FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Daily mail
Daily mail
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pinch of salt time But apparently they've sent some 1 undercover to immigration solicitors who falsified documents, got bent drs reports and advised clients to breach the law to stay in the uk who had no right to be here. I'll wait for the full videos to be released. But it massively undermines the idea that they only come here to flee france( sorry war)" I love my daily male  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...But it massively undermines the idea that SOME only come here to flee france( sorry war)" Corrected it for you. Of course SOME are trying their luck. Of course SOME are not genuine asylum seekers. But SOME are! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...But it massively undermines the idea that SOME only come here to flee france( sorry war) Corrected it for you. Of course SOME are trying their luck. Of course SOME are not genuine asylum seekers. But SOME are!" *many*  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. " Who do you think they are bending the rules for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. Who do you think they are bending the rules for." Who are lawyers bending the rules for? Generally: the rich. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...But it massively undermines the idea that SOME only come here to flee france( sorry war) Corrected it for you. Of course SOME are trying their luck. Of course SOME are not genuine asylum seekers. But SOME are! *many* "Can you provide the data to support that claim. From a Govt source please that we can all access. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...But it massively undermines the idea that SOME only come here to flee france( sorry war) Corrected it for you. Of course SOME are trying their luck. Of course SOME are not genuine asylum seekers. But SOME are! *many*
Can you provide the data to support that claim. From a Govt source please that we can all access. "Oh and can you quantify “many”. You make that sound like a lot. Is it the majority? By what margin? Ta | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. " Doesn't it show that both are? There's a reason that an asylum seeker would seek a lawyer like this. One of them said over 90% success rate. I mean he may only have ever help a few people so small numbers but we won't know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. Who do you think they are bending the rules for." what I mean is the DM produced no evidence that anyone has used these lawyers or gone down this route. Or were successful. I'm not saying that noone is trying to do this or noone has managed it. Just that the DM haven't shown it. Maybe dodgy AF solicitors will say anything to anyone to get a pay cheque. (If there is evidence ppl have actually used these guys, I withdraw the above. I flicked through the DM article) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. Doesn't it show that both are? There's a reason that an asylum seeker would seek a lawyer like this. One of them said over 90% success rate. I mean he may only have ever help a few people so small numbers but we won't know. " or could be lying. I mean, he's not exactly honest! I'm not seeking to take a position here, other than making sure we are checking in what we know verus where we are filling gaps. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. " Indeed. A functioning asylum system will allow those in that are genuine, and out those who seek to abuse a system. These lawyers are part of that abuse. We should welcome genuine asylum seekers, and not treat them as criminals or the dregs of society. There by the grace of god go any of us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. Doesn't it show that both are? There's a reason that an asylum seeker would seek a lawyer like this. One of them said over 90% success rate. I mean he may only have ever help a few people so small numbers but we won't know. or could be lying. I mean, he's not exactly honest! I'm not seeking to take a position here, other than making sure we are checking in what we know verus where we are filling gaps. " I just read your reply above and agree. There is currently no evidence and of course the lawyer will say anything. It appeared there was a 'broker'(obviously journo). My question is, how did the Daily Mail get the details of all these lawyers if they weren't actually doing this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. Doesn't it show that both are? There's a reason that an asylum seeker would seek a lawyer like this. One of them said over 90% success rate. I mean he may only have ever help a few people so small numbers but we won't know. or could be lying. I mean, he's not exactly honest! I'm not seeking to take a position here, other than making sure we are checking in what we know verus where we are filling gaps. I just read your reply above and agree. There is currently no evidence and of course the lawyer will say anything. It appeared there was a 'broker'(obviously journo). My question is, how did the Daily Mail get the details of all these lawyers if they weren't actually doing this?" that's a fair question. Perhaps they advertise? However the flip side is if they know actual cases, that would be a better story. For me a key part is not that some scam the system, but if those who do get away with it. I'm sure some do try and scam because that's human nature. (I'd also be intrigued if those who scam come via boats or tourist visas. The examples here appeared to be largely Indian and Pakistani. Which irrc aren't a large part of the "boat people") | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. Doesn't it show that both are? There's a reason that an asylum seeker would seek a lawyer like this. One of them said over 90% success rate. I mean he may only have ever help a few people so small numbers but we won't know. or could be lying. I mean, he's not exactly honest! I'm not seeking to take a position here, other than making sure we are checking in what we know verus where we are filling gaps. I just read your reply above and agree. There is currently no evidence and of course the lawyer will say anything. It appeared there was a 'broker'(obviously journo). My question is, how did the Daily Mail get the details of all these lawyers if they weren't actually doing this?" Not saying this isn’t happening. Not saying this specific story isn’t true BUT the Daily Mail! Not exactly a paragon of honest reporting now is it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. Doesn't it show that both are? There's a reason that an asylum seeker would seek a lawyer like this. One of them said over 90% success rate. I mean he may only have ever help a few people so small numbers but we won't know. or could be lying. I mean, he's not exactly honest! I'm not seeking to take a position here, other than making sure we are checking in what we know verus where we are filling gaps. I just read your reply above and agree. There is currently no evidence and of course the lawyer will say anything. It appeared there was a 'broker'(obviously journo). My question is, how did the Daily Mail get the details of all these lawyers if they weren't actually doing this? Not saying this isn’t happening. Not saying this specific story isn’t true BUT the Daily Mail! Not exactly a paragon of honest reporting now is it?" Wiki effectively banned the Mail as a source years ago. They deemed the Mail to be generally unrealiable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. Doesn't it show that both are? There's a reason that an asylum seeker would seek a lawyer like this. One of them said over 90% success rate. I mean he may only have ever help a few people so small numbers but we won't know. or could be lying. I mean, he's not exactly honest! I'm not seeking to take a position here, other than making sure we are checking in what we know verus where we are filling gaps. I just read your reply above and agree. There is currently no evidence and of course the lawyer will say anything. It appeared there was a 'broker'(obviously journo). My question is, how did the Daily Mail get the details of all these lawyers if they weren't actually doing this? Not saying this isn’t happening. Not saying this specific story isn’t true BUT the Daily Mail! Not exactly a paragon of honest reporting now is it?" Here we go again  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pinch of salt time But apparently they've sent some 1 undercover to immigration solicitors who falsified documents, got bent drs reports and advised clients to breach the law to stay in the uk who had no right to be here. I'll wait for the full videos to be released. But it massively undermines the idea that they only come here to flee france( sorry war)" . Well done to the Daiy Mail for bringing this to our attention. At least the newspaper has the best interests of the public at heart . It represents the views of ordinary law abiding citizens. It is hardly surprising that it is the best selling newspaper. It has a circulation of circa one million. Compare that to the Guardian and we have a true reflection of what the public think of the woke warriors . Let's hope the lawyers involved and prosecuted. That would be true justice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pinch of salt time But apparently they've sent some 1 undercover to immigration solicitors who falsified documents, got bent drs reports and advised clients to breach the law to stay in the uk who had no right to be here. I'll wait for the full videos to be released. But it massively undermines the idea that they only come here to flee france( sorry war). Well done to the Daiy Mail for bringing this to our attention. At least the newspaper has the best interests of the public at heart . It represents the views of ordinary law abiding citizens. It is hardly surprising that it is the best selling newspaper. It has a circulation of circa one million. Compare that to the Guardian and we have a true reflection of what the public think of the woke warriors . Let's hope the lawyers involved and prosecuted. That would be true justice. " Why do you spend so much time trolling like this, from so many different profiles on here? I'm genuinely curious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. Doesn't it show that both are? There's a reason that an asylum seeker would seek a lawyer like this. One of them said over 90% success rate. I mean he may only have ever help a few people so small numbers but we won't know. or could be lying. I mean, he's not exactly honest! I'm not seeking to take a position here, other than making sure we are checking in what we know verus where we are filling gaps. I just read your reply above and agree. There is currently no evidence and of course the lawyer will say anything. It appeared there was a 'broker'(obviously journo). My question is, how did the Daily Mail get the details of all these lawyers if they weren't actually doing this? Not saying this isn’t happening. Not saying this specific story isn’t true BUT the Daily Mail! Not exactly a paragon of honest reporting now is it? Wiki effectively banned the Mail as a source years ago. They deemed the Mail to be generally unrealiable." . Who cares about Wiki. There is no control over what it publishes . They were stupid enough to publish false information about a Daily Mail journalist . All newspapers in the UK are subject to regulations in what they publish . A circulation of one million is self explanatory. The newspaper is driven by success and had a loyal readership | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. Doesn't it show that both are? There's a reason that an asylum seeker would seek a lawyer like this. One of them said over 90% success rate. I mean he may only have ever help a few people so small numbers but we won't know. or could be lying. I mean, he's not exactly honest! I'm not seeking to take a position here, other than making sure we are checking in what we know verus where we are filling gaps. I just read your reply above and agree. There is currently no evidence and of course the lawyer will say anything. It appeared there was a 'broker'(obviously journo). My question is, how did the Daily Mail get the details of all these lawyers if they weren't actually doing this? Not saying this isn’t happening. Not saying this specific story isn’t true BUT the Daily Mail! Not exactly a paragon of honest reporting now is it? Wiki effectively banned the Mail as a source years ago. They deemed the Mail to be generally unrealiable." I read that as ‘unreadable’ and realised it was still accurate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. Doesn't it show that both are? There's a reason that an asylum seeker would seek a lawyer like this. One of them said over 90% success rate. I mean he may only have ever help a few people so small numbers but we won't know. or could be lying. I mean, he's not exactly honest! I'm not seeking to take a position here, other than making sure we are checking in what we know verus where we are filling gaps. I just read your reply above and agree. There is currently no evidence and of course the lawyer will say anything. It appeared there was a 'broker'(obviously journo). My question is, how did the Daily Mail get the details of all these lawyers if they weren't actually doing this? Not saying this isn’t happening. Not saying this specific story isn’t true BUT the Daily Mail! Not exactly a paragon of honest reporting now is it? Wiki effectively banned the Mail as a source years ago. They deemed the Mail to be generally unrealiable. I read that as ‘unreadable’ and realised it was still accurate." unrealiable was a lucky typo lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. Doesn't it show that both are? There's a reason that an asylum seeker would seek a lawyer like this. One of them said over 90% success rate. I mean he may only have ever help a few people so small numbers but we won't know. or could be lying. I mean, he's not exactly honest! I'm not seeking to take a position here, other than making sure we are checking in what we know verus where we are filling gaps. I just read your reply above and agree. There is currently no evidence and of course the lawyer will say anything. It appeared there was a 'broker'(obviously journo). My question is, how did the Daily Mail get the details of all these lawyers if they weren't actually doing this? Not saying this isn’t happening. Not saying this specific story isn’t true BUT the Daily Mail! Not exactly a paragon of honest reporting now is it? Wiki effectively banned the Mail as a source years ago. They deemed the Mail to be generally unrealiable.. Who cares about Wiki. There is no control over what it publishes . They were stupid enough to publish false information about a Daily Mail journalist . All newspapers in the UK are subject to regulations in what they publish . A circulation of one million is self explanatory. The newspaper is driven by success and had a loyal readership " I dearly wish they (and all papers) had to publish their retractions in the same size font, on the same page as they print their lies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. Doesn't it show that both are? There's a reason that an asylum seeker would seek a lawyer like this. One of them said over 90% success rate. I mean he may only have ever help a few people so small numbers but we won't know. or could be lying. I mean, he's not exactly honest! I'm not seeking to take a position here, other than making sure we are checking in what we know verus where we are filling gaps. I just read your reply above and agree. There is currently no evidence and of course the lawyer will say anything. It appeared there was a 'broker'(obviously journo). My question is, how did the Daily Mail get the details of all these lawyers if they weren't actually doing this? Not saying this isn’t happening. Not saying this specific story isn’t true BUT the Daily Mail! Not exactly a paragon of honest reporting now is it? Wiki effectively banned the Mail as a source years ago. They deemed the Mail to be generally unrealiable.. Who cares about Wiki. There is no control over what it publishes . They were stupid enough to publish false information about a Daily Mail journalist . All newspapers in the UK are subject to regulations in what they publish . A circulation of one million is self explanatory. The newspaper is driven by success and had a loyal readership I dearly wish they (and all papers) had to publish their retractions in the same size font, on the same page as they print their lies." . Maybe time for a reality check. Any newspaper printing lies would go bankrupt. Have you actually read the articles ? If you had you would see the pictures of the lawyers / paralegals involved. If the Daily Mail was printing lies no one would buy or read it. It's circulation figures speak for themself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. Doesn't it show that both are? There's a reason that an asylum seeker would seek a lawyer like this. One of them said over 90% success rate. I mean he may only have ever help a few people so small numbers but we won't know. or could be lying. I mean, he's not exactly honest! I'm not seeking to take a position here, other than making sure we are checking in what we know verus where we are filling gaps. I just read your reply above and agree. There is currently no evidence and of course the lawyer will say anything. It appeared there was a 'broker'(obviously journo). My question is, how did the Daily Mail get the details of all these lawyers if they weren't actually doing this? Not saying this isn’t happening. Not saying this specific story isn’t true BUT the Daily Mail! Not exactly a paragon of honest reporting now is it? Wiki effectively banned the Mail as a source years ago. They deemed the Mail to be generally unrealiable.. Who cares about Wiki. There is no control over what it publishes . They were stupid enough to publish false information about a Daily Mail journalist . All newspapers in the UK are subject to regulations in what they publish . A circulation of one million is self explanatory. The newspaper is driven by success and had a loyal readership I dearly wish they (and all papers) had to publish their retractions in the same size font, on the same page as they print their lies.. Maybe time for a reality check. Any newspaper printing lies would go bankrupt. Have you actually read the articles ? If you had you would see the pictures of the lawyers / paralegals involved. If the Daily Mail was printing lies no one would buy or read it. It's circulation figures speak for themself. " Gonna ask again, since you ignore this question above. Why do you spend so much time trolling like this, from so many different profiles on here? I'm genuinely curious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...But it massively undermines the idea that SOME only come here to flee france( sorry war) Corrected it for you. Of course SOME are trying their luck. Of course SOME are not genuine asylum seekers. But SOME are!" . However it is estimated that circa 70 % are not genuine . We should use any means necessary to stop this and forget about hunan rights . Lawyers are using these people to line their own pockets . If you enter the country illegally you should never be allowed to stay. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...But it massively undermines the idea that SOME only come here to flee france( sorry war) Corrected it for you. Of course SOME are trying their luck. Of course SOME are not genuine asylum seekers. But SOME are!. However it is estimated that circa 70 % are not genuine . We should use any means necessary to stop this and forget about hunan rights . Lawyers are using these people to line their own pockets . If you enter the country illegally you should never be allowed to stay. " who estimated this ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pinch of salt time But apparently they've sent some 1 undercover to immigration solicitors who falsified documents, got bent drs reports and advised clients to breach the law to stay in the uk who had no right to be here. I'll wait for the full videos to be released. But it massively undermines the idea that they only come here to flee france( sorry war)" A big thanks to Morleyman for bringing the matter to our attention and to the Daily Mail for an excellent piece of investigative journalism. At least the Daily Mail represents the views of ordinary law abidding citizens and has exposed lawyers and para legals engaging in criminal activity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...But it massively undermines the idea that SOME only come here to flee france( sorry war) Corrected it for you. Of course SOME are trying their luck. Of course SOME are not genuine asylum seekers. But SOME are!. However it is estimated that circa 70 % are not genuine . We should use any means necessary to stop this and forget about hunan rights . Lawyers are using these people to line their own pockets . If you enter the country illegally you should never be allowed to stay. who estimated this ? " Priti claimed it and couldn't provide the evidence to back it. It was in reference to small boat crossings, not ALL asylum seekers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...But it massively undermines the idea that SOME only come here to flee france( sorry war) Corrected it for you. Of course SOME are trying their luck. Of course SOME are not genuine asylum seekers. But SOME are! *many*
Can you provide the data to support that claim. From a Govt source please that we can all access. "The backlog | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pinch of salt time But apparently they've sent some 1 undercover to immigration solicitors who falsified documents, got bent drs reports and advised clients to breach the law to stay in the uk who had no right to be here. I'll wait for the full videos to be released. But it massively undermines the idea that they only come here to flee france( sorry war) A big thanks to Morleyman for bringing the matter to our attention and to the Daily Mail for an excellent piece of investigative journalism. At least the Daily Mail represents the views of ordinary law abidding citizens and has exposed lawyers and para legals engaging in criminal activity. " Brutal takedown of the OP and DM readers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...But it massively undermines the idea that SOME only come here to flee france( sorry war) Corrected it for you. Of course SOME are trying their luck. Of course SOME are not genuine asylum seekers. But SOME are!. However it is estimated that circa 70 % are not genuine . We should use any means necessary to stop this and forget about hunan rights . Lawyers are using these people to line their own pockets . If you enter the country illegally you should never be allowed to stay. who estimated this ? " Ronald McDonald | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. Doesn't it show that both are? There's a reason that an asylum seeker would seek a lawyer like this. One of them said over 90% success rate. I mean he may only have ever help a few people so small numbers but we won't know. or could be lying. I mean, he's not exactly honest! I'm not seeking to take a position here, other than making sure we are checking in what we know verus where we are filling gaps. I just read your reply above and agree. There is currently no evidence and of course the lawyer will say anything. It appeared there was a 'broker'(obviously journo). My question is, how did the Daily Mail get the details of all these lawyers if they weren't actually doing this? Not saying this isn’t happening. Not saying this specific story isn’t true BUT the Daily Mail! Not exactly a paragon of honest reporting now is it? Here we go again "Why discuss the video. When you can discuss the source. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pinch of salt time But apparently they've sent some 1 undercover to immigration solicitors who falsified documents, got bent drs reports and advised clients to breach the law to stay in the uk who had no right to be here. I'll wait for the full videos to be released. But it massively undermines the idea that they only come here to flee france( sorry war)" If they have some good evidence they should hand it to the police and let them investigate. Hopefully it's more accurate than the recent BBC reporting | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. Who do you think they are bending the rules for. Who are lawyers bending the rules for? Generally: the rich." And those wishing to circumvent the immigration laws of our country. Are you okay with that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. Indeed. A functioning asylum system will allow those in that are genuine, and out those who seek to abuse a system. These lawyers are part of that abuse. We should welcome genuine asylum seekers, and not treat them as criminals or the dregs of society. There by the grace of god go any of us." We had a functioning system until criminals decided to abuse it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. Indeed. A functioning asylum system will allow those in that are genuine, and out those who seek to abuse a system. These lawyers are part of that abuse. We should welcome genuine asylum seekers, and not treat them as criminals or the dregs of society. There by the grace of god go any of us. We had a functioning system until criminals decided to abuse it" yup | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. Indeed. A functioning asylum system will allow those in that are genuine, and out those who seek to abuse a system. These lawyers are part of that abuse. We should welcome genuine asylum seekers, and not treat them as criminals or the dregs of society. There by the grace of god go any of us. We had a functioning system until criminals decided to abuse it" Then it’s not functioning. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. Indeed. A functioning asylum system will allow those in that are genuine, and out those who seek to abuse a system. These lawyers are part of that abuse. We should welcome genuine asylum seekers, and not treat them as criminals or the dregs of society. There by the grace of god go any of us. We had a functioning system until criminals decided to abuse it Then it’s not functioning. " Remember when you argued Coutts didn’t make a decision based on Farage’s political views? You are back in that seat, reading it wrong | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. Indeed. A functioning asylum system will allow those in that are genuine, and out those who seek to abuse a system. These lawyers are part of that abuse. We should welcome genuine asylum seekers, and not treat them as criminals or the dregs of society. There by the grace of god go any of us. We had a functioning system until criminals decided to abuse it" That's very largely due to the far right of the Tory party decided to hand the criminal gang's a perfect business opportunity when they removed the safe and legal route .. But hey feel free to ignore the complete story.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. Indeed. A functioning asylum system will allow those in that are genuine, and out those who seek to abuse a system. These lawyers are part of that abuse. We should welcome genuine asylum seekers, and not treat them as criminals or the dregs of society. There by the grace of god go any of us. We had a functioning system until criminals decided to abuse it That's very largely due to the far right of the Tory party decided to hand the criminal gang's a perfect business opportunity when they removed the safe and legal route .. But hey feel free to ignore the complete story.. " Have you provided a true 100% complete story? Simple question are criminals abusing and breaking our immigration laws and the functions we provide for support? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. Indeed. A functioning asylum system will allow those in that are genuine, and out those who seek to abuse a system. These lawyers are part of that abuse. We should welcome genuine asylum seekers, and not treat them as criminals or the dregs of society. There by the grace of god go any of us. We had a functioning system until criminals decided to abuse it That's very largely due to the far right of the Tory party decided to hand the criminal gang's a perfect business opportunity when they removed the safe and legal route .. But hey feel free to ignore the complete story.. " We never had a legal route from Albania, and being that they're the largest beneficiaries of said criminal gangs. I fail to see your arguments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wouldn't this show that some lawyers are bent, not that asylum seekers are bent. Indeed. A functioning asylum system will allow those in that are genuine, and out those who seek to abuse a system. These lawyers are part of that abuse. We should welcome genuine asylum seekers, and not treat them as criminals or the dregs of society. There by the grace of god go any of us. We had a functioning system until criminals decided to abuse it That's very largely due to the far right of the Tory party decided to hand the criminal gang's a perfect business opportunity when they removed the safe and legal route .. But hey feel free to ignore the complete story.. Have you provided a true 100% complete story? Simple question are criminals abusing and breaking our immigration laws and the functions we provide for support? " Of course they are, no shit Sherlock.. come on your not that naive to know that where there is opportunity to do so then people will break the law if they can get away with it.
Bad people do bad things to exploit others, fuck where do you think they learnt that from..?
What I'm saying is this government has utterly failed in dealing with an issue that's global but they made it worse and gave the criminal gang's a golden egg by their policies which have all failed..
tbh it wasn't exactly a success when labour were in power either..
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...But it massively undermines the idea that SOME only come here to flee france( sorry war) Corrected it for you. Of course SOME are trying their luck. Of course SOME are not genuine asylum seekers. But SOME are!. However it is estimated that circa 70 % are not genuine . We should use any means necessary to stop this and forget about hunan rights . Lawyers are using these people to line their own pockets . If you enter the country illegally you should never be allowed to stay. " Estimated by who? Show me a link to that data. Otherwise it is a worthless statement. Silence on that matter will be deemed an apology and a retraction of your false statement. Thanks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's very largely due to the far right of the Tory party decided to hand the criminal gang's a perfect business opportunity when they removed the safe and legal route .." Which safe and legal route got closed down by the Tories? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...But it massively undermines the idea that SOME only come here to flee france( sorry war) Corrected it for you. Of course SOME are trying their luck. Of course SOME are not genuine asylum seekers. But SOME are! *many*
Can you provide the data to support that claim. From a Govt source please that we can all access.
The backlog "Huh? Assume you mean the backlog of cases not yet processed? That doesn’t remotely support your statement! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's very largely due to the far right of the Tory party decided to hand the criminal gang's a perfect business opportunity when they removed the safe and legal route .. Which safe and legal route got closed down by the Tories?" When they stopped people applying for a visa to come to the UK if they suspected that person might claim asylum when they entered the country.. Genuine asylum applicants therefore have little or no options other than paying the gangs .. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's very largely due to the far right of the Tory party decided to hand the criminal gang's a perfect business opportunity when they removed the safe and legal route .. Which safe and legal route got closed down by the Tories? When they stopped people applying for a visa to come to the UK if they suspected that person might claim asylum when they entered the country.. Genuine asylum applicants therefore have little or no options other than paying the gangs .." Yep. No means of legal travel without an asylum claim, no means of applying for asylum from abroad. Only one way to do it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's very largely due to the far right of the Tory party decided to hand the criminal gang's a perfect business opportunity when they removed the safe and legal route .. Which safe and legal route got closed down by the Tories? When they stopped people applying for a visa to come to the UK if they suspected that person might claim asylum when they entered the country.. Genuine asylum applicants therefore have little or no options other than paying the gangs .. Yep. No means of legal travel without an asylum claim, no means of applying for asylum from abroad. Only one way to do it. " Elsewhere and not breaking the laws of a country? Genuine asylum seekers are of course not what we are talking about here. But you like to blur those lines | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's very largely due to the far right of the Tory party decided to hand the criminal gang's a perfect business opportunity when they removed the safe and legal route .. Which safe and legal route got closed down by the Tories? When they stopped people applying for a visa to come to the UK if they suspected that person might claim asylum when they entered the country.. Genuine asylum applicants therefore have little or no options other than paying the gangs .. Yep. No means of legal travel without an asylum claim, no means of applying for asylum from abroad. Only one way to do it. Elsewhere and not breaking the laws of a country? Genuine asylum seekers are of course not what we are talking about here. But you like to blur those lines" Genuine or not - there’s no means of applying or travelling legally (with a few exceptions) - that’s the bit you struggle with. This impacts the genuine as well as the phoneys. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's very largely due to the far right of the Tory party decided to hand the criminal gang's a perfect business opportunity when they removed the safe and legal route .." "Which safe and legal route got closed down by the Tories?" "When they stopped people applying for a visa to come to the UK if they suspected that person might claim asylum when they entered the country.." So was this a change of policy from the Tories, or did they just enforce the rules that already existed? "Genuine asylum applicants therefore have little or no options other than paying the gangs .." Well, given that the small boat crossings all start from France, they do have the option of claiming asylum in France. Or indeed in any of the other countries that they passed through on the way to France. It's not like the UK is the only possibility for them to escape persecution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...But it massively undermines the idea that SOME only come here to flee france( sorry war) Corrected it for you. Of course SOME are trying their luck. Of course SOME are not genuine asylum seekers. But SOME are!. However it is estimated that circa 70 % are not genuine . We should use any means necessary to stop this and forget about hunan rights . Lawyers are using these people to line their own pockets . If you enter the country illegally you should never be allowed to stay. Estimated by who? Show me a link to that data. Otherwise it is a worthless statement. Silence on that matter will be deemed an apology and a retraction of your false statement. Thanks" Your post is bizarre.It may be worthless to you but you have failed to provide any alternative figures . Last time I checked at least 67 % of the population of the UK wanted action taken to stop illegal immigration. Most people prefer to obey the law , not support law breakers . By taking tough action we can destroy the businness model of people smugglers . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Well, given that the small boat crossings all start from France, they do have the option of claiming asylum in France. Or indeed in any of the other countries that they passed through on the way to France. It's not like the UK is the only possibility for them to escape persecution." They do have that option, and more take it up than travel to the U.K, according to official figures. But if you had family in the UK (which would improve your asylum chances) spoke some English, wouldn’t you head for the UK rather than stay in France? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But if you had family in the UK (which would improve your asylum chances) spoke some English, wouldn’t you head for the UK rather than stay in France?" Having family in the UK wouldn't improve your chances. If you are being persecuted by your home country, you will be granted asylum. Where your family are located is irrelevant. In the circumstances you state, I would indeed try to get to the UK. But the poster above stated that people "have little or no options other than paying the gangs". That's clearly not true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once again for the cheap seats though, once someone claims asylum in the U.K, for whatever reason that may be, they are now a legal asylum seeker. Once their claim is rejected, they are no longer legal. If it is accepted, they become a legal refugee. " You do know how to win over a crowd… Blurring the lines again, incredibly naive to think nobody can see this! Genuine asylum seekers are welcome by the majority of the population, others not so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But if you had family in the UK (which would improve your asylum chances) spoke some English, wouldn’t you head for the UK rather than stay in France? Having family in the UK wouldn't improve your chances. If you are being persecuted by your home country, you will be granted asylum. Where your family are located is irrelevant. In the circumstances you state, I would indeed try to get to the UK. But the poster above stated that people "have little or no options other than paying the gangs". That's clearly not true." Having family in the U.K. does improve your chances, although to a much lesser extent than it once did due to policy changes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once again for the cheap seats though, once someone claims asylum in the U.K, for whatever reason that may be, they are now a legal asylum seeker. Once their claim is rejected, they are no longer legal. If it is accepted, they become a legal refugee." That is all completely wrong. There is no such thing as a "legal asylum seeker", or a "legal refugee". Someone that arrives here and claims asylum is an "asylum seeker", whatever their reasons for doing so. If they are found to have a valid claim, they are granted asylum and recognised as a refugee. If their claim is not valid, that doesn't make them "no longer legal", it just makes them an unwanted visitor. If a person arrives here by a recognised method of entry, they are a legal immigrant. If they arrive by small boat and avoid the authorities, they are an illegal immigrant. Those labels do not change if the person is later granted or denied asylum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once again for the cheap seats though, once someone claims asylum in the U.K, for whatever reason that may be, they are now a legal asylum seeker. Once their claim is rejected, they are no longer legal. If it is accepted, they become a legal refugee. You do know how to win over a crowd… Blurring the lines again, incredibly naive to think nobody can see this! Genuine asylum seekers are welcome by the majority of the population, others not so. " It’s not naive to report the facts. All asylum seekers are legal. It’s literally a legally defined status. You only gain that status when you claim asylum, and you only lose it once you become a ‘refugee’ or you become ‘refused asylum’ That’s not blurring the lines. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a point of note. Genuine Asylum Seeker = Someone who is genuinely fleeing war or persecution. I'm not sure who needs to know, but it seems it's often conflated with anyone who claims asylum." False. If I come here from abroad seeking the welfare state and a life of crime, but my first port of call is the asylum office, my claim will make me an asylum seeker - a legal status. Once my claim is refused, I become a failed asylum seeker and will be deported. (Assuming the system works, which is where the home office fail too regularly) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having family in the U.K. does improve your chances, although to a much lesser extent than it once did due to policy changes. " That's just not true. Asylum decisions are based on the 1951 Convention, and it contains nothing about family or other connections to a country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a point of note. Genuine Asylum Seeker = Someone who is genuinely fleeing war or persecution. I'm not sure who needs to know, but it seems it's often conflated with anyone who claims asylum. False. If I come here from abroad seeking the welfare state and a life of crime, but my first port of call is the asylum office, my claim will make me an asylum seeker - a legal status. Once my claim is refused, I become a failed asylum seeker and will be deported. (Assuming the system works, which is where the home office fail too regularly) " I was explaining that according to the general consensus, not the legal definition. Don't believe me if you don't want to but I'm telling you that's what people meaning when they speak of genuine asylum seekers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker or an illegal asylum-seeker. As an asylum-seeker, a person has entered into a legal process of refugee status determination. Everybody has a right to seek asylum in another country. People who don't qualify for protection as refugees will not receive refugee status and may be deported, but just because someone doesn't receive refugee status doesn't mean they are a bogus asylum-seeker” Source: The UN refugee agency. https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-uk" We know  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having family in the U.K. does improve your chances, although to a much lesser extent than it once did due to policy changes. That's just not true. Asylum decisions are based on the 1951 Convention, and it contains nothing about family or other connections to a country." The U.K. offer family reunion visas for refugees, albeit in vanishingly small numbers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker or an illegal asylum-seeker. As an asylum-seeker, a person has entered into a legal process of refugee status determination. Everybody has a right to seek asylum in another country. People who don't qualify for protection as refugees will not receive refugee status and may be deported, but just because someone doesn't receive refugee status doesn't mean they are a bogus asylum-seeker” Source: The UN refugee agency. https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-uk We know "You might. Some here don’t, or at least they pretend not to | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having family in the U.K. does improve your chances, although to a much lesser extent than it once did due to policy changes. That's just not true. Asylum decisions are based on the 1951 Convention, and it contains nothing about family or other connections to a country. The U.K. offer family reunion visas for refugees, albeit in vanishingly small numbers. " Which are applied for online, outside of country. Unless I'm mistaken. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker or an illegal asylum-seeker. As an asylum-seeker, a person has entered into a legal process of refugee status determination. Everybody has a right to seek asylum in another country. People who don't qualify for protection as refugees will not receive refugee status and may be deported, but just because someone doesn't receive refugee status doesn't mean they are a bogus asylum-seeker” Source: The UN refugee agency. https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-uk We know
You might.
Some here don’t, or at least they pretend not to "They also know. I've offered you an explanation of what people mean according to general consensus. It's up to you whether you want to stick with strictly legal definitions or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having family in the U.K. does improve your chances, although to a much lesser extent than it once did due to policy changes. That's just not true. Asylum decisions are based on the 1951 Convention, and it contains nothing about family or other connections to a country. The U.K. offer family reunion visas for refugees, albeit in vanishingly small numbers. Which are applied for online, outside of country. Unless I'm mistaken." That I wasn’t aware of, that would make them moot indeed. Apologies  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker or an illegal asylum-seeker. As an asylum-seeker, a person has entered into a legal process of refugee status determination. Everybody has a right to seek asylum in another country. People who don't qualify for protection as refugees will not receive refugee status and may be deported, but just because someone doesn't receive refugee status doesn't mean they are a bogus asylum-seeker” Source: The UN refugee agency. https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-uk We know
You might.
Some here don’t, or at least they pretend not to
They also know.
I've offered you an explanation of what people mean according to general consensus. It's up to you whether you want to stick with strictly legal definitions or not."I’ll happily stick with them because the blanket othering of asylum seekers perpetrated by some is frankly immoral. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having family in the U.K. does improve your chances, although to a much lesser extent than it once did due to policy changes. That's just not true. Asylum decisions are based on the 1951 Convention, and it contains nothing about family or other connections to a country. The U.K. offer family reunion visas for refugees, albeit in vanishingly small numbers. Which are applied for online, outside of country. Unless I'm mistaken. That I wasn’t aware of, that would make them moot indeed. Apologies "Fair. Respect | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everybody has a right to seek asylum in another country." Well this bit is clearly untrue. The 1951 Convention is available online, and is fairly easy to read. It clearly states the only those with a "well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion" are entitled to claim asylum. If you want to get factual information on the asylum process, it's best not to go to a charity with an agenda. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having family in the U.K. does improve your chances, although to a much lesser extent than it once did due to policy changes." "That's just not true. Asylum decisions are based on the 1951 Convention, and it contains nothing about family or other connections to a country." "The U.K. offer family reunion visas for refugees, albeit in vanishingly small numbers. " Yes. Those visas allow refugees to bring their families over. They have nothing to do with the process of assessing an initial asylum claim. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everybody has a right to seek asylum in another country. Well this bit is clearly untrue. The 1951 Convention is available online, and is fairly easy to read. It clearly states the only those with a "well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion" are entitled to claim asylum. If you want to get factual information on the asylum process, it's best not to go to a charity with an agenda." Does it not reference that in the link? Because I’m pretty certain it does | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Google the Oxford academic on the subject of Australia dealing with this issue. As I've said previously, the solution is there if you are prepared to take it." As you've already been told, Australia has the advantage of several thousand miles of open ocean surrounding it, meaning that those people that do arrive are in seaworthy vessels, not inflatable boats. The situation here and in Europe is very different. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker or an illegal asylum-seeker. As an asylum-seeker, a person has entered into a legal process of refugee status determination. Everybody has a right to seek asylum in another country. People who don't qualify for protection as refugees will not receive refugee status and may be deported, but just because someone doesn't receive refugee status doesn't mean they are a bogus asylum-seeker” Source: The UN refugee agency. https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-uk" . That is a rather ridiculous statement from an organisation with an agenda If it were the case we would not see people falsifying their age or throwing away their passports prior to arrival. Most people have enough common sense to recognise the concept of both illegal and bogus asylun seekers . Just yesterday there was am article in the national press exposing solicitors who were actively encouraging people to make fraudulent claims. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everybody has a right to seek asylum in another country." "Well this bit is clearly untrue. The 1951 Convention is available online, and is fairly easy to read. It clearly states the only those with a "well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion" are entitled to claim asylum. If you want to get factual information on the asylum process, it's best not to go to a charity with an agenda." "Does it not reference that in the link? Because I’m pretty certain it does" It does indeed quote the 1951 Convention in that link, but then it goes on to contradict itself by saying "Everybody has a right to seek asylum". Just like it states that "There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker", but then goes on to use the term itself, and also quotes Kofi Annan using it. Possibly not the best source of information. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having family in the U.K. does improve your chances, although to a much lesser extent than it once did due to policy changes. That's just not true. Asylum decisions are based on the 1951 Convention, and it contains nothing about family or other connections to a country. The U.K. offer family reunion visas for refugees, albeit in vanishingly small numbers. Yes. Those visas allow refugees to bring their families over. They have nothing to do with the process of assessing an initial asylum claim." When the asylum situation came up the other week on here, the Dublin agreement was mentioned. Not in relation to families but in relation to deportation. Anyway I had a quick skim over a site and apart from finding out that it was not used to deport people very much it did allow successful asylum seekers to have their families follow them or at least their families would stand a much better chance of a successful application once one member was already here. As the UK is no longer a member then I guess that family option is no longer valid. It might be why people think it's still the case. Anyway it was only a quick read so may of missed something | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...But it massively undermines the idea that SOME only come here to flee france( sorry war) Corrected it for you. Of course SOME are trying their luck. Of course SOME are not genuine asylum seekers. But SOME are! *many*
Can you provide the data to support that claim. From a Govt source please that we can all access.
The backlog
Huh? Assume you mean the backlog of cases not yet processed? That doesn’t remotely support your statement! "It means we don't think they have a right to stay here. Otherwise we'd have processed them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are currently processing a tenth of what France and Germany are pa, we cut the staff under the austerity cult of Cameron and Osborne .. Hence the backlog.." France and Germany processing has bothingntondo with the um processing. I would think the backlog had something to do with the fact that the Dublin agreement is no longer I effect.and the asylum applications doubling and tripling? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are currently processing a tenth of what France and Germany are pa, we cut the staff under the austerity cult of Cameron and Osborne .. Hence the backlog.. France and Germany processing has bothingntondo with the um processing. I would think the backlog had something to do with the fact that the Dublin agreement is no longer I effect.and the asylum applications doubling and tripling?" We've cut the very services that deal with every aspect of this issue.. As with the other areas of the public sector.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are currently processing a tenth of what France and Germany are pa, we cut the staff under the austerity cult of Cameron and Osborne .. Hence the backlog.. France and Germany processing has bothingntondo with the um processing. I would think the backlog had something to do with the fact that the Dublin agreement is no longer I effect.and the asylum applications doubling and tripling? We've cut the very services that deal with every aspect of this issue.. As with the other areas of the public sector.." How much did we cut the budget for processing asylum seekers? Thanks in advance for the answer. When you provide it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...But it massively undermines the idea that SOME only come here to flee france( sorry war) Corrected it for you. Of course SOME are trying their luck. Of course SOME are not genuine asylum seekers. But SOME are!. However it is estimated that circa 70 % are not genuine . We should use any means necessary to stop this and forget about hunan rights . Lawyers are using these people to line their own pockets . If you enter the country illegally you should never be allowed to stay. Estimated by who? Show me a link to that data. Otherwise it is a worthless statement. Silence on that matter will be deemed an apology and a retraction of your false statement. Thanks Your post is bizarre.It may be worthless to you but you have failed to provide any alternative figures . Last time I checked at least 67 % of the population of the UK wanted action taken to stop illegal immigration. Most people prefer to obey the law , not support law breakers . By taking tough action we can destroy the businness model of people smugglers . " Without evidence your statement of 70% is hyperbole at best and hate inciting lies at worst. If you can back up the c.70% figure then I would be happy to retract. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...But it massively undermines the idea that SOME only come here to flee france( sorry war) Corrected it for you. Of course SOME are trying their luck. Of course SOME are not genuine asylum seekers. But SOME are! *many*
Can you provide the data to support that claim. From a Govt source please that we can all access.
The backlog
Huh? Assume you mean the backlog of cases not yet processed? That doesn’t remotely support your statement!
It means we don't think they have a right to stay here. Otherwise we'd have processed them"No it doesn’t. It means they have not yet been processed so we currently do not know. Once they are processed we do know. The Home Office backlog is driven by demand (too much) vs capacity (lack of). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are currently processing a tenth of what France and Germany are pa, we cut the staff under the austerity cult of Cameron and Osborne .. Hence the backlog.." Why is that? Do the French have more people processing, easier processing or another? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Only thick cunts read the Mail." You're a charming one aren't you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...But it massively undermines the idea that SOME only come here to flee france( sorry war) Corrected it for you. Of course SOME are trying their luck. Of course SOME are not genuine asylum seekers. But SOME are!. However it is estimated that circa 70 % are not genuine . We should use any means necessary to stop this and forget about hunan rights . Lawyers are using these people to line their own pockets . If you enter the country illegally you should never be allowed to stay. Estimated by who? Show me a link to that data. Otherwise it is a worthless statement. Silence on that matter will be deemed an apology and a retraction of your false statement. Thanks Your post is bizarre.It may be worthless to you but you have failed to provide any alternative figures . Last time I checked at least 67 % of the population of the UK wanted action taken to stop illegal immigration. Most people prefer to obey the law , not support law breakers . By taking tough action we can destroy the businness model of people smugglers . Without evidence your statement of 70% is hyperbole at best and hate inciting lies at worst. If you can back up the c.70% figure then I would be happy to retract." . Your statement is bizarre . Most people expect the law to enforced. Only a small minority of society support the woke loving liberal elite. The remainder expect the law to be enforced. Enforcing laws has nothing to do with racism . Anyone breaking the law is doing so at the expense of ordinary law abiding citizens. Sadly we live in a society where lawyers make life as difficult as possible for those who wish to enforce the laws in these situations. These lawyers are simply out to line their own pockets. The have no interest in the law , they just want fees to line their own pockets . The Daily Mail has exposed the dubious activities of immigration lawyers in excellent articles published both yesterday and today . We live in a free society. I am entitled to accept the opinions of the press and the general population over those which you express . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Only thick cunts read the Mail." I like your attitude and how you craft your words. Can I ask, when was the last time you read the Mail? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Only thick cunts read the Mail." . I guess that is a matter of opinion. Would you be brave enough to say that to someone's face ? . I would think that most people prefer the opinions of the Daily Mail over that which you express. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are currently processing a tenth of what France and Germany are pa, we cut the staff under the austerity cult of Cameron and Osborne .. Hence the backlog.. Why is that? Do the French have more people processing, easier processing or another? " Oxford university Migration Observatory has some very good, impartial findings..  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are currently processing a tenth of what France and Germany are pa, we cut the staff under the austerity cult of Cameron and Osborne .. Hence the backlog.. Why is that? Do the French have more people processing, easier processing or another? Oxford university Migration Observatory has some very good, impartial findings.. "mmmmm, I just wanted you to enlighten me and you let me down... Very unlike you too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are currently processing a tenth of what France and Germany are pa, we cut the staff under the austerity cult of Cameron and Osborne .. Hence the backlog.. Why is that? Do the French have more people processing, easier processing or another? Oxford university Migration Observatory has some very good, impartial findings..
mmmmm, I just wanted you to enlighten me and you let me down...
Very unlike you too "I could recite it if you want to wait several months which I doubt but it will answer some of your question.. Tbh if your feeling let down by a response on a website, might be time for a break or reassessment of what is important.. Someone else's opinion (in my opinion) isn't something to feel let down by but respect that's your thinking.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
not ..
Feking tech | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are currently processing a tenth of what France and Germany are pa, we cut the staff under the austerity cult of Cameron and Osborne .. Hence the backlog.. Why is that? Do the French have more people processing, easier processing or another? Oxford university Migration Observatory has some very good, impartial findings..
mmmmm, I just wanted you to enlighten me and you let me down...
Very unlike you too
I could recite it if you want to wait several months which I doubt but it will answer some of your question..
Tbh if your feeling let down by a response on a website, might be time for a break or reassessment of what is important..
Someone else's opinion (in my opinion) isn't something to feel let down by but respect that's your thinking..
"Having an off day? I will leave it there if you can't explain your original point in less than several months. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...But it massively undermines the idea that SOME only come here to flee france( sorry war) Corrected it for you. Of course SOME are trying their luck. Of course SOME are not genuine asylum seekers. But SOME are!. However it is estimated that circa 70 % are not genuine . We should use any means necessary to stop this and forget about hunan rights . Lawyers are using these people to line their own pockets . If you enter the country illegally you should never be allowed to stay. Estimated by who? Show me a link to that data. Otherwise it is a worthless statement. Silence on that matter will be deemed an apology and a retraction of your false statement. Thanks Your post is bizarre.It may be worthless to you but you have failed to provide any alternative figures . Last time I checked at least 67 % of the population of the UK wanted action taken to stop illegal immigration. Most people prefer to obey the law , not support law breakers . By taking tough action we can destroy the businness model of people smugglers . Without evidence your statement of 70% is hyperbole at best and hate inciting lies at worst. If you can back up the c.70% figure then I would be happy to retract.. Your statement is bizarre . Most people expect the law to enforced. Only a small minority of society support the woke loving liberal elite. The remainder expect the law to be enforced. Enforcing laws has nothing to do with racism . Anyone breaking the law is doing so at the expense of ordinary law abiding citizens. Sadly we live in a society where lawyers make life as difficult as possible for those who wish to enforce the laws in these situations. These lawyers are simply out to line their own pockets. The have no interest in the law , they just want fees to line their own pockets . The Daily Mail has exposed the dubious activities of immigration lawyers in excellent articles published both yesterday and today . We live in a free society. I am entitled to accept the opinions of the press and the general population over those which you express . " Pat that is a clumsy distraction even for you. I have made no claim either way regarding the actual report in the Faily Heil. I have just asked you to provide evidence of your c.70% statement. It seems you can’t! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are currently processing a tenth of what France and Germany are pa, we cut the staff under the austerity cult of Cameron and Osborne .. Hence the backlog.. Why is that? Do the French have more people processing, easier processing or another? Oxford university Migration Observatory has some very good, impartial findings..
mmmmm, I just wanted you to enlighten me and you let me down...
Very unlike you too
I could recite it if you want to wait several months which I doubt but it will answer some of your question..
Tbh if your feeling let down by a response on a website, might be time for a break or reassessment of what is important..
Someone else's opinion (in my opinion) isn't something to feel let down by but respect that's your thinking..
Having an off day? I will leave it there if you can't explain your original point in less than several months. "Your feeling let down by the words of a stranger despite being signposted to what you want with a polite explanation and I'm having an off day? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are currently processing a tenth of what France and Germany are pa, we cut the staff under the austerity cult of Cameron and Osborne .. Hence the backlog.. Why is that? Do the French have more people processing, easier processing or another? Oxford university Migration Observatory has some very good, impartial findings.. "Am I getting my budget answer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are currently processing a tenth of what France and Germany are pa, we cut the staff under the austerity cult of Cameron and Osborne .. Hence the backlog.. Why is that? Do the French have more people processing, easier processing or another? Oxford university Migration Observatory has some very good, impartial findings..
Am I getting my budget answer?"Hello. I know that thr question was addressed to a specific person so I am apologising in advance for jumping in on the question From the Home Office Annual Reports and Accounts 2021 2022 . Refer to page 16 which summarises expenditure. 2016 2017. £ 15, 633 011 billion 2021 2022. £22,029 022 billion . The expenditure for all years in between is also broken down and in addition there is a breakdown by cost category According to my calculations that is an increase of 41 % over a 5 year period . The information is fron audited accounts . If anyone wants to see a picture of Priti Patel she is one page 6. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are currently processing a tenth of what France and Germany are pa, we cut the staff under the austerity cult of Cameron and Osborne .. Hence the backlog.. Why is that? Do the French have more people processing, easier processing or another? Oxford university Migration Observatory has some very good, impartial findings..
mmmmm, I just wanted you to enlighten me and you let me down...
Very unlike you too
I could recite it if you want to wait several months which I doubt but it will answer some of your question..
Tbh if your feeling let down by a response on a website, might be time for a break or reassessment of what is important..
Someone else's opinion (in my opinion) isn't something to feel let down by but respect that's your thinking..
Having an off day? I will leave it there if you can't explain your original point in less than several months.
Your feeling let down by the words of a stranger despite being signposted to what you want with a polite explanation and I'm having an off day?
"no wonder it would take several months to explain your original point stats | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are currently processing a tenth of what France and Germany are pa, we cut the staff under the austerity cult of Cameron and Osborne .. Hence the backlog.. Why is that? Do the French have more people processing, easier processing or another? Oxford university Migration Observatory has some very good, impartial findings..
Am I getting my budget answer? Hello. I know that thr question was addressed to a specific person so I am apologising in advance for jumping in on the question
From the Home Office Annual Reports and Accounts 2021 2022 .
Refer to page 16 which summarises expenditure. 2016 2017. £ 15, 633 011 billion
2021 2022. £22,029 022 billion .
The expenditure for all years in between is also broken down and in addition there is a breakdown by cost category
According to my calculations that is an increase of 41 % over a 5 year period . The information is fron audited accounts .
If anyone wants to see a picture of Priti Patel she is one page 6. "That is the total Home Office budget. How does that breakdown between the different Directorates, Arms Length Bodies, and the 43 geographic police forces in England & Wales plus non-geographic police forces (such as BTP and CNC)? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are currently processing a tenth of what France and Germany are pa, we cut the staff under the austerity cult of Cameron and Osborne .. Hence the backlog.. Why is that? Do the French have more people processing, easier processing or another? Oxford university Migration Observatory has some very good, impartial findings..
Am I getting my budget answer? Hello. I know that thr question was addressed to a specific person so I am apologising in advance for jumping in on the question
From the Home Office Annual Reports and Accounts 2021 2022 .
Refer to page 16 which summarises expenditure. 2016 2017. £ 15, 633 011 billion
2021 2022. £22,029 022 billion .
The expenditure for all years in between is also broken down and in addition there is a breakdown by cost category
According to my calculations that is an increase of 41 % over a 5 year period . The information is fron audited accounts .
If anyone wants to see a picture of Priti Patel she is one page 6.
That is the total Home Office budget. How does that breakdown between the different Directorates, Arms Length Bodies, and the 43 geographic police forces in England & Wales plus non-geographic police forces (such as BTP and CNC)?"I am assuming you can download the report yourself and extract all the information which you require. Do that removes any risk of bias or misrepresentation. Maybe you can contact Sue directly with any queries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are currently processing a tenth of what France and Germany are pa, we cut the staff under the austerity cult of Cameron and Osborne .. Hence the backlog.. Why is that? Do the French have more people processing, easier processing or another? Oxford university Migration Observatory has some very good, impartial findings..
Am I getting my budget answer? Hello. I know that thr question was addressed to a specific person so I am apologising in advance for jumping in on the question
From the Home Office Annual Reports and Accounts 2021 2022 .
Refer to page 16 which summarises expenditure. 2016 2017. £ 15, 633 011 billion
2021 2022. £22,029 022 billion .
The expenditure for all years in between is also broken down and in addition there is a breakdown by cost category
According to my calculations that is an increase of 41 % over a 5 year period . The information is fron audited accounts .
If anyone wants to see a picture of Priti Patel she is one page 6.
That is the total Home Office budget. How does that breakdown between the different Directorates, Arms Length Bodies, and the 43 geographic police forces in England & Wales plus non-geographic police forces (such as BTP and CNC)? I am assuming you can download the report yourself and extract all the information which you require. Do that removes any risk of bias or misrepresentation. Maybe you can contact Sue directly with any queries.
"I could but you already have and I assume you would not want to provide false information! The only directorates that are relevant to the budget discussion are UKVI and Border Force (with only the former in relation to asylum seeker processing). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are currently processing a tenth of what France and Germany are pa, we cut the staff under the austerity cult of Cameron and Osborne .. Hence the backlog.. France and Germany processing has bothingntondo with the um processing. I would think the backlog had something to do with the fact that the Dublin agreement is no longer I effect.and the asylum applications doubling and tripling? We've cut the very services that deal with every aspect of this issue.. As with the other areas of the public sector.." I am going to have to note this down as a lie. As the posted has since posted again without re visiting my request for backup. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are currently processing a tenth of what France and Germany are pa, we cut the staff under the austerity cult of Cameron and Osborne .. Hence the backlog.. France and Germany processing has bothingntondo with the um processing. I would think the backlog had something to do with the fact that the Dublin agreement is no longer I effect.and the asylum applications doubling and tripling? We've cut the very services that deal with every aspect of this issue.. As with the other areas of the public sector.. I am going to have to note this down as a lie. As the posted has since posted again without re visiting my request for backup." Yes you got me with your amazing powers of deduction.. None of the austerity measures that the lovely Tories brought imposed in 2010 had any detrimental effects upon the services the public use.. Sheesh how could anyone else not have known eh.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are currently processing a tenth of what France and Germany are pa, we cut the staff under the austerity cult of Cameron and Osborne .. Hence the backlog.. France and Germany processing has bothingntondo with the um processing. I would think the backlog had something to do with the fact that the Dublin agreement is no longer I effect.and the asylum applications doubling and tripling? We've cut the very services that deal with every aspect of this issue.. As with the other areas of the public sector.. I am going to have to note this down as a lie. As the posted has since posted again without re visiting my request for backup. Yes you got me with your amazing powers of deduction.. None of the austerity measures that the lovely Tories brought imposed in 2010 had any detrimental effects upon the services the public use.. Sheesh how could anyone else not have known eh.. "It's simple going forward really. Just only say things you knkw to be true and can back up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are currently processing a tenth of what France and Germany are pa, we cut the staff under the austerity cult of Cameron and Osborne .. Hence the backlog.. France and Germany processing has bothingntondo with the um processing. I would think the backlog had something to do with the fact that the Dublin agreement is no longer I effect.and the asylum applications doubling and tripling? We've cut the very services that deal with every aspect of this issue.. As with the other areas of the public sector.. I am going to have to note this down as a lie. As the posted has since posted again without re visiting my request for backup. Yes you got me with your amazing powers of deduction.. None of the austerity measures that the lovely Tories brought imposed in 2010 had any detrimental effects upon the services the public use.. Sheesh how could anyone else not have known eh..
It's simple going forward really. Just only say things you knkw to be true and can back up.
"Yes oh wise and all knowledgeable one..
That's politeness in case there's something you don't know.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are currently processing a tenth of what France and Germany are pa, we cut the staff under the austerity cult of Cameron and Osborne .. Hence the backlog.. France and Germany processing has bothingntondo with the um processing. I would think the backlog had something to do with the fact that the Dublin agreement is no longer I effect.and the asylum applications doubling and tripling? We've cut the very services that deal with every aspect of this issue.. As with the other areas of the public sector.. I am going to have to note this down as a lie. As the posted has since posted again without re visiting my request for backup. Yes you got me with your amazing powers of deduction.. None of the austerity measures that the lovely Tories brought imposed in 2010 had any detrimental effects upon the services the public use.. Sheesh how could anyone else not have known eh..
It's simple going forward really. Just only say things you knkw to be true and can back up.
Yes oh wise and all knowledgeable one..
That's politeness in case there's something you don't know.."Polite went out the window a long time ago for me on this forum. I prefer facts, not emotive words. I prefer people to admit when wrong and not to lie and make things up. I prefer not to be told I an wrong and don't k ow what I am talking about then when I link to sources and proof simply have people dismiss the source, or not reply, or try and move the subject on. Had people had the humility to apologise or admit being incorrect on here over the last year or so I've been posting, I might have had the inclination to treat them as adults.and not be so acerbic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are currently processing a tenth of what France and Germany are pa, we cut the staff under the austerity cult of Cameron and Osborne .. Hence the backlog.. France and Germany processing has bothingntondo with the um processing. I would think the backlog had something to do with the fact that the Dublin agreement is no longer I effect.and the asylum applications doubling and tripling? We've cut the very services that deal with every aspect of this issue.. As with the other areas of the public sector.. I am going to have to note this down as a lie. As the posted has since posted again without re visiting my request for backup. Yes you got me with your amazing powers of deduction.. None of the austerity measures that the lovely Tories brought imposed in 2010 had any detrimental effects upon the services the public use.. Sheesh how could anyone else not have known eh..
It's simple going forward really. Just only say things you knkw to be true and can back up.
Yes oh wise and all knowledgeable one..
That's politeness in case there's something you don't know..
Polite went out the window a long time ago for me on this forum.
I prefer facts, not emotive words. I prefer people to admit when wrong and not to lie and make things up.
I prefer not to be told I an wrong and don't k ow what I am talking about then when I link to sources and proof simply have people dismiss the source, or not reply, or try and move the subject on.
Had people had the humility to apologise or admit being incorrect on here over the last year or so I've been posting, I might have had the inclination to treat them as adults.and not be so acerbic.
"Maybe it's just you, that's your actual personality..? Happy to admit when I've been wrong and have done so, it's words on a screen sunshine but it's not a lie to say that the cuts under austerity to public services post 2010 were detrimental to those who use them.. Cutting 21.2% of staff in the home office, about 8'500 with over 5000 being border agency is a fact and it's also not a lie to say if any organisation loses that amount of personnel then somethings got to give.. That even for yourself who dwell in minutia and deflective pedantry should be understood.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...But it massively undermines the idea that SOME only come here to flee france( sorry war) Corrected it for you. Of course SOME are trying their luck. Of course SOME are not genuine asylum seekers. But SOME are! *many* "Your one exception that proves the rule. 1 man was a rapist, are all men rapist? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are currently processing a tenth of what France and Germany are pa, we cut the staff under the austerity cult of Cameron and Osborne .. Hence the backlog.. France and Germany processing has bothingntondo with the um processing. I would think the backlog had something to do with the fact that the Dublin agreement is no longer I effect.and the asylum applications doubling and tripling? We've cut the very services that deal with every aspect of this issue.. As with the other areas of the public sector.. I am going to have to note this down as a lie. As the posted has since posted again without re visiting my request for backup. Yes you got me with your amazing powers of deduction.. None of the austerity measures that the lovely Tories brought imposed in 2010 had any detrimental effects upon the services the public use.. Sheesh how could anyone else not have known eh..
It's simple going forward really. Just only say things you knkw to be true and can back up.
Yes oh wise and all knowledgeable one..
That's politeness in case there's something you don't know..
Polite went out the window a long time ago for me on this forum.
I prefer facts, not emotive words. I prefer people to admit when wrong and not to lie and make things up.
I prefer not to be told I an wrong and don't k ow what I am talking about then when I link to sources and proof simply have people dismiss the source, or not reply, or try and move the subject on.
Had people had the humility to apologise or admit being incorrect on here over the last year or so I've been posting, I might have had the inclination to treat them as adults.and not be so acerbic.
Maybe it's just you, that's your actual personality..?
Happy to admit when I've been wrong and have done so, it's words on a screen sunshine but it's not a lie to say that the cuts under austerity to public services post 2010 were detrimental to those who use them..
Cutting 21.2% of staff in the home office, about 8'500 with over 5000 being border agency is a fact and it's also not a lie to say if any organisation loses that amount of personnel then somethings got to give..
That even for yourself who dwell in minutia and deflective pedantry should be understood..
"You originally said about budgets and now it's staff. Which staff dealing with asylum claims were cut please? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Btw, genuine question, prob not the best place to ask but hey ho Why is a brown/black person a migrant or an immigrant but a white person is jolly expat?" They aren't. White people that leave here and go elsewhere are expats. White people that come here from elsewhere are immigrants (hence Ukrainian infants, Albanian immigrants, etc.). It's nothing to do with skin colour. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are currently processing a tenth of what France and Germany are pa, we cut the staff under the austerity cult of Cameron and Osborne .. Hence the backlog.. France and Germany processing has bothingntondo with the um processing. I would think the backlog had something to do with the fact that the Dublin agreement is no longer I effect.and the asylum applications doubling and tripling? We've cut the very services that deal with every aspect of this issue.. As with the other areas of the public sector.. I am going to have to note this down as a lie. As the posted has since posted again without re visiting my request for backup. Yes you got me with your amazing powers of deduction.. None of the austerity measures that the lovely Tories brought imposed in 2010 had any detrimental effects upon the services the public use.. Sheesh how could anyone else not have known eh..
It's simple going forward really. Just only say things you knkw to be true and can back up.
Yes oh wise and all knowledgeable one..
That's politeness in case there's something you don't know..
Polite went out the window a long time ago for me on this forum.
I prefer facts, not emotive words. I prefer people to admit when wrong and not to lie and make things up.
I prefer not to be told I an wrong and don't k ow what I am talking about then when I link to sources and proof simply have people dismiss the source, or not reply, or try and move the subject on.
Had people had the humility to apologise or admit being incorrect on here over the last year or so I've been posting, I might have had the inclination to treat them as adults.and not be so acerbic.
Maybe it's just you, that's your actual personality..?
Happy to admit when I've been wrong and have done so, it's words on a screen sunshine but it's not a lie to say that the cuts under austerity to public services post 2010 were detrimental to those who use them..
Cutting 21.2% of staff in the home office, about 8'500 with over 5000 being border agency is a fact and it's also not a lie to say if any organisation loses that amount of personnel then somethings got to give..
That even for yourself who dwell in minutia and deflective pedantry should be understood..
You originally said about budgets and now it's staff.
Which staff dealing with asylum claims were cut please?
"The answer is there ^, (5000 Border Agency) admittedly it's from the PCS but Damian Green also answered a question in Parliament about the potential impact of such cuts.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Btw, genuine question, prob not the best place to ask but hey ho Why is a brown/black person a migrant or an immigrant but a white person is jolly expat? They aren't. White people that leave here and go elsewhere are expats. White people that come here from elsewhere are immigrants (hence Ukrainian infants, Albanian immigrants, etc.). It's nothing to do with skin colour." If we want to be pedantic... The British person who leaves the UK to live in another country is an ex-pat to us but an immigrant to the country they have moved to. Same goes for foreigners who move to the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are currently processing a tenth of what France and Germany are pa, we cut the staff under the austerity cult of Cameron and Osborne .. Hence the backlog.. France and Germany processing has bothingntondo with the um processing. I would think the backlog had something to do with the fact that the Dublin agreement is no longer I effect.and the asylum applications doubling and tripling? We've cut the very services that deal with every aspect of this issue.. As with the other areas of the public sector.. I am going to have to note this down as a lie. As the posted has since posted again without re visiting my request for backup. Yes you got me with your amazing powers of deduction.. None of the austerity measures that the lovely Tories brought imposed in 2010 had any detrimental effects upon the services the public use.. Sheesh how could anyone else not have known eh..
It's simple going forward really. Just only say things you knkw to be true and can back up.
Yes oh wise and all knowledgeable one..
That's politeness in case there's something you don't know..
Polite went out the window a long time ago for me on this forum.
I prefer facts, not emotive words. I prefer people to admit when wrong and not to lie and make things up.
I prefer not to be told I an wrong and don't k ow what I am talking about then when I link to sources and proof simply have people dismiss the source, or not reply, or try and move the subject on.
Had people had the humility to apologise or admit being incorrect on here over the last year or so I've been posting, I might have had the inclination to treat them as adults.and not be so acerbic.
Maybe it's just you, that's your actual personality..?
Happy to admit when I've been wrong and have done so, it's words on a screen sunshine but it's not a lie to say that the cuts under austerity to public services post 2010 were detrimental to those who use them..
Cutting 21.2% of staff in the home office, about 8'500 with over 5000 being border agency is a fact and it's also not a lie to say if any organisation loses that amount of personnel then somethings got to give..
That even for yourself who dwell in minutia and deflective pedantry should be understood..
You originally said about budgets and now it's staff.
Which staff dealing with asylum claims were cut please?
The answer is there ^, (5000 Border Agency) admittedly it's from the PCS but Damian Green also answered a question in Parliament about the potential impact of such cuts.."Border agency staff aren't asylum processing staff. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Btw, genuine question, prob not the best place to ask but hey ho Why is a brown/black person a migrant or an immigrant but a white person is jolly expat? " We call a person leaving the uk for another country and ex pat. The other country calls then immigrants. Nothing to do with colour. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are currently processing a tenth of what France and Germany are pa, we cut the staff under the austerity cult of Cameron and Osborne .. Hence the backlog.. France and Germany processing has bothingntondo with the um processing. I would think the backlog had something to do with the fact that the Dublin agreement is no longer I effect.and the asylum applications doubling and tripling? We've cut the very services that deal with every aspect of this issue.. As with the other areas of the public sector.. I am going to have to note this down as a lie. As the posted has since posted again without re visiting my request for backup. Yes you got me with your amazing powers of deduction.. None of the austerity measures that the lovely Tories brought imposed in 2010 had any detrimental effects upon the services the public use.. Sheesh how could anyone else not have known eh..
It's simple going forward really. Just only say things you knkw to be true and can back up.
Yes oh wise and all knowledgeable one..
That's politeness in case there's something you don't know..
Polite went out the window a long time ago for me on this forum.
I prefer facts, not emotive words. I prefer people to admit when wrong and not to lie and make things up.
I prefer not to be told I an wrong and don't k ow what I am talking about then when I link to sources and proof simply have people dismiss the source, or not reply, or try and move the subject on.
Had people had the humility to apologise or admit being incorrect on here over the last year or so I've been posting, I might have had the inclination to treat them as adults.and not be so acerbic.
Maybe it's just you, that's your actual personality..?
Happy to admit when I've been wrong and have done so, it's words on a screen sunshine but it's not a lie to say that the cuts under austerity to public services post 2010 were detrimental to those who use them..
Cutting 21.2% of staff in the home office, about 8'500 with over 5000 being border agency is a fact and it's also not a lie to say if any organisation loses that amount of personnel then somethings got to give..
That even for yourself who dwell in minutia and deflective pedantry should be understood..
You originally said about budgets and now it's staff.
Which staff dealing with asylum claims were cut please?
The answer is there ^, (5000 Border Agency) admittedly it's from the PCS but Damian Green also answered a question in Parliament about the potential impact of such cuts..
Border agency staff aren't asylum processing staff."That would be UKVI. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Btw, genuine question, prob not the best place to ask but hey ho Why is a brown/black person a migrant or an immigrant but a white person is jolly expat? We call a person leaving the uk for another country and ex pat. The other country calls then immigrants. Nothing to do with colour." You copying me Morley | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Btw, genuine question, prob not the best place to ask but hey ho Why is a brown/black person a migrant or an immigrant but a white person is jolly expat? We call a person leaving the uk for another country and ex pat. The other country calls then immigrants. Nothing to do with colour." Course not, lolz | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Btw, genuine question, prob not the best place to ask but hey ho Why is a brown/black person a migrant or an immigrant but a white person is jolly expat? We call a person leaving the uk for another country and ex pat. The other country calls then immigrants. Nothing to do with colour. You copying me Morley "Forgot to do the homework so copied your answer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Btw, genuine question, prob not the best place to ask but hey ho Why is a brown/black person a migrant or an immigrant but a white person is jolly expat? We call a person leaving the uk for another country and ex pat. The other country calls then immigrants. Nothing to do with colour. Course not, lolz " Strong reply. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Btw, genuine question, prob not the best place to ask but hey ho Why is a brown/black person a migrant or an immigrant but a white person is jolly expat? We call a person leaving the uk for another country and ex pat. The other country calls then immigrants. Nothing to do with colour. Course not, lolz " How would you describe the many Albanians who have tried to enter the UK illegally? I would have called them migrants, but now you're suggesting that such a term only refers to non-white folk. So what is the correct term for a group of Caucasian Albanians entering the UK illegally? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Btw, genuine question, prob not the best place to ask but hey ho Why is a brown/black person a migrant or an immigrant but a white person is jolly expat? We call a person leaving the uk for another country and ex pat. The other country calls then immigrants. Nothing to do with colour. Course not, lolz How would you describe the many Albanians who have tried to enter the UK illegally? I would have called them migrants, but now you're suggesting that such a term only refers to non-white folk. So what is the correct term for a group of Caucasian Albanians entering the UK illegally?" If they’re presently being processed, they’re asylum seekers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Btw, genuine question, prob not the best place to ask but hey ho Why is a brown/black person a migrant or an immigrant but a white person is jolly expat? We call a person leaving the uk for another country and ex pat. The other country calls then immigrants. Nothing to do with colour. Course not, lolz How would you describe the many Albanians who have tried to enter the UK illegally? I would have called them migrants, but now you're suggesting that such a term only refers to non-white folk. So what is the correct term for a group of Caucasian Albanians entering the UK illegally? If they’re presently being processed, they’re asylum seekers "I'm sorry, you have misread my post. I was discussing Albanians who have entered the UK illegally; ipso facto not asylum seekers. If, according to the post above, the term 'migrant' can only refer to "brown or Black" people, what are the Albanians called. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Btw, genuine question, prob not the best place to ask but hey ho Why is a brown/black person a migrant or an immigrant but a white person is jolly expat? We call a person leaving the uk for another country and ex pat. The other country calls then immigrants. Nothing to do with colour. You copying me Morley
Forgot to do the homework so copied your answer."Well you best learning from the best | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...But it massively undermines the idea that SOME only come here to flee france( sorry war) Corrected it for you. Of course SOME are trying their luck. Of course SOME are not genuine asylum seekers. But SOME are!. However it is estimated that circa 70 % are not genuine . We should use any means necessary to stop this and forget about hunan rights . Lawyers are using these people to line their own pockets . If you enter the country illegally you should never be allowed to stay. Estimated by who? Show me a link to that data. Otherwise it is a worthless statement. Silence on that matter will be deemed an apology and a retraction of your false statement. Thanks Your post is bizarre.It may be worthless to you but you have failed to provide any alternative figures . Last time I checked at least 67 % of the population of the UK wanted action taken to stop illegal immigration. Most people prefer to obey the law , not support law breakers . By taking tough action we can destroy the businness model of people smugglers . Without evidence your statement of 70% is hyperbole at best and hate inciting lies at worst. If you can back up the c.70% figure then I would be happy to retract.. Your statement is bizarre . Most people expect the law to enforced. Only a small minority of society support the woke loving liberal elite. The remainder expect the law to be enforced. Enforcing laws has nothing to do with racism . Anyone breaking the law is doing so at the expense of ordinary law abiding citizens. Sadly we live in a society where lawyers make life as difficult as possible for those who wish to enforce the laws in these situations. These lawyers are simply out to line their own pockets. The have no interest in the law , they just want fees to line their own pockets . The Daily Mail has exposed the dubious activities of immigration lawyers in excellent articles published both yesterday and today . We live in a free society. I am entitled to accept the opinions of the press and the general population over those which you express . Pat that is a clumsy distraction even for you. I have made no claim either way regarding the actual report in the Faily Heil. I have just asked you to provide evidence of your c.70% statement. It seems you can’t! " . Imagine going to a pub and asking people for the source of their information. You are hardly going to do that in real life . I am unaware of any requirement to write down the source of information. Only a complete weirdo would attempt to identify and document the source of all the information which they read in the press just in case someone in an audience of about six people happened to ask a question . The audience of some national newspapers is circa 800 thousand . You have already stated that you read every national Newspaper so the source of this information is readily available to you should you wish to check Last time I checked my views and opinions on the matter aligned to circa 66 % of the population. That is the important statistic for me and the voice of reality. I guess you are not in the 66 % and prefer the opinions of the woke loving Islington elite . You are of course entitled to any opinion which aligns to this group as we live in a democracy . What you are not entitled to do is to expect people who make posts with different opinions to yours to apologise . We live in a free society where everyone is entitled to an opinion. This may not align to the cancel culture but they are simply a vocal minority expressing a false opinion of reality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have just asked you to provide evidence of your c.70% statement. It seems you can’t!" "Imagine going to a pub and asking people for the source of their information. You are hardly going to do that in real life ." In real life you can get a good idea of whether someone is speaking the truth or just making stuff up. Here in an anonymous forum it's quite common for people to just invent 'facts' to suit their narrative. If you're not willing to back up your claims, you shouldn't be surprised if no one believes you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Last time I checked my views and opinions on the matter aligned to circa 66 % of the population. That is the important statistic for me and the voice of reality. " When you ran this nationwide survey about your opinions. I wasn't included. Neither was anyone I know. I surveyed all of them and asked. Not one of them had received your survey. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Last time I checked my views and opinions on the matter aligned to circa 66 % of the population. That is the important statistic for me and the voice of reality. When you ran this nationwide survey about your opinions. I wasn't included. Neither was anyone I know. I surveyed all of them and asked. Not one of them had received your survey." . Last time I checked all surveys should be a representative sample of the population. They are hardly going to ask everyone , that would be pointless | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Last time I checked my views and opinions on the matter aligned to circa 66 % of the population. That is the important statistic for me and the voice of reality. When you ran this nationwide survey about your opinions. I wasn't included. Neither was anyone I know. I surveyed all of them and asked. Not one of them had received your survey.. Last time I checked all surveys should be a representative sample of the population. They are hardly going to ask everyone , that would be pointless " Fair enough. When was the survey done regarding the British population agreeing with your opinions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Last time I checked my views and opinions on the matter aligned to circa 66 % of the population. That is the important statistic for me and the voice of reality. When you ran this nationwide survey about your opinions. I wasn't included. Neither was anyone I know. I surveyed all of them and asked. Not one of them had received your survey.. Last time I checked all surveys should be a representative sample of the population. They are hardly going to ask everyone , that would be pointless Fair enough. When was the survey done regarding the British population agreeing with your opinions?" The report was in the national press a few months ago. The results on the topic in question indicated a policy to which I would give my unconditional support as would 66 % of the population | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Last time I checked my views and opinions on the matter aligned to circa 66 % of the population. That is the important statistic for me and the voice of reality. When you ran this nationwide survey about your opinions. I wasn't included. Neither was anyone I know. I surveyed all of them and asked. Not one of them had received your survey.. Last time I checked all surveys should be a representative sample of the population. They are hardly going to ask everyone , that would be pointless Fair enough. When was the survey done regarding the British population agreeing with your opinions? The report was in the national press a few months ago. The results on the topic in question indicated a policy to which I would give my unconditional support as would 66 % of the population" Would this be a Daily Mail survey by any chance? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I guess you are not in the 66 % and prefer the opinions of the woke loving Islington elite . You are of course entitled to any opinion which aligns to this group as we live in a democracy . What you are not entitled to do is to expect people who make posts with different opinions to yours to apologise . We live in a free society where everyone is entitled to an opinion. This may not align to the cancel culture but they are simply a vocal minority expressing a false opinion of reality. " It’s like I asked ChatGPT to write a paragraph from the perspective of a Brexit party candidate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pat Pat Pat you should stick to Top Tory Trolling. Despite using many words you seem to have said very little and have still failed to provide the actual source for your c.70% statement. Instead you have gone off on tangents and even with those failed to provide the actual source for that tangent (just implied roughly when and in national press). Poor stuff Pat, you are normally better than that!" . For someone who claims to have an interest in facts and figures you have failed to provide a single one in your reply. At least I posted a statistic which is a lot more than you did. For now I will simply recognise that we have a democratically elected government and we have a Home Secretary taking steps to resolve the issue as did Priti Patel. I support the forces of law and order and make no apology for that. Last time I checked 66 % of the population supported the actions being taken by the Hoome Secretary. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pat Pat Pat you should stick to Top Tory Trolling. Despite using many words you seem to have said very little and have still failed to provide the actual source for your c.70% statement. Instead you have gone off on tangents and even with those failed to provide the actual source for that tangent (just implied roughly when and in national press). Poor stuff Pat, you are normally better than that!. For someone who claims to have an interest in facts and figures you have failed to provide a single one in your reply. At least I posted a statistic which is a lot more than you did. For now I will simply recognise that we have a democratically elected government and we have a Home Secretary taking steps to resolve the issue as did Priti Patel. I support the forces of law and order and make no apology for that. Last time I checked 66 % of the population supported the actions being taken by the Hoome Secretary. " According to YouGov, Stella Bravermans approval rating is 20% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pat Pat Pat you should stick to Top Tory Trolling. Despite using many words you seem to have said very little and have still failed to provide the actual source for your c.70% statement. Instead you have gone off on tangents and even with those failed to provide the actual source for that tangent (just implied roughly when and in national press). Poor stuff Pat, you are normally better than that!. For someone who claims to have an interest in facts and figures you have failed to provide a single one in your reply. At least I posted a statistic which is a lot more than you did. For now I will simply recognise that we have a democratically elected government and we have a Home Secretary taking steps to resolve the issue as did Priti Patel. I support the forces of law and order and make no apology for that. Last time I checked 66 % of the population supported the actions being taken by the Hoome Secretary. " Anyone can post a statistic they've plucked out of thin air.. It's a bit like me telling my mate 'ive told you a million times don't exaggerate'.. Vaguely amusing perhaps but zero truth.. Bit like your claims pat .. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pat Pat Pat you should stick to Top Tory Trolling. Despite using many words you seem to have said very little and have still failed to provide the actual source for your c.70% statement. Instead you have gone off on tangents and even with those failed to provide the actual source for that tangent (just implied roughly when and in national press). Poor stuff Pat, you are normally better than that!. For someone who claims to have an interest in facts and figures you have failed to provide a single one in your reply. At least I posted a statistic which is a lot more than you did. For now I will simply recognise that we have a democratically elected government and we have a Home Secretary taking steps to resolve the issue as did Priti Patel. I support the forces of law and order and make no apology for that. Last time I checked 66 % of the population supported the actions being taken by the Hoome Secretary. Anyone can post a statistic they've plucked out of thin air.. It's a bit like me telling my mate 'ive told you a million times don't exaggerate'.. Vaguely amusing perhaps but zero truth.. Bit like your claims pat .." It is hardly plucked out of thin air if it is published in the national press. I wouls much prefer to rely on information published in the national press as these are subject to various checks and controls. It seems that no one on here is either capable or alternatively does not want to supply alternative figures. I accept the information supplied as I am sure would most people in the country. From memory I do not see any indication of the information supplied having to be retracted by the organisation concerned. Information supplied by an organisation with a circulation of in excess of 800, 000 readers takes preference to me over a few posters on here who query the figure but are either incapable of or do not want to supply any alternative figures. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pat Pat Pat you should stick to Top Tory Trolling. Despite using many words you seem to have said very little and have still failed to provide the actual source for your c.70% statement. Instead you have gone off on tangents and even with those failed to provide the actual source for that tangent (just implied roughly when and in national press). Poor stuff Pat, you are normally better than that!. For someone who claims to have an interest in facts and figures you have failed to provide a single one in your reply. At least I posted a statistic which is a lot more than you did. For now I will simply recognise that we have a democratically elected government and we have a Home Secretary taking steps to resolve the issue as did Priti Patel. I support the forces of law and order and make no apology for that. Last time I checked 66 % of the population supported the actions being taken by the Hoome Secretary. Anyone can post a statistic they've plucked out of thin air.. It's a bit like me telling my mate 'ive told you a million times don't exaggerate'.. Vaguely amusing perhaps but zero truth.. Bit like your claims pat .. It is hardly plucked out of thin air if it is published in the national press. I wouls much prefer to rely on information published in the national press as these are subject to various checks and controls. It seems that no one on here is either capable or alternatively does not want to supply alternative figures. I accept the information supplied as I am sure would most people in the country. From memory I do not see any indication of the information supplied having to be retracted by the organisation concerned. Information supplied by an organisation with a circulation of in excess of 800, 000 readers takes preference to me over a few posters on here who query the figure but are either incapable of or do not want to supply any alternative figures. " Here’s a statistic for you... Based on my analysis of the people posting in this thread, currently 100% do not believe your statistic and c.75% have asked you to name your source | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pat Pat Pat you should stick to Top Tory Trolling. Despite using many words you seem to have said very little and have still failed to provide the actual source for your c.70% statement. Instead you have gone off on tangents and even with those failed to provide the actual source for that tangent (just implied roughly when and in national press). Poor stuff Pat, you are normally better than that!. For someone who claims to have an interest in facts and figures you have failed to provide a single one in your reply. At least I posted a statistic which is a lot more than you did. For now I will simply recognise that we have a democratically elected government and we have a Home Secretary taking steps to resolve the issue as did Priti Patel. I support the forces of law and order and make no apology for that. Last time I checked 66 % of the population supported the actions being taken by the Hoome Secretary. Anyone can post a statistic they've plucked out of thin air.. It's a bit like me telling my mate 'ive told you a million times don't exaggerate'.. Vaguely amusing perhaps but zero truth.. Bit like your claims pat .. It is hardly plucked out of thin air if it is published in the national press. I wouls much prefer to rely on information published in the national press as these are subject to various checks and controls. It seems that no one on here is either capable or alternatively does not want to supply alternative figures. I accept the information supplied as I am sure would most people in the country. From memory I do not see any indication of the information supplied having to be retracted by the organisation concerned. Information supplied by an organisation with a circulation of in excess of 800, 000 readers takes preference to me over a few posters on here who query the figure but are either incapable of or do not want to supply any alternative figures. Here’s a statistic for you... Based on my analysis of the people posting in this thread, currently 100% do not believe your statistic and c.75% have asked you to name your source ". Another strange post . Your sample size is biased and too small to have any statistical significance. Most people doing a survey would attempt to use an unbiased sample. More interesting is the fact that no one has attempted to supply alternative data to the original statistic as quoted . I cannot see many people relying on information posted in a forum where the audience is a very small number of posters and readers ( probably less than ten) . Last time I checked some national newspapers have a circulation in excess of 800, 000 copies and are subject to various regulations about what they can publish . In any event you knew that already as you read all national papers daily as per a post made by yourself previously. It is very odd a few posters disputing the figure supplied but are incapable of supplying any alterative ones. Maybe the truth hurts . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pat Pat Pat you should stick to Top Tory Trolling. Despite using many words you seem to have said very little and have still failed to provide the actual source for your c.70% statement. Instead you have gone off on tangents and even with those failed to provide the actual source for that tangent (just implied roughly when and in national press). Poor stuff Pat, you are normally better than that!. For someone who claims to have an interest in facts and figures you have failed to provide a single one in your reply. At least I posted a statistic which is a lot more than you did. For now I will simply recognise that we have a democratically elected government and we have a Home Secretary taking steps to resolve the issue as did Priti Patel. I support the forces of law and order and make no apology for that. Last time I checked 66 % of the population supported the actions being taken by the Hoome Secretary. Anyone can post a statistic they've plucked out of thin air.. It's a bit like me telling my mate 'ive told you a million times don't exaggerate'.. Vaguely amusing perhaps but zero truth.. Bit like your claims pat .. It is hardly plucked out of thin air if it is published in the national press. I wouls much prefer to rely on information published in the national press as these are subject to various checks and controls. It seems that no one on here is either capable or alternatively does not want to supply alternative figures. I accept the information supplied as I am sure would most people in the country. From memory I do not see any indication of the information supplied having to be retracted by the organisation concerned. Information supplied by an organisation with a circulation of in excess of 800, 000 readers takes preference to me over a few posters on here who query the figure but are either incapable of or do not want to supply any alternative figures. Here’s a statistic for you... Based on my analysis of the people posting in this thread, currently 100% do not believe your statistic and c.75% have asked you to name your source . Another strange post . Your sample size is biased and too small to have any statistical significance. Most people doing a survey would attempt to use an unbiased sample. More interesting is the fact that no one has attempted to supply alternative data to the original statistic as quoted . I cannot see many people relying on information posted in a forum where the audience is a very small number of posters and readers ( probably less than ten) . Last time I checked some national newspapers have a circulation in excess of 800, 000 copies and are subject to various regulations about what they can publish . In any event you knew that already as you read all national papers daily as per a post made by yourself previously.
It is very odd a few posters disputing the figure supplied but are incapable of supplying any alterative ones. Maybe the truth hurts . ""The percentage of asylum applicants refused at initial decision reached its highest point at 88% in 2004. Since then, the refusal rate has been falling overall and was at 24% in 2022, its lowest point since 1990." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pat Pat Pat you should stick to Top Tory Trolling. Despite using many words you seem to have said very little and have still failed to provide the actual source for your c.70% statement. Instead you have gone off on tangents and even with those failed to provide the actual source for that tangent (just implied roughly when and in national press). Poor stuff Pat, you are normally better than that!. For someone who claims to have an interest in facts and figures you have failed to provide a single one in your reply. At least I posted a statistic which is a lot more than you did. For now I will simply recognise that we have a democratically elected government and we have a Home Secretary taking steps to resolve the issue as did Priti Patel. I support the forces of law and order and make no apology for that. Last time I checked 66 % of the population supported the actions being taken by the Hoome Secretary. Anyone can post a statistic they've plucked out of thin air.. It's a bit like me telling my mate 'ive told you a million times don't exaggerate'.. Vaguely amusing perhaps but zero truth.. Bit like your claims pat .. It is hardly plucked out of thin air if it is published in the national press. I wouls much prefer to rely on information published in the national press as these are subject to various checks and controls. It seems that no one on here is either capable or alternatively does not want to supply alternative figures. I accept the information supplied as I am sure would most people in the country. From memory I do not see any indication of the information supplied having to be retracted by the organisation concerned. Information supplied by an organisation with a circulation of in excess of 800, 000 readers takes preference to me over a few posters on here who query the figure but are either incapable of or do not want to supply any alternative figures. Here’s a statistic for you... Based on my analysis of the people posting in this thread, currently 100% do not believe your statistic and c.75% have asked you to name your source . Another strange post . Your sample size is biased and too small to have any statistical significance. Most people doing a survey would attempt to use an unbiased sample. More interesting is the fact that no one has attempted to supply alternative data to the original statistic as quoted . I cannot see many people relying on information posted in a forum where the audience is a very small number of posters and readers ( probably less than ten) . Last time I checked some national newspapers have a circulation in excess of 800, 000 copies and are subject to various regulations about what they can publish . In any event you knew that already as you read all national papers daily as per a post made by yourself previously.
It is very odd a few posters disputing the figure supplied but are incapable of supplying any alterative ones. Maybe the truth hurts . "Maybe the stat was from the infinite monkeys who sometimes write your posts and write articles for The Critic Magazine? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pat Pat Pat you should stick to Top Tory Trolling. Despite using many words you seem to have said very little and have still failed to provide the actual source for your c.70% statement. Instead you have gone off on tangents and even with those failed to provide the actual source for that tangent (just implied roughly when and in national press). Poor stuff Pat, you are normally better than that!. For someone who claims to have an interest in facts and figures you have failed to provide a single one in your reply. At least I posted a statistic which is a lot more than you did. For now I will simply recognise that we have a democratically elected government and we have a Home Secretary taking steps to resolve the issue as did Priti Patel. I support the forces of law and order and make no apology for that. Last time I checked 66 % of the population supported the actions being taken by the Hoome Secretary. Anyone can post a statistic they've plucked out of thin air.. It's a bit like me telling my mate 'ive told you a million times don't exaggerate'.. Vaguely amusing perhaps but zero truth.. Bit like your claims pat .. It is hardly plucked out of thin air if it is published in the national press. I wouls much prefer to rely on information published in the national press as these are subject to various checks and controls. It seems that no one on here is either capable or alternatively does not want to supply alternative figures. I accept the information supplied as I am sure would most people in the country. From memory I do not see any indication of the information supplied having to be retracted by the organisation concerned. Information supplied by an organisation with a circulation of in excess of 800, 000 readers takes preference to me over a few posters on here who query the figure but are either incapable of or do not want to supply any alternative figures. Here’s a statistic for you... Based on my analysis of the people posting in this thread, currently 100% do not believe your statistic and c.75% have asked you to name your source . Another strange post . Your sample size is biased and too small to have any statistical significance. Most people doing a survey would attempt to use an unbiased sample. More interesting is the fact that no one has attempted to supply alternative data to the original statistic as quoted . I cannot see many people relying on information posted in a forum where the audience is a very small number of posters and readers ( probably less than ten) . Last time I checked some national newspapers have a circulation in excess of 800, 000 copies and are subject to various regulations about what they can publish . In any event you knew that already as you read all national papers daily as per a post made by yourself previously.
It is very odd a few posters disputing the figure supplied but are incapable of supplying any alterative ones. Maybe the truth hurts . "Dear oh dear. It was a joke. The wink was the indicator. It was to show that anyone can spout statistics that are meaningless. Interesting you give the same response give or take re circulation figures. It’s as if you have nothing else, like a first line call centre operator who is not allowed to go off script. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pat Pat Pat you should stick to Top Tory Trolling. Despite using many words you seem to have said very little and have still failed to provide the actual source for your c.70% statement. Instead you have gone off on tangents and even with those failed to provide the actual source for that tangent (just implied roughly when and in national press). Poor stuff Pat, you are normally better than that!. For someone who claims to have an interest in facts and figures you have failed to provide a single one in your reply. At least I posted a statistic which is a lot more than you did. For now I will simply recognise that we have a democratically elected government and we have a Home Secretary taking steps to resolve the issue as did Priti Patel. I support the forces of law and order and make no apology for that. Last time I checked 66 % of the population supported the actions being taken by the Hoome Secretary. Anyone can post a statistic they've plucked out of thin air.. It's a bit like me telling my mate 'ive told you a million times don't exaggerate'.. Vaguely amusing perhaps but zero truth.. Bit like your claims pat .. It is hardly plucked out of thin air if it is published in the national press. I wouls much prefer to rely on information published in the national press as these are subject to various checks and controls. It seems that no one on here is either capable or alternatively does not want to supply alternative figures. I accept the information supplied as I am sure would most people in the country. From memory I do not see any indication of the information supplied having to be retracted by the organisation concerned. Information supplied by an organisation with a circulation of in excess of 800, 000 readers takes preference to me over a few posters on here who query the figure but are either incapable of or do not want to supply any alternative figures. " All that waffle just to avoid saying which paper you claim the poll stats were in..
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pat Pat Pat you should stick to Top Tory Trolling. Despite using many words you seem to have said very little and have still failed to provide the actual source for your c.70% statement. Instead you have gone off on tangents and even with those failed to provide the actual source for that tangent (just implied roughly when and in national press). Poor stuff Pat, you are normally better than that!. For someone who claims to have an interest in facts and figures you have failed to provide a single one in your reply. At least I posted a statistic which is a lot more than you did. For now I will simply recognise that we have a democratically elected government and we have a Home Secretary taking steps to resolve the issue as did Priti Patel. I support the forces of law and order and make no apology for that. Last time I checked 66 % of the population supported the actions being taken by the Hoome Secretary. Anyone can post a statistic they've plucked out of thin air.. It's a bit like me telling my mate 'ive told you a million times don't exaggerate'.. Vaguely amusing perhaps but zero truth.. Bit like your claims pat .. It is hardly plucked out of thin air if it is published in the national press. I wouls much prefer to rely on information published in the national press as these are subject to various checks and controls. It seems that no one on here is either capable or alternatively does not want to supply alternative figures. I accept the information supplied as I am sure would most people in the country. From memory I do not see any indication of the information supplied having to be retracted by the organisation concerned. Information supplied by an organisation with a circulation of in excess of 800, 000 readers takes preference to me over a few posters on here who query the figure but are either incapable of or do not want to supply any alternative figures. Here’s a statistic for you... Based on my analysis of the people posting in this thread, currently 100% do not believe your statistic and c.75% have asked you to name your source . Another strange post . Your sample size is biased and too small to have any statistical significance. Most people doing a survey would attempt to use an unbiased sample. More interesting is the fact that no one has attempted to supply alternative data to the original statistic as quoted . I cannot see many people relying on information posted in a forum where the audience is a very small number of posters and readers ( probably less than ten) . Last time I checked some national newspapers have a circulation in excess of 800, 000 copies and are subject to various regulations about what they can publish . In any event you knew that already as you read all national papers daily as per a post made by yourself previously.
It is very odd a few posters disputing the figure supplied but are incapable of supplying any alterative ones. Maybe the truth hurts .
Dear oh dear. It was a joke. The wink was the indicator. It was to show that anyone can spout statistics that are meaningless. Interesting you give the same response give or take re circulation figures. It’s as if you have nothing else, like a first line call centre operator who is not allowed to go off script. ". Intersting to see that all you can do is cast doubt on the figure quoted but are incapable of providing any alternative ones . Out in the real world no one except a complete weirdo is going to document the source of all the information in their possession just in case someone asks the question on site such as this . What is even more weird is to ask a question to which you already know the answer and deem failure to answer as an apology . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pat Pat Pat you should stick to Top Tory Trolling. Despite using many words you seem to have said very little and have still failed to provide the actual source for your c.70% statement. Instead you have gone off on tangents and even with those failed to provide the actual source for that tangent (just implied roughly when and in national press). Poor stuff Pat, you are normally better than that!. For someone who claims to have an interest in facts and figures you have failed to provide a single one in your reply. At least I posted a statistic which is a lot more than you did. For now I will simply recognise that we have a democratically elected government and we have a Home Secretary taking steps to resolve the issue as did Priti Patel. I support the forces of law and order and make no apology for that. Last time I checked 66 % of the population supported the actions being taken by the Hoome Secretary. Anyone can post a statistic they've plucked out of thin air.. It's a bit like me telling my mate 'ive told you a million times don't exaggerate'.. Vaguely amusing perhaps but zero truth.. Bit like your claims pat .. It is hardly plucked out of thin air if it is published in the national press. I wouls much prefer to rely on information published in the national press as these are subject to various checks and controls. It seems that no one on here is either capable or alternatively does not want to supply alternative figures. I accept the information supplied as I am sure would most people in the country. From memory I do not see any indication of the information supplied having to be retracted by the organisation concerned. Information supplied by an organisation with a circulation of in excess of 800, 000 readers takes preference to me over a few posters on here who query the figure but are either incapable of or do not want to supply any alternative figures. All that waffle just to avoid saying which paper you claim the poll stats were in..
". Intersting to see that you have failed to supply any alternative figures. Only a,complete weirdo would document the source of all their information just in case one random individual queried it. What matters in life is what you do and what you achieve , not the answer to one random question. The question and the manner in which it was asked was bizarre. The poster actually said that failure to answer it would be deemed to be an apology . The opinions of the general population and answers to a survey take preference over those of a few random posters trying to identify the source on a site such as this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pat Pat Pat you should stick to Top Tory Trolling. Despite using many words you seem to have said very little and have still failed to provide the actual source for your c.70% statement. Instead you have gone off on tangents and even with those failed to provide the actual source for that tangent (just implied roughly when and in national press). Poor stuff Pat, you are normally better than that!. For someone who claims to have an interest in facts and figures you have failed to provide a single one in your reply. At least I posted a statistic which is a lot more than you did. For now I will simply recognise that we have a democratically elected government and we have a Home Secretary taking steps to resolve the issue as did Priti Patel. I support the forces of law and order and make no apology for that. Last time I checked 66 % of the population supported the actions being taken by the Hoome Secretary. Anyone can post a statistic they've plucked out of thin air.. It's a bit like me telling my mate 'ive told you a million times don't exaggerate'.. Vaguely amusing perhaps but zero truth.. Bit like your claims pat .. It is hardly plucked out of thin air if it is published in the national press. I wouls much prefer to rely on information published in the national press as these are subject to various checks and controls. It seems that no one on here is either capable or alternatively does not want to supply alternative figures. I accept the information supplied as I am sure would most people in the country. From memory I do not see any indication of the information supplied having to be retracted by the organisation concerned. Information supplied by an organisation with a circulation of in excess of 800, 000 readers takes preference to me over a few posters on here who query the figure but are either incapable of or do not want to supply any alternative figures. Here’s a statistic for you... Based on my analysis of the people posting in this thread, currently 100% do not believe your statistic and c.75% have asked you to name your source . Another strange post . Your sample size is biased and too small to have any statistical significance. Most people doing a survey would attempt to use an unbiased sample. More interesting is the fact that no one has attempted to supply alternative data to the original statistic as quoted . I cannot see many people relying on information posted in a forum where the audience is a very small number of posters and readers ( probably less than ten) . Last time I checked some national newspapers have a circulation in excess of 800, 000 copies and are subject to various regulations about what they can publish . In any event you knew that already as you read all national papers daily as per a post made by yourself previously.
It is very odd a few posters disputing the figure supplied but are incapable of supplying any alterative ones. Maybe the truth hurts .
Dear oh dear. It was a joke. The wink was the indicator. It was to show that anyone can spout statistics that are meaningless. Interesting you give the same response give or take re circulation figures. It’s as if you have nothing else, like a first line call centre operator who is not allowed to go off script. . Intersting to see that all you can do is cast doubt on the figure quoted but are incapable of providing any alternative ones . Out in the real world no one except a complete weirdo is going to document the source of all the information in their possession just in case someone asks the question on site such as this . What is even more weird is to ask a question to which you already know the answer and deem failure to answer as an apology ."Nobody is required to provide an alternative figure. We just want to know where you got the 70% figure from. If you are going to quote a figure then it is fair for all of us to expect you to know the source of that figure. Now if your post that started this had said “most” or “many” then we could accept you have that impression. But you quoted an actual statistic. Perhaps in future it would be better to steer clear of actual numbers and stick to “gut feel based on very little” or “impression I have from reading biased news sources” and we could then avoid hundreds of words about nothing! Admit it Pat...the 70% figure was made up wasn’t it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On 17th May 2023 the Portsmouth News said of local Fareham MP Ms Braverman that only 14 per cent of population support her actions and she had a You Gov popularity rating of -38. " If only they had asked Pat .. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pat Pat Pat you should stick to Top Tory Trolling. Despite using many words you seem to have said very little and have still failed to provide the actual source for your c.70% statement. Instead you have gone off on tangents and even with those failed to provide the actual source for that tangent (just implied roughly when and in national press). Poor stuff Pat, you are normally better than that!. For someone who claims to have an interest in facts and figures you have failed to provide a single one in your reply. At least I posted a statistic which is a lot more than you did. For now I will simply recognise that we have a democratically elected government and we have a Home Secretary taking steps to resolve the issue as did Priti Patel. I support the forces of law and order and make no apology for that. Last time I checked 66 % of the population supported the actions being taken by the Hoome Secretary. Anyone can post a statistic they've plucked out of thin air.. It's a bit like me telling my mate 'ive told you a million times don't exaggerate'.. Vaguely amusing perhaps but zero truth.. Bit like your claims pat .. It is hardly plucked out of thin air if it is published in the national press. I wouls much prefer to rely on information published in the national press as these are subject to various checks and controls. It seems that no one on here is either capable or alternatively does not want to supply alternative figures. I accept the information supplied as I am sure would most people in the country. From memory I do not see any indication of the information supplied having to be retracted by the organisation concerned. Information supplied by an organisation with a circulation of in excess of 800, 000 readers takes preference to me over a few posters on here who query the figure but are either incapable of or do not want to supply any alternative figures. All that waffle just to avoid saying which paper you claim the poll stats were in..
. Intersting to see that you have failed to supply any alternative figures. Only a,complete weirdo would document the source of all their information just in case one random individual queried it. What matters in life is what you do and what you achieve , not the answer to one random question. The question and the manner in which it was asked was bizarre. The poster actually said that failure to answer it would be deemed to be an apology . The opinions of the general population and answers to a survey take preference over those of a few random posters trying to identify the source on a site such as this "BTW the “deemed apology” point when I said... “Estimated by who? Show me a link to that data. Otherwise it is a worthless statement. Silence on that matter will be deemed an apology and a retraction of your false statement. Thanks” used the same phrasing as many other posters lately when challenging data and assumptions. I am sure you follow the ebb and flow of these forums regularly Pat so I doubt that point was really lost on you! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pat Pat Pat you should stick to Top Tory Trolling. Despite using many words you seem to have said very little and have still failed to provide the actual source for your c.70% statement. Instead you have gone off on tangents and even with those failed to provide the actual source for that tangent (just implied roughly when and in national press). Poor stuff Pat, you are normally better than that!. For someone who claims to have an interest in facts and figures you have failed to provide a single one in your reply. At least I posted a statistic which is a lot more than you did. For now I will simply recognise that we have a democratically elected government and we have a Home Secretary taking steps to resolve the issue as did Priti Patel. I support the forces of law and order and make no apology for that. Last time I checked 66 % of the population supported the actions being taken by the Hoome Secretary. Anyone can post a statistic they've plucked out of thin air.. It's a bit like me telling my mate 'ive told you a million times don't exaggerate'.. Vaguely amusing perhaps but zero truth.. Bit like your claims pat .. It is hardly plucked out of thin air if it is published in the national press. I wouls much prefer to rely on information published in the national press as these are subject to various checks and controls. It seems that no one on here is either capable or alternatively does not want to supply alternative figures. I accept the information supplied as I am sure would most people in the country. From memory I do not see any indication of the information supplied having to be retracted by the organisation concerned. Information supplied by an organisation with a circulation of in excess of 800, 000 readers takes preference to me over a few posters on here who query the figure but are either incapable of or do not want to supply any alternative figures. Here’s a statistic for you... Based on my analysis of the people posting in this thread, currently 100% do not believe your statistic and c.75% have asked you to name your source . Another strange post . Your sample size is biased and too small to have any statistical significance. Most people doing a survey would attempt to use an unbiased sample. More interesting is the fact that no one has attempted to supply alternative data to the original statistic as quoted . I cannot see many people relying on information posted in a forum where the audience is a very small number of posters and readers ( probably less than ten) . Last time I checked some national newspapers have a circulation in excess of 800, 000 copies and are subject to various regulations about what they can publish . In any event you knew that already as you read all national papers daily as per a post made by yourself previously.
It is very odd a few posters disputing the figure supplied but are incapable of supplying any alterative ones. Maybe the truth hurts .
Dear oh dear. It was a joke. The wink was the indicator. It was to show that anyone can spout statistics that are meaningless. Interesting you give the same response give or take re circulation figures. It’s as if you have nothing else, like a first line call centre operator who is not allowed to go off script. . Intersting to see that all you can do is cast doubt on the figure quoted but are incapable of providing any alternative ones . Out in the real world no one except a complete weirdo is going to document the source of all the information in their possession just in case someone asks the question on site such as this . What is even more weird is to ask a question to which you already know the answer and deem failure to answer as an apology .
Nobody is required to provide an alternative figure. We just want to know where you got the 70% figure from. If you are going to quote a figure then it is fair for all of us to expect you to know the source of that figure.
Now if your post that started this had said “most” or “many” then we could accept you have that impression. But you quoted an actual statistic. Perhaps in future it would be better to steer clear of actual numbers and stick to “gut feel based on very little” or “impression I have from reading biased news sources” and we could then avoid hundreds of words about nothing! Admit it Pat...the 70% figure was made up wasn’t it!"Why would anyone need to make up a figure on a site such as this. ? Anything posted is irrelevan out in the real world where the audience is much wider than five or six people. Are you seriously suggesting that you expect all posters to keep a log of the source of their information just in case someone raises a query. Information in a variety of newspapers , television and other sources is good enough for me. I also benchmark my opinions against that of the wider population in order to assess that they are reasonable. Not very different to what most people do. I would be surprised if anyone benchmarked their opinions against this forum. What matters is what happens in the real world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On 17th May 2023 the Portsmouth News said of local Fareham MP Ms Braverman that only 14 per cent of population support her actions and she had a You Gov popularity rating of -38. " . It would be intersting to know what the sample size was and what the other answers to the survey were . 14 % wouls be a very good result if the other 86 % answered that they did not know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pat Pat Pat you should stick to Top Tory Trolling. Despite using many words you seem to have said very little and have still failed to provide the actual source for your c.70% statement. Instead you have gone off on tangents and even with those failed to provide the actual source for that tangent (just implied roughly when and in national press). Poor stuff Pat, you are normally better than that!. For someone who claims to have an interest in facts and figures you have failed to provide a single one in your reply. At least I posted a statistic which is a lot more than you did. For now I will simply recognise that we have a democratically elected government and we have a Home Secretary taking steps to resolve the issue as did Priti Patel. I support the forces of law and order and make no apology for that. Last time I checked 66 % of the population supported the actions being taken by the Hoome Secretary. Anyone can post a statistic they've plucked out of thin air.. It's a bit like me telling my mate 'ive told you a million times don't exaggerate'.. Vaguely amusing perhaps but zero truth.. Bit like your claims pat .. It is hardly plucked out of thin air if it is published in the national press. I wouls much prefer to rely on information published in the national press as these are subject to various checks and controls. It seems that no one on here is either capable or alternatively does not want to supply alternative figures. I accept the information supplied as I am sure would most people in the country. From memory I do not see any indication of the information supplied having to be retracted by the organisation concerned. Information supplied by an organisation with a circulation of in excess of 800, 000 readers takes preference to me over a few posters on here who query the figure but are either incapable of or do not want to supply any alternative figures. Here’s a statistic for you... Based on my analysis of the people posting in this thread, currently 100% do not believe your statistic and c.75% have asked you to name your source . Another strange post . Your sample size is biased and too small to have any statistical significance. Most people doing a survey would attempt to use an unbiased sample. More interesting is the fact that no one has attempted to supply alternative data to the original statistic as quoted . I cannot see many people relying on information posted in a forum where the audience is a very small number of posters and readers ( probably less than ten) . Last time I checked some national newspapers have a circulation in excess of 800, 000 copies and are subject to various regulations about what they can publish . In any event you knew that already as you read all national papers daily as per a post made by yourself previously.
It is very odd a few posters disputing the figure supplied but are incapable of supplying any alterative ones. Maybe the truth hurts .
Dear oh dear. It was a joke. The wink was the indicator. It was to show that anyone can spout statistics that are meaningless. Interesting you give the same response give or take re circulation figures. It’s as if you have nothing else, like a first line call centre operator who is not allowed to go off script. . Intersting to see that all you can do is cast doubt on the figure quoted but are incapable of providing any alternative ones . Out in the real world no one except a complete weirdo is going to document the source of all the information in their possession just in case someone asks the question on site such as this . What is even more weird is to ask a question to which you already know the answer and deem failure to answer as an apology .
Nobody is required to provide an alternative figure. We just want to know where you got the 70% figure from. If you are going to quote a figure then it is fair for all of us to expect you to know the source of that figure.
Now if your post that started this had said “most” or “many” then we could accept you have that impression. But you quoted an actual statistic. Perhaps in future it would be better to steer clear of actual numbers and stick to “gut feel based on very little” or “impression I have from reading biased news sources” and we could then avoid hundreds of words about nothing! Admit it Pat...the 70% figure was made up wasn’t it! Why would anyone need to make up a figure on a site such as this. ? Anything posted is irrelevan out in the real world where the audience is much wider than five or six people. Are you seriously suggesting that you expect all posters to keep a log of the source of their information just in case someone raises a query. Information in a variety of newspapers , television and other sources is good enough for me. I also benchmark my opinions against that of the wider population in order to assess that they are reasonable. Not very different to what most people do. I would be surprised if anyone benchmarked their opinions against this forum. What matters is what happens in the real world. "I don’t know why anyone would make up a statistic (apart from trying to make a point and hoping nobody challenges it). But you clearly did make up the 70% figure as you have had ample opportunity to look into it and prove all of us wrong! Good to know thanks. Maybe now we can get back on topic? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On 17th May 2023 the Portsmouth News said of local Fareham MP Ms Braverman that only 14 per cent of population support her actions and she had a You Gov popularity rating of -38. . It would be intersting to know what the sample size was and what the other answers to the survey were . 14 % wouls be a very good result if the other 86 % answered that they did not know. " So it is ok for you to ask posters for further clarity LOL | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pat Pat Pat you should stick to Top Tory Trolling. Despite using many words you seem to have said very little and have still failed to provide the actual source for your c.70% statement. Instead you have gone off on tangents and even with those failed to provide the actual source for that tangent (just implied roughly when and in national press). Poor stuff Pat, you are normally better than that!. For someone who claims to have an interest in facts and figures you have failed to provide a single one in your reply. At least I posted a statistic which is a lot more than you did. For now I will simply recognise that we have a democratically elected government and we have a Home Secretary taking steps to resolve the issue as did Priti Patel. I support the forces of law and order and make no apology for that. Last time I checked 66 % of the population supported the actions being taken by the Hoome Secretary. Anyone can post a statistic they've plucked out of thin air.. It's a bit like me telling my mate 'ive told you a million times don't exaggerate'.. Vaguely amusing perhaps but zero truth.. Bit like your claims pat .. It is hardly plucked out of thin air if it is published in the national press. I wouls much prefer to rely on information published in the national press as these are subject to various checks and controls. It seems that no one on here is either capable or alternatively does not want to supply alternative figures. I accept the information supplied as I am sure would most people in the country. From memory I do not see any indication of the information supplied having to be retracted by the organisation concerned. Information supplied by an organisation with a circulation of in excess of 800, 000 readers takes preference to me over a few posters on here who query the figure but are either incapable of or do not want to supply any alternative figures. Here’s a statistic for you... Based on my analysis of the people posting in this thread, currently 100% do not believe your statistic and c.75% have asked you to name your source . Another strange post . Your sample size is biased and too small to have any statistical significance. Most people doing a survey would attempt to use an unbiased sample. More interesting is the fact that no one has attempted to supply alternative data to the original statistic as quoted . I cannot see many people relying on information posted in a forum where the audience is a very small number of posters and readers ( probably less than ten) . Last time I checked some national newspapers have a circulation in excess of 800, 000 copies and are subject to various regulations about what they can publish . In any event you knew that already as you read all national papers daily as per a post made by yourself previously.
It is very odd a few posters disputing the figure supplied but are incapable of supplying any alterative ones. Maybe the truth hurts .
Dear oh dear. It was a joke. The wink was the indicator. It was to show that anyone can spout statistics that are meaningless. Interesting you give the same response give or take re circulation figures. It’s as if you have nothing else, like a first line call centre operator who is not allowed to go off script. . Intersting to see that all you can do is cast doubt on the figure quoted but are incapable of providing any alternative ones . Out in the real world no one except a complete weirdo is going to document the source of all the information in their possession just in case someone asks the question on site such as this . What is even more weird is to ask a question to which you already know the answer and deem failure to answer as an apology .
Nobody is required to provide an alternative figure. We just want to know where you got the 70% figure from. If you are going to quote a figure then it is fair for all of us to expect you to know the source of that figure.
Now if your post that started this had said “most” or “many” then we could accept you have that impression. But you quoted an actual statistic. Perhaps in future it would be better to steer clear of actual numbers and stick to “gut feel based on very little” or “impression I have from reading biased news sources” and we could then avoid hundreds of words about nothing! Admit it Pat...the 70% figure was made up wasn’t it! Why would anyone need to make up a figure on a site such as this. ? Anything posted is irrelevan out in the real world where the audience is much wider than five or six people. Are you seriously suggesting that you expect all posters to keep a log of the source of their information just in case someone raises a query. Information in a variety of newspapers , television and other sources is good enough for me. I also benchmark my opinions against that of the wider population in order to assess that they are reasonable. Not very different to what most people do. I would be surprised if anyone benchmarked their opinions against this forum. What matters is what happens in the real world.
I don’t know why anyone would make up a statistic (apart from trying to make a point and hoping nobody challenges it). But you clearly did make up the 70% figure as you have had ample opportunity to look into it and prove all of us wrong! Good to know thanks. Maybe now we can get back on topic?". To date you have not provided one single bit of evidence to show it was made up. In addition you actually stated that without proof you would deem the figure to be wrong and regard that as an apology . You failed to provide any alternative measures or even indicate why the figures might be incorrect . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On 17th May 2023 the Portsmouth News said of local Fareham MP Ms Braverman that only 14 per cent of population support her actions and she had a You Gov popularity rating of -38. . It would be intersting to know what the sample size was and what the other answers to the survey were . 14 % wouls be a very good result if the other 86 % answered that they did not know. So it is ok for you to ask posters for further clarity LOL ". The poster is not required to answer and in addition I did not state that their figures were incorrect. All I did was comment . Their data was not questioned. I just wondered what the sample size was and what the alternative answers were . Are you saying that people cannot ask questions apart from yourself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
