FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > I suppose we are going to have to open up the Braverman thread again
I suppose we are going to have to open up the Braverman thread again
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Okay… let’s see if we can do this without the sexiest, racist and misogynist words being thrown about to see if any of it sticks…. So she admits the security thing didn’t happen once…. It’s happened on 6 separate occasions!!! So…. Should she still have her job? " No. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Okay… let’s see if we can do this without the sexiest, racist and misogynist words being thrown about to see if any of it sticks…. So she admits the security thing didn’t happen once…. It’s happened on 6 separate occasions!!! So…. Should she still have her job? " No, I doubt she will be Home Secretary much longer | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Okay… let’s see if we can do this without the sexiest, racist and misogynist words being thrown about to see if any of it sticks…. So she admits the security thing didn’t happen once…. It’s happened on 6 separate occasions!!! So…. Should she still have her job? No." racist ! Jk. I need to catch up with the news but would have said this with juat one intentional subversion of security. | |||
Reply privately (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) | |||
"I think it’s too soon for another U turn due to the optics. The Pm is trying to come across as adding some stability to the whole shit show. Perhaps a strategic reshuffle when the dust has settled. " But in answer to the Ops actual question. No they should not be in the job. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it’s too soon for another U turn due to the optics. The Pm is trying to come across as adding some stability to the whole shit show. Perhaps a strategic reshuffle when the dust has settled. " Sunak has to kick her out. Not kicking her out will only make the story grow as more of the lies come out + more of them have to go on camera to defend the indefensible. We've seen this dance far too many times by now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes." Um... why should the lying + wildly imcompetent Braverman who is a proven national securiy risk keep her job? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes."  always one!
Leaky Sue has to go. Security risk. You cannot have a Home Secretary that MI5 can’t trust!
Then again though, we had a Foreign Secretary who slipped his security detail and partied with ex-KGB folks in an Italian Villa “party” and he went on to be Prime Minister!
Scrub that... Sue Ellen is the next PM! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. always one!
Leaky Sue has to go. Security risk. You cannot have a Home Secretary that MI5 can’t trust!
Then again though, we had a Foreign Secretary who slipped his security detail and partied with ex-KGB folks in an Italian Villa “party” and he went on to be Prime Minister!
Scrub that... Sue Ellen is the next PM!"How do you know that MI5 don't trust her? Are you privy to some confidential information from them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. always one!
Leaky Sue has to go. Security risk. You cannot have a Home Secretary that MI5 can’t trust!
Then again though, we had a Foreign Secretary who slipped his security detail and partied with ex-KGB folks in an Italian Villa “party” and he went on to be Prime Minister!
Scrub that... Sue Ellen is the next PM!
How do you know that MI5 don't trust her? Are you privy to some confidential information from them?"Yep. Braverman emailed that info to all of us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. always one!
Leaky Sue has to go. Security risk. You cannot have a Home Secretary that MI5 can’t trust!
Then again though, we had a Foreign Secretary who slipped his security detail and partied with ex-KGB folks in an Italian Villa “party” and he went on to be Prime Minister!
Scrub that... Sue Ellen is the next PM!
How do you know that MI5 don't trust her? Are you privy to some confidential information from them?"MI5 raised concerns about her. MI6 raised concerns about Johnson. Nothing happened so as I said. Braverman is our next PM. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman's gonna be making a statement in the Commons today, apparently." She will apologies, say that she has learnt from her mistakes, and stay in the job until the next cock up / revelation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman's gonna be making a statement in the Commons today, apparently. She will apologies, say that she has learnt from her mistakes, and stay in the job until the next cock up / revelation " Fingers crossed we might get another of her mad rants too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. always one!
Leaky Sue has to go. Security risk. You cannot have a Home Secretary that MI5 can’t trust!
Then again though, we had a Foreign Secretary who slipped his security detail and partied with ex-KGB folks in an Italian Villa “party” and he went on to be Prime Minister!
Scrub that... Sue Ellen is the next PM!
How do you know that MI5 don't trust her? Are you privy to some confidential information from them?"We know that MI5 were concerned because she had “previous” in doing this when she was AG, and some in the department of justice ironically leaked it to that communist rag… the daily mail!!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman's gonna be making a statement in the Commons today, apparently. She will apologies, say that she has learnt from her mistakes, and stay in the job until the next cock up / revelation " Yvette cooper will absolutely, erm… what the phrase… rip her a new one!!!! 
Have I used it right?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman's gonna be making a statement in the Commons today, apparently. She will apologies, say that she has learnt from her mistakes, and stay in the job until the next cock up / revelation Fingers crossed we might get another of her mad rants too." She will blame the tofu eating wokeratti again and then run off before Yvette cooper destroys her | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman's gonna be making a statement in the Commons today, apparently. She will apologies, say that she has learnt from her mistakes, and stay in the job until the next cock up / revelation Fingers crossed we might get another of her mad rants too. She will blame the tofu eating wokeratti again and then run off before Yvette cooper destroys her " Yvette Cooper isn't going to destroy anyone. She's just got a permanent air of moral indignation about her, probably even when she's ordering her soy latte. I'm sure the Tories will just be laughing at her. Everyone else does. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman's gonna be making a statement in the Commons today, apparently. She will apologies, say that she has learnt from her mistakes, and stay in the job until the next cock up / revelation Fingers crossed we might get another of her mad rants too. She will blame the tofu eating wokeratti again and then run off before Yvette cooper destroys her Yvette Cooper isn't going to destroy anyone. She's just got a permanent air of moral indignation about her, probably even when she's ordering her soy latte. I'm sure the Tories will just be laughing at her. Everyone else does." You do live in a v strange alternate reality, don't you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman's gonna be making a statement in the Commons today, apparently. She will apologies, say that she has learnt from her mistakes, and stay in the job until the next cock up / revelation Fingers crossed we might get another of her mad rants too. She will blame the tofu eating wokeratti again and then run off before Yvette cooper destroys her Yvette Cooper isn't going to destroy anyone. She's just got a permanent air of moral indignation about her, probably even when she's ordering her soy latte. I'm sure the Tories will just be laughing at her. Everyone else does." Why do you think she drinks a soy latte? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman's gonna be making a statement in the Commons today, apparently. She will apologies, say that she has learnt from her mistakes, and stay in the job until the next cock up / revelation Fingers crossed we might get another of her mad rants too. She will blame the tofu eating wokeratti again and then run off before Yvette cooper destroys her " Because she is a Braverman...not! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman should not have this job or any other in Government. I am still wondering if this really was intentional by Sunak. Getting her support but knowing that her position was untenable. He will be absent from any opportunity to ask him about his support until she has to leave. The calculation is that the short-term political damage is worth getting shot of her as she is such a liability. Maybe." Maybe. Seems like a heavy hit to take so early if it's deliberate though. Especially in the wake of so many ministers + PMs coming & going lately. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman should not have this job or any other in Government. I am still wondering if this really was intentional by Sunak. Getting her support but knowing that her position was untenable. He will be absent from any opportunity to ask him about his support until she has to leave. The calculation is that the short-term political damage is worth getting shot of her as she is such a liability. Maybe. Maybe. Seems like a heavy hit to take so early if it's deliberate though. Especially in the wake of so many ministers + PMs coming & going lately." More than just her support though. All the far right nutjobs in the party were needed on side. She was their olive branch. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman's gonna be making a statement in the Commons today, apparently. She will apologies, say that she has learnt from her mistakes, and stay in the job until the next cock up / revelation Fingers crossed we might get another of her mad rants too. She will blame the tofu eating wokeratti again and then run off before Yvette cooper destroys her Yvette Cooper isn't going to destroy anyone. She's just got a permanent air of moral indignation about her, probably even when she's ordering her soy latte. I'm sure the Tories will just be laughing at her. Everyone else does. Why do you think she drinks a soy latte? " Because it probably complements her daily dose of tofu. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman's gonna be making a statement in the Commons today, apparently. She will apologies, say that she has learnt from her mistakes, and stay in the job until the next cock up / revelation Fingers crossed we might get another of her mad rants too. She will blame the tofu eating wokeratti again and then run off before Yvette cooper destroys her Yvette Cooper isn't going to destroy anyone. She's just got a permanent air of moral indignation about her, probably even when she's ordering her soy latte. I'm sure the Tories will just be laughing at her. Everyone else does. Why do you think she drinks a soy latte? Because it probably complements her daily dose of tofu." And how do you know she eats tofu daily? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman's gonna be making a statement in the Commons today, apparently. She will apologies, say that she has learnt from her mistakes, and stay in the job until the next cock up / revelation Fingers crossed we might get another of her mad rants too. She will blame the tofu eating wokeratti again and then run off before Yvette cooper destroys her Yvette Cooper isn't going to destroy anyone. She's just got a permanent air of moral indignation about her, probably even when she's ordering her soy latte. I'm sure the Tories will just be laughing at her. Everyone else does. Why do you think she drinks a soy latte? Because it probably complements her daily dose of tofu." Is there anything wrong with soy and tofu? It is extremely healthy, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman's gonna be making a statement in the Commons today, apparently. She will apologies, say that she has learnt from her mistakes, and stay in the job until the next cock up / revelation Fingers crossed we might get another of her mad rants too. She will blame the tofu eating wokeratti again and then run off before Yvette cooper destroys her Yvette Cooper isn't going to destroy anyone. She's just got a permanent air of moral indignation about her, probably even when she's ordering her soy latte. I'm sure the Tories will just be laughing at her. Everyone else does. Why do you think she drinks a soy latte? Because it probably complements her daily dose of tofu. Is there anything wrong with soy and tofu? It is extremely healthy, " They're dangerously woke! don't you know that?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman's gonna be making a statement in the Commons today, apparently. She will apologies, say that she has learnt from her mistakes, and stay in the job until the next cock up / revelation Fingers crossed we might get another of her mad rants too. She will blame the tofu eating wokeratti again and then run off before Yvette cooper destroys her Yvette Cooper isn't going to destroy anyone. She's just got a permanent air of moral indignation about her, probably even when she's ordering her soy latte. I'm sure the Tories will just be laughing at her. Everyone else does. Why do you think she drinks a soy latte? Because it probably complements her daily dose of tofu. Is there anything wrong with soy and tofu? It is extremely healthy, " There you go, tofu-eaters all. Braverman was right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman's gonna be making a statement in the Commons today, apparently. She will apologies, say that she has learnt from her mistakes, and stay in the job until the next cock up / revelation Fingers crossed we might get another of her mad rants too. She will blame the tofu eating wokeratti again and then run off before Yvette cooper destroys her Yvette Cooper isn't going to destroy anyone. She's just got a permanent air of moral indignation about her, probably even when she's ordering her soy latte. I'm sure the Tories will just be laughing at her. Everyone else does. Why do you think she drinks a soy latte? Because it probably complements her daily dose of tofu. Is there anything wrong with soy and tofu? It is extremely healthy, There you go, tofu-eaters all. Braverman was right." Gosh you certainly are easy to convince of certain things. So... I have these magic beans & I'm thinking of selling em... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman's gonna be making a statement in the Commons today, apparently. She will apologies, say that she has learnt from her mistakes, and stay in the job until the next cock up / revelation Fingers crossed we might get another of her mad rants too. She will blame the tofu eating wokeratti again and then run off before Yvette cooper destroys her Yvette Cooper isn't going to destroy anyone. She's just got a permanent air of moral indignation about her, probably even when she's ordering her soy latte. I'm sure the Tories will just be laughing at her. Everyone else does. Why do you think she drinks a soy latte? Because it probably complements her daily dose of tofu. Is there anything wrong with soy and tofu? It is extremely healthy, There you go, tofu-eaters all. Braverman was right." I don’t really like tofu, i envoy a soy latte though, whatever does this mean? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman's gonna be making a statement in the Commons today, apparently. She will apologies, say that she has learnt from her mistakes, and stay in the job until the next cock up / revelation Fingers crossed we might get another of her mad rants too. She will blame the tofu eating wokeratti again and then run off before Yvette cooper destroys her Yvette Cooper isn't going to destroy anyone. She's just got a permanent air of moral indignation about her, probably even when she's ordering her soy latte. I'm sure the Tories will just be laughing at her. Everyone else does. Why do you think she drinks a soy latte? Because it probably complements her daily dose of tofu. Is there anything wrong with soy and tofu? It is extremely healthy, There you go, tofu-eaters all. Braverman was right. Gosh you certainly are easy to convince of certain things. So... I have these magic beans & I'm thinking of selling em..." Fo those beans grow into a beanstalk that will let people finally reach the promised land of Brexit? Will they finally see fields full of unicorns? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman's gonna be making a statement in the Commons today, apparently. She will apologies, say that she has learnt from her mistakes, and stay in the job until the next cock up / revelation Fingers crossed we might get another of her mad rants too. She will blame the tofu eating wokeratti again and then run off before Yvette cooper destroys her Yvette Cooper isn't going to destroy anyone. She's just got a permanent air of moral indignation about her, probably even when she's ordering her soy latte. I'm sure the Tories will just be laughing at her. Everyone else does. Why do you think she drinks a soy latte? Because it probably complements her daily dose of tofu. Is there anything wrong with soy and tofu? It is extremely healthy, There you go, tofu-eaters all. Braverman was right. Gosh you certainly are easy to convince of certain things. So... I have these magic beans & I'm thinking of selling em... Fo those beans grow into a beanstalk that will let people finally reach the promised land of Brexit? Will they finally see fields full of unicorns?" Good to see the EU Commission Bot is still in full flow. Until the Russian gas runs out obviously. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman's gonna be making a statement in the Commons today, apparently. She will apologies, say that she has learnt from her mistakes, and stay in the job until the next cock up / revelation Fingers crossed we might get another of her mad rants too. She will blame the tofu eating wokeratti again and then run off before Yvette cooper destroys her Yvette Cooper isn't going to destroy anyone. She's just got a permanent air of moral indignation about her, probably even when she's ordering her soy latte. I'm sure the Tories will just be laughing at her. Everyone else does. Why do you think she drinks a soy latte? Because it probably complements her daily dose of tofu. Is there anything wrong with soy and tofu? It is extremely healthy, There you go, tofu-eaters all. Braverman was right. Gosh you certainly are easy to convince of certain things. So... I have these magic beans & I'm thinking of selling em... Fo those beans grow into a beanstalk that will let people finally reach the promised land of Brexit? Will they finally see fields full of unicorns? Good to see the EU Commission Bot is still in full flow. Until the Russian gas runs out obviously." Eh? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cooper tore Braverman to bloody ribbons." Cooper is an irrelevant po-faced windbag. If Labour were the government they'd have a flotilla of boats going to France every day to bring across anyone who fancied living here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cooper tore Braverman to bloody ribbons. Cooper is an irrelevant po-faced windbag. If Labour were the government they'd have a flotilla of boats going to France every day to bring across anyone who fancied living here." She ripped braverman apart, delicious | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cooper tore Braverman to bloody ribbons. Cooper is an irrelevant po-faced windbag. If Labour were the government they'd have a flotilla of boats going to France every day to bring across anyone who fancied living here." ‘The system is broken’ ‘illegal immigration is out of control’ Braverman today | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cooper tore Braverman to bloody ribbons. Cooper is an irrelevant po-faced windbag. If Labour were the government they'd have a flotilla of boats going to France every day to bring across anyone who fancied living here." I did recommend somewhere above where you can read up on the issues involved. I see you seem happier to remain ignorant. Why do you enjoy having your ignorance manipulated? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cooper tore Braverman to bloody ribbons. Cooper is an irrelevant po-faced windbag. If Labour were the government they'd have a flotilla of boats going to France every day to bring across anyone who fancied living here. I did recommend somewhere above where you can read up on the issues involved. I see you seem happier to remain ignorant. Why do you enjoy having your ignorance manipulated?" The Left speaks. Anyone who disagrees with me is stupid. Next it'll be stopping anyone who disagrees with me from voting. And after that putting them in jail. Same pattern throughout history. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cooper tore Braverman to bloody ribbons. Cooper is an irrelevant po-faced windbag. If Labour were the government they'd have a flotilla of boats going to France every day to bring across anyone who fancied living here. I did recommend somewhere above where you can read up on the issues involved. I see you seem happier to remain ignorant. Why do you enjoy having your ignorance manipulated? The Left speaks. Anyone who disagrees with me is stupid. Next it'll be stopping anyone who disagrees with me from voting. And after that putting them in jail. Same pattern throughout history." Am I the left then? Good to know. I did not call you stupid. But you are ignorant. You could read up on immigration + the Borders bill. I even said where you could read this. You chose not to. You chose continued ignorance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cooper tore Braverman to bloody ribbons. Cooper is an irrelevant po-faced windbag. If Labour were the government they'd have a flotilla of boats going to France every day to bring across anyone who fancied living here. I did recommend somewhere above where you can read up on the issues involved. I see you seem happier to remain ignorant. Why do you enjoy having your ignorance manipulated? The Left speaks. Anyone who disagrees with me is stupid. Next it'll be stopping anyone who disagrees with me from voting. And after that putting them in jail. Same pattern throughout history." These days you get arrested and thrown in jail if you say you’re English . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cooper tore Braverman to bloody ribbons. Cooper is an irrelevant po-faced windbag. If Labour were the government they'd have a flotilla of boats going to France every day to bring across anyone who fancied living here. I did recommend somewhere above where you can read up on the issues involved. I see you seem happier to remain ignorant. Why do you enjoy having your ignorance manipulated? The Left speaks. Anyone who disagrees with me is stupid. Next it'll be stopping anyone who disagrees with me from voting. And after that putting them in jail. Same pattern throughout history. Am I the left then? Good to know. I did not call you stupid. But you are ignorant. You could read up on immigration + the Borders bill. I even said where you could read this. You chose not to. You chose continued ignorance." I think I posted that to you on another thread. Hang on. I'll look it up again... To any of the confused & angry, please just read the international resue commitee's info about the UK Nationality & Borders Act. It may well illuminate you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cooper tore Braverman to bloody ribbons. Cooper is an irrelevant po-faced windbag. If Labour were the government they'd have a flotilla of boats going to France every day to bring across anyone who fancied living here. I did recommend somewhere above where you can read up on the issues involved. I see you seem happier to remain ignorant. Why do you enjoy having your ignorance manipulated? The Left speaks. Anyone who disagrees with me is stupid. Next it'll be stopping anyone who disagrees with me from voting. And after that putting them in jail. Same pattern throughout history. Am I the left then? Good to know. I did not call you stupid. But you are ignorant. You could read up on immigration + the Borders bill. I even said where you could read this. You chose not to. You chose continued ignorance." It is true that one of us is ignorant. You just lack self-awareness. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cooper tore Braverman to bloody ribbons. Cooper is an irrelevant po-faced windbag. If Labour were the government they'd have a flotilla of boats going to France every day to bring across anyone who fancied living here. I did recommend somewhere above where you can read up on the issues involved. I see you seem happier to remain ignorant. Why do you enjoy having your ignorance manipulated? The Left speaks. Anyone who disagrees with me is stupid. Next it'll be stopping anyone who disagrees with me from voting. And after that putting them in jail. Same pattern throughout history. Am I the left then? Good to know. I did not call you stupid. But you are ignorant. You could read up on immigration + the Borders bill. I even said where you could read this. You chose not to. You chose continued ignorance. It is true that one of us is ignorant. You just lack self-awareness." I do try to question everything. Even myself. Isn't learning fun? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cooper tore Braverman to bloody ribbons. Cooper is an irrelevant po-faced windbag. If Labour were the government they'd have a flotilla of boats going to France every day to bring across anyone who fancied living here." Yvette Cooper is the Shadow Home Secretary and it is her job to hold the Home Secretary to account, which she appeared to accomplish. Is ferrying people to the UK Labour policy? Could you please indicate where you found this information? Alternatively, could you confirm that you just made this up as you have no data to back any assertions that you make? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yvette cooper certainly didn’t miss… that was forensic! Sue Ellen is certainly dancing around the security and the breaking the ministerial code questions….." Whilst admitting that the system is broken, illegal immigration is out of control whilst blaming past Home Secretaries, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cooper tore Braverman to bloody ribbons. Cooper is an irrelevant po-faced windbag. If Labour were the government they'd have a flotilla of boats going to France every day to bring across anyone who fancied living here. Yvette Cooper is the Shadow Home Secretary and it is her job to hold the Home Secretary to account, which she appeared to accomplish. Is ferrying people to the UK Labour policy? Could you please indicate where you found this information? Alternatively, could you confirm that you just made this up as you have no data to back any assertions that you make?" He read it on a beer mat in Wetherspoons | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cooper tore Braverman to bloody ribbons. Cooper is an irrelevant po-faced windbag. If Labour were the government they'd have a flotilla of boats going to France every day to bring across anyone who fancied living here. Yvette Cooper is the Shadow Home Secretary and it is her job to hold the Home Secretary to account, which she appeared to accomplish. Is ferrying people to the UK Labour policy? Could you please indicate where you found this information? Alternatively, could you confirm that you just made this up as you have no data to back any assertions that you make? He read it on a beer mat in Wetherspoons " Oi I used that 1 on another thread  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cooper tore Braverman to bloody ribbons. Cooper is an irrelevant po-faced windbag. If Labour were the government they'd have a flotilla of boats going to France every day to bring across anyone who fancied living here. Yvette Cooper is the Shadow Home Secretary and it is her job to hold the Home Secretary to account, which she appeared to accomplish. Is ferrying people to the UK Labour policy? Could you please indicate where you found this information? Alternatively, could you confirm that you just made this up as you have no data to back any assertions that you make? He read it on a beer mat in Wetherspoons Oi I used that 1 on another thread "Dam, it’s a good line though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'Embattled home secretary Suella Braverman is facing further questions about her judgement after it emerged that her officials demanded a 120-year-old magazine for solicitors remove an opinion piece because they did not like what it said. They told the Law Society Gazette that the article “should not have been published in the form that it has”. One added: “I’d really like it taken down and rewritten”, a Freedom of Information (FOI) release shows. The exchange took place at the same time as Ms Braverman was promising the government would “strengthen” freedom of expression.' Does she eat tofu? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/suella-braverman-law-gazette-opinion-b2214481.html?r=96414" She is such a snowflake | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'Embattled home secretary Suella Braverman is facing further questions about her judgement after it emerged that her officials demanded a 120-year-old magazine for solicitors remove an opinion piece because they did not like what it said. They told the Law Society Gazette that the article “should not have been published in the form that it has”. One added: “I’d really like it taken down and rewritten”, a Freedom of Information (FOI) release shows. The exchange took place at the same time as Ms Braverman was promising the government would “strengthen” freedom of expression.' Does she eat tofu? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/suella-braverman-law-gazette-opinion-b2214481.html?r=96414" I'd guess she drinks the blood of babies @ midnight. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'Embattled home secretary Suella Braverman is facing further questions about her judgement after it emerged that her officials demanded a 120-year-old magazine for solicitors remove an opinion piece because they did not like what it said. They told the Law Society Gazette that the article “should not have been published in the form that it has”. One added: “I’d really like it taken down and rewritten”, a Freedom of Information (FOI) release shows. The exchange took place at the same time as Ms Braverman was promising the government would “strengthen” freedom of expression.' Does she eat tofu? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/suella-braverman-law-gazette-opinion-b2214481.html?r=96414 She is such a snowflake " Wow! I forgot to quote this line: 'The FOI also shows that officials in the AGO asked the journalist a number of times to submit the piece to them in draft form before publication, a move considered unethical by most journalists.' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From what I was listening to on the radio box today Priti Patel has an awful lot to answer to as well. I genuinely can't understand how Braverman is still in a job? " Just the Tories trying to protect the right wing loon section. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't understand Rishi's thinking in giving her this job back. I hear rumours it was to gain her support in the leadership race but he was clearly far ahead I doubt he needed her support. Or does she have some highly toxic dirt on him and the job is in exchange for her silence" The implication has been he wasn't just buying her support, as it were. But rather her + the right wing bunch of the party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't understand Rishi's thinking in giving her this job back. I hear rumours it was to gain her support in the leadership race but he was clearly far ahead I doubt he needed her support. Or does she have some highly toxic dirt on him and the job is in exchange for her silence" If the right wing of the Parliamentary party voted for BoJo and it did go over the 100, it would have gone to the party members and he would have won. She represents (for some reason) that side of the party. Sunak was guaranteeing all of their support. I may have over-explained the previous post there | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This genuinely could not get any more surreal and morbidly hilarious. Paywall, but the headline is enough: 'Suella Braverman has brought Home Office 'into disrepute', say Priti Patel allies" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/10/31/suella-braverman-has-brought-home-office-disrepute-multiple/" lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. " I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years." There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. " Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country." Who says “Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls”? Can you link to an article(s) that demonstrates this? Or is that just your opinion based on what...nothing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country." Why would you think that? As usual with these types of topics there are some people who are only able to visualise polar opposites of an argument when the answer is invariably in the middle ground. The Government needs to have an immigration policy that is fit for purpose - it’s kind of a given and an expectation that any Government would have such a system. Such a system has to be based on international law, and it has to recognise the realities of an ever-changing world. Dreaming up a policy that is based on ideology will simply result in the problems that we are seeing right now. Think about the “alleged” Albanian issue (I say alleged because although it is being reported no-one knows the facts for sure yet). They are only coming across because the infrastructure to enable them to cross is in place. It was not put in place not for them, but for The Afghans, Iraqi’s and others who had their legal asylum routes closed down by this Government in an attempt to stop asylum seekers arriving in the U.K. so they resort to getting here by any means they can. Traffickers then respond to demand and create a business shipping people across the channel and if a few Albanians and others are willing to pay - well - the more the merrier for the traffickers. As we left the EU, we can no longer return anyone in accordance with the Dublin accord and as our relationship with the EU soured because of Brexit ideology, the French and the EU feel no motivation to help the U.K. resolve a problem that they see as entirely their own making. The alternative… Re-open legal asylum routes around the world to reduce the need for channel crossings, the infrastructure will collapse with reduced demand. Stop focusing on immigration as if it is the number one political priority in the country - it isn’t. Re-establish normal working relations with the EU and in particular France. Adopt a robust but fair immigration policy that recognises our international obligations, but also spells out exactly a defined policy on border rules. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. Why would you think that? As usual with these types of topics there are some people who are only able to visualise polar opposites of an argument when the answer is invariably in the middle ground. The Government needs to have an immigration policy that is fit for purpose - it’s kind of a given and an expectation that any Government would have such a system. Such a system has to be based on international law, and it has to recognise the realities of an ever-changing world. Dreaming up a policy that is based on ideology will simply result in the problems that we are seeing right now. Think about the “alleged” Albanian issue (I say alleged because although it is being reported no-one knows the facts for sure yet). They are only coming across because the infrastructure to enable them to cross is in place. It was not put in place not for them, but for The Afghans, Iraqi’s and others who had their legal asylum routes closed down by this Government in an attempt to stop asylum seekers arriving in the U.K. so they resort to getting here by any means they can. Traffickers then respond to demand and create a business shipping people across the channel and if a few Albanians and others are willing to pay - well - the more the merrier for the traffickers. As we left the EU, we can no longer return anyone in accordance with the Dublin accord and as our relationship with the EU soured because of Brexit ideology, the French and the EU feel no motivation to help the U.K. resolve a problem that they see as entirely their own making. The alternative… Re-open legal asylum routes around the world to reduce the need for channel crossings, the infrastructure will collapse with reduced demand. Stop focusing on immigration as if it is the number one political priority in the country - it isn’t. Re-establish normal working relations with the EU and in particular France. Adopt a robust but fair immigration policy that recognises our international obligations, but also spells out exactly a defined policy on border rules. " That is an awful lot of words to effectively say that you think anyone who wants to come to the UK should be allowed in. Just admit it, it's a valid position to take. And it is the reality of all historic and current immigration policy, no matter what the politicians say. No need to be embarrassed by it. And Albanians now control the marijuana trade in the UK, that's why they are coming over. It's not a few "chancers" as you so desperately want to be the case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. " Neither of course are anti ‘immigration’. Why would they be? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. Why would you think that? As usual with these types of topics there are some people who are only able to visualise polar opposites of an argument when the answer is invariably in the middle ground. The Government needs to have an immigration policy that is fit for purpose - it’s kind of a given and an expectation that any Government would have such a system. Such a system has to be based on international law, and it has to recognise the realities of an ever-changing world. Dreaming up a policy that is based on ideology will simply result in the problems that we are seeing right now. Think about the “alleged” Albanian issue (I say alleged because although it is being reported no-one knows the facts for sure yet). They are only coming across because the infrastructure to enable them to cross is in place. It was not put in place not for them, but for The Afghans, Iraqi’s and others who had their legal asylum routes closed down by this Government in an attempt to stop asylum seekers arriving in the U.K. so they resort to getting here by any means they can. Traffickers then respond to demand and create a business shipping people across the channel and if a few Albanians and others are willing to pay - well - the more the merrier for the traffickers. As we left the EU, we can no longer return anyone in accordance with the Dublin accord and as our relationship with the EU soured because of Brexit ideology, the French and the EU feel no motivation to help the U.K. resolve a problem that they see as entirely their own making. The alternative… Re-open legal asylum routes around the world to reduce the need for channel crossings, the infrastructure will collapse with reduced demand. Stop focusing on immigration as if it is the number one political priority in the country - it isn’t. Re-establish normal working relations with the EU and in particular France. Adopt a robust but fair immigration policy that recognises our international obligations, but also spells out exactly a defined policy on border rules. That is an awful lot of words to effectively say that you think anyone who wants to come to the UK should be allowed in. Just admit it, it's a valid position to take. And it is the reality of all historic and current immigration policy, no matter what the politicians say. No need to be embarrassed by it. And Albanians now control the marijuana trade in the UK, that's why they are coming over. It's not a few "chancers" as you so desperately want to be the case." An estimated 40,000 migrants have crossed the channel this year and the overwhelming majority are not Albanian. Its perfectly normal for a country to have an immigration policy - all nations have one. It can't be a childlike version of - close the doors and keep all foreigners out. If Albanians are crossing and they have no right to be here then there is absolutely nothing at all stopping the UK Government from deporting them back to Albania. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. Neither of course are anti ‘immigration’. Why would they be? " They probably aren’t, but they are pretending to be to appease their racist right wing supporters | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. Why would you think that? As usual with these types of topics there are some people who are only able to visualise polar opposites of an argument when the answer is invariably in the middle ground. The Government needs to have an immigration policy that is fit for purpose - it’s kind of a given and an expectation that any Government would have such a system. Such a system has to be based on international law, and it has to recognise the realities of an ever-changing world. Dreaming up a policy that is based on ideology will simply result in the problems that we are seeing right now. Think about the “alleged” Albanian issue (I say alleged because although it is being reported no-one knows the facts for sure yet). They are only coming across because the infrastructure to enable them to cross is in place. It was not put in place not for them, but for The Afghans, Iraqi’s and others who had their legal asylum routes closed down by this Government in an attempt to stop asylum seekers arriving in the U.K. so they resort to getting here by any means they can. Traffickers then respond to demand and create a business shipping people across the channel and if a few Albanians and others are willing to pay - well - the more the merrier for the traffickers. As we left the EU, we can no longer return anyone in accordance with the Dublin accord and as our relationship with the EU soured because of Brexit ideology, the French and the EU feel no motivation to help the U.K. resolve a problem that they see as entirely their own making. The alternative… Re-open legal asylum routes around the world to reduce the need for channel crossings, the infrastructure will collapse with reduced demand. Stop focusing on immigration as if it is the number one political priority in the country - it isn’t. Re-establish normal working relations with the EU and in particular France. Adopt a robust but fair immigration policy that recognises our international obligations, but also spells out exactly a defined policy on border rules. That is an awful lot of words to effectively say that you think anyone who wants to come to the UK should be allowed in. Just admit it, it's a valid position to take. And it is the reality of all historic and current immigration policy, no matter what the politicians say. No need to be embarrassed by it. And Albanians now control the marijuana trade in the UK, that's why they are coming over. It's not a few "chancers" as you so desperately want to be the case." Do you really believe that Seb? I didn't take that away at all, and your response feels akin to saying anyone who wants stricter control on immigration wants zero immigration or is anti immigration. The last sentence of the post is something I'd imagine many people can stand behind. We may have differences in definitions of what the policy is or the rules. But we would benefit from that discussion. I do find it interesting that this is all coached in "immigration". It's not. It's about our policy on asylum seekers and helping others. Immigration is a bigger question that covers a lot lot more. And is a lot more complex. Imo the Tories know this, and so will use refugees to distract from the harder questions. After all taking back control was about FoM and the live (big immigration) not refugees. Ps sounds like legalising would help with the "crisis". I can only imagine .asking it class A would drive it furher underground and therefore increase the Algerian presence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. Neither of course are anti ‘immigration’. Why would they be? They probably aren’t, but they are pretending to be to appease their racist right wing supporters " I guess that to rabid loony left wingers , racist right wingers are to blame for everything. And probably vice versa. Both sectors would score high on the ‘knobometer’ Both are best avoided as they seem incapable of normal balanced debate. Their dogma overrules any reason. Thankfully, 99.9% of the population are in neither camp. Normal people are well balanced, honest, fair, compassionate, helpful to others, engaging, with a real sense of social justice. They are also able to see through and dismiss silly rhetoric. A real ‘feel for right & wrong, and a good bullshit detector. People that are not taken in by nonsense and do not need to be influenced by any newspaper. People much like myself. Let’s hear it for the majority of good people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. Why would you think that? As usual with these types of topics there are some people who are only able to visualise polar opposites of an argument when the answer is invariably in the middle ground. The Government needs to have an immigration policy that is fit for purpose - it’s kind of a given and an expectation that any Government would have such a system. Such a system has to be based on international law, and it has to recognise the realities of an ever-changing world. Dreaming up a policy that is based on ideology will simply result in the problems that we are seeing right now. Think about the “alleged” Albanian issue (I say alleged because although it is being reported no-one knows the facts for sure yet). They are only coming across because the infrastructure to enable them to cross is in place. It was not put in place not for them, but for The Afghans, Iraqi’s and others who had their legal asylum routes closed down by this Government in an attempt to stop asylum seekers arriving in the U.K. so they resort to getting here by any means they can. Traffickers then respond to demand and create a business shipping people across the channel and if a few Albanians and others are willing to pay - well - the more the merrier for the traffickers. As we left the EU, we can no longer return anyone in accordance with the Dublin accord and as our relationship with the EU soured because of Brexit ideology, the French and the EU feel no motivation to help the U.K. resolve a problem that they see as entirely their own making. The alternative… Re-open legal asylum routes around the world to reduce the need for channel crossings, the infrastructure will collapse with reduced demand. Stop focusing on immigration as if it is the number one political priority in the country - it isn’t. Re-establish normal working relations with the EU and in particular France. Adopt a robust but fair immigration policy that recognises our international obligations, but also spells out exactly a defined policy on border rules. That is an awful lot of words to effectively say that you think anyone who wants to come to the UK should be allowed in. Just admit it, it's a valid position to take. And it is the reality of all historic and current immigration policy, no matter what the politicians say. No need to be embarrassed by it. And Albanians now control the marijuana trade in the UK, that's why they are coming over. It's not a few "chancers" as you so desperately want to be the case. Do you really believe that Seb? I didn't take that away at all, and your response feels akin to saying anyone who wants stricter control on immigration wants zero immigration or is anti immigration. The last sentence of the post is something I'd imagine many people can stand behind. We may have differences in definitions of what the policy is or the rules. But we would benefit from that discussion. I do find it interesting that this is all coached in "immigration". It's not. It's about our policy on asylum seekers and helping others. Immigration is a bigger question that covers a lot lot more. And is a lot more complex. Imo the Tories know this, and so will use refugees to distract from the harder questions. After all taking back control was about FoM and the live (big immigration) not refugees. Ps sounds like legalising would help with the "crisis". I can only imagine .asking it class A would drive it furher underground and therefore increase the Algerian presence. " Are you asking me as you think I posted as above your comment? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. Why would you think that? As usual with these types of topics there are some people who are only able to visualise polar opposites of an argument when the answer is invariably in the middle ground. The Government needs to have an immigration policy that is fit for purpose - it’s kind of a given and an expectation that any Government would have such a system. Such a system has to be based on international law, and it has to recognise the realities of an ever-changing world. Dreaming up a policy that is based on ideology will simply result in the problems that we are seeing right now. Think about the “alleged” Albanian issue (I say alleged because although it is being reported no-one knows the facts for sure yet). They are only coming across because the infrastructure to enable them to cross is in place. It was not put in place not for them, but for The Afghans, Iraqi’s and others who had their legal asylum routes closed down by this Government in an attempt to stop asylum seekers arriving in the U.K. so they resort to getting here by any means they can. Traffickers then respond to demand and create a business shipping people across the channel and if a few Albanians and others are willing to pay - well - the more the merrier for the traffickers. As we left the EU, we can no longer return anyone in accordance with the Dublin accord and as our relationship with the EU soured because of Brexit ideology, the French and the EU feel no motivation to help the U.K. resolve a problem that they see as entirely their own making. The alternative… Re-open legal asylum routes around the world to reduce the need for channel crossings, the infrastructure will collapse with reduced demand. Stop focusing on immigration as if it is the number one political priority in the country - it isn’t. Re-establish normal working relations with the EU and in particular France. Adopt a robust but fair immigration policy that recognises our international obligations, but also spells out exactly a defined policy on border rules. That is an awful lot of words to effectively say that you think anyone who wants to come to the UK should be allowed in. Just admit it, it's a valid position to take. And it is the reality of all historic and current immigration policy, no matter what the politicians say. No need to be embarrassed by it. And Albanians now control the marijuana trade in the UK, that's why they are coming over. It's not a few "chancers" as you so desperately want to be the case. Do you really believe that Seb? I didn't take that away at all, and your response feels akin to saying anyone who wants stricter control on immigration wants zero immigration or is anti immigration. The last sentence of the post is something I'd imagine many people can stand behind. We may have differences in definitions of what the policy is or the rules. But we would benefit from that discussion. I do find it interesting that this is all coached in "immigration". It's not. It's about our policy on asylum seekers and helping others. Immigration is a bigger question that covers a lot lot more. And is a lot more complex. Imo the Tories know this, and so will use refugees to distract from the harder questions. After all taking back control was about FoM and the live (big immigration) not refugees. Ps sounds like legalising would help with the "crisis". I can only imagine .asking it class A would drive it furher underground and therefore increase the Algerian presence. " I’m not anti immigration. Are you mixing up posts? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. Neither of course are anti ‘immigration’. Why would they be? They probably aren’t, but they are pretending to be to appease their racist right wing supporters I guess that to rabid loony left wingers , racist right wingers are to blame for everything. And probably vice versa. Both sectors would score high on the ‘knobometer’ Both are best avoided as they seem incapable of normal balanced debate. Their dogma overrules any reason. Thankfully, 99.9% of the population are in neither camp. Normal people are well balanced, honest, fair, compassionate, helpful to others, engaging, with a real sense of social justice. They are also able to see through and dismiss silly rhetoric. A real ‘feel for right & wrong, and a good bullshit detector. People that are not taken in by nonsense and do not need to be influenced by any newspaper. People much like myself. Let’s hear it for the majority of good people." What are you on about ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. Neither of course are anti ‘immigration’. Why would they be? They probably aren’t, but they are pretending to be to appease their racist right wing supporters I guess that to rabid loony left wingers , racist right wingers are to blame for everything. And probably vice versa. Both sectors would score high on the ‘knobometer’ Both are best avoided as they seem incapable of normal balanced debate. Their dogma overrules any reason. Thankfully, 99.9% of the population are in neither camp. Normal people are well balanced, honest, fair, compassionate, helpful to others, engaging, with a real sense of social justice. They are also able to see through and dismiss silly rhetoric. A real ‘feel for right & wrong, and a good bullshit detector. People that are not taken in by nonsense and do not need to be influenced by any newspaper. People much like myself. Let’s hear it for the majority of good people." Sadly I think your 99.9% figure is overly generous | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. Neither of course are anti ‘immigration’. Why would they be? They probably aren’t, but they are pretending to be to appease their racist right wing supporters I guess that to rabid loony left wingers , racist right wingers are to blame for everything. And probably vice versa. Both sectors would score high on the ‘knobometer’ Both are best avoided as they seem incapable of normal balanced debate. Their dogma overrules any reason. Thankfully, 99.9% of the population are in neither camp. Normal people are well balanced, honest, fair, compassionate, helpful to others, engaging, with a real sense of social justice. They are also able to see through and dismiss silly rhetoric. A real ‘feel for right & wrong, and a good bullshit detector. People that are not taken in by nonsense and do not need to be influenced by any newspaper. People much like myself. Let’s hear it for the majority of good people." Either you are completely lack self awareness or you are cynically claiming to be reasonable when you know that you are not. You are persistent though. What is true is that most people do want to do the right thing, but when they are constantly fed fear and anger those will be the driving emotions when viewing a topic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. Neither of course are anti ‘immigration’. Why would they be? They probably aren’t, but they are pretending to be to appease their racist right wing supporters I guess that to rabid loony left wingers , racist right wingers are to blame for everything. And probably vice versa. Both sectors would score high on the ‘knobometer’ Both are best avoided as they seem incapable of normal balanced debate. Their dogma overrules any reason. Thankfully, 99.9% of the population are in neither camp. Normal people are well balanced, honest, fair, compassionate, helpful to others, engaging, with a real sense of social justice. They are also able to see through and dismiss silly rhetoric. A real ‘feel for right & wrong, and a good bullshit detector. People that are not taken in by nonsense and do not need to be influenced by any newspaper. People much like myself. Let’s hear it for the majority of good people. Sadly I think your 99.9% figure is overly generous" I have faith. We can’t be corrupted by the Fab demographic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. Neither of course are anti ‘immigration’. Why would they be? They probably aren’t, but they are pretending to be to appease their racist right wing supporters I guess that to rabid loony left wingers , racist right wingers are to blame for everything. And probably vice versa. Both sectors would score high on the ‘knobometer’ Both are best avoided as they seem incapable of normal balanced debate. Their dogma overrules any reason. Thankfully, 99.9% of the population are in neither camp. Normal people are well balanced, honest, fair, compassionate, helpful to others, engaging, with a real sense of social justice. They are also able to see through and dismiss silly rhetoric. A real ‘feel for right & wrong, and a good bullshit detector. People that are not taken in by nonsense and do not need to be influenced by any newspaper. People much like myself. Let’s hear it for the majority of good people." I also think the 99.9% figure is a bit generous but apart from that, I agree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. Neither of course are anti ‘immigration’. Why would they be? They probably aren’t, but they are pretending to be to appease their racist right wing supporters I guess that to rabid loony left wingers , racist right wingers are to blame for everything. And probably vice versa. Both sectors would score high on the ‘knobometer’ Both are best avoided as they seem incapable of normal balanced debate. Their dogma overrules any reason. Thankfully, 99.9% of the population are in neither camp. Normal people are well balanced, honest, fair, compassionate, helpful to others, engaging, with a real sense of social justice. They are also able to see through and dismiss silly rhetoric. A real ‘feel for right & wrong, and a good bullshit detector. People that are not taken in by nonsense and do not need to be influenced by any newspaper. People much like myself. Let’s hear it for the majority of good people. Sadly I think your 99.9% figure is overly generous I have faith. We can’t be corrupted by the Fab demographic " You gotta have faith! But... Well apparently the Faily Heil is the most visited UK website and the “news”paper still has a circulation in excess of 1m. So where do those readers fit into your 0.1%? Throw in Express readers next. I think your faith (and maths) will be severely tested! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. Neither of course are anti ‘immigration’. Why would they be? They probably aren’t, but they are pretending to be to appease their racist right wing supporters I guess that to rabid loony left wingers , racist right wingers are to blame for everything. And probably vice versa. Both sectors would score high on the ‘knobometer’ Both are best avoided as they seem incapable of normal balanced debate. Their dogma overrules any reason. Thankfully, 99.9% of the population are in neither camp. Normal people are well balanced, honest, fair, compassionate, helpful to others, engaging, with a real sense of social justice. They are also able to see through and dismiss silly rhetoric. A real ‘feel for right & wrong, and a good bullshit detector. People that are not taken in by nonsense and do not need to be influenced by any newspaper. People much like myself. Let’s hear it for the majority of good people. Sadly I think your 99.9% figure is overly generous I have faith. We can’t be corrupted by the Fab demographic You gotta have faith! But... Well apparently the Faily Heil is the most visited UK website and the “news”paper still has a circulation in excess of 1m. So where do those readers fit into your 0.1%? Throw in Express readers next. I think your faith (and maths) will be severely tested!" Reading a certain newspaper does not turn you into an extremist. I like the i during the week and I really enjoy reading the Sunday Times. Sport, financial, travel, home section, Culture mag. Just because something is popular doesn’t make it evil. Cue now the usual suspects with veiled insults & derision. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. Why would you think that? As usual with these types of topics there are some people who are only able to visualise polar opposites of an argument when the answer is invariably in the middle ground. The Government needs to have an immigration policy that is fit for purpose - it’s kind of a given and an expectation that any Government would have such a system. Such a system has to be based on international law, and it has to recognise the realities of an ever-changing world. Dreaming up a policy that is based on ideology will simply result in the problems that we are seeing right now. Think about the “alleged” Albanian issue (I say alleged because although it is being reported no-one knows the facts for sure yet). They are only coming across because the infrastructure to enable them to cross is in place. It was not put in place not for them, but for The Afghans, Iraqi’s and others who had their legal asylum routes closed down by this Government in an attempt to stop asylum seekers arriving in the U.K. so they resort to getting here by any means they can. Traffickers then respond to demand and create a business shipping people across the channel and if a few Albanians and others are willing to pay - well - the more the merrier for the traffickers. As we left the EU, we can no longer return anyone in accordance with the Dublin accord and as our relationship with the EU soured because of Brexit ideology, the French and the EU feel no motivation to help the U.K. resolve a problem that they see as entirely their own making. The alternative… Re-open legal asylum routes around the world to reduce the need for channel crossings, the infrastructure will collapse with reduced demand. Stop focusing on immigration as if it is the number one political priority in the country - it isn’t. Re-establish normal working relations with the EU and in particular France. Adopt a robust but fair immigration policy that recognises our international obligations, but also spells out exactly a defined policy on border rules. That is an awful lot of words to effectively say that you think anyone who wants to come to the UK should be allowed in. Just admit it, it's a valid position to take. And it is the reality of all historic and current immigration policy, no matter what the politicians say. No need to be embarrassed by it. And Albanians now control the marijuana trade in the UK, that's why they are coming over. It's not a few "chancers" as you so desperately want to be the case. Do you really believe that Seb? I didn't take that away at all, and your response feels akin to saying anyone who wants stricter control on immigration wants zero immigration or is anti immigration. The last sentence of the post is something I'd imagine many people can stand behind. We may have differences in definitions of what the policy is or the rules. But we would benefit from that discussion. I do find it interesting that this is all coached in "immigration". It's not. It's about our policy on asylum seekers and helping others. Immigration is a bigger question that covers a lot lot more. And is a lot more complex. Imo the Tories know this, and so will use refugees to distract from the harder questions. After all taking back control was about FoM and the live (big immigration) not refugees. Ps sounds like legalising would help with the "crisis". I can only imagine .asking it class A would drive it furher underground and therefore increase the Algerian presence. I’m not anti immigration. Are you mixing up posts?" I didnt say you were anti immigration. I know you don't like being called that just because your position is more restrictive than many here. However you suggested the poster wanted an open door policy. I disagree this is what they said or implied There is a scale between zero immigration and open door. Why do you think the poster was as open door based on their views ? My reading of your response was that you have taken the opposite side of the same coin that gets used against you. The rest of the post is more sue to the general theme that threads are about refugee policy not immigration policy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. Why would you think that? As usual with these types of topics there are some people who are only able to visualise polar opposites of an argument when the answer is invariably in the middle ground. The Government needs to have an immigration policy that is fit for purpose - it’s kind of a given and an expectation that any Government would have such a system. Such a system has to be based on international law, and it has to recognise the realities of an ever-changing world. Dreaming up a policy that is based on ideology will simply result in the problems that we are seeing right now. Think about the “alleged” Albanian issue (I say alleged because although it is being reported no-one knows the facts for sure yet). They are only coming across because the infrastructure to enable them to cross is in place. It was not put in place not for them, but for The Afghans, Iraqi’s and others who had their legal asylum routes closed down by this Government in an attempt to stop asylum seekers arriving in the U.K. so they resort to getting here by any means they can. Traffickers then respond to demand and create a business shipping people across the channel and if a few Albanians and others are willing to pay - well - the more the merrier for the traffickers. As we left the EU, we can no longer return anyone in accordance with the Dublin accord and as our relationship with the EU soured because of Brexit ideology, the French and the EU feel no motivation to help the U.K. resolve a problem that they see as entirely their own making. The alternative… Re-open legal asylum routes around the world to reduce the need for channel crossings, the infrastructure will collapse with reduced demand. Stop focusing on immigration as if it is the number one political priority in the country - it isn’t. Re-establish normal working relations with the EU and in particular France. Adopt a robust but fair immigration policy that recognises our international obligations, but also spells out exactly a defined policy on border rules. That is an awful lot of words to effectively say that you think anyone who wants to come to the UK should be allowed in. Just admit it, it's a valid position to take. And it is the reality of all historic and current immigration policy, no matter what the politicians say. No need to be embarrassed by it. And Albanians now control the marijuana trade in the UK, that's why they are coming over. It's not a few "chancers" as you so desperately want to be the case. Do you really believe that Seb? I didn't take that away at all, and your response feels akin to saying anyone who wants stricter control on immigration wants zero immigration or is anti immigration. The last sentence of the post is something I'd imagine many people can stand behind. We may have differences in definitions of what the policy is or the rules. But we would benefit from that discussion. I do find it interesting that this is all coached in "immigration". It's not. It's about our policy on asylum seekers and helping others. Immigration is a bigger question that covers a lot lot more. And is a lot more complex. Imo the Tories know this, and so will use refugees to distract from the harder questions. After all taking back control was about FoM and the live (big immigration) not refugees. Ps sounds like legalising would help with the "crisis". I can only imagine .asking it class A would drive it furher underground and therefore increase the Algerian presence. I’m not anti immigration. Are you mixing up posts?I didnt say you were anti immigration. I know you don't like being called that just because your position is more restrictive than many here. However you suggested the poster wanted an open door policy. I disagree this is what they said or implied There is a scale between zero immigration and open door. Why do you think the poster was as open door based on their views ? My reading of your response was that you have taken the opposite side of the same coin that gets used against you. The rest of the post is more sue to the general theme that threads are about refugee policy not immigration policy. " I don’t like people saying I’m anti immigration as it’s simply not the case. Fabricate will love this as I’m now getting confused ( he will spin that of course) I don’t think it was me that mentioned ‘open door’ - can you scroll back please? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. Why would you think that? As usual with these types of topics there are some people who are only able to visualise polar opposites of an argument when the answer is invariably in the middle ground. The Government needs to have an immigration policy that is fit for purpose - it’s kind of a given and an expectation that any Government would have such a system. Such a system has to be based on international law, and it has to recognise the realities of an ever-changing world. Dreaming up a policy that is based on ideology will simply result in the problems that we are seeing right now. Think about the “alleged” Albanian issue (I say alleged because although it is being reported no-one knows the facts for sure yet). They are only coming across because the infrastructure to enable them to cross is in place. It was not put in place not for them, but for The Afghans, Iraqi’s and others who had their legal asylum routes closed down by this Government in an attempt to stop asylum seekers arriving in the U.K. so they resort to getting here by any means they can. Traffickers then respond to demand and create a business shipping people across the channel and if a few Albanians and others are willing to pay - well - the more the merrier for the traffickers. As we left the EU, we can no longer return anyone in accordance with the Dublin accord and as our relationship with the EU soured because of Brexit ideology, the French and the EU feel no motivation to help the U.K. resolve a problem that they see as entirely their own making. The alternative… Re-open legal asylum routes around the world to reduce the need for channel crossings, the infrastructure will collapse with reduced demand. Stop focusing on immigration as if it is the number one political priority in the country - it isn’t. Re-establish normal working relations with the EU and in particular France. Adopt a robust but fair immigration policy that recognises our international obligations, but also spells out exactly a defined policy on border rules. That is an awful lot of words to effectively say that you think anyone who wants to come to the UK should be allowed in. Just admit it, it's a valid position to take. And it is the reality of all historic and current immigration policy, no matter what the politicians say. No need to be embarrassed by it. And Albanians now control the marijuana trade in the UK, that's why they are coming over. It's not a few "chancers" as you so desperately want to be the case. Do you really believe that Seb? I didn't take that away at all, and your response feels akin to saying anyone who wants stricter control on immigration wants zero immigration or is anti immigration. The last sentence of the post is something I'd imagine many people can stand behind. We may have differences in definitions of what the policy is or the rules. But we would benefit from that discussion. I do find it interesting that this is all coached in "immigration". It's not. It's about our policy on asylum seekers and helping others. Immigration is a bigger question that covers a lot lot more. And is a lot more complex. Imo the Tories know this, and so will use refugees to distract from the harder questions. After all taking back control was about FoM and the live (big immigration) not refugees. Ps sounds like legalising would help with the "crisis". I can only imagine .asking it class A would drive it furher underground and therefore increase the Algerian presence. I’m not anti immigration. Are you mixing up posts?I didnt say you were anti immigration. I know you don't like being called that just because your position is more restrictive than many here. However you suggested the poster wanted an open door policy. I disagree this is what they said or implied There is a scale between zero immigration and open door. Why do you think the poster was as open door based on their views ? My reading of your response was that you have taken the opposite side of the same coin that gets used against you. The rest of the post is more sue to the general theme that threads are about refugee policy not immigration policy. I don’t like people saying I’m anti immigration as it’s simply not the case. Fabricate will love this as I’m now getting confused ( he will spin that of course) I don’t think it was me that mentioned ‘open door’ - can you scroll back please? " I think it is really cute that you have a nickname for me, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. Why would you think that? As usual with these types of topics there are some people who are only able to visualise polar opposites of an argument when the answer is invariably in the middle ground. The Government needs to have an immigration policy that is fit for purpose - it’s kind of a given and an expectation that any Government would have such a system. Such a system has to be based on international law, and it has to recognise the realities of an ever-changing world. Dreaming up a policy that is based on ideology will simply result in the problems that we are seeing right now. Think about the “alleged” Albanian issue (I say alleged because although it is being reported no-one knows the facts for sure yet). They are only coming across because the infrastructure to enable them to cross is in place. It was not put in place not for them, but for The Afghans, Iraqi’s and others who had their legal asylum routes closed down by this Government in an attempt to stop asylum seekers arriving in the U.K. so they resort to getting here by any means they can. Traffickers then respond to demand and create a business shipping people across the channel and if a few Albanians and others are willing to pay - well - the more the merrier for the traffickers. As we left the EU, we can no longer return anyone in accordance with the Dublin accord and as our relationship with the EU soured because of Brexit ideology, the French and the EU feel no motivation to help the U.K. resolve a problem that they see as entirely their own making. The alternative… Re-open legal asylum routes around the world to reduce the need for channel crossings, the infrastructure will collapse with reduced demand. Stop focusing on immigration as if it is the number one political priority in the country - it isn’t. Re-establish normal working relations with the EU and in particular France. Adopt a robust but fair immigration policy that recognises our international obligations, but also spells out exactly a defined policy on border rules. That is an awful lot of words to effectively say that you think anyone who wants to come to the UK should be allowed in. Just admit it, it's a valid position to take. And it is the reality of all historic and current immigration policy, no matter what the politicians say. No need to be embarrassed by it. And Albanians now control the marijuana trade in the UK, that's why they are coming over. It's not a few "chancers" as you so desperately want to be the case. Do you really believe that Seb? I didn't take that away at all, and your response feels akin to saying anyone who wants stricter control on immigration wants zero immigration or is anti immigration. The last sentence of the post is something I'd imagine many people can stand behind. We may have differences in definitions of what the policy is or the rules. But we would benefit from that discussion. I do find it interesting that this is all coached in "immigration". It's not. It's about our policy on asylum seekers and helping others. Immigration is a bigger question that covers a lot lot more. And is a lot more complex. Imo the Tories know this, and so will use refugees to distract from the harder questions. After all taking back control was about FoM and the live (big immigration) not refugees. Ps sounds like legalising would help with the "crisis". I can only imagine .asking it class A would drive it furher underground and therefore increase the Algerian presence. I’m not anti immigration. Are you mixing up posts?I didnt say you were anti immigration. I know you don't like being called that just because your position is more restrictive than many here. However you suggested the poster wanted an open door policy. I disagree this is what they said or implied There is a scale between zero immigration and open door. Why do you think the poster was as open door based on their views ? My reading of your response was that you have taken the opposite side of the same coin that gets used against you. The rest of the post is more sue to the general theme that threads are about refugee policy not immigration policy. I don’t like people saying I’m anti immigration as it’s simply not the case. Fabricate will love this as I’m now getting confused ( he will spin that of course) I don’t think it was me that mentioned ‘open door’ - can you scroll back please? I think it is really cute that you have a nickname for me, "I have a few but that’s the only one that can be typed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. Why would you think that? As usual with these types of topics there are some people who are only able to visualise polar opposites of an argument when the answer is invariably in the middle ground. The Government needs to have an immigration policy that is fit for purpose - it’s kind of a given and an expectation that any Government would have such a system. Such a system has to be based on international law, and it has to recognise the realities of an ever-changing world. Dreaming up a policy that is based on ideology will simply result in the problems that we are seeing right now. Think about the “alleged” Albanian issue (I say alleged because although it is being reported no-one knows the facts for sure yet). They are only coming across because the infrastructure to enable them to cross is in place. It was not put in place not for them, but for The Afghans, Iraqi’s and others who had their legal asylum routes closed down by this Government in an attempt to stop asylum seekers arriving in the U.K. so they resort to getting here by any means they can. Traffickers then respond to demand and create a business shipping people across the channel and if a few Albanians and others are willing to pay - well - the more the merrier for the traffickers. As we left the EU, we can no longer return anyone in accordance with the Dublin accord and as our relationship with the EU soured because of Brexit ideology, the French and the EU feel no motivation to help the U.K. resolve a problem that they see as entirely their own making. The alternative… Re-open legal asylum routes around the world to reduce the need for channel crossings, the infrastructure will collapse with reduced demand. Stop focusing on immigration as if it is the number one political priority in the country - it isn’t. Re-establish normal working relations with the EU and in particular France. Adopt a robust but fair immigration policy that recognises our international obligations, but also spells out exactly a defined policy on border rules. That is an awful lot of words to effectively say that you think anyone who wants to come to the UK should be allowed in. Just admit it, it's a valid position to take. And it is the reality of all historic and current immigration policy, no matter what the politicians say. No need to be embarrassed by it. And Albanians now control the marijuana trade in the UK, that's why they are coming over. It's not a few "chancers" as you so desperately want to be the case. Do you really believe that Seb? I didn't take that away at all, and your response feels akin to saying anyone who wants stricter control on immigration wants zero immigration or is anti immigration. The last sentence of the post is something I'd imagine many people can stand behind. We may have differences in definitions of what the policy is or the rules. But we would benefit from that discussion. I do find it interesting that this is all coached in "immigration". It's not. It's about our policy on asylum seekers and helping others. Immigration is a bigger question that covers a lot lot more. And is a lot more complex. Imo the Tories know this, and so will use refugees to distract from the harder questions. After all taking back control was about FoM and the live (big immigration) not refugees. Ps sounds like legalising would help with the "crisis". I can only imagine .asking it class A would drive it furher underground and therefore increase the Algerian presence. I’m not anti immigration. Are you mixing up posts?I didnt say you were anti immigration. I know you don't like being called that just because your position is more restrictive than many here. However you suggested the poster wanted an open door policy. I disagree this is what they said or implied There is a scale between zero immigration and open door. Why do you think the poster was as open door based on their views ? My reading of your response was that you have taken the opposite side of the same coin that gets used against you. The rest of the post is more sue to the general theme that threads are about refugee policy not immigration policy. I don’t like people saying I’m anti immigration as it’s simply not the case. Fabricate will love this as I’m now getting confused ( he will spin that of course) I don’t think it was me that mentioned ‘open door’ - can you scroll back please? I think it is really cute that you have a nickname for me,
I have a few but that’s the only one that can be typed."Ha, i like the fact you have gone to the trouble, nice gesture | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman has got a thankless task when it comes immigration policies and what is happening on the ground. She strangely put herself into a position of admitting to breach secure information protocols when, on the face of it, it could have been avoided. I can see the Home secretary job getting a lot more flack as we roll through winter. If we take a view of the problem without getting emotional, something needs to give. We have people struggling to heat their homes, that isn't going to get any easier during the next 4 months, the cost of food reaching new highs, the cost of fuel, mortgages, rents, I could go on. Looking through the eyes of someone being severely impacted by these things and not being able heat or eat, I can understand how the government spending £7 million a day on hotel rooms alone, can be a red rag. what is the answer, how as a Home Secretary do you justify £210 million a month on hotel rooms for people who are choosing to the crossing the Channel in small boats, when you have people living hand to mouth and worried sick their heating or food are running out. These are difficult decisions that need to be answered, so what would you do? No room for saying they are not fit, they should etc, what is the real change you could make as Home Secretary that would make a positive improvement, today and for this winter?" The answer has been given several times. £5m per day on hotels because the rate of processing is painfully slow. 4% processed this year. Spend a small proportion of the money on staff to process the asylum applications. 80%+ given refugee status. At that point they can start to work and begin to pay their own way. All of the Home secretaries of the last decade have been from the same party. Let's not pretend that the rhetoric and policies put in this place haven't made the situation worse. They are the architects of this and, counterintuitively, failing to solve the problem creates more distraction and more demands for more of the policies that have failed so far. Bring back organised routes for refugee travel and return to an area where UK processing occurs with appropriate help to host nation or charity. Also a fraction of the £5m per day in hotels and the additional requirement for border controls and already failed Rwanda policy. Whatever we are doing now is the opposite of competent and strategic. It is the opposite of "virtue signalling". Active negativity, perhaps? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman has got a thankless task when it comes immigration policies and what is happening on the ground. She strangely put herself into a position of admitting to breach secure information protocols when, on the face of it, it could have been avoided. I can see the Home secretary job getting a lot more flack as we roll through winter. If we take a view of the problem without getting emotional, something needs to give. We have people struggling to heat their homes, that isn't going to get any easier during the next 4 months, the cost of food reaching new highs, the cost of fuel, mortgages, rents, I could go on. Looking through the eyes of someone being severely impacted by these things and not being able heat or eat, I can understand how the government spending £7 million a day on hotel rooms alone, can be a red rag. what is the answer, how as a Home Secretary do you justify £210 million a month on hotel rooms for people who are choosing to the crossing the Channel in small boats, when you have people living hand to mouth and worried sick their heating or food are running out. These are difficult decisions that need to be answered, so what would you do? No room for saying they are not fit, they should etc, what is the real change you could make as Home Secretary that would make a positive improvement, today and for this winter? The answer has been given several times. £5m per day on hotels because the rate of processing is painfully slow. 4% processed this year. Spend a small proportion of the money on staff to process the asylum applications. 80%+ given refugee status. At that point they can start to work and begin to pay their own way. All of the Home secretaries of the last decade have been from the same party. Let's not pretend that the rhetoric and policies put in this place haven't made the situation worse. They are the architects of this and, counterintuitively, failing to solve the problem creates more distraction and more demands for more of the policies that have failed so far. Bring back organised routes for refugee travel and return to an area where UK processing occurs with appropriate help to host nation or charity. Also a fraction of the £5m per day in hotels and the additional requirement for border controls and already failed Rwanda policy. Whatever we are doing now is the opposite of competent and strategic. It is the opposite of "virtue signalling". Active negativity, perhaps?" Processing quicker provides what exactly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman has got a thankless task when it comes immigration policies and what is happening on the ground. She strangely put herself into a position of admitting to breach secure information protocols when, on the face of it, it could have been avoided. I can see the Home secretary job getting a lot more flack as we roll through winter. If we take a view of the problem without getting emotional, something needs to give. We have people struggling to heat their homes, that isn't going to get any easier during the next 4 months, the cost of food reaching new highs, the cost of fuel, mortgages, rents, I could go on. Looking through the eyes of someone being severely impacted by these things and not being able heat or eat, I can understand how the government spending £7 million a day on hotel rooms alone, can be a red rag. what is the answer, how as a Home Secretary do you justify £210 million a month on hotel rooms for people who are choosing to the crossing the Channel in small boats, when you have people living hand to mouth and worried sick their heating or food are running out. These are difficult decisions that need to be answered, so what would you do? No room for saying they are not fit, they should etc, what is the real change you could make as Home Secretary that would make a positive improvement, today and for this winter? The answer has been given several times. £5m per day on hotels because the rate of processing is painfully slow. 4% processed this year. Spend a small proportion of the money on staff to process the asylum applications. 80%+ given refugee status. At that point they can start to work and begin to pay their own way. All of the Home secretaries of the last decade have been from the same party. Let's not pretend that the rhetoric and policies put in this place haven't made the situation worse. They are the architects of this and, counterintuitively, failing to solve the problem creates more distraction and more demands for more of the policies that have failed so far. Bring back organised routes for refugee travel and return to an area where UK processing occurs with appropriate help to host nation or charity. Also a fraction of the £5m per day in hotels and the additional requirement for border controls and already failed Rwanda policy. Whatever we are doing now is the opposite of competent and strategic. It is the opposite of "virtue signalling". Active negativity, perhaps? Processing quicker provides what exactly?" less people in the queue. And so less costs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. Neither of course are anti ‘immigration’. Why would they be? They probably aren’t, but they are pretending to be to appease their racist right wing supporters I guess that to rabid loony left wingers , racist right wingers are to blame for everything. And probably vice versa. Both sectors would score high on the ‘knobometer’ Both are best avoided as they seem incapable of normal balanced debate. Their dogma overrules any reason. Thankfully, 99.9% of the population are in neither camp. Normal people are well balanced, honest, fair, compassionate, helpful to others, engaging, with a real sense of social justice. They are also able to see through and dismiss silly rhetoric. A real ‘feel for right & wrong, and a good bullshit detector. People that are not taken in by nonsense and do not need to be influenced by any newspaper. People much like myself. Let’s hear it for the majority of good people. Sadly I think your 99.9% figure is overly generous I have faith. We can’t be corrupted by the Fab demographic You gotta have faith! But... Well apparently the Faily Heil is the most visited UK website and the “news”paper still has a circulation in excess of 1m. So where do those readers fit into your 0.1%? Throw in Express readers next. I think your faith (and maths) will be severely tested! Reading a certain newspaper does not turn you into an extremist. I like the i during the week and I really enjoy reading the Sunday Times. Sport, financial, travel, home section, Culture mag. Just because something is popular doesn’t make it evil. Cue now the usual suspects with veiled insults & derision." Depends on your definition of extremist but at the far end of the scale, the steady drip drip drip of poison ultimately takes affect. propagandists (and editors) know this. They know the power of words. They know they can manipulate thinking through both subtle and overt means. Joseph Goebbels... “A lie told once remains a lie. A lie told a thousand times becomes the truth” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman has got a thankless task when it comes immigration policies and what is happening on the ground. She strangely put herself into a position of admitting to breach secure information protocols when, on the face of it, it could have been avoided. I can see the Home secretary job getting a lot more flack as we roll through winter. If we take a view of the problem without getting emotional, something needs to give. We have people struggling to heat their homes, that isn't going to get any easier during the next 4 months, the cost of food reaching new highs, the cost of fuel, mortgages, rents, I could go on. Looking through the eyes of someone being severely impacted by these things and not being able heat or eat, I can understand how the government spending £7 million a day on hotel rooms alone, can be a red rag. what is the answer, how as a Home Secretary do you justify £210 million a month on hotel rooms for people who are choosing to the crossing the Channel in small boats, when you have people living hand to mouth and worried sick their heating or food are running out. These are difficult decisions that need to be answered, so what would you do? No room for saying they are not fit, they should etc, what is the real change you could make as Home Secretary that would make a positive improvement, today and for this winter? The answer has been given several times. £5m per day on hotels because the rate of processing is painfully slow. 4% processed this year. Spend a small proportion of the money on staff to process the asylum applications. 80%+ given refugee status. At that point they can start to work and begin to pay their own way. All of the Home secretaries of the last decade have been from the same party. Let's not pretend that the rhetoric and policies put in this place haven't made the situation worse. They are the architects of this and, counterintuitively, failing to solve the problem creates more distraction and more demands for more of the policies that have failed so far. Bring back organised routes for refugee travel and return to an area where UK processing occurs with appropriate help to host nation or charity. Also a fraction of the £5m per day in hotels and the additional requirement for border controls and already failed Rwanda policy. Whatever we are doing now is the opposite of competent and strategic. It is the opposite of "virtue signalling". Active negativity, perhaps? Processing quicker provides what exactly?less people in the queue. And so less costs. " Less people in the queue doesn't remove housing needs, the cost is still there, is it not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. Neither of course are anti ‘immigration’. Why would they be? They probably aren’t, but they are pretending to be to appease their racist right wing supporters I guess that to rabid loony left wingers , racist right wingers are to blame for everything. And probably vice versa. Both sectors would score high on the ‘knobometer’ Both are best avoided as they seem incapable of normal balanced debate. Their dogma overrules any reason. Thankfully, 99.9% of the population are in neither camp. Normal people are well balanced, honest, fair, compassionate, helpful to others, engaging, with a real sense of social justice. They are also able to see through and dismiss silly rhetoric. A real ‘feel for right & wrong, and a good bullshit detector. People that are not taken in by nonsense and do not need to be influenced by any newspaper. People much like myself. Let’s hear it for the majority of good people. Sadly I think your 99.9% figure is overly generous I have faith. We can’t be corrupted by the Fab demographic You gotta have faith! But... Well apparently the Faily Heil is the most visited UK website and the “news”paper still has a circulation in excess of 1m. So where do those readers fit into your 0.1%? Throw in Express readers next. I think your faith (and maths) will be severely tested! Reading a certain newspaper does not turn you into an extremist. I like the i during the week and I really enjoy reading the Sunday Times. Sport, financial, travel, home section, Culture mag. Just because something is popular doesn’t make it evil. Cue now the usual suspects with veiled insults & derision. Depends on your definition of extremist but at the far end of the scale, the steady drip drip drip of poison ultimately takes affect. propagandists (and editors) know this. They know the power of words. They know they can manipulate thinking through both subtle and overt means. Joseph Goebbels... “A lie told once remains a lie. A lie told a thousand times becomes the truth”" Thankfully we have moved on from those days, more aware of what’s going on around the world and better educated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman has got a thankless task when it comes immigration policies and what is happening on the ground. She strangely put herself into a position of admitting to breach secure information protocols when, on the face of it, it could have been avoided. I can see the Home secretary job getting a lot more flack as we roll through winter. If we take a view of the problem without getting emotional, something needs to give. We have people struggling to heat their homes, that isn't going to get any easier during the next 4 months, the cost of food reaching new highs, the cost of fuel, mortgages, rents, I could go on. Looking through the eyes of someone being severely impacted by these things and not being able heat or eat, I can understand how the government spending £7 million a day on hotel rooms alone, can be a red rag. what is the answer, how as a Home Secretary do you justify £210 million a month on hotel rooms for people who are choosing to the crossing the Channel in small boats, when you have people living hand to mouth and worried sick their heating or food are running out. These are difficult decisions that need to be answered, so what would you do? No room for saying they are not fit, they should etc, what is the real change you could make as Home Secretary that would make a positive improvement, today and for this winter? The answer has been given several times. £5m per day on hotels because the rate of processing is painfully slow. 4% processed this year. Spend a small proportion of the money on staff to process the asylum applications. 80%+ given refugee status. At that point they can start to work and begin to pay their own way. All of the Home secretaries of the last decade have been from the same party. Let's not pretend that the rhetoric and policies put in this place haven't made the situation worse. They are the architects of this and, counterintuitively, failing to solve the problem creates more distraction and more demands for more of the policies that have failed so far. Bring back organised routes for refugee travel and return to an area where UK processing occurs with appropriate help to host nation or charity. Also a fraction of the £5m per day in hotels and the additional requirement for border controls and already failed Rwanda policy. Whatever we are doing now is the opposite of competent and strategic. It is the opposite of "virtue signalling". Active negativity, perhaps? Processing quicker provides what exactly?less people in the queue. And so less costs. Less people in the queue doesn't remove housing needs, the cost is still there, is it not?" Not if they are processed then allowed to work | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman has got a thankless task when it comes immigration policies and what is happening on the ground. She strangely put herself into a position of admitting to breach secure information protocols when, on the face of it, it could have been avoided. I can see the Home secretary job getting a lot more flack as we roll through winter. If we take a view of the problem without getting emotional, something needs to give. We have people struggling to heat their homes, that isn't going to get any easier during the next 4 months, the cost of food reaching new highs, the cost of fuel, mortgages, rents, I could go on. Looking through the eyes of someone being severely impacted by these things and not being able heat or eat, I can understand how the government spending £7 million a day on hotel rooms alone, can be a red rag. what is the answer, how as a Home Secretary do you justify £210 million a month on hotel rooms for people who are choosing to the crossing the Channel in small boats, when you have people living hand to mouth and worried sick their heating or food are running out. These are difficult decisions that need to be answered, so what would you do? No room for saying they are not fit, they should etc, what is the real change you could make as Home Secretary that would make a positive improvement, today and for this winter? The answer has been given several times. £5m per day on hotels because the rate of processing is painfully slow. 4% processed this year. Spend a small proportion of the money on staff to process the asylum applications. 80%+ given refugee status. At that point they can start to work and begin to pay their own way. All of the Home secretaries of the last decade have been from the same party. Let's not pretend that the rhetoric and policies put in this place haven't made the situation worse. They are the architects of this and, counterintuitively, failing to solve the problem creates more distraction and more demands for more of the policies that have failed so far. Bring back organised routes for refugee travel and return to an area where UK processing occurs with appropriate help to host nation or charity. Also a fraction of the £5m per day in hotels and the additional requirement for border controls and already failed Rwanda policy. Whatever we are doing now is the opposite of competent and strategic. It is the opposite of "virtue signalling". Active negativity, perhaps? Processing quicker provides what exactly?less people in the queue. And so less costs. Less people in the queue doesn't remove housing needs, the cost is still there, is it not? Not if they are processed then allowed to work " If they got work and housing immediately, of course that would be of little impact. Is that a reality though? I can see the idea on paper, but reality not so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman has got a thankless task when it comes immigration policies and what is happening on the ground. She strangely put herself into a position of admitting to breach secure information protocols when, on the face of it, it could have been avoided. I can see the Home secretary job getting a lot more flack as we roll through winter. If we take a view of the problem without getting emotional, something needs to give. We have people struggling to heat their homes, that isn't going to get any easier during the next 4 months, the cost of food reaching new highs, the cost of fuel, mortgages, rents, I could go on. Looking through the eyes of someone being severely impacted by these things and not being able heat or eat, I can understand how the government spending £7 million a day on hotel rooms alone, can be a red rag. what is the answer, how as a Home Secretary do you justify £210 million a month on hotel rooms for people who are choosing to the crossing the Channel in small boats, when you have people living hand to mouth and worried sick their heating or food are running out. These are difficult decisions that need to be answered, so what would you do? No room for saying they are not fit, they should etc, what is the real change you could make as Home Secretary that would make a positive improvement, today and for this winter? The answer has been given several times. £5m per day on hotels because the rate of processing is painfully slow. 4% processed this year. Spend a small proportion of the money on staff to process the asylum applications. 80%+ given refugee status. At that point they can start to work and begin to pay their own way. All of the Home secretaries of the last decade have been from the same party. Let's not pretend that the rhetoric and policies put in this place haven't made the situation worse. They are the architects of this and, counterintuitively, failing to solve the problem creates more distraction and more demands for more of the policies that have failed so far. Bring back organised routes for refugee travel and return to an area where UK processing occurs with appropriate help to host nation or charity. Also a fraction of the £5m per day in hotels and the additional requirement for border controls and already failed Rwanda policy. Whatever we are doing now is the opposite of competent and strategic. It is the opposite of "virtue signalling". Active negativity, perhaps? Processing quicker provides what exactly?less people in the queue. And so less costs. Less people in the queue doesn't remove housing needs, the cost is still there, is it not? Not if they are processed then allowed to work If they got work and housing immediately, of course that would be of little impact. Is that a reality though? I can see the idea on paper, but reality not so. " Why not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. Neither of course are anti ‘immigration’. Why would they be? They probably aren’t, but they are pretending to be to appease their racist right wing supporters I guess that to rabid loony left wingers , racist right wingers are to blame for everything. And probably vice versa. Both sectors would score high on the ‘knobometer’ Both are best avoided as they seem incapable of normal balanced debate. Their dogma overrules any reason. Thankfully, 99.9% of the population are in neither camp. Normal people are well balanced, honest, fair, compassionate, helpful to others, engaging, with a real sense of social justice. They are also able to see through and dismiss silly rhetoric. A real ‘feel for right & wrong, and a good bullshit detector. People that are not taken in by nonsense and do not need to be influenced by any newspaper. People much like myself. Let’s hear it for the majority of good people. Sadly I think your 99.9% figure is overly generous I have faith. We can’t be corrupted by the Fab demographic You gotta have faith! But... Well apparently the Faily Heil is the most visited UK website and the “news”paper still has a circulation in excess of 1m. So where do those readers fit into your 0.1%? Throw in Express readers next. I think your faith (and maths) will be severely tested! Reading a certain newspaper does not turn you into an extremist. I like the i during the week and I really enjoy reading the Sunday Times. Sport, financial, travel, home section, Culture mag. Just because something is popular doesn’t make it evil. Cue now the usual suspects with veiled insults & derision. Depends on your definition of extremist but at the far end of the scale, the steady drip drip drip of poison ultimately takes affect. propagandists (and editors) know this. They know the power of words. They know they can manipulate thinking through both subtle and overt means. Joseph Goebbels... “A lie told once remains a lie. A lie told a thousand times becomes the truth” Thankfully we have moved on from those days, more aware of what’s going on around the world and better educated. " But that clearly isn’t true is it! The means and channels have changed and in fact become even easier to target with to twist a slightly sympathetic ear. The manipulation of the Brexit referendum is a perfect case in point with Vote Leave illegally overfunding a social media campaign of misinformation targeting those who were on the fence using online profiling tools. So many people think “I’m too smart to be manipulated” yet then accuse others of being just that. We are all able to be manipulated, especially if we stick to our political echo chambers. The only chance we have is to research more widely, read opposing points of view often and try to understand. I am a broken record but tribalism and the footballisation of politics is killing society. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman has got a thankless task when it comes immigration policies and what is happening on the ground. She strangely put herself into a position of admitting to breach secure information protocols when, on the face of it, it could have been avoided. I can see the Home secretary job getting a lot more flack as we roll through winter. If we take a view of the problem without getting emotional, something needs to give. We have people struggling to heat their homes, that isn't going to get any easier during the next 4 months, the cost of food reaching new highs, the cost of fuel, mortgages, rents, I could go on. Looking through the eyes of someone being severely impacted by these things and not being able heat or eat, I can understand how the government spending £7 million a day on hotel rooms alone, can be a red rag. what is the answer, how as a Home Secretary do you justify £210 million a month on hotel rooms for people who are choosing to the crossing the Channel in small boats, when you have people living hand to mouth and worried sick their heating or food are running out. These are difficult decisions that need to be answered, so what would you do? No room for saying they are not fit, they should etc, what is the real change you could make as Home Secretary that would make a positive improvement, today and for this winter? The answer has been given several times. £5m per day on hotels because the rate of processing is painfully slow. 4% processed this year. Spend a small proportion of the money on staff to process the asylum applications. 80%+ given refugee status. At that point they can start to work and begin to pay their own way. All of the Home secretaries of the last decade have been from the same party. Let's not pretend that the rhetoric and policies put in this place haven't made the situation worse. They are the architects of this and, counterintuitively, failing to solve the problem creates more distraction and more demands for more of the policies that have failed so far. Bring back organised routes for refugee travel and return to an area where UK processing occurs with appropriate help to host nation or charity. Also a fraction of the £5m per day in hotels and the additional requirement for border controls and already failed Rwanda policy. Whatever we are doing now is the opposite of competent and strategic. It is the opposite of "virtue signalling". Active negativity, perhaps? Processing quicker provides what exactly?less people in the queue. And so less costs. Less people in the queue doesn't remove housing needs, the cost is still there, is it not? Not if they are processed then allowed to work If they got work and housing immediately, of course that would be of little impact. Is that a reality though? I can see the idea on paper, but reality not so. " It will be cheaper than short-term payments to hotels. There is a significant labour shortage in the UK with millions of jobs available. If they are being paid, their cost to the state falls. If the process was managed with organised refugee immigration routes then it could also be planned for, further reducing costs and smoothing flows. It's in know way complicated. It's what the civil service is designed to do when not politicised. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman has got a thankless task when it comes immigration policies and what is happening on the ground. She strangely put herself into a position of admitting to breach secure information protocols when, on the face of it, it could have been avoided. I can see the Home secretary job getting a lot more flack as we roll through winter. If we take a view of the problem without getting emotional, something needs to give. We have people struggling to heat their homes, that isn't going to get any easier during the next 4 months, the cost of food reaching new highs, the cost of fuel, mortgages, rents, I could go on. Looking through the eyes of someone being severely impacted by these things and not being able heat or eat, I can understand how the government spending £7 million a day on hotel rooms alone, can be a red rag. what is the answer, how as a Home Secretary do you justify £210 million a month on hotel rooms for people who are choosing to the crossing the Channel in small boats, when you have people living hand to mouth and worried sick their heating or food are running out. These are difficult decisions that need to be answered, so what would you do? No room for saying they are not fit, they should etc, what is the real change you could make as Home Secretary that would make a positive improvement, today and for this winter? The answer has been given several times. £5m per day on hotels because the rate of processing is painfully slow. 4% processed this year. Spend a small proportion of the money on staff to process the asylum applications. 80%+ given refugee status. At that point they can start to work and begin to pay their own way. All of the Home secretaries of the last decade have been from the same party. Let's not pretend that the rhetoric and policies put in this place haven't made the situation worse. They are the architects of this and, counterintuitively, failing to solve the problem creates more distraction and more demands for more of the policies that have failed so far. Bring back organised routes for refugee travel and return to an area where UK processing occurs with appropriate help to host nation or charity. Also a fraction of the £5m per day in hotels and the additional requirement for border controls and already failed Rwanda policy. Whatever we are doing now is the opposite of competent and strategic. It is the opposite of "virtue signalling". Active negativity, perhaps? Processing quicker provides what exactly?less people in the queue. And so less costs. Less people in the queue doesn't remove housing needs, the cost is still there, is it not? Not if they are processed then allowed to work If they got work and housing immediately, of course that would be of little impact. Is that a reality though? I can see the idea on paper, but reality not so. Why not? " What jobs would they immediately be able to do and what housing would they immediately be able to move into? As I said, on paper that absolutely works, but the reality is going to be somewhat different if those jobs, housing and support is not in place. Take support as an example, if processing times were reduced dramatically, which is what has been mentioned as a solution, the problem of high numbers of people looking for housing, job, food, clothing, health support moves onto the next department, would that cause another bottleneck? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman has got a thankless task when it comes immigration policies and what is happening on the ground. She strangely put herself into a position of admitting to breach secure information protocols when, on the face of it, it could have been avoided. I can see the Home secretary job getting a lot more flack as we roll through winter. If we take a view of the problem without getting emotional, something needs to give. We have people struggling to heat their homes, that isn't going to get any easier during the next 4 months, the cost of food reaching new highs, the cost of fuel, mortgages, rents, I could go on. Looking through the eyes of someone being severely impacted by these things and not being able heat or eat, I can understand how the government spending £7 million a day on hotel rooms alone, can be a red rag. what is the answer, how as a Home Secretary do you justify £210 million a month on hotel rooms for people who are choosing to the crossing the Channel in small boats, when you have people living hand to mouth and worried sick their heating or food are running out. These are difficult decisions that need to be answered, so what would you do? No room for saying they are not fit, they should etc, what is the real change you could make as Home Secretary that would make a positive improvement, today and for this winter? The answer has been given several times. £5m per day on hotels because the rate of processing is painfully slow. 4% processed this year. Spend a small proportion of the money on staff to process the asylum applications. 80%+ given refugee status. At that point they can start to work and begin to pay their own way. All of the Home secretaries of the last decade have been from the same party. Let's not pretend that the rhetoric and policies put in this place haven't made the situation worse. They are the architects of this and, counterintuitively, failing to solve the problem creates more distraction and more demands for more of the policies that have failed so far. Bring back organised routes for refugee travel and return to an area where UK processing occurs with appropriate help to host nation or charity. Also a fraction of the £5m per day in hotels and the additional requirement for border controls and already failed Rwanda policy. Whatever we are doing now is the opposite of competent and strategic. It is the opposite of "virtue signalling". Active negativity, perhaps? Processing quicker provides what exactly?less people in the queue. And so less costs. Less people in the queue doesn't remove housing needs, the cost is still there, is it not? Not if they are processed then allowed to work If they got work and housing immediately, of course that would be of little impact. Is that a reality though? I can see the idea on paper, but reality not so. Why not? What jobs would they immediately be able to do and what housing would they immediately be able to move into? As I said, on paper that absolutely works, but the reality is going to be somewhat different if those jobs, housing and support is not in place. Take support as an example, if processing times were reduced dramatically, which is what has been mentioned as a solution, the problem of high numbers of people looking for housing, job, food, clothing, health support moves onto the next department, would that cause another bottleneck? " They can do all the shitty jobs that lazy Brits won’t do. Ride bikes to deliver pizza & sandwiches to lazy buggers that can’t cook. They will love doing all that on shitty wages, working their wotsits off before going home to watch Eastenders before getting an early night to ensure they get a good nights sleep to be in good shape for another long shitty shift. That’s all going to work out well isn’t it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman has got a thankless task when it comes immigration policies and what is happening on the ground. She strangely put herself into a position of admitting to breach secure information protocols when, on the face of it, it could have been avoided. I can see the Home secretary job getting a lot more flack as we roll through winter. If we take a view of the problem without getting emotional, something needs to give. We have people struggling to heat their homes, that isn't going to get any easier during the next 4 months, the cost of food reaching new highs, the cost of fuel, mortgages, rents, I could go on. Looking through the eyes of someone being severely impacted by these things and not being able heat or eat, I can understand how the government spending £7 million a day on hotel rooms alone, can be a red rag. what is the answer, how as a Home Secretary do you justify £210 million a month on hotel rooms for people who are choosing to the crossing the Channel in small boats, when you have people living hand to mouth and worried sick their heating or food are running out. These are difficult decisions that need to be answered, so what would you do? No room for saying they are not fit, they should etc, what is the real change you could make as Home Secretary that would make a positive improvement, today and for this winter? The answer has been given several times. £5m per day on hotels because the rate of processing is painfully slow. 4% processed this year. Spend a small proportion of the money on staff to process the asylum applications. 80%+ given refugee status. At that point they can start to work and begin to pay their own way. All of the Home secretaries of the last decade have been from the same party. Let's not pretend that the rhetoric and policies put in this place haven't made the situation worse. They are the architects of this and, counterintuitively, failing to solve the problem creates more distraction and more demands for more of the policies that have failed so far. Bring back organised routes for refugee travel and return to an area where UK processing occurs with appropriate help to host nation or charity. Also a fraction of the £5m per day in hotels and the additional requirement for border controls and already failed Rwanda policy. Whatever we are doing now is the opposite of competent and strategic. It is the opposite of "virtue signalling". Active negativity, perhaps? Processing quicker provides what exactly?less people in the queue. And so less costs. Less people in the queue doesn't remove housing needs, the cost is still there, is it not? Not if they are processed then allowed to work If they got work and housing immediately, of course that would be of little impact. Is that a reality though? I can see the idea on paper, but reality not so. Why not? What jobs would they immediately be able to do and what housing would they immediately be able to move into? As I said, on paper that absolutely works, but the reality is going to be somewhat different if those jobs, housing and support is not in place. Take support as an example, if processing times were reduced dramatically, which is what has been mentioned as a solution, the problem of high numbers of people looking for housing, job, food, clothing, health support moves onto the next department, would that cause another bottleneck? " I see your point. I agree, it won't get rid of teh costs in totality. But we can remove those who won't be staying. Those who do have an opportunity to work so some reduction there. And may have family they can stay with. Having them in the pipeline is the worst of positions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman has got a thankless task when it comes immigration policies and what is happening on the ground. She strangely put herself into a position of admitting to breach secure information protocols when, on the face of it, it could have been avoided. I can see the Home secretary job getting a lot more flack as we roll through winter. If we take a view of the problem without getting emotional, something needs to give. We have people struggling to heat their homes, that isn't going to get any easier during the next 4 months, the cost of food reaching new highs, the cost of fuel, mortgages, rents, I could go on. Looking through the eyes of someone being severely impacted by these things and not being able heat or eat, I can understand how the government spending £7 million a day on hotel rooms alone, can be a red rag. what is the answer, how as a Home Secretary do you justify £210 million a month on hotel rooms for people who are choosing to the crossing the Channel in small boats, when you have people living hand to mouth and worried sick their heating or food are running out. These are difficult decisions that need to be answered, so what would you do? No room for saying they are not fit, they should etc, what is the real change you could make as Home Secretary that would make a positive improvement, today and for this winter? The answer has been given several times. £5m per day on hotels because the rate of processing is painfully slow. 4% processed this year. Spend a small proportion of the money on staff to process the asylum applications. 80%+ given refugee status. At that point they can start to work and begin to pay their own way. All of the Home secretaries of the last decade have been from the same party. Let's not pretend that the rhetoric and policies put in this place haven't made the situation worse. They are the architects of this and, counterintuitively, failing to solve the problem creates more distraction and more demands for more of the policies that have failed so far. Bring back organised routes for refugee travel and return to an area where UK processing occurs with appropriate help to host nation or charity. Also a fraction of the £5m per day in hotels and the additional requirement for border controls and already failed Rwanda policy. Whatever we are doing now is the opposite of competent and strategic. It is the opposite of "virtue signalling". Active negativity, perhaps? Processing quicker provides what exactly?less people in the queue. And so less costs. Less people in the queue doesn't remove housing needs, the cost is still there, is it not? Not if they are processed then allowed to work If they got work and housing immediately, of course that would be of little impact. Is that a reality though? I can see the idea on paper, but reality not so. It will be cheaper than short-term payments to hotels. There is a significant labour shortage in the UK with millions of jobs available. If they are being paid, their cost to the state falls. If the process was managed with organised refugee immigration routes then it could also be planned for, further reducing costs and smoothing flows. It's in know way complicated. It's what the civil service is designed to do when not politicised." I can see the idea, as I mentioned in another post, what I can't see is the numbers being managed successfully as they are expedited to find housing, as an example. I would expect that the cost of the hotels would not be lowered, it would stay the same as it is the only avenue for accommodation. We really wouldn't be any further forward, just got there quicker, with more expense form extra people processing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman has got a thankless task when it comes immigration policies and what is happening on the ground. She strangely put herself into a position of admitting to breach secure information protocols when, on the face of it, it could have been avoided. I can see the Home secretary job getting a lot more flack as we roll through winter. If we take a view of the problem without getting emotional, something needs to give. We have people struggling to heat their homes, that isn't going to get any easier during the next 4 months, the cost of food reaching new highs, the cost of fuel, mortgages, rents, I could go on. Looking through the eyes of someone being severely impacted by these things and not being able heat or eat, I can understand how the government spending £7 million a day on hotel rooms alone, can be a red rag. what is the answer, how as a Home Secretary do you justify £210 million a month on hotel rooms for people who are choosing to the crossing the Channel in small boats, when you have people living hand to mouth and worried sick their heating or food are running out. These are difficult decisions that need to be answered, so what would you do? No room for saying they are not fit, they should etc, what is the real change you could make as Home Secretary that would make a positive improvement, today and for this winter? The answer has been given several times. £5m per day on hotels because the rate of processing is painfully slow. 4% processed this year. Spend a small proportion of the money on staff to process the asylum applications. 80%+ given refugee status. At that point they can start to work and begin to pay their own way. All of the Home secretaries of the last decade have been from the same party. Let's not pretend that the rhetoric and policies put in this place haven't made the situation worse. They are the architects of this and, counterintuitively, failing to solve the problem creates more distraction and more demands for more of the policies that have failed so far. Bring back organised routes for refugee travel and return to an area where UK processing occurs with appropriate help to host nation or charity. Also a fraction of the £5m per day in hotels and the additional requirement for border controls and already failed Rwanda policy. Whatever we are doing now is the opposite of competent and strategic. It is the opposite of "virtue signalling". Active negativity, perhaps? Processing quicker provides what exactly?less people in the queue. And so less costs. Less people in the queue doesn't remove housing needs, the cost is still there, is it not? Not if they are processed then allowed to work If they got work and housing immediately, of course that would be of little impact. Is that a reality though? I can see the idea on paper, but reality not so. Why not? What jobs would they immediately be able to do and what housing would they immediately be able to move into? As I said, on paper that absolutely works, but the reality is going to be somewhat different if those jobs, housing and support is not in place. Take support as an example, if processing times were reduced dramatically, which is what has been mentioned as a solution, the problem of high numbers of people looking for housing, job, food, clothing, health support moves onto the next department, would that cause another bottleneck? They can do all the shitty jobs that lazy Brits won’t do. Ride bikes to deliver pizza & sandwiches to lazy buggers that can’t cook. They will love doing all that on shitty wages, working their wotsits off before going home to watch Eastenders before getting an early night to ensure they get a good nights sleep to be in good shape for another long shitty shift. That’s all going to work out well isn’t it?" Why will they be watching Eastenders? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok not thought this through so very sketchy but couldn’t the UK explore something like a “work in return for bed and board while your asylum application is being processed” approach? We could build good, safe, clean, comfortable accommodation that is in proximity to where we have significant worker shortages (ie agriculture/fruit & veg pickers). First of all the design, build, fitting out and staffing of these centres would provide employment for local people. The asylum seekers have somewhere decent to live (emphasise decent). They are busy working so not bored or feeling “imprisoned”. The cost is met (or at least part met) via the work being delivered (which also helps the economy) BUT once successful in their asylum application there is a pathway away from the centre and this work to begin life anew in the UK. Those who are not successful in their asylum application are returned home. People who want to make the journey to the UK to claim asylum will know that this is what will happen. They can decide if that is a fair trade and worth it to them." This is a good idea, I had something similar in mind but not to this degree. I like the idea that building purpose built facilities provides work, I like the idea that people are housed correctly and they are not being pushed into dodgy hotels. The costs to this seem more than doable considering the £7 million a day being spent on hotel rooms. I like this idea. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman has got a thankless task when it comes immigration policies and what is happening on the ground. She strangely put herself into a position of admitting to breach secure information protocols when, on the face of it, it could have been avoided. I can see the Home secretary job getting a lot more flack as we roll through winter. If we take a view of the problem without getting emotional, something needs to give. We have people struggling to heat their homes, that isn't going to get any easier during the next 4 months, the cost of food reaching new highs, the cost of fuel, mortgages, rents, I could go on. Looking through the eyes of someone being severely impacted by these things and not being able heat or eat, I can understand how the government spending £7 million a day on hotel rooms alone, can be a red rag. what is the answer, how as a Home Secretary do you justify £210 million a month on hotel rooms for people who are choosing to the crossing the Channel in small boats, when you have people living hand to mouth and worried sick their heating or food are running out. These are difficult decisions that need to be answered, so what would you do? No room for saying they are not fit, they should etc, what is the real change you could make as Home Secretary that would make a positive improvement, today and for this winter? The answer has been given several times. £5m per day on hotels because the rate of processing is painfully slow. 4% processed this year. Spend a small proportion of the money on staff to process the asylum applications. 80%+ given refugee status. At that point they can start to work and begin to pay their own way. All of the Home secretaries of the last decade have been from the same party. Let's not pretend that the rhetoric and policies put in this place haven't made the situation worse. They are the architects of this and, counterintuitively, failing to solve the problem creates more distraction and more demands for more of the policies that have failed so far. Bring back organised routes for refugee travel and return to an area where UK processing occurs with appropriate help to host nation or charity. Also a fraction of the £5m per day in hotels and the additional requirement for border controls and already failed Rwanda policy. Whatever we are doing now is the opposite of competent and strategic. It is the opposite of "virtue signalling". Active negativity, perhaps? Processing quicker provides what exactly?less people in the queue. And so less costs. Less people in the queue doesn't remove housing needs, the cost is still there, is it not? Not if they are processed then allowed to work If they got work and housing immediately, of course that would be of little impact. Is that a reality though? I can see the idea on paper, but reality not so. It will be cheaper than short-term payments to hotels. There is a significant labour shortage in the UK with millions of jobs available. If they are being paid, their cost to the state falls. If the process was managed with organised refugee immigration routes then it could also be planned for, further reducing costs and smoothing flows. It's in know way complicated. It's what the civil service is designed to do when not politicised." I would like to think that the civil service was designed to operate and act in the best interest of its citizens. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok not thought this through so very sketchy but couldn’t the UK explore something like a “work in return for bed and board while your asylum application is being processed” approach? We could build good, safe, clean, comfortable accommodation that is in proximity to where we have significant worker shortages (ie agriculture/fruit & veg pickers). First of all the design, build, fitting out and staffing of these centres would provide employment for local people. The asylum seekers have somewhere decent to live (emphasise decent). They are busy working so not bored or feeling “imprisoned”. The cost is met (or at least part met) via the work being delivered (which also helps the economy) BUT once successful in their asylum application there is a pathway away from the centre and this work to begin life anew in the UK. Those who are not successful in their asylum application are returned home. People who want to make the journey to the UK to claim asylum will know that this is what will happen. They can decide if that is a fair trade and worth it to them. This is a good idea, I had something similar in mind but not to this degree. I like the idea that building purpose built facilities provides work, I like the idea that people are housed correctly and they are not being pushed into dodgy hotels. The costs to this seem more than doable considering the £7 million a day being spent on hotel rooms. I like this idea. "I agree, it is definitely an improvement on the current situation, going forward the government need to make this clear to anyone choosing to come here, the next stage is to provide safe passage and eliminate the trafficking gangs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok not thought this through so very sketchy but couldn’t the UK explore something like a “work in return for bed and board while your asylum application is being processed” approach? We could build good, safe, clean, comfortable accommodation that is in proximity to where we have significant worker shortages (ie agriculture/fruit & veg pickers). First of all the design, build, fitting out and staffing of these centres would provide employment for local people. The asylum seekers have somewhere decent to live (emphasise decent). They are busy working so not bored or feeling “imprisoned”. The cost is met (or at least part met) via the work being delivered (which also helps the economy) BUT once successful in their asylum application there is a pathway away from the centre and this work to begin life anew in the UK. Those who are not successful in their asylum application are returned home. People who want to make the journey to the UK to claim asylum will know that this is what will happen. They can decide if that is a fair trade and worth it to them. This is a good idea, I had something similar in mind but not to this degree. I like the idea that building purpose built facilities provides work, I like the idea that people are housed correctly and they are not being pushed into dodgy hotels. The costs to this seem more than doable considering the £7 million a day being spent on hotel rooms. I like this idea. "We did this sort of thing for tens of thousands of Belgian refugees. Of course they were all genuine refugees fleeing the horrors of WW1. They were housed in disused army camps. They worked to feed themselves. They all returned home other than a handful who had formed relationships with locals. They were so grateful for the safety and hospitality shown by the UK that they paid for & commissioned a memorial. It’s on the Embankment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman has got a thankless task when it comes immigration policies and what is happening on the ground. She strangely put herself into a position of admitting to breach secure information protocols when, on the face of it, it could have been avoided. I can see the Home secretary job getting a lot more flack as we roll through winter. If we take a view of the problem without getting emotional, something needs to give. We have people struggling to heat their homes, that isn't going to get any easier during the next 4 months, the cost of food reaching new highs, the cost of fuel, mortgages, rents, I could go on. Looking through the eyes of someone being severely impacted by these things and not being able heat or eat, I can understand how the government spending £7 million a day on hotel rooms alone, can be a red rag. what is the answer, how as a Home Secretary do you justify £210 million a month on hotel rooms for people who are choosing to the crossing the Channel in small boats, when you have people living hand to mouth and worried sick their heating or food are running out. These are difficult decisions that need to be answered, so what would you do? No room for saying they are not fit, they should etc, what is the real change you could make as Home Secretary that would make a positive improvement, today and for this winter? The answer has been given several times. £5m per day on hotels because the rate of processing is painfully slow. 4% processed this year. Spend a small proportion of the money on staff to process the asylum applications. 80%+ given refugee status. At that point they can start to work and begin to pay their own way. All of the Home secretaries of the last decade have been from the same party. Let's not pretend that the rhetoric and policies put in this place haven't made the situation worse. They are the architects of this and, counterintuitively, failing to solve the problem creates more distraction and more demands for more of the policies that have failed so far. Bring back organised routes for refugee travel and return to an area where UK processing occurs with appropriate help to host nation or charity. Also a fraction of the £5m per day in hotels and the additional requirement for border controls and already failed Rwanda policy. Whatever we are doing now is the opposite of competent and strategic. It is the opposite of "virtue signalling". Active negativity, perhaps? Processing quicker provides what exactly?less people in the queue. And so less costs. Less people in the queue doesn't remove housing needs, the cost is still there, is it not? Not if they are processed then allowed to work If they got work and housing immediately, of course that would be of little impact. Is that a reality though? I can see the idea on paper, but reality not so. It will be cheaper than short-term payments to hotels. There is a significant labour shortage in the UK with millions of jobs available. If they are being paid, their cost to the state falls. If the process was managed with organised refugee immigration routes then it could also be planned for, further reducing costs and smoothing flows. It's in know way complicated. It's what the civil service is designed to do when not politicised. I can see the idea, as I mentioned in another post, what I can't see is the numbers being managed successfully as they are expedited to find housing, as an example. I would expect that the cost of the hotels would not be lowered, it would stay the same as it is the only avenue for accommodation. We really wouldn't be any further forward, just got there quicker, with more expense form extra people processing. " It would be a managed process if refugee immigration was managed at the source in the areas that they are coming from. They could arrive at the rate that they could be accommodated and integrated. Why crisis manage if you can organise it? It's completely different. This Government has created a crisis and are doubling down on it with more of the same. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok not thought this through so very sketchy but couldn’t the UK explore something like a “work in return for bed and board while your asylum application is being processed” approach? We could build good, safe, clean, comfortable accommodation that is in proximity to where we have significant worker shortages (ie agriculture/fruit & veg pickers). First of all the design, build, fitting out and staffing of these centres would provide employment for local people. The asylum seekers have somewhere decent to live (emphasise decent). They are busy working so not bored or feeling “imprisoned”. The cost is met (or at least part met) via the work being delivered (which also helps the economy) BUT once successful in their asylum application there is a pathway away from the centre and this work to begin life anew in the UK. Those who are not successful in their asylum application are returned home. People who want to make the journey to the UK to claim asylum will know that this is what will happen. They can decide if that is a fair trade and worth it to them. This is a good idea, I had something similar in mind but not to this degree. I like the idea that building purpose built facilities provides work, I like the idea that people are housed correctly and they are not being pushed into dodgy hotels. The costs to this seem more than doable considering the £7 million a day being spent on hotel rooms. I like this idea.
We did this sort of thing for tens of thousands of Belgian refugees.
Of course they were all genuine refugees fleeing the horrors of WW1. They were housed in disused army camps. They worked to feed themselves. They all returned home other than a handful who had formed relationships with locals.
They were so grateful for the safety and hospitality shown by the UK that they paid for & commissioned a memorial. It’s on the Embankment."That sounds amazing, it sounds similar to the beautiful memorial that was made for the windrush generation . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok not thought this through so very sketchy but couldn’t the UK explore something like a “work in return for bed and board while your asylum application is being processed” approach? We could build good, safe, clean, comfortable accommodation that is in proximity to where we have significant worker shortages (ie agriculture/fruit & veg pickers). First of all the design, build, fitting out and staffing of these centres would provide employment for local people. The asylum seekers have somewhere decent to live (emphasise decent). They are busy working so not bored or feeling “imprisoned”. The cost is met (or at least part met) via the work being delivered (which also helps the economy) BUT once successful in their asylum application there is a pathway away from the centre and this work to begin life anew in the UK. Those who are not successful in their asylum application are returned home. People who want to make the journey to the UK to claim asylum will know that this is what will happen. They can decide if that is a fair trade and worth it to them. This is a good idea, I had something similar in mind but not to this degree. I like the idea that building purpose built facilities provides work, I like the idea that people are housed correctly and they are not being pushed into dodgy hotels. The costs to this seem more than doable considering the £7 million a day being spent on hotel rooms. I like this idea.
We did this sort of thing for tens of thousands of Belgian refugees.
Of course they were all genuine refugees fleeing the horrors of WW1. They were housed in disused army camps. They worked to feed themselves. They all returned home other than a handful who had formed relationships with locals.
They were so grateful for the safety and hospitality shown by the UK that they paid for & commissioned a memorial. It’s on the Embankment."Is that what you want? Gratitude? Is not enough being shown? What knowledge do you actually have of how "genuine" those granted asylum are? What information do you have access to of these people's stories to doubt their ligitimacy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok not thought this through so very sketchy but couldn’t the UK explore something like a “work in return for bed and board while your asylum application is being processed” approach? We could build good, safe, clean, comfortable accommodation that is in proximity to where we have significant worker shortages (ie agriculture/fruit & veg pickers). First of all the design, build, fitting out and staffing of these centres would provide employment for local people. The asylum seekers have somewhere decent to live (emphasise decent). They are busy working so not bored or feeling “imprisoned”. The cost is met (or at least part met) via the work being delivered (which also helps the economy) BUT once successful in their asylum application there is a pathway away from the centre and this work to begin life anew in the UK. Those who are not successful in their asylum application are returned home. People who want to make the journey to the UK to claim asylum will know that this is what will happen. They can decide if that is a fair trade and worth it to them. This is a good idea, I had something similar in mind but not to this degree. I like the idea that building purpose built facilities provides work, I like the idea that people are housed correctly and they are not being pushed into dodgy hotels. The costs to this seem more than doable considering the £7 million a day being spent on hotel rooms. I like this idea.
We did this sort of thing for tens of thousands of Belgian refugees.
Of course they were all genuine refugees fleeing the horrors of WW1. They were housed in disused army camps. They worked to feed themselves. They all returned home other than a handful who had formed relationships with locals.
They were so grateful for the safety and hospitality shown by the UK that they paid for & commissioned a memorial. It’s on the Embankment.
That sounds amazing, it sounds similar to the beautiful memorial that was made for the windrush generation . "Lovely. Another valuable contradictory post simply for the sake of it. For the Windrush generation but not by them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok not thought this through so very sketchy but couldn’t the UK explore something like a “work in return for bed and board while your asylum application is being processed” approach? We could build good, safe, clean, comfortable accommodation that is in proximity to where we have significant worker shortages (ie agriculture/fruit & veg pickers). First of all the design, build, fitting out and staffing of these centres would provide employment for local people. The asylum seekers have somewhere decent to live (emphasise decent). They are busy working so not bored or feeling “imprisoned”. The cost is met (or at least part met) via the work being delivered (which also helps the economy) BUT once successful in their asylum application there is a pathway away from the centre and this work to begin life anew in the UK. Those who are not successful in their asylum application are returned home. People who want to make the journey to the UK to claim asylum will know that this is what will happen. They can decide if that is a fair trade and worth it to them. This is a good idea, I had something similar in mind but not to this degree. I like the idea that building purpose built facilities provides work, I like the idea that people are housed correctly and they are not being pushed into dodgy hotels. The costs to this seem more than doable considering the £7 million a day being spent on hotel rooms. I like this idea.
We did this sort of thing for tens of thousands of Belgian refugees.
Of course they were all genuine refugees fleeing the horrors of WW1. They were housed in disused army camps. They worked to feed themselves. They all returned home other than a handful who had formed relationships with locals.
They were so grateful for the safety and hospitality shown by the UK that they paid for & commissioned a memorial. It’s on the Embankment.
That sounds amazing, it sounds similar to the beautiful memorial that was made for the windrush generation .
Lovely. Another valuable contradictory post simply for the sake of it.
For the Windrush generation but not by them? "I was just pointing out that both were memorials made for and by immigrants to thank them for their contribution to Britain, beautiful gestures | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok not thought this through so very sketchy but couldn’t the UK explore something like a “work in return for bed and board while your asylum application is being processed” approach? We could build good, safe, clean, comfortable accommodation that is in proximity to where we have significant worker shortages (ie agriculture/fruit & veg pickers). First of all the design, build, fitting out and staffing of these centres would provide employment for local people. The asylum seekers have somewhere decent to live (emphasise decent). They are busy working so not bored or feeling “imprisoned”. The cost is met (or at least part met) via the work being delivered (which also helps the economy) BUT once successful in their asylum application there is a pathway away from the centre and this work to begin life anew in the UK. Those who are not successful in their asylum application are returned home. People who want to make the journey to the UK to claim asylum will know that this is what will happen. They can decide if that is a fair trade and worth it to them. This is a good idea, I had something similar in mind but not to this degree. I like the idea that building purpose built facilities provides work, I like the idea that people are housed correctly and they are not being pushed into dodgy hotels. The costs to this seem more than doable considering the £7 million a day being spent on hotel rooms. I like this idea.
We did this sort of thing for tens of thousands of Belgian refugees.
Of course they were all genuine refugees fleeing the horrors of WW1. They were housed in disused army camps. They worked to feed themselves. They all returned home other than a handful who had formed relationships with locals.
They were so grateful for the safety and hospitality shown by the UK that they paid for & commissioned a memorial. It’s on the Embankment.
Is that what you want?
Gratitude? Is not enough being shown?
What knowledge do you actually have of how "genuine" those granted asylum are? What information do you have access to of these people's stories to doubt their ligitimacy?"Afghans turning down council homes in Scotland & Wales as they want to be near their own in London. No gratitude there by the sounds of it, no real interest in integration by the sounds of it. Usually if you refuse the offer of a council house or flat you get removed from the list. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok not thought this through so very sketchy but couldn’t the UK explore something like a “work in return for bed and board while your asylum application is being processed” approach? We could build good, safe, clean, comfortable accommodation that is in proximity to where we have significant worker shortages (ie agriculture/fruit & veg pickers). First of all the design, build, fitting out and staffing of these centres would provide employment for local people. The asylum seekers have somewhere decent to live (emphasise decent). They are busy working so not bored or feeling “imprisoned”. The cost is met (or at least part met) via the work being delivered (which also helps the economy) BUT once successful in their asylum application there is a pathway away from the centre and this work to begin life anew in the UK. Those who are not successful in their asylum application are returned home. People who want to make the journey to the UK to claim asylum will know that this is what will happen. They can decide if that is a fair trade and worth it to them. This is a good idea, I had something similar in mind but not to this degree. I like the idea that building purpose built facilities provides work, I like the idea that people are housed correctly and they are not being pushed into dodgy hotels. The costs to this seem more than doable considering the £7 million a day being spent on hotel rooms. I like this idea.
We did this sort of thing for tens of thousands of Belgian refugees.
Of course they were all genuine refugees fleeing the horrors of WW1. They were housed in disused army camps. They worked to feed themselves. They all returned home other than a handful who had formed relationships with locals.
They were so grateful for the safety and hospitality shown by the UK that they paid for & commissioned a memorial. It’s on the Embankment.
Is that what you want?
Gratitude? Is not enough being shown?
What knowledge do you actually have of how "genuine" those granted asylum are? What information do you have access to of these people's stories to doubt their ligitimacy?
Afghans turning down council homes in Scotland & Wales as they want to be near their own in London. No gratitude there by the sounds of it, no real interest in integration by the sounds of it.
Usually if you refuse the offer of a council house or flat you get removed from the list."Usually if you want a council property in London you don’t get offered one in wales or Scotland | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok not thought this through so very sketchy but couldn’t the UK explore something like a “work in return for bed and board while your asylum application is being processed” approach? We could build good, safe, clean, comfortable accommodation that is in proximity to where we have significant worker shortages (ie agriculture/fruit & veg pickers). First of all the design, build, fitting out and staffing of these centres would provide employment for local people. The asylum seekers have somewhere decent to live (emphasise decent). They are busy working so not bored or feeling “imprisoned”. The cost is met (or at least part met) via the work being delivered (which also helps the economy) BUT once successful in their asylum application there is a pathway away from the centre and this work to begin life anew in the UK. Those who are not successful in their asylum application are returned home. People who want to make the journey to the UK to claim asylum will know that this is what will happen. They can decide if that is a fair trade and worth it to them. This is a good idea, I had something similar in mind but not to this degree. I like the idea that building purpose built facilities provides work, I like the idea that people are housed correctly and they are not being pushed into dodgy hotels. The costs to this seem more than doable considering the £7 million a day being spent on hotel rooms. I like this idea.
We did this sort of thing for tens of thousands of Belgian refugees.
Of course they were all genuine refugees fleeing the horrors of WW1. They were housed in disused army camps. They worked to feed themselves. They all returned home other than a handful who had formed relationships with locals.
They were so grateful for the safety and hospitality shown by the UK that they paid for & commissioned a memorial. It’s on the Embankment.
Is that what you want?
Gratitude? Is not enough being shown?
What knowledge do you actually have of how "genuine" those granted asylum are? What information do you have access to of these people's stories to doubt their ligitimacy?
Afghans turning down council homes in Scotland & Wales as they want to be near their own in London. No gratitude there by the sounds of it, no real interest in integration by the sounds of it.
Usually if you refuse the offer of a council house or flat you get removed from the list.
Usually if you want a council property in London you don’t get offered one in wales or Scotland "But if you are desperate for safety and security you would take whatever offered? Mind you, I suppose not, if you have traveled across a continent and refused asylum or a refuge in a number of countries you get to think you can demand what you want. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok not thought this through so very sketchy but couldn’t the UK explore something like a “work in return for bed and board while your asylum application is being processed” approach? We could build good, safe, clean, comfortable accommodation that is in proximity to where we have significant worker shortages (ie agriculture/fruit & veg pickers). First of all the design, build, fitting out and staffing of these centres would provide employment for local people. The asylum seekers have somewhere decent to live (emphasise decent). They are busy working so not bored or feeling “imprisoned”. The cost is met (or at least part met) via the work being delivered (which also helps the economy) BUT once successful in their asylum application there is a pathway away from the centre and this work to begin life anew in the UK. Those who are not successful in their asylum application are returned home. People who want to make the journey to the UK to claim asylum will know that this is what will happen. They can decide if that is a fair trade and worth it to them. This is a good idea, I had something similar in mind but not to this degree. I like the idea that building purpose built facilities provides work, I like the idea that people are housed correctly and they are not being pushed into dodgy hotels. The costs to this seem more than doable considering the £7 million a day being spent on hotel rooms. I like this idea.
We did this sort of thing for tens of thousands of Belgian refugees.
Of course they were all genuine refugees fleeing the horrors of WW1. They were housed in disused army camps. They worked to feed themselves. They all returned home other than a handful who had formed relationships with locals.
They were so grateful for the safety and hospitality shown by the UK that they paid for & commissioned a memorial. It’s on the Embankment.
Is that what you want?
Gratitude? Is not enough being shown?
What knowledge do you actually have of how "genuine" those granted asylum are? What information do you have access to of these people's stories to doubt their ligitimacy?
Afghans turning down council homes in Scotland & Wales as they want to be near their own in London. No gratitude there by the sounds of it, no real interest in integration by the sounds of it.
Usually if you refuse the offer of a council house or flat you get removed from the list.
Usually if you want a council property in London you don’t get offered one in wales or Scotland
But if you are desperate for safety and security you would take whatever offered?
Mind you, I suppose not, if you have traveled across a continent and refused asylum or a refuge in a number of countries you get to think you can demand what you want. "Do you ‘know’ how many Afghanistan’s refused these properties? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok not thought this through so very sketchy but couldn’t the UK explore something like a “work in return for bed and board while your asylum application is being processed” approach? We could build good, safe, clean, comfortable accommodation that is in proximity to where we have significant worker shortages (ie agriculture/fruit & veg pickers). First of all the design, build, fitting out and staffing of these centres would provide employment for local people. The asylum seekers have somewhere decent to live (emphasise decent). They are busy working so not bored or feeling “imprisoned”. The cost is met (or at least part met) via the work being delivered (which also helps the economy) BUT once successful in their asylum application there is a pathway away from the centre and this work to begin life anew in the UK. Those who are not successful in their asylum application are returned home. People who want to make the journey to the UK to claim asylum will know that this is what will happen. They can decide if that is a fair trade and worth it to them. This is a good idea, I had something similar in mind but not to this degree. I like the idea that building purpose built facilities provides work, I like the idea that people are housed correctly and they are not being pushed into dodgy hotels. The costs to this seem more than doable considering the £7 million a day being spent on hotel rooms. I like this idea.
We did this sort of thing for tens of thousands of Belgian refugees.
Of course they were all genuine refugees fleeing the horrors of WW1. They were housed in disused army camps. They worked to feed themselves. They all returned home other than a handful who had formed relationships with locals.
They were so grateful for the safety and hospitality shown by the UK that they paid for & commissioned a memorial. It’s on the Embankment.
Is that what you want?
Gratitude? Is not enough being shown?
What knowledge do you actually have of how "genuine" those granted asylum are? What information do you have access to of these people's stories to doubt their ligitimacy?
Afghans turning down council homes in Scotland & Wales as they want to be near their own in London. No gratitude there by the sounds of it, no real interest in integration by the sounds of it.
Usually if you refuse the offer of a council house or flat you get removed from the list.
Usually if you want a council property in London you don’t get offered one in wales or Scotland
But if you are desperate for safety and security you would take whatever offered?
Mind you, I suppose not, if you have traveled across a continent and refused asylum or a refuge in a number of countries you get to think you can demand what you want.
Do you ‘know’ how many Afghanistan’s refused these properties? "A few | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok not thought this through so very sketchy but couldn’t the UK explore something like a “work in return for bed and board while your asylum application is being processed” approach? We could build good, safe, clean, comfortable accommodation that is in proximity to where we have significant worker shortages (ie agriculture/fruit & veg pickers). First of all the design, build, fitting out and staffing of these centres would provide employment for local people. The asylum seekers have somewhere decent to live (emphasise decent). They are busy working so not bored or feeling “imprisoned”. The cost is met (or at least part met) via the work being delivered (which also helps the economy) BUT once successful in their asylum application there is a pathway away from the centre and this work to begin life anew in the UK. Those who are not successful in their asylum application are returned home. People who want to make the journey to the UK to claim asylum will know that this is what will happen. They can decide if that is a fair trade and worth it to them. This is a good idea, I had something similar in mind but not to this degree. I like the idea that building purpose built facilities provides work, I like the idea that people are housed correctly and they are not being pushed into dodgy hotels. The costs to this seem more than doable considering the £7 million a day being spent on hotel rooms. I like this idea.
We did this sort of thing for tens of thousands of Belgian refugees.
Of course they were all genuine refugees fleeing the horrors of WW1. They were housed in disused army camps. They worked to feed themselves. They all returned home other than a handful who had formed relationships with locals.
They were so grateful for the safety and hospitality shown by the UK that they paid for & commissioned a memorial. It’s on the Embankment.
Is that what you want?
Gratitude? Is not enough being shown?
What knowledge do you actually have of how "genuine" those granted asylum are? What information do you have access to of these people's stories to doubt their ligitimacy?
Afghans turning down council homes in Scotland & Wales as they want to be near their own in London. No gratitude there by the sounds of it, no real interest in integration by the sounds of it.
Usually if you refuse the offer of a council house or flat you get removed from the list.
Usually if you want a council property in London you don’t get offered one in wales or Scotland
But if you are desperate for safety and security you would take whatever offered?
Mind you, I suppose not, if you have traveled across a continent and refused asylum or a refuge in a number of countries you get to think you can demand what you want.
Do you ‘know’ how many Afghanistan’s refused these properties?
A few "Nothing to worry about then, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman has got a thankless task when it comes immigration policies and what is happening on the ground. She strangely put herself into a position of admitting to breach secure information protocols when, on the face of it, it could have been avoided. I can see the Home secretary job getting a lot more flack as we roll through winter. If we take a view of the problem without getting emotional, something needs to give. We have people struggling to heat their homes, that isn't going to get any easier during the next 4 months, the cost of food reaching new highs, the cost of fuel, mortgages, rents, I could go on. Looking through the eyes of someone being severely impacted by these things and not being able heat or eat, I can understand how the government spending £7 million a day on hotel rooms alone, can be a red rag. what is the answer, how as a Home Secretary do you justify £210 million a month on hotel rooms for people who are choosing to the crossing the Channel in small boats, when you have people living hand to mouth and worried sick their heating or food are running out. These are difficult decisions that need to be answered, so what would you do? No room for saying they are not fit, they should etc, what is the real change you could make as Home Secretary that would make a positive improvement, today and for this winter? The answer has been given several times. £5m per day on hotels because the rate of processing is painfully slow. 4% processed this year. Spend a small proportion of the money on staff to process the asylum applications. 80%+ given refugee status. At that point they can start to work and begin to pay their own way. All of the Home secretaries of the last decade have been from the same party. Let's not pretend that the rhetoric and policies put in this place haven't made the situation worse. They are the architects of this and, counterintuitively, failing to solve the problem creates more distraction and more demands for more of the policies that have failed so far. Bring back organised routes for refugee travel and return to an area where UK processing occurs with appropriate help to host nation or charity. Also a fraction of the £5m per day in hotels and the additional requirement for border controls and already failed Rwanda policy. Whatever we are doing now is the opposite of competent and strategic. It is the opposite of "virtue signalling". Active negativity, perhaps? Processing quicker provides what exactly?less people in the queue. And so less costs. Less people in the queue doesn't remove housing needs, the cost is still there, is it not? Not if they are processed then allowed to work If they got work and housing immediately, of course that would be of little impact. Is that a reality though? I can see the idea on paper, but reality not so. It will be cheaper than short-term payments to hotels. There is a significant labour shortage in the UK with millions of jobs available. If they are being paid, their cost to the state falls. If the process was managed with organised refugee immigration routes then it could also be planned for, further reducing costs and smoothing flows. It's in know way complicated. It's what the civil service is designed to do when not politicised. I can see the idea, as I mentioned in another post, what I can't see is the numbers being managed successfully as they are expedited to find housing, as an example. I would expect that the cost of the hotels would not be lowered, it would stay the same as it is the only avenue for accommodation. We really wouldn't be any further forward, just got there quicker, with more expense form extra people processing. It would be a managed process if refugee immigration was managed at the source in the areas that they are coming from. They could arrive at the rate that they could be accommodated and integrated. Why crisis manage if you can organise it? It's completely different. This Government has created a crisis and are doubling down on it with more of the same." But this ‘crisis! has been developing for at least 25 years. The operation has changed from coming over in trucks due to increased security to boats. Although that horrific incident in Grays a few years back shows that perhaps the truck route continues and the number of illegal immigrants is far higher than published | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman has got a thankless task when it comes immigration policies and what is happening on the ground. She strangely put herself into a position of admitting to breach secure information protocols when, on the face of it, it could have been avoided. I can see the Home secretary job getting a lot more flack as we roll through winter. If we take a view of the problem without getting emotional, something needs to give. We have people struggling to heat their homes, that isn't going to get any easier during the next 4 months, the cost of food reaching new highs, the cost of fuel, mortgages, rents, I could go on. Looking through the eyes of someone being severely impacted by these things and not being able heat or eat, I can understand how the government spending £7 million a day on hotel rooms alone, can be a red rag. what is the answer, how as a Home Secretary do you justify £210 million a month on hotel rooms for people who are choosing to the crossing the Channel in small boats, when you have people living hand to mouth and worried sick their heating or food are running out. These are difficult decisions that need to be answered, so what would you do? No room for saying they are not fit, they should etc, what is the real change you could make as Home Secretary that would make a positive improvement, today and for this winter? The answer has been given several times. £5m per day on hotels because the rate of processing is painfully slow. 4% processed this year. Spend a small proportion of the money on staff to process the asylum applications. 80%+ given refugee status. At that point they can start to work and begin to pay their own way. All of the Home secretaries of the last decade have been from the same party. Let's not pretend that the rhetoric and policies put in this place haven't made the situation worse. They are the architects of this and, counterintuitively, failing to solve the problem creates more distraction and more demands for more of the policies that have failed so far. Bring back organised routes for refugee travel and return to an area where UK processing occurs with appropriate help to host nation or charity. Also a fraction of the £5m per day in hotels and the additional requirement for border controls and already failed Rwanda policy. Whatever we are doing now is the opposite of competent and strategic. It is the opposite of "virtue signalling". Active negativity, perhaps? Processing quicker provides what exactly?less people in the queue. And so less costs. Less people in the queue doesn't remove housing needs, the cost is still there, is it not? Not if they are processed then allowed to work If they got work and housing immediately, of course that would be of little impact. Is that a reality though? I can see the idea on paper, but reality not so. It will be cheaper than short-term payments to hotels. There is a significant labour shortage in the UK with millions of jobs available. If they are being paid, their cost to the state falls. If the process was managed with organised refugee immigration routes then it could also be planned for, further reducing costs and smoothing flows. It's in know way complicated. It's what the civil service is designed to do when not politicised. I can see the idea, as I mentioned in another post, what I can't see is the numbers being managed successfully as they are expedited to find housing, as an example. I would expect that the cost of the hotels would not be lowered, it would stay the same as it is the only avenue for accommodation. We really wouldn't be any further forward, just got there quicker, with more expense form extra people processing. It would be a managed process if refugee immigration was managed at the source in the areas that they are coming from. They could arrive at the rate that they could be accommodated and integrated. Why crisis manage if you can organise it? It's completely different. This Government has created a crisis and are doubling down on it with more of the same. But this ‘crisis! has been developing for at least 25 years. The operation has changed from coming over in trucks due to increased security to boats. Although that horrific incident in Grays a few years back shows that perhaps the truck route continues and the number of illegal immigrants is far higher than published" Has it? The current policies have made the situation progressively worse, except you appear to want to do even more of the same. Actually, it is not at all clear what you want as you claim to "support" immigration, just not of refugees who have no organised immigration route made available to them as Government policy is to remove them all. What data do you have to support this latest assertion numbers smuggled in trucks? As much as the "few" Afghans allegedly "refusing" accommodation in Scotland? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman has got a thankless task when it comes immigration policies and what is happening on the ground. She strangely put herself into a position of admitting to breach secure information protocols when, on the face of it, it could have been avoided. I can see the Home secretary job getting a lot more flack as we roll through winter. If we take a view of the problem without getting emotional, something needs to give. We have people struggling to heat their homes, that isn't going to get any easier during the next 4 months, the cost of food reaching new highs, the cost of fuel, mortgages, rents, I could go on. Looking through the eyes of someone being severely impacted by these things and not being able heat or eat, I can understand how the government spending £7 million a day on hotel rooms alone, can be a red rag. what is the answer, how as a Home Secretary do you justify £210 million a month on hotel rooms for people who are choosing to the crossing the Channel in small boats, when you have people living hand to mouth and worried sick their heating or food are running out. These are difficult decisions that need to be answered, so what would you do? No room for saying they are not fit, they should etc, what is the real change you could make as Home Secretary that would make a positive improvement, today and for this winter? The answer has been given several times. £5m per day on hotels because the rate of processing is painfully slow. 4% processed this year. Spend a small proportion of the money on staff to process the asylum applications. 80%+ given refugee status. At that point they can start to work and begin to pay their own way. All of the Home secretaries of the last decade have been from the same party. Let's not pretend that the rhetoric and policies put in this place haven't made the situation worse. They are the architects of this and, counterintuitively, failing to solve the problem creates more distraction and more demands for more of the policies that have failed so far. Bring back organised routes for refugee travel and return to an area where UK processing occurs with appropriate help to host nation or charity. Also a fraction of the £5m per day in hotels and the additional requirement for border controls and already failed Rwanda policy. Whatever we are doing now is the opposite of competent and strategic. It is the opposite of "virtue signalling". Active negativity, perhaps? Processing quicker provides what exactly?less people in the queue. And so less costs. Less people in the queue doesn't remove housing needs, the cost is still there, is it not? Not if they are processed then allowed to work If they got work and housing immediately, of course that would be of little impact. Is that a reality though? I can see the idea on paper, but reality not so. It will be cheaper than short-term payments to hotels. There is a significant labour shortage in the UK with millions of jobs available. If they are being paid, their cost to the state falls. If the process was managed with organised refugee immigration routes then it could also be planned for, further reducing costs and smoothing flows. It's in know way complicated. It's what the civil service is designed to do when not politicised. I can see the idea, as I mentioned in another post, what I can't see is the numbers being managed successfully as they are expedited to find housing, as an example. I would expect that the cost of the hotels would not be lowered, it would stay the same as it is the only avenue for accommodation. We really wouldn't be any further forward, just got there quicker, with more expense form extra people processing. It would be a managed process if refugee immigration was managed at the source in the areas that they are coming from. They could arrive at the rate that they could be accommodated and integrated. Why crisis manage if you can organise it? It's completely different. This Government has created a crisis and are doubling down on it with more of the same. But this ‘crisis! has been developing for at least 25 years. The operation has changed from coming over in trucks due to increased security to boats. Although that horrific incident in Grays a few years back shows that perhaps the truck route continues and the number of illegal immigrants is far higher than published Has it? The current policies have made the situation progressively worse, except you appear to want to do even more of the same. Actually, it is not at all clear what you want as you claim to "support" immigration, just not of refugees who have no organised immigration route made available to them as Government policy is to remove them all. What data do you have to support this latest assertion numbers smuggled in trucks? As much as the "few" Afghans allegedly "refusing" accommodation in Scotland?" Yes it has. At least 25 years, I experienced it in Calais first hand then. I’m sure it started earlier. East European truck drivers saw it as a great source of additional income. I’m sure some British drivers too for balance as I don’t want to be called a racist. Not as appealing to Brit drivers though as they were better paid with better conditions than East Europeans- remember Willy Betz? The increased checks on trucks and the increased security on the approach to Calais (have you seen it?) have clearly had a positive impact, though sadly pushed the problem elsewhere | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman has got a thankless task when it comes immigration policies and what is happening on the ground. She strangely put herself into a position of admitting to breach secure information protocols when, on the face of it, it could have been avoided. I can see the Home secretary job getting a lot more flack as we roll through winter. If we take a view of the problem without getting emotional, something needs to give. We have people struggling to heat their homes, that isn't going to get any easier during the next 4 months, the cost of food reaching new highs, the cost of fuel, mortgages, rents, I could go on. Looking through the eyes of someone being severely impacted by these things and not being able heat or eat, I can understand how the government spending £7 million a day on hotel rooms alone, can be a red rag. what is the answer, how as a Home Secretary do you justify £210 million a month on hotel rooms for people who are choosing to the crossing the Channel in small boats, when you have people living hand to mouth and worried sick their heating or food are running out. These are difficult decisions that need to be answered, so what would you do? No room for saying they are not fit, they should etc, what is the real change you could make as Home Secretary that would make a positive improvement, today and for this winter? The answer has been given several times. £5m per day on hotels because the rate of processing is painfully slow. 4% processed this year. Spend a small proportion of the money on staff to process the asylum applications. 80%+ given refugee status. At that point they can start to work and begin to pay their own way. All of the Home secretaries of the last decade have been from the same party. Let's not pretend that the rhetoric and policies put in this place haven't made the situation worse. They are the architects of this and, counterintuitively, failing to solve the problem creates more distraction and more demands for more of the policies that have failed so far. Bring back organised routes for refugee travel and return to an area where UK processing occurs with appropriate help to host nation or charity. Also a fraction of the £5m per day in hotels and the additional requirement for border controls and already failed Rwanda policy. Whatever we are doing now is the opposite of competent and strategic. It is the opposite of "virtue signalling". Active negativity, perhaps? Processing quicker provides what exactly?less people in the queue. And so less costs. Less people in the queue doesn't remove housing needs, the cost is still there, is it not? Not if they are processed then allowed to work If they got work and housing immediately, of course that would be of little impact. Is that a reality though? I can see the idea on paper, but reality not so. It will be cheaper than short-term payments to hotels. There is a significant labour shortage in the UK with millions of jobs available. If they are being paid, their cost to the state falls. If the process was managed with organised refugee immigration routes then it could also be planned for, further reducing costs and smoothing flows. It's in know way complicated. It's what the civil service is designed to do when not politicised. I can see the idea, as I mentioned in another post, what I can't see is the numbers being managed successfully as they are expedited to find housing, as an example. I would expect that the cost of the hotels would not be lowered, it would stay the same as it is the only avenue for accommodation. We really wouldn't be any further forward, just got there quicker, with more expense form extra people processing. It would be a managed process if refugee immigration was managed at the source in the areas that they are coming from. They could arrive at the rate that they could be accommodated and integrated. Why crisis manage if you can organise it? It's completely different. This Government has created a crisis and are doubling down on it with more of the same. But this ‘crisis! has been developing for at least 25 years. The operation has changed from coming over in trucks due to increased security to boats. Although that horrific incident in Grays a few years back shows that perhaps the truck route continues and the number of illegal immigrants is far higher than published Has it? The current policies have made the situation progressively worse, except you appear to want to do even more of the same. Actually, it is not at all clear what you want as you claim to "support" immigration, just not of refugees who have no organised immigration route made available to them as Government policy is to remove them all. What data do you have to support this latest assertion numbers smuggled in trucks? As much as the "few" Afghans allegedly "refusing" accommodation in Scotland? Yes it has. At least 25 years, I experienced it in Calais first hand then. I’m sure it started earlier. East European truck drivers saw it as a great source of additional income. I’m sure some British drivers too for balance as I don’t want to be called a racist. Not as appealing to Brit drivers though as they were better paid with better conditions than East Europeans- remember Willy Betz? The increased checks on trucks and the increased security on the approach to Calais (have you seen it?) have clearly had a positive impact, though sadly pushed the problem elsewhere " What data do you have to support any of this other than speculation? Do you have any, actual information on the scale of this activity? Why is the plight of refugees fleeing persecution being tied to those being trafficked or travelling for economic reasons? Can they not be treated differently? Are you able to distinguish between them or are they "all the same" to you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country." How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. " Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit." Ultimately, I blame Tony Blair’s parents for Brexit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit." And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate." I am going to have a wild guess, it has something to do with immigration | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. Ultimately, I blame Tony Blair’s parents for Brexit "I blame Johnathan ramsbottom for sneezing in 1934. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate." Nothing to do with eggs. A lot to do with our immigration problems and the disaster of Brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. Nothing to do with eggs. A lot to do with our immigration problems and the disaster of Brexit. " There you go , why didn’t you vote for Brexit? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. I am going to have a wild guess, it has something to do with immigration " So should we also blame Noel Edmonds for Mr Blobby too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. I am going to have a wild guess, it has something to do with immigration So should we also blame Noel Edmonds for Mr Blobby too." No, ultimately you have to blame Noel Edmonds parents | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. I am going to have a wild guess, it has something to do with immigration " Keep up fella. His decision to open the east European floodgates to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shires”. Then of course not listening to the legitimate concerns of his voters, writing them off as racists. Remember Brown’s comment to that lovely old lady? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. Nothing to do with eggs. A lot to do with our immigration problems and the disaster of Brexit. " So Sebaceous, immigration problems were due to Brexit which was inflicted by David Cameron. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. I am going to have a wild guess, it has something to do with immigration Keep up fella. His decision to open the east European floodgates to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shires”. Then of course not listening to the legitimate concerns of his voters, writing them off as racists. Remember Brown’s comment to that lovely old lady? " Why didn’t you vote for Brexit? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. I am going to have a wild guess, it has something to do with immigration So should we also blame Noel Edmonds for Mr Blobby too. No, ultimately you have to blame Noel Edmonds parents " What about Noel Edmonds grandparents? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. Nothing to do with eggs. A lot to do with our immigration problems and the disaster of Brexit. So Sebaceous, immigration problems were due to Brexit which was inflicted by David Cameron. " Go back a bit further. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. I am going to have a wild guess, it has something to do with immigration Keep up fella. His decision to open the east European floodgates to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shires”. Then of course not listening to the legitimate concerns of his voters, writing them off as racists. Remember Brown’s comment to that lovely old lady? " Oh the one he called a spigot? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. I am going to have a wild guess, it has something to do with immigration So should we also blame Noel Edmonds for Mr Blobby too. No, ultimately you have to blame Noel Edmonds parents What about Noel Edmonds grandparents?" Ultimately, they are to blame as well | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. Nothing to do with eggs. A lot to do with our immigration problems and the disaster of Brexit. So Sebaceous, immigration problems were due to Brexit which was inflicted by David Cameron. Go back a bit further." Oh you mean David Cameron’s parents sebaceous? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. Nothing to do with eggs. A lot to do with our immigration problems and the disaster of Brexit. So Sebaceous, immigration problems were due to Brexit which was inflicted by David Cameron. Go back a bit further." How far back should we go? Tony Blair’s ancestors? If they didn’t exist then TB wouldn’t exist | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. I am going to have a wild guess, it has something to do with immigration So should we also blame Noel Edmonds for Mr Blobby too. No, ultimately you have to blame Noel Edmonds parents What about Noel Edmonds grandparents? Ultimately, they are to blame as well " How dare you! I won’t hear a word against Edmonds - one of Chelmsford’s finest. And, he’s on here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. I am going to have a wild guess, it has something to do with immigration So should we also blame Noel Edmonds for Mr Blobby too. No, ultimately you have to blame Noel Edmonds parents What about Noel Edmonds grandparents? Ultimately, they are to blame as well How dare you! I won’t hear a word against Edmonds - one of Chelmsford’s finest. And, he’s on here. " Yeah there’s the faux rage | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. I am going to have a wild guess, it has something to do with immigration So should we also blame Noel Edmonds for Mr Blobby too. No, ultimately you have to blame Noel Edmonds parents What about Noel Edmonds grandparents? Ultimately, they are to blame as well How dare you! I won’t hear a word against Edmonds - one of Chelmsford’s finest. And, he’s on here. " He's the 1 with the pic of a crinkly bottom. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. Nothing to do with eggs. A lot to do with our immigration problems and the disaster of Brexit. So Sebaceous, immigration problems were due to Brexit which was inflicted by David Cameron. Go back a bit further. How far back should we go? Tony Blair’s ancestors? If they didn’t exist then TB wouldn’t exist " Hang on, I’m struggling to compose myself from such raucous laughter. I thought it was only scousers that had a great sense of humour. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. I am going to have a wild guess, it has something to do with immigration So should we also blame Noel Edmonds for Mr Blobby too. No, ultimately you have to blame Noel Edmonds parents What about Noel Edmonds grandparents? Ultimately, they are to blame as well How dare you! I won’t hear a word against Edmonds - one of Chelmsford’s finest. And, he’s on here. He's the 1 with the pic of a crinkly bottom." Now - here’s a first. That was funny | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. I am going to have a wild guess, it has something to do with immigration So should we also blame Noel Edmonds for Mr Blobby too. No, ultimately you have to blame Noel Edmonds parents What about Noel Edmonds grandparents? Ultimately, they are to blame as well How dare you! I won’t hear a word against Edmonds - one of Chelmsford’s finest. And, he’s on here. Yeah there’s the faux rage " That doesn’t make any sense? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. I am going to have a wild guess, it has something to do with immigration So should we also blame Noel Edmonds for Mr Blobby too. No, ultimately you have to blame Noel Edmonds parents What about Noel Edmonds grandparents? Ultimately, they are to blame as well How dare you! I won’t hear a word against Edmonds - one of Chelmsford’s finest. And, he’s on here. Yeah there’s the faux rage " Coming next, claims he was joking? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. I am going to have a wild guess, it has something to do with immigration So should we also blame Noel Edmonds for Mr Blobby too. No, ultimately you have to blame Noel Edmonds parents What about Noel Edmonds grandparents? Ultimately, they are to blame as well How dare you! I won’t hear a word against Edmonds - one of Chelmsford’s finest. And, he’s on here. He's the 1 with the pic of a crinkly bottom. Now - here’s a first. That was funny" So wonderful to gain your approval at last. I'll sleep well tonight | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. I am going to have a wild guess, it has something to do with immigration So should we also blame Noel Edmonds for Mr Blobby too. No, ultimately you have to blame Noel Edmonds parents What about Noel Edmonds grandparents? Ultimately, they are to blame as well How dare you! I won’t hear a word against Edmonds - one of Chelmsford’s finest. And, he’s on here. Yeah there’s the faux rage Coming next, claims he was joking? " Fabricate by name. When have I ever backtracked by claiming I was only joking ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. I am going to have a wild guess, it has something to do with immigration So should we also blame Noel Edmonds for Mr Blobby too. No, ultimately you have to blame Noel Edmonds parents What about Noel Edmonds grandparents? Ultimately, they are to blame as well How dare you! I won’t hear a word against Edmonds - one of Chelmsford’s finest. And, he’s on here. Yeah there’s the faux rage Coming next, claims he was joking? Fabricate by name. When have I ever backtracked by claiming I was only joking ?" Now the denial, followed by the confusion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. I am going to have a wild guess, it has something to do with immigration So should we also blame Noel Edmonds for Mr Blobby too. No, ultimately you have to blame Noel Edmonds parents What about Noel Edmonds grandparents? Ultimately, they are to blame as well How dare you! I won’t hear a word against Edmonds - one of Chelmsford’s finest. And, he’s on here. Yeah there’s the faux rage Coming next, claims he was joking? Fabricate by name. When have I ever backtracked by claiming I was only joking ? Now the denial, followed by the confusion " And the usual disingenuous tosh. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. I am going to have a wild guess, it has something to do with immigration So should we also blame Noel Edmonds for Mr Blobby too. No, ultimately you have to blame Noel Edmonds parents What about Noel Edmonds grandparents? Ultimately, they are to blame as well How dare you! I won’t hear a word against Edmonds - one of Chelmsford’s finest. And, he’s on here. Yeah there’s the faux rage Coming next, claims he was joking? Fabricate by name. When have I ever backtracked by claiming I was only joking ? Now the denial, followed by the confusion And the usual disingenuous tosh. " There you go, confusion , | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. I am going to have a wild guess, it has something to do with immigration So should we also blame Noel Edmonds for Mr Blobby too. No, ultimately you have to blame Noel Edmonds parents What about Noel Edmonds grandparents? Ultimately, they are to blame as well How dare you! I won’t hear a word against Edmonds - one of Chelmsford’s finest. And, he’s on here. Yeah there’s the faux rage Coming next, claims he was joking? Fabricate by name. When have I ever backtracked by claiming I was only joking ? Now the denial, followed by the confusion And the usual disingenuous tosh. There you go, confusion , "Never mind a childish obsession and a need to distract. Are you going to support Suella in her drive to end the scandalous level of illegal immigration? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. I am going to have a wild guess, it has something to do with immigration So should we also blame Noel Edmonds for Mr Blobby too. No, ultimately you have to blame Noel Edmonds parents What about Noel Edmonds grandparents? Ultimately, they are to blame as well How dare you! I won’t hear a word against Edmonds - one of Chelmsford’s finest. And, he’s on here. Yeah there’s the faux rage Coming next, claims he was joking? Fabricate by name. When have I ever backtracked by claiming I was only joking ? Now the denial, followed by the confusion And the usual disingenuous tosh. There you go, confusion ,
Never mind a childish obsession and a need to distract. Are you going to support Suella in her drive to end the scandalous level of illegal immigration? "No, she hasn’t got a clue | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. I am going to have a wild guess, it has something to do with immigration So should we also blame Noel Edmonds for Mr Blobby too. No, ultimately you have to blame Noel Edmonds parents What about Noel Edmonds grandparents? Ultimately, they are to blame as well How dare you! I won’t hear a word against Edmonds - one of Chelmsford’s finest. And, he’s on here. Yeah there’s the faux rage Coming next, claims he was joking? Fabricate by name. When have I ever backtracked by claiming I was only joking ? Now the denial, followed by the confusion And the usual disingenuous tosh. There you go, confusion ,
Never mind a childish obsession and a need to distract. Are you going to support Suella in her drive to end the scandalous level of illegal immigration?
No, she hasn’t got a clue "Then help. Get stuck in, do something for your country. Where would you start? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. I am going to have a wild guess, it has something to do with immigration So should we also blame Noel Edmonds for Mr Blobby too. No, ultimately you have to blame Noel Edmonds parents What about Noel Edmonds grandparents? Ultimately, they are to blame as well How dare you! I won’t hear a word against Edmonds - one of Chelmsford’s finest. And, he’s on here. Yeah there’s the faux rage Coming next, claims he was joking? Fabricate by name. When have I ever backtracked by claiming I was only joking ? Now the denial, followed by the confusion And the usual disingenuous tosh. There you go, confusion ,
Never mind a childish obsession and a need to distract. Are you going to support Suella in her drive to end the scandalous level of illegal immigration?
No, she hasn’t got a clue "That's unfair. I think she knows what she's doing by appealing to angry racists with her talk of an invasion in the Commons. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. I am going to have a wild guess, it has something to do with immigration So should we also blame Noel Edmonds for Mr Blobby too. No, ultimately you have to blame Noel Edmonds parents What about Noel Edmonds grandparents? Ultimately, they are to blame as well How dare you! I won’t hear a word against Edmonds - one of Chelmsford’s finest. And, he’s on here. Yeah there’s the faux rage Coming next, claims he was joking? Fabricate by name. When have I ever backtracked by claiming I was only joking ? Now the denial, followed by the confusion And the usual disingenuous tosh. There you go, confusion ,
Never mind a childish obsession and a need to distract. Are you going to support Suella in her drive to end the scandalous level of illegal immigration?
No, she hasn’t got a clue
That's unfair. I think she knows what she's doing by appealing to angry racists with her talk of an invasion in the Commons."Like I said, she hasn’t got a clue how to deal with the situation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone else thinks she’s ‘hot’ ? " Did you read the OP ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone else thinks she’s ‘hot’ ? " Slightly off topic, but erm... no. What you reckon? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hearing that things are going to get a "tad difficult" for Ms Braveman!" O dear, what a shame | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. Blair made a disastrous decision. Politically driven that ultimately led to Brexit. And sebaceous, what does that have to do with price of eggs mate. I am going to have a wild guess, it has something to do with immigration Keep up fella. His decision to open the east European floodgates to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shires”. Then of course not listening to the legitimate concerns of his voters, writing them off as racists. Remember Brown’s comment to that lovely old lady? " What information do you have that the immigration increase was to "stick it up the Tories in the Shires"? I understood it was to provide businesses with the skilled workers that they had requested. Personally, I agree that the step change in immigration was a poor decision and was a strong driver in the road to Brexit. However, your characterisation of the reasoning behind it sounds like you just made it up. Of course, I will change my view if you can legitimise your assertion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s like a competition between priti patel and suella braverman. Which one can be the most deranged anti immigration Home Secretary who can play up to the Right wing of their party and the papers who support them. But I think Braverman wins it by a country mile. I don't think it's just the "Right wing of their party" and the "papers" (I presume you exclude the left wing papers and broadcast media from your assessment). They are playing up to the vast majority of the population too. It's just pathetic that the situation in Kent is so out of hand. We can't even control our own borders let alone controlling Ukraine's borders or what the climate's going to be in a hundred years. There has been a Conservative Government in office for 12 years and the migrant situation did not happen overnight. The Conservative Government is responsible for what is happening in the channel. They broke the relationship with the EU, they broke the relationship with France, they closed down legal asylum routes and they are grooming and radicalising ordinary people in the country by using words that pander to fear and hatred. Sure, anyone who thinks there should be control of our borders has just been "groomed and radicalised". People who want to let anybody in no matter their provenance are reasonable and rational. Labour and its supporters just want open borders with no controls. Time to be honest with the country. How do you know? They ain’t been in power for years, I haven’t seen them make decisions on border and immigration at all. Hell, the vast majority of the people have given the tories so much leeway with their stupidity, why not actually try Labour out, it cannot be any more worse than what the donkey tories have done. " I do hope your right about Labour not being any worse as they will soon be put to the test. Then it's full steam ahead to the sunny uplands, Labour style | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
