FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Asylum seekers - Labour's plan
Asylum seekers - Labour's plan
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it?" I don't the details of labours current plans butt they have previously suggested processing sites near to hot spots. This reduces the volumes making it to France especially if it's clear than going there instead of local processing reduces the chance of being accepted as valid. A France based site for the remainer reduces the value add of gangs. And it's on Frances interest to reduce gangs in France. One can imagine they have other illegal arms to their criminal enterprise that touches on France. Labour have also suggested how they would require different balnqces of evidence depending on what you are claiming you need asylum from and where. So an Albanian has to demonstrate religious persecution whereas an Iraqi may be taken more on face value. That feels sensible and proportional and likely to help processing times, which reduces housing issues. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it?" They are gifting the tories | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories " And the tories are gifting the reform party  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party "Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan"That was compared to the tories plan, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan, "We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan. This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear."Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories? "He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you. I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic "Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post "Did I say you broke rules? Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'"It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it?I don't the details of labours current plans butt they have previously suggested processing sites near to hot spots. This reduces the volumes making it to France especially if it's clear than going there instead of local processing reduces the chance of being accepted as valid. A France based site for the remainer reduces the value add of gangs. And it's on Frances interest to reduce gangs in France. One can imagine they have other illegal arms to their criminal enterprise that touches on France. Labour have also suggested how they would require different balnqces of evidence depending on what you are claiming you need asylum from and where. So an Albanian has to demonstrate religious persecution whereas an Iraqi may be taken more on face value. That feels sensible and proportional and likely to help processing times, which reduces housing issues. " I'm in favour of processing sites near hot spots. I'm also in favour of evidence. I'm still not sure why France would start trying now. Where do we house them if hotels are off limits? That remains unanswered. I still don't know what 'complete overhaul' means | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote "No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it "I can’t improve on what he wrote, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
I can’t improve on what he wrote, "Of course you can't | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
I can’t improve on what he wrote,
Of course you can't " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it "The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
"True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it?" They have a fine line to walk. They have to try to win back voters who defected over "get brexit done", and also not alienate their voters who want a sensible approach. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They have a fine line to walk. They have to try to win back voters who defected over "get brexit done", and also not alienate their voters who want a sensible approach. " I agree, but they will never win over the hardline Brexit and anti immigrant sections of society, that is between the tories and The Reform party, thankfully , the number of these people are decreasing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They have a fine line to walk. They have to try to win back voters who defected over "get brexit done", and also not alienate their voters who want a sensible approach. " So wishy washy policies is the best way forward? Isn't that just what we've had under the Tories? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t . "It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not. This is always going to be the course these policies take. Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They have a fine line to walk. They have to try to win back voters who defected over "get brexit done", and also not alienate their voters who want a sensible approach. I agree, but they will never win over the hardline Brexit and anti immigrant sections of society, that is between the tories and The Reform party, thankfully , the number of these people are decreasing " decreasing,I think it's the other way round | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue. "I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They have a fine line to walk. They have to try to win back voters who defected over "get brexit done", and also not alienate their voters who want a sensible approach. I agree, but they will never win over the hardline Brexit and anti immigrant sections of society, that is between the tories and The Reform party, thankfully , the number of these people are decreasing decreasing,I think it's the other way round" I hope not, but you have to remember these people tend to make a lot of noise | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong? "How have they got Rwanda wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it?" You won't stop the boats till the first person is sent back. As I see it to stop the gangs you send a ship to France anyone can get on you process in French water if they are not in British Warter you can put them where you like. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong? "Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They have a fine line to walk. They have to try to win back voters who defected over "get brexit done", and also not alienate their voters who want a sensible approach. So wishy washy policies is the best way forward? Isn't that just what we've had under the Tories?" I didn't say it was the best way forward. It's not the best way forward, in my opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? You won't stop the boats till the first person is sent back. As I see it to stop the gangs you send a ship to France anyone can get on you process in French water if they are not in British Warter you can put them where you like. " That could work, it gives people safe passage , it would also mean that anyone who didn’t use this route is highly likely to be illegal . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? You won't stop the boats till the first person is sent back. As I see it to stop the gangs you send a ship to France anyone can get on you process in French water if they are not in British Warter you can put them where you like. That could work, it gives people safe passage , it would also mean that anyone who didn’t use this route is highly likely to be illegal . "Just no stopping you, we have a soap box if you want to borrow it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? You won't stop the boats till the first person is sent back. As I see it to stop the gangs you send a ship to France anyone can get on you process in French water if they are not in British Warter you can put them where you like. That could work, it gives people safe passage , it would also mean that anyone who didn’t use this route is highly likely to be illegal .
Just no stopping you, we have a soap box if you want to borrow it?"Thanks for reading all my posts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? You won't stop the boats till the first person is sent back. As I see it to stop the gangs you send a ship to France anyone can get on you process in French water if they are not in British Warter you can put them where you like. That could work, it gives people safe passage , it would also mean that anyone who didn’t use this route is highly likely to be illegal .
Just no stopping you, we have a soap box if you want to borrow it?
Thanks for reading all my posts "Only read your posts when we can’t get to sleep,   | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? You won't stop the boats till the first person is sent back. As I see it to stop the gangs you send a ship to France anyone can get on you process in French water if they are not in British Warter you can put them where you like. That could work, it gives people safe passage , it would also mean that anyone who didn’t use this route is highly likely to be illegal .
Just no stopping you, we have a soap box if you want to borrow it?
Thanks for reading all my posts
Only read your posts when we can’t get to sleep, "But you still read them, thanks again | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm glad we're talking about Labour's plan and not the Tories. Thread hijacked again by the usual characters "Who was the first person to mention the tories?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it?I don't the details of labours current plans butt they have previously suggested processing sites near to hot spots. This reduces the volumes making it to France especially if it's clear than going there instead of local processing reduces the chance of being accepted as valid. A France based site for the remainer reduces the value add of gangs. And it's on Frances interest to reduce gangs in France. One can imagine they have other illegal arms to their criminal enterprise that touches on France. Labour have also suggested how they would require different balnqces of evidence depending on what you are claiming you need asylum from and where. So an Albanian has to demonstrate religious persecution whereas an Iraqi may be taken more on face value. That feels sensible and proportional and likely to help processing times, which reduces housing issues. I'm in favour of processing sites near hot spots. I'm also in favour of evidence. I'm still not sure why France would start trying now. Where do we house them if hotels are off limits? That remains unanswered. I still don't know what 'complete overhaul' means" if you process at an offshore site, you don't need hotels. Probably need a sensible way of having a temporary site tho. France are cooperating to an extent already. I'd suggest they'd be more open if we collaborated like adults rather than via rhetoric. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it?I don't the details of labours current plans butt they have previously suggested processing sites near to hot spots. This reduces the volumes making it to France especially if it's clear than going there instead of local processing reduces the chance of being accepted as valid. A France based site for the remainer reduces the value add of gangs. And it's on Frances interest to reduce gangs in France. One can imagine they have other illegal arms to their criminal enterprise that touches on France. Labour have also suggested how they would require different balnqces of evidence depending on what you are claiming you need asylum from and where. So an Albanian has to demonstrate religious persecution whereas an Iraqi may be taken more on face value. That feels sensible and proportional and likely to help processing times, which reduces housing issues. I'm in favour of processing sites near hot spots. I'm also in favour of evidence. I'm still not sure why France would start trying now. Where do we house them if hotels are off limits? That remains unanswered. I still don't know what 'complete overhaul' meansif you process at an offshore site, you don't need hotels. Probably need a sensible way of having a temporary site tho. France are cooperating to an extent already. I'd suggest they'd be more open if we collaborated like adults rather than via rhetoric. " True, Sunak seems to have a more friendly and grown up approach to dealing with our friends in the EU, I am sure he could arrange something with Macron | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it?I don't the details of labours current plans butt they have previously suggested processing sites near to hot spots. This reduces the volumes making it to France especially if it's clear than going there instead of local processing reduces the chance of being accepted as valid. A France based site for the remainer reduces the value add of gangs. And it's on Frances interest to reduce gangs in France. One can imagine they have other illegal arms to their criminal enterprise that touches on France. Labour have also suggested how they would require different balnqces of evidence depending on what you are claiming you need asylum from and where. So an Albanian has to demonstrate religious persecution whereas an Iraqi may be taken more on face value. That feels sensible and proportional and likely to help processing times, which reduces housing issues. I'm in favour of processing sites near hot spots. I'm also in favour of evidence. I'm still not sure why France would start trying now. Where do we house them if hotels are off limits? That remains unanswered. I still don't know what 'complete overhaul' meansif you process at an offshore site, you don't need hotels. Probably need a sensible way of having a temporary site tho. France are cooperating to an extent already. I'd suggest they'd be more open if we collaborated like adults rather than via rhetoric. " We still need housing for the people accepted. Where do they go whilst awaiting housing? France had years and years to cooperate whilst we were part of the EU. How many boats do you think they stopped? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm glad we're talking about Labour's plan and not the Tories. Thread hijacked again by the usual characters
Who was the first person to mention the tories?? "Bore off mate. You spend so much time moaning about deflection and you're the worst for it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm glad we're talking about Labour's plan and not the Tories. Thread hijacked again by the usual characters
Who was the first person to mention the tories??
Bore off mate. You spend so much time moaning about deflection and you're the worst for it." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it?I don't the details of labours current plans butt they have previously suggested processing sites near to hot spots. This reduces the volumes making it to France especially if it's clear than going there instead of local processing reduces the chance of being accepted as valid. A France based site for the remainer reduces the value add of gangs. And it's on Frances interest to reduce gangs in France. One can imagine they have other illegal arms to their criminal enterprise that touches on France. Labour have also suggested how they would require different balnqces of evidence depending on what you are claiming you need asylum from and where. So an Albanian has to demonstrate religious persecution whereas an Iraqi may be taken more on face value. That feels sensible and proportional and likely to help processing times, which reduces housing issues. I'm in favour of processing sites near hot spots. I'm also in favour of evidence. I'm still not sure why France would start trying now. Where do we house them if hotels are off limits? That remains unanswered. I still don't know what 'complete overhaul' meansif you process at an offshore site, you don't need hotels. Probably need a sensible way of having a temporary site tho. France are cooperating to an extent already. I'd suggest they'd be more open if we collaborated like adults rather than via rhetoric. We still need housing for the people accepted. Where do they go whilst awaiting housing? France had years and years to cooperate whilst we were part of the EU. How many boats do you think they stopped?" that number is likely to be smaller. Especially in the scheme of wider immigration. So we could make our workforce more productive, reduce reliance on outside skills, and use that capacity. But you are moving the goalposts slightly as I was answering about the hotels used while processing. Let's not pretend that while we were part of the eu we behaved like a sensible party when it came to the channel. Brexit has made it worse. But it's never been good imo. But I dont know. But under the above scheme it makes boat crossings have zero attraction. Do it's less relevant. They did support the Calais camps tho irrc so some precedence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it?I don't the details of labours current plans butt they have previously suggested processing sites near to hot spots. This reduces the volumes making it to France especially if it's clear than going there instead of local processing reduces the chance of being accepted as valid. A France based site for the remainer reduces the value add of gangs. And it's on Frances interest to reduce gangs in France. One can imagine they have other illegal arms to their criminal enterprise that touches on France. Labour have also suggested how they would require different balnqces of evidence depending on what you are claiming you need asylum from and where. So an Albanian has to demonstrate religious persecution whereas an Iraqi may be taken more on face value. That feels sensible and proportional and likely to help processing times, which reduces housing issues. I'm in favour of processing sites near hot spots. I'm also in favour of evidence. I'm still not sure why France would start trying now. Where do we house them if hotels are off limits? That remains unanswered. I still don't know what 'complete overhaul' meansif you process at an offshore site, you don't need hotels. Probably need a sensible way of having a temporary site tho. France are cooperating to an extent already. I'd suggest they'd be more open if we collaborated like adults rather than via rhetoric. We still need housing for the people accepted. Where do they go whilst awaiting housing? France had years and years to cooperate whilst we were part of the EU. How many boats do you think they stopped?that number is likely to be smaller. Especially in the scheme of wider immigration. So we could make our workforce more productive, reduce reliance on outside skills, and use that capacity. But you are moving the goalposts slightly as I was answering about the hotels used while processing. Let's not pretend that while we were part of the eu we behaved like a sensible party when it came to the channel. Brexit has made it worse. But it's never been good imo. But I dont know. But under the above scheme it makes boat crossings have zero attraction. Do it's less relevant. They did support the Calais camps tho irrc so some precedence. " Tbh I'm struggling to understand the first paragraph. Asylum seekers/refugees need housed, yes the number will be smaller but they still need housed, where do we house them, if not hotels? I don't think anyone is pretending like we were angels, but do you think the French police stopped crossings? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it?I don't the details of labours current plans butt they have previously suggested processing sites near to hot spots. This reduces the volumes making it to France especially if it's clear than going there instead of local processing reduces the chance of being accepted as valid. A France based site for the remainer reduces the value add of gangs. And it's on Frances interest to reduce gangs in France. One can imagine they have other illegal arms to their criminal enterprise that touches on France. Labour have also suggested how they would require different balnqces of evidence depending on what you are claiming you need asylum from and where. So an Albanian has to demonstrate religious persecution whereas an Iraqi may be taken more on face value. That feels sensible and proportional and likely to help processing times, which reduces housing issues. I'm in favour of processing sites near hot spots. I'm also in favour of evidence. I'm still not sure why France would start trying now. Where do we house them if hotels are off limits? That remains unanswered. I still don't know what 'complete overhaul' meansif you process at an offshore site, you don't need hotels. Probably need a sensible way of having a temporary site tho. France are cooperating to an extent already. I'd suggest they'd be more open if we collaborated like adults rather than via rhetoric. We still need housing for the people accepted. Where do they go whilst awaiting housing? France had years and years to cooperate whilst we were part of the EU. How many boats do you think they stopped?that number is likely to be smaller. Especially in the scheme of wider immigration. So we could make our workforce more productive, reduce reliance on outside skills, and use that capacity. But you are moving the goalposts slightly as I was answering about the hotels used while processing. Let's not pretend that while we were part of the eu we behaved like a sensible party when it came to the channel. Brexit has made it worse. But it's never been good imo. But I dont know. But under the above scheme it makes boat crossings have zero attraction. Do it's less relevant. They did support the Calais camps tho irrc so some precedence. Tbh I'm struggling to understand the first paragraph. Asylum seekers/refugees need housed, yes the number will be smaller but they still need housed, where do we house them, if not hotels? I don't think anyone is pretending like we were angels, but do you think the French police stopped crossings?" where eoe we housing the 1m who immigrated in 2022? And the porobaly 1m next year. On the scheme of things asylum seekers are small. Yes, it's something to solve. But not one of the bigger challenges we have when it comes to asylum. Nor when it comes to our approach to housing. I suspect the French stopped some crossings. Indeed theres UK gov documents that say they stopped 42.5pc of people trying to cross in 2022. Our media report on the other half only. Go figure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it?I don't the details of labours current plans butt they have previously suggested processing sites near to hot spots. This reduces the volumes making it to France especially if it's clear than going there instead of local processing reduces the chance of being accepted as valid. A France based site for the remainer reduces the value add of gangs. And it's on Frances interest to reduce gangs in France. One can imagine they have other illegal arms to their criminal enterprise that touches on France. Labour have also suggested how they would require different balnqces of evidence depending on what you are claiming you need asylum from and where. So an Albanian has to demonstrate religious persecution whereas an Iraqi may be taken more on face value. That feels sensible and proportional and likely to help processing times, which reduces housing issues. I'm in favour of processing sites near hot spots. I'm also in favour of evidence. I'm still not sure why France would start trying now. Where do we house them if hotels are off limits? That remains unanswered. I still don't know what 'complete overhaul' meansif you process at an offshore site, you don't need hotels. Probably need a sensible way of having a temporary site tho. France are cooperating to an extent already. I'd suggest they'd be more open if we collaborated like adults rather than via rhetoric. We still need housing for the people accepted. Where do they go whilst awaiting housing? France had years and years to cooperate whilst we were part of the EU. How many boats do you think they stopped?that number is likely to be smaller. Especially in the scheme of wider immigration. So we could make our workforce more productive, reduce reliance on outside skills, and use that capacity. But you are moving the goalposts slightly as I was answering about the hotels used while processing. Let's not pretend that while we were part of the eu we behaved like a sensible party when it came to the channel. Brexit has made it worse. But it's never been good imo. But I dont know. But under the above scheme it makes boat crossings have zero attraction. Do it's less relevant. They did support the Calais camps tho irrc so some precedence. Tbh I'm struggling to understand the first paragraph. Asylum seekers/refugees need housed, yes the number will be smaller but they still need housed, where do we house them, if not hotels? I don't think anyone is pretending like we were angels, but do you think the French police stopped crossings?where eoe we housing the 1m who immigrated in 2022? And the porobaly 1m next year. On the scheme of things asylum seekers are small. Yes, it's something to solve. But not one of the bigger challenges we have when it comes to asylum. Nor when it comes to our approach to housing. I suspect the French stopped some crossings. Indeed theres UK gov documents that say they stopped 42.5pc of people trying to cross in 2022. Our media report on the other half only. Go figure. " I'd imagine most of that million who came here in 2022 sorted they're own accommodation, private rental sector I'd suspect. Refugees tend to have no money so wouldn't be able to access that sector. Fair enough, the French police stopped some so won't argue on that point anymore as I accept its impossible to stop all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence "If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it?I don't the details of labours current plans butt they have previously suggested processing sites near to hot spots. This reduces the volumes making it to France especially if it's clear than going there instead of local processing reduces the chance of being accepted as valid. A France based site for the remainer reduces the value add of gangs. And it's on Frances interest to reduce gangs in France. One can imagine they have other illegal arms to their criminal enterprise that touches on France. Labour have also suggested how they would require different balnqces of evidence depending on what you are claiming you need asylum from and where. So an Albanian has to demonstrate religious persecution whereas an Iraqi may be taken more on face value. That feels sensible and proportional and likely to help processing times, which reduces housing issues. I'm in favour of processing sites near hot spots. I'm also in favour of evidence. I'm still not sure why France would start trying now. Where do we house them if hotels are off limits? That remains unanswered. I still don't know what 'complete overhaul' meansif you process at an offshore site, you don't need hotels. Probably need a sensible way of having a temporary site tho. France are cooperating to an extent already. I'd suggest they'd be more open if we collaborated like adults rather than via rhetoric. We still need housing for the people accepted. Where do they go whilst awaiting housing? France had years and years to cooperate whilst we were part of the EU. How many boats do you think they stopped?that number is likely to be smaller. Especially in the scheme of wider immigration. So we could make our workforce more productive, reduce reliance on outside skills, and use that capacity. But you are moving the goalposts slightly as I was answering about the hotels used while processing. Let's not pretend that while we were part of the eu we behaved like a sensible party when it came to the channel. Brexit has made it worse. But it's never been good imo. But I dont know. But under the above scheme it makes boat crossings have zero attraction. Do it's less relevant. They did support the Calais camps tho irrc so some precedence. Tbh I'm struggling to understand the first paragraph. Asylum seekers/refugees need housed, yes the number will be smaller but they still need housed, where do we house them, if not hotels? I don't think anyone is pretending like we were angels, but do you think the French police stopped crossings?where eoe we housing the 1m who immigrated in 2022? And the porobaly 1m next year. On the scheme of things asylum seekers are small. Yes, it's something to solve. But not one of the bigger challenges we have when it comes to asylum. Nor when it comes to our approach to housing. I suspect the French stopped some crossings. Indeed theres UK gov documents that say they stopped 42.5pc of people trying to cross in 2022. Our media report on the other half only. Go figure. I'd imagine most of that million who came here in 2022 sorted they're own accommodation, private rental sector I'd suspect. Refugees tend to have no money so wouldn't be able to access that sector. Fair enough, the French police stopped some so won't argue on that point anymore as I accept its impossible to stop all." ah, so it's cost rather than housing capacity that you're focussed on. There probably is sñs short term cost ...but there is no reason to think they can't become self sufficient over time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
"You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it?I don't the details of labours current plans butt they have previously suggested processing sites near to hot spots. This reduces the volumes making it to France especially if it's clear than going there instead of local processing reduces the chance of being accepted as valid. A France based site for the remainer reduces the value add of gangs. And it's on Frances interest to reduce gangs in France. One can imagine they have other illegal arms to their criminal enterprise that touches on France. Labour have also suggested how they would require different balnqces of evidence depending on what you are claiming you need asylum from and where. So an Albanian has to demonstrate religious persecution whereas an Iraqi may be taken more on face value. That feels sensible and proportional and likely to help processing times, which reduces housing issues. I'm in favour of processing sites near hot spots. I'm also in favour of evidence. I'm still not sure why France would start trying now. Where do we house them if hotels are off limits? That remains unanswered. I still don't know what 'complete overhaul' meansif you process at an offshore site, you don't need hotels. Probably need a sensible way of having a temporary site tho. France are cooperating to an extent already. I'd suggest they'd be more open if we collaborated like adults rather than via rhetoric. We still need housing for the people accepted. Where do they go whilst awaiting housing? France had years and years to cooperate whilst we were part of the EU. How many boats do you think they stopped?that number is likely to be smaller. Especially in the scheme of wider immigration. So we could make our workforce more productive, reduce reliance on outside skills, and use that capacity. But you are moving the goalposts slightly as I was answering about the hotels used while processing. Let's not pretend that while we were part of the eu we behaved like a sensible party when it came to the channel. Brexit has made it worse. But it's never been good imo. But I dont know. But under the above scheme it makes boat crossings have zero attraction. Do it's less relevant. They did support the Calais camps tho irrc so some precedence. Tbh I'm struggling to understand the first paragraph. Asylum seekers/refugees need housed, yes the number will be smaller but they still need housed, where do we house them, if not hotels? I don't think anyone is pretending like we were angels, but do you think the French police stopped crossings?where eoe we housing the 1m who immigrated in 2022? And the porobaly 1m next year. On the scheme of things asylum seekers are small. Yes, it's something to solve. But not one of the bigger challenges we have when it comes to asylum. Nor when it comes to our approach to housing. I suspect the French stopped some crossings. Indeed theres UK gov documents that say they stopped 42.5pc of people trying to cross in 2022. Our media report on the other half only. Go figure. I'd imagine most of that million who came here in 2022 sorted they're own accommodation, private rental sector I'd suspect. Refugees tend to have no money so wouldn't be able to access that sector. Fair enough, the French police stopped some so won't argue on that point anymore as I accept its impossible to stop all.ah, so it's cost rather than housing capacity that you're focussed on. There probably is sñs short term cost ...but there is no reason to think they can't become self sufficient over time. " I'm not focused on the cost. If we housed them in the private sector that's a solution, I'm not sure the private sector would go for though, its also not one which you offered | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence "12 months ago | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence "I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
12 months ago "They’re testing the legality, I thought you would be happy about that. Let me change the question for a moment, you don’t see immigration and illegal crossings in small boats a problem. Why? And what would be your happy ever after? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal."Then why haven’t they sent anyone? Why did they have a plane ready to go? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it?I don't the details of labours current plans butt they have previously suggested processing sites near to hot spots. This reduces the volumes making it to France especially if it's clear than going there instead of local processing reduces the chance of being accepted as valid. A France based site for the remainer reduces the value add of gangs. And it's on Frances interest to reduce gangs in France. One can imagine they have other illegal arms to their criminal enterprise that touches on France. Labour have also suggested how they would require different balnqces of evidence depending on what you are claiming you need asylum from and where. So an Albanian has to demonstrate religious persecution whereas an Iraqi may be taken more on face value. That feels sensible and proportional and likely to help processing times, which reduces housing issues. I'm in favour of processing sites near hot spots. I'm also in favour of evidence. I'm still not sure why France would start trying now. Where do we house them if hotels are off limits? That remains unanswered. I still don't know what 'complete overhaul' meansif you process at an offshore site, you don't need hotels. Probably need a sensible way of having a temporary site tho. France are cooperating to an extent already. I'd suggest they'd be more open if we collaborated like adults rather than via rhetoric. We still need housing for the people accepted. Where do they go whilst awaiting housing? France had years and years to cooperate whilst we were part of the EU. How many boats do you think they stopped?that number is likely to be smaller. Especially in the scheme of wider immigration. So we could make our workforce more productive, reduce reliance on outside skills, and use that capacity. But you are moving the goalposts slightly as I was answering about the hotels used while processing. Let's not pretend that while we were part of the eu we behaved like a sensible party when it came to the channel. Brexit has made it worse. But it's never been good imo. But I dont know. But under the above scheme it makes boat crossings have zero attraction. Do it's less relevant. They did support the Calais camps tho irrc so some precedence. Tbh I'm struggling to understand the first paragraph. Asylum seekers/refugees need housed, yes the number will be smaller but they still need housed, where do we house them, if not hotels? I don't think anyone is pretending like we were angels, but do you think the French police stopped crossings?where eoe we housing the 1m who immigrated in 2022? And the porobaly 1m next year. On the scheme of things asylum seekers are small. Yes, it's something to solve. But not one of the bigger challenges we have when it comes to asylum. Nor when it comes to our approach to housing. I suspect the French stopped some crossings. Indeed theres UK gov documents that say they stopped 42.5pc of people trying to cross in 2022. Our media report on the other half only. Go figure. I'd imagine most of that million who came here in 2022 sorted they're own accommodation, private rental sector I'd suspect. Refugees tend to have no money so wouldn't be able to access that sector. Fair enough, the French police stopped some so won't argue on that point anymore as I accept its impossible to stop all.ah, so it's cost rather than housing capacity that you're focussed on. There probably is sñs short term cost ...but there is no reason to think they can't become self sufficient over time. I'm not focused on the cost. If we housed them in the private sector that's a solution, I'm not sure the private sector would go for though, its also not one which you offered " TBF i thought you were talking about the hotels for processing. And also, I'm answering in a swingers forum ! According to the red cross, once asylum is granted they can no longer stay in asylum accomodation. They need to go probate or ask the government for help. They may need more help than others. I have no idea if hotels are used for this or the current social housing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it?I don't the details of labours current plans butt they have previously suggested processing sites near to hot spots. This reduces the volumes making it to France especially if it's clear than going there instead of local processing reduces the chance of being accepted as valid. A France based site for the remainer reduces the value add of gangs. And it's on Frances interest to reduce gangs in France. One can imagine they have other illegal arms to their criminal enterprise that touches on France. Labour have also suggested how they would require different balnqces of evidence depending on what you are claiming you need asylum from and where. So an Albanian has to demonstrate religious persecution whereas an Iraqi may be taken more on face value. That feels sensible and proportional and likely to help processing times, which reduces housing issues. I'm in favour of processing sites near hot spots. I'm also in favour of evidence. I'm still not sure why France would start trying now. Where do we house them if hotels are off limits? That remains unanswered. I still don't know what 'complete overhaul' meansif you process at an offshore site, you don't need hotels. Probably need a sensible way of having a temporary site tho. France are cooperating to an extent already. I'd suggest they'd be more open if we collaborated like adults rather than via rhetoric. We still need housing for the people accepted. Where do they go whilst awaiting housing? France had years and years to cooperate whilst we were part of the EU. How many boats do you think they stopped?that number is likely to be smaller. Especially in the scheme of wider immigration. So we could make our workforce more productive, reduce reliance on outside skills, and use that capacity. But you are moving the goalposts slightly as I was answering about the hotels used while processing. Let's not pretend that while we were part of the eu we behaved like a sensible party when it came to the channel. Brexit has made it worse. But it's never been good imo. But I dont know. But under the above scheme it makes boat crossings have zero attraction. Do it's less relevant. They did support the Calais camps tho irrc so some precedence. Tbh I'm struggling to understand the first paragraph. Asylum seekers/refugees need housed, yes the number will be smaller but they still need housed, where do we house them, if not hotels? I don't think anyone is pretending like we were angels, but do you think the French police stopped crossings?where eoe we housing the 1m who immigrated in 2022? And the porobaly 1m next year. On the scheme of things asylum seekers are small. Yes, it's something to solve. But not one of the bigger challenges we have when it comes to asylum. Nor when it comes to our approach to housing. I suspect the French stopped some crossings. Indeed theres UK gov documents that say they stopped 42.5pc of people trying to cross in 2022. Our media report on the other half only. Go figure. I'd imagine most of that million who came here in 2022 sorted they're own accommodation, private rental sector I'd suspect. Refugees tend to have no money so wouldn't be able to access that sector. Fair enough, the French police stopped some so won't argue on that point anymore as I accept its impossible to stop all.ah, so it's cost rather than housing capacity that you're focussed on. There probably is sñs short term cost ...but there is no reason to think they can't become self sufficient over time. I'm not focused on the cost. If we housed them in the private sector that's a solution, I'm not sure the private sector would go for though, its also not one which you offered TBF i thought you were talking about the hotels for processing. And also, I'm answering in a swingers forum ! According to the red cross, once asylum is granted they can no longer stay in asylum accomodation. They need to go probate or ask the government for help. They may need more help than others. I have no idea if hotels are used for this or the current social housing. " Tbh, I was talking about asylum seekers but the labour plan does open it up to the wider issue of housing. I honestly don't know what happens with housing once processed and granted either. I would imagine they could be housed in different hotels/b&b like some British citizens | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal.
Then why haven’t they sent anyone? Why did they have a plane ready to go? "As I’ve mentioned before they’re are testing the legality, they know they will be challenged at every step, if they send people now and at any point in the process it is deemed illegal they will be in a position of bringing them back. This is how things work, slow and tested. I’ve answered you now let’s hear your answer to my questions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal.
Then why haven’t they sent anyone? Why did they have a plane ready to go?
As I’ve mentioned before they’re are testing the legality, they know they will be challenged at every step, if they send people now and at any point in the process it is deemed illegal they will be in a position of bringing them back. This is how things work, slow and tested.
I’ve answered you now let’s hear your answer to my questions "Fair enough, so basically they chartered a plane knowing that it couldn’t be used to deport people to Rwanda? Incompetence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal.
Then why haven’t they sent anyone? Why did they have a plane ready to go?
As I’ve mentioned before they’re are testing the legality, they know they will be challenged at every step, if they send people now and at any point in the process it is deemed illegal they will be in a position of bringing them back. This is how things work, slow and tested.
I’ve answered you now let’s hear your answer to my questions
Fair enough, so basically they chartered a plane knowing that it couldn’t be used to deport people to Rwanda? Incompetence "You do epitomise the very problem being discussed in the OP, lack of information or any real detail other than one liners
I would love to hear the reason immigration and illegal crossings are not a problem, along with costs, it could spark engagement but the number of times you’ve been asked to provide something we can discuss and failed to do so leaves us with nothing. That’s a shame | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal.
Then why haven’t they sent anyone? Why did they have a plane ready to go?
As I’ve mentioned before they’re are testing the legality, they know they will be challenged at every step, if they send people now and at any point in the process it is deemed illegal they will be in a position of bringing them back. This is how things work, slow and tested.
I’ve answered you now let’s hear your answer to my questions
Fair enough, so basically they chartered a plane knowing that it couldn’t be used to deport people to Rwanda? Incompetence
You do epitomise the very problem being discussed in the OP, lack of information or any real detail other than one liners
I would love to hear the reason immigration and illegal crossings are not a problem, along with costs, it could spark engagement but the number of times you’ve been asked to provide something we can discuss and failed to do so leaves us with nothing. That’s a shame "Braverman , in a letter to MPs has stated that there is a ‘more than 50% chance’ that it is incompatible with ECHR? Why can’t they find a solution that is 100% certain to be compatible with the ECHR? Why do they have to keep ‘testing the limits’ ?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal.
Then why haven’t they sent anyone? Why did they have a plane ready to go?
As I’ve mentioned before they’re are testing the legality, they know they will be challenged at every step, if they send people now and at any point in the process it is deemed illegal they will be in a position of bringing them back. This is how things work, slow and tested.
I’ve answered you now let’s hear your answer to my questions
Fair enough, so basically they chartered a plane knowing that it couldn’t be used to deport people to Rwanda? Incompetence
You do epitomise the very problem being discussed in the OP, lack of information or any real detail other than one liners
I would love to hear the reason immigration and illegal crossings are not a problem, along with costs, it could spark engagement but the number of times you’ve been asked to provide something we can discuss and failed to do so leaves us with nothing. That’s a shame
Braverman , in a letter to MPs has stated that there is a ‘more than 50% chance’ that it is incompatible with ECHR? Why can’t they find a solution that is 100% certain to be compatible with the ECHR? Why do they have to keep ‘testing the limits’ ?? "cynic say Tories want out for echr for *reasons* ... And this will give them public support. We'd happily cut out nose off for certain topics ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal.
Then why haven’t they sent anyone? Why did they have a plane ready to go?
As I’ve mentioned before they’re are testing the legality, they know they will be challenged at every step, if they send people now and at any point in the process it is deemed illegal they will be in a position of bringing them back. This is how things work, slow and tested.
I’ve answered you now let’s hear your answer to my questions
Fair enough, so basically they chartered a plane knowing that it couldn’t be used to deport people to Rwanda? Incompetence
You do epitomise the very problem being discussed in the OP, lack of information or any real detail other than one liners
I would love to hear the reason immigration and illegal crossings are not a problem, along with costs, it could spark engagement but the number of times you’ve been asked to provide something we can discuss and failed to do so leaves us with nothing. That’s a shame
Braverman , in a letter to MPs has stated that there is a ‘more than 50% chance’ that it is incompatible with ECHR? Why can’t they find a solution that is 100% certain to be compatible with the ECHR? Why do they have to keep ‘testing the limits’ ?? cynic say Tories want out for echr for *reasons* ... And this will give them public support. We'd happily cut out nose off for certain topics ..."Leaving the ECHR would be a massive mistake , especially over this issue | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal.
Then why haven’t they sent anyone? Why did they have a plane ready to go?
As I’ve mentioned before they’re are testing the legality, they know they will be challenged at every step, if they send people now and at any point in the process it is deemed illegal they will be in a position of bringing them back. This is how things work, slow and tested.
I’ve answered you now let’s hear your answer to my questions
Fair enough, so basically they chartered a plane knowing that it couldn’t be used to deport people to Rwanda? Incompetence
You do epitomise the very problem being discussed in the OP, lack of information or any real detail other than one liners
I would love to hear the reason immigration and illegal crossings are not a problem, along with costs, it could spark engagement but the number of times you’ve been asked to provide something we can discuss and failed to do so leaves us with nothing. That’s a shame
Braverman , in a letter to MPs has stated that there is a ‘more than 50% chance’ that it is incompatible with ECHR? Why can’t they find a solution that is 100% certain to be compatible with the ECHR? Why do they have to keep ‘testing the limits’ ?? cynic say Tories want out for echr for *reasons* ... And this will give them public support. We'd happily cut out nose off for certain topics ...
Leaving the ECHR would be a massive mistake , especially over this issue "agree.
I suspect many others won't because they will only be shown the echr getting in the way, not protecting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal.
Then why haven’t they sent anyone? Why did they have a plane ready to go?
As I’ve mentioned before they’re are testing the legality, they know they will be challenged at every step, if they send people now and at any point in the process it is deemed illegal they will be in a position of bringing them back. This is how things work, slow and tested.
I’ve answered you now let’s hear your answer to my questions
Fair enough, so basically they chartered a plane knowing that it couldn’t be used to deport people to Rwanda? Incompetence
You do epitomise the very problem being discussed in the OP, lack of information or any real detail other than one liners
I would love to hear the reason immigration and illegal crossings are not a problem, along with costs, it could spark engagement but the number of times you’ve been asked to provide something we can discuss and failed to do so leaves us with nothing. That’s a shame
Braverman , in a letter to MPs has stated that there is a ‘more than 50% chance’ that it is incompatible with ECHR? Why can’t they find a solution that is 100% certain to be compatible with the ECHR? Why do they have to keep ‘testing the limits’ ?? cynic say Tories want out for echr for *reasons* ... And this will give them public support. We'd happily cut out nose off for certain topics ...
Leaving the ECHR would be a massive mistake , especially over this issue agree.
I suspect many others won't because they will only be shown the echr getting in the way, not protecting. "You have both changed the topic to what the tories are doing again, the question is what do we think about labour’s ideas to tackle this problem. What do you think? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal.
Then why haven’t they sent anyone? Why did they have a plane ready to go?
As I’ve mentioned before they’re are testing the legality, they know they will be challenged at every step, if they send people now and at any point in the process it is deemed illegal they will be in a position of bringing them back. This is how things work, slow and tested.
I’ve answered you now let’s hear your answer to my questions
Fair enough, so basically they chartered a plane knowing that it couldn’t be used to deport people to Rwanda? Incompetence
You do epitomise the very problem being discussed in the OP, lack of information or any real detail other than one liners
I would love to hear the reason immigration and illegal crossings are not a problem, along with costs, it could spark engagement but the number of times you’ve been asked to provide something we can discuss and failed to do so leaves us with nothing. That’s a shame
Braverman , in a letter to MPs has stated that there is a ‘more than 50% chance’ that it is incompatible with ECHR? Why can’t they find a solution that is 100% certain to be compatible with the ECHR? Why do they have to keep ‘testing the limits’ ?? cynic say Tories want out for echr for *reasons* ... And this will give them public support. We'd happily cut out nose off for certain topics ...
Leaving the ECHR would be a massive mistake , especially over this issue agree.
I suspect many others won't because they will only be shown the echr getting in the way, not protecting.
You have both changed the topic to what the tories are doing again, the question is what do we think about labour’s ideas to tackle this problem.
What do you think? "Tbf, Hovis engaged, quite a bit actually. Did you expect anything else from our GM friend? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal.
Then why haven’t they sent anyone? Why did they have a plane ready to go?
As I’ve mentioned before they’re are testing the legality, they know they will be challenged at every step, if they send people now and at any point in the process it is deemed illegal they will be in a position of bringing them back. This is how things work, slow and tested.
I’ve answered you now let’s hear your answer to my questions
Fair enough, so basically they chartered a plane knowing that it couldn’t be used to deport people to Rwanda? Incompetence
You do epitomise the very problem being discussed in the OP, lack of information or any real detail other than one liners
I would love to hear the reason immigration and illegal crossings are not a problem, along with costs, it could spark engagement but the number of times you’ve been asked to provide something we can discuss and failed to do so leaves us with nothing. That’s a shame
Braverman , in a letter to MPs has stated that there is a ‘more than 50% chance’ that it is incompatible with ECHR? Why can’t they find a solution that is 100% certain to be compatible with the ECHR? Why do they have to keep ‘testing the limits’ ?? cynic say Tories want out for echr for *reasons* ... And this will give them public support. We'd happily cut out nose off for certain topics ...
Leaving the ECHR would be a massive mistake , especially over this issue agree.
I suspect many others won't because they will only be shown the echr getting in the way, not protecting. "It is a desperate state of affairs when a British government has to potentially resort to leaving the ECHR because they can’t find a solution that is within Human rights law | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal.
Then why haven’t they sent anyone? Why did they have a plane ready to go?
As I’ve mentioned before they’re are testing the legality, they know they will be challenged at every step, if they send people now and at any point in the process it is deemed illegal they will be in a position of bringing them back. This is how things work, slow and tested.
I’ve answered you now let’s hear your answer to my questions
Fair enough, so basically they chartered a plane knowing that it couldn’t be used to deport people to Rwanda? Incompetence
You do epitomise the very problem being discussed in the OP, lack of information or any real detail other than one liners
I would love to hear the reason immigration and illegal crossings are not a problem, along with costs, it could spark engagement but the number of times you’ve been asked to provide something we can discuss and failed to do so leaves us with nothing. That’s a shame
Braverman , in a letter to MPs has stated that there is a ‘more than 50% chance’ that it is incompatible with ECHR? Why can’t they find a solution that is 100% certain to be compatible with the ECHR? Why do they have to keep ‘testing the limits’ ?? cynic say Tories want out for echr for *reasons* ... And this will give them public support. We'd happily cut out nose off for certain topics ...
Leaving the ECHR would be a massive mistake , especially over this issue agree.
I suspect many others won't because they will only be shown the echr getting in the way, not protecting.
You have both changed the topic to what the tories are doing again, the question is what do we think about labour’s ideas to tackle this problem.
What do you think? "Second post, read it . Are you in favour of leaving the ECHR? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal.
Then why haven’t they sent anyone? Why did they have a plane ready to go?
As I’ve mentioned before they’re are testing the legality, they know they will be challenged at every step, if they send people now and at any point in the process it is deemed illegal they will be in a position of bringing them back. This is how things work, slow and tested.
I’ve answered you now let’s hear your answer to my questions
Fair enough, so basically they chartered a plane knowing that it couldn’t be used to deport people to Rwanda? Incompetence
You do epitomise the very problem being discussed in the OP, lack of information or any real detail other than one liners
I would love to hear the reason immigration and illegal crossings are not a problem, along with costs, it could spark engagement but the number of times you’ve been asked to provide something we can discuss and failed to do so leaves us with nothing. That’s a shame
Braverman , in a letter to MPs has stated that there is a ‘more than 50% chance’ that it is incompatible with ECHR? Why can’t they find a solution that is 100% certain to be compatible with the ECHR? Why do they have to keep ‘testing the limits’ ?? cynic say Tories want out for echr for *reasons* ... And this will give them public support. We'd happily cut out nose off for certain topics ...
Leaving the ECHR would be a massive mistake , especially over this issue agree.
I suspect many others won't because they will only be shown the echr getting in the way, not protecting.
You have both changed the topic to what the tories are doing again, the question is what do we think about labour’s ideas to tackle this problem.
What do you think?
Tbf, Hovis engaged, quite a bit actually. Did you expect anything else from our GM friend?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal.
Then why haven’t they sent anyone? Why did they have a plane ready to go?
As I’ve mentioned before they’re are testing the legality, they know they will be challenged at every step, if they send people now and at any point in the process it is deemed illegal they will be in a position of bringing them back. This is how things work, slow and tested.
I’ve answered you now let’s hear your answer to my questions
Fair enough, so basically they chartered a plane knowing that it couldn’t be used to deport people to Rwanda? Incompetence
You do epitomise the very problem being discussed in the OP, lack of information or any real detail other than one liners
I would love to hear the reason immigration and illegal crossings are not a problem, along with costs, it could spark engagement but the number of times you’ve been asked to provide something we can discuss and failed to do so leaves us with nothing. That’s a shame
Braverman , in a letter to MPs has stated that there is a ‘more than 50% chance’ that it is incompatible with ECHR? Why can’t they find a solution that is 100% certain to be compatible with the ECHR? Why do they have to keep ‘testing the limits’ ?? cynic say Tories want out for echr for *reasons* ... And this will give them public support. We'd happily cut out nose off for certain topics ...
Leaving the ECHR would be a massive mistake , especially over this issue agree.
I suspect many others won't because they will only be shown the echr getting in the way, not protecting.
You have both changed the topic to what the tories are doing again, the question is what do we think about labour’s ideas to tackle this problem.
What do you think?
Second post, read it . Are you in favour of leaving the ECHR? "Not given the ECHR any thought, I will when it’s time to do so. Labours policy is better than tories exactly how? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal.
Then why haven’t they sent anyone? Why did they have a plane ready to go?
As I’ve mentioned before they’re are testing the legality, they know they will be challenged at every step, if they send people now and at any point in the process it is deemed illegal they will be in a position of bringing them back. This is how things work, slow and tested.
I’ve answered you now let’s hear your answer to my questions
Fair enough, so basically they chartered a plane knowing that it couldn’t be used to deport people to Rwanda? Incompetence
You do epitomise the very problem being discussed in the OP, lack of information or any real detail other than one liners
I would love to hear the reason immigration and illegal crossings are not a problem, along with costs, it could spark engagement but the number of times you’ve been asked to provide something we can discuss and failed to do so leaves us with nothing. That’s a shame
Braverman , in a letter to MPs has stated that there is a ‘more than 50% chance’ that it is incompatible with ECHR? Why can’t they find a solution that is 100% certain to be compatible with the ECHR? Why do they have to keep ‘testing the limits’ ?? cynic say Tories want out for echr for *reasons* ... And this will give them public support. We'd happily cut out nose off for certain topics ...
Leaving the ECHR would be a massive mistake , especially over this issue agree.
I suspect many others won't because they will only be shown the echr getting in the way, not protecting.
You have both changed the topic to what the tories are doing again, the question is what do we think about labour’s ideas to tackle this problem.
What do you think?
Second post, read it . Are you in favour of leaving the ECHR?
Not given the ECHR any thought, I will when it’s time to do so.
Labours policy is better than tories exactly how?
"Labours policy has zero chance of breaking ECHR laws | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal.
Then why haven’t they sent anyone? Why did they have a plane ready to go?
As I’ve mentioned before they’re are testing the legality, they know they will be challenged at every step, if they send people now and at any point in the process it is deemed illegal they will be in a position of bringing them back. This is how things work, slow and tested.
I’ve answered you now let’s hear your answer to my questions
Fair enough, so basically they chartered a plane knowing that it couldn’t be used to deport people to Rwanda? Incompetence
You do epitomise the very problem being discussed in the OP, lack of information or any real detail other than one liners
I would love to hear the reason immigration and illegal crossings are not a problem, along with costs, it could spark engagement but the number of times you’ve been asked to provide something we can discuss and failed to do so leaves us with nothing. That’s a shame
Braverman , in a letter to MPs has stated that there is a ‘more than 50% chance’ that it is incompatible with ECHR? Why can’t they find a solution that is 100% certain to be compatible with the ECHR? Why do they have to keep ‘testing the limits’ ?? cynic say Tories want out for echr for *reasons* ... And this will give them public support. We'd happily cut out nose off for certain topics ...
Leaving the ECHR would be a massive mistake , especially over this issue agree.
I suspect many others won't because they will only be shown the echr getting in the way, not protecting.
You have both changed the topic to what the tories are doing again, the question is what do we think about labour’s ideas to tackle this problem.
What do you think?
Second post, read it . Are you in favour of leaving the ECHR?
Not given the ECHR any thought, I will when it’s time to do so.
Labours policy is better than tories exactly how?
Labours policy has zero chance of breaking ECHR laws "We don't know that because as you pointed out yourself, we don't know the details yet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal.
Then why haven’t they sent anyone? Why did they have a plane ready to go?
As I’ve mentioned before they’re are testing the legality, they know they will be challenged at every step, if they send people now and at any point in the process it is deemed illegal they will be in a position of bringing them back. This is how things work, slow and tested.
I’ve answered you now let’s hear your answer to my questions
Fair enough, so basically they chartered a plane knowing that it couldn’t be used to deport people to Rwanda? Incompetence
You do epitomise the very problem being discussed in the OP, lack of information or any real detail other than one liners
I would love to hear the reason immigration and illegal crossings are not a problem, along with costs, it could spark engagement but the number of times you’ve been asked to provide something we can discuss and failed to do so leaves us with nothing. That’s a shame
Braverman , in a letter to MPs has stated that there is a ‘more than 50% chance’ that it is incompatible with ECHR? Why can’t they find a solution that is 100% certain to be compatible with the ECHR? Why do they have to keep ‘testing the limits’ ?? cynic say Tories want out for echr for *reasons* ... And this will give them public support. We'd happily cut out nose off for certain topics ...
Leaving the ECHR would be a massive mistake , especially over this issue agree.
I suspect many others won't because they will only be shown the echr getting in the way, not protecting.
You have both changed the topic to what the tories are doing again, the question is what do we think about labour’s ideas to tackle this problem.
What do you think?
Second post, read it . Are you in favour of leaving the ECHR?
Not given the ECHR any thought, I will when it’s time to do so.
Labours policy is better than tories exactly how?
Labours policy has zero chance of breaking ECHR laws " fair enough, you don’t know other than it must be better that Tory ideas
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal.
Then why haven’t they sent anyone? Why did they have a plane ready to go?
As I’ve mentioned before they’re are testing the legality, they know they will be challenged at every step, if they send people now and at any point in the process it is deemed illegal they will be in a position of bringing them back. This is how things work, slow and tested.
I’ve answered you now let’s hear your answer to my questions
Fair enough, so basically they chartered a plane knowing that it couldn’t be used to deport people to Rwanda? Incompetence
You do epitomise the very problem being discussed in the OP, lack of information or any real detail other than one liners
I would love to hear the reason immigration and illegal crossings are not a problem, along with costs, it could spark engagement but the number of times you’ve been asked to provide something we can discuss and failed to do so leaves us with nothing. That’s a shame
Braverman , in a letter to MPs has stated that there is a ‘more than 50% chance’ that it is incompatible with ECHR? Why can’t they find a solution that is 100% certain to be compatible with the ECHR? Why do they have to keep ‘testing the limits’ ?? cynic say Tories want out for echr for *reasons* ... And this will give them public support. We'd happily cut out nose off for certain topics ...
Leaving the ECHR would be a massive mistake , especially over this issue agree.
I suspect many others won't because they will only be shown the echr getting in the way, not protecting.
You have both changed the topic to what the tories are doing again, the question is what do we think about labour’s ideas to tackle this problem.
What do you think?
Second post, read it . Are you in favour of leaving the ECHR?
Not given the ECHR any thought, I will when it’s time to do so.
Labours policy is better than tories exactly how?
Labours policy has zero chance of breaking ECHR laws fair enough, you don’t know other than it must be better that Tory ideas
"So you want to the government to break ECHR law? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm glad we're talking about Labour's plan and not the Tories. Thread hijacked again by the usual characters "No plan will work until you return 1 until then stop the gangs and the profit from trafficking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal.
Then why haven’t they sent anyone? Why did they have a plane ready to go?
As I’ve mentioned before they’re are testing the legality, they know they will be challenged at every step, if they send people now and at any point in the process it is deemed illegal they will be in a position of bringing them back. This is how things work, slow and tested.
I’ve answered you now let’s hear your answer to my questions
Fair enough, so basically they chartered a plane knowing that it couldn’t be used to deport people to Rwanda? Incompetence
You do epitomise the very problem being discussed in the OP, lack of information or any real detail other than one liners
I would love to hear the reason immigration and illegal crossings are not a problem, along with costs, it could spark engagement but the number of times you’ve been asked to provide something we can discuss and failed to do so leaves us with nothing. That’s a shame
Braverman , in a letter to MPs has stated that there is a ‘more than 50% chance’ that it is incompatible with ECHR? Why can’t they find a solution that is 100% certain to be compatible with the ECHR? Why do they have to keep ‘testing the limits’ ?? cynic say Tories want out for echr for *reasons* ... And this will give them public support. We'd happily cut out nose off for certain topics ...
Leaving the ECHR would be a massive mistake , especially over this issue agree.
I suspect many others won't because they will only be shown the echr getting in the way, not protecting.
You have both changed the topic to what the tories are doing again, the question is what do we think about labour’s ideas to tackle this problem.
What do you think?
Second post, read it . Are you in favour of leaving the ECHR?
Not given the ECHR any thought, I will when it’s time to do so.
Labours policy is better than tories exactly how?
Labours policy has zero chance of breaking ECHR laws
We don't know that because as you pointed out yourself, we don't know the details yet."According to braverman it has more than a 50 % chance , how long will it take for then to ‘test the limits’ it’s already been 12 months | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal.
Then why haven’t they sent anyone? Why did they have a plane ready to go?
As I’ve mentioned before they’re are testing the legality, they know they will be challenged at every step, if they send people now and at any point in the process it is deemed illegal they will be in a position of bringing them back. This is how things work, slow and tested.
I’ve answered you now let’s hear your answer to my questions
Fair enough, so basically they chartered a plane knowing that it couldn’t be used to deport people to Rwanda? Incompetence
You do epitomise the very problem being discussed in the OP, lack of information or any real detail other than one liners
I would love to hear the reason immigration and illegal crossings are not a problem, along with costs, it could spark engagement but the number of times you’ve been asked to provide something we can discuss and failed to do so leaves us with nothing. That’s a shame
Braverman , in a letter to MPs has stated that there is a ‘more than 50% chance’ that it is incompatible with ECHR? Why can’t they find a solution that is 100% certain to be compatible with the ECHR? Why do they have to keep ‘testing the limits’ ?? cynic say Tories want out for echr for *reasons* ... And this will give them public support. We'd happily cut out nose off for certain topics ...
Leaving the ECHR would be a massive mistake , especially over this issue agree.
I suspect many others won't because they will only be shown the echr getting in the way, not protecting.
You have both changed the topic to what the tories are doing again, the question is what do we think about labour’s ideas to tackle this problem.
What do you think?
Second post, read it . Are you in favour of leaving the ECHR?
Not given the ECHR any thought, I will when it’s time to do so.
Labours policy is better than tories exactly how?
Labours policy has zero chance of breaking ECHR laws
We don't know that because as you pointed out yourself, we don't know the details yet.
According to braverman it has more than a 50 % chance , how long will it take for then to ‘test the limits’ it’s already been 12 months "Why are you talking about Braverman? we're talking about Labour's plan | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal.
Then why haven’t they sent anyone? Why did they have a plane ready to go?
As I’ve mentioned before they’re are testing the legality, they know they will be challenged at every step, if they send people now and at any point in the process it is deemed illegal they will be in a position of bringing them back. This is how things work, slow and tested.
I’ve answered you now let’s hear your answer to my questions
Fair enough, so basically they chartered a plane knowing that it couldn’t be used to deport people to Rwanda? Incompetence
You do epitomise the very problem being discussed in the OP, lack of information or any real detail other than one liners
I would love to hear the reason immigration and illegal crossings are not a problem, along with costs, it could spark engagement but the number of times you’ve been asked to provide something we can discuss and failed to do so leaves us with nothing. That’s a shame
Braverman , in a letter to MPs has stated that there is a ‘more than 50% chance’ that it is incompatible with ECHR? Why can’t they find a solution that is 100% certain to be compatible with the ECHR? Why do they have to keep ‘testing the limits’ ?? cynic say Tories want out for echr for *reasons* ... And this will give them public support. We'd happily cut out nose off for certain topics ...
Leaving the ECHR would be a massive mistake , especially over this issue agree.
I suspect many others won't because they will only be shown the echr getting in the way, not protecting.
You have both changed the topic to what the tories are doing again, the question is what do we think about labour’s ideas to tackle this problem.
What do you think?
Second post, read it . Are you in favour of leaving the ECHR?
Not given the ECHR any thought, I will when it’s time to do so.
Labours policy is better than tories exactly how?
Labours policy has zero chance of breaking ECHR laws
We don't know that because as you pointed out yourself, we don't know the details yet.
According to braverman it has more than a 50 % chance , how long will it take for then to ‘test the limits’ it’s already been 12 months
Why are you talking about Braverman? we're talking about Labour's plan"Ah yes. My apologies Let me know when Yvette Cooper sends a letter to fellow labour MPs stating that her plan has over a 50% chance of breaking ECHR law | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal.
Then why haven’t they sent anyone? Why did they have a plane ready to go?
As I’ve mentioned before they’re are testing the legality, they know they will be challenged at every step, if they send people now and at any point in the process it is deemed illegal they will be in a position of bringing them back. This is how things work, slow and tested.
I’ve answered you now let’s hear your answer to my questions
Fair enough, so basically they chartered a plane knowing that it couldn’t be used to deport people to Rwanda? Incompetence
You do epitomise the very problem being discussed in the OP, lack of information or any real detail other than one liners
I would love to hear the reason immigration and illegal crossings are not a problem, along with costs, it could spark engagement but the number of times you’ve been asked to provide something we can discuss and failed to do so leaves us with nothing. That’s a shame
Braverman , in a letter to MPs has stated that there is a ‘more than 50% chance’ that it is incompatible with ECHR? Why can’t they find a solution that is 100% certain to be compatible with the ECHR? Why do they have to keep ‘testing the limits’ ?? cynic say Tories want out for echr for *reasons* ... And this will give them public support. We'd happily cut out nose off for certain topics ...
Leaving the ECHR would be a massive mistake , especially over this issue agree.
I suspect many others won't because they will only be shown the echr getting in the way, not protecting.
You have both changed the topic to what the tories are doing again, the question is what do we think about labour’s ideas to tackle this problem.
What do you think?
Second post, read it . Are you in favour of leaving the ECHR?
Not given the ECHR any thought, I will when it’s time to do so.
Labours policy is better than tories exactly how?
Labours policy has zero chance of breaking ECHR laws
We don't know that because as you pointed out yourself, we don't know the details yet.
According to braverman it has more than a 50 % chance , how long will it take for then to ‘test the limits’ it’s already been 12 months
Why are you talking about Braverman? we're talking about Labour's plan
Ah yes. My apologies Let me know when Yvette Cooper sends a letter to fellow labour MPs stating that her plan has over a 50% chance of breaking ECHR law "Why would I let you know? You claimed it has zero chance. I responded with we don't know that. Your debating skills definitely need serious work  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal.
Then why haven’t they sent anyone? Why did they have a plane ready to go?
As I’ve mentioned before they’re are testing the legality, they know they will be challenged at every step, if they send people now and at any point in the process it is deemed illegal they will be in a position of bringing them back. This is how things work, slow and tested.
I’ve answered you now let’s hear your answer to my questions
Fair enough, so basically they chartered a plane knowing that it couldn’t be used to deport people to Rwanda? Incompetence
You do epitomise the very problem being discussed in the OP, lack of information or any real detail other than one liners
I would love to hear the reason immigration and illegal crossings are not a problem, along with costs, it could spark engagement but the number of times you’ve been asked to provide something we can discuss and failed to do so leaves us with nothing. That’s a shame
Braverman , in a letter to MPs has stated that there is a ‘more than 50% chance’ that it is incompatible with ECHR? Why can’t they find a solution that is 100% certain to be compatible with the ECHR? Why do they have to keep ‘testing the limits’ ?? cynic say Tories want out for echr for *reasons* ... And this will give them public support. We'd happily cut out nose off for certain topics ...
Leaving the ECHR would be a massive mistake , especially over this issue agree.
I suspect many others won't because they will only be shown the echr getting in the way, not protecting.
You have both changed the topic to what the tories are doing again, the question is what do we think about labour’s ideas to tackle this problem.
What do you think?
Second post, read it . Are you in favour of leaving the ECHR?
Not given the ECHR any thought, I will when it’s time to do so.
Labours policy is better than tories exactly how?
Labours policy has zero chance of breaking ECHR laws
We don't know that because as you pointed out yourself, we don't know the details yet.
According to braverman it has more than a 50 % chance , how long will it take for then to ‘test the limits’ it’s already been 12 months
Why are you talking about Braverman? we're talking about Labour's plan
Ah yes. My apologies Let me know when Yvette Cooper sends a letter to fellow labour MPs stating that her plan has over a 50% chance of breaking ECHR law
Why would I let you know? You claimed it has zero chance. I responded with we don't know that.
Your debating skills definitely need serious work "It has zero chance, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal.
Then why haven’t they sent anyone? Why did they have a plane ready to go?
As I’ve mentioned before they’re are testing the legality, they know they will be challenged at every step, if they send people now and at any point in the process it is deemed illegal they will be in a position of bringing them back. This is how things work, slow and tested.
I’ve answered you now let’s hear your answer to my questions
Fair enough, so basically they chartered a plane knowing that it couldn’t be used to deport people to Rwanda? Incompetence
You do epitomise the very problem being discussed in the OP, lack of information or any real detail other than one liners
I would love to hear the reason immigration and illegal crossings are not a problem, along with costs, it could spark engagement but the number of times you’ve been asked to provide something we can discuss and failed to do so leaves us with nothing. That’s a shame
Braverman , in a letter to MPs has stated that there is a ‘more than 50% chance’ that it is incompatible with ECHR? Why can’t they find a solution that is 100% certain to be compatible with the ECHR? Why do they have to keep ‘testing the limits’ ?? cynic say Tories want out for echr for *reasons* ... And this will give them public support. We'd happily cut out nose off for certain topics ...
Leaving the ECHR would be a massive mistake , especially over this issue agree.
I suspect many others won't because they will only be shown the echr getting in the way, not protecting.
You have both changed the topic to what the tories are doing again, the question is what do we think about labour’s ideas to tackle this problem.
What do you think?
Second post, read it . Are you in favour of leaving the ECHR?
Not given the ECHR any thought, I will when it’s time to do so.
Labours policy is better than tories exactly how?
Labours policy has zero chance of breaking ECHR laws
We don't know that because as you pointed out yourself, we don't know the details yet.
According to braverman it has more than a 50 % chance , how long will it take for then to ‘test the limits’ it’s already been 12 months
Why are you talking about Braverman? we're talking about Labour's plan
Ah yes. My apologies Let me know when Yvette Cooper sends a letter to fellow labour MPs stating that her plan has over a 50% chance of breaking ECHR law
Why would I let you know? You claimed it has zero chance. I responded with we don't know that.
Your debating skills definitely need serious work
It has zero chance, "As I previously stated. You said we don't know the details. I'd prefer facts over your best guess. I'd also hazard a guess that Labour will be much more careful with any laws but don't state something as fact when in actual fact its not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? They are gifting the tories And the tories are gifting the reform party
Who the Tories are gifting doesn't matter, this thread is about Labour's plan
That was compared to the tories plan,
We're not comparing the Tory plan to the Reform plan.
This thread is about Labour's plan. It's quite clear.
Then why don’t you take issue with the poster who mentioned the tories?
He said Labour were gifting the Tories. Do you need it spelt out for you.
I do notice you don't have much to say on the actual topic
Have I broken any forum rules? Anyway, the second poster put it better than I could, you should read his post
Did I say you broke rules?
Come on, give us your view on it seeing as you support 'the plan'
It is a better plan than the alternative (tories) , read Hovis post, I agree with everything he wrote
No opinion of your own then? Not much round here is new, is it
The no real opinion is probably because he has said he doesn’t see immigration / the numbers making the crossing as a problem in other posts, I guess it then becomes a policy choice for the least amount of change to the situation? It would be good to see some answers on this
True, I don’t see at as a big problem, but I think labours plan is better than the tories, bare in mind they promised us a year ago that Rwanda scheme would work , it didn’t .
It is being challenged through the courts, when it has got to a point that proves it either is legal or not, then you can say it has worked or not.
This is always going to be the course these policies take.
Seeing £billions of tax payers money being spent on illegal boat crossings should in my opinion be something to be concerned about. You don’t have skin in the game as long as nothing changes, which is a strange place to be on such an important issue.
I do want things to change, I want the asylum process to improve, the tories told us 12 months ago that the Rwanda scheme was legal and there would be no problems deporting people? Why did they get it so badly wrong?
How have they got Rwanda wrong?
Because they haven’t sent anyone , they promised they would over a year ago, incompetence
If they sent a person to Rwanda without having tested the legality of the policy you would be shouting from the rafters about Tory bullying and illegal policies. You can’t seem to find a middle ground that allows a more rounded view on this.
You’re missing the point, they said it was legal and they even had a plane ready to go, incompetence
I’m afraid you’re wrong… it has not been proven illegal, it has been proven to be legal.
Then why haven’t they sent anyone? Why did they have a plane ready to go?
As I’ve mentioned before they’re are testing the legality, they know they will be challenged at every step, if they send people now and at any point in the process it is deemed illegal they will be in a position of bringing them back. This is how things work, slow and tested.
I’ve answered you now let’s hear your answer to my questions
Fair enough, so basically they chartered a plane knowing that it couldn’t be used to deport people to Rwanda? Incompetence
You do epitomise the very problem being discussed in the OP, lack of information or any real detail other than one liners
I would love to hear the reason immigration and illegal crossings are not a problem, along with costs, it could spark engagement but the number of times you’ve been asked to provide something we can discuss and failed to do so leaves us with nothing. That’s a shame
Braverman , in a letter to MPs has stated that there is a ‘more than 50% chance’ that it is incompatible with ECHR? Why can’t they find a solution that is 100% certain to be compatible with the ECHR? Why do they have to keep ‘testing the limits’ ?? cynic say Tories want out for echr for *reasons* ... And this will give them public support. We'd happily cut out nose off for certain topics ...
Leaving the ECHR would be a massive mistake , especially over this issue agree.
I suspect many others won't because they will only be shown the echr getting in the way, not protecting.
You have both changed the topic to what the tories are doing again, the question is what do we think about labour’s ideas to tackle this problem.
What do you think?
Second post, read it . Are you in favour of leaving the ECHR?
Not given the ECHR any thought, I will when it’s time to do so.
Labours policy is better than tories exactly how?
Labours policy has zero chance of breaking ECHR laws
We don't know that because as you pointed out yourself, we don't know the details yet.
According to braverman it has more than a 50 % chance , how long will it take for then to ‘test the limits’ it’s already been 12 months
Why are you talking about Braverman? we're talking about Labour's plan
Ah yes. My apologies Let me know when Yvette Cooper sends a letter to fellow labour MPs stating that her plan has over a 50% chance of breaking ECHR law
Why would I let you know? You claimed it has zero chance. I responded with we don't know that.
Your debating skills definitely need serious work
It has zero chance,
As I previously stated. You said we don't know the details. I'd prefer facts over your best guess.
I'd also hazard a guess that Labour will be much more careful with any laws but don't state something as fact when in actual fact its not."It has zero chance of breaking ECHR law, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Getting back on topic for a second. Labour is setting itself up for a fall, they’ve got no policy, hot air a few if’s but’s and maybes if we are lucky. The Tories are leading them down the path just like this thread, they will be arguing about everything other than what they’ve got. This is exactly what the tories want and I’m pleasantly surprised Sunak seems to be proving to be a political force. This is a true test for SKS, and he needs it" I do wish we could stay on topic. I'll tell you though, it's noticeable that almost no one has anything to say on this topic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it?" It's very vague and has many unknowns but I suspect that is deliberate to try to dodge scrutiny. It's tricky to judge a plan that lacks details and seems to create more questions than it answers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cant trust Labour or its leader on anything. For example Sir Keir howls rage over the governments plans to send migrants to Rwanda but yet the same man won't allow the deportation of criminals." I don't follow. That appears entirely consistent especially given both tend to come down to rule of law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cant trust Labour or its leader on anything. For example Sir Keir howls rage over the governments plans to send migrants to Rwanda but yet the same man won't allow the deportation of criminals." Keir Starmer is in charge of foreign national criminals? Bold claim. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well my point is sorry is he talks about being tough on crime but he once appealed a flight containing several foreign criminals who went on to reoffend in the country. To me thats opposite of being tough on crime" I'm not quite sure what story you are on about, but being tough on crime doesnt excuses unlawfulness. It's a hard balance tbf. But our government should act within the law imo. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well my point is sorry is he talks about being tough on crime but he once appealed a flight containing several foreign criminals who went on to reoffend in the country. To me thats opposite of being tough on crime" Do you have the details of this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well my point is sorry is he talks about being tough on crime but he once appealed a flight containing several foreign criminals who went on to reoffend in the country. To me thats opposite of being tough on crime Do you have the details of this?" labour leader signed letter in 2020 calling for 50 dangerous offenders not to be deported on a flite to Jamaica. After, 7 of them went on to committ more violent or drug-related crimes. Two women battered by 1 of the 7, it's in all the papers. Also senior labour MPs and celebritys helped keep offender Ernesto Elliott in Britain before he murdered a man in knife fight in June 2021. Why we going soft on crime | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well my point is sorry is he talks about being tough on crime but he once appealed a flight containing several foreign criminals who went on to reoffend in the country. To me thats opposite of being tough on crime Do you have the details of this? labour leader signed letter in 2020 calling for 50 dangerous offenders not to be deported on a flite to Jamaica. After, 7 of them went on to committ more violent or drug-related crimes. Two women battered by 1 of the 7, it's in all the papers. Also senior labour MPs and celebritys helped keep offender Ernesto Elliott in Britain before he murdered a man in knife fight in June 2021. Why we going soft on crime " I have just a read about this, Starmer's historically less than tough stance on criminals seems at odds to his future ambitions of halving crimes against women. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Without boarders which are a man made construct, immigration as a word would not exist. If I told you that there is a line in the ground which you couldn't see and told you to stay within those lines, and if you left you must have paperwork and return when said you would. And that anyone entering my line, would be held in a camp and treated like a criminal. Would you? Would you stay within my lines? I do not think that this is about keeping people out but rather to keep us in. There is actually a British movie on the subject, an old ealing comedy. " Borders are tribal and mark territory held by the tribe. Borders allow the tribe to live as the tribe wishes, they also provide others guidance in how to behave or what laws may have changed as they enter and leave the borders. Borders offer security. Nothing has changed over thousands of years, borders and territory were needed and will still be needed until such a time globally humans can follow the same guiding principles on all things life. They are going to be here for a very long time | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Without boarders which are a man made construct, immigration as a word would not exist. If I told you that there is a line in the ground which you couldn't see and told you to stay within those lines, and if you left you must have paperwork and return when said you would. And that anyone entering my line, would be held in a camp and treated like a criminal. Would you? Would you stay within my lines? I do not think that this is about keeping people out but rather to keep us in. There is actually a British movie on the subject, an old ealing comedy. Borders are tribal and mark territory held by the tribe. Borders allow the tribe to live as the tribe wishes, they also provide others guidance in how to behave or what laws may have changed as they enter and leave the borders. Borders offer security. Nothing has changed over thousands of years, borders and territory were needed and will still be needed until such a time globally humans can follow the same guiding principles on all things life. They are going to be here for a very long time" Interesting construct. But I see no tribes getting what they wish, hence this thread. The guiding principles, they were trashed long time ago, just look at our present government and those of the past. I was going to write security, stay within my line and you will feel safer, as I keep those who are not like us or follow our values out. Putin is presently widening his boarder, but others seem to be against this, I am confused as that's what boarders are about in your words as boarders and territory are needed. Boarders have not been in affect for thousands of years they have consistently changed, and also the names of countries have been changed as boarders changed to suit the demographic. America when it was discovered had no New York State Alabama, California etc and is not thousands of years old. No imo opinion boarders are the issue they don't really even exist in nature. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well my point is sorry is he talks about being tough on crime but he once appealed a flight containing several foreign criminals who went on to reoffend in the country. To me thats opposite of being tough on crime Do you have the details of this? labour leader signed letter in 2020 calling for 50 dangerous offenders not to be deported on a flite to Jamaica. After, 7 of them went on to committ more violent or drug-related crimes. Two women battered by 1 of the 7, it's in all the papers. Also senior labour MPs and celebritys helped keep offender Ernesto Elliott in Britain before he murdered a man in knife fight in June 2021. Why we going soft on crime " Thank you for the details | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Without boarders which are a man made construct, immigration as a word would not exist. If I told you that there is a line in the ground which you couldn't see and told you to stay within those lines, and if you left you must have paperwork and return when said you would. And that anyone entering my line, would be held in a camp and treated like a criminal. Would you? Would you stay within my lines? I do not think that this is about keeping people out but rather to keep us in. There is actually a British movie on the subject, an old ealing comedy. Borders are tribal and mark territory held by the tribe. Borders allow the tribe to live as the tribe wishes, they also provide others guidance in how to behave or what laws may have changed as they enter and leave the borders. Borders offer security. Nothing has changed over thousands of years, borders and territory were needed and will still be needed until such a time globally humans can follow the same guiding principles on all things life. They are going to be here for a very long time Interesting construct. But I see no tribes getting what they wish, hence this thread. The guiding principles, they were trashed long time ago, just look at our present government and those of the past. I was going to write security, stay within my line and you will feel safer, as I keep those who are not like us or follow our values out. Putin is presently widening his boarder, but others seem to be against this, I am confused as that's what boarders are about in your words as boarders and territory are needed. Boarders have not been in affect for thousands of years they have consistently changed, and also the names of countries have been changed as boarders changed to suit the demographic. America when it was discovered had no New York State Alabama, California etc and is not thousands of years old. No imo opinion boarders are the issue they don't really even exist in nature." Oh but they do exist in nature. Apes, lions, birds, dogs and many more. they use natural features as do humans such as rivers. Borders and territory, leaders and packs they have been in existence from the start, they offer safety. Borders will always be challenged for greater assets, growth and bloody take overs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Without boarders which are a man made construct, immigration as a word would not exist. If I told you that there is a line in the ground which you couldn't see and told you to stay within those lines, and if you left you must have paperwork and return when said you would. And that anyone entering my line, would be held in a camp and treated like a criminal. Would you? Would you stay within my lines? I do not think that this is about keeping people out but rather to keep us in. There is actually a British movie on the subject, an old ealing comedy. Borders are tribal and mark territory held by the tribe. Borders allow the tribe to live as the tribe wishes, they also provide others guidance in how to behave or what laws may have changed as they enter and leave the borders. Borders offer security. Nothing has changed over thousands of years, borders and territory were needed and will still be needed until such a time globally humans can follow the same guiding principles on all things life. They are going to be here for a very long time Interesting construct. But I see no tribes getting what they wish, hence this thread. The guiding principles, they were trashed long time ago, just look at our present government and those of the past. I was going to write security, stay within my line and you will feel safer, as I keep those who are not like us or follow our values out. Putin is presently widening his boarder, but others seem to be against this, I am confused as that's what boarders are about in your words as boarders and territory are needed. Boarders have not been in affect for thousands of years they have consistently changed, and also the names of countries have been changed as boarders changed to suit the demographic. America when it was discovered had no New York State Alabama, California etc and is not thousands of years old. No imo opinion boarders are the issue they don't really even exist in nature. Oh but they do exist in nature. Apes, lions, birds, dogs and many more. they use natural features as do humans such as rivers. Borders and territory, leaders and packs they have been in existence from the start, they offer safety. Borders will always be challenged for greater assets, growth and bloody take overs. " I want to add borders and territory are far more prevalent than you think. Walk down any road in the UK and you will find houses with fences and front doors that is a basic border marking the territory. You visit someones house, you abide by their social rules, take your shoes off, no swearing, maybe lots of small social differences to your rules inside your territory. These small borders marking territories are allowed inside the larger territory as long as you abide by the rules. You wouldn't want someone start to use your back as a footpath to another house, you would reinforce your border, if that did not deter them you would call in help to deter, warn or even arrest. Very small scale social model that is scaled up on village, town, city, regional and national levels. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sir Keir can't talk about halving crime against women when he can't distinguish the difference between a man and a woman. Also he seems more keen on Trans rights without thinking about the implications on womens rights in regards if trans women should share private toilets and prisons with biological women" Oh dear. These things are not mutually exclusive. You can be pro women's rights AND pro trans rights. How about we just treat everyone with respect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sir Keir can't talk about halving crime against women when he can't distinguish the difference between a man and a woman. Also he seems more keen on Trans rights without thinking about the implications on womens rights in regards if trans women should share private toilets and prisons with biological women Oh dear. These things are not mutually exclusive. You can be pro women's rights AND pro trans rights. How about we just treat everyone with respect. " agreed. Imo SKS and labour are fairly consistent. There are some challenges... How do you protect both cis women and transwomen, particularly from predatory men (as let's face it, the larger concern is from men gaming the system to get at the chickens) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's like this, I have no problem with trans, people can be who they want to be as long as they happy, however I don't believe trans women should be sharing a prison cells with biological women for example especially if they been convicted of a serious crime. Now that maybe a controversial thing to say to some people in here and sorry if it upsets or offences as its not intentional but Im afraid common sense has to prevail " it's not controversial, many have that view. And I can't see anyone being upset or offended, just offering alternative opinions. The flip side of your view is that trans women is held in a male prison. What are your views on their safety in this situation? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sir Keir can't talk about halving crime against women when he can't distinguish the difference between a man and a woman. Also he seems more keen on Trans rights without thinking about the implications on womens rights in regards if trans women should share private toilets and prisons with biological women Oh dear. These things are not mutually exclusive. You can be pro women's rights AND pro trans rights. How about we just treat everyone with respect. " does that include calling people morons | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sir Keir can't talk about halving crime against women when he can't distinguish the difference between a man and a woman. Also he seems more keen on Trans rights without thinking about the implications on womens rights in regards if trans women should share private toilets and prisons with biological women Oh dear. These things are not mutually exclusive. You can be pro women's rights AND pro trans rights. How about we just treat everyone with respect. does that include calling people morons" Indeed. Good job nobody has called anyone a moron. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Without boarders which are a man made construct, immigration as a word would not exist. If I told you that there is a line in the ground which you couldn't see and told you to stay within those lines, and if you left you must have paperwork and return when said you would. And that anyone entering my line, would be held in a camp and treated like a criminal. Would you? Would you stay within my lines? I do not think that this is about keeping people out but rather to keep us in. There is actually a British movie on the subject, an old ealing comedy. Borders are tribal and mark territory held by the tribe. Borders allow the tribe to live as the tribe wishes, they also provide others guidance in how to behave or what laws may have changed as they enter and leave the borders. Borders offer security. Nothing has changed over thousands of years, borders and territory were needed and will still be needed until such a time globally humans can follow the same guiding principles on all things life. They are going to be here for a very long time Interesting construct. But I see no tribes getting what they wish, hence this thread. The guiding principles, they were trashed long time ago, just look at our present government and those of the past. I was going to write security, stay within my line and you will feel safer, as I keep those who are not like us or follow our values out. Putin is presently widening his boarder, but others seem to be against this, I am confused as that's what boarders are about in your words as boarders and territory are needed. Boarders have not been in affect for thousands of years they have consistently changed, and also the names of countries have been changed as boarders changed to suit the demographic. America when it was discovered had no New York State Alabama, California etc and is not thousands of years old. No imo opinion boarders are the issue they don't really even exist in nature. Oh but they do exist in nature. Apes, lions, birds, dogs and many more. they use natural features as do humans such as rivers. Borders and territory, leaders and packs they have been in existence from the start, they offer safety. Borders will always be challenged for greater assets, growth and bloody take overs. I want to add borders and territory are far more prevalent than you think. Walk down any road in the UK and you will find houses with fences and front doors that is a basic border marking the territory. You visit someones house, you abide by their social rules, take your shoes off, no swearing, maybe lots of small social differences to your rules inside your territory. These small borders marking territories are allowed inside the larger territory as long as you abide by the rules. You wouldn't want someone start to use your back as a footpath to another house, you would reinforce your border, if that did not deter them you would call in help to deter, warn or even arrest. Very small scale social model that is scaled up on village, town, city, regional and national levels." As I said before, what you write is sensible, when you invest in the construct of the word boarder, it is a word with a construct behind it. Some believe in the construct and abide by it. Others do not and travel where they wish. Which I suppose pisses off those who abide by the construct. My view is a lot bigger than living in GB, my view is on a planetary scale as I live on a planet, so when I view our planet from space I see no boarders. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it?" Do exactly what Tump did and built such a beautiful wall on their Southern border with Mexico. We need to build a great, great wall on our borders in waters and have France to pay for that wall. Every time they protest it’s going to get little bit higher. They can swim away from the wall, or go over it, they can go under the wall or may be go round it. Don’t mind having a big beautiful door in that wall. We need to build a wall, and it has to be built quickly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sir Keir can't talk about halving crime against women when he can't distinguish the difference between a man and a woman. Also he seems more keen on Trans rights without thinking about the implications on womens rights in regards if trans women should share private toilets and prisons with biological women Oh dear. These things are not mutually exclusive. You can be pro women's rights AND pro trans rights. How about we just treat everyone with respect. does that include calling people morons" A number of people have now spotted this. You went as far as you possibly could without breaking the forum rules and were called out for it. You then stepped back very slightly to cement your defence that you didn't use the word directly against someone personally. You did however use the word 'moronic' in the context of a group of people who had genuine immigration concerns that had been sympathetically and directly addressed by 3 prominent Labour politicians. You accused those 3 prominent Labour politicians of spouting 'propoganda' Why do you do this and then furiously back pedal? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People will go wherever they wish with the right motivation, and we are unable to stop them, cannot stop them. simple." Why can't we try to stop those we do not need or want? Plenty of countries succeed in doing so. Generally, I see nothing wrong with a country operating controlled, hand-picked immigration. It's plainly not simple though. It's been 9 months since the Nationality and Borders Act came fully into force. In January, hundreds still arrived in dozens of small boats, 442 on one day alone. Too early to say what Sunak's latest deal with the French will achieve, but plainly more needs doing in respect of irregular maritime arrivals. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People will go wherever they wish with the right motivation, and we are unable to stop them, cannot stop them. simple. Why can't we try to stop those we do not need or want? Plenty of countries succeed in doing so. Generally, I see nothing wrong with a country operating controlled, hand-picked immigration. It's plainly not simple though. It's been 9 months since the Nationality and Borders Act came fully into force. In January, hundreds still arrived in dozens of small boats, 442 on one day alone. Too early to say what Sunak's latest deal with the French will achieve, but plainly more needs doing in respect of irregular maritime arrivals. " I see it as they can come in and will continue to do so it doesn't bother me, this is about gaining your vote. My world view is different to many on here, I see it as I am shut in kept prisoner between imagined lines which are man made. And if I agreed with immigration and asked for more measures to keep "them out" I am only keeping myself in under more restrictions of my own making. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sir Keir can't talk about halving crime against women when he can't distinguish the difference between a man and a woman. Also he seems more keen on Trans rights without thinking about the implications on womens rights in regards if trans women should share private toilets and prisons with biological women Oh dear. These things are not mutually exclusive. You can be pro women's rights AND pro trans rights. How about we just treat everyone with respect. does that include calling people morons A number of people have now spotted this. You went as far as you possibly could without breaking the forum rules and were called out for it. You then stepped back very slightly to cement your defence that you didn't use the word directly against someone personally. You did however use the word 'moronic' in the context of a group of people who had genuine immigration concerns that had been sympathetically and directly addressed by 3 prominent Labour politicians. You accused those 3 prominent Labour politicians of spouting 'propoganda' Why do you do this and then furiously back pedal? " Wow. Complete fiction. Maybe time to move back to reality at quit these bullshit personal attacks maybe? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? Do exactly what Tump did and built such a beautiful wall on their Southern border with Mexico. We need to build a great, great wall on our borders in waters and have France to pay for that wall. Every time they protest it’s going to get little bit higher. They can swim away from the wall, or go over it, they can go under the wall or may be go round it. Don’t mind having a big beautiful door in that wall. We need to build a wall, and it has to be built quickly "The really funny thing about Trump’s wall is that it was made out of thick metal posts with thin gaps between each post. The gaps were made a specific width to prevent the average person from squeezing through. Trouble is they used the size of an average American not an average Mexican to determine the width of the gaps. So people can still squeeze through! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? Do exactly what Tump did and built such a beautiful wall on their Southern border with Mexico. We need to build a great, great wall on our borders in waters and have France to pay for that wall. Every time they protest it’s going to get little bit higher. They can swim away from the wall, or go over it, they can go under the wall or may be go round it. Don’t mind having a big beautiful door in that wall. We need to build a wall, and it has to be built quickly
The really funny thing about Trump’s wall is that it was made out of thick metal posts with thin gaps between each post. The gaps were made a specific width to prevent the average person from squeezing through. Trouble is they used the size of an average American not an average Mexican to determine the width of the gaps. So people can still squeeze through!"I'm not sure this is correct, there are gaps between all the posts but the gap is not large enough for a person to get through at about 22cm. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? Do exactly what Tump did and built such a beautiful wall on their Southern border with Mexico. We need to build a great, great wall on our borders in waters and have France to pay for that wall. Every time they protest it’s going to get little bit higher. They can swim away from the wall, or go over it, they can go under the wall or may be go round it. Don’t mind having a big beautiful door in that wall. We need to build a wall, and it has to be built quickly
The really funny thing about Trump’s wall is that it was made out of thick metal posts with thin gaps between each post. The gaps were made a specific width to prevent the average person from squeezing through. Trouble is they used the size of an average American not an average Mexican to determine the width of the gaps. So people can still squeeze through!
I'm not sure this is correct, there are gaps between all the posts but the gap is not large enough for a person to get through at about 22cm. "It totally is true, look it up. Mexicans are on average smaller than Americans. Some (particularly kids) can squeeze through the gaps. BTW 22cm! If I turn sideways I am less than 22cm wide  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sir Keir can't talk about halving crime against women when he can't distinguish the difference between a man and a woman. Also he seems more keen on Trans rights without thinking about the implications on womens rights in regards if trans women should share private toilets and prisons with biological women Oh dear. These things are not mutually exclusive. You can be pro women's rights AND pro trans rights. How about we just treat everyone with respect. does that include calling people morons A number of people have now spotted this. You went as far as you possibly could without breaking the forum rules and were called out for it. You then stepped back very slightly to cement your defence that you didn't use the word directly against someone personally. You did however use the word 'moronic' in the context of a group of people who had genuine immigration concerns that had been sympathetically and directly addressed by 3 prominent Labour politicians. You accused those 3 prominent Labour politicians of spouting 'propoganda' Why do you do this and then furiously back pedal? " Well said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? Do exactly what Tump did and built such a beautiful wall on their Southern border with Mexico. We need to build a great, great wall on our borders in waters and have France to pay for that wall. Every time they protest it’s going to get little bit higher. They can swim away from the wall, or go over it, they can go under the wall or may be go round it. Don’t mind having a big beautiful door in that wall. We need to build a wall, and it has to be built quickly
The really funny thing about Trump’s wall is that it was made out of thick metal posts with thin gaps between each post. The gaps were made a specific width to prevent the average person from squeezing through. Trouble is they used the size of an average American not an average Mexican to determine the width of the gaps. So people can still squeeze through!
I'm not sure this is correct, there are gaps between all the posts but the gap is not large enough for a person to get through at about 22cm.
It totally is true, look it up. Mexicans are on average smaller than Americans. Some (particularly kids) can squeeze through the gaps. BTW 22cm! If I turn sideways I am less than 22cm wide "I’m going to Trump’s gap to one side… more interested to know how you know you’re less the 22cm wide! This type of measurement is a new one on me, when was the day you thought how wide am I and actually got the tape out
I did laugh at the this, brightened up my day for sure | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"[Removed by poster at 29/03/23 10:32:42]" Damn! Did you divulge or not, will I ever know | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it? Do exactly what Tump did and built such a beautiful wall on their Southern border with Mexico. We need to build a great, great wall on our borders in waters and have France to pay for that wall. Every time they protest it’s going to get little bit higher. They can swim away from the wall, or go over it, they can go under the wall or may be go round it. Don’t mind having a big beautiful door in that wall. We need to build a wall, and it has to be built quickly
The really funny thing about Trump’s wall is that it was made out of thick metal posts with thin gaps between each post. The gaps were made a specific width to prevent the average person from squeezing through. Trouble is they used the size of an average American not an average Mexican to determine the width of the gaps. So people can still squeeze through!
I'm not sure this is correct, there are gaps between all the posts but the gap is not large enough for a person to get through at about 22cm.
It totally is true, look it up. Mexicans are on average smaller than Americans. Some (particularly kids) can squeeze through the gaps. BTW 22cm! If I turn sideways I am less than 22cm wide
I’m going to Trump’s gap to one side… more interested to know how you know you’re less the 22cm wide! This type of measurement is a new one on me, when was the day you thought how wide am I and actually got the tape out
I did laugh at the this, brightened up my day for sure "I know at times I probably exhibit an inflated ego but you can be sure some posters will come along and burst my bubble so it would be quite easy for me to fit through a 22cm gap turning sideways
Anyway to your question. Visual and spatial awareness. I can visualise 22cm quite easily and immediately tell that side on I am less than 22cm wide. But after starting this discussion I decided to check (should be working but it piqued my interest). My feet are the (from the side) widest part of my body at 28cm but they can be rotated. My head including my nose is approx 23cm but I can turn that to the side and it is narrower. Chest , torso, stomach all narrower than head and feet. Do yep I could turn sideways and fit through a 22cm gap no problem!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"[Removed by poster at 29/03/23 10:32:42] Damn! Did you divulge or not, will I ever know "I replied before seeing your reply so deleted and replied again
Disclaimer - I am not counting the erect length of my cock which is obviously at least 30cm* and stiff as steel so could only squeeze through the 22cm gap in wall when flacid
*it isn’t | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"[Removed by poster at 29/03/23 10:32:42] Damn! Did you divulge or not, will I ever know
I replied before seeing your reply so deleted and replied again
Disclaimer - I am not counting the erect length of my cock which is obviously at least 30cm* and stiff as steel so could only squeeze through the 22cm gap in wall when flacid
*it isn’t" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sir Keir can't talk about halving crime against women when he can't distinguish the difference between a man and a woman. Also he seems more keen on Trans rights without thinking about the implications on womens rights in regards if trans women should share private toilets and prisons with biological women Oh dear. These things are not mutually exclusive. You can be pro women's rights AND pro trans rights. How about we just treat everyone with respect. does that include calling people morons A number of people have now spotted this. You went as far as you possibly could without breaking the forum rules and were called out for it. You then stepped back very slightly to cement your defence that you didn't use the word directly against someone personally. You did however use the word 'moronic' in the context of a group of people who had genuine immigration concerns that had been sympathetically and directly addressed by 3 prominent Labour politicians. You accused those 3 prominent Labour politicians of spouting 'propoganda' Why do you do this and then furiously back pedal? Well said. "No, not well said. Stop encouraging their bullshit personal attacks please. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sir Keir can't talk about halving crime against women when he can't distinguish the difference between a man and a woman. Also he seems more keen on Trans rights without thinking about the implications on womens rights in regards if trans women should share private toilets and prisons with biological women Oh dear. These things are not mutually exclusive. You can be pro women's rights AND pro trans rights. How about we just treat everyone with respect. does that include calling people morons A number of people have now spotted this. You went as far as you possibly could without breaking the forum rules and were called out for it. You then stepped back very slightly to cement your defence that you didn't use the word directly against someone personally. You did however use the word 'moronic' in the context of a group of people who had genuine immigration concerns that had been sympathetically and directly addressed by 3 prominent Labour politicians. You accused those 3 prominent Labour politicians of spouting 'propoganda' Why do you do this and then furiously back pedal? Well said.
No, not well said. Stop encouraging their bullshit personal attacks please."Yes sir. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it?I don't the details of labours current plans butt they have previously suggested processing sites near to hot spots. This reduces the volumes making it to France especially if it's clear than going there instead of local processing reduces the chance of being accepted as valid. A France based site for the remainer reduces the value add of gangs. And it's on Frances interest to reduce gangs in France. One can imagine they have other illegal arms to their criminal enterprise that touches on France. Labour have also suggested how they would require different balnqces of evidence depending on what you are claiming you need asylum from and where. So an Albanian has to demonstrate religious persecution whereas an Iraqi may be taken more on face value. That feels sensible and proportional and likely to help processing times, which reduces housing issues. " Out of curiosity how do you come to the conclusion a site in France reduces gangs? Given just shybof 50% of current boat arrivals are Albanian and thus not entitled to claim refuge? How do you disprove religious persecution? As you mentioned about labour's plan? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it?I don't the details of labours current plans butt they have previously suggested processing sites near to hot spots. This reduces the volumes making it to France especially if it's clear than going there instead of local processing reduces the chance of being accepted as valid. A France based site for the remainer reduces the value add of gangs. And it's on Frances interest to reduce gangs in France. One can imagine they have other illegal arms to their criminal enterprise that touches on France. Labour have also suggested how they would require different balnqces of evidence depending on what you are claiming you need asylum from and where. So an Albanian has to demonstrate religious persecution whereas an Iraqi may be taken more on face value. That feels sensible and proportional and likely to help processing times, which reduces housing issues. Out of curiosity how do you come to the conclusion a site in France reduces gangs? Given just shybof 50% of current boat arrivals are Albanian and thus not entitled to claim refuge? How do you disprove religious persecution? As you mentioned about labour's plan?" If you have a legal route in France you can say that anybody coming over via boat will have to demonstrate why they didn't take the official route. Effectively you can assume they are on the dodge. You assume that Albanians can't claim refuge. There is limited data to support this. But I imagine the story being painted to them is they will be successful. (Others will say that you can be coached through the interviews so I would imagine the percepyion is you can) However if it is clear you won't be, then that changes the risk reward. Travel by boat. Be deported. On your other question it's a balance of probabilities. If you come from a country that doesn't, as a rule, have religious persecution, you have to actively show you are being persecuted. Labour talked this through a few months ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it?I don't the details of labours current plans butt they have previously suggested processing sites near to hot spots. This reduces the volumes making it to France especially if it's clear than going there instead of local processing reduces the chance of being accepted as valid. A France based site for the remainer reduces the value add of gangs. And it's on Frances interest to reduce gangs in France. One can imagine they have other illegal arms to their criminal enterprise that touches on France. Labour have also suggested how they would require different balnqces of evidence depending on what you are claiming you need asylum from and where. So an Albanian has to demonstrate religious persecution whereas an Iraqi may be taken more on face value. That feels sensible and proportional and likely to help processing times, which reduces housing issues. Out of curiosity how do you come to the conclusion a site in France reduces gangs? Given just shybof 50% of current boat arrivals are Albanian and thus not entitled to claim refuge? How do you disprove religious persecution? As you mentioned about labour's plan? If you have a legal route in France you can say that anybody coming over via boat will have to demonstrate why they didn't take the official route. Effectively you can assume they are on the dodge. You assume that Albanians can't claim refuge. There is limited data to support this. But I imagine the story being painted to them is they will be successful. (Others will say that you can be coached through the interviews so I would imagine the percepyion is you can) However if it is clear you won't be, then that changes the risk reward. Travel by boat. Be deported. On your other question it's a balance of probabilities. If you come from a country that doesn't, as a rule, have religious persecution, you have to actively show you are being persecuted. Labour talked this through a few months ago. " They have legal routes now. I believe I posted about these a fair few months back. Ukrs. I think we can assume they are dodgy now by paying for boats no? Rather than plane tickets? Typically Albanians can't claim refuge which is why so many have been deported with more awaiting deportation and the uk government signing an MoU with the Albanian government. Again. I am not sure how this is a deterrent to buy boat trips? I'm not sure you or labour answered tbe religious persecution question. How if you arrive by boat with no phone and ID verify you came from Iran, not Jordan. How do I know you are Christian not Muslim? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sir Keir can't talk about halving crime against women when he can't distinguish the difference between a man and a woman. Also he seems more keen on Trans rights without thinking about the implications on womens rights in regards if trans women should share private toilets and prisons with biological women Oh dear. These things are not mutually exclusive. You can be pro women's rights AND pro trans rights. How about we just treat everyone with respect. does that include calling people morons A number of people have now spotted this. You went as far as you possibly could without breaking the forum rules and were called out for it. You then stepped back very slightly to cement your defence that you didn't use the word directly against someone personally. You did however use the word 'moronic' in the context of a group of people who had genuine immigration concerns that had been sympathetically and directly addressed by 3 prominent Labour politicians. You accused those 3 prominent Labour politicians of spouting 'propoganda' Why do you do this and then furiously back pedal? Well said.
No, not well said. Stop encouraging their bullshit personal attacks please.
Yes sir.
"Ace, thank you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cross boarder police unit - why would the French police suddenly want to work with us? Go after the gangs - we have no jurisdiction in France. A complete overhaul - what does that mean? End hotel use - where else should they stay? This is very very light on detail so how do they expect the electorate to get behind it?I don't the details of labours current plans butt they have previously suggested processing sites near to hot spots. This reduces the volumes making it to France especially if it's clear than going there instead of local processing reduces the chance of being accepted as valid. A France based site for the remainer reduces the value add of gangs. And it's on Frances interest to reduce gangs in France. One can imagine they have other illegal arms to their criminal enterprise that touches on France. Labour have also suggested how they would require different balnqces of evidence depending on what you are claiming you need asylum from and where. So an Albanian has to demonstrate religious persecution whereas an Iraqi may be taken more on face value. That feels sensible and proportional and likely to help processing times, which reduces housing issues. Out of curiosity how do you come to the conclusion a site in France reduces gangs? Given just shybof 50% of current boat arrivals are Albanian and thus not entitled to claim refuge? How do you disprove religious persecution? As you mentioned about labour's plan? If you have a legal route in France you can say that anybody coming over via boat will have to demonstrate why they didn't take the official route. Effectively you can assume they are on the dodge. You assume that Albanians can't claim refuge. There is limited data to support this. But I imagine the story being painted to them is they will be successful. (Others will say that you can be coached through the interviews so I would imagine the percepyion is you can) However if it is clear you won't be, then that changes the risk reward. Travel by boat. Be deported. On your other question it's a balance of probabilities. If you come from a country that doesn't, as a rule, have religious persecution, you have to actively show you are being persecuted. Labour talked this through a few months ago. They have legal routes now. I believe I posted about these a fair few months back. Ukrs. I think we can assume they are dodgy now by paying for boats no? Rather than plane tickets? Typically Albanians can't claim refuge which is why so many have been deported with more awaiting deportation and the uk government signing an MoU with the Albanian government. Again. I am not sure how this is a deterrent to buy boat trips? I'm not sure you or labour answered tbe religious persecution question. How if you arrive by boat with no phone and ID verify you came from Iran, not Jordan. How do I know you are Christian not Muslim?" most refugees don't have safe routes. So you force them onto irregular entry Which gives risk of abuse by others. And ironically can (via modern sl@vary and 1ndeptitude) create a case for asylum. Do I believe that Albanians have a case when they leave Albania? No. Do I know that when they arrive in UK they aren't in serv1tude? I don't. It's a funny area ATM from what I can tell. However as it appears we are ignoring those cases ATM to process women and children I have no idea the validity of any claim. That in itself doesn't help dispell any views that there is a way into the UK ATM. I can easily see that a false picture is painted to Albanians. The idea is, if you remove valid cases from using boats, you make life a lot easier for managing those who do use boats. If the MOU is successful AND others go through a safe route, then why doesnt that solve the boat issue? Or more namely, the processing issue. Who is landing in the UK you have to process ? What harm is there in processing on France ? Or closer to hot spots? Next q Finding out someone's country should be fairly easy with a degree of certainty. Using experts, you should be able to assertain language, accents and slang. Test their local knowledge. How easy do you think you could work out if someone lives in Glasgow or London. And that's only a few hundred miles distance. Likewise religion. How well do you think a Muslim knows the Bible ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"most refugees don't have safe routes.( they do. They are in safe countries if arriving by dinghy and can contact un to enter uk via our legal routes) So you force them onto irregular entry Which gives risk of abuse by others. And ironically can (via modern sla vary and 1ndeptitude) create a case for asylum. Irregular entry costs 5k would you agree(thats a well reported figure). How do you believe they pay for that irregular entry? If they are in France from a foreign country? Do I believe that Albanians have a case when they leave Albania? No. Do I know that when they arrive in UK they aren't in serv1tude? I don't.( So you believe they leave albania to become modern sla ves in France? They can't have become modern sla ves in the uk if they are detained immediately.) It's a funny area ATM from what I can tell. However as it appears we are ignoring those cases ATM to process women and children I have no idea the validity of any claim. That in itself doesn't help dispell any views that there is a way into the UK ATM. I can easily see that a false picture is painted to Albanians. The idea is, if you remove valid cases from using boats( we do this eith the un) , you make life a lot easier for managing those who do use boats. If the MOU is successful AND others go through a safe route, then why doesnt that solve the boat issue?( because people will still want to enter the uk and claim asylum) Or more namely, the processing issue. Who is landing in the UK you have to process ?( exactly WHO is landing.) 98% don't have a passport. How do you identify those that dont have ID. What harm is there in processing on France(if they are rejected in France, what is their next step do you think?) These people don't have passports how do we process in France? Finding out someone's country should be fairly easy with a degree of certainty. Using experts, you should be able to assertain language, accents and slang. Test their local knowledge.( do you know how wide ranging Arabic is? Do you know how many countries speak it? Do you know how difficult how many experts in localised languages do you believe are in the uk. There's a report on this. ( it's not a lot) How easy do you think you could work out if someone lives in Glasgow or London. And that's only a few hundred miles distance. ( how do you get then to talk? Would you know the difference between Jordanian Arabic and Palestinian?) Likewise religion. How well do you think a Muslim knows the Bible.( how well do you think Christians know the bible?) Donyou define a person's true religious believe by whether they know all the old and new testament books? ( a lot of Christians are failing that quiz) " you can't apply for asylum in the UK, even if you are on France. The fact France is safe is irrelevant. We have signed up to a treaty that says people have the right to claim asylum here. They pay for the boat by becoming in debt. Hence serv1tude. Who would want to risk their life and cross the channel when they can go to a processing centre in France? That feels an odd decision of they believe they have a valid case. We process in France the same way as we do today in the UK. I don't get why passports have been introduced. And as I said, let's get some linguistics experts. Or people from the area. Why would you ask me to do the testing? My socttish example was simply to show that you don't need much on the way of expertise. Just more than me if testing someone from the middle east. Finally, this person claiming persecution doesn't even have a basic grasp of Christianity. Wow. Well let's combine the two. So Mr X from Y town. What church did you attend? What street is that on? Who was the priest three years ago? I'm sure there are better ways of testing both. This is two seconds of thought on a swinging site. It simply shows that you can do some sensible things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"most refugees don't have safe routes.( they do. They are in safe countries if arriving by dinghy and can contact un to enter uk via our legal routes) So you force them onto irregular entry Which gives risk of abuse by others. And ironically can (via modern sla vary and 1ndeptitude) create a case for asylum. Irregular entry costs 5k would you agree(thats a well reported figure). How do you believe they pay for that irregular entry? If they are in France from a foreign country? Do I believe that Albanians have a case when they leave Albania? No. Do I know that when they arrive in UK they aren't in serv1tude? I don't.( So you believe they leave albania to become modern sla ves in France? They can't have become modern sla ves in the uk if they are detained immediately.) It's a funny area ATM from what I can tell. However as it appears we are ignoring those cases ATM to process women and children I have no idea the validity of any claim. That in itself doesn't help dispell any views that there is a way into the UK ATM. I can easily see that a false picture is painted to Albanians. The idea is, if you remove valid cases from using boats( we do this eith the un) , you make life a lot easier for managing those who do use boats. If the MOU is successful AND others go through a safe route, then why doesnt that solve the boat issue?( because people will still want to enter the uk and claim asylum) Or more namely, the processing issue. Who is landing in the UK you have to process ?( exactly WHO is landing.) 98% don't have a passport. How do you identify those that dont have ID. What harm is there in processing on France(if they are rejected in France, what is their next step do you think?) These people don't have passports how do we process in France? Finding out someone's country should be fairly easy with a degree of certainty. Using experts, you should be able to assertain language, accents and slang. Test their local knowledge.( do you know how wide ranging Arabic is? Do you know how many countries speak it? Do you know how difficult how many experts in localised languages do you believe are in the uk. There's a report on this. ( it's not a lot) How easy do you think you could work out if someone lives in Glasgow or London. And that's only a few hundred miles distance. ( how do you get then to talk? Would you know the difference between Jordanian Arabic and Palestinian?) Likewise religion. How well do you think a Muslim knows the Bible.( how well do you think Christians know the bible?) Donyou define a person's true religious believe by whether they know all the old and new testament books? ( a lot of Christians are failing that quiz) you can't apply for asylum in the UK, even if you are on France. The fact France is safe is irrelevant. We have signed up to a treaty that says people have the right to claim asylum here. They pay for the boat by becoming in debt. Hence serv1tude. Who would want to risk their life and cross the channel when they can go to a processing centre in France? That feels an odd decision of they believe they have a valid case. We process in France the same way as we do today in the UK. I don't get why passports have been introduced. And as I said, let's get some linguistics experts. Or people from the area. Why would you ask me to do the testing? My socttish example was simply to show that you don't need much on the way of expertise. Just more than me if testing someone from the middle east. Finally, this person claiming persecution doesn't even have a basic grasp of Christianity. Wow. Well let's combine the two. So Mr X from Y town. What church did you attend? What street is that on? Who was the priest three years ago? I'm sure there are better ways of testing both. This is two seconds of thought on a swinging site. It simply shows that you can do some sensible things. " They pay for the boat by becoming in debt. The boat is pre paid. How would a person in France demand payment from a refugee in the uk? The UN works with the uk to get asylum seekers into the uk from 3rd coutnries. How do you process some 1 who you can't verify if they don't have ID? How many court approved language experts in all variants of Arabic dp you feel the uk has? To flip this round. Do you think a person from Yemen would know the difference between a Newcastle accent a Yorkshire one? Have you ever heard a Norwegian speak. They sound very British as they are taught to speak queens English there. Re churches. Do you believe every Christian goes to church? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morleyman you previously posted about safe route/legal schemes for asylum seekers wanting to come to the UK. One of them being VARS. Would you remind us of these schemes, which countries they apply to, how/where an asylum seeker is able to access these safe routes/schemes, and finally how many people have actually been successfully processed through these schemes over what period? Thanks" I won't post the link. But should you Google " asylum and resettlement data sets" and go to the end tab of the government excel file. You will find what you are looking for for entry routes and total who entered via those routes each quarter I think it's circa 25k Not including operation pitting.(15k afghan nationals airlifted to the uk) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morleyman you previously posted about safe route/legal schemes for asylum seekers wanting to come to the UK. One of them being VARS. Would you remind us of these schemes, which countries they apply to, how/where an asylum seeker is able to access these safe routes/schemes, and finally how many people have actually been successfully processed through these schemes over what period? Thanks I won't post the link. But should you Google " asylum and resettlement data sets" and go to the end tab of the government excel file. You will find what you are looking for for entry routes and total who entered via those routes each quarter I think it's circa 25k Not including operation pitting.(15k afghan nationals airlifted to the uk)" it won’t work on my phone so I will look later on a desktop/laptop | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sir Keir can't talk about halving crime against women when he can't distinguish the difference between a man and a woman. Also he seems more keen on Trans rights without thinking about the implications on womens rights in regards if trans women should share private toilets and prisons with biological women Oh dear. These things are not mutually exclusive. You can be pro women's rights AND pro trans rights. How about we just treat everyone with respect. does that include calling people morons A number of people have now spotted this. You went as far as you possibly could without breaking the forum rules and were called out for it. You then stepped back very slightly to cement your defence that you didn't use the word directly against someone personally. You did however use the word 'moronic' in the context of a group of people who had genuine immigration concerns that had been sympathetically and directly addressed by 3 prominent Labour politicians. You accused those 3 prominent Labour politicians of spouting 'propoganda' Why do you do this and then furiously back pedal? Well said. "You're welcome. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sir Keir can't talk about halving crime against women when he can't distinguish the difference between a man and a woman. Also he seems more keen on Trans rights without thinking about the implications on womens rights in regards if trans women should share private toilets and prisons with biological women Oh dear. These things are not mutually exclusive. You can be pro women's rights AND pro trans rights. How about we just treat everyone with respect. does that include calling people morons A number of people have now spotted this. You went as far as you possibly could without breaking the forum rules and were called out for it. You then stepped back very slightly to cement your defence that you didn't use the word directly against someone personally. You did however use the word 'moronic' in the context of a group of people who had genuine immigration concerns that had been sympathetically and directly addressed by 3 prominent Labour politicians. You accused those 3 prominent Labour politicians of spouting 'propoganda' Why do you do this and then furiously back pedal? Well said.
You're welcome. "Evening. Any chance of an apology for the sustained personal attacks and lies? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"most refugees don't have safe routes.( they do. They are in safe countries if arriving by dinghy and can contact un to enter uk via our legal routes) So you force them onto irregular entry Which gives risk of abuse by others. And ironically can (via modern sla vary and 1ndeptitude) create a case for asylum. Irregular entry costs 5k would you agree(thats a well reported figure). How do you believe they pay for that irregular entry? If they are in France from a foreign country? Do I believe that Albanians have a case when they leave Albania? No. Do I know that when they arrive in UK they aren't in serv1tude? I don't.( So you believe they leave albania to become modern sla ves in France? They can't have become modern sla ves in the uk if they are detained immediately.) It's a funny area ATM from what I can tell. However as it appears we are ignoring those cases ATM to process women and children I have no idea the validity of any claim. That in itself doesn't help dispell any views that there is a way into the UK ATM. I can easily see that a false picture is painted to Albanians. The idea is, if you remove valid cases from using boats( we do this eith the un) , you make life a lot easier for managing those who do use boats. If the MOU is successful AND others go through a safe route, then why doesnt that solve the boat issue?( because people will still want to enter the uk and claim asylum) Or more namely, the processing issue. Who is landing in the UK you have to process ?( exactly WHO is landing.) 98% don't have a passport. How do you identify those that dont have ID. What harm is there in processing on France(if they are rejected in France, what is their next step do you think?) These people don't have passports how do we process in France? Finding out someone's country should be fairly easy with a degree of certainty. Using experts, you should be able to assertain language, accents and slang. Test their local knowledge.( do you know how wide ranging Arabic is? Do you know how many countries speak it? Do you know how difficult how many experts in localised languages do you believe are in the uk. There's a report on this. ( it's not a lot) How easy do you think you could work out if someone lives in Glasgow or London. And that's only a few hundred miles distance. ( how do you get then to talk? Would you know the difference between Jordanian Arabic and Palestinian?) Likewise religion. How well do you think a Muslim knows the Bible.( how well do you think Christians know the bible?) Donyou define a person's true religious believe by whether they know all the old and new testament books? ( a lot of Christians are failing that quiz) you can't apply for asylum in the UK, even if you are on France. The fact France is safe is irrelevant. We have signed up to a treaty that says people have the right to claim asylum here. They pay for the boat by becoming in debt. Hence serv1tude. Who would want to risk their life and cross the channel when they can go to a processing centre in France? That feels an odd decision of they believe they have a valid case. We process in France the same way as we do today in the UK. I don't get why passports have been introduced. And as I said, let's get some linguistics experts. Or people from the area. Why would you ask me to do the testing? My socttish example was simply to show that you don't need much on the way of expertise. Just more than me if testing someone from the middle east. Finally, this person claiming persecution doesn't even have a basic grasp of Christianity. Wow. Well let's combine the two. So Mr X from Y town. What church did you attend? What street is that on? Who was the priest three years ago? I'm sure there are better ways of testing both. This is two seconds of thought on a swinging site. It simply shows that you can do some sensible things. " I'm sorry Hovis, these posts are highlighting some misunderstanding. No ID is the reason it is taking so long to process those making the crossings and it is costing a fortune in accommodation, although I think there was a new proposal to remedy this, I have yet to see it. Then we have the process on foreign land and anyone travelling on small boats can simply be sent back. This one is bonkers! They will keep making the journey because the goalposts haven't moved, a need to process still exists, still need to workout where they come from, and then maybe you can do something but still the long delays. The money for the crossings as been paid before they make the crossing, criminal gangs very rarely do credit for people they will never see again. This is why people will risk the bad weather, the crossing itself, they have paid thousands and they are not going to not take their spot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sir Keir can't talk about halving crime against women when he can't distinguish the difference between a man and a woman. Also he seems more keen on Trans rights without thinking about the implications on womens rights in regards if trans women should share private toilets and prisons with biological women Oh dear. These things are not mutually exclusive. You can be pro women's rights AND pro trans rights. How about we just treat everyone with respect. does that include calling people morons A number of people have now spotted this. You went as far as you possibly could without breaking the forum rules and were called out for it. You then stepped back very slightly to cement your defence that you didn't use the word directly against someone personally. You did however use the word 'moronic' in the context of a group of people who had genuine immigration concerns that had been sympathetically and directly addressed by 3 prominent Labour politicians. You accused those 3 prominent Labour politicians of spouting 'propoganda' Why do you do this and then furiously back pedal? Well said.
You're welcome.
Evening.
Any chance of an apology for the sustained personal attacks and lies?"I refer you to the answer given elsewhere | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sir Keir can't talk about halving crime against women when he can't distinguish the difference between a man and a woman. Also he seems more keen on Trans rights without thinking about the implications on womens rights in regards if trans women should share private toilets and prisons with biological women Oh dear. These things are not mutually exclusive. You can be pro women's rights AND pro trans rights. How about we just treat everyone with respect. does that include calling people morons A number of people have now spotted this. You went as far as you possibly could without breaking the forum rules and were called out for it. You then stepped back very slightly to cement your defence that you didn't use the word directly against someone personally. You did however use the word 'moronic' in the context of a group of people who had genuine immigration concerns that had been sympathetically and directly addressed by 3 prominent Labour politicians. You accused those 3 prominent Labour politicians of spouting 'propoganda' Why do you do this and then furiously back pedal? Well said.
You're welcome.
Evening.
Any chance of an apology for the sustained personal attacks and lies?
I refer you to the answer given elsewhere "Any chance of an apology for the sustained personal attacks and lies? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"most refugees don't have safe routes.( they do. They are in safe countries if arriving by dinghy and can contact un to enter uk via our legal routes) So you force them onto irregular entry Which gives risk of abuse by others. And ironically can (via modern sla vary and 1ndeptitude) create a case for asylum. Irregular entry costs 5k would you agree(thats a well reported figure). How do you believe they pay for that irregular entry? If they are in France from a foreign country? Do I believe that Albanians have a case when they leave Albania? No. Do I know that when they arrive in UK they aren't in serv1tude? I don't.( So you believe they leave albania to become modern sla ves in France? They can't have become modern sla ves in the uk if they are detained immediately.) It's a funny area ATM from what I can tell. However as it appears we are ignoring those cases ATM to process women and children I have no idea the validity of any claim. That in itself doesn't help dispell any views that there is a way into the UK ATM. I can easily see that a false picture is painted to Albanians. The idea is, if you remove valid cases from using boats( we do this eith the un) , you make life a lot easier for managing those who do use boats. If the MOU is successful AND others go through a safe route, then why doesnt that solve the boat issue?( because people will still want to enter the uk and claim asylum) Or more namely, the processing issue. Who is landing in the UK you have to process ?( exactly WHO is landing.) 98% don't have a passport. How do you identify those that dont have ID. What harm is there in processing on France(if they are rejected in France, what is their next step do you think?) These people don't have passports how do we process in France? Finding out someone's country should be fairly easy with a degree of certainty. Using experts, you should be able to assertain language, accents and slang. Test their local knowledge.( do you know how wide ranging Arabic is? Do you know how many countries speak it? Do you know how difficult how many experts in localised languages do you believe are in the uk. There's a report on this. ( it's not a lot) How easy do you think you could work out if someone lives in Glasgow or London. And that's only a few hundred miles distance. ( how do you get then to talk? Would you know the difference between Jordanian Arabic and Palestinian?) Likewise religion. How well do you think a Muslim knows the Bible.( how well do you think Christians know the bible?) Donyou define a person's true religious believe by whether they know all the old and new testament books? ( a lot of Christians are failing that quiz) you can't apply for asylum in the UK, even if you are on France. The fact France is safe is irrelevant. We have signed up to a treaty that says people have the right to claim asylum here. They pay for the boat by becoming in debt. Hence serv1tude. Who would want to risk their life and cross the channel when they can go to a processing centre in France? That feels an odd decision of they believe they have a valid case. We process in France the same way as we do today in the UK. I don't get why passports have been introduced. And as I said, let's get some linguistics experts. Or people from the area. Why would you ask me to do the testing? My socttish example was simply to show that you don't need much on the way of expertise. Just more than me if testing someone from the middle east. Finally, this person claiming persecution doesn't even have a basic grasp of Christianity. Wow. Well let's combine the two. So Mr X from Y town. What church did you attend? What street is that on? Who was the priest three years ago? I'm sure there are better ways of testing both. This is two seconds of thought on a swinging site. It simply shows that you can do some sensible things. I'm sorry Hovis, these posts are highlighting some misunderstanding. No ID is the reason it is taking so long to process those making the crossings and it is costing a fortune in accommodation, although I think there was a new proposal to remedy this, I have yet to see it. Then we have the process on foreign land and anyone travelling on small boats can simply be sent back. This one is bonkers! They will keep making the journey because the goalposts haven't moved, a need to process still exists, still need to workout where they come from, and then maybe you can do something but still the long delays. The money for the crossings as been paid before they make the crossing, criminal gangs very rarely do credit for people they will never see again. This is why people will risk the bad weather, the crossing itself, they have paid thousands and they are not going to not take their spot. " Also to add that approx 98% arrive with no ID, that would be around 44K people last year. That is a lot of processing, a lot translators etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"most refugees don't have safe routes.( they do. They are in safe countries if arriving by dinghy and can contact un to enter uk via our legal routes) So you force them onto irregular entry Which gives risk of abuse by others. And ironically can (via modern sla vary and 1ndeptitude) create a case for asylum. Irregular entry costs 5k would you agree(thats a well reported figure). How do you believe they pay for that irregular entry? If they are in France from a foreign country? Do I believe that Albanians have a case when they leave Albania? No. Do I know that when they arrive in UK they aren't in serv1tude? I don't.( So you believe they leave albania to become modern sla ves in France? They can't have become modern sla ves in the uk if they are detained immediately.) It's a funny area ATM from what I can tell. However as it appears we are ignoring those cases ATM to process women and children I have no idea the validity of any claim. That in itself doesn't help dispell any views that there is a way into the UK ATM. I can easily see that a false picture is painted to Albanians. The idea is, if you remove valid cases from using boats( we do this eith the un) , you make life a lot easier for managing those who do use boats. If the MOU is successful AND others go through a safe route, then why doesnt that solve the boat issue?( because people will still want to enter the uk and claim asylum) Or more namely, the processing issue. Who is landing in the UK you have to process ?( exactly WHO is landing.) 98% don't have a passport. How do you identify those that dont have ID. What harm is there in processing on France(if they are rejected in France, what is their next step do you think?) These people don't have passports how do we process in France? Finding out someone's country should be fairly easy with a degree of certainty. Using experts, you should be able to assertain language, accents and slang. Test their local knowledge.( do you know how wide ranging Arabic is? Do you know how many countries speak it? Do you know how difficult how many experts in localised languages do you believe are in the uk. There's a report on this. ( it's not a lot) How easy do you think you could work out if someone lives in Glasgow or London. And that's only a few hundred miles distance. ( how do you get then to talk? Would you know the difference between Jordanian Arabic and Palestinian?) Likewise religion. How well do you think a Muslim knows the Bible.( how well do you think Christians know the bible?) Donyou define a person's true religious believe by whether they know all the old and new testament books? ( a lot of Christians are failing that quiz) you can't apply for asylum in the UK, even if you are on France. The fact France is safe is irrelevant. We have signed up to a treaty that says people have the right to claim asylum here. They pay for the boat by becoming in debt. Hence serv1tude. Who would want to risk their life and cross the channel when they can go to a processing centre in France? That feels an odd decision of they believe they have a valid case. We process in France the same way as we do today in the UK. I don't get why passports have been introduced. And as I said, let's get some linguistics experts. Or people from the area. Why would you ask me to do the testing? My socttish example was simply to show that you don't need much on the way of expertise. Just more than me if testing someone from the middle east. Finally, this person claiming persecution doesn't even have a basic grasp of Christianity. Wow. Well let's combine the two. So Mr X from Y town. What church did you attend? What street is that on? Who was the priest three years ago? I'm sure there are better ways of testing both. This is two seconds of thought on a swinging site. It simply shows that you can do some sensible things. I'm sorry Hovis, these posts are highlighting some misunderstanding. No ID is the reason it is taking so long to process those making the crossings and it is costing a fortune in accommodation, although I think there was a new proposal to remedy this, I have yet to see it. Then we have the process on foreign land and anyone travelling on small boats can simply be sent back. This one is bonkers! They will keep making the journey because the goalposts haven't moved, a need to process still exists, still need to workout where they come from, and then maybe you can do something but still the long delays. The money for the crossings as been paid before they make the crossing, criminal gangs very rarely do credit for people they will never see again. This is why people will risk the bad weather, the crossing itself, they have paid thousands and they are not going to not take their spot. Also to add that approx 98% arrive with no ID, that would be around 44K people last year. That is a lot of processing, a lot translators etc." throw all id over dinghy into channel. playing us for fool | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sir Keir can't talk about halving crime against women when he can't distinguish the difference between a man and a woman. Also he seems more keen on Trans rights without thinking about the implications on womens rights in regards if trans women should share private toilets and prisons with biological women Oh dear. These things are not mutually exclusive. You can be pro women's rights AND pro trans rights. How about we just treat everyone with respect. does that include calling people morons A number of people have now spotted this. You went as far as you possibly could without breaking the forum rules and were called out for it. You then stepped back very slightly to cement your defence that you didn't use the word directly against someone personally. You did however use the word 'moronic' in the context of a group of people who had genuine immigration concerns that had been sympathetically and directly addressed by 3 prominent Labour politicians. You accused those 3 prominent Labour politicians of spouting 'propoganda' Why do you do this and then furiously back pedal? Well said.
You're welcome. "Thank you. Please do keep up with your sensible posts. There does seem to be far too many ridiculous comments on almost every thread on here lately...! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sir Keir can't talk about halving crime against women when he can't distinguish the difference between a man and a woman. Also he seems more keen on Trans rights without thinking about the implications on womens rights in regards if trans women should share private toilets and prisons with biological women Oh dear. These things are not mutually exclusive. You can be pro women's rights AND pro trans rights. How about we just treat everyone with respect. does that include calling people morons A number of people have now spotted this. You went as far as you possibly could without breaking the forum rules and were called out for it. You then stepped back very slightly to cement your defence that you didn't use the word directly against someone personally. You did however use the word 'moronic' in the context of a group of people who had genuine immigration concerns that had been sympathetically and directly addressed by 3 prominent Labour politicians. You accused those 3 prominent Labour politicians of spouting 'propoganda' Why do you do this and then furiously back pedal? Well said.
You're welcome.
Thank you.
Please do keep up with your sensible posts. There does seem to be far too many ridiculous comments on almost every thread on here lately...!"Agreed. The constant lies being made up about me and the personal attacks are tiresome. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"most refugees don't have safe routes.( they do. They are in safe countries if arriving by dinghy and can contact un to enter uk via our legal routes) So you force them onto irregular entry Which gives risk of abuse by others. And ironically can (via modern sla vary and 1ndeptitude) create a case for asylum. Irregular entry costs 5k would you agree(thats a well reported figure). How do you believe they pay for that irregular entry? If they are in France from a foreign country? Do I believe that Albanians have a case when they leave Albania? No. Do I know that when they arrive in UK they aren't in serv1tude? I don't.( So you believe they leave albania to become modern sla ves in France? They can't have become modern sla ves in the uk if they are detained immediately.) It's a funny area ATM from what I can tell. However as it appears we are ignoring those cases ATM to process women and children I have no idea the validity of any claim. That in itself doesn't help dispell any views that there is a way into the UK ATM. I can easily see that a false picture is painted to Albanians. The idea is, if you remove valid cases from using boats( we do this eith the un) , you make life a lot easier for managing those who do use boats. If the MOU is successful AND others go through a safe route, then why doesnt that solve the boat issue?( because people will still want to enter the uk and claim asylum) Or more namely, the processing issue. Who is landing in the UK you have to process ?( exactly WHO is landing.) 98% don't have a passport. How do you identify those that dont have ID. What harm is there in processing on France(if they are rejected in France, what is their next step do you think?) These people don't have passports how do we process in France? Finding out someone's country should be fairly easy with a degree of certainty. Using experts, you should be able to assertain language, accents and slang. Test their local knowledge.( do you know how wide ranging Arabic is? Do you know how many countries speak it? Do you know how difficult how many experts in localised languages do you believe are in the uk. There's a report on this. ( it's not a lot) How easy do you think you could work out if someone lives in Glasgow or London. And that's only a few hundred miles distance. ( how do you get then to talk? Would you know the difference between Jordanian Arabic and Palestinian?) Likewise religion. How well do you think a Muslim knows the Bible.( how well do you think Christians know the bible?) Donyou define a person's true religious believe by whether they know all the old and new testament books? ( a lot of Christians are failing that quiz) you can't apply for asylum in the UK, even if you are on France. The fact France is safe is irrelevant. We have signed up to a treaty that says people have the right to claim asylum here. They pay for the boat by becoming in debt. Hence serv1tude. Who would want to risk their life and cross the channel when they can go to a processing centre in France? That feels an odd decision of they believe they have a valid case. We process in France the same way as we do today in the UK. I don't get why passports have been introduced. And as I said, let's get some linguistics experts. Or people from the area. Why would you ask me to do the testing? My socttish example was simply to show that you don't need much on the way of expertise. Just more than me if testing someone from the middle east. Finally, this person claiming persecution doesn't even have a basic grasp of Christianity. Wow. Well let's combine the two. So Mr X from Y town. What church did you attend? What street is that on? Who was the priest three years ago? I'm sure there are better ways of testing both. This is two seconds of thought on a swinging site. It simply shows that you can do some sensible things. I'm sorry Hovis, these posts are highlighting some misunderstanding. No ID is the reason it is taking so long to process those making the crossings and it is costing a fortune in accommodation, although I think there was a new proposal to remedy this, I have yet to see it. Then we have the process on foreign land and anyone travelling on small boats can simply be sent back. This one is bonkers! They will keep making the journey because the goalposts haven't moved, a need to process still exists, still need to workout where they come from, and then maybe you can do something but still the long delays. The money for the crossings as been paid before they make the crossing, criminal gangs very rarely do credit for people they will never see again. This is why people will risk the bad weather, the crossing itself, they have paid thousands and they are not going to not take their spot. Also to add that approx 98% arrive with no ID, that would be around 44K people last year. That is a lot of processing, a lot translators etc." processing in France isn't about cutting down processing times but reducing crossings and criminality. If you can claim asylum to the UK in France why would you risk your life and pay thousands for the privalage? Their includes both those who believe they have a genuine claim and those who believe they can game the system. Especially if making irregular entry adds extra suspicion and weight against your case. I can't picture who would now engage a gang. The second bit is around triaging caes better. That's separate to France. I agree no ID makes things harder. My understanding of the labour proposal is that there are different benefits of doubt depending on where you are coming from and what you are claiming. People are getting hung up on identifying two Arabic countries. But step one is middle east or eastern European. If 50pc of cases are Albania, and one needs to have stronger evidence to claim political persecution or persecution because of sexuality, then that becomes a lot easier. Albanian you say? Any evidence of the religious or sexual persecution you claim ? Nope. Back you go. That's halved the number of claims quickly. That's my understanding of that policy anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sir Keir can't talk about halving crime against women when he can't distinguish the difference between a man and a woman. Also he seems more keen on Trans rights without thinking about the implications on womens rights in regards if trans women should share private toilets and prisons with biological women Oh dear. These things are not mutually exclusive. You can be pro women's rights AND pro trans rights. How about we just treat everyone with respect. does that include calling people morons A number of people have now spotted this. You went as far as you possibly could without breaking the forum rules and were called out for it. You then stepped back very slightly to cement your defence that you didn't use the word directly against someone personally. You did however use the word 'moronic' in the context of a group of people who had genuine immigration concerns that had been sympathetically and directly addressed by 3 prominent Labour politicians. You accused those 3 prominent Labour politicians of spouting 'propoganda' Why do you do this and then furiously back pedal? Well said.
You're welcome.
Thank you.
Please do keep up with your sensible posts. There does seem to be far too many ridiculous comments on almost every thread on here lately...!
Agreed. The constant lies being made up about me and the personal attacks are tiresome."Please stop following me around the forum and commenting on my posts, would you...? Thanks in advance.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sir Keir can't talk about halving crime against women when he can't distinguish the difference between a man and a woman. Also he seems more keen on Trans rights without thinking about the implications on womens rights in regards if trans women should share private toilets and prisons with biological women Oh dear. These things are not mutually exclusive. You can be pro women's rights AND pro trans rights. How about we just treat everyone with respect. does that include calling people morons A number of people have now spotted this. You went as far as you possibly could without breaking the forum rules and were called out for it. You then stepped back very slightly to cement your defence that you didn't use the word directly against someone personally. You did however use the word 'moronic' in the context of a group of people who had genuine immigration concerns that had been sympathetically and directly addressed by 3 prominent Labour politicians. You accused those 3 prominent Labour politicians of spouting 'propoganda' Why do you do this and then furiously back pedal? Well said.
You're welcome.
Thank you.
Please do keep up with your sensible posts. There does seem to be far too many ridiculous comments on almost every thread on here lately...!
Agreed. The constant lies being made up about me and the personal attacks are tiresome.
Please stop following me around the forum and commenting on my posts, would you...?
Thanks in advance. "Sure. I'm not following you around. I'm replying to your posts encouraging the guy who keeps making personal attacks against Mr and making up bullshit. It's a free forum, I'm free to reply to you as long as I stay within the rules. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"most refugees don't have safe routes.( they do. They are in safe countries if arriving by dinghy and can contact un to enter uk via our legal routes) So you force them onto irregular entry Which gives risk of abuse by others. And ironically can (via modern sla vary and 1ndeptitude) create a case for asylum. Irregular entry costs 5k would you agree(thats a well reported figure). How do you believe they pay for that irregular entry? If they are in France from a foreign country? Do I believe that Albanians have a case when they leave Albania? No. Do I know that when they arrive in UK they aren't in serv1tude? I don't.( So you believe they leave albania to become modern sla ves in France? They can't have become modern sla ves in the uk if they are detained immediately.) It's a funny area ATM from what I can tell. However as it appears we are ignoring those cases ATM to process women and children I have no idea the validity of any claim. That in itself doesn't help dispell any views that there is a way into the UK ATM. I can easily see that a false picture is painted to Albanians. The idea is, if you remove valid cases from using boats( we do this eith the un) , you make life a lot easier for managing those who do use boats. If the MOU is successful AND others go through a safe route, then why doesnt that solve the boat issue?( because people will still want to enter the uk and claim asylum) Or more namely, the processing issue. Who is landing in the UK you have to process ?( exactly WHO is landing.) 98% don't have a passport. How do you identify those that dont have ID. What harm is there in processing on France(if they are rejected in France, what is their next step do you think?) These people don't have passports how do we process in France? Finding out someone's country should be fairly easy with a degree of certainty. Using experts, you should be able to assertain language, accents and slang. Test their local knowledge.( do you know how wide ranging Arabic is? Do you know how many countries speak it? Do you know how difficult how many experts in localised languages do you believe are in the uk. There's a report on this. ( it's not a lot) How easy do you think you could work out if someone lives in Glasgow or London. And that's only a few hundred miles distance. ( how do you get then to talk? Would you know the difference between Jordanian Arabic and Palestinian?) Likewise religion. How well do you think a Muslim knows the Bible.( how well do you think Christians know the bible?) Donyou define a person's true religious believe by whether they know all the old and new testament books? ( a lot of Christians are failing that quiz) you can't apply for asylum in the UK, even if you are on France. The fact France is safe is irrelevant. We have signed up to a treaty that says people have the right to claim asylum here. They pay for the boat by becoming in debt. Hence serv1tude. Who would want to risk their life and cross the channel when they can go to a processing centre in France? That feels an odd decision of they believe they have a valid case. We process in France the same way as we do today in the UK. I don't get why passports have been introduced. And as I said, let's get some linguistics experts. Or people from the area. Why would you ask me to do the testing? My socttish example was simply to show that you don't need much on the way of expertise. Just more than me if testing someone from the middle east. Finally, this person claiming persecution doesn't even have a basic grasp of Christianity. Wow. Well let's combine the two. So Mr X from Y town. What church did you attend? What street is that on? Who was the priest three years ago? I'm sure there are better ways of testing both. This is two seconds of thought on a swinging site. It simply shows that you can do some sensible things. I'm sorry Hovis, these posts are highlighting some misunderstanding. No ID is the reason it is taking so long to process those making the crossings and it is costing a fortune in accommodation, although I think there was a new proposal to remedy this, I have yet to see it. Then we have the process on foreign land and anyone travelling on small boats can simply be sent back. This one is bonkers! They will keep making the journey because the goalposts haven't moved, a need to process still exists, still need to workout where they come from, and then maybe you can do something but still the long delays. The money for the crossings as been paid before they make the crossing, criminal gangs very rarely do credit for people they will never see again. This is why people will risk the bad weather, the crossing itself, they have paid thousands and they are not going to not take their spot. Also to add that approx 98% arrive with no ID, that would be around 44K people last year. That is a lot of processing, a lot translators etc. processing in France isn't about cutting down processing times but reducing crossings and criminality. If you can claim asylum to the UK in France why would you risk your life and pay thousands for the privalage? Their includes both those who believe they have a genuine claim and those who believe they can game the system. Especially if making irregular entry adds extra suspicion and weight against your case. I can't picture who would now engage a gang. The second bit is around triaging caes better. That's separate to France. I agree no ID makes things harder. My understanding of the labour proposal is that there are different benefits of doubt depending on where you are coming from and what you are claiming. People are getting hung up on identifying two Arabic countries. But step one is middle east or eastern European. If 50pc of cases are Albania, and one needs to have stronger evidence to claim political persecution or persecution because of sexuality, then that becomes a lot easier. Albanian you say? Any evidence of the religious or sexual persecution you claim ? Nope. Back you go. That's halved the number of claims quickly. That's my understanding of that policy anyway. " I'm not sure how processing in France reduces this. Most 1st time claims are rejected. If theybdotn have a passport how can we proceed or disprove anything? If they are rejected at France. They then simply pay for the boat trip to the uk. So gangs would still be in work. What labour is advicting is decrimiantion of persecution by your description The point of the different nationalities was that you made is sound simple do analyse through speech who is from where. In fact this is INCREDIBLY difficult and if I remember is only used for 1 in 20 cases and even then its success rate If not guaranteed. Nice scenario on the Albanian deportation. But this is what Rwanda sorts. Cat immediately prove your ID? Off to Rwanda you go. No need to even bother with France. But once they are here without Rwanda you can t remove them back to France nd you can't easily deport them. Rwanda plan deals with this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"most refugees don't have safe routes.( they do. They are in safe countries if arriving by dinghy and can contact un to enter uk via our legal routes) So you force them onto irregular entry Which gives risk of abuse by others. And ironically can (via modern sla vary and 1ndeptitude) create a case for asylum. Irregular entry costs 5k would you agree(thats a well reported figure). How do you believe they pay for that irregular entry? If they are in France from a foreign country? Do I believe that Albanians have a case when they leave Albania? No. Do I know that when they arrive in UK they aren't in serv1tude? I don't.( So you believe they leave albania to become modern sla ves in France? They can't have become modern sla ves in the uk if they are detained immediately.) It's a funny area ATM from what I can tell. However as it appears we are ignoring those cases ATM to process women and children I have no idea the validity of any claim. That in itself doesn't help dispell any views that there is a way into the UK ATM. I can easily see that a false picture is painted to Albanians. The idea is, if you remove valid cases from using boats( we do this eith the un) , you make life a lot easier for managing those who do use boats. If the MOU is successful AND others go through a safe route, then why doesnt that solve the boat issue?( because people will still want to enter the uk and claim asylum) Or more namely, the processing issue. Who is landing in the UK you have to process ?( exactly WHO is landing.) 98% don't have a passport. How do you identify those that dont have ID. What harm is there in processing on France(if they are rejected in France, what is their next step do you think?) These people don't have passports how do we process in France? Finding out someone's country should be fairly easy with a degree of certainty. Using experts, you should be able to assertain language, accents and slang. Test their local knowledge.( do you know how wide ranging Arabic is? Do you know how many countries speak it? Do you know how difficult how many experts in localised languages do you believe are in the uk. There's a report on this. ( it's not a lot) How easy do you think you could work out if someone lives in Glasgow or London. And that's only a few hundred miles distance. ( how do you get then to talk? Would you know the difference between Jordanian Arabic and Palestinian?) Likewise religion. How well do you think a Muslim knows the Bible.( how well do you think Christians know the bible?) Donyou define a person's true religious believe by whether they know all the old and new testament books? ( a lot of Christians are failing that quiz) you can't apply for asylum in the UK, even if you are on France. The fact France is safe is irrelevant. We have signed up to a treaty that says people have the right to claim asylum here. They pay for the boat by becoming in debt. Hence serv1tude. Who would want to risk their life and cross the channel when they can go to a processing centre in France? That feels an odd decision of they believe they have a valid case. We process in France the same way as we do today in the UK. I don't get why passports have been introduced. And as I said, let's get some linguistics experts. Or people from the area. Why would you ask me to do the testing? My socttish example was simply to show that you don't need much on the way of expertise. Just more than me if testing someone from the middle east. Finally, this person claiming persecution doesn't even have a basic grasp of Christianity. Wow. Well let's combine the two. So Mr X from Y town. What church did you attend? What street is that on? Who was the priest three years ago? I'm sure there are better ways of testing both. This is two seconds of thought on a swinging site. It simply shows that you can do some sensible things. I'm sorry Hovis, these posts are highlighting some misunderstanding. No ID is the reason it is taking so long to process those making the crossings and it is costing a fortune in accommodation, although I think there was a new proposal to remedy this, I have yet to see it. Then we have the process on foreign land and anyone travelling on small boats can simply be sent back. This one is bonkers! They will keep making the journey because the goalposts haven't moved, a need to process still exists, still need to workout where they come from, and then maybe you can do something but still the long delays. The money for the crossings as been paid before they make the crossing, criminal gangs very rarely do credit for people they will never see again. This is why people will risk the bad weather, the crossing itself, they have paid thousands and they are not going to not take their spot. Also to add that approx 98% arrive with no ID, that would be around 44K people last year. That is a lot of processing, a lot translators etc. processing in France isn't about cutting down processing times but reducing crossings and criminality. If you can claim asylum to the UK in France why would you risk your life and pay thousands for the privalage? Their includes both those who believe they have a genuine claim and those who believe they can game the system. Especially if making irregular entry adds extra suspicion and weight against your case. I can't picture who would now engage a gang. The second bit is around triaging caes better. That's separate to France. I agree no ID makes things harder. My understanding of the labour proposal is that there are different benefits of doubt depending on where you are coming from and what you are claiming. People are getting hung up on identifying two Arabic countries. But step one is middle east or eastern European. If 50pc of cases are Albania, and one needs to have stronger evidence to claim political persecution or persecution because of sexuality, then that becomes a lot easier. Albanian you say? Any evidence of the religious or sexual persecution you claim ? Nope. Back you go. That's halved the number of claims quickly. That's my understanding of that policy anyway. I'm not sure how processing in France reduces this. Most 1st time claims are rejected. If theybdotn have a passport how can we proceed or disprove anything? If they are rejected at France. They then simply pay for the boat trip to the uk. So gangs would still be in work. What labour is advicting is decrimiantion of persecution by your description The point of the different nationalities was that you made is sound simple do analyse through speech who is from where. In fact this is INCREDIBLY difficult and if I remember is only used for 1 in 20 cases and even then its success rate If not guaranteed. Nice scenario on the Albanian deportation. But this is what Rwanda sorts. Cat immediately prove your ID? Off to Rwanda you go. No need to even bother with France. But once they are here without Rwanda you can t remove them back to France nd you can't easily deport them. Rwanda plan deals with this " a) take finger prints. B) have a higher bar for any irregular entries. Again, why did you come by boat not the official safe route? The language bit can be used as a broad guide. How many Albanians can pass as Syrian ? It can be used to sense check claims. Once you've established they are eastern European then the bar becomes higher. I don't follow your point on decrimination of persecution. Or your comments about Albania and Rwanda tbh. Do you think all genuine refugees have ID? I can see a case where you can look at likelihood of ID with their backstory. But I'm not clear what the case study of someone who doesn't have ID is. Eg who are they really and what are they claiming ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"most refugees don't have safe routes.( they do. They are in safe countries if arriving by dinghy and can contact un to enter uk via our legal routes) So you force them onto irregular entry Which gives risk of abuse by others. And ironically can (via modern sla vary and 1ndeptitude) create a case for asylum. Irregular entry costs 5k would you agree(thats a well reported figure). How do you believe they pay for that irregular entry? If they are in France from a foreign country? Do I believe that Albanians have a case when they leave Albania? No. Do I know that when they arrive in UK they aren't in serv1tude? I don't.( So you believe they leave albania to become modern sla ves in France? They can't have become modern sla ves in the uk if they are detained immediately.) It's a funny area ATM from what I can tell. However as it appears we are ignoring those cases ATM to process women and children I have no idea the validity of any claim. That in itself doesn't help dispell any views that there is a way into the UK ATM. I can easily see that a false picture is painted to Albanians. The idea is, if you remove valid cases from using boats( we do this eith the un) , you make life a lot easier for managing those who do use boats. If the MOU is successful AND others go through a safe route, then why doesnt that solve the boat issue?( because people will still want to enter the uk and claim asylum) Or more namely, the processing issue. Who is landing in the UK you have to process ?( exactly WHO is landing.) 98% don't have a passport. How do you identify those that dont have ID. What harm is there in processing on France(if they are rejected in France, what is their next step do you think?) These people don't have passports how do we process in France? Finding out someone's country should be fairly easy with a degree of certainty. Using experts, you should be able to assertain language, accents and slang. Test their local knowledge.( do you know how wide ranging Arabic is? Do you know how many countries speak it? Do you know how difficult how many experts in localised languages do you believe are in the uk. There's a report on this. ( it's not a lot) How easy do you think you could work out if someone lives in Glasgow or London. And that's only a few hundred miles distance. ( how do you get then to talk? Would you know the difference between Jordanian Arabic and Palestinian?) Likewise religion. How well do you think a Muslim knows the Bible.( how well do you think Christians know the bible?) Donyou define a person's true religious believe by whether they know all the old and new testament books? ( a lot of Christians are failing that quiz) you can't apply for asylum in the UK, even if you are on France. The fact France is safe is irrelevant. We have signed up to a treaty that says people have the right to claim asylum here. They pay for the boat by becoming in debt. Hence serv1tude. Who would want to risk their life and cross the channel when they can go to a processing centre in France? That feels an odd decision of they believe they have a valid case. We process in France the same way as we do today in the UK. I don't get why passports have been introduced. And as I said, let's get some linguistics experts. Or people from the area. Why would you ask me to do the testing? My socttish example was simply to show that you don't need much on the way of expertise. Just more than me if testing someone from the middle east. Finally, this person claiming persecution doesn't even have a basic grasp of Christianity. Wow. Well let's combine the two. So Mr X from Y town. What church did you attend? What street is that on? Who was the priest three years ago? I'm sure there are better ways of testing both. This is two seconds of thought on a swinging site. It simply shows that you can do some sensible things. I'm sorry Hovis, these posts are highlighting some misunderstanding. No ID is the reason it is taking so long to process those making the crossings and it is costing a fortune in accommodation, although I think there was a new proposal to remedy this, I have yet to see it. Then we have the process on foreign land and anyone travelling on small boats can simply be sent back. This one is bonkers! They will keep making the journey because the goalposts haven't moved, a need to process still exists, still need to workout where they come from, and then maybe you can do something but still the long delays. The money for the crossings as been paid before they make the crossing, criminal gangs very rarely do credit for people they will never see again. This is why people will risk the bad weather, the crossing itself, they have paid thousands and they are not going to not take their spot. Also to add that approx 98% arrive with no ID, that would be around 44K people last year. That is a lot of processing, a lot translators etc. processing in France isn't about cutting down processing times but reducing crossings and criminality. If you can claim asylum to the UK in France why would you risk your life and pay thousands for the privalage? Their includes both those who believe they have a genuine claim and those who believe they can game the system. Especially if making irregular entry adds extra suspicion and weight against your case. I can't picture who would now engage a gang. The second bit is around triaging caes better. That's separate to France. I agree no ID makes things harder. My understanding of the labour proposal is that there are different benefits of doubt depending on where you are coming from and what you are claiming. People are getting hung up on identifying two Arabic countries. But step one is middle east or eastern European. If 50pc of cases are Albania, and one needs to have stronger evidence to claim political persecution or persecution because of sexuality, then that becomes a lot easier. Albanian you say? Any evidence of the religious or sexual persecution you claim ? Nope. Back you go. That's halved the number of claims quickly. That's my understanding of that policy anyway. I'm not sure how processing in France reduces this. Most 1st time claims are rejected. If theybdotn have a passport how can we proceed or disprove anything? If they are rejected at France. They then simply pay for the boat trip to the uk. So gangs would still be in work. What labour is advicting is decrimiantion of persecution by your description The point of the different nationalities was that you made is sound simple do analyse through speech who is from where. In fact this is INCREDIBLY difficult and if I remember is only used for 1 in 20 cases and even then its success rate If not guaranteed. Nice scenario on the Albanian deportation. But this is what Rwanda sorts. Cat immediately prove your ID? Off to Rwanda you go. No need to even bother with France. But once they are here without Rwanda you can t remove them back to France nd you can't easily deport them. Rwanda plan deals with this a) take finger prints. B) have a higher bar for any irregular entries. Again, why did you come by boat not the official safe route? The language bit can be used as a broad guide. How many Albanians can pass as Syrian ? It can be used to sense check claims. Once you've established they are eastern European then the bar becomes higher. I don't follow your point on decrimination of persecution. Or your comments about Albania and Rwanda tbh. Do you think all genuine refugees have ID? I can see a case where you can look at likelihood of ID with their backstory. But I'm not clear what the case study of someone who doesn't have ID is. Eg who are they really and what are they claiming ? " How do you propose they take finger prints? This would take some monumental law enforcement changes and agreements along with some big civil rights problems. You can apply for refugee status in a safe country but only when you have supplied finger prints.civil rights lawyers would have a field day. Once they are here you still need to go through tk current processes 1st claims , 2nd claims?, court appeals. (if you don't have a deal like Rwanda) Albanians are 50% of current illegal entrant in 2022. But you still have another 50% of around 27k what is your proposal here? When you are setting different levels of whatbsk acceptable persecution for different countries. You are opening up a can of worms on discrimination. I think most genuine refugees will have an ability to prove who they are. Sadly I don't think the UK gets many of these from France. They are predominantly economic migrants. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"most refugees don't have safe routes.( they do. They are in safe countries if arriving by dinghy and can contact un to enter uk via our legal routes) So you force them onto irregular entry Which gives risk of abuse by others. And ironically can (via modern sla vary and 1ndeptitude) create a case for asylum. Irregular entry costs 5k would you agree(thats a well reported figure). How do you believe they pay for that irregular entry? If they are in France from a foreign country? Do I believe that Albanians have a case when they leave Albania? No. Do I know that when they arrive in UK they aren't in serv1tude? I don't.( So you believe they leave albania to become modern sla ves in France? They can't have become modern sla ves in the uk if they are detained immediately.) It's a funny area ATM from what I can tell. However as it appears we are ignoring those cases ATM to process women and children I have no idea the validity of any claim. That in itself doesn't help dispell any views that there is a way into the UK ATM. I can easily see that a false picture is painted to Albanians. The idea is, if you remove valid cases from using boats( we do this eith the un) , you make life a lot easier for managing those who do use boats. If the MOU is successful AND others go through a safe route, then why doesnt that solve the boat issue?( because people will still want to enter the uk and claim asylum) Or more namely, the processing issue. Who is landing in the UK you have to process ?( exactly WHO is landing.) 98% don't have a passport. How do you identify those that dont have ID. What harm is there in processing on France(if they are rejected in France, what is their next step do you think?) These people don't have passports how do we process in France? Finding out someone's country should be fairly easy with a degree of certainty. Using experts, you should be able to assertain language, accents and slang. Test their local knowledge.( do you know how wide ranging Arabic is? Do you know how many countries speak it? Do you know how difficult how many experts in localised languages do you believe are in the uk. There's a report on this. ( it's not a lot) How easy do you think you could work out if someone lives in Glasgow or London. And that's only a few hundred miles distance. ( how do you get then to talk? Would you know the difference between Jordanian Arabic and Palestinian?) Likewise religion. How well do you think a Muslim knows the Bible.( how well do you think Christians know the bible?) Donyou define a person's true religious believe by whether they know all the old and new testament books? ( a lot of Christians are failing that quiz) you can't apply for asylum in the UK, even if you are on France. The fact France is safe is irrelevant. We have signed up to a treaty that says people have the right to claim asylum here. They pay for the boat by becoming in debt. Hence serv1tude. Who would want to risk their life and cross the channel when they can go to a processing centre in France? That feels an odd decision of they believe they have a valid case. We process in France the same way as we do today in the UK. I don't get why passports have been introduced. And as I said, let's get some linguistics experts. Or people from the area. Why would you ask me to do the testing? My socttish example was simply to show that you don't need much on the way of expertise. Just more than me if testing someone from the middle east. Finally, this person claiming persecution doesn't even have a basic grasp of Christianity. Wow. Well let's combine the two. So Mr X from Y town. What church did you attend? What street is that on? Who was the priest three years ago? I'm sure there are better ways of testing both. This is two seconds of thought on a swinging site. It simply shows that you can do some sensible things. I'm sorry Hovis, these posts are highlighting some misunderstanding. No ID is the reason it is taking so long to process those making the crossings and it is costing a fortune in accommodation, although I think there was a new proposal to remedy this, I have yet to see it. Then we have the process on foreign land and anyone travelling on small boats can simply be sent back. This one is bonkers! They will keep making the journey because the goalposts haven't moved, a need to process still exists, still need to workout where they come from, and then maybe you can do something but still the long delays. The money for the crossings as been paid before they make the crossing, criminal gangs very rarely do credit for people they will never see again. This is why people will risk the bad weather, the crossing itself, they have paid thousands and they are not going to not take their spot. Also to add that approx 98% arrive with no ID, that would be around 44K people last year. That is a lot of processing, a lot translators etc. processing in France isn't about cutting down processing times but reducing crossings and criminality. If you can claim asylum to the UK in France why would you risk your life and pay thousands for the privalage? Their includes both those who believe they have a genuine claim and those who believe they can game the system. Especially if making irregular entry adds extra suspicion and weight against your case. I can't picture who would now engage a gang. The second bit is around triaging caes better. That's separate to France. I agree no ID makes things harder. My understanding of the labour proposal is that there are different benefits of doubt depending on where you are coming from and what you are claiming. People are getting hung up on identifying two Arabic countries. But step one is middle east or eastern European. If 50pc of cases are Albania, and one needs to have stronger evidence to claim political persecution or persecution because of sexuality, then that becomes a lot easier. Albanian you say? Any evidence of the religious or sexual persecution you claim ? Nope. Back you go. That's halved the number of claims quickly. That's my understanding of that policy anyway. I'm not sure how processing in France reduces this. Most 1st time claims are rejected. If theybdotn have a passport how can we proceed or disprove anything? If they are rejected at France. They then simply pay for the boat trip to the uk. So gangs would still be in work. What labour is advicting is decrimiantion of persecution by your description The point of the different nationalities was that you made is sound simple do analyse through speech who is from where. In fact this is INCREDIBLY difficult and if I remember is only used for 1 in 20 cases and even then its success rate If not guaranteed. Nice scenario on the Albanian deportation. But this is what Rwanda sorts. Cat immediately prove your ID? Off to Rwanda you go. No need to even bother with France. But once they are here without Rwanda you can t remove them back to France nd you can't easily deport them. Rwanda plan deals with this a) take finger prints. B) have a higher bar for any irregular entries. Again, why did you come by boat not the official safe route? The language bit can be used as a broad guide. How many Albanians can pass as Syrian ? It can be used to sense check claims. Once you've established they are eastern European then the bar becomes higher. I don't follow your point on decrimination of persecution. Or your comments about Albania and Rwanda tbh. Do you think all genuine refugees have ID? I can see a case where you can look at likelihood of ID with their backstory. But I'm not clear what the case study of someone who doesn't have ID is. Eg who are they really and what are they claiming ? How do you propose they take finger prints? This would take some monumental law enforcement changes and agreements along with some big civil rights problems. You can apply for refugee status in a safe country but only when you have supplied finger prints.civil rights lawyers would have a field day. Once they are here you still need to go through tk current processes 1st claims , 2nd claims?, court appeals. (if you don't have a deal like Rwanda) Albanians are 50% of current illegal entrant in 2022. But you still have another 50% of around 27k what is your proposal here? When you are setting different levels of whatbsk acceptable persecution for different countries. You are opening up a can of worms on discrimination. I think most genuine refugees will have an ability to prove who they are. Sadly I don't think the UK gets many of these from France. They are predominantly economic migrants. " if we arent allowed to take fingerprints or photos, I gi back to b) coming in via boat weighs against you. Tbh, I'd be more supportive of a Rwanda style plan I'd there was a safe route. That's my big issue is the cathxh 22. And maybe a slightly larger and safer country than Rwanda. But it seems you may have accepted that the approach could work with 50pc of applicants. That's a big step forward versus today right? How much money would halving the hotel costs be over day? I never claimed it was perfect. On the discrimination point, I don't have details. It's a labour policy not mine. Irrc it was consistent with wider guidance as I went in thinking it couldn't be legal. But part of an asylum claim is assessing the probability the person would be persecuted for reasons they state. That in itself lends itself to different probabilities based on where they come from. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry Hovis. I just don't see how your plan addresses tbe issue. Infact I would say it more than likely opens up the chances of fraud. If I wanted to end up in the uk I could get a fake syrian/Iran passport. And simply apply at the uk border force in France. I think this way would see applications go through the roof. Money would move toward fake passport generation. " why would this work in the French processing centre but not the Dover one? Maybe I'm not addressing the issue you want. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"most refugees don't have safe routes.( they do. They are in safe countries if arriving by dinghy and can contact un to enter uk via our legal routes) So you force them onto irregular entry Which gives risk of abuse by others. And ironically can (via modern sla vary and 1ndeptitude) create a case for asylum. Irregular entry costs 5k would you agree(thats a well reported figure). How do you believe they pay for that irregular entry? If they are in France from a foreign country? Do I believe that Albanians have a case when they leave Albania? No. Do I know that when they arrive in UK they aren't in serv1tude? I don't.( So you believe they leave albania to become modern sla ves in France? They can't have become modern sla ves in the uk if they are detained immediately.) It's a funny area ATM from what I can tell. However as it appears we are ignoring those cases ATM to process women and children I have no idea the validity of any claim. That in itself doesn't help dispell any views that there is a way into the UK ATM. I can easily see that a false picture is painted to Albanians. The idea is, if you remove valid cases from using boats( we do this eith the un) , you make life a lot easier for managing those who do use boats. If the MOU is successful AND others go through a safe route, then why doesnt that solve the boat issue?( because people will still want to enter the uk and claim asylum) Or more namely, the processing issue. Who is landing in the UK you have to process ?( exactly WHO is landing.) 98% don't have a passport. How do you identify those that dont have ID. What harm is there in processing on France(if they are rejected in France, what is their next step do you think?) These people don't have passports how do we process in France? Finding out someone's country should be fairly easy with a degree of certainty. Using experts, you should be able to assertain language, accents and slang. Test their local knowledge.( do you know how wide ranging Arabic is? Do you know how many countries speak it? Do you know how difficult how many experts in localised languages do you believe are in the uk. There's a report on this. ( it's not a lot) How easy do you think you could work out if someone lives in Glasgow or London. And that's only a few hundred miles distance. ( how do you get then to talk? Would you know the difference between Jordanian Arabic and Palestinian?) Likewise religion. How well do you think a Muslim knows the Bible.( how well do you think Christians know the bible?) Donyou define a person's true religious believe by whether they know all the old and new testament books? ( a lot of Christians are failing that quiz) you can't apply for asylum in the UK, even if you are on France. The fact France is safe is irrelevant. We have signed up to a treaty that says people have the right to claim asylum here. They pay for the boat by becoming in debt. Hence serv1tude. Who would want to risk their life and cross the channel when they can go to a processing centre in France? That feels an odd decision of they believe they have a valid case. We process in France the same way as we do today in the UK. I don't get why passports have been introduced. And as I said, let's get some linguistics experts. Or people from the area. Why would you ask me to do the testing? My socttish example was simply to show that you don't need much on the way of expertise. Just more than me if testing someone from the middle east. Finally, this person claiming persecution doesn't even have a basic grasp of Christianity. Wow. Well let's combine the two. So Mr X from Y town. What church did you attend? What street is that on? Who was the priest three years ago? I'm sure there are better ways of testing both. This is two seconds of thought on a swinging site. It simply shows that you can do some sensible things. I'm sorry Hovis, these posts are highlighting some misunderstanding. No ID is the reason it is taking so long to process those making the crossings and it is costing a fortune in accommodation, although I think there was a new proposal to remedy this, I have yet to see it. Then we have the process on foreign land and anyone travelling on small boats can simply be sent back. This one is bonkers! They will keep making the journey because the goalposts haven't moved, a need to process still exists, still need to workout where they come from, and then maybe you can do something but still the long delays. The money for the crossings as been paid before they make the crossing, criminal gangs very rarely do credit for people they will never see again. This is why people will risk the bad weather, the crossing itself, they have paid thousands and they are not going to not take their spot. Also to add that approx 98% arrive with no ID, that would be around 44K people last year. That is a lot of processing, a lot translators etc. processing in France isn't about cutting down processing times but reducing crossings and criminality. If you can claim asylum to the UK in France why would you risk your life and pay thousands for the privalage? Their includes both those who believe they have a genuine claim and those who believe they can game the system. Especially if making irregular entry adds extra suspicion and weight against your case. I can't picture who would now engage a gang. The second bit is around triaging caes better. That's separate to France. I agree no ID makes things harder. My understanding of the labour proposal is that there are different benefits of doubt depending on where you are coming from and what you are claiming. People are getting hung up on identifying two Arabic countries. But step one is middle east or eastern European. If 50pc of cases are Albania, and one needs to have stronger evidence to claim political persecution or persecution because of sexuality, then that becomes a lot easier. Albanian you say? Any evidence of the religious or sexual persecution you claim ? Nope. Back you go. That's halved the number of claims quickly. That's my understanding of that policy anyway. I'm not sure how processing in France reduces this. Most 1st time claims are rejected. If theybdotn have a passport how can we proceed or disprove anything? If they are rejected at France. They then simply pay for the boat trip to the uk. So gangs would still be in work. What labour is advicting is decrimiantion of persecution by your description The point of the different nationalities was that you made is sound simple do analyse through speech who is from where. In fact this is INCREDIBLY difficult and if I remember is only used for 1 in 20 cases and even then its success rate If not guaranteed. Nice scenario on the Albanian deportation. But this is what Rwanda sorts. Cat immediately prove your ID? Off to Rwanda you go. No need to even bother with France. But once they are here without Rwanda you can t remove them back to France nd you can't easily deport them. Rwanda plan deals with this a) take finger prints. B) have a higher bar for any irregular entries. Again, why did you come by boat not the official safe route? The language bit can be used as a broad guide. How many Albanians can pass as Syrian ? It can be used to sense check claims. Once you've established they are eastern European then the bar becomes higher. I don't follow your point on decrimination of persecution. Or your comments about Albania and Rwanda tbh. Do you think all genuine refugees have ID? I can see a case where you can look at likelihood of ID with their backstory. But I'm not clear what the case study of someone who doesn't have ID is. Eg who are they really and what are they claiming ? How do you propose they take finger prints? This would take some monumental law enforcement changes and agreements along with some big civil rights problems. You can apply for refugee status in a safe country but only when you have supplied finger prints.civil rights lawyers would have a field day. Once they are here you still need to go through tk current processes 1st claims , 2nd claims?, court appeals. (if you don't have a deal like Rwanda) Albanians are 50% of current illegal entrant in 2022. But you still have another 50% of around 27k what is your proposal here? When you are setting different levels of whatbsk acceptable persecution for different countries. You are opening up a can of worms on discrimination. I think most genuine refugees will have an ability to prove who they are. Sadly I don't think the UK gets many of these from France. They are predominantly economic migrants. if we arent allowed to take fingerprints or photos, I gi back to b) coming in via boat weighs against you. Tbh, I'd be more supportive of a Rwanda style plan I'd there was a safe route. That's my big issue is the cathxh 22. And maybe a slightly larger and safer country than Rwanda. But it seems you may have accepted that the approach could work with 50pc of applicants. That's a big step forward versus today right? How much money would halving the hotel costs be over day? I never claimed it was perfect. On the discrimination point, I don't have details. It's a labour policy not mine. Irrc it was consistent with wider guidance as I went in thinking it couldn't be legal. But part of an asylum claim is assessing the probability the person would be persecuted for reasons they state. That in itself lends itself to different probabilities based on where they come from. " Re the claim and persecution. Yes each individual claim is assessed. But not the country. The approach already works without France for 50% of applicants. Since they are rejected and will be going back to Albania. I'm not sure how you mean coming via boat goas against you? If you arrive you are entitled to all legal claim procedures. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry Hovis. I just don't see how your plan addresses tbe issue. Infact I would say it more than likely opens up the chances of fraud. If I wanted to end up in the uk I could get a fake syrian/Iran passport. And simply apply at the uk border force in France. I think this way would see applications go through the roof. Money would move toward fake passport generation. why would this work in the French processing centre but not the Dover one? Maybe I'm not addressing the issue you want. " I would fully expect the amount of small boat arrivals to increase dramatically. I think after the Dublin agreement was ditched on brexit day we saw small boat arrivals go up in the 2 following years from 1800 to 55000. You put a legal claiming station in France. What do you think is happening? What do you believe is more expensive. A fake passport or hiring a boatand travelling 20+ miles across the channel | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"most refugees don't have safe routes.( they do. They are in safe countries if arriving by dinghy and can contact un to enter uk via our legal routes) So you force them onto irregular entry Which gives risk of abuse by others. And ironically can (via modern sla vary and 1ndeptitude) create a case for asylum. Irregular entry costs 5k would you agree(thats a well reported figure). How do you believe they pay for that irregular entry? If they are in France from a foreign country? Do I believe that Albanians have a case when they leave Albania? No. Do I know that when they arrive in UK they aren't in serv1tude? I don't.( So you believe they leave albania to become modern sla ves in France? They can't have become modern sla ves in the uk if they are detained immediately.) It's a funny area ATM from what I can tell. However as it appears we are ignoring those cases ATM to process women and children I have no idea the validity of any claim. That in itself doesn't help dispell any views that there is a way into the UK ATM. I can easily see that a false picture is painted to Albanians. The idea is, if you remove valid cases from using boats( we do this eith the un) , you make life a lot easier for managing those who do use boats. If the MOU is successful AND others go through a safe route, then why doesnt that solve the boat issue?( because people will still want to enter the uk and claim asylum) Or more namely, the processing issue. Who is landing in the UK you have to process ?( exactly WHO is landing.) 98% don't have a passport. How do you identify those that dont have ID. What harm is there in processing on France(if they are rejected in France, what is their next step do you think?) These people don't have passports how do we process in France? Finding out someone's country should be fairly easy with a degree of certainty. Using experts, you should be able to assertain language, accents and slang. Test their local knowledge.( do you know how wide ranging Arabic is? Do you know how many countries speak it? Do you know how difficult how many experts in localised languages do you believe are in the uk. There's a report on this. ( it's not a lot) How easy do you think you could work out if someone lives in Glasgow or London. And that's only a few hundred miles distance. ( how do you get then to talk? Would you know the difference between Jordanian Arabic and Palestinian?) Likewise religion. How well do you think a Muslim knows the Bible.( how well do you think Christians know the bible?) Donyou define a person's true religious believe by whether they know all the old and new testament books? ( a lot of Christians are failing that quiz) you can't apply for asylum in the UK, even if you are on France. The fact France is safe is irrelevant. We have signed up to a treaty that says people have the right to claim asylum here. They pay for the boat by becoming in debt. Hence serv1tude. Who would want to risk their life and cross the channel when they can go to a processing centre in France? That feels an odd decision of they believe they have a valid case. We process in France the same way as we do today in the UK. I don't get why passports have been introduced. And as I said, let's get some linguistics experts. Or people from the area. Why would you ask me to do the testing? My socttish example was simply to show that you don't need much on the way of expertise. Just more than me if testing someone from the middle east. Finally, this person claiming persecution doesn't even have a basic grasp of Christianity. Wow. Well let's combine the two. So Mr X from Y town. What church did you attend? What street is that on? Who was the priest three years ago? I'm sure there are better ways of testing both. This is two seconds of thought on a swinging site. It simply shows that you can do some sensible things. I'm sorry Hovis, these posts are highlighting some misunderstanding. No ID is the reason it is taking so long to process those making the crossings and it is costing a fortune in accommodation, although I think there was a new proposal to remedy this, I have yet to see it. Then we have the process on foreign land and anyone travelling on small boats can simply be sent back. This one is bonkers! They will keep making the journey because the goalposts haven't moved, a need to process still exists, still need to workout where they come from, and then maybe you can do something but still the long delays. The money for the crossings as been paid before they make the crossing, criminal gangs very rarely do credit for people they will never see again. This is why people will risk the bad weather, the crossing itself, they have paid thousands and they are not going to not take their spot. Also to add that approx 98% arrive with no ID, that would be around 44K people last year. That is a lot of processing, a lot translators etc. processing in France isn't about cutting down processing times but reducing crossings and criminality. If you can claim asylum to the UK in France why would you risk your life and pay thousands for the privalage? Their includes both those who believe they have a genuine claim and those who believe they can game the system. Especially if making irregular entry adds extra suspicion and weight against your case. I can't picture who would now engage a gang. The second bit is around triaging caes better. That's separate to France. I agree no ID makes things harder. My understanding of the labour proposal is that there are different benefits of doubt depending on where you are coming from and what you are claiming. People are getting hung up on identifying two Arabic countries. But step one is middle east or eastern European. If 50pc of cases are Albania, and one needs to have stronger evidence to claim political persecution or persecution because of sexuality, then that becomes a lot easier. Albanian you say? Any evidence of the religious or sexual persecution you claim ? Nope. Back you go. That's halved the number of claims quickly. That's my understanding of that policy anyway. I'm not sure how processing in France reduces this. Most 1st time claims are rejected. If theybdotn have a passport how can we proceed or disprove anything? If they are rejected at France. They then simply pay for the boat trip to the uk. So gangs would still be in work. What labour is advicting is decrimiantion of persecution by your description The point of the different nationalities was that you made is sound simple do analyse through speech who is from where. In fact this is INCREDIBLY difficult and if I remember is only used for 1 in 20 cases and even then its success rate If not guaranteed. Nice scenario on the Albanian deportation. But this is what Rwanda sorts. Cat immediately prove your ID? Off to Rwanda you go. No need to even bother with France. But once they are here without Rwanda you can t remove them back to France nd you can't easily deport them. Rwanda plan deals with this a) take finger prints. B) have a higher bar for any irregular entries. Again, why did you come by boat not the official safe route? The language bit can be used as a broad guide. How many Albanians can pass as Syrian ? It can be used to sense check claims. Once you've established they are eastern European then the bar becomes higher. I don't follow your point on decrimination of persecution. Or your comments about Albania and Rwanda tbh. Do you think all genuine refugees have ID? I can see a case where you can look at likelihood of ID with their backstory. But I'm not clear what the case study of someone who doesn't have ID is. Eg who are they really and what are they claiming ? How do you propose they take finger prints? This would take some monumental law enforcement changes and agreements along with some big civil rights problems. You can apply for refugee status in a safe country but only when you have supplied finger prints.civil rights lawyers would have a field day. Once they are here you still need to go through tk current processes 1st claims , 2nd claims?, court appeals. (if you don't have a deal like Rwanda) Albanians are 50% of current illegal entrant in 2022. But you still have another 50% of around 27k what is your proposal here? When you are setting different levels of whatbsk acceptable persecution for different countries. You are opening up a can of worms on discrimination. I think most genuine refugees will have an ability to prove who they are. Sadly I don't think the UK gets many of these from France. They are predominantly economic migrants. if we arent allowed to take fingerprints or photos, I gi back to b) coming in via boat weighs against you. Tbh, I'd be more supportive of a Rwanda style plan I'd there was a safe route. That's my big issue is the cathxh 22. And maybe a slightly larger and safer country than Rwanda. But it seems you may have accepted that the approach could work with 50pc of applicants. That's a big step forward versus today right? How much money would halving the hotel costs be over day? I never claimed it was perfect. On the discrimination point, I don't have details. It's a labour policy not mine. Irrc it was consistent with wider guidance as I went in thinking it couldn't be legal. But part of an asylum claim is assessing the probability the person would be persecuted for reasons they state. That in itself lends itself to different probabilities based on where they come from. Re the claim and persecution. Yes each individual claim is assessed. But not the country. The approach already works without France for 50% of applicants. Since they are rejected and will be going back to Albania. I'm not sure how you mean coming via boat goas against you? If you arrive you are entitled to all legal claim procedures. " if you have a safe route via a france based processing cemtre, then entering irregular routes undermines your credibility. Therefore the incentive to use a boat rather than a safe route is a lot lower. Even if all the people rejected in a France centre decided to hop on a boat we've cut crossings by maybe 45pc. That's a win when it comes to saving life's and cuts criminal proceeds in half. The Albania approach is not about France based processing centres. It is as I understand it about fast tracking some cases. That's not happening today because only something like 15pc of Albania cases have been looked at, and these tend to be women and children (hence the high acceptance rate). The working age men are bottom of this list it seems. It's late. I will see if I can dig out the details of the labour proposal tomorrow. It's not mine. But this thread was about labour details. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck it, easy to find. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/09/labour-would-fast-track-asylum-cases-from-safe-countries-to-clear-backlog Points to a UN report that apparently shows legality. Beyond this, Im not able to explain, or defend. As above, thia thread was asking about labour details. I've been covering two sets of policies I've seen from labour and trying to explain what I recalled of them. I thought the fast tracking was dodgy, but at least appreciated that it seemed to work withing international guidelines. Rather than the Rwanda and other schemes the Tory came up with. Governments staying within laws and treaties is important to me, as it's a slippery slope otherwise. I'd rather laws are changed or treaties exited, than simply ignored. " Hovis, you are bouncing around a little bit.. What exactly do you want changed? What would that change bring that isn't in place today, and what is ignored? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck it, easy to find. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/09/labour-would-fast-track-asylum-cases-from-safe-countries-to-clear-backlog Points to a UN report that apparently shows legality. Beyond this, Im not able to explain, or defend. As above, thia thread was asking about labour details. I've been covering two sets of policies I've seen from labour and trying to explain what I recalled of them. I thought the fast tracking was dodgy, but at least appreciated that it seemed to work withing international guidelines. Rather than the Rwanda and other schemes the Tory came up with. Governments staying within laws and treaties is important to me, as it's a slippery slope otherwise. I'd rather laws are changed or treaties exited, than simply ignored. Hovis, you are bouncing around a little bit.. What exactly do you want changed? What would that change bring that isn't in place today, and what is ignored? " I'm putting forward labour policies. The suggestion on the article is that there is a way of processing faster. That's their policy. Now, I may have misrepresented that in my explanations. But it's there for you to read now. Some detail. As requested on the OP. The non UK processing centres may be an older policy tbh. I only recall reading about that when someone said "Rwanda was like a labour policy". That turned out to be untrue as it was about processing claims in other countries BEFORE they got to the UK (not after). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck it, easy to find. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/09/labour-would-fast-track-asylum-cases-from-safe-countries-to-clear-backlog Points to a UN report that apparently shows legality. Beyond this, Im not able to explain, or defend. As above, thia thread was asking about labour details. I've been covering two sets of policies I've seen from labour and trying to explain what I recalled of them. I thought the fast tracking was dodgy, but at least appreciated that it seemed to work withing international guidelines. Rather than the Rwanda and other schemes the Tory came up with. Governments staying within laws and treaties is important to me, as it's a slippery slope otherwise. I'd rather laws are changed or treaties exited, than simply ignored. " Saying we will accelerate asylum claims isn't a solution. Because the uk government has already done this. Whys labours policy on actual illegal immigration? All it does is push Albanians to the front to be rejected and leave others in limbo. The Rwanda policy is within law. This was decided by the high court. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"most refugees don't have safe routes.( they do. They are in safe countries if arriving by dinghy and can contact un to enter uk via our legal routes) So you force them onto irregular entry Which gives risk of abuse by others. And ironically can (via modern sla vary and 1ndeptitude) create a case for asylum. Irregular entry costs 5k would you agree(thats a well reported figure). How do you believe they pay for that irregular entry? If they are in France from a foreign country? Do I believe that Albanians have a case when they leave Albania? No. Do I know that when they arrive in UK they aren't in serv1tude? I don't.( So you believe they leave albania to become modern sla ves in France? They can't have become modern sla ves in the uk if they are detained immediately.) It's a funny area ATM from what I can tell. However as it appears we are ignoring those cases ATM to process women and children I have no idea the validity of any claim. That in itself doesn't help dispell any views that there is a way into the UK ATM. I can easily see that a false picture is painted to Albanians. The idea is, if you remove valid cases from using boats( we do this eith the un) , you make life a lot easier for managing those who do use boats. If the MOU is successful AND others go through a safe route, then why doesnt that solve the boat issue?( because people will still want to enter the uk and claim asylum) Or more namely, the processing issue. Who is landing in the UK you have to process ?( exactly WHO is landing.) 98% don't have a passport. How do you identify those that dont have ID. What harm is there in processing on France(if they are rejected in France, what is their next step do you think?) These people don't have passports how do we process in France? Finding out someone's country should be fairly easy with a degree of certainty. Using experts, you should be able to assertain language, accents and slang. Test their local knowledge.( do you know how wide ranging Arabic is? Do you know how many countries speak it? Do you know how difficult how many experts in localised languages do you believe are in the uk. There's a report on this. ( it's not a lot) How easy do you think you could work out if someone lives in Glasgow or London. And that's only a few hundred miles distance. ( how do you get then to talk? Would you know the difference between Jordanian Arabic and Palestinian?) Likewise religion. How well do you think a Muslim knows the Bible.( how well do you think Christians know the bible?) Donyou define a person's true religious believe by whether they know all the old and new testament books? ( a lot of Christians are failing that quiz) you can't apply for asylum in the UK, even if you are on France. The fact France is safe is irrelevant. We have signed up to a treaty that says people have the right to claim asylum here. They pay for the boat by becoming in debt. Hence serv1tude. Who would want to risk their life and cross the channel when they can go to a processing centre in France? That feels an odd decision of they believe they have a valid case. We process in France the same way as we do today in the UK. I don't get why passports have been introduced. And as I said, let's get some linguistics experts. Or people from the area. Why would you ask me to do the testing? My socttish example was simply to show that you don't need much on the way of expertise. Just more than me if testing someone from the middle east. Finally, this person claiming persecution doesn't even have a basic grasp of Christianity. Wow. Well let's combine the two. So Mr X from Y town. What church did you attend? What street is that on? Who was the priest three years ago? I'm sure there are better ways of testing both. This is two seconds of thought on a swinging site. It simply shows that you can do some sensible things. I'm sorry Hovis, these posts are highlighting some misunderstanding. No ID is the reason it is taking so long to process those making the crossings and it is costing a fortune in accommodation, although I think there was a new proposal to remedy this, I have yet to see it. Then we have the process on foreign land and anyone travelling on small boats can simply be sent back. This one is bonkers! They will keep making the journey because the goalposts haven't moved, a need to process still exists, still need to workout where they come from, and then maybe you can do something but still the long delays. The money for the crossings as been paid before they make the crossing, criminal gangs very rarely do credit for people they will never see again. This is why people will risk the bad weather, the crossing itself, they have paid thousands and they are not going to not take their spot. Also to add that approx 98% arrive with no ID, that would be around 44K people last year. That is a lot of processing, a lot translators etc. processing in France isn't about cutting down processing times but reducing crossings and criminality. If you can claim asylum to the UK in France why would you risk your life and pay thousands for the privalage? Their includes both those who believe they have a genuine claim and those who believe they can game the system. Especially if making irregular entry adds extra suspicion and weight against your case. I can't picture who would now engage a gang. The second bit is around triaging caes better. That's separate to France. I agree no ID makes things harder. My understanding of the labour proposal is that there are different benefits of doubt depending on where you are coming from and what you are claiming. People are getting hung up on identifying two Arabic countries. But step one is middle east or eastern European. If 50pc of cases are Albania, and one needs to have stronger evidence to claim political persecution or persecution because of sexuality, then that becomes a lot easier. Albanian you say? Any evidence of the religious or sexual persecution you claim ? Nope. Back you go. That's halved the number of claims quickly. That's my understanding of that policy anyway. I'm not sure how processing in France reduces this. Most 1st time claims are rejected. If theybdotn have a passport how can we proceed or disprove anything? If they are rejected at France. They then simply pay for the boat trip to the uk. So gangs would still be in work. What labour is advicting is decrimiantion of persecution by your description The point of the different nationalities was that you made is sound simple do analyse through speech who is from where. In fact this is INCREDIBLY difficult and if I remember is only used for 1 in 20 cases and even then its success rate If not guaranteed. Nice scenario on the Albanian deportation. But this is what Rwanda sorts. Cat immediately prove your ID? Off to Rwanda you go. No need to even bother with France. But once they are here without Rwanda you can t remove them back to France nd you can't easily deport them. Rwanda plan deals with this a) take finger prints. B) have a higher bar for any irregular entries. Again, why did you come by boat not the official safe route? The language bit can be used as a broad guide. How many Albanians can pass as Syrian ? It can be used to sense check claims. Once you've established they are eastern European then the bar becomes higher. I don't follow your point on decrimination of persecution. Or your comments about Albania and Rwanda tbh. Do you think all genuine refugees have ID? I can see a case where you can look at likelihood of ID with their backstory. But I'm not clear what the case study of someone who doesn't have ID is. Eg who are they really and what are they claiming ? How do you propose they take finger prints? This would take some monumental law enforcement changes and agreements along with some big civil rights problems. You can apply for refugee status in a safe country but only when you have supplied finger prints.civil rights lawyers would have a field day. Once they are here you still need to go through tk current processes 1st claims , 2nd claims?, court appeals. (if you don't have a deal like Rwanda) Albanians are 50% of current illegal entrant in 2022. But you still have another 50% of around 27k what is your proposal here? When you are setting different levels of whatbsk acceptable persecution for different countries. You are opening up a can of worms on discrimination. I think most genuine refugees will have an ability to prove who they are. Sadly I don't think the UK gets many of these from France. They are predominantly economic migrants. if we arent allowed to take fingerprints or photos, I gi back to b) coming in via boat weighs against you. Tbh, I'd be more supportive of a Rwanda style plan I'd there was a safe route. That's my big issue is the cathxh 22. And maybe a slightly larger and safer country than Rwanda. But it seems you may have accepted that the approach could work with 50pc of applicants. That's a big step forward versus today right? How much money would halving the hotel costs be over day? I never claimed it was perfect. On the discrimination point, I don't have details. It's a labour policy not mine. Irrc it was consistent with wider guidance as I went in thinking it couldn't be legal. But part of an asylum claim is assessing the probability the person would be persecuted for reasons they state. That in itself lends itself to different probabilities based on where they come from. Re the claim and persecution. Yes each individual claim is assessed. But not the country. The approach already works without France for 50% of applicants. Since they are rejected and will be going back to Albania. I'm not sure how you mean coming via boat goas against you? If you arrive you are entitled to all legal claim procedures. if you have a safe route via a france based processing cemtre, then entering irregular routes undermines your credibility. Therefore the incentive to use a boat rather than a safe route is a lot lower. Even if all the people rejected in a France centre decided to hop on a boat we've cut crossings by maybe 45pc. That's a win when it comes to saving life's and cuts criminal proceeds in half. The Albania approach is not about France based processing centres. It is as I understand it about fast tracking some cases. That's not happening today because only something like 15pc of Albania cases have been looked at, and these tend to be women and children (hence the high acceptance rate). The working age men are bottom of this list it seems. It's late. I will see if I can dig out the details of the labour proposal tomorrow. It's not mine. But this thread was about labour details. " I understand your point om credibility. But it doesn't stop your asylum application rights. It's the ame problem we face now. You haven't solved it. If theybsimlly got on a plane they would arrive here no problem. They are destroying their ID. You ve not solved the issue. How will crossing have been halved? This is more likely to happen because of the Albanian MoU? 4000 Albanians were deported in December once MoU signed and I think 3000 before that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck it, easy to find. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/09/labour-would-fast-track-asylum-cases-from-safe-countries-to-clear-backlog Points to a UN report that apparently shows legality. Beyond this, Im not able to explain, or defend. As above, thia thread was asking about labour details. I've been covering two sets of policies I've seen from labour and trying to explain what I recalled of them. I thought the fast tracking was dodgy, but at least appreciated that it seemed to work withing international guidelines. Rather than the Rwanda and other schemes the Tory came up with. Governments staying within laws and treaties is important to me, as it's a slippery slope otherwise. I'd rather laws are changed or treaties exited, than simply ignored. Hovis, you are bouncing around a little bit.. What exactly do you want changed? What would that change bring that isn't in place today, and what is ignored? I'm putting forward labour policies. The suggestion on the article is that there is a way of processing faster. That's their policy. Now, I may have misrepresented that in my explanations. But it's there for you to read now. Some detail. As requested on the OP. The non UK processing centres may be an older policy tbh. I only recall reading about that when someone said "Rwanda was like a labour policy". That turned out to be untrue as it was about processing claims in other countries BEFORE they got to the UK (not after). " FYI on this Just incase any one is unclear. The Rwanda policy would be thay any one sent there has already had their claim for asylum rejected by the uk having landed here. Once you are in Rwanda you have essentially had your claim denied. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Just incase any one is unclear. The Rwanda policy would be thay any one sent there has already had their claim for asylum rejected by the uk having landed here. Once you are in Rwanda you have essentially had your claim denied." Not forgetting that Rwanda's government has alledgedley said they can take no more than 200 people in total. More than that are arriving in boats on just one day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Just incase any one is unclear. The Rwanda policy would be thay any one sent there has already had their claim for asylum rejected by the uk having landed here. Once you are in Rwanda you have essentially had your claim denied. Not forgetting that Rwanda's government has alledgedley said they can take no more than 200 people in total. More than that are arriving in boats on just one day. " That is not correct, they have made provisions for the first 200 and will scale up once flights begin. There is no actual upper limit. Quote from the home office questions on Rwanda asylum. "The number of individuals who can be relocated to Rwanda under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership is uncapped. Rwanda has made initial provision to receive 200 people and has plans to scale up capacity once flights begin." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Just incase any one is unclear. The Rwanda policy would be thay any one sent there has already had their claim for asylum rejected by the uk having landed here. Once you are in Rwanda you have essentially had your claim denied. Not forgetting that Rwanda's government has alledgedley said they can take no more than 200 people in total. More than that are arriving in boats on just one day. " Again no. They have never said this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck it, easy to find. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/09/labour-would-fast-track-asylum-cases-from-safe-countries-to-clear-backlog Points to a UN report that apparently shows legality. Beyond this, Im not able to explain, or defend. As above, thia thread was asking about labour details. I've been covering two sets of policies I've seen from labour and trying to explain what I recalled of them. I thought the fast tracking was dodgy, but at least appreciated that it seemed to work withing international guidelines. Rather than the Rwanda and other schemes the Tory came up with. Governments staying within laws and treaties is important to me, as it's a slippery slope otherwise. I'd rather laws are changed or treaties exited, than simply ignored. Hovis, you are bouncing around a little bit.. What exactly do you want changed? What would that change bring that isn't in place today, and what is ignored? I'm putting forward labour policies. The suggestion on the article is that there is a way of processing faster. That's their policy. Now, I may have misrepresented that in my explanations. But it's there for you to read now. Some detail. As requested on the OP. The non UK processing centres may be an older policy tbh. I only recall reading about that when someone said "Rwanda was like a labour policy". That turned out to be untrue as it was about processing claims in other countries BEFORE they got to the UK (not after). FYI on this Just incase any one is unclear. The Rwanda policy would be thay any one sent there has already had their claim for asylum rejected by the uk having landed here. Once you are in Rwanda you have essentially had your claim denied." disagree The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9568/. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Just incase any one is unclear. The Rwanda policy would be thay any one sent there has already had their claim for asylum rejected by the uk having landed here. Once you are in Rwanda you have essentially had your claim denied. Not forgetting that Rwanda's government has alledgedley said they can take no more than 200 people in total. More than that are arriving in boats on just one day. That is not correct, they have made provisions for the first 200 and will scale up once flights begin. There is no actual upper limit. Quote from the home office questions on Rwanda asylum. "The number of individuals who can be relocated to Rwanda under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership is uncapped. Rwanda has made initial provision to receive 200 people and has plans to scale up capacity once flights begin."" How long has it taken them to get ready for just 200? They may very well 'scale up in the future, but our point is given what we've seen so far they can't do so at any kind of speed to cope with the sheer number arriving just in boats. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck it, easy to find. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/09/labour-would-fast-track-asylum-cases-from-safe-countries-to-clear-backlog Points to a UN report that apparently shows legality. Beyond this, Im not able to explain, or defend. As above, thia thread was asking about labour details. I've been covering two sets of policies I've seen from labour and trying to explain what I recalled of them. I thought the fast tracking was dodgy, but at least appreciated that it seemed to work withing international guidelines. Rather than the Rwanda and other schemes the Tory came up with. Governments staying within laws and treaties is important to me, as it's a slippery slope otherwise. I'd rather laws are changed or treaties exited, than simply ignored. Hovis, you are bouncing around a little bit.. What exactly do you want changed? What would that change bring that isn't in place today, and what is ignored? I'm putting forward labour policies. The suggestion on the article is that there is a way of processing faster. That's their policy. Now, I may have misrepresented that in my explanations. But it's there for you to read now. Some detail. As requested on the OP. The non UK processing centres may be an older policy tbh. I only recall reading about that when someone said "Rwanda was like a labour policy". That turned out to be untrue as it was about processing claims in other countries BEFORE they got to the UK (not after). FYI on this Just incase any one is unclear. The Rwanda policy would be thay any one sent there has already had their claim for asylum rejected by the uk having landed here. Once you are in Rwanda you have essentially had your claim denied. disagree The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9568/. " No this is not true I am afraid. When youa re sent to Rwanda your claim has already been denied. It's in tbe MoU and has been clarified in Parliament. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Just incase any one is unclear. The Rwanda policy would be thay any one sent there has already had their claim for asylum rejected by the uk having landed here. Once you are in Rwanda you have essentially had your claim denied. Not forgetting that Rwanda's government has alledgedley said they can take no more than 200 people in total. More than that are arriving in boats on just one day. That is not correct, they have made provisions for the first 200 and will scale up once flights begin. There is no actual upper limit. Quote from the home office questions on Rwanda asylum. "The number of individuals who can be relocated to Rwanda under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership is uncapped. Rwanda has made initial provision to receive 200 people and has plans to scale up capacity once flights begin." How long has it taken them to get ready for just 200? They may very well 'scale up in the future, but our point is given what we've seen so far they can't do so at any kind of speed to cope with the sheer number arriving just in boats." 200 is when tbe initial flights were meant to take place. That's coming up to 1 hear ago now. They will be able to take more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Just incase any one is unclear. The Rwanda policy would be thay any one sent there has already had their claim for asylum rejected by the uk having landed here. Once you are in Rwanda you have essentially had your claim denied. Not forgetting that Rwanda's government has alledgedley said they can take no more than 200 people in total. More than that are arriving in boats on just one day. That is not correct, they have made provisions for the first 200 and will scale up once flights begin. There is no actual upper limit. Quote from the home office questions on Rwanda asylum. "The number of individuals who can be relocated to Rwanda under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership is uncapped. Rwanda has made initial provision to receive 200 people and has plans to scale up capacity once flights begin." How long has it taken them to get ready for just 200? They may very well 'scale up in the future, but our point is given what we've seen so far they can't do so at any kind of speed to cope with the sheer number arriving just in boats." The law is being tested and appealed, as it stands right now it has been ruled legal. The government know it will continue to be appealed and have chosen not to send any person to Rwanda, I'm not sure if that will be to the final appeal has been made or if they are waiting for the new illegal migration bill to become law. Either way it is allowing scrutiny and challenge to take place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
