Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Depending on the exact geographical position of the incident he could be tried under French or English law. That someone else was on the boat elevates the crime considerably from simple criminal damage. Under English law, destroying or damaging property while being reckless as to whether life is endangered is an offence that carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. One thing we can be certain of is that the begging emails to pay for his legal defence will start soon. With Stephen ‘Tommy Robinson’ Yaxley-Lennon spending his time courting his Russian and Israeli paymasters, and limiting his ‘activism’ to posting coked up videos about taking up arms against the British elite, is Daniel ‘Danny Tommo’ Thomas the new darling of the far right?" If he took Yaxley-Lennon’s advice he could crowd-fund for a court case, then plead guilty. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Depending on the exact geographical position of the incident he could be tried under French or English law. That someone else was on the boat elevates the crime considerably from simple criminal damage. Under English law, destroying or damaging property while being reckless as to whether life is endangered is an offence that carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. One thing we can be certain of is that the begging emails to pay for his legal defence will start soon. With Stephen ‘Tommy Robinson’ Yaxley-Lennon spending his time courting his Russian and Israeli paymasters, and limiting his ‘activism’ to posting coked up videos about taking up arms against the British elite, is Daniel ‘Danny Tommo’ Thomas the new darling of the far right? If he took Yaxley-Lennon’s advice he could crowd-fund for a court case, then plead guilty. " It’s the only patriotic thing to do. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That someone else was on the boat elevates the crime considerably from simple criminal damage. Under English law, destroying or damaging property while being reckless as to whether life is endangered is an offence that carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment." The person that was on board was a rescue worker, in full immersion suit, who had just stepped aboard from the rescue vessel that was alongside. Stupid though "Tommo's" actions were, it's unlikely that a court will find that he endangered a life. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing." It's not only controversial it is hugely disrespectful to the people who have been awarded medals for actual heroic and life saving actions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing." If he'd sunk the vessel while people were still on it you could claim that he was doing something, but he didn't. What he did was to wait until everyone had been rescued, then render the vessel unseaworthy. Since they weren't about to re-board it and go back, he didn't do anything at all useful. It was just a performance to get publicity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing." It's not controversial, just really grim. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing." Jesus Christ. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing." I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. " Invading army  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. " Whose army is this? What are they going to do to take over? And once they have taken over, any idea what their plans are? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. Whose army is this? What are they going to do to take over? And once they have taken over, any idea what their plans are?" It’s a struggle to see those who don’t understand what’s going on. The left have a lot to answer for. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. Whose army is this? What are they going to do to take over? And once they have taken over, any idea what their plans are? It’s a struggle to see those who don’t understand what’s going on. The left have a lot to answer for. " Can’t help but notice that you didn’t answer the questions there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. Whose army is this? What are they going to do to take over? And once they have taken over, any idea what their plans are? It’s a struggle to see those who don’t understand what’s going on. The left have a lot to answer for. " But could you enlighten us on whose army is invading us, what they are going to do to take power, and what the consequences of them taking power will be? The 'left' in the UK have been in government for 2 of the last 15 years by the way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. Whose army is this? What are they going to do to take over? And once they have taken over, any idea what their plans are? It’s a struggle to see those who don’t understand what’s going on. The left have a lot to answer for. " Can you tell us what is going on and in the words of that delightful guy on tik tok "give us the stats" along with other évidence please. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. Whose army is this? What are they going to do to take over? And once they have taken over, any idea what their plans are? It’s a struggle to see those who don’t understand what’s going on. The left have a lot to answer for. But could you enlighten us on whose army is invading us, what they are going to do to take power, and what the consequences of them taking power will be? The 'left' in the UK have been in government for 2 of the last 15 years by the way." And have done better at bringing down the small boat numbers than the Tories did, already. Were ’the Right’ the ones trying to ship in the ‘invading army’?! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. Jesus Christ. " don't think he will help  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A reminder that the proud patriot Daniel Thomas pleaded guilty to attempting to k1dkn@p a man at knifepoint, alleging (wrongly) that the chap had nicked 10k of drugs from his group. " and he can still be patriotic | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. Jesus Christ. don't think he will help "The irony being, that according to his teachings, he would’ve been the first one to help. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A reminder that the proud patriot Daniel Thomas pleaded guilty to attempting to k1dkn@p a man at knifepoint, alleging (wrongly) that the chap had nicked 10k of drugs from his group. and he can still be patriotic " How is stabbing dinghies and (presumably) selling drugs patriotic? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. Jesus Christ. don't think he will help
The irony being, that according to his teachings, he would’ve been the first one to help."would have been a long walk from Nazareth | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A reminder that the proud patriot Daniel Thomas pleaded guilty to attempting to k1dkn@p a man at knifepoint, alleging (wrongly) that the chap had nicked 10k of drugs from his group. and he can still be patriotic How is stabbing dinghies and (presumably) selling drugs patriotic? " again what's that got to do with it you might not like what he does but that doesn't mean he isn't patriotic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A reminder that the proud patriot Daniel Thomas pleaded guilty to attempting to k1dkn@p a man at knifepoint, alleging (wrongly) that the chap had nicked 10k of drugs from his group. and he can still be patriotic How is stabbing dinghies and (presumably) selling drugs patriotic? again what's that got to do with it you might not like what he does but that doesn't mean he isn't patriotic." Endangering lives of RNLI, whipping up a mob, and flogging drugs on to (presumably) the addicted - again, how is that patriotic? That’s all damaging, wouldn’t you agree? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A reminder that the proud patriot Daniel Thomas pleaded guilty to attempting to k1dkn@p a man at knifepoint, alleging (wrongly) that the chap had nicked 10k of drugs from his group. and he can still be patriotic How is stabbing dinghies and (presumably) selling drugs patriotic? again what's that got to do with it you might not like what he does but that doesn't mean he isn't patriotic. Endangering lives of RNLI, whipping up a mob, and flogging drugs on to (presumably) the addicted - again, how is that patriotic? That’s all damaging, wouldn’t you agree? " not at all | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A reminder that the proud patriot Daniel Thomas pleaded guilty to attempting to k1dkn@p a man at knifepoint, alleging (wrongly) that the chap had nicked 10k of drugs from his group. and he can still be patriotic How is stabbing dinghies and (presumably) selling drugs patriotic? again what's that got to do with it you might not like what he does but that doesn't mean he isn't patriotic. Endangering lives of RNLI, whipping up a mob, and flogging drugs on to (presumably) the addicted - again, how is that patriotic? That’s all damaging, wouldn’t you agree? not at all " Selling drugs and getting in the way of the RNLI isn’t damaging? I mean I guess it’s an opinion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A reminder that the proud patriot Daniel Thomas pleaded guilty to attempting to k1dkn@p a man at knifepoint, alleging (wrongly) that the chap had nicked 10k of drugs from his group. and he can still be patriotic How is stabbing dinghies and (presumably) selling drugs patriotic? again what's that got to do with it you might not like what he does but that doesn't mean he isn't patriotic. Endangering lives of RNLI, whipping up a mob, and flogging drugs on to (presumably) the addicted - again, how is that patriotic? That’s all damaging, wouldn’t you agree? not at all Selling drugs and getting in the way of the RNLI isn’t damaging? I mean I guess it’s an opinion." have you watched the Italian job would you say Mr bridger was patriotic he was a criminal thief | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A reminder that the proud patriot Daniel Thomas pleaded guilty to attempting to k1dkn@p a man at knifepoint, alleging (wrongly) that the chap had nicked 10k of drugs from his group. and he can still be patriotic How is stabbing dinghies and (presumably) selling drugs patriotic? again what's that got to do with it you might not like what he does but that doesn't mean he isn't patriotic. Endangering lives of RNLI, whipping up a mob, and flogging drugs on to (presumably) the addicted - again, how is that patriotic? That’s all damaging, wouldn’t you agree? not at all Selling drugs and getting in the way of the RNLI isn’t damaging? I mean I guess it’s an opinion. have you watched the Italian job would you say Mr bridger was patriotic he was a criminal thief " I don’t know how to tell you this, but The Italian Job was a movie. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A reminder that the proud patriot Daniel Thomas pleaded guilty to attempting to k1dkn@p a man at knifepoint, alleging (wrongly) that the chap had nicked 10k of drugs from his group. and he can still be patriotic How is stabbing dinghies and (presumably) selling drugs patriotic? again what's that got to do with it you might not like what he does but that doesn't mean he isn't patriotic. Endangering lives of RNLI, whipping up a mob, and flogging drugs on to (presumably) the addicted - again, how is that patriotic? That’s all damaging, wouldn’t you agree? not at all Selling drugs and getting in the way of the RNLI isn’t damaging? I mean I guess it’s an opinion. have you watched the Italian job would you say Mr bridger was patriotic he was a criminal thief I don’t know how to tell you this, but The Italian Job was a movie. " and your a detective too well done | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A reminder that the proud patriot Daniel Thomas pleaded guilty to attempting to k1dkn@p a man at knifepoint, alleging (wrongly) that the chap had nicked 10k of drugs from his group. and he can still be patriotic How is stabbing dinghies and (presumably) selling drugs patriotic? again what's that got to do with it you might not like what he does but that doesn't mean he isn't patriotic. Endangering lives of RNLI, whipping up a mob, and flogging drugs on to (presumably) the addicted - again, how is that patriotic? That’s all damaging, wouldn’t you agree? not at all Selling drugs and getting in the way of the RNLI isn’t damaging? I mean I guess it’s an opinion. have you watched the Italian job would you say Mr bridger was patriotic he was a criminal thief I don’t know how to tell you this, but The Italian Job was a movie. and your a detective too well done " Oh I wouldn’t go that far, but I am capable of distinguishing fiction from fact, yes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. Whose army is this? What are they going to do to take over? And once they have taken over, any idea what their plans are? It’s a struggle to see those who don’t understand what’s going on. The left have a lot to answer for. Can’t help but notice that you didn’t answer the questions there. " Anyone with half a brain knows who I am talking about. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. Whose army is this? What are they going to do to take over? And once they have taken over, any idea what their plans are? It’s a struggle to see those who don’t understand what’s going on. The left have a lot to answer for. Can’t help but notice that you didn’t answer the questions there. Anyone with half a brain knows who I am talking about. " Let's say I only have 1 quarter of a brain. I want to understand who this invading army is fighting for, how they are going to take over and to what end. Are you able to tell me? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He's been arrested for criminal damage .. not sure if he'll be done for endangering an emergency worker.. " Sorry i haven't read the whole thread but why is he being charged with criminal damage on an abandoned boat ? Because anyone claiming ownership will then be liable for prosecution for trafficking. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He's been arrested for criminal damage .. not sure if he'll be done for endangering an emergency worker.. Sorry i haven't read the whole thread but why is he being charged with criminal damage on an abandoned boat ? Because anyone claiming ownership will then be liable for prosecution for trafficking. " He’s facing several charges, not just criminal damage. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He's been arrested for criminal damage .. not sure if he'll be done for endangering an emergency worker.. Sorry i haven't read the whole thread but why is he being charged with criminal damage on an abandoned boat ? Because anyone claiming ownership will then be liable for prosecution for trafficking. " He was arrested on suspicion of criminal damage with intent to endanger life, "destroying ships" under the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 and "conduct endangering ships" under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's criminal damage, the same offence as you'd get for bending a car wing mirror. Get a grip." How much have you donated to his legal fund? 🤣 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He's been arrested for criminal damage .. not sure if he'll be done for endangering an emergency worker.." "Sorry i haven't read the whole thread but why is he being charged with criminal damage on an abandoned boat ? Because anyone claiming ownership will then be liable for prosecution for trafficking." The police don't need the owner to complain, they just need evidence that criminal damage took place, and they have a video that makes that quite clear. I'm guessing that Danny and his gang have looked at the law and they know that he can't be charged with any of the more serious offences. The police will have to investigate, but they won't come up with anything, and in the meantime Danny gets lots of publicity. If the CPS do press ahead with the criminal damage charge, he gets to look like the small bloke being pushed around by an uncaring system, which is exactly what he wants. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's criminal damage, the same offence as you'd get for bending a car wing mirror. Get a grip." But he was endangering life as there was a French official on the boat as he was slashing it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Daniel ‘Danny Tommo’ Thomas has been arrested, any of you lot contributed to his legal fund yet? " why would anyone contribute to it? You seem to think anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a supporter of his.why is that or do you just lump everyone in together who disagrees with you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But he was endangering life as there was a French official on the boat as he was slashing it." The person on board was a rescue worker in a full immersion suit. The boat had a rigid bottom and didn't need the inflatable sides to keep it afloat. The sea was dead calm. There's no way that a charge of endangering a life would stand up in court. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But he was endangering life as there was a French official on the boat as he was slashing it. The person on board was a rescue worker in a full immersion suit. The boat had a rigid bottom and didn't need the inflatable sides to keep it afloat. The sea was dead calm. There's no way that a charge of endangering a life would stand up in court." If I took leave of my senses, set light to your car next to a fire station, whilst you were inside wearing fireproof clothing, would I also be cleared of endangering life? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm guessing that Danny and his gang have looked at the law and they know that he can't be charged with any of the more serious offences." The Merchant shipping act section 58 looks nailed on tbf. Though I suspect none of us are experts in maritime law. That carries a fine or up to 2 years inside. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But he was endangering life as there was a French official on the boat as he was slashing it." "The person on board was a rescue worker in a full immersion suit. The boat had a rigid bottom and didn't need the inflatable sides to keep it afloat. The sea was dead calm. There's no way that a charge of endangering a life would stand up in court." "If I took leave of my senses, set light to your car next to a fire station, whilst you were inside wearing fireproof clothing, would I also be cleared of endangering life?" Not an accurate analogy, and other circumstances would need to be considered. In the case of Danny, do you genuinely believe that his actions measurably increased the risk of death to the person on board? If the sea had been rough, I'd agree. If bursting the inflatable section might have sunk the boat, I'd agree. If there hadn't been a rescue vessel alongside, I'd agree. But as it was I don't believe that any judge will be persuaded that his actions could have caused the death of the person on board. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Merchant shipping act section 58 looks nailed on tbf. Though I suspect none of us are experts in maritime law. That carries a fine or up to 2 years inside." That particular section only applies to the master of, or a seaman employed in, a vessel. I think I read somewhere that someone else piloted the boat out there, and Danny was just a passenger. If so, section 58 doesn't apply to him. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But he was endangering life as there was a French official on the boat as he was slashing it. The person on board was a rescue worker in a full immersion suit. The boat had a rigid bottom and didn't need the inflatable sides to keep it afloat. The sea was dead calm. There's no way that a charge of endangering a life would stand up in court. If I took leave of my senses, set light to your car next to a fire station, whilst you were inside wearing fireproof clothing, would I also be cleared of endangering life? Not an accurate analogy, and other circumstances would need to be considered. In the case of Danny, do you genuinely believe that his actions measurably increased the risk of death to the person on board? If the sea had been rough, I'd agree. If bursting the inflatable section might have sunk the boat, I'd agree. If there hadn't been a rescue vessel alongside, I'd agree. But as it was I don't believe that any judge will be persuaded that his actions could have caused the death of the person on board." And you might be right, neither of us are going to be well versed enough in the law to be certain on this. I predict, like you, that some charges will stick, some won’t. Yaxley-Lennon is already crowdfunding for him and I’m certain there’s enough gullible fools out there to get him a decent sized legal fund. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Merchant shipping act section 58 looks nailed on tbf. Though I suspect none of us are experts in maritime law. That carries a fine or up to 2 years inside. That particular section only applies to the master of, or a seaman employed in, a vessel. I think I read somewhere that someone else piloted the boat out there, and Danny was just a passenger. If so, section 58 doesn't apply to him." That was my initial reading too, though seaman *could* apply to him depending upon his actions onboard (i.e if he engaged in any work whilst sailing it could be argued he was undertaking a role) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Daniel ‘Danny Tommo’ Thomas has been arrested, any of you lot contributed to his legal fund yet? why would anyone contribute to it? You seem to think anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a supporter of his.why is that or do you just lump everyone in together who disagrees with you" Or it could’ve been a joke? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But he was endangering life as there was a French official on the boat as he was slashing it. The person on board was a rescue worker in a full immersion suit. The boat had a rigid bottom and didn't need the inflatable sides to keep it afloat. The sea was dead calm. There's no way that a charge of endangering a life would stand up in court." Actually… it’s the act that is the offence.. the conditions at sea may be used as a mitigating circumstance after if found guilty… but can not be used to justify the initial offence | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Merchant shipping act section 58 looks nailed on tbf. Though I suspect none of us are experts in maritime law. That carries a fine or up to 2 years inside." "That particular section only applies to the master of, or a seaman employed in, a vessel. I think I read somewhere that someone else piloted the boat out there, and Danny was just a passenger. If so, section 58 doesn't apply to him." "That was my initial reading too, though seaman *could* apply to him depending upon his actions onboard (i.e if he engaged in any work whilst sailing it could be argued he was undertaking a role)" That's a good point, though gathering evidence of that would be very difficult. But people have been known to incriminate themselves during interview. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The person on board was a rescue worker in a full immersion suit. The boat had a rigid bottom and didn't need the inflatable sides to keep it afloat. The sea was dead calm. There's no way that a charge of endangering a life would stand up in court." "Actually… it’s the act that is the offence.. the conditions at sea may be used as a mitigating circumstance after if found guilty… but can not be used to justify the initial offence " Incorrect. The offence being investigated is 'criminal damage with the intent to endanger life'. For a charge to be brought the police have to show not that a life was endangered, but that Danny intended to endanger a life. Given the minimum level of damage, the sea state, and the safety measures to hand, he can claim that he took all of that into account and that he believed that no danger existed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"General incompetence or total failure of an endeavor is not a valid legal defense in English criminal law. " Full agree .. I think he should be made to walk the plank or be keel hauled 😁 On a serious note, criminal damage would be difficult as the owners a people smuggler , also I believe (though an expert witness) coukd determine if that RNLI guy was in any danger from the boat sinking. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He should’ve waited until the boat was empty…" Just seen the footage and looks like the guy jumped on the boat simultaneously as it was slashed | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. " I love it when racists out themselves. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. I love it when racists out themselves." It's nothing to do with racism, that's just a tired trope. Apart from the illegality, the cost alone is around £8 billion per year when all costs are totalled-up. The French are now upping their annual bill to the UK to £1 billion. If anybody thinks we can afford this eye-watering level of cost, they must be living in another country to me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. I love it when racists out themselves. It's nothing to do with racism, that's just a tired trope. Apart from the illegality, the cost alone is around £8 billion per year when all costs are totalled-up. The French are now upping their annual bill to the UK to £1 billion. If anybody thinks we can afford this eye-watering level of cost, they must be living in another country to me." HS2 costs about 7 billion per year. The triple lock pension is projected to cost between 10-15 billion per year by 2030. The largest cost involved in asylum is accommodation - which is around 4 billion per year, making it worthwhile to speed up the process and get asylum seekers an outcome quicker so they can leave or stay - either way, the cost of accommodation will drop. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. I love it when racists out themselves. It's nothing to do with racism, that's just a tired trope. Apart from the illegality, the cost alone is around £8 billion per year when all costs are totalled-up. The French are now upping their annual bill to the UK to £1 billion. If anybody thinks we can afford this eye-watering level of cost, they must be living in another country to me. HS2 costs about 7 billion per year. The triple lock pension is projected to cost between 10-15 billion per year by 2030. The largest cost involved in asylum is accommodation - which is around 4 billion per year, making it worthwhile to speed up the process and get asylum seekers an outcome quicker so they can leave or stay - either way, the cost of accommodation will drop." Yup HS2 was a wasteful vanity project. Triple lock is expensive, but nonetheless UK pension are amongst the lowest in the developed world. But in both cases what have they got to do with expenditure on illegal migrants? The nation can't keep spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No idea if he'll be prosecuted, but meanwhile almost 800 'illegals' arrived on Wednesday this week alone. It's just taking the piss, and small wonder people are driven to take the law into their own hands." What law did he take into his own hands? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. I love it when racists out themselves. It's nothing to do with racism, that's just a tired trope. Apart from the illegality, the cost alone is around £8 billion per year when all costs are totalled-up. The French are now upping their annual bill to the UK to £1 billion. If anybody thinks we can afford this eye-watering level of cost, they must be living in another country to me. HS2 costs about 7 billion per year. The triple lock pension is projected to cost between 10-15 billion per year by 2030. The largest cost involved in asylum is accommodation - which is around 4 billion per year, making it worthwhile to speed up the process and get asylum seekers an outcome quicker so they can leave or stay - either way, the cost of accommodation will drop. Yup HS2 was a wasteful vanity project. Triple lock is expensive, but nonetheless UK pension are amongst the lowest in the developed world. But in both cases what have they got to do with expenditure on illegal migrants? The nation can't keep spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave." "Speed up the process" very laudable but there are so many lawyers trying to slow it down . I read that bogus claimants are being given prepared bogus stories to tell Parrott fashion to extend their time here | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No idea if he'll be prosecuted, but meanwhile almost 800 'illegals' arrived on Wednesday this week alone. It's just taking the piss, and small wonder people are driven to take the law into their own hands. What law did he take into his own hands? " The protestors collectively. Today one was jailed for 2 years. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. I love it when racists out themselves. It's nothing to do with racism, that's just a tired trope. Apart from the illegality, the cost alone is around £8 billion per year when all costs are totalled-up. The French are now upping their annual bill to the UK to £1 billion. If anybody thinks we can afford this eye-watering level of cost, they must be living in another country to me. HS2 costs about 7 billion per year. The triple lock pension is projected to cost between 10-15 billion per year by 2030. The largest cost involved in asylum is accommodation - which is around 4 billion per year, making it worthwhile to speed up the process and get asylum seekers an outcome quicker so they can leave or stay - either way, the cost of accommodation will drop. Yup HS2 was a wasteful vanity project. Triple lock is expensive, but nonetheless UK pension are amongst the lowest in the developed world. But in both cases what have they got to do with expenditure on illegal migrants? The nation can't keep spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. "Speed up the process" very laudable but there are so many lawyers trying to slow it down . I read that bogus claimants are being given prepared bogus stories to tell Parrott fashion to extend their time here " And yet the process is moving faster in 2025/26 than previously. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. I love it when racists out themselves. It's nothing to do with racism, that's just a tired trope. Apart from the illegality, the cost alone is around £8 billion per year when all costs are totalled-up. The French are now upping their annual bill to the UK to £1 billion. If anybody thinks we can afford this eye-watering level of cost, they must be living in another country to me. HS2 costs about 7 billion per year. The triple lock pension is projected to cost between 10-15 billion per year by 2030. The largest cost involved in asylum is accommodation - which is around 4 billion per year, making it worthwhile to speed up the process and get asylum seekers an outcome quicker so they can leave or stay - either way, the cost of accommodation will drop. Yup HS2 was a wasteful vanity project. Triple lock is expensive, but nonetheless UK pension are amongst the lowest in the developed world. But in both cases what have they got to do with expenditure on illegal migrants? The nation can't keep spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave." 8bn is roughly 0.5% of total government spending. Much of it comes directly from the overseas aid budget, and as someone else has commented, around half of it goes in housing costs, in the main to large companies who are doing very nicely out of it. So if anyone tells you that if it were not for irregular immigration, this country would be a paradise...don't believe them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". 8bn is roughly 0.5% of total government spending. Much of it comes directly from the overseas aid budget, and as someone else has commented, around half of it goes in housing costs, in the main to large companies who are doing very nicely out of it. So if anyone tells you that if it were not for irregular immigration, this country would be a paradise...don't believe them." Absolutely this. If asylum stopped tomorrow, I suspect people wouldn’t even notice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. I love it when racists out themselves. It's nothing to do with racism, that's just a tired trope. Apart from the illegality, the cost alone is around £8 billion per year when all costs are totalled-up. The French are now upping their annual bill to the UK to £1 billion. If anybody thinks we can afford this eye-watering level of cost, they must be living in another country to me." That figure is last years, add another few billion to it. Latest figure was disclosed thus week I belive in FOI request. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. I love it when racists out themselves. It's nothing to do with racism, that's just a tired trope. Apart from the illegality, the cost alone is around £8 billion per year when all costs are totalled-up. The French are now upping their annual bill to the UK to £1 billion. If anybody thinks we can afford this eye-watering level of cost, they must be living in another country to me. That figure is last years, add another few billion to it. Latest figure was disclosed thus week I belive in FOI request." I looked it up a few weeks ago, and 8bn seems to be a reasonable estimate. It seems unlikely to have gone up given that arrivals are down and numbers in accommodation likewise down. But if you have better information please let me know. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No idea if he'll be prosecuted, but meanwhile almost 800 'illegals' arrived on Wednesday this week alone. It's just taking the piss, and small wonder people are driven to take the law into their own hands." It is the highest amount of illegal entrants this year and includes around 50 that set sail in Normandy, enduring 33 hours at sea. As so far the yearly figures are down compared to very high bench marks so let's hope this is not the start of an upward trend | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No idea if he'll be prosecuted, but meanwhile almost 800 'illegals' arrived on Wednesday this week alone." 1085 in last three days, aboard 18 boats, 2 of which arrived on Kent shores undetected. Yet Ukraine and Russia trading hundreds of drones every night, some have travelled a 1000 miles with 90%+ identified. What are the French not doing for their £1bn | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. I love it when racists out themselves. It's nothing to do with racism, that's just a tired trope. Apart from the illegality, the cost alone is around £8 billion per year when all costs are totalled-up. The French are now upping their annual bill to the UK to £1 billion. If anybody thinks we can afford this eye-watering level of cost, they must be living in another country to me. HS2 costs about 7 billion per year. The triple lock pension is projected to cost between 10-15 billion per year by 2030. The largest cost involved in asylum is accommodation - which is around 4 billion per year, making it worthwhile to speed up the process and get asylum seekers an outcome quicker so they can leave or stay - either way, the cost of accommodation will drop. Yup HS2 was a wasteful vanity project. Triple lock is expensive, but nonetheless UK pension are amongst the lowest in the developed world. But in both cases what have they got to do with expenditure on illegal migrants? The nation can't keep spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. 8bn is roughly 0.5% of total government spending. Much of it comes directly from the overseas aid budget, and as someone else has commented, around half of it goes in housing costs, in the main to large companies who are doing very nicely out of it. So if anyone tells you that if it were not for irregular immigration, this country would be a paradise...don't believe them." Not sure what you mean by 'irregular' migration. I don't think people have a problem with 'normal' immigration in principle. What is unacceptable is illegal migration, resulting in unvetted arrivees and massive cost to taxpayers. That apart, it is corrosive to have a group flout the law with impunity whilst protestors are clapped in jail. It's a powderkeg. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. I love it when racists out themselves. It's nothing to do with racism, that's just a tired trope. Apart from the illegality, the cost alone is around £8 billion per year when all costs are totalled-up. The French are now upping their annual bill to the UK to £1 billion. If anybody thinks we can afford this eye-watering level of cost, they must be living in another country to me. HS2 costs about 7 billion per year. The triple lock pension is projected to cost between 10-15 billion per year by 2030. The largest cost involved in asylum is accommodation - which is around 4 billion per year, making it worthwhile to speed up the process and get asylum seekers an outcome quicker so they can leave or stay - either way, the cost of accommodation will drop. Yup HS2 was a wasteful vanity project. Triple lock is expensive, but nonetheless UK pension are amongst the lowest in the developed world. But in both cases what have they got to do with expenditure on illegal migrants? The nation can't keep spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. 8bn is roughly 0.5% of total government spending. Much of it comes directly from the overseas aid budget, and as someone else has commented, around half of it goes in housing costs, in the main to large companies who are doing very nicely out of it. So if anyone tells you that if it were not for irregular immigration, this country would be a paradise...don't believe them. Not sure what you mean by 'irregular' migration. I don't think people have a problem with 'normal' immigration in principle. What is unacceptable is illegal migration, resulting in unvetted arrivees and massive cost to taxpayers. That apart, it is corrosive to have a group flout the law with impunity whilst protestors are clapped in jail. It's a powderkeg." Irregular generally refers to the nature of arrival. ‘Illegal’ migrants are those here not claiming asylum, and not on a legal visa, perhaps having overstayed their visa or been refused asylum but not yet removed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. I love it when racists out themselves. It's nothing to do with racism, that's just a tired trope. Apart from the illegality, the cost alone is around £8 billion per year when all costs are totalled-up. The French are now upping their annual bill to the UK to £1 billion. If anybody thinks we can afford this eye-watering level of cost, they must be living in another country to me." Exactly this. If the government don't get a grip on the situation I think there's going to mass civil unrest.. something on the scale of the poll tax riots in the early 90s | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. I love it when racists out themselves. It's nothing to do with racism, that's just a tired trope. Apart from the illegality, the cost alone is around £8 billion per year when all costs are totalled-up. The French are now upping their annual bill to the UK to £1 billion. If anybody thinks we can afford this eye-watering level of cost, they must be living in another country to me. Exactly this. If the government don't get a grip on the situation I think there's going to mass civil unrest.. something on the scale of the poll tax riots in the early 90s " Personally, I think 'mass civil unrest' is unlikely. Localised protests in some areas as we have had before are possible, but the insurrection which the far right are courting does not seem to be imminent. As for 'eye-watering level of cost', I refer the writer to an earlier analysis of this in terms of overall Government expenditure. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. I love it when racists out themselves. It's nothing to do with racism, that's just a tired trope. Apart from the illegality, the cost alone is around £8 billion per year when all costs are totalled-up. The French are now upping their annual bill to the UK to £1 billion. If anybody thinks we can afford this eye-watering level of cost, they must be living in another country to me. Exactly this. If the government don't get a grip on the situation I think there's going to mass civil unrest.. something on the scale of the poll tax riots in the early 90s " Public disapproval yes. Riots no. A few flag wankers in balaclavas at best. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. I love it when racists out themselves. It's nothing to do with racism, that's just a tired trope. Apart from the illegality, the cost alone is around £8 billion per year when all costs are totalled-up. The French are now upping their annual bill to the UK to £1 billion. If anybody thinks we can afford this eye-watering level of cost, they must be living in another country to me. Exactly this. If the government don't get a grip on the situation I think there's going to mass civil unrest.. something on the scale of the poll tax riots in the early 90s " The far right are desperate for this to happen but In reality it’s just a few hundred domestic abusers who travel from all over the South. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The left wing in this country will lead to the destruction of our country. The government will put this guy in prison because he is showing them up to being cowards. There is only one country that have a real grip on the problem. Be like Poland. " The left wing government have brought small boat numbers down from the previous Tory government btw. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The left wing in this country will lead to the destruction of our country. The government will put this guy in prison because he is showing them up to being cowards. There is only one country that have a real grip on the problem. Be like Poland. The left wing government have brought small boat numbers down from the previous Tory government btw." Steady on there we can't have facts interfering here. 🤣😝 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The left wing in this country will lead to the destruction of our country. The government will put this guy in prison because he is showing them up to being cowards. There is only one country that have a real grip on the problem. Be like Poland. The left wing government have brought small boat numbers down from the previous Tory government btw." Small boat numbers are down because good Christians like Danny Tommo are out there risking their lives on the high seas to protect our sovereign island against these brutish barbarian invaders. And the reward? Life imprisonment from the woke left government and 5 star hotels for the invaders. I may or may not be being serious. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. I love it when racists out themselves. It's nothing to do with racism, that's just a tired trope. Apart from the illegality, the cost alone is around £8 billion per year when all costs are totalled-up. The French are now upping their annual bill to the UK to £1 billion. If anybody thinks we can afford this eye-watering level of cost, they must be living in another country to me. Exactly this. If the government don't get a grip on the situation I think there's going to mass civil unrest.. something on the scale of the poll tax riots in the early 90s Personally, I think 'mass civil unrest' is unlikely. Localised protests in some areas as we have had before are possible, but the insurrection which the far right are courting does not seem to be imminent. As for 'eye-watering level of cost', I refer the writer to an earlier analysis of this in terms of overall Government expenditure." I don't buy this 'small percentage' argument. Let's look at it in absolute terms instead. A new hospital costs around £1 to £2 bil. to build, a new reservoir £1 bil., a new state-of-the-art frigate £1 bil. We could have all of those and more for 1 year cost of illegal migrants. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. I love it when racists out themselves. It's nothing to do with racism, that's just a tired trope. Apart from the illegality, the cost alone is around £8 billion per year when all costs are totalled-up. The French are now upping their annual bill to the UK to £1 billion. If anybody thinks we can afford this eye-watering level of cost, they must be living in another country to me. Exactly this. If the government don't get a grip on the situation I think there's going to mass civil unrest.. something on the scale of the poll tax riots in the early 90s Personally, I think 'mass civil unrest' is unlikely. Localised protests in some areas as we have had before are possible, but the insurrection which the far right are courting does not seem to be imminent. As for 'eye-watering level of cost', I refer the writer to an earlier analysis of this in terms of overall Government expenditure. I don't buy this 'small percentage' argument. Let's look at it in absolute terms instead. A new hospital costs around £1 to £2 bil. to build, a new reservoir £1 bil., a new state-of-the-art frigate £1 bil. We could have all of those and more for 1 year cost of illegal migrants. " We can’t realistically stop people crossing, we can’t realistically stop people claiming asylum, we have to process them. All we can do is process them as fast as possible and either grant asylum or deport as fast as possible in order to minimise costs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. I love it when racists out themselves. It's nothing to do with racism, that's just a tired trope. Apart from the illegality, the cost alone is around £8 billion per year when all costs are totalled-up. The French are now upping their annual bill to the UK to £1 billion. If anybody thinks we can afford this eye-watering level of cost, they must be living in another country to me. Exactly this. If the government don't get a grip on the situation I think there's going to mass civil unrest.. something on the scale of the poll tax riots in the early 90s Personally, I think 'mass civil unrest' is unlikely. Localised protests in some areas as we have had before are possible, but the insurrection which the far right are courting does not seem to be imminent. As for 'eye-watering level of cost', I refer the writer to an earlier analysis of this in terms of overall Government expenditure. I don't buy this 'small percentage' argument. Let's look at it in absolute terms instead. A new hospital costs around £1 to £2 bil. to build, a new reservoir £1 bil., a new state-of-the-art frigate £1 bil. We could have all of those and more for 1 year cost of illegal migrants. " Fair, compassionate, and timely treatment of asylum seekers is an international obligation, and I would also say, an example of British values in action. Asylum seekers are not the reason that we have an underfunded health service, military, and public services. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Fair, compassionate, and timely treatment of asylum seekers is an international obligation, and I would also say, an example of British values in action. Asylum seekers are not the reason that we have an underfunded health service, military, and public services." As a fair, compassionate person who exemplifies the British values, how much additional tax are you willing to pay towards the cost of the asylum system? If an asylum hotel is placed in your area, do you guarantee that your council wouldn't be against it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Fair, compassionate, and timely treatment of asylum seekers is an international obligation, and I would also say, an example of British values in action. Asylum seekers are not the reason that we have an underfunded health service, military, and public services. As a fair, compassionate person who exemplifies the British values, how much additional tax are you willing to pay towards the cost of the asylum system? If an asylum hotel is placed in your area, do you guarantee that your council wouldn't be against it? " We don’t get to choose where our taxes get spent, so any increases ‘for the asylum system’ are the same as taxes ‘for the NHS’ or ‘for the prison service’ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Fair, compassionate, and timely treatment of asylum seekers is an international obligation, and I would also say, an example of British values in action. Asylum seekers are not the reason that we have an underfunded health service, military, and public services. As a fair, compassionate person who exemplifies the British values, how much additional tax are you willing to pay towards the cost of the asylum system? If an asylum hotel is placed in your area, do you guarantee that your council wouldn't be against it? We don’t get to choose where our taxes get spent, so any increases ‘for the asylum system’ are the same as taxes ‘for the NHS’ or ‘for the prison service’" We do get to choose. It's called democracy. If the majority don't want to be paying into the asylum system, it has to be respected. And my post was more about the moral lectures people give on the internet about compassion. Taking tax money out of other people's pockets to pay for these causes doesn't make them compassionate. If you are compassionate, put your own money where your mouth is, instead of giving these sanctimonious lectures to the others, pretending like you are compassionate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We do get to choose. It's called democracy. If the majority don't want to be paying into the asylum system, it has to be respected. " We have to have an asylum system. That has to be paid for. It is paid for by general taxation. You as an individual have no say in how general taxation is distributed. Yes you can change your vote, don’t vote, spoil your ballot, have a masked riot, stab a dinghy. You can do any or all of the above - you still have to pay tax, and part of it will still get spent on the asylum system. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's criminal damage, the same offence as you'd get for bending a car wing mirror. Get a grip. How much have you donated to his legal fund? 🤣" Nothing, because anybody with a brain could defend a charge like that easy enough. Criminal damage as a charge isn't even enough to go to Crown, 6 months max, its really small fry. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's criminal damage, the same offence as you'd get for bending a car wing mirror. Get a grip. How much have you donated to his legal fund? 🤣 Nothing, because anybody with a brain could defend a charge like that easy enough. Criminal damage as a charge isn't even enough to go to Crown, 6 months max, its really small fry." He’s still after 100k from his mug supporters though. After the 55k he recently raised form them about his mum’s house. Grifter’s gonna grift. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We do get to choose. It's called democracy. If the majority don't want to be paying into the asylum system, it has to be respected. We have to have an asylum system. That has to be paid for. " Why? If it's for international obligations, that's what people want to get out of. If you want us to be part of the obligations and take up its cost, you have to convince people why. These moral lectures about compassion don't help here because it's well documented that the system has been exploited by frauds and the country doesn't have any money to pay for its own these days. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We do get to choose. It's called democracy. If the majority don't want to be paying into the asylum system, it has to be respected. We have to have an asylum system. That has to be paid for. Why? If it's for international obligations, that's what people want to get out of. If you want us to be part of the obligations and take up its cost, you have to convince people why. These moral lectures about compassion don't help here because it's well documented that the system has been exploited by frauds and the country doesn't have any money to pay for its own these days. " The same people who are anti asylum are also anti pip, anti benefits (except for pensions, they’re pro pension) and everything else. They’re not interested in helping anyone, including ‘our own’ It’s the same phenomena as ‘protect our women and children’ when a chunk of them have domestic violence records (Including Daniel Thomas) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We do get to choose. It's called democracy. If the majority don't want to be paying into the asylum system, it has to be respected. We have to have an asylum system. That has to be paid for. Why? If it's for international obligations, that's what people want to get out of. If you want us to be part of the obligations and take up its cost, you have to convince people why. These moral lectures about compassion don't help here because it's well documented that the system has been exploited by frauds and the country doesn't have any money to pay for its own these days. The same people who are anti asylum are also anti pip, anti benefits (except for pensions, they’re pro pension) and everything else. They’re not interested in helping anyone, including ‘our own’ " If someone cares about their own, they have to support pip and free benefits? Where did you get that idea from? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We do get to choose. It's called democracy. If the majority don't want to be paying into the asylum system, it has to be respected. We have to have an asylum system. That has to be paid for. Why? If it's for international obligations, that's what people want to get out of. If you want us to be part of the obligations and take up its cost, you have to convince people why. These moral lectures about compassion don't help here because it's well documented that the system has been exploited by frauds and the country doesn't have any money to pay for its own these days. The same people who are anti asylum are also anti pip, anti benefits (except for pensions, they’re pro pension) and everything else. They’re not interested in helping anyone, including ‘our own’ If someone cares about their own, they have to support pip and free benefits? Where did you get that idea from?" See?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We do get to choose. It's called democracy. If the majority don't want to be paying into the asylum system, it has to be respected. We have to have an asylum system. That has to be paid for. Why? If it's for international obligations, that's what people want to get out of. If you want us to be part of the obligations and take up its cost, you have to convince people why. These moral lectures about compassion don't help here because it's well documented that the system has been exploited by frauds and the country doesn't have any money to pay for its own these days. The same people who are anti asylum are also anti pip, anti benefits (except for pensions, they’re pro pension) and everything else. They’re not interested in helping anyone, including ‘our own’ If someone cares about their own, they have to support pip and free benefits? Where did you get that idea from? See? "See what? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We do get to choose. It's called democracy. If the majority don't want to be paying into the asylum system, it has to be respected. We have to have an asylum system. That has to be paid for. Why? If it's for international obligations, that's what people want to get out of. If you want us to be part of the obligations and take up its cost, you have to convince people why. These moral lectures about compassion don't help here because it's well documented that the system has been exploited by frauds and the country doesn't have any money to pay for its own these days. The same people who are anti asylum are also anti pip, anti benefits (except for pensions, they’re pro pension) and everything else. They’re not interested in helping anyone, including ‘our own’ If someone cares about their own, they have to support pip and free benefits? Where did you get that idea from? See?
See what?"You confirmed my point. That’s the end of the convo | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We do get to choose. It's called democracy. If the majority don't want to be paying into the asylum system, it has to be respected. We have to have an asylum system. That has to be paid for. Why? If it's for international obligations, that's what people want to get out of. If you want us to be part of the obligations and take up its cost, you have to convince people why. These moral lectures about compassion don't help here because it's well documented that the system has been exploited by frauds and the country doesn't have any money to pay for its own these days. The same people who are anti asylum are also anti pip, anti benefits (except for pensions, they’re pro pension) and everything else. They’re not interested in helping anyone, including ‘our own’ If someone cares about their own, they have to support pip and free benefits? Where did you get that idea from? See?
See what?
You confirmed my point. That’s the end of the convo
"I didn't. If you want to pat your on your back over some sort of victory, in your mind, please go ahead | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We do get to choose. It's called democracy. If the majority don't want to be paying into the asylum system, it has to be respected. We have to have an asylum system. That has to be paid for. Why? If it's for international obligations, that's what people want to get out of. If you want us to be part of the obligations and take up its cost, you have to convince people why. These moral lectures about compassion don't help here because it's well documented that the system has been exploited by frauds and the country doesn't have any money to pay for its own these days. The same people who are anti asylum are also anti pip, anti benefits (except for pensions, they’re pro pension) and everything else. They’re not interested in helping anyone, including ‘our own’ If someone cares about their own, they have to support pip and free benefits? Where did you get that idea from? See?
See what?
You confirmed my point. That’s the end of the convo
I didn't. If you want to pat your on your back over some sort of victory, in your mind, please go ahead " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. I love it when racists out themselves. It's nothing to do with racism, that's just a tired trope. Apart from the illegality, the cost alone is around £8 billion per year when all costs are totalled-up. The French are now upping their annual bill to the UK to £1 billion. If anybody thinks we can afford this eye-watering level of cost, they must be living in another country to me. Exactly this. If the government don't get a grip on the situation I think there's going to mass civil unrest.. something on the scale of the poll tax riots in the early 90s Personally, I think 'mass civil unrest' is unlikely. Localised protests in some areas as we have had before are possible, but the insurrection which the far right are courting does not seem to be imminent. As for 'eye-watering level of cost', I refer the writer to an earlier analysis of this in terms of overall Government expenditure. I don't buy this 'small percentage' argument. Let's look at it in absolute terms instead. A new hospital costs around £1 to £2 bil. to build, a new reservoir £1 bil., a new state-of-the-art frigate £1 bil. We could have all of those and more for 1 year cost of illegal migrants. Fair, compassionate, and timely treatment of asylum seekers is an international obligation, and I would also say, an example of British values in action. Asylum seekers are not the reason that we have an underfunded health service, military, and public services." Fully agree. But we are talking about illegal migrants aided and abetted by criminal gangs who are abusing the asylum system. If money is diverted to processing bogus asylum claims, then of course money is short for health, defence, infrastructure. It's just basic maths. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Controversial but give him a medal he's doing what the cowardly french should be doing. I believe the same. We are letting the invading army in and housing them in hotels till they decide it’s time to take over. I love it when racists out themselves. It's nothing to do with racism, that's just a tired trope. Apart from the illegality, the cost alone is around £8 billion per year when all costs are totalled-up. The French are now upping their annual bill to the UK to £1 billion. If anybody thinks we can afford this eye-watering level of cost, they must be living in another country to me. Exactly this. If the government don't get a grip on the situation I think there's going to mass civil unrest.. something on the scale of the poll tax riots in the early 90s Personally, I think 'mass civil unrest' is unlikely. Localised protests in some areas as we have had before are possible, but the insurrection which the far right are courting does not seem to be imminent. As for 'eye-watering level of cost', I refer the writer to an earlier analysis of this in terms of overall Government expenditure. I don't buy this 'small percentage' argument. Let's look at it in absolute terms instead. A new hospital costs around £1 to £2 bil. to build, a new reservoir £1 bil., a new state-of-the-art frigate £1 bil. We could have all of those and more for 1 year cost of illegal migrants. Fair, compassionate, and timely treatment of asylum seekers is an international obligation, and I would also say, an example of British values in action. Asylum seekers are not the reason that we have an underfunded health service, military, and public services. Fully agree. But we are talking about illegal migrants aided and abetted by criminal gangs who are abusing the asylum system. If money is diverted to processing bogus asylum claims, then of course money is short for health, defence, infrastructure. It's just basic maths." And all we can do in response is ensure our asylum processing is adequate. That’s it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The left wing in this country will lead to the destruction of our country. The government will put this guy in prison because he is showing them up to being cowards. There is only one country that have a real grip on the problem. Be like Poland. The left wing government have brought small boat numbers down from the previous Tory government btw." They have done absolutely nothing. Going back many years these political parties have been nothing but corrupt. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The left wing in this country will lead to the destruction of our country. The government will put this guy in prison because he is showing them up to being cowards. There is only one country that have a real grip on the problem. Be like Poland. The left wing government have brought small boat numbers down from the previous Tory government btw. They have done absolutely nothing. Going back many years these political parties have been nothing but corrupt. " Well they have demonstrably brought the numbers down. You can look that up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see he's pleaded not guilty. This scenario always confuses me, as there's a video of him doing it "We are now in an era where we are all being asked to discount the evidence of our own eyes in order to believe other people's narrative. It's not a new thing opinions have always been manipulated this way, it's just much easier now with social media | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The left wing in this country will lead to the destruction of our country. The government will put this guy in prison because he is showing them up to being cowards. There is only one country that have a real grip on the problem. Be like Poland. The left wing government have brought small boat numbers down from the previous Tory government btw. They have done absolutely nothing. Going back many years these political parties have been nothing but corrupt. " But they have brought the numbers down. That's a very easy fact to verify by using a search engine | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The left wing in this country will lead to the destruction of our country. The government will put this guy in prison because he is showing them up to being cowards. There is only one country that have a real grip on the problem. Be like Poland. The left wing government have brought small boat numbers down from the previous Tory government btw. They have done absolutely nothing. Going back many years these political parties have been nothing but corrupt. Well they have demonstrably brought the numbers down. You can look that up. " By that argument, the Tories have demonstrably increased funding to NHS. Will you then agree that the Tories did well with the NHS? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"doing something to protect the people of this country." Who is the domestic abuser drug dealer protecting, exactly? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The left wing in this country will lead to the destruction of our country. The government will put this guy in prison because he is showing them up to being cowards. There is only one country that have a real grip on the problem. Be like Poland. The left wing government have brought small boat numbers down from the previous Tory government btw. They have done absolutely nothing. Going back many years these political parties have been nothing but corrupt. Well they have demonstrably brought the numbers down. You can look that up. By that argument, the Tories have demonstrably increased funding to NHS. Will you then agree that the Tories did well with the NHS?" Funding and outcomes are not the same are they? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only people who should be going to jail is our corrupt politicians and police for turning on there own people.i don't condone slashing boats.But I see why he did it.the establishment will make him a scape goat because he has a voice and doing something to protect the people of this country.goverment don't like that traitors the lot of them in government.and then they want us to go and fight a war in another country while all the illegals come here.zero chance nobody will go to war for this government in another country what has nothing to do with us.let Blair.starmer.burnham.milliband...lead the way and the other puppets who want a war.rant over " Is what he is alleged to have done against the law? If so and I guess the court will decide that, how will that be him being made a scape goat and what is hé a scape goat for? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only people who should be going to jail is our corrupt politicians and police for turning on there own people.i don't condone slashing boats.But I see why he did it.the establishment will make him a scape goat because he has a voice and doing something to protect the people of this country.goverment don't like that traitors the lot of them in government.and then they want us to go and fight a war in another country while all the illegals come here.zero chance nobody will go to war for this government in another country what has nothing to do with us.let Blair.starmer.burnham.milliband...lead the way and the other puppets who want a war.rant over Is what he is alleged to have done against the law? If so and I guess the court will decide that, how will that be him being made a scape goat and what is hé a scape goat for? " because the government will come down heavy on him to try and scare the rest who want to stick up for this country.if they lock him up they will think people will be to afraid to speak there mind incase they get locked up to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The left wing government have brought small boat numbers down from the previous Tory government btw. They have done absolutely nothing. Going back many years these political parties have been nothing but corrupt. Well they have demonstrably brought the numbers down. You can look that up. By that argument, the Tories have demonstrably increased funding to NHS. Will you then agree that the Tories did well with the NHS? Funding and outcomes are not the same are they? " Exactly! The number of new asylum applications going down a little bit doesn't mean the situation is getting better. The number of asylum seekers in the country still keeps increasing. You see the difference now? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only people who should be going to jail is our corrupt politicians and police for turning on there own people.i don't condone slashing boats.But I see why he did it.the establishment will make him a scape goat because he has a voice and doing something to protect the people of this country.goverment don't like that traitors the lot of them in government.and then they want us to go and fight a war in another country while all the illegals come here.zero chance nobody will go to war for this government in another country what has nothing to do with us.let Blair.starmer.burnham.milliband...lead the way and the other puppets who want a war.rant over Is what he is alleged to have done against the law? If so and I guess the court will decide that, how will that be him being made a scape goat and what is hé a scape goat for? because the government will come down heavy on him to try and scare the rest who want to stick up for this country.if they lock him up they will think people will be to afraid to speak there mind incase they get locked up to." We’ll have an independent judicial system and sentencing laws, don’t we? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The left wing government have brought small boat numbers down from the previous Tory government btw. They have done absolutely nothing. Going back many years these political parties have been nothing but corrupt. Well they have demonstrably brought the numbers down. You can look that up. By that argument, the Tories have demonstrably increased funding to NHS. Will you then agree that the Tories did well with the NHS? Funding and outcomes are not the same are they? Exactly! The number of new asylum applications going down a little bit doesn't mean the situation is getting better. The number of asylum seekers in the country still keeps increasing. You see the difference now?" If they have passed asylum, then they have the right to be here for a limited time. What would you like to do about that? Small boat arrivals are down. Asylum numbers (percentages) being accepted are down. Processing times are down. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If they have passed asylum, then they have the right to be here for a limited time. What would you like to do about that? Small boat arrivals are down. Asylum numbers (percentages) being accepted are down. Processing times are down. " Yes, Labour has handled certain things better. I am not denying that. But the numbers are still high according to the majority of people. Just like the Tories increasing funding for NHS isn't enough for most people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If they have passed asylum, then they have the right to be here for a limited time. What would you like to do about that? Small boat arrivals are down. Asylum numbers (percentages) being accepted are down. Processing times are down. Yes, Labour has handled certain things better. I am not denying that. But the numbers are still high according to the majority of people. Just like the Tories increasing funding for NHS isn't enough for most people." The difference is the Tories spent more and outcomes didn’t improve. Labour are actually seeing demonstrable results on small boats at present. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If they have passed asylum, then they have the right to be here for a limited time. What would you like to do about that? Small boat arrivals are down. Asylum numbers (percentages) being accepted are down. Processing times are down. Yes, Labour has handled certain things better. I am not denying that. But the numbers are still high according to the majority of people. Just like the Tories increasing funding for NHS isn't enough for most people. The difference is the Tories spent more and outcomes didn’t improve. Labour are actually seeing demonstrable results on small boats at present. " Depends on what you consider "results". Your view of what's considered good results might be different from other people's views of what's considered good results. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only people who should be going to jail is our corrupt politicians and police for turning on there own people.i don't condone slashing boats.But I see why he did it.the establishment will make him a scape goat because he has a voice and doing something to protect the people of this country.goverment don't like that traitors the lot of them in government.and then they want us to go and fight a war in another country while all the illegals come here.zero chance nobody will go to war for this government in another country what has nothing to do with us.let Blair.starmer.burnham.milliband...lead the way and the other puppets who want a war.rant over Is what he is alleged to have done against the law? If so and I guess the court will decide that, how will that be him being made a scape goat and what is hé a scape goat for? because the government will come down heavy on him to try and scare the rest who want to stick up for this country.if they lock him up they will think people will be to afraid to speak there mind incase they get locked up to. We’ll have an independent judicial system and sentencing laws, don’t we? " yes and most of them are corrupt or 2 tier.you no and I no that if someone from the right does something they fast track it straight to court then prison days later.yet someone from the left does something they get bailed and not herd of for over 18 months | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If they have passed asylum, then they have the right to be here for a limited time. What would you like to do about that? Small boat arrivals are down. Asylum numbers (percentages) being accepted are down. Processing times are down. Yes, Labour has handled certain things better. I am not denying that. But the numbers are still high according to the majority of people. Just like the Tories increasing funding for NHS isn't enough for most people. The difference is the Tories spent more and outcomes didn’t improve. Labour are actually seeing demonstrable results on small boats at present. Depends on what you consider "results". Your view of what's considered good results might be different from other people's views of what's considered good results." Well if people are expecting impossible or unrealistic outcomes like asylum seekers to vanish overnight, they’re going to be disappointed. But nobody in good faith can see small boat numbers falling and processing speeding up and deny that those are results Asylum seekers who pass have 30 months neg rue they have to apply for extension (which may be refused). There literally can’t be a quick turnaround on asylum numbers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only people who should be going to jail is our corrupt politicians and police for turning on there own people.i don't condone slashing boats.But I see why he did it.the establishment will make him a scape goat because he has a voice and doing something to protect the people of this country.goverment don't like that traitors the lot of them in government.and then they want us to go and fight a war in another country while all the illegals come here.zero chance nobody will go to war for this government in another country what has nothing to do with us.let Blair.starmer.burnham.milliband...lead the way and the other puppets who want a war.rant over Is what he is alleged to have done against the law? If so and I guess the court will decide that, how will that be him being made a scape goat and what is hé a scape goat for? because the government will come down heavy on him to try and scare the rest who want to stick up for this country.if they lock him up they will think people will be to afraid to speak there mind incase they get locked up to." The judicial system is going to deal with him not the government. *IF* he gets locked up it won't be for speaking his mind though it will be for whatever crime he is found guilty of committing . It's actually possible to speak your mind without respecting to alleged criminal damage. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You no and I no that if someone from the right does something they fast track it straight to court then prison days later.yet someone from the left does something they get bailed and not herd of for over 18 months " I’m gonna have to ask you to back that enormous pile of BS up with some evidence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Well if people are expecting impossible or unrealistic outcomes like asylum seekers to vanish overnight, they’re going to be disappointed. But nobody in good faith can see small boat numbers falling and processing speeding up and deny that those are results Asylum seekers who pass have 30 months neg rue they have to apply for extension (which may be refused). There literally can’t be a quick turnaround on asylum numbers. " And people want a quick turnaround because they believe the country can't take any more asylum seekers. The rigid legal processes around asylum seekers means it's hard to turn it around by much no matter how hard you try. Hence people want to vote for parties that remove these legal shackles. I don't see anything logically wrong with this. People want something to happen and they are going to support the parties that promise to make it happen. The difference here is between what you want and what other people want. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If they have passed asylum, then they have the right to be here for a limited time. What would you like to do about that? Small boat arrivals are down. Asylum numbers (percentages) being accepted are down. Processing times are down. Yes, Labour has handled certain things better. I am not denying that. But the numbers are still high according to the majority of people. Just like the Tories increasing funding for NHS isn't enough for most people." For information, the total number of arrivals by 'small boat' since 2019 is around 200,000. So around o.3% of the total UK population. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If they have passed asylum, then they have the right to be here for a limited time. What would you like to do about that? Small boat arrivals are down. Asylum numbers (percentages) being accepted are down. Processing times are down. Yes, Labour has handled certain things better. I am not denying that. But the numbers are still high according to the majority of people. Just like the Tories increasing funding for NHS isn't enough for most people. For information, the total number of arrivals by 'small boat' since 2019 is around 200,000. So around o.3% of the total UK population." So? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Well if people are expecting impossible or unrealistic outcomes like asylum seekers to vanish overnight, they’re going to be disappointed. But nobody in good faith can see small boat numbers falling and processing speeding up and deny that those are results Asylum seekers who pass have 30 months neg rue they have to apply for extension (which may be refused). There literally can’t be a quick turnaround on asylum numbers. And people want a quick turnaround because they believe the country can't take any more asylum seekers. The rigid legal processes around asylum seekers means it's hard to turn it around by much no matter how hard you try. Hence people want to vote for parties that remove these legal shackles. I don't see anything logically wrong with this. People want something to happen and they are going to support the parties that promise to make it happen. The difference here is between what you want and what other people want." Well let’s say people want reform to under the ECHR. That’s an election in mid-2029, followed by petitioning to leave the ECHR which has to be announced 6 months in advance. Except we also have to leave the refugee convention, which requires 1 year’s notice - So mid-2030. Plus legal challenges, which will delay everything. Let’s say 2032 at the very earliest. (Avoiding all the other legal stuff that will come from leaving the ECHR, as so much domestic and international policy will need entirely re-writing. Timely and highly expensive, and with no guarantee of any protections that we currently enjoy. THEN we can stop taking in asylum seekers. But the ones we have already? Who knows? Legal challenges will pop up then too, as they were granted permission to stay for a period which is now being revoked. They’ll win their cases too, which means we’ll still be dealing with asylum cases in *at least* 2035 under whatever government follows reform. And that’s absolute best case scenario. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If they have passed asylum, then they have the right to be here for a limited time. What would you like to do about that? Small boat arrivals are down. Asylum numbers (percentages) being accepted are down. Processing times are down. Yes, Labour has handled certain things better. I am not denying that. But the numbers are still high according to the majority of people. Just like the Tories increasing funding for NHS isn't enough for most people. For information, the total number of arrivals by 'small boat' since 2019 is around 200,000. So around o.3% of the total UK population. So?" So, to be clear, hardly an economic or social disaster. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Well let’s say people want reform to under the ECHR. That’s an election in mid-2029, followed by petitioning to leave the ECHR which has to be announced 6 months in advance. Except we also have to leave the refugee convention, which requires 1 year’s notice - So mid-2030. Plus legal challenges, which will delay everything. Let’s say 2032 at the very earliest. (Avoiding all the other legal stuff that will come from leaving the ECHR, as so much domestic and international policy will need entirely re-writing. Timely and highly expensive, and with no guarantee of any protections that we currently enjoy. THEN we can stop taking in asylum seekers. But the ones we have already? Who knows? Legal challenges will pop up then too, as they were granted permission to stay for a period which is now being revoked. They’ll win their cases too, which means we’ll still be dealing with asylum cases in *at least* 2035 under whatever government follows reform. And that’s absolute best case scenario. " That jump you made from 2032 to 2035 was wild
The legal challenges are made because of ECHR and the UK adapting ECHR rules. They won't happen if we decide to leave it.
And either way, what's wrong with people letting their concerns heard to the politicians? I am against resorting to violence. But peaceful protests are part of the process. Increasing support for opposition parties gives a kick up the butt for the ruling party to do better. If they don't do that, Labour wouldn't have done what they have done so far. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This forum is gonna explode at the next GE 🤣" Reform coming third in maybe Farage’s last election will be a joy. Badenoch and the Tories are far more of a threat. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And people want a quick turnaround because they believe the country can't take any more asylum seekers. The rigid legal processes around asylum seekers means it's hard to turn it around by much no matter how hard you try. Hence people want to vote for parties that remove these legal shackles. I don't see anything logically wrong with this. People want something to happen and they are going to support the parties that promise to make it happen. The difference here is between what you want and what other people want. Well let’s say people want reform to under the ECHR. That’s an election in mid-2029, followed by petitioning to leave the ECHR which has to be announced 6 months in advance. Except we also have to leave the refugee convention, which requires 1 year’s notice - So mid-2030. Plus legal challenges, which will delay everything. Let’s say 2032 at the very earliest. (Avoiding all the other legal stuff that will come from leaving the ECHR, as so much domestic and international policy will need entirely re-writing. Timely and highly expensive, and with no guarantee of any protections that we currently enjoy. THEN we can stop taking in asylum seekers. But the ones we have already? Who knows? Legal challenges will pop up then too, as they were granted permission to stay for a period which is now being revoked. They’ll win their cases too, which means we’ll still be dealing with asylum cases in *at least* 2035 under whatever government follows reform. And that’s absolute best case scenario. " ...and of course the Belfast Agreement which is dependent on the UK (and Ireland) being members of the ECHR. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" For information, the total number of arrivals by 'small boat' since 2019 is around 200,000. So around o.3% of the total UK population. So? So, to be clear, hardly an economic or social disaster." 4B per year for asylum seekers and lot more being wasted on the ones who successfully claimed asylum. It's not a small number by any means. If it's not a social problem, why are even Labour and LibDem MPs fighting against housing them in their areas? Why did the government have to spend money giving them leaflets about respecting women? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This forum is gonna explode at the next GE 🤣 Reform coming third in maybe Farage’s last election will be a joy. Badenoch and the Tories are far more of a threat. " The latest YouGov poll has Reform in 3rd | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Well let’s say people want reform to under the ECHR. That’s an election in mid-2029, followed by petitioning to leave the ECHR which has to be announced 6 months in advance. Except we also have to leave the refugee convention, which requires 1 year’s notice - So mid-2030. Plus legal challenges, which will delay everything. Let’s say 2032 at the very earliest. (Avoiding all the other legal stuff that will come from leaving the ECHR, as so much domestic and international policy will need entirely re-writing. Timely and highly expensive, and with no guarantee of any protections that we currently enjoy. THEN we can stop taking in asylum seekers. But the ones we have already? Who knows? Legal challenges will pop up then too, as they were granted permission to stay for a period which is now being revoked. They’ll win their cases too, which means we’ll still be dealing with asylum cases in *at least* 2035 under whatever government follows reform. And that’s absolute best case scenario. That jump you made from 2032 to 2035 was wild
The legal challenges are made because of ECHR and the UK adapting ECHR rules. They won't happen if we decide to leave it.
"Won’t we have appeals courts in the U.K. then? I mean I know the whole idea of leaving the ECHR is to attack people’s rights, but surely that’s a step too far even for you to accept? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And people want a quick turnaround because they believe the country can't take any more asylum seekers. The rigid legal processes around asylum seekers means it's hard to turn it around by much no matter how hard you try. Hence people want to vote for parties that remove these legal shackles. I don't see anything logically wrong with this. People want something to happen and they are going to support the parties that promise to make it happen. The difference here is between what you want and what other people want. Well let’s say people want reform to under the ECHR. That’s an election in mid-2029, followed by petitioning to leave the ECHR which has to be announced 6 months in advance. Except we also have to leave the refugee convention, which requires 1 year’s notice - So mid-2030. Plus legal challenges, which will delay everything. Let’s say 2032 at the very earliest. (Avoiding all the other legal stuff that will come from leaving the ECHR, as so much domestic and international policy will need entirely re-writing. Timely and highly expensive, and with no guarantee of any protections that we currently enjoy. THEN we can stop taking in asylum seekers. But the ones we have already? Who knows? Legal challenges will pop up then too, as they were granted permission to stay for a period which is now being revoked. They’ll win their cases too, which means we’ll still be dealing with asylum cases in *at least* 2035 under whatever government follows reform. And that’s absolute best case scenario. ...and of course the Belfast Agreement which is dependent on the UK (and Ireland) being members of the ECHR." That’s probably what would cause the largest headache and subsequent delay, as we saw with Brexit and the half-in/half-out nonsense arrangement that Johnson sold as a success. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This forum is gonna explode at the next GE 🤣 Reform coming third in maybe Farage’s last election will be a joy. Badenoch and the Tories are far more of a threat. " I am not sure Reform will even come third. It's a long time to the next elections and they will implode further. Badenoch played her cards well, letting the divas like Jenrick and Braverman join Reform. There is more circus waiting to happen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Won’t we have appeals courts in the U.K. then? " Appeal on what basis? Most asylum appeals are made today based on ECHR and our adaption of refugee conventions. When we were going to fly people to Rwanda, it was a last ditch attempt through ECHR that stopped it. Where are they going to appeal of ECHR isn't going to be there? " I mean I know the whole idea of leaving the ECHR is to attack people’s rights, but surely that’s a step too far even for you to accept?" Most countries don't give automatic rights to people from other countries to break into their borders and live there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Most countries don't give automatic rights to people from other countries to break into their borders and live there." Errr…Including the U.K. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Most countries don't give automatic rights to people from other countries to break into their borders and live there. Errr…Including the U.K." So, what's the problem with removing appeals for asylum seekers? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Most countries don't give automatic rights to people from other countries to break into their borders and live there. Errr…Including the U.K. So, what's the problem with removing appeals for asylum seekers?" If you have a contract or agreement for x-years, and then that contract or agreement is suddenly rendered moot by a change in policy, you’re going to appeal that decision, and keep appealing until you either get the outcome you desire or you run out of levels to appeal at. Removing the ECHR is one level of appeal, it’s not ALL appeals. If you think leaving the ECHR will result in us legally shipping asylum seekers away without a peep overnight you’re going to be sorely disappointed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Most countries don't give automatic rights to people from other countries to break into their borders and live there. Errr…Including the U.K. So, what's the problem with removing appeals for asylum seekers? If you have a contract or agreement for x-years, and then that contract or agreement is suddenly rendered moot by a change in policy, you’re going to appeal that decision, and keep appealing until you either get the outcome you desire or you run out of levels to appeal at. Removing the ECHR is one level of appeal, it’s not ALL appeals. If you think leaving the ECHR will result in us legally shipping asylum seekers away without a peep overnight you’re going to be sorely disappointed. " There is no "contract" when it comes to immigration policies. Every country has the right to make changes and even apply them retrospectively by changing the laws. Most countries already do this. Even some of Labour's immigration changes apply retrospectively. Sweden recently made it hard to get permanent residency and they apply retrospectively too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Most countries don't give automatic rights to people from other countries to break into their borders and live there. Errr…Including the U.K. So, what's the problem with removing appeals for asylum seekers? If you have a contract or agreement for x-years, and then that contract or agreement is suddenly rendered moot by a change in policy, you’re going to appeal that decision, and keep appealing until you either get the outcome you desire or you run out of levels to appeal at. Removing the ECHR is one level of appeal, it’s not ALL appeals. If you think leaving the ECHR will result in us legally shipping asylum seekers away without a peep overnight you’re going to be sorely disappointed. There is no "contract" when it comes to immigration policies. Every country has the right to make changes and even apply them retrospectively by changing the laws. Most countries already do this. Even some of Labour's immigration changes apply retrospectively. Sweden recently made it hard to get permanent residency and they apply retrospectively too. " I love that you think this won’t lead to endless legal challenges. Complex situations don’t have simple answers. 2016 should have demonstrated to everyone. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You no and I no that if someone from the right does something they fast track it straight to court then prison days later.yet someone from the left does something they get bailed and not herd of for over 18 months I’m gonna have to ask you to back that enormous pile of BS up with some evidence. " bs okthen just stop oil lot batter the police with a sledge hammer takes ages to go to court.manchester Airport incident takes ages to go to court.thats the left.now the right man throws plastic bottle towards the police and swears at them.in Portsmouth over a week ago now hes doing 2 years.stop watching lies from sly news and the BBC the camera don't lie at these protests. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You no and I no that if someone from the right does something they fast track it straight to court then prison days later.yet someone from the left does something they get bailed and not herd of for over 18 months I’m gonna have to ask you to back that enormous pile of BS up with some evidence. bs okthen just stop oil lot batter the police with a sledge hammer takes ages to go to court.manchester Airport incident takes ages to go to court.thats the left.now the right man throws plastic bottle towards the police and swears at them.in Portsmouth over a week ago now hes doing 2 years.stop watching lies from sly news and the BBC the camera don't lie at these protests." How quickly a case comes to court depends on many factors, right? Including how many people involved, amount of evidence, number of people to be questioned, even geographical location of those involved. In Daniel Thomas’ case he was apparently live streaming his solo crime to 15,000 people. It was pretty clear. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 . He endangered someone's life at sea, not to mention caused criminal damage. Those are very serious crimes in my book and he should face major punishment. I'm not generally a fan of prison, if it's not going to produce reform of behaviour and I can guess he's not interested in this, nor to regret what he's done.
I do think he should be penalised, that it stops his activity, goading others and leading to potential harm and crime, as well as personal gain.
Several years of hard labour, helping others in substantial ways that are not of his choice or connected in any sense to his published causes and total refrain from any element of his causes and beliefs, would be a minimum starting point | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At least the people who are taking the triple lock pension have made contributions all their life’s unlike the illegals what have they contributed to this country " Divide/conquer playbook. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You no and I no that if someone from the right does something they fast track it straight to court then prison days later.yet someone from the left does something they get bailed and not herd of for over 18 months I’m gonna have to ask you to back that enormous pile of BS up with some evidence. bs okthen just stop oil lot batter the police with a sledge hammer takes ages to go to court.manchester Airport incident takes ages to go to court.thats the left.now the right man throws plastic bottle towards the police and swears at them.in Portsmouth over a week ago now hes doing 2 years.stop watching lies from sly news and the BBC the camera don't lie at these protests. How quickly a case comes to court depends on many factors, right? Including how many people involved, amount of evidence, number of people to be questioned, even geographical location of those involved. In Daniel Thomas’ case he was apparently live streaming his solo crime to 15,000 people. It was pretty clear. " so was the Manchester airport attack clear as day.still took years to get him jailed.if you assault anyone u should go to prison on both sides but it has to be fair you can't lock the right up straight away and put them in prison for a far less crime than someone on the left battering coppers and it take years to go to court. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You no and I no that if someone from the right does something they fast track it straight to court then prison days later.yet someone from the left does something they get bailed and not herd of for over 18 months I’m gonna have to ask you to back that enormous pile of BS up with some evidence. bs okthen just stop oil lot batter the police with a sledge hammer takes ages to go to court.manchester Airport incident takes ages to go to court.thats the left.now the right man throws plastic bottle towards the police and swears at them.in Portsmouth over a week ago now hes doing 2 years.stop watching lies from sly news and the BBC the camera don't lie at these protests. How quickly a case comes to court depends on many factors, right? Including how many people involved, amount of evidence, number of people to be questioned, even geographical location of those involved. In Daniel Thomas’ case he was apparently live streaming his solo crime to 15,000 people. It was pretty clear. so was the Manchester airport attack clear as day.still took years to get him jailed.if you assault anyone u should go to prison on both sides but it has to be fair you can't lock the right up straight away and put them in prison for a far less crime than someone on the left battering coppers and it take years to go to court." If it was clear as day, why was it debated so endlessly? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"These types of people crave the attention, not to mention the amount of money it brings in :- " He’s crowdfunded 85k in the last month from his gullible followers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And people want a quick turnaround because they believe the country can't take any more asylum seekers. The rigid legal processes around asylum seekers means it's hard to turn it around by much no matter how hard you try. Hence people want to vote for parties that remove these legal shackles. I don't see anything logically wrong with this. People want something to happen and they are going to support the parties that promise to make it happen. The difference here is between what you want and what other people want. Well let’s say people want reform to under the ECHR. That’s an election in mid-2029, followed by petitioning to leave the ECHR which has to be announced 6 months in advance. Except we also have to leave the refugee convention, which requires 1 year’s notice - So mid-2030. Plus legal challenges, which will delay everything. Let’s say 2032 at the very earliest. (Avoiding all the other legal stuff that will come from leaving the ECHR, as so much domestic and international policy will need entirely re-writing. Timely and highly expensive, and with no guarantee of any protections that we currently enjoy. THEN we can stop taking in asylum seekers. But the ones we have already? Who knows? Legal challenges will pop up then too, as they were granted permission to stay for a period which is now being revoked. They’ll win their cases too, which means we’ll still be dealing with asylum cases in *at least* 2035 under whatever government follows reform. And that’s absolute best case scenario. ...and of course the Belfast Agreement which is dependent on the UK (and Ireland) being members of the ECHR." That in itself will hold it up for years. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Given that he literally made the evidence for the police by filming and streaming the incident, but has pleaded not guilty and chosen crown court, I suspect it is largely about publicity. He will probably be found guilty and maybe even prison which to some will make him a hero. The main aim though will be to get the subject talked about in the media as much as possible which seems to be happening " Yes, it's a PR stunt - but no different to politicians like Ed Davey. He's basically saying "jail me if you dare", and the government will be aware of that. As you say, the subject is now in the headlines, and imo rightly so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Given that he literally made the evidence for the police by filming and streaming the incident, but has pleaded not guilty and chosen crown court, I suspect it is largely about publicity. He will probably be found guilty and maybe even prison which to some will make him a hero. The main aim though will be to get the subject talked about in the media as much as possible which seems to be happening " The main aim will be for him to take money from his acolytes. And he’s succeeding. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I love that you think this won’t lead to endless legal challenges. Complex situations don’t have simple answers. 2016 should have demonstrated to everyone. " Legal challenges by asylum seekers so far have been based on ECHR. On what legal basis are they going to challenge there is nothing that gives them the privilege in the first place? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Given that he literally made the evidence for the police by filming and streaming the incident, but has pleaded not guilty and chosen crown court, I suspect it is largely about publicity. He will probably be found guilty and maybe even prison which to some will make him a hero. The main aim though will be to get the subject talked about in the media as much as possible which seems to be happening The main aim will be for him to take money from his acolytes. And he’s succeeding." Whatever happens to him he will be compensated by whoever funds these type of people, Him, Tommy Robinson and all the professional lefty protesters etc | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I love that you think this won’t lead to endless legal challenges. Complex situations don’t have simple answers. 2016 should have demonstrated to everyone. Legal challenges by asylum seekers so far have been based on ECHR. On what legal basis are they going to challenge there is nothing that gives them the privilege in the first place?" You aren’t quite grasping the whole complexity thing, are you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I love that you think this won’t lead to endless legal challenges. Complex situations don’t have simple answers. 2016 should have demonstrated to everyone. Legal challenges by asylum seekers so far have been based on ECHR. On what legal basis are they going to challenge there is nothing that gives them the privilege in the first place? You aren’t quite grasping the whole complexity thing, are you?" If there is, please explain, on what legal basis the challenges are going to be made. I am all ears. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I love that you think this won’t lead to endless legal challenges. Complex situations don’t have simple answers. 2016 should have demonstrated to everyone. Legal challenges by asylum seekers so far have been based on ECHR. On what legal basis are they going to challenge there is nothing that gives them the privilege in the first place? You aren’t quite grasping the whole complexity thing, are you? If there is, please explain, on what legal basis the challenges are going to be made. I am all ears." It would be years before it even got to the point where an asylum seeker would have to have another reason. The Good Friday Agreement on its own would hold up leaving the ECHR for years. Things do not happen in isolation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I love that you think this won’t lead to endless legal challenges. Complex situations don’t have simple answers. 2016 should have demonstrated to everyone. Legal challenges by asylum seekers so far have been based on ECHR. On what legal basis are they going to challenge there is nothing that gives them the privilege in the first place? You aren’t quite grasping the whole complexity thing, are you? If there is, please explain, on what legal basis the challenges are going to be made. I am all ears." The biggest legal challenge for your ECHR wet-dream is the Good Friday agreement, before getting into individual immigration cases. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I love that you think this won’t lead to endless legal challenges. Complex situations don’t have simple answers. 2016 should have demonstrated to everyone. Legal challenges by asylum seekers so far have been based on ECHR. On what legal basis are they going to challenge there is nothing that gives them the privilege in the first place? You aren’t quite grasping the whole complexity thing, are you? If there is, please explain, on what legal basis the challenges are going to be made. I am all ears. The biggest legal challenge for your ECHR wet-dream is the Good Friday agreement, before getting into individual immigration cases." In your original post, you already accounted for the international policy issues. You said that, even after thay asylum seekers will launch legal challenges which will take another 3 years, which is what I questioned. On what basis are the asylum seekers going to make legal challenges? You also added a year to leave the refugee convention, which we don't have to. But hey.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I love that you think this won’t lead to endless legal challenges. Complex situations don’t have simple answers. 2016 should have demonstrated to everyone. Legal challenges by asylum seekers so far have been based on ECHR. On what legal basis are they going to challenge there is nothing that gives them the privilege in the first place? You aren’t quite grasping the whole complexity thing, are you? If there is, please explain, on what legal basis the challenges are going to be made. I am all ears. The biggest legal challenge for your ECHR wet-dream is the Good Friday agreement, before getting into individual immigration cases. In your original post, you already accounted for the international policy issues. You said that, even after thay asylum seekers will launch legal challenges which will take another 3 years, which is what I questioned. On what basis are the asylum seekers going to make legal challenges? You also added a year to leave the refugee convention, which we don't have to. But hey.." We absolutely will have to leave the refugee convention if you wish to stop asylum. The ECHR isn’t enough. And if you want to leave the ECHR, you have to deal with the Good Friday agreement. You’ve got 6 months, what’s your plan? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I love that you think this won’t lead to endless legal challenges. Complex situations don’t have simple answers. 2016 should have demonstrated to everyone. Legal challenges by asylum seekers so far have been based on ECHR. On what legal basis are they going to challenge there is nothing that gives them the privilege in the first place? You aren’t quite grasping the whole complexity thing, are you? If there is, please explain, on what legal basis the challenges are going to be made. I am all ears. It would be years before it even got to the point where an asylum seeker would have to have another reason. The Good Friday Agreement on its own would hold up leaving the ECHR for years. Things do not happen in isolation." In the original post, they covered Good Friday agreement separately. The idea that we can't change something because legal challenge will hold us from implementing a decision that's made democratically reeks of desperation. That's what we have politicians for. To sort out these issues. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I love that you think this won’t lead to endless legal challenges. Complex situations don’t have simple answers. 2016 should have demonstrated to everyone. Legal challenges by asylum seekers so far have been based on ECHR. On what legal basis are they going to challenge there is nothing that gives them the privilege in the first place? You aren’t quite grasping the whole complexity thing, are you? If there is, please explain, on what legal basis the challenges are going to be made. I am all ears. The biggest legal challenge for your ECHR wet-dream is the Good Friday agreement, before getting into individual immigration cases. In your original post, you already accounted for the international policy issues. You said that, even after thay asylum seekers will launch legal challenges which will take another 3 years, which is what I questioned. On what basis are the asylum seekers going to make legal challenges? You also added a year to leave the refugee convention, which we don't have to. But hey.. We absolutely will have to leave the refugee convention if you wish to stop asylum. The ECHR isn’t enough. And if you want to leave the ECHR, you have to deal with the Good Friday agreement. You’ve got 6 months, what’s your plan?" What you are not quite grasping and it is a really important point, is, there is no requirement to stop asylum, there is a requirement to update the outdated conventions that allow criminals to exploit the system. A new convention that supports genuine asylum seekers and provides us the ability to deal with the criminals and those exploiting the system is surely something you can get behind. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
