|
Post by choc on Nov 1, 2022 9:31:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Professor Frink on Nov 1, 2022 11:33:24 GMT
I think we all know what she was doing in her little speech yesterday. Focus falls on that word, playing up to a certain type of person..... rather it being on the 10 years that her party have had and failed to sort this problem out. Good politicking, i guess.
Thing here again is about the lack of good policy making:
If the issue is that we have too many small boats coming over - create more ways to apply for asylum without physically stepping foot in the UK
If the issue is the cost of housing people making a claim - spend more money on processing those claims, and build more dedicated housing so you arent reliant on hotels
If the issue is people passing through countries to come to the UK - then you need to spend money on negotiating with those countries to take these people
If the issue is having to comply with the international refugee convention - then you need to explain and convince the countries nearer these hotspots what the UK alternative is
If the issue is the money that is made from human trafficking - then truly go after the organised crime gangs (difficult to do given their influence within ports/government/police etc)
The problem with this government is that they find it far easier to dog whistle about a subject like this than really sort it out. I guess it triggers the right people and it might help them save a few "brexity" seats at the next election.
One thing that is for sure is that with climate change this is only going to become more of an issue - so actually having a serious government who puts in place good policy would be beneficial for everyone - irrespective of your political persuasion.
|
|
|
Post by tonyhancock on Nov 1, 2022 13:05:05 GMT
Sadly I think much like her predecessor, she'll be all talk. I've discovered Serco have a 10 year government contract, to house the boat people (who are themselves a drop in the ocean compared to the over million new arrivals, last year), which should tell you everything you need to know about the government's intentions. On top of this, landlords have been offered 5 year, problem free, government backed contracts, to house same. 5 fcuking years. The government will pay all the bills, so the invited invaders need not worry about turning off the heating. This whilst we have 6,000 veterans on the streets, I understand. Anyone who still won't have it, that the de-Britishisation of our island is actual government policy, is either lying, or deluded beyond my capability to fathom. Over a million people. Housed, clothed, fed, medical, legal rep, telephone contracts & spending money. In terms of planning, it makes D Day look like a spur of the moment thing I think it will be the most devastating invasion we've ever faced, and our culture, way of life and laws will be replaced.
|
|
|
Post by choc on Nov 1, 2022 14:05:14 GMT
I think we all know what she was doing in her little speech yesterday. Focus falls on that word, playing up to a certain type of person..... rather it being on the 10 years that her party have had and failed to sort this problem out. Good politicking, i guess. Thing here again is about the lack of good policy making: If the issue is that we have too many small boats coming over - create more ways to apply for asylum without physically stepping foot in the UK If the issue is the cost of housing people making a claim - spend more money on processing those claims, and build more dedicated housing so you arent reliant on hotels If the issue is people passing through countries to come to the UK - then you need to spend money on negotiating with those countries to take these people If the issue is having to comply with the international refugee convention - then you need to explain and convince the countries nearer these hotspots what the UK alternative is If the issue is the money that is made from human trafficking - then truly go after the organised crime gangs (difficult to do given their influence within ports/government/police etc) The problem with this government is that they find it far easier to dog whistle about a subject like this than really sort it out. I guess it triggers the right people and it might help them save a few "brexity" seats at the next election. One thing that is for sure is that with climate change this is only going to become more of an issue - so actually having a serious government who puts in place good policy would be beneficial for everyone - irrespective of your political persuasion. The main issue is the boats coming across but whenever anyone tries to do anything it ends up in the courts. We cannot even remove convicted criminals in this country without some human rights court blocking it. We can't create a different system for these people to claim asylum because the French aren't interested. They are quite happy with the current arrangement. I have no issue with 'real' asylum seekers, but our system takes too long and is too soft. 80% are successful whereas in Europe the success rate is much lower. What does that tell you? Most coming over on the boats are not true asylum seekers. They are mainly young men who happened to have 7 grand in their pockets to pay for the trip. How many desperate young men in this country would have 7 grand in their pocket. You say go after the organised crime gangs but how when the French won't co-operate. Tories have no chance of winning the next election with a few brexity seats, as you call them, but they will piss it if they do sort out the asylum issues.
|
|
|
Post by Professor Frink on Nov 1, 2022 14:19:01 GMT
Exactly my point......create good policy around it, and then you stop getting yourselves in silly positions with the courts.
Perhaps not having such an aggravated position with the French would be a starting point. Its a joint issue we have to deal with so have a government with some intent to build a stronger relationship with them, and to solve the problem together...couple of things they could do
1) joint assessment of applications on French soil (seeing as you say the european stance is tougher) 2) Work with the French, Dutch and Belgian ports trying to sort of County Lines drug issues - which are a wider more problematic issue for this country than just people coming across in boats.
As an aside, if these blokes have 7 grand in their pockets- why on earth are they trying to come across in a dinghy?
|
|
|
Post by tonyhancock on Nov 1, 2022 14:33:50 GMT
I think we all know what she was doing in her little speech yesterday. Focus falls on that word, playing up to a certain type of person..... rather it being on the 10 years that her party have had and failed to sort this problem out. Good politicking, i guess. Thing here again is about the lack of good policy making: If the issue is that we have too many small boats coming over - create more ways to apply for asylum without physically stepping foot in the UK If the issue is the cost of housing people making a claim - spend more money on processing those claims, and build more dedicated housing so you arent reliant on hotels If the issue is people passing through countries to come to the UK - then you need to spend money on negotiating with those countries to take these people If the issue is having to comply with the international refugee convention - then you need to explain and convince the countries nearer these hotspots what the UK alternative is If the issue is the money that is made from human trafficking - then truly go after the organised crime gangs (difficult to do given their influence within ports/government/police etc) The problem with this government is that they find it far easier to dog whistle about a subject like this than really sort it out. I guess it triggers the right people and it might help them save a few "brexity" seats at the next election. One thing that is for sure is that with climate change this is only going to become more of an issue - so actually having a serious government who puts in place good policy would be beneficial for everyone - irrespective of your political persuasion. The main issue is the boats coming across but whenever anyone tries to do anything it ends up in the courts. We cannot even remove convicted criminals in this country without some human rights court blocking it. We can't create a different system for these people to claim asylum because the French aren't interested. They are quite happy with the current arrangement. I have no issue with 'real' asylum seekers, but our system takes too long and is too soft. 80% are successful whereas in Europe the success rate is much lower. What does that tell you? Most coming over on the boats are not true asylum seekers. They are mainly young men who happened to have 7 grand in their pockets to pay for the trip. How many desperate young men in this country would have 7 grand in their pocket. You say go after the organised crime gangs but how when the French won't co-operate. Tories have no chance of winning the next election with a few brexity seats, as you call them, but they will piss it if they do sort out the asylum issues. British courts act on British law. The government sets the law. The government could leave the European Court of Human Rights. THE GOVERNMENT WANTS & ENCOURAGES THE IMMIGRATION fcuk the French. We could defend our own borders. What the Navy actually does, is pick them up in the sea, and bring them to Britain. THIS IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF DEFENDING OUR BORDERS. 'The system takes too long' Give me strength. "I'd like to apply for asylum" "Request denied" Done. THE ACTUAL SYSTEM IS TO IMPORT THESE PEOPLE. How is this not obvious ? 'Tories have no chance of winning the next election with a few brexity seats, as you call them, but they will piss it if they do sort out the asylum issues' Do you think they don't know this ? Was not one of the reasons they got a 80 seat majority, is they convinced enough people they'd get immigration down ? THEY DON'T fcuking CARE. Their job is to irreversibly change the demographics of our island. They do not serve us, they serve their globalist masters. Just humour me. Imagine for a minute I'm right. Does everything make much more sense, in this scenario ?
|
|
|
Post by choc on Nov 1, 2022 15:12:54 GMT
Exactly my point......create good policy around it, and then you stop getting yourselves in silly positions with the courts. Perhaps not having such an aggravated position with the French would be a starting point. Its a joint issue we have to deal with so have a government with some intent to build a stronger relationship with them, and to solve the problem together...couple of things they could do 1) joint assessment of applications on French soil (seeing as you say the european stance is tougher) 2) Work with the French, Dutch and Belgian ports trying to sort of County Lines drug issues - which are a wider more problematic issue for this country than just people coming across in boats. As an aside, if these blokes have 7 grand in their pockets- why on earth are they trying to come across in a dinghy? It takes 2 to tango and the French refuse to dance. Why do you assume it is us and not the French or Belgian governments refusing to work together.
|
|
|
Post by Professor Frink on Nov 1, 2022 15:27:26 GMT
Exactly my point......create good policy around it, and then you stop getting yourselves in silly positions with the courts. Perhaps not having such an aggravated position with the French would be a starting point. Its a joint issue we have to deal with so have a government with some intent to build a stronger relationship with them, and to solve the problem together...couple of things they could do 1) joint assessment of applications on French soil (seeing as you say the european stance is tougher) 2) Work with the French, Dutch and Belgian ports trying to sort of County Lines drug issues - which are a wider more problematic issue for this country than just people coming across in boats. As an aside, if these blokes have 7 grand in their pockets- why on earth are they trying to come across in a dinghy? It takes 2 to tango and the French refuse to dance. Why do you assume it is us and not the French or Belgian governments refusing to work together. We dont exactly have a strong reputation right now of being one of the worlds collaborators do we? Wasnt that what Brexit was all about- us going on our own and doing our thing?
|
|
|
Post by Professor Frink on Nov 1, 2022 15:30:07 GMT
The main issue is the boats coming across but whenever anyone tries to do anything it ends up in the courts. We cannot even remove convicted criminals in this country without some human rights court blocking it. We can't create a different system for these people to claim asylum because the French aren't interested. They are quite happy with the current arrangement. I have no issue with 'real' asylum seekers, but our system takes too long and is too soft. 80% are successful whereas in Europe the success rate is much lower. What does that tell you? Most coming over on the boats are not true asylum seekers. They are mainly young men who happened to have 7 grand in their pockets to pay for the trip. How many desperate young men in this country would have 7 grand in their pocket. You say go after the organised crime gangs but how when the French won't co-operate. Tories have no chance of winning the next election with a few brexity seats, as you call them, but they will piss it if they do sort out the asylum issues. British courts act on British law. The government sets the law. The government could leave the European Court of Human Rights. THE GOVERNMENT WANTS & ENCOURAGES THE IMMIGRATION fcuk the French. We could defend our own borders. What the Navy actually does, is pick them up in the sea, and bring them to Britain. THIS IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF DEFENDING OUR BORDERS. 'The system takes too long' Give me strength. "I'd like to apply for asylum" "Request denied" Done. THE ACTUAL SYSTEM IS TO IMPORT THESE PEOPLE. How is this not obvious ? 'Tories have no chance of winning the next election with a few brexity seats, as you call them, but they will piss it if they do sort out the asylum issues' Do you think they don't know this ? Was not one of the reasons they got a 80 seat majority, is they convinced enough people they'd get immigration down ? THEY DON'T fcuking CARE. Their job is to irreversibly change the demographics of our island. They do not serve us, they serve their globalist masters. Just humour me. Imagine for a minute I'm right. Does everything make much more sense, in this scenario ? Not really. If a government really wanted to irreversibly change the demographics of this island, because their global masters told them to- they literally open the borders universally to anyone and everyone.
|
|
|
Post by choc on Nov 1, 2022 15:31:31 GMT
The main issue is the boats coming across but whenever anyone tries to do anything it ends up in the courts. We cannot even remove convicted criminals in this country without some human rights court blocking it. We can't create a different system for these people to claim asylum because the French aren't interested. They are quite happy with the current arrangement. I have no issue with 'real' asylum seekers, but our system takes too long and is too soft. 80% are successful whereas in Europe the success rate is much lower. What does that tell you? Most coming over on the boats are not true asylum seekers. They are mainly young men who happened to have 7 grand in their pockets to pay for the trip. How many desperate young men in this country would have 7 grand in their pocket. You say go after the organised crime gangs but how when the French won't co-operate. Tories have no chance of winning the next election with a few brexity seats, as you call them, but they will piss it if they do sort out the asylum issues. British courts act on British law. The government sets the law. The government could leave the European Court of Human Rights. THE GOVERNMENT WANTS & ENCOURAGES THE IMMIGRATION fcuk the French. We could defend our own borders. What the Navy actually does, is pick them up in the sea, and bring them to Britain. THIS IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF DEFENDING OUR BORDERS. 'The system takes too long' Give me strength. "I'd like to apply for asylum" "Request denied" Done. THE ACTUAL SYSTEM IS TO IMPORT THESE PEOPLE. How is this not obvious ? 'Tories have no chance of winning the next election with a few brexity seats, as you call them, but they will piss it if they do sort out the asylum issues' Do you think they don't know this ? Was not one of the reasons they got a 80 seat majority, is they convinced enough people they'd get immigration down ? THEY DON'T fcuking CARE. Their job is to irreversibly change the demographics of our island. They do not serve us, they serve their globalist masters. Just humour me. Imagine for a minute I'm right. Does everything make much more sense, in this scenario ? The government cannot just change the laws. It has to go through parliament and the lords. So not simple. So, defend our beaches. How do you suggest we do that? If you think our government wants all these invaders to succeed. How come the system is so slow? It wasn't me who used the word 'Brexity' and I do think they know it is an election winner. Your conspiracy theory is too simplistic AND DON'T SHOUT. IT IS VERY RUDE OF YOU TONE 😂
|
|
|
Post by tonyhancock on Nov 1, 2022 15:36:41 GMT
British courts act on British law. The government sets the law. The government could leave the European Court of Human Rights. THE GOVERNMENT WANTS & ENCOURAGES THE IMMIGRATION fcuk the French. We could defend our own borders. What the Navy actually does, is pick them up in the sea, and bring them to Britain. THIS IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF DEFENDING OUR BORDERS. 'The system takes too long' Give me strength. "I'd like to apply for asylum" "Request denied" Done. THE ACTUAL SYSTEM IS TO IMPORT THESE PEOPLE. How is this not obvious ? 'Tories have no chance of winning the next election with a few brexity seats, as you call them, but they will piss it if they do sort out the asylum issues' Do you think they don't know this ? Was not one of the reasons they got a 80 seat majority, is they convinced enough people they'd get immigration down ? THEY DON'T fcuking CARE. Their job is to irreversibly change the demographics of our island. They do not serve us, they serve their globalist masters. Just humour me. Imagine for a minute I'm right. Does everything make much more sense, in this scenario ? Not really. If a government really wanted to irreversibly change the demographics of this island, because their global masters told them to- they literally open the borders universally to anyone and everyone. Are you serious ? That is what they are doing, but in a way where they can (stunningly to my mind) fool people into believing they are trying to stop it.
|
|
|
Post by choc on Nov 1, 2022 15:36:51 GMT
It takes 2 to tango and the French refuse to dance. Why do you assume it is us and not the French or Belgian governments refusing to work together. We dont exactly have a strong reputation right now of being one of the worlds collabourators do we? Wasnt that what Brexit was all about- us going on our own and doing our thing? You need to explain that more. Why is it that Remainers have become so anti British. It's like telling your mates down the pub what a thick and horrible fecker you are
|
|
|
Post by tonyhancock on Nov 1, 2022 15:48:42 GMT
British courts act on British law. The government sets the law. The government could leave the European Court of Human Rights. THE GOVERNMENT WANTS & ENCOURAGES THE IMMIGRATION fcuk the French. We could defend our own borders. What the Navy actually does, is pick them up in the sea, and bring them to Britain. THIS IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF DEFENDING OUR BORDERS. 'The system takes too long' Give me strength. "I'd like to apply for asylum" "Request denied" Done. THE ACTUAL SYSTEM IS TO IMPORT THESE PEOPLE. How is this not obvious ? 'Tories have no chance of winning the next election with a few brexity seats, as you call them, but they will piss it if they do sort out the asylum issues' Do you think they don't know this ? Was not one of the reasons they got a 80 seat majority, is they convinced enough people they'd get immigration down ? THEY DON'T fcuking CARE. Their job is to irreversibly change the demographics of our island. They do not serve us, they serve their globalist masters. Just humour me. Imagine for a minute I'm right. Does everything make much more sense, in this scenario ? 1. The government cannot just change the laws. It has to go through parliament and the lords. So not simple. 2. So, defend our beaches. How do you suggest we do that? 3. If you think our government wants all these invaders to succeed. How come the system is so slow? 4. It wasn't me who used the word 'Brexity' and I do think they know it is an election winner. Your conspiracy theory is too simplistic 5. AND DON'T SHOUT. IT IS VERY RUDE OF YOU TONE 😂 1. The government makes the laws, and have proven how quickly they can appoint themselves new powers. 2. By making it very clear they will be stopped. How many boats do you think they need to sink, before they stop coming ? Or if you haven't the stomach for that, ship them straight off to an island off the North of Scotland, and tell them to let us know when they want taking back. 3. They are pretending to the gullible. There may be some, but I'm not aware of any who have been sent back. How long do you think it takes to say "application rejected" ? Should it take years ? 4a. Walk yourself through it. 5. Sorry. It's just that I get it a lot. From intelligent people. "It'd be even worse under Labour". "The do gooders prevent them" So fcuking stupid. 4b. OK. If we pretend the Conservatives are in charge. What do you think is going to happen? A. Cameron's bollocks about 10's of thousands will happen. The government will suddenly start sending them back, faster than they arrive B. All these people and more will be found permanent homes in the UK What do you think ? If the government is in charge, answers to no-one, can not be over ruled. Makes the fcuking laws. Can leave foreign institutions - who is responsible ? Who is willfully doing all this ?
|
|
|
Post by tonyhancock on Nov 1, 2022 15:59:08 GMT
Check out the comments
|
|
|
Post by Professor Frink on Nov 1, 2022 16:16:31 GMT
We dont exactly have a strong reputation right now of being one of the worlds collabourators do we? Wasnt that what Brexit was all about- us going on our own and doing our thing? You need to explain that more. Why is it that Remainers have become so anti British. It's like telling your mates down the pub what a thick and horrible fecker you are Hang on there is a difference between being embarrassed of the current incumbents of our government to being anti british. I think this country has taken several steps backwards on the international stage under this lot, any my annoyance with them is that we are so so much better as a nation than that. If anything that makes me very pro British
|
|
|
Post by Professor Frink on Nov 1, 2022 16:16:55 GMT
Yay another Youtube video. It was only a matter of time.
|
|
|
Post by choc on Nov 1, 2022 16:32:07 GMT
1. The government cannot just change the laws. It has to go through parliament and the lords. So not simple. 2. So, defend our beaches. How do you suggest we do that? 3. If you think our government wants all these invaders to succeed. How come the system is so slow? 4. It wasn't me who used the word 'Brexity' and I do think they know it is an election winner. Your conspiracy theory is too simplistic 5. AND DON'T SHOUT. IT IS VERY RUDE OF YOU TONE 😂 1. The government makes the laws, and have proven how quickly they can appoint themselves new powers. 2. By making it very clear they will be stopped. How many boats do you think they need to sink, before they stop coming ? Or if you haven't the stomach for that, ship them straight off to an island off the North of Scotland, and tell them to let us know when they want taking back. 3. They are pretending to the gullible. There may be some, but I'm not aware of any who have been sent back. How long do you think it takes to say "application rejected" ? Should it take years ? 4a. Walk yourself through it. 5. Sorry. It's just that I get it a lot. From intelligent people. "It'd be even worse under Labour". "The do gooders prevent them" So fcuking stupid. 4b. OK. If we pretend the Conservatives are in charge. What do you think is going to happen? A. Cameron's bollocks about 10's of thousands will happen. The government will suddenly start sending them back, faster than they arrive B. All these people and more will be found permanent homes in the UK What do you think ? If the government is in charge, answers to no-one, can not be over ruled. Makes the fcuking laws. Can leave foreign institutions - who is responsible ? Who is willfully doing all this ? 1. It is not as simple as you are making out. That to a point is what's wrong with this country. Everything from changing laws to repairing a road takes way to long. 2. International maritime laws prevents you from doing what you suggest at sea. 3. Where are you going to send them to when they have no passport. Who would accept the flights. Then the human rights courts would prevent it. 4a. Through what? 5. 😁 4b. The media run the country now. It started with the Brexit debate that they lost, and it pissed them off big time. They are now damaging the country with revenge. Boris never stood a chance; Truss never stood a chance even though she didn't help herself and now they are into Braverman. It won't end until they get a Labour government in. The first thing the Tories should do when they lose power is to back the SNP for a dependence vote. That would cause some shite. Think about it 😁
|
|
|
Post by choc on Nov 1, 2022 16:35:53 GMT
I don't live by the sea, so they won't get anything from me.
|
|
|
Post by tonyhancock on Nov 1, 2022 16:54:18 GMT
1. The government makes the laws, and have proven how quickly they can appoint themselves new powers. 2. By making it very clear they will be stopped. How many boats do you think they need to sink, before they stop coming ? Or if you haven't the stomach for that, ship them straight off to an island off the North of Scotland, and tell them to let us know when they want taking back. 3. They are pretending to the gullible. There may be some, but I'm not aware of any who have been sent back. How long do you think it takes to say "application rejected" ? Should it take years ? 4a. Walk yourself through it. 5. Sorry. It's just that I get it a lot. From intelligent people. "It'd be even worse under Labour". "The do gooders prevent them" So fcuking stupid. 4b. OK. If we pretend the Conservatives are in charge. What do you think is going to happen? A. Cameron's bollocks about 10's of thousands will happen. The government will suddenly start sending them back, faster than they arrive B. All these people and more will be found permanent homes in the UK What do you think ? If the government is in charge, answers to no-one, can not be over ruled. Makes the fcuking laws. Can leave foreign institutions - who is responsible ? Who is willfully doing all this ? 1. It is not as simple as you are making out. That to a point is what's wrong with this country. Everything from changing laws to repairing a road takes way to long. 2. International maritime laws prevents you from doing what you suggest at sea. 3. Where are you going to send them to when they have no passport. Who would accept the flights. Then the human rights courts would prevent it. 4a. Through what? 5. 😁 4b. The media run the country now. It started with the Brexit debate that they lost, and it pissed them off big time. They are now damaging the country with revenge. Boris never stood a chance; Truss never stood a chance even though she didn't help herself and now they are into Braverman. It won't end until they get a Labour government in. The first thing the Tories should do when they lose power is to back the SNP for a dependence vote. That would cause some shite. Think about it 😁 1. Yes it is. At the drop of a hat the government closed the country down. Do you honestly think it should take years to make a decision ? Honestly ? 2. To not defend your territorial waters and nation ? You'll find this country has done a lot of things international laws do not permit. 3. Then they'll just have to stay on a remote island somewhere in the North Sea. Whose human rights court ? 4a. If the government didn't desire this situation, why do they encourage it, and not prevent it. 4b. Ah getting better. Well I don't think the media are in charge either, but I'm glad you can see it's not the Conservatives. Still, much the same question What do you think is going to happen? A. Cameron's bollocks about 10's of thousands will happen. The government will suddenly start sending them back, faster than they arrive B. All these people and more will be found permanent homes in the UKAs I've said before. Arguing the relative deficiencies of Conservatives & Labour is counter productive. Nothing of significance will change with either. It's focusing your attention away from where it should be: What is happening. Why is it happening Who is responsible. It seems to me, the way you're going is, despite the evidence of your own eyes, you're gonna stick to a belief that the Conservatives are intending to reverse this, but are going to be obstructed by Labour. I imagine you'll convince yourself, the Conservative will reverse the situation, when they get their turn, again.
|
|
|
Post by tonyhancock on Nov 1, 2022 16:55:28 GMT
I don't live by the sea, so they won't get anything from me. Now that's old school Conservative.
|
|
|
Post by Professor Frink on Nov 1, 2022 17:00:11 GMT
1. The government makes the laws, and have proven how quickly they can appoint themselves new powers. 2. By making it very clear they will be stopped. How many boats do you think they need to sink, before they stop coming ? Or if you haven't the stomach for that, ship them straight off to an island off the North of Scotland, and tell them to let us know when they want taking back. 3. They are pretending to the gullible. There may be some, but I'm not aware of any who have been sent back. How long do you think it takes to say "application rejected" ? Should it take years ? 4a. Walk yourself through it. 5. Sorry. It's just that I get it a lot. From intelligent people. "It'd be even worse under Labour". "The do gooders prevent them" So fcuking stupid. 4b. OK. If we pretend the Conservatives are in charge. What do you think is going to happen? A. Cameron's bollocks about 10's of thousands will happen. The government will suddenly start sending them back, faster than they arrive B. All these people and more will be found permanent homes in the UK What do you think ? If the government is in charge, answers to no-one, can not be over ruled. Makes the fcuking laws. Can leave foreign institutions - who is responsible ? Who is willfully doing all this ? 1. It is not as simple as you are making out. That to a point is what's wrong with this country. Everything from changing laws to repairing a road takes way to long. 2. International maritime laws prevents you from doing what you suggest at sea. 3. Where are you going to send them to when they have no passport. Who would accept the flights. Then the human rights courts would prevent it. 4a. Through what? 5. 😁 4b. The media run the country now. It started with the Brexit debate that they lost, and it pissed them off big time. They are now damaging the country with revenge. Boris never stood a chance; Truss never stood a chance even though she didn't help herself and now they are into Braverman. It won't end until they get a Labour government in. The first thing the Tories should do when they lose power is to back the SNP for a dependence vote. That would cause some shite. Think about it 😁 The media run the country? Lets look at the political leaning of the main newspapers The Right leaning The Daily mail - 9m readers The Sun - 5m readers The Telegraph - 4.8m readers The Times - 4.5m readers The Express - 1.8m readers Plus the Daily mail online has a reach of 5m readers a day Compare that to the Left leaning Guardian - 8m readers Metro - 6.7m readers Mirror - 4.3m Are you really saying that BBC and Sky news have that much power in this country? I find that very hard to believe.
|
|
|
Post by tonyhancock on Nov 1, 2022 17:19:18 GMT
1. It is not as simple as you are making out. That to a point is what's wrong with this country. Everything from changing laws to repairing a road takes way to long. 2. International maritime laws prevents you from doing what you suggest at sea. 3. Where are you going to send them to when they have no passport. Who would accept the flights. Then the human rights courts would prevent it. 4a. Through what? 5. 😁 4b. The media run the country now. It started with the Brexit debate that they lost, and it pissed them off big time. They are now damaging the country with revenge. Boris never stood a chance; Truss never stood a chance even though she didn't help herself and now they are into Braverman. It won't end until they get a Labour government in. The first thing the Tories should do when they lose power is to back the SNP for a dependence vote. That would cause some shite. Think about it 😁 The media run the country? Lets look at the political leaning of the main newspapers The Right leaning The Daily mail - 9m readers The Sun - 5m readers The Telegraph - 4.8m readers The Times - 4.5m readers The Express - 1.8m readers Plus the Daily mail online has a reach of 5m readers a day Compare that to the Left leaning Guardian - 8m readers Metro - 6.7m readers Mirror - 4.3m Are you really saying that BBC and Sky news have that much power in this country? I find that very hard to believe. They all pretty much echoed the establishment line on: Brexit Covid risks Masks Jabs Russia BLM Climate And pretending to worry about immigration. As do the Labour party. I think the difference with you is, you're happy about it. But you tell me, is there anything you'd like the Conservatives to do differently about these things (other than have another referendum) ?
|
|
|
Post by Professor Frink on Nov 1, 2022 17:42:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by choc on Nov 1, 2022 18:13:42 GMT
1. It is not as simple as you are making out. That to a point is what's wrong with this country. Everything from changing laws to repairing a road takes way to long. 2. International maritime laws prevents you from doing what you suggest at sea. 3. Where are you going to send them to when they have no passport. Who would accept the flights. Then the human rights courts would prevent it. 4a. Through what? 5. 😁 4b. The media run the country now. It started with the Brexit debate that they lost, and it pissed them off big time. They are now damaging the country with revenge. Boris never stood a chance; Truss never stood a chance even though she didn't help herself and now they are into Braverman. It won't end until they get a Labour government in. The first thing the Tories should do when they lose power is to back the SNP for a dependence vote. That would cause some shite. Think about it 😁 The media run the country? Lets look at the political leaning of the main newspapers The Right leaning The Daily mail - 9m readers The Sun - 5m readers The Telegraph - 4.8m readers The Times - 4.5m readers The Express - 1.8m readers Plus the Daily mail online has a reach of 5m readers a day Compare that to the Left leaning Guardian - 8m readers Metro - 6.7m readers Mirror - 4.3m Are you really saying that BBC and Sky news have that much power in this country? I find that very hard to believe. Most don't read newspapers anymore. They stare at their phones all day. Are you really saying that the media doesn't influence the way people think. Have you not noticed the ridiculous reporting coming from the likes of the BBC, like the use of the word invasion to try and influence the dismissal of a minister or constantly telling us that there are thousands of nurses using food banks to live. The examples are endless.
|
|
|
Post by choc on Nov 1, 2022 18:15:53 GMT
Can't read that it's blurred
|
|
|
Post by tonyhancock on Nov 1, 2022 18:22:49 GMT
Can't read that it's blurred It's a list of countries, showing the number of asylum applications, as a percentage of that country's population. He doesn't say what his point is. I don't know whether that means we need more 'asylum seekers', or whether we should simply accept those who have arrived. I can't say whether he thinks the people coming from war torn France are economic migrants or not, or whether it's pure coincidence that they are mostly fighting age men.
|
|
|
Post by choc on Nov 1, 2022 18:36:20 GMT
Can't read that it's blurred It's a list of countries, showing the number of asylum applications, as a percentage of that country's population. He doesn't say what his point is. I don't know whether that means we need more 'asylum seekers', or whether we should simply accept those who have arrived. I can't say whether he thinks the people coming from war torn France are economic migrants or not, or whether it's pure coincidence that they are mostly fighting age men. Does it include the thousands that are here waiting for their asylum claims to be accepted and does it include the million plus that are here under the radar
|
|
|
Invasion
Nov 1, 2022 18:44:08 GMT
via mobile
Post by Professor Frink on Nov 1, 2022 18:44:08 GMT
If you click on the attachment it comes through unblurred
As for the point. It shows what a challenge this issue is across Europe and why it’s not just a UK issue
It’s why our government should be developing stronger policy to deal with it rather than the silly rhetoric it comes up with currently…that’s probably the only part of Tony’s conspiracy’s that I agree with
|
|
|
Invasion
Nov 1, 2022 18:46:25 GMT
via mobile
Post by Professor Frink on Nov 1, 2022 18:46:25 GMT
The media run the country? Lets look at the political leaning of the main newspapers The Right leaning The Daily mail - 9m readers The Sun - 5m readers The Telegraph - 4.8m readers The Times - 4.5m readers The Express - 1.8m readers Plus the Daily mail online has a reach of 5m readers a day Compare that to the Left leaning Guardian - 8m readers Metro - 6.7m readers Mirror - 4.3m Are you really saying that BBC and Sky news have that much power in this country? I find that very hard to believe. Most don't read newspapers anymore. They stare at their phones all day. Are you really saying that the media doesn't influence the way people think. Have you not noticed the ridiculous reporting coming from the likes of the BBC, like the use of the word invasion to try and influence the dismissal of a minister or constantly telling us that there are thousands of nurses using food banks to live. The examples are endless. “Most don’t read the newspapers” Ok so let’s ignore readership figures showing the millions that do… I’d also guess that people with right leaning tendencies watch the BBC given how much it triggers them
|
|
|
Post by tonyhancock on Nov 1, 2022 18:48:37 GMT
It's a list of countries, showing the number of asylum applications, as a percentage of that country's population. He doesn't say what his point is. I don't know whether that means we need more 'asylum seekers', or whether we should simply accept those who have arrived. I can't say whether he thinks the people coming from war torn France are economic migrants or not, or whether it's pure coincidence that they are mostly fighting age men. Does it include the thousands that are here waiting for their asylum claims to be accepted and does it include the million plus that are here under the radar I can't see it. I think it's trying to give the impression Lithuania is a much more desirable location for economic migrants, and that the UK is the last choice. Or maybe that the UK is more awkward to migrants, as expressed by comparison to a nation's population.
|
|