FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Problem solved
Problem solved
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Here’s a radical idea, if 97% are allowed to stay and processing them costs billions with the hotels etc. just let them all stay but zero benefits for the first 12 months. Any law breaking during that 12 months and they are immediately returned to country of origin and banned from applying again. Loads of them are working illegally anyway so they shouldn’t have too much trouble finding work. And they’ve crossed a dozen safe countries to come here because they have family or friends here so they can live with them till they get themselves sorted. Nobody dies crossing the channel, they can just get the ferry. They have money because they won’t be paying £5k to the gangs anymore. We’ll have more idea who they are because they won’t need to dump their ID in the channel. I know there may be legal issues with this, but who’s going to take the government to court for granting asylum status to asylum seekers? What we’re doing clearly isn’t working and there’s countries within the ECHR (I know that’s not the only relevant law/treaty) that are breaking it and nothing seems to be happening to them. The left can’t say we’re not being humanitarian and the right can’t moan about the cost. As for the “no benefits which I’m sure some on the left will scream about, I believe the benefit cap for savings is £6,000? Any more than that and they can’t claim UC anyway. If they can scrounge together £5k to give to organised crime, they can get £6k " Yeah, but on what terms should we allow YOU to stay? | |||
"Here’s a radical idea, if 97% are allowed to stay and processing them costs billions with the hotels etc. just let them all stay but zero benefits for the first 12 months. Any law breaking during that 12 months and they are immediately returned to country of origin and banned from applying again. Loads of them are working illegally anyway so they shouldn’t have too much trouble finding work. And they’ve crossed a dozen safe countries to come here because they have family or friends here so they can live with them till they get themselves sorted. Nobody dies crossing the channel, they can just get the ferry. They have money because they won’t be paying £5k to the gangs anymore. We’ll have more idea who they are because they won’t need to dump their ID in the channel. I know there may be legal issues with this, but who’s going to take the government to court for granting asylum status to asylum seekers? What we’re doing clearly isn’t working and there’s countries within the ECHR (I know that’s not the only relevant law/treaty) that are breaking it and nothing seems to be happening to them. The left can’t say we’re not being humanitarian and the right can’t moan about the cost. As for the “no benefits which I’m sure some on the left will scream about, I believe the benefit cap for savings is £6,000? Any more than that and they can’t claim UC anyway. If they can scrounge together £5k to give to organised crime, they can get £6k Yeah, but on what terms should we allow YOU to stay?" Me? | |||
"Here’s a radical idea, if 97% are allowed to stay and processing them costs billions with the hotels etc. just let them all stay but zero benefits for the first 12 months. Any law breaking during that 12 months and they are immediately returned to country of origin and banned from applying again. Loads of them are working illegally anyway so they shouldn’t have too much trouble finding work. And they’ve crossed a dozen safe countries to come here because they have family or friends here so they can live with them till they get themselves sorted. Nobody dies crossing the channel, they can just get the ferry. They have money because they won’t be paying £5k to the gangs anymore. We’ll have more idea who they are because they won’t need to dump their ID in the channel. I know there may be legal issues with this, but who’s going to take the government to court for granting asylum status to asylum seekers? What we’re doing clearly isn’t working and there’s countries within the ECHR (I know that’s not the only relevant law/treaty) that are breaking it and nothing seems to be happening to them. The left can’t say we’re not being humanitarian and the right can’t moan about the cost. As for the “no benefits which I’m sure some on the left will scream about, I believe the benefit cap for savings is £6,000? Any more than that and they can’t claim UC anyway. If they can scrounge together £5k to give to organised crime, they can get £6k Yeah, but on what terms should we allow YOU to stay? Me? " Yeah. Since we're expecting people to justify their right to remain in what is still, despite the attitude of some of its inhabitants, a beacon of civilisation, let's talk about what hoops you should be made to jump through so we don't all have a whip-round to buy you a one-way ticket to Rwanda. | |||
| |||
"Here’s a radical idea, if 97% are allowed to stay and processing them costs billions with the hotels etc. just let them all stay but zero benefits for the first 12 months. Any law breaking during that 12 months and they are immediately returned to country of origin and banned from applying again. Loads of them are working illegally anyway so they shouldn’t have too much trouble finding work. And they’ve crossed a dozen safe countries to come here because they have family or friends here so they can live with them till they get themselves sorted. Nobody dies crossing the channel, they can just get the ferry. They have money because they won’t be paying £5k to the gangs anymore. We’ll have more idea who they are because they won’t need to dump their ID in the channel. I know there may be legal issues with this, but who’s going to take the government to court for granting asylum status to asylum seekers? What we’re doing clearly isn’t working and there’s countries within the ECHR (I know that’s not the only relevant law/treaty) that are breaking it and nothing seems to be happening to them. The left can’t say we’re not being humanitarian and the right can’t moan about the cost. As for the “no benefits which I’m sure some on the left will scream about, I believe the benefit cap for savings is £6,000? Any more than that and they can’t claim UC anyway. If they can scrounge together £5k to give to organised crime, they can get £6k Yeah, but on what terms should we allow YOU to stay? Me? Yeah. Since we're expecting people to justify their right to remain in what is still, despite the attitude of some of its inhabitants, a beacon of civilisation, let's talk about what hoops you should be made to jump through so we don't all have a whip-round to buy you a one-way ticket to Rwanda." So you think a citizens rights should depend on their political views? That sounds like North Korea to me. So how does this work in practice? Let me guess, everyones ballot paper is checked before it’s put in the box and anyone not voting a certain way gets their throat cut? I’m gonna guess you’d volunteer to do some throat cutting as it’s your idea? | |||
"Here’s a radical idea, if 97% are allowed to stay and processing them costs billions with the hotels etc. just let them all stay but zero benefits for the first 12 months. Any law breaking during that 12 months and they are immediately returned to country of origin and banned from applying again. Loads of them are working illegally anyway so they shouldn’t have too much trouble finding work. And they’ve crossed a dozen safe countries to come here because they have family or friends here so they can live with them till they get themselves sorted. Nobody dies crossing the channel, they can just get the ferry. They have money because they won’t be paying £5k to the gangs anymore. We’ll have more idea who they are because they won’t need to dump their ID in the channel. I know there may be legal issues with this, but who’s going to take the government to court for granting asylum status to asylum seekers? What we’re doing clearly isn’t working and there’s countries within the ECHR (I know that’s not the only relevant law/treaty) that are breaking it and nothing seems to be happening to them. The left can’t say we’re not being humanitarian and the right can’t moan about the cost. As for the “no benefits which I’m sure some on the left will scream about, I believe the benefit cap for savings is £6,000? Any more than that and they can’t claim UC anyway. If they can scrounge together £5k to give to organised crime, they can get £6k Yeah, but on what terms should we allow YOU to stay? Me? Yeah. Since we're expecting people to justify their right to remain in what is still, despite the attitude of some of its inhabitants, a beacon of civilisation, let's talk about what hoops you should be made to jump through so we don't all have a whip-round to buy you a one-way ticket to Rwanda. So you think a citizens rights should depend on their political views? That sounds like North Korea to me. So how does this work in practice? Let me guess, everyones ballot paper is checked before it’s put in the box and anyone not voting a certain way gets their throat cut? I’m gonna guess you’d volunteer to do some throat cutting as it’s your idea? " Dude, you're obsessed with throat-cutting. Maybe keep an eye on that. And no, not your political views. Just your value an an individual to the nation, to your community and so on. Not just fiscal, but like how much the people who know you actually like you, your cultural contribution, that kind of thing. Whether it's worth, broadly, keeping you around, or whether we'd be happier if we sent you (and your family, we're not monsters) off to that little village they built in Rwanda, and moved a family of immigrants into your house. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Here’s a radical idea, if 97% are allowed to stay and processing them costs billions with the hotels etc. just let them all stay but zero benefits for the first 12 months. Any law breaking during that 12 months and they are immediately returned to country of origin and banned from applying again. Loads of them are working illegally anyway so they shouldn’t have too much trouble finding work. And they’ve crossed a dozen safe countries to come here because they have family or friends here so they can live with them till they get themselves sorted. Nobody dies crossing the channel, they can just get the ferry. They have money because they won’t be paying £5k to the gangs anymore. We’ll have more idea who they are because they won’t need to dump their ID in the channel. I know there may be legal issues with this, but who’s going to take the government to court for granting asylum status to asylum seekers? What we’re doing clearly isn’t working and there’s countries within the ECHR (I know that’s not the only relevant law/treaty) that are breaking it and nothing seems to be happening to them. The left can’t say we’re not being humanitarian and the right can’t moan about the cost. As for the “no benefits which I’m sure some on the left will scream about, I believe the benefit cap for savings is £6,000? Any more than that and they can’t claim UC anyway. If they can scrounge together £5k to give to organised crime, they can get £6k Yeah, but on what terms should we allow YOU to stay? Me? Yeah. Since we're expecting people to justify their right to remain in what is still, despite the attitude of some of its inhabitants, a beacon of civilisation, let's talk about what hoops you should be made to jump through so we don't all have a whip-round to buy you a one-way ticket to Rwanda. So you think a citizens rights should depend on their political views? That sounds like North Korea to me. So how does this work in practice? Let me guess, everyones ballot paper is checked before it’s put in the box and anyone not voting a certain way gets their throat cut? I’m gonna guess you’d volunteer to do some throat cutting as it’s your idea? Dude, you're obsessed with throat-cutting. Maybe keep an eye on that. And no, not your political views. Just your value an an individual to the nation, to your community and so on. Not just fiscal, but like how much the people who know you actually like you, your cultural contribution, that kind of thing. Whether it's worth, broadly, keeping you around, or whether we'd be happier if we sent you (and your family, we're not monsters) off to that little village they built in Rwanda, and moved a family of immigrants into your house." Oh I see, you want the people to have a say on who gets to be in the country rather than some leftie virtue signalling judge? That’s a good idea. I assume you’re happy to start with illegals first? So all the illegal migrats closely followed by those in prison? Then those on remand? Then those who have previous convictions? Where next? Oh, don’t tell me, certain political parties? So do we have a national referendum on each individual? Or do we just require say 1000 people to show up at their home? But first we have to decide where all the lines are drawn. How do you define and quantify cultural continuation? Don’t tell me, you decide for everyone yeah? So anyone you don’t like basically. What an ego 😂 I’ve entertained your childishness for long enough. But if you genuinely want things to be this way, start a political party and see how you get on. | |||
"Here’s a radical idea, if 97% are allowed to stay and processing them costs billions with the hotels etc. just let them all stay but zero benefits for the first 12 months. Any law breaking during that 12 months and they are immediately returned to country of origin and banned from applying again. Loads of them are working illegally anyway so they shouldn’t have too much trouble finding work. And they’ve crossed a dozen safe countries to come here because they have family or friends here so they can live with them till they get themselves sorted. Nobody dies crossing the channel, they can just get the ferry. They have money because they won’t be paying £5k to the gangs anymore. We’ll have more idea who they are because they won’t need to dump their ID in the channel. I know there may be legal issues with this, but who’s going to take the government to court for granting asylum status to asylum seekers? What we’re doing clearly isn’t working and there’s countries within the ECHR (I know that’s not the only relevant law/treaty) that are breaking it and nothing seems to be happening to them. The left can’t say we’re not being humanitarian and the right can’t moan about the cost. As for the “no benefits which I’m sure some on the left will scream about, I believe the benefit cap for savings is £6,000? Any more than that and they can’t claim UC anyway. If they can scrounge together £5k to give to organised crime, they can get £6k Yeah, but on what terms should we allow YOU to stay? Me? Yeah. Since we're expecting people to justify their right to remain in what is still, despite the attitude of some of its inhabitants, a beacon of civilisation, let's talk about what hoops you should be made to jump through so we don't all have a whip-round to buy you a one-way ticket to Rwanda. So you think a citizens rights should depend on their political views? That sounds like North Korea to me. So how does this work in practice? Let me guess, everyones ballot paper is checked before it’s put in the box and anyone not voting a certain way gets their throat cut? I’m gonna guess you’d volunteer to do some throat cutting as it’s your idea? Dude, you're obsessed with throat-cutting. Maybe keep an eye on that. And no, not your political views. Just your value an an individual to the nation, to your community and so on. Not just fiscal, but like how much the people who know you actually like you, your cultural contribution, that kind of thing. Whether it's worth, broadly, keeping you around, or whether we'd be happier if we sent you (and your family, we're not monsters) off to that little village they built in Rwanda, and moved a family of immigrants into your house. Oh I see, you want the people to have a say on who gets to be in the country rather than some leftie virtue signalling judge? That’s a good idea. I assume you’re happy to start with illegals first? So all the illegal migrats closely followed by those in prison? Then those on remand? Then those who have previous convictions? Where next? Oh, don’t tell me, certain political parties? So do we have a national referendum on each individual? Or do we just require say 1000 people to show up at their home? But first we have to decide where all the lines are drawn. How do you define and quantify cultural continuation? Don’t tell me, you decide for everyone yeah? So anyone you don’t like basically. What an ego 😂 I’ve entertained your childishness for long enough. But if you genuinely want things to be this way, start a political party and see how you get on. " It's like irony, but way, way dumber. | |||
| |||
"Perhaps anyone with a bright idea should share it with the x Government minister rather than a bunch of swingers ?" I can just imagine Suffolk up there turning up at the Home Office with his ring binder full of increasingly unhinged ideas about how to dehumanise refugees for the entertainment of middle-Englanders. "Okay, this one right, it's based on It's A Knockout and what we do is we make the immigrants run through a gang of EDL members with foam bats..." | |||
| |||
"Perhaps anyone with a bright idea should share it with the x Government minister rather than a bunch of swingers ?" Perhaps you should tell your idea to the admin. Close the forum cos it’s not needed anymore, everyone is just going to write to the respective government departments. Oh, hold on a minute, they might actually want an online forum. Or doesn’t that matter? They should just do what you say? Or are you saying you want to personally pre screen every new thread to see if you’re ok with it before it gets posted? Are you part of this new political party I hear might be starting that thinks human rights are only for those with certain political views? I think it would run into a few legal issues such as the ECHR. But YOU can get rid of it if it suits you I guess? Do you not need some form of mandate from the people to do that? No, not in your case cos it you? But to come back on topic, you’re not in favour of allowing asylum seekers to stay here, find work, make a home and build themselves a better life? Don’t tell that to Ricky Evans, I would hate for anything bad to happen to you | |||
" Are you part of this new political party I hear might be starting that thinks human rights are only for those with certain political views? I think it would run into a few legal issues such as the ECHR. But YOU can get rid of it if it suits you I guess? Do you not need some form of mandate from the people to do that? No, not in your case cos it you? But to come back on topic, you’re not in favour of allowing asylum seekers to stay here, find work, make a home and build themselves a better life? Don’t tell that to Ricky Evans, I would hate for anything bad to happen to you " Another childish rant / attempted insult . Bravo | |||
" Are you part of this new political party I hear might be starting that thinks human rights are only for those with certain political views? I think it would run into a few legal issues such as the ECHR. But YOU can get rid of it if it suits you I guess? Do you not need some form of mandate from the people to do that? No, not in your case cos it you? But to come back on topic, you’re not in favour of allowing asylum seekers to stay here, find work, make a home and build themselves a better life? Don’t tell that to Ricky Evans, I would hate for anything bad to happen to you Another childish rant / attempted insult . Bravo " It was just a question. Are you in favour of allowing asylum seekers to stay here, find work, make a home and build themselves a better life or not? You’re entitled to your opinion either way. I’m just curious as to what it is now as you seem to have jumped ship. | |||
| |||
"Why does it take so long before people find out if they're allowed to stay ? What sort of back ground checks are they looking for ? Not enough people doing the checks ? Employ more, its got to be cheaper then housing thousands for months/years, If thousands are arriving every month at what point do you say that's enough 1000 a month, 10000, 100000 ?" Several factors playing into this, no national strategy with a full understanding of capabilities or capacity, the refugee convention protecting nefarious attempts. I have suggested a way forward on the Bell Hotel thread, rahter than me repeat it all here, if you are interested. | |||
"Why does it take so long before people find out if they're allowed to stay ? What sort of back ground checks are they looking for ? Not enough people doing the checks ? Employ more, its got to be cheaper then housing thousands for months/years, If thousands are arriving every month at what point do you say that's enough 1000 a month, 10000, 100000 ? Several factors playing into this, no national strategy with a full understanding of capabilities or capacity, the refugee convention protecting nefarious attempts. I have suggested a way forward on the Bell Hotel thread, rahter than me repeat it all here, if you are interested. " How exactly can you do background checks on young males who have "lost" all their documents, can't remember where they came from or their individual details? Taking the piss | |||
"Why does it take so long before people find out if they're allowed to stay ? What sort of back ground checks are they looking for ? Not enough people doing the checks ? Employ more, its got to be cheaper then housing thousands for months/years, If thousands are arriving every month at what point do you say that's enough 1000 a month, 10000, 100000 ? Several factors playing into this, no national strategy with a full understanding of capabilities or capacity, the refugee convention protecting nefarious attempts. I have suggested a way forward on the Bell Hotel thread, rahter than me repeat it all here, if you are interested. How exactly can you do background checks on young males who have "lost" all their documents, can't remember where they came from or their individual details? Taking the piss" The checks are fairly simple…. Name? What type of phone would you like? What city would you like to claim benefits in? How soon can you arrange for your family to be here as well? And can you vote Labour at the next election? | |||
"Here’s a radical idea, if 97% are allowed to stay and processing them costs billions with the hotels etc. just let them all stay but zero benefits for the first 12 months. Any law breaking during that 12 months and they are immediately returned to country of origin and banned from applying again. Loads of them are working illegally anyway so they shouldn’t have too much trouble finding work. And they’ve crossed a dozen safe countries to come here because they have family or friends here so they can live with them till they get themselves sorted. Nobody dies crossing the channel, they can just get the ferry. They have money because they won’t be paying £5k to the gangs anymore. We’ll have more idea who they are because they won’t need to dump their ID in the channel. I know there may be legal issues with this, but who’s going to take the government to court for granting asylum status to asylum seekers? What we’re doing clearly isn’t working and there’s countries within the ECHR (I know that’s not the only relevant law/treaty) that are breaking it and nothing seems to be happening to them. The left can’t say we’re not being humanitarian and the right can’t moan about the cost. As for the “no benefits which I’m sure some on the left will scream about, I believe the benefit cap for savings is £6,000? Any more than that and they can’t claim UC anyway. If they can scrounge together £5k to give to organised crime, they can get £6k " Still crapping on desperate people in need are we? The milk of human kindness really flows | |||
"Here’s a radical idea, if 97% are allowed to stay and processing them costs billions with the hotels etc. just let them all stay but zero benefits for the first 12 months. Any law breaking during that 12 months and they are immediately returned to country of origin and banned from applying again. Dont be an idiot! Loads of them are working illegally anyway so they shouldn’t have too much trouble finding work. And they’ve crossed a dozen safe countries to come here because they have family or friends here so they can live with them till they get themselves sorted. Nobody dies crossing the channel, they can just get the ferry. They have money because they won’t be paying £5k to the gangs anymore. We’ll have more idea who they are because they won’t need to dump their ID in the channel. I know there may be legal issues with this, but who’s going to take the government to court for granting asylum status to asylum seekers? What we’re doing clearly isn’t working and there’s countries within the ECHR (I know that’s not the only relevant law/treaty) that are breaking it and nothing seems to be happening to them. The left can’t say we’re not being humanitarian and the right can’t moan about the cost. As for the “no benefits which I’m sure some on the left will scream about, I believe the benefit cap for savings is £6,000? Any more than that and they can’t claim UC anyway. If they can scrounge together £5k to give to organised crime, they can get £6k " | |||
| |||
