrant" is not really the correct phrase either, as that would indicate they are working and delivering benefit back, which they are not." The first part of your post is incorrect: There was a legal right to remove any EU citizen, if they failed to meet criteria, actually. Not just refugees - any EU citizen who failed to maintain certain standards of employment, study, capable of supporting themselves etc And for your second part, there is *no other way* for someone to claim asylum in the U.K than boat crossings (except for a couple of small agreements with specific nations) as the Tories closed all routes down. (And incidentally on this very forum people have tried to literally argue that we need to stop *all* asylum) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You are mixing up 2 different outcomes, I'm not sure why? Anyone who had been granted asylum in an EU country were not breaking the law by entering the UK. Under EU rules at the time, they had the right to move freely including into the UK as long as they had valid documentation, which they would have if they were granted refugee status. Meaning, the idea that they would be “returned to the nation in which they claimed asylum” didn’t apply if they were already recognised as refugees. There was no legal right to remove them. Nobody is arguing to “stop asylum”, that’s a strawman. The majority of public concern is with the abuse of the asylum process by economic migrants, who use illegal and dangerous routes to enter the UK. The constant arrivals by small boat show a weakness in the asylum conventions that we are bound to by international law. That convention has loopholes that allow basically free movement of anyone that wishes to exploit them, That exploitation is costing the tax payer £11 billion this year, rising to £14billion the following. The strain on local infrastructure and services is being felt up and down the country too. This is not something that is hard to understand, nobody wants to stop genuine asylum, people want economic migrants to be stopped from playing the system. "Economic migrant" is not really the correct phrase either, as that would indicate they are working and delivering benefit back, which they are not. The first part of your post is incorrect: There was a legal right to remove any EU citizen, if they failed to meet criteria, actually. Not just refugees - any EU citizen who failed to maintain certain standards of employment, study, capable of supporting themselves etc And for your second part, there is *no other way* for someone to claim asylum in the U.K than boat crossings (except for a couple of small agreements with specific nations) as the Tories closed all routes down. (And incidentally on this very forum people have tried to literally argue that we need to stop *all* asylum)" I'm not going to argue with your comment because I'm sure you realise any EU granted refugee had the same right as any other EU citizen, which makes your first comment invalid other than a slight twist on semantics. The routes into the country exist for countries that the government permits, this is what governments do, they set the rules. This is no different to any other country in the world, why do you believe the UK should be different in this respect? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You are mixing up 2 different outcomes, I'm not sure why? Anyone who had been granted asylum in an EU country were not breaking the law by entering the UK. Under EU rules at the time, they had the right to move freely including into the UK as long as they had valid documentation, which they would have if they were granted refugee status. Meaning, the idea that they would be “returned to the nation in which they claimed asylum” didn’t apply if they were already recognised as refugees. There was no legal right to remove them. Nobody is arguing to “stop asylum”, that’s a strawman. The majority of public concern is with the abuse of the asylum process by economic migrants, who use illegal and dangerous routes to enter the UK. The constant arrivals by small boat show a weakness in the asylum conventions that we are bound to by international law. That convention has loopholes that allow basically free movement of anyone that wishes to exploit them, That exploitation is costing the tax payer £11 billion this year, rising to £14billion the following. The strain on local infrastructure and services is being felt up and down the country too. This is not something that is hard to understand, nobody wants to stop genuine asylum, people want economic migrants to be stopped from playing the system. "Economic migrant" is not really the correct phrase either, as that would indicate they are working and delivering benefit back, which they are not. The first part of your post is incorrect: There was a legal right to remove any EU citizen, if they failed to meet criteria, actually. Not just refugees - any EU citizen who failed to maintain certain standards of employment, study, capable of supporting themselves etc And for your second part, there is *no other way* for someone to claim asylum in the U.K than boat crossings (except for a couple of small agreements with specific nations) as the Tories closed all routes down. (And incidentally on this very forum people have tried to literally argue that we need to stop *all* asylum) I'm not going to argue with your comment because I'm sure you realise any EU granted refugee had the same right as any other EU citizen, which makes your first comment invalid other than a slight twist on semantics. The routes into the country exist for countries that the government permits, this is what governments do, they set the rules. This is no different to any other country in the world, why do you believe the UK should be different in this respect? " So you agree that EU citizens and indeed refugees could be deported? Glad we cleared that up. And it’s the U.K. rules that create the need for dangerous boat crossings for essentially everyone claiming asylum. You want them stopped without stopping genuine asylum? Change the rules. It’s not complex. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You are mixing up 2 different outcomes, I'm not sure why? Anyone who had been granted asylum in an EU country were not breaking the law by entering the UK. Under EU rules at the time, they had the right to move freely including into the UK as long as they had valid documentation, which they would have if they were granted refugee status. Meaning, the idea that they would be “returned to the nation in which they claimed asylum” didn’t apply if they were already recognised as refugees. There was no legal right to remove them. Nobody is arguing to “stop asylum”, that’s a strawman. The majority of public concern is with the abuse of the asylum process by economic migrants, who use illegal and dangerous routes to enter the UK. The constant arrivals by small boat show a weakness in the asylum conventions that we are bound to by international law. That convention has loopholes that allow basically free movement of anyone that wishes to exploit them, That exploitation is costing the tax payer £11 billion this year, rising to £14billion the following. The strain on local infrastructure and services is being felt up and down the country too. This is not something that is hard to understand, nobody wants to stop genuine asylum, people want economic migrants to be stopped from playing the system. "Economic migrant" is not really the correct phrase either, as that would indicate they are working and delivering benefit back, which they are not. The first part of your post is incorrect: There was a legal right to remove any EU citizen, if they failed to meet criteria, actually. Not just refugees - any EU citizen who failed to maintain certain standards of employment, study, capable of supporting themselves etc And for your second part, there is *no other way* for someone to claim asylum in the U.K than boat crossings (except for a couple of small agreements with specific nations) as the Tories closed all routes down. (And incidentally on this very forum people have tried to literally argue that we need to stop *all* asylum) I'm not going to argue with your comment because I'm sure you realise any EU granted refugee had the same right as any other EU citizen, which makes your first comment invalid other than a slight twist on semantics. The routes into the country exist for countries that the government permits, this is what governments do, they set the rules. This is no different to any other country in the world, why do you believe the UK should be different in this respect? So you agree that EU citizens and indeed refugees could be deported? Glad we cleared that up. And it’s the U.K. rules that create the need for dangerous boat crossings for essentially everyone claiming asylum. You want them stopped without stopping genuine asylum? Change the rules. It’s not complex." . There was never any question that EU citizens could be deported, I said that a EU granted refugee had the same rights as an EU citizen and this is why the numbers coming in were never counted, which nullifies your first comment I replied to. The comment about the rules of entry by our government being in place forces small boat crossings, is a strange view to have! Every country in the world has its own rules of entry, I will ask again, why is do you think the UK should be different? Your previous answer that it causes people to break the law is not a legitimate reason to not have UK entry requirements. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You are mixing up 2 different outcomes, I'm not sure why? Anyone who had been granted asylum in an EU country were not breaking the law by entering the UK. Under EU rules at the time, they had the right to move freely including into the UK as long as they had valid documentation, which they would have if they were granted refugee status. Meaning, the idea that they would be “returned to the nation in which they claimed asylum” didn’t apply if they were already recognised as refugees. There was no legal right to remove them. Nobody is arguing to “stop asylum”, that’s a strawman. The majority of public concern is with the abuse of the asylum process by economic migrants, who use illegal and dangerous routes to enter the UK. The constant arrivals by small boat show a weakness in the asylum conventions that we are bound to by international law. That convention has loopholes that allow basically free movement of anyone that wishes to exploit them, That exploitation is costing the tax payer £11 billion this year, rising to £14billion the following. The strain on local infrastructure and services is being felt up and down the country too. This is not something that is hard to understand, nobody wants to stop genuine asylum, people want economic migrants to be stopped from playing the system. "Economic migrant" is not really the correct phrase either, as that would indicate they are working and delivering benefit back, which they are not. The first part of your post is incorrect: There was a legal right to remove any EU citizen, if they failed to meet criteria, actually. Not just refugees - any EU citizen who failed to maintain certain standards of employment, study, capable of supporting themselves etc And for your second part, there is *no other way* for someone to claim asylum in the U.K than boat crossings (except for a couple of small agreements with specific nations) as the Tories closed all routes down. (And incidentally on this very forum people have tried to literally argue that we need to stop *all* asylum) I'm not going to argue with your comment because I'm sure you realise any EU granted refugee had the same right as any other EU citizen, which makes your first comment invalid other than a slight twist on semantics. The routes into the country exist for countries that the government permits, this is what governments do, they set the rules. This is no different to any other country in the world, why do you believe the UK should be different in this respect? So you agree that EU citizens and indeed refugees could be deported? Glad we cleared that up. And it’s the U.K. rules that create the need for dangerous boat crossings for essentially everyone claiming asylum. You want them stopped without stopping genuine asylum? Change the rules. It’s not complex.. There was never any question that EU citizens could be deported, I said that a EU granted refugee had the same rights as an EU citizen and this is why the numbers coming in were never counted, which nullifies your first comment I replied to. The comment about the rules of entry by our government being in place forces small boat crossings, is a strange view to have! Every country in the world has its own rules of entry, I will ask again, why is do you think the UK should be different? Your previous answer that it causes people to break the law is not a legitimate reason to not have UK entry requirements. " Well there once were routes in for asylum. And we closed those routes, and the numbers actually went up. So closing the routes didn’t work - it actually made things worse. What do you do when you make a mistake? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You are mixing up 2 different outcomes, I'm not sure why? Anyone who had been granted asylum in an EU country were not breaking the law by entering the UK. Under EU rules at the time, they had the right to move freely including into the UK as long as they had valid documentation, which they would have if they were granted refugee status. Meaning, the idea that they would be “returned to the nation in which they claimed asylum” didn’t apply if they were already recognised as refugees. There was no legal right to remove them. Nobody is arguing to “stop asylum”, that’s a strawman. The majority of public concern is with the abuse of the asylum process by economic migrants, who use illegal and dangerous routes to enter the UK. The constant arrivals by small boat show a weakness in the asylum conventions that we are bound to by international law. That convention has loopholes that allow basically free movement of anyone that wishes to exploit them, That exploitation is costing the tax payer £11 billion this year, rising to £14billion the following. The strain on local infrastructure and services is being felt up and down the country too. This is not something that is hard to understand, nobody wants to stop genuine asylum, people want economic migrants to be stopped from playing the system. "Economic migrant" is not really the correct phrase either, as that would indicate they are working and delivering benefit back, which they are not. The first part of your post is incorrect: There was a legal right to remove any EU citizen, if they failed to meet criteria, actually. Not just refugees - any EU citizen who failed to maintain certain standards of employment, study, capable of supporting themselves etc And for your second part, there is *no other way* for someone to claim asylum in the U.K than boat crossings (except for a couple of small agreements with specific nations) as the Tories closed all routes down. (And incidentally on this very forum people have tried to literally argue that we need to stop *all* asylum) I'm not going to argue with your comment because I'm sure you realise any EU granted refugee had the same right as any other EU citizen, which makes your first comment invalid other than a slight twist on semantics. The routes into the country exist for countries that the government permits, this is what governments do, they set the rules. This is no different to any other country in the world, why do you believe the UK should be different in this respect? So you agree that EU citizens and indeed refugees could be deported? Glad we cleared that up. And it’s the U.K. rules that create the need for dangerous boat crossings for essentially everyone claiming asylum. You want them stopped without stopping genuine asylum? Change the rules. It’s not complex.. There was never any question that EU citizens could be deported, I said that a EU granted refugee had the same rights as an EU citizen and this is why the numbers coming in were never counted, which nullifies your first comment I replied to. The comment about the rules of entry by our government being in place forces small boat crossings, is a strange view to have! Every country in the world has its own rules of entry, I will ask again, why is do you think the UK should be different? Your previous answer that it causes people to break the law is not a legitimate reason to not have UK entry requirements. Well there once were routes in for asylum. And we closed those routes, and the numbers actually went up. So closing the routes didn’t work - it actually made things worse. What do you do when you make a mistake? " You are conflating cause and effect again. I will leave it here now as it has come to a natural end. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You are mixing up 2 different outcomes, I'm not sure why? Anyone who had been granted asylum in an EU country were not breaking the law by entering the UK. Under EU rules at the time, they had the right to move freely including into the UK as long as they had valid documentation, which they would have if they were granted refugee status. Meaning, the idea that they would be “returned to the nation in which they claimed asylum” didn’t apply if they were already recognised as refugees. There was no legal right to remove them. Nobody is arguing to “stop asylum”, that’s a strawman. The majority of public concern is with the abuse of the asylum process by economic migrants, who use illegal and dangerous routes to enter the UK. The constant arrivals by small boat show a weakness in the asylum conventions that we are bound to by international law. That convention has loopholes that allow basically free movement of anyone that wishes to exploit them, That exploitation is costing the tax payer £11 billion this year, rising to £14billion the following. The strain on local infrastructure and services is being felt up and down the country too. This is not something that is hard to understand, nobody wants to stop genuine asylum, people want economic migrants to be stopped from playing the system. "Economic migrant" is not really the correct phrase either, as that would indicate they are working and delivering benefit back, which they are not. The first part of your post is incorrect: There was a legal right to remove any EU citizen, if they failed to meet criteria, actually. Not just refugees - any EU citizen who failed to maintain certain standards of employment, study, capable of supporting themselves etc And for your second part, there is *no other way* for someone to claim asylum in the U.K than boat crossings (except for a couple of small agreements with specific nations) as the Tories closed all routes down. (And incidentally on this very forum people have tried to literally argue that we need to stop *all* asylum) I'm not going to argue with your comment because I'm sure you realise any EU granted refugee had the same right as any other EU citizen, which makes your first comment invalid other than a slight twist on semantics. The routes into the country exist for countries that the government permits, this is what governments do, they set the rules. This is no different to any other country in the world, why do you believe the UK should be different in this respect? So you agree that EU citizens and indeed refugees could be deported? Glad we cleared that up. And it’s the U.K. rules that create the need for dangerous boat crossings for essentially everyone claiming asylum. You want them stopped without stopping genuine asylum? Change the rules. It’s not complex.. There was never any question that EU citizens could be deported, I said that a EU granted refugee had the same rights as an EU citizen and this is why the numbers coming in were never counted, which nullifies your first comment I replied to. The comment about the rules of entry by our government being in place forces small boat crossings, is a strange view to have! Every country in the world has its own rules of entry, I will ask again, why is do you think the UK should be different? Your previous answer that it causes people to break the law is not a legitimate reason to not have UK entry requirements. Well there once were routes in for asylum. And we closed those routes, and the numbers actually went up. So closing the routes didn’t work - it actually made things worse. What do you do when you make a mistake? You are conflating cause and effect again. I will leave it here now as it has come to a natural end. "Of course you will | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"FFS I've just watched a labour MP asking how we can cut benefits of all kinds whilst preparing for war. What is wrong with these fools? The latest review cites 6 subs in ten years and a similar amount of munitions factories. Oooh, I'm sure any potential enemies will be shitting themselves. By the time we have anything in operation they'll be obsolete. We need to be on a war footing now and cut £30bn minimum a year from the wasteful NHS to bolster defence spending and if you're 18-30 without a disability you're doing national service for a couple years paid for by your benefits" why would anyone join any of the forces these days even the pay is shite. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well there once were routes in for asylum. And we closed those routes, and the numbers actually went up. So closing the routes didn’t work - it actually made things worse." No there weren't. There were a few special immigration schemes for certain populations, but there has never been a system that allowed asylum applications from outside of the UK. No country in the world allows people to make asylum applications from outside their territory. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
