FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > What could leaving the ECHR achieve
What could leaving the ECHR achieve
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
" Countries like Greece and Hungary (ECHR members) deport effectively through domestic enforcement, suggesting political will, not just treaty exit, is key. " Which demonstrates that it was always, pre-Brexit, substantially within our power to process asylum applicants and deport those found wanting. There has been since then a very strong argument that slowing the process was a deliberate effort to create a backlog that would drive the electorate to the right. The narrative being, Labour wouldn't deport them, and the EU won't let us deport them. It's likely the Tories were too arrogant to think of Single-Issue Nige as a real threat back then, but their policy has backfired to the extent the right-wing electorate seem unified at least in wanting the party who propose the most aggressive attitude towards refugees. | |||
" Countries like Greece and Hungary (ECHR members) deport effectively through domestic enforcement, suggesting political will, not just treaty exit, is key. Which demonstrates that it was always, pre-Brexit, substantially within our power to process asylum applicants and deport those found wanting. There has been since then a very strong argument that slowing the process was a deliberate effort to create a backlog that would drive the electorate to the right. The narrative being, Labour wouldn't deport them, and the EU won't let us deport them. It's likely the Tories were too arrogant to think of Single-Issue Nige as a real threat back then, but their policy has backfired to the extent the right-wing electorate seem unified at least in wanting the party who propose the most aggressive attitude towards refugees." Correction: To swiftly remove from our country the people who have not qualified for refugee status. | |||
" Countries like Greece and Hungary (ECHR members) deport effectively through domestic enforcement, suggesting political will, not just treaty exit, is key. Which demonstrates that it was always, pre-Brexit, substantially within our power to process asylum applicants and deport those found wanting. There has been since then a very strong argument that slowing the process was a deliberate effort to create a backlog that would drive the electorate to the right. The narrative being, Labour wouldn't deport them, and the EU won't let us deport them. It's likely the Tories were too arrogant to think of Single-Issue Nige as a real threat back then, but their policy has backfired to the extent the right-wing electorate seem unified at least in wanting the party who propose the most aggressive attitude towards refugees. Correction: To swiftly remove from our country the people who have not qualified for refugee status. " The treatment proposed by Reform for processing all applicants de facto includes refugees. It is the most aggressive treatment proposed. You are also allowed to masturbate while visualising planeloads of deportees, but let's not forget the mass-wank Reformites are having over Nige's plans to treat all asylum seekers like defective cattle. | |||
"Returns to a safe country will be the answer. Challenges will happen but removing the UK from ECHR could speed up the appeal process. I believe that by putting the process in place and carrying out removals swiftly, it will bring the small boat crossing to an end, they should open a safe route the same day as they introduce the removals to a 3rd country. " | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Should the UK decide to leave the ECHR, then there could be significant implications for employment rights. Without the protection of the ECHR, UK workers may lose important employment rights protections that are currently provided under the treaty. This could lead to a situation where UK workers have fewer protections and are more vulnerable to exploitation and mistreatment in the workplace. Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) could have significant implications for Health and Safety (H&S) in work. It may lead to a retrograde step in health and safety regulations, potentially undermining employers' duties to assess risks to their workforce. The EU has improved workers' rights and working conditions, which may influence H&S standards in the UK. Employers may face challenges in ensuring compliance with H&S regulations, which could affect employee safety and rights." There's an awful lot of the words 'could' and 'may' in that post. | |||
"Should the UK decide to leave the ECHR, then there could be significant implications for employment rights. Without the protection of the ECHR, UK workers may lose important employment rights protections that are currently provided under the treaty. This could lead to a situation where UK workers have fewer protections and are more vulnerable to exploitation and mistreatment in the workplace. Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) could have significant implications for Health and Safety (H&S) in work. It may lead to a retrograde step in health and safety regulations, potentially undermining employers' duties to assess risks to their workforce. The EU has improved workers' rights and working conditions, which may influence H&S standards in the UK. Employers may face challenges in ensuring compliance with H&S regulations, which could affect employee safety and rights. There's an awful lot of the words 'could' and 'may' in that post." Because one party is very, erm, vague in their intentions. And how they will fund all the 'savings'. | |||
"Should the UK decide to leave the ECHR, then there could be significant implications for employment rights. Without the protection of the ECHR, UK workers may lose important employment rights protections that are currently provided under the treaty. This could lead to a situation where UK workers have fewer protections and are more vulnerable to exploitation and mistreatment in the workplace. Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) could have significant implications for Health and Safety (H&S) in work. It may lead to a retrograde step in health and safety regulations, potentially undermining employers' duties to assess risks to their workforce. The EU has improved workers' rights and working conditions, which may influence H&S standards in the UK. Employers may face challenges in ensuring compliance with H&S regulations, which could affect employee safety and rights. How long before an employer realises this, and uses it to thier advantage." What ever party puts forward leaving the ECHR needs to be clear about all it's aspects. Maybe they will replicate the things that they want to keep into UK law and discard the bits they don't want. | |||
"Should the UK decide to leave the ECHR, then there could be significant implications for employment rights. Without the protection of the ECHR, UK workers may lose important employment rights protections that are currently provided under the treaty. This could lead to a situation where UK workers have fewer protections and are more vulnerable to exploitation and mistreatment in the workplace. Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) could have significant implications for Health and Safety (H&S) in work. It may lead to a retrograde step in health and safety regulations, potentially undermining employers' duties to assess risks to their workforce. The EU has improved workers' rights and working conditions, which may influence H&S standards in the UK. Employers may face challenges in ensuring compliance with H&S regulations, which could affect employee safety and rights. How long before an employer realises this, and uses it to thier advantage. What ever party puts forward leaving the ECHR needs to be clear about all it's aspects. Maybe they will replicate the things that they want to keep into UK law and discard the bits they don't want. " Brexit didn't bring the benefits expected - at least regarding illegal immigration, so leaving the ECHR would likely be the same. For example, where would channel migrants be returned to? I doubt France would willingly accept them. So what then? The best plan is to stay in the ECHR but work with the EU to amend the legislation where it is abused. | |||
" What ever party puts forward leaving the ECHR needs to be clear about all it's aspects. Maybe they will replicate the things that they want to keep into UK law and discard the bits they don't want. " It's not as simple as that, unfortunately. The ECHR doesn't just codify a legal standard. It also offers the citizens of the countries which subscribe to it a recourse in the event their national governments don't sufficiently protect them. We can replicate the existing laws enshrined in the ECHR if we want - and we should - but that doesn't make up for losing access to the court. | |||
" What ever party puts forward leaving the ECHR needs to be clear about all it's aspects. Maybe they will replicate the things that they want to keep into UK law and discard the bits they don't want. It's not as simple as that, unfortunately. The ECHR doesn't just codify a legal standard. It also offers the citizens of the countries which subscribe to it a recourse in the event their national governments don't sufficiently protect them. We can replicate the existing laws enshrined in the ECHR if we want - and we should - but that doesn't make up for losing access to the court." Wanting to outsource sovereignty to a 3rd party suggests our legal system isn’t fit for purpose and I don’t believe that is true, it needs some reform but I trust it. I suspect lawyers and pressure groups are the main beneficiaries of Strasbourg's painfully drawn out appeals process. | |||
" What ever party puts forward leaving the ECHR needs to be clear about all it's aspects. Maybe they will replicate the things that they want to keep into UK law and discard the bits they don't want. It's not as simple as that, unfortunately. The ECHR doesn't just codify a legal standard. It also offers the citizens of the countries which subscribe to it a recourse in the event their national governments don't sufficiently protect them. We can replicate the existing laws enshrined in the ECHR if we want - and we should - but that doesn't make up for losing access to the court. Wanting to outsource sovereignty to a 3rd party suggests our legal system isn’t fit for purpose and I don’t believe that is true, it needs some reform but I trust it. I suspect lawyers and pressure groups are the main beneficiaries of Strasbourg's painfully drawn out appeals process. " It's not outsourcing our "sovereignty" though, is it. It's extra protection for the citizen in the event their national legal system turns out to fail them. It's the bit that gets glossed over in all of these sub-debates about all this nonsense. Our national legal systems are not infallible and are as prone to the tides of political change as those of any other country. It has been the case that European citizens have gone to the ECHR to seek justice, and been granted it, where their national governments were not willing to offer it. We are dispensing with that recourse by leaving the ECHR and no amount of revisions of our national legal system can replicate that kind of external arbitrage. | |||
" What ever party puts forward leaving the ECHR needs to be clear about all it's aspects. Maybe they will replicate the things that they want to keep into UK law and discard the bits they don't want. It's not as simple as that, unfortunately. The ECHR doesn't just codify a legal standard. It also offers the citizens of the countries which subscribe to it a recourse in the event their national governments don't sufficiently protect them. We can replicate the existing laws enshrined in the ECHR if we want - and we should - but that doesn't make up for losing access to the court. Wanting to outsource sovereignty to a 3rd party suggests our legal system isn’t fit for purpose and I don’t believe that is true, it needs some reform but I trust it. I suspect lawyers and pressure groups are the main beneficiaries of Strasbourg's painfully drawn out appeals process. " There are numerous cases of UK citizens using the ECHR to get justice: Bloody Sunday, Birmingham Six, Hillsborough are just some examples; the UK's legal system has let down its own citizens | |||
" What ever party puts forward leaving the ECHR needs to be clear about all it's aspects. Maybe they will replicate the things that they want to keep into UK law and discard the bits they don't want. It's not as simple as that, unfortunately. The ECHR doesn't just codify a legal standard. It also offers the citizens of the countries which subscribe to it a recourse in the event their national governments don't sufficiently protect them. We can replicate the existing laws enshrined in the ECHR if we want - and we should - but that doesn't make up for losing access to the court. Wanting to outsource sovereignty to a 3rd party suggests our legal system isn’t fit for purpose and I don’t believe that is true, it needs some reform but I trust it. I suspect lawyers and pressure groups are the main beneficiaries of Strasbourg's painfully drawn out appeals process. It's not outsourcing our "sovereignty" though, is it. It's extra protection for the citizen in the event their national legal system turns out to fail them. It's the bit that gets glossed over in all of these sub-debates about all this nonsense. Our national legal systems are not infallible and are as prone to the tides of political change as those of any other country. It has been the case that European citizens have gone to the ECHR to seek justice, and been granted it, where their national governments were not willing to offer it. We are dispensing with that recourse by leaving the ECHR and no amount of revisions of our national legal system can replicate that kind of external arbitrage." Outsourcing "arbitration" to Strasbourg offers unnecessary delays that are often exploited with interim measures that over rides the Supreme Court Waiting five years or more for a decision that can override sovereignty doesn’t serve the country well in my opinion. If the Supreme court is not capable of making sound decisions independently, that should be the fix. | |||
" What ever party puts forward leaving the ECHR needs to be clear about all it's aspects. Maybe they will replicate the things that they want to keep into UK law and discard the bits they don't want. It's not as simple as that, unfortunately. The ECHR doesn't just codify a legal standard. It also offers the citizens of the countries which subscribe to it a recourse in the event their national governments don't sufficiently protect them. We can replicate the existing laws enshrined in the ECHR if we want - and we should - but that doesn't make up for losing access to the court. Wanting to outsource sovereignty to a 3rd party suggests our legal system isn’t fit for purpose and I don’t believe that is true, it needs some reform but I trust it. I suspect lawyers and pressure groups are the main beneficiaries of Strasbourg's painfully drawn out appeals process. There are numerous cases of UK citizens using the ECHR to get justice: Bloody Sunday, Birmingham Six, Hillsborough are just some examples; the UK's legal system has let down its own citizens" I'm not denying that, I believe we should have a legal system that is capable of delivering the correct rulings in the first instance. | |||
". Outsourcing "arbitration" to Strasbourg offers unnecessary delays that are often exploited with interim measures that over rides the Supreme Court Waiting five years or more for a decision that can override sovereignty doesn’t serve the country well in my opinion. If the Supreme court is not capable of making sound decisions independently, that should be the fix." I look forward to any of the people proposing to do away with the ECHR coming up with any kind of structured improvement or material substitute for that arbitration. I'm not aware of e.g. Farage suggesting the British system even needs dusting off, let alone comprehensive reform. As it is, they're too focused on their claims that scrapping the ECHR will allow us to put refugees in crates and ship them back to their native hell-holes, to worry about preserving the enhanced legal protections it offers British citizens. | |||
" What ever party puts forward leaving the ECHR needs to be clear about all it's aspects. Maybe they will replicate the things that they want to keep into UK law and discard the bits they don't want. It's not as simple as that, unfortunately. The ECHR doesn't just codify a legal standard. It also offers the citizens of the countries which subscribe to it a recourse in the event their national governments don't sufficiently protect them. We can replicate the existing laws enshrined in the ECHR if we want - and we should - but that doesn't make up for losing access to the court. Wanting to outsource sovereignty to a 3rd party suggests our legal system isn’t fit for purpose and I don’t believe that is true, it needs some reform but I trust it. I suspect lawyers and pressure groups are the main beneficiaries of Strasbourg's painfully drawn out appeals process. It's not outsourcing our "sovereignty" though, is it. It's extra protection for the citizen in the event their national legal system turns out to fail them. It's the bit that gets glossed over in all of these sub-debates about all this nonsense. Our national legal systems are not infallible and are as prone to the tides of political change as those of any other country. It has been the case that European citizens have gone to the ECHR to seek justice, and been granted it, where their national governments were not willing to offer it. We are dispensing with that recourse by leaving the ECHR and no amount of revisions of our national legal system can replicate that kind of external arbitrage. Outsourcing "arbitration" to Strasbourg offers unnecessary delays that are often exploited with interim measures that over rides the Supreme Court Waiting five years or more for a decision that can override sovereignty doesn’t serve the country well in my opinion. If the Supreme court is not capable of making sound decisions independently, that should be the fix." Where is your five years coming from? In the Hillsborough case, it was submitted to ECHR by the victims' families on June 2013 & ECHR passed judgement on April 2014...I wouldn't call that longer, compared to the 20+ years the families waited | |||
" What ever party puts forward leaving the ECHR needs to be clear about all it's aspects. Maybe they will replicate the things that they want to keep into UK law and discard the bits they don't want. It's not as simple as that, unfortunately. The ECHR doesn't just codify a legal standard. It also offers the citizens of the countries which subscribe to it a recourse in the event their national governments don't sufficiently protect them. We can replicate the existing laws enshrined in the ECHR if we want - and we should - but that doesn't make up for losing access to the court. Wanting to outsource sovereignty to a 3rd party suggests our legal system isn’t fit for purpose and I don’t believe that is true, it needs some reform but I trust it. I suspect lawyers and pressure groups are the main beneficiaries of Strasbourg's painfully drawn out appeals process. It's not outsourcing our "sovereignty" though, is it. It's extra protection for the citizen in the event their national legal system turns out to fail them. It's the bit that gets glossed over in all of these sub-debates about all this nonsense. Our national legal systems are not infallible and are as prone to the tides of political change as those of any other country. It has been the case that European citizens have gone to the ECHR to seek justice, and been granted it, where their national governments were not willing to offer it. We are dispensing with that recourse by leaving the ECHR and no amount of revisions of our national legal system can replicate that kind of external arbitrage. Outsourcing "arbitration" to Strasbourg offers unnecessary delays that are often exploited with interim measures that over rides the Supreme Court Waiting five years or more for a decision that can override sovereignty doesn’t serve the country well in my opinion. If the Supreme court is not capable of making sound decisions independently, that should be the fix. Where is your five years coming from? In the Hillsborough case, it was submitted to ECHR by the victims' families on June 2013 & ECHR passed judgement on April 2014...I wouldn't call that longer, compared to the 20+ years the families waited" Hillsborough was dealt with unusually quickly, it is certainly an outlier. I googled the ECHR report 2023, it shows the average case takes 2 years, and complex / political stretch well beyond 5 years. The question is why couldn't the Supreme Court get it right? | |||
". The question is why couldn't the Supreme Court get it right?" That's certainly a question, and not one that I'm aware of the proponents of scrapping the ECHR being particularly interested in answering. So perhaps the sensible move would be comprehensive reform of the British legal system before dispensing with a demonstrably valuable recourse that it doesn't currently guarantee. | |||
". The question is why couldn't the Supreme Court get it right? That's certainly a question, and not one that I'm aware of the proponents of scrapping the ECHR being particularly interested in answering. So perhaps the sensible move would be comprehensive reform of the British legal system before dispensing with a demonstrably valuable recourse that it doesn't currently guarantee." The enormity of leaving ECHR is what will more than likely prevent us from leaving due to timescale and getting it through parliament. I think it is more likely we would make amendments to the refugee convention and ignore any ECHR rulings. That is perfectly possible, and I think the first response would be condemnation from the EU, but it would be interesting to see whether others would follow our lead. | |||
"Brexit didn't bring the benefits expected - at least regarding illegal immigration, so leaving the ECHR would likely be the same. For example, where would channel migrants be returned to?" If we were outside the ECHR, we could send people to whichever country was willing to accept them. Like, for instance, Rwanda. | |||
"Brexit didn't bring the benefits expected - at least regarding illegal immigration, so leaving the ECHR would likely be the same. For example, where would channel migrants be returned to? If we were outside the ECHR, we could send people to whichever country was willing to accept them. Like, for instance, Rwanda." The ECHR is not currently preventing the UK from sending people to Rwanda. | |||
"Brexit didn't bring the benefits expected - at least regarding illegal immigration, so leaving the ECHR would likely be the same. For example, where would channel migrants be returned to? If we were outside the ECHR, we could send people to whichever country was willing to accept them. Like, for instance, Rwanda. The ECHR is not currently preventing the UK from sending people to Rwanda." Reform didn't tell him that, so give him some slack. | |||
"Brexit didn't bring the benefits expected - at least regarding illegal immigration, so leaving the ECHR would likely be the same. For example, where would channel migrants be returned to?" "If we were outside the ECHR, we could send people to whichever country was willing to accept them. Like, for instance, Rwanda." "The ECHR is not currently preventing the UK from sending people to Rwanda." Not currently, because the Labour government cancelled the plan. But when it was active the courts ruled that it could not be used due to the risk of refoulement, which is a human rights issue. If we were to leave the ECHR, the law could be clarified to make it clear that refoulement is not a consideration (should we choose to decide that). I'm not suggesting that it's a good idea, just that it would be possible if we left the ECHR. | |||
"Brexit didn't bring the benefits expected - at least regarding illegal immigration, so leaving the ECHR would likely be the same. For example, where would channel migrants be returned to? If we were outside the ECHR, we could send people to whichever country was willing to accept them. Like, for instance, Rwanda." What about English common law based human rights? | |||
"Brexit didn't bring the benefits expected - at least regarding illegal immigration, so leaving the ECHR would likely be the same. For example, where would channel migrants be returned to? If we were outside the ECHR, we could send people to whichever country was willing to accept them. Like, for instance, Rwanda. What about English common law based human rights?" It would probably be fought out in the courts with human rights lawyers for another 10 years | |||
"Brexit didn't bring the benefits expected - at least regarding illegal immigration, so leaving the ECHR would likely be the same. For example, where would channel migrants be returned to? If we were outside the ECHR, we could send people to whichever country was willing to accept them. Like, for instance, Rwanda. The ECHR is not currently preventing the UK from sending people to Rwanda. Not currently, because the Labour government cancelled the plan. But when it was active the courts ruled that it could not be used due to the risk of refoulement, which is a human rights issue. If we were to leave the ECHR, the law could be clarified to make it clear that refoulement is not a consideration (should we choose to decide that). I'm not suggesting that it's a good idea, just that it would be possible if we left the ECHR." It's possible without leaving the ECHR. It's in process now. The ECHR block was explicitly a temporary ruling until the UK courts resolved the issue. I realise that's not what some people are claiming, but that's the actual situation. We could deport people before Brexit. We can deport people while still subscribing to the ECHR. Farage & Co. are, unsurprisingly, lying about it. | |||
"Brexit didn't bring the benefits expected - at least regarding illegal immigration, so leaving the ECHR would likely be the same. For example, where would channel migrants be returned to?" "If we were outside the ECHR, we could send people to whichever country was willing to accept them. Like, for instance, Rwanda." "What about English common law based human rights?" Well if we left the ECHR, UK human rights could be re-written to however the politicians wanted them. Common law means nothing once it's been overridden by primary legislation. | |||
"Brexit didn't bring the benefits expected - at least regarding illegal immigration, so leaving the ECHR would likely be the same. For example, where would channel migrants be returned to?" "If we were outside the ECHR, we could send people to whichever country was willing to accept them. Like, for instance, Rwanda." "The ECHR is not currently preventing the UK from sending people to Rwanda." "Not currently, because the Labour government cancelled the plan. But when it was active the courts ruled that it could not be used due to the risk of refoulement, which is a human rights issue. If we were to leave the ECHR, the law could be clarified to make it clear that refoulement is not a consideration (should we choose to decide that). I'm not suggesting that it's a good idea, just that it would be possible if we left the ECHR." "It's possible without leaving the ECHR. It's in process now. The ECHR block was explicitly a temporary ruling until the UK courts resolved the issue. I realise that's not what some people are claiming, but that's the actual situation. We could deport people before Brexit. We can deport people while still subscribing to the ECHR. Farage & Co. are, unsurprisingly, lying about it." The original question was "where would channel migrants be returned to?", and I've answered that. You seem to be moving the conversation on to areas you're more comfortable with. Yes, the ECHR block was temporary. But it may, or may not, have been made permanent. I think we both know that the ECHR would be more likely to prevent the Rwanda scheme than to allow it. Whichever way it went, it would have taken years to decide. Had we left the ECHR, we could make that decision a lot faster. Right now the Rwanda scheme isn't possible because the government won't allow it. Should Reform win the next election it still won't be possible because there will be appeals to the ECHR which will stall things. If we leave the ECHR (and Farage has a majority), the scheme can be made legal very quickly. | |||
"Brexit didn't bring the benefits expected - at least regarding illegal immigration, so leaving the ECHR would likely be the same. For example, where would channel migrants be returned to? If we were outside the ECHR, we could send people to whichever country was willing to accept them. Like, for instance, Rwanda. The ECHR is not currently preventing the UK from sending people to Rwanda. Not currently, because the Labour government cancelled the plan. But when it was active the courts ruled that it could not be used due to the risk of refoulement, which is a human rights issue. If we were to leave the ECHR, the law could be clarified to make it clear that refoulement is not a consideration (should we choose to decide that). I'm not suggesting that it's a good idea, just that it would be possible if we left the ECHR. It's possible without leaving the ECHR. It's in process now. The ECHR block was explicitly a temporary ruling until the UK courts resolved the issue. I realise that's not what some people are claiming, but that's the actual situation. We could deport people before Brexit. We can deport people while still subscribing to the ECHR. Farage & Co. are, unsurprisingly, lying about it. The original question was "where would channel migrants be returned to?", and I've answered that. You seem to be moving the conversation on to areas you're more comfortable with. Yes, the ECHR block was temporary. But it may, or may not, have been made permanent. I think we both know that the ECHR would be more likely to prevent the Rwanda scheme than to allow it. Whichever way it went, it would have taken years to decide. Had we left the ECHR, we could make that decision a lot faster. Right now the Rwanda scheme isn't possible because the government won't allow it. Should Reform win the next election it still won't be possible because there will be appeals to the ECHR which will stall things. If we leave the ECHR (and Farage has a majority), the scheme can be made legal very quickly." ECHR even blocked Italy from sending asylum seekers to Albania. So yes, I wouldn't bet they will allow us to move them to Rwanda. | |||
"Should the UK decide to leave the ECHR, then there could be significant implications for employment rights. Without the protection of the ECHR, UK workers may lose important employment rights protections that are currently provided under the treaty. This could lead to a situation where UK workers have fewer protections and are more vulnerable to exploitation and mistreatment in the workplace. Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) could have significant implications for Health and Safety (H&S) in work. It may lead to a retrograde step in health and safety regulations, potentially undermining employers' duties to assess risks to their workforce. The EU has improved workers' rights and working conditions, which may influence H&S standards in the UK. Employers may face challenges in ensuring compliance with H&S regulations, which could affect employee safety and rights. How long before an employer realises this, and uses it to thier advantage. What ever party puts forward leaving the ECHR needs to be clear about all it's aspects. Maybe they will replicate the things that they want to keep into UK law and discard the bits they don't want. Brexit didn't bring the benefits expected - at least regarding illegal immigration, so leaving the ECHR would likely be the same. For example, where would channel migrants be returned to? I doubt France would willingly accept them. So what then? The best plan is to stay in the ECHR but work with the EU to amend the legislation where it is abused." What I was trying to say that any party that recommends leaving the ECHR need to be clear what areas they intend to replicate into UK law, for example workers rights etc, and what they don't want to replicate. | |||
"What I was trying to say that any party that recommends leaving the ECHR need to be clear what areas they intend to replicate into UK law, for example workers rights etc, and what they don't want to replicate." It's all in UK law already, there's nothing to replicate. All they need to do is lay out which bits of UK law they want to change. | |||
"Brexit didn't bring the benefits expected - at least regarding illegal immigration, so leaving the ECHR would likely be the same. For example, where would channel migrants be returned to? If we were outside the ECHR, we could send people to whichever country was willing to accept them. Like, for instance, Rwanda. The ECHR is not currently preventing the UK from sending people to Rwanda. Not currently, because the Labour government cancelled the plan. But when it was active the courts ruled that it could not be used due to the risk of refoulement, which is a human rights issue. If we were to leave the ECHR, the law could be clarified to make it clear that refoulement is not a consideration (should we choose to decide that). I'm not suggesting that it's a good idea, just that it would be possible if we left the ECHR. It's possible without leaving the ECHR. It's in process now. The ECHR block was explicitly a temporary ruling until the UK courts resolved the issue. I realise that's not what some people are claiming, but that's the actual situation. We could deport people before Brexit. We can deport people while still subscribing to the ECHR. Farage & Co. are, unsurprisingly, lying about it. The original question was "where would channel migrants be returned to?", and I've answered that. You seem to be moving the conversation on to areas you're more comfortable with. Yes, the ECHR block was temporary. But it may, or may not, have been made permanent. I think we both know that the ECHR would be more likely to prevent the Rwanda scheme than to allow it. Whichever way it went, it would have taken years to decide. Had we left the ECHR, we could make that decision a lot faster. Right now the Rwanda scheme isn't possible because the government won't allow it. Should Reform win the next election it still won't be possible because there will be appeals to the ECHR which will stall things. If we leave the ECHR (and Farage has a majority), the scheme can be made legal very quickly. ECHR even blocked Italy from sending asylum seekers to Albania. So yes, I wouldn't bet they will allow us to move them to Rwanda. " That was the ECJ, not the ECHR. It is not the ECHR that is preventing the sending of anyone to Rwanda. It's an entirely British legal dispute, not to mention that the project was cancelled by the current government because it's fucking stupid. | |||
"l That was the ECJ, not the ECHR. It is not the ECHR that is preventing the sending of anyone to Rwanda. " Didn't the ECHR stop the first flight to Rwanda? " It's an entirely British legal dispute, not to mention that the project was cancelled by the current government because it's fucking stupid." Why is it stupid? | |||
"l That was the ECJ, not the ECHR. It is not the ECHR that is preventing the sending of anyone to Rwanda. Didn't the ECHR stop the first flight to Rwanda?" Yeah. So? "It's an entirely British legal dispute, not to mention that the project was cancelled by the current government because it's fucking stupid. Why is it stupid?" How long have you got? | |||
"l That was the ECJ, not the ECHR. It is not the ECHR that is preventing the sending of anyone to Rwanda. Didn't the ECHR stop the first flight to Rwanda? Yeah. So? " So ECHR was an obstacle to the Rwanda plan. If ECJ goes far beyond that, it proves that Brexit does give us more flexibility on this matter. " Why is it stupid? How long have you got?" If you have something valid to explain why it's "stupid", I have all the time. If it's all about you pretending to be morally superior to the rest, then not much time. | |||
"l That was the ECJ, not the ECHR. It is not the ECHR that is preventing the sending of anyone to Rwanda. Didn't the ECHR stop the first flight to Rwanda? Yeah. So? So ECHR was an obstacle to the Rwanda plan. If ECJ goes far beyond that, it proves that Brexit does give us more flexibility on this matter." Huge leap of logic there. "Why is it stupid? How long have you got? If you have something valid to explain why it's "stupid", I have all the time. If it's all about you pretending to be morally superior to the rest, then not much time." Okay then. It violates the 1951 refugee convention. It costs multiples more per head than housing asylum seekers here. It's a logistical nightmare. There's zero evidence of its claimed deterrent effect. It shows a colonial attitude to national responsibility. It was always going to result in a huge tangle of legal issues even independently of EU bodies. It caused the UK huge reputational damage. The upside? Performative cruelty to satisfy NIMBYs. So while the term "stupid" is somewhat reductive, I stand by it. | |||
" So ECHR was an obstacle to the Rwanda plan. If ECJ goes far beyond that, it proves that Brexit does give us more flexibility on this matter. Huge leap of logic there. " Care to explain? " It violates the 1951 refugee convention. " As we declared Rwanda as a safe country, I don't think it does. " It costs multiples more per head than housing asylum seekers here. " It doesn't. Some left wing media was spreading fake news by doing some idiotic calculations that included one time upfront cost to calculate the money spent per asylum seeker. " It's a logistical nightmare. " Countries move asylum seekers to different places all the time. Why is Rwanda alone a logistical nightmare? " There's zero evidence of its claimed deterrent effect. " Asylum seekers were running to Ireland when it was announced. Even your favourite newspaper guardian seems to say so: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/07/asylum-seekers-hide-or-flee-to-ireland-to-avoid-uk-rwanda-detentions " It shows a colonial attitude to national responsibility. " That's just your moral opinion. " It was always going to result in a huge tangle of legal issues even independently of EU bodies. " Legal issues that getting out of the legal bodies could solve. " It caused the UK huge reputational damage. " Even EU is considering doing this. The only reputational damage was caused by Labour who pulled back on the plan. " The upside? Performative cruelty to satisfy NIMBYs. " Again, an attempt by you to pretend like you have superior morality. Not something I have much time for. | |||
" So ECHR was an obstacle to the Rwanda plan. If ECJ goes far beyond that, it proves that Brexit does give us more flexibility on this matter. Huge leap of logic there. Care to explain?" You're claiming an ECJ ruling on a matter that isn't the Rwanda plan proves leaving the EU spared us from an ECJ ruling in a case it never heard. "It violates the 1951 refugee convention. As we declared Rwanda as a safe country, I don't think it does." Fair enough. It violateD the 1951 refugee convention. The only substantive change has been the Safety of Rwanda act which changes the definition but not the circumstances. "It costs multiples more per head than housing asylum seekers here. It doesn't. Some left wing media was spreading fake news by doing some idiotic calculations that included one time upfront cost to calculate the money spent per asylum seeker. " The current cost per head is between £170,000 and £230,000. Feel free to share costings that a future deportation plan would bring anywhere close to the comparatively small cost of processing claims domestically. "It's a logistical nightmare. Countries move asylum seekers to different places all the time. Why is Rwanda alone a logistical nightmare?" I didn't say Rwanda was the only logistical nightmare. Mass deportation is a hugely complicated multi-agency, multinational effort even when done with minimal humanitarian considerations. "There's zero evidence of its claimed deterrent effect. Asylum seekers were running to Ireland when it was announced. Even your favourite newspaper guardian seems to say so: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/07/asylum-seekers-hide-or-flee-to-ireland-to-avoid-uk-rwanda-detentions" Yeah, those guys were already here. That's like saying prisoners escaping from death row proves the death penalty is a deterrent. To show a deterrent effect you'd have to show a causation between the implementation of the scheme and a reduction in the number of arrivals. "It shows a colonial attitude to national responsibility. That's just your moral opinion. " No, it's my historical opinion. You've heard of Australia, right? " It was always going to result in a huge tangle of legal issues even independently of EU bodies. Legal issues that getting out of the legal bodies could solve." Hence "even independently of EU bodies". "It caused the UK huge reputational damage. Even EU is considering doing this. The only reputational damage was caused by Labour who pulled back on the plan." It doesn't matter who else is doing it. Outside of right-wing echo chambers the Rwanda scheme appeared to be an act of performative cruelty, certainly not helped by the optics of Braverman grinning madly while describing her personal fantasies about watching deportations. Labour's cancellation of the scheme was only criticised by people who would never say anything positive about Labour. "The upside? Performative cruelty to satisfy NIMBYs. Again, an attempt by you to pretend like you have superior morality. Not something I have much time for. " I do agree that you spend no time at all on superior morality. | |||
" Huge leap of logic there. Care to explain? You're claiming an ECJ ruling on a matter that isn't the Rwanda plan proves leaving the EU spared us from an ECJ ruling in a case it never heard. " Why is that a huge leap of logic? If they have concerns about Albania, why wouldn't they have concerns about Rwanda? " Fair enough. It violateD the 1951 refugee convention. The only substantive change has been the Safety of Rwanda act which changes the definition but not the circumstances. " That doesn't qualify the plan as "stupid" as you claimed. " The current cost per head is between £170,000 and £230,000. Feel free to share costings that a future deportation plan would bring anywhere close to the comparatively small cost of processing claims domestically. " The migrant Observatory says it's around £200,000 per person even if we include the ETIF fund as part of the cost. If this acts as deterrent, the overall cost will definitely go down. " I didn't say Rwanda was the only logistical nightmare. Mass deportation is a hugely complicated multi-agency, multinational effort even when done with minimal humanitarian considerations. " We were ready with the flights before ECHR stopped the flight. So it was clearly possible. " Yeah, those guys were already here. That's like saying prisoners escaping from death row proves the death penalty is a deterrent. " People who were already here decided to run away to a different country after they heard they might be sent to Rwanda. Why would they come here in the first place if they knew that they would be sent to Rwanda? This is clearly a deterrent. " No, it's my historical opinion. You've heard of Australia, right? " How are the two similar? " It doesn't matter who else is doing it. Outside of right-wing echo chambers the Rwanda scheme appeared to be an act of performative cruelty, certainly not helped by the optics of Braverman grinning madly while describing her personal fantasies about watching deportations. Labour's cancellation of the scheme was only criticised by people who would never say anything positive about Labour. " No one outside of Europe gives a fuck about what Europeans do with asylum seekers. In fact most countries laugh at Europe for failing to deport even the criminals. No one is going to look up or down at UK for the Rwanda plan. " I do agree that you spend no time at all on superior morality." Just talking about these issues on the internet doesn't make one morally superior. And saying that we shouldn't be taking many asylum seekers isn't NIMBYism. Saying that we need to take asylum seekers but I wouldn't let anyone stay in my own house is NIMBYism. | |||
" Huge leap of logic there. Care to explain? You're claiming an ECJ ruling on a matter that isn't the Rwanda plan proves leaving the EU spared us from an ECJ ruling in a case it never heard. Why is that a huge leap of logic? If they have concerns about Albania, why wouldn't they have concerns about Rwanda?" A second ago you were saying it proves we were right to leave the EU. Now you've downgrading it to "having concerns". The difference between the two is the leap of logic you made. "Fair enough. It violateD the 1951 refugee convention. The only substantive change has been the Safety of Rwanda act which changes the definition but not the circumstances. That doesn't qualify the plan as "stupid" as you claimed." Yeah, I said "stupid" was reductive. But on balance, redefining the term "safe country" so you can send people to a country not deemed safe is, among other things, stupid. "The current cost per head is between £170,000 and £230,000. Feel free to share costings that a future deportation plan would bring anywhere close to the comparatively small cost of processing claims domestically. The migrant Observatory says it's around £200,000 per person even if we include the ETIF fund as part of the cost. If this acts as deterrent, the overall cost will definitely go down." Big, unevidenced, if. "I didn't say Rwanda was the only logistical nightmare. Mass deportation is a hugely complicated multi-agency, multinational effort even when done with minimal humanitarian considerations. We were ready with the flights before ECHR stopped the flight. So it was clearly possible." I also didn't say it was impossible. I said it was a logistical nightmare. "Yeah, those guys were already here. That's like saying prisoners escaping from death row proves the death penalty is a deterrent. People who were already here decided to run away to a different country after they heard they might be sent to Rwanda. Why would they come here in the first place if they knew that they would be sent to Rwanda? This is clearly a deterrent." As I've explained, no it isn't. Scaring people who are here is absolutely not the same thing as discouraging people from coming here. "Mo, it's my historical opinion. You've heard of Australia, right? How are the two similar?" Really? "it doesn't matter who else is doing it. Outside of right-wing echo chambers the Rwanda scheme appeared to be an act of performative cruelty, certainly not helped by the optics of Braverman grinning madly while describing her personal fantasies about watching deportations. Labour's cancellation of the scheme was only criticised by people who would never say anything positive about Labour. No one outside of Europe gives a fuck about what Europeans do with asylum seekers. In fact most countries laugh at Europe for failing to deport even the criminals. No one is going to look up or down at UK for the Rwanda plan." Are they indifferent or are they laughing? Or is that all just wishful thinking on your part and you haven't actually checked? " do agree that you spend no time at all on superior morality. Just talking about these issues on the internet doesn't make one morally superior. And saying that we shouldn't be taking many asylum seekers isn't NIMBYism. Saying that we need to take asylum seekers but I wouldn't let anyone stay in my own house is NIMBYism." You have this weird logical disconnect in all the statements you make. No, talking about these issues on the Internet does not automatically make one morally superior. It does on the other hand make it more likely that one is, especially compared to those who argue in favour of treating humans like diseased cattle. Saying we should send asylum seekers to a far away country is literally NIMBYism. And you have no idea who I let stay in my house. I mean, you're probably not invited. | |||
". As I've explained, no it isn't. Scaring people who are here is absolutely not the same thing as discouraging people from coming here. " Did you explain it ? I don't see why people leaving wouldn't be a deterrent to more people arriving | |||
" As I've explained, no it isn't. Scaring people who are here is absolutely not the same thing as discouraging people from coming here. Did you explain it ? I don't see why people leaving wouldn't be a deterrent to more people arriving " I don't have to explain it. Guy up there is saying some guys going into hiding to avoid the Rwanda scheme proves that the Rwanda scheme deters illegal immigration. Still waiting to see any evidence of a causal relationship. | |||
" As I've explained, no it isn't. Scaring people who are here is absolutely not the same thing as discouraging people from coming here. Did you explain it ? I don't see why people leaving wouldn't be a deterrent to more people arriving I don't have to explain it. Guy up there is saying some guys going into hiding to avoid the Rwanda scheme proves that the Rwanda scheme deters illegal immigration. Still waiting to see any evidence of a causal relationship." It would be an a fortiori logical argument. If a subset of people who have already made the effort to enter a country are leaving it for a specific reason, then a fortiori similar people who have not entered the country would avoid said country due to the persistence of that same reason. | |||
" As I've explained, no it isn't. Scaring people who are here is absolutely not the same thing as discouraging people from coming here. Did you explain it ? I don't see why people leaving wouldn't be a deterrent to more people arriving I don't have to explain it. Guy up there is saying some guys going into hiding to avoid the Rwanda scheme proves that the Rwanda scheme deters illegal immigration. Still waiting to see any evidence of a causal relationship. It would be an a fortiori logical argument. If a subset of people who have already made the effort to enter a country are leaving it for a specific reason, then a fortiori similar people who have not entered the country would avoid said country due to the persistence of that same reason." That's not an a fortiori argument. The circumstances and factors of the two situations are too dissimilar. | |||
" As I've explained, no it isn't. Scaring people who are here is absolutely not the same thing as discouraging people from coming here. Did you explain it ? I don't see why people leaving wouldn't be a deterrent to more people arriving I don't have to explain it. Guy up there is saying some guys going into hiding to avoid the Rwanda scheme proves that the Rwanda scheme deters illegal immigration. Still waiting to see any evidence of a causal relationship. It would be an a fortiori logical argument. If a subset of people who have already made the effort to enter a country are leaving it for a specific reason, then a fortiori similar people who have not entered the country would avoid said country due to the persistence of that same reason. That's not an a fortiori argument. The circumstances and factors of the two situations are too dissimilar." Are they not dissimilar only in that one is a stronger case (to actively go to the UK) and one is a weaker case (to passively remain in the UK), hence a fortiori? | |||
" As I've explained, no it isn't. Scaring people who are here is absolutely not the same thing as discouraging people from coming here. Did you explain it ? I don't see why people leaving wouldn't be a deterrent to more people arriving I don't have to explain it. Guy up there is saying some guys going into hiding to avoid the Rwanda scheme proves that the Rwanda scheme deters illegal immigration. Still waiting to see any evidence of a causal relationship. It would be an a fortiori logical argument. If a subset of people who have already made the effort to enter a country are leaving it for a specific reason, then a fortiori similar people who have not entered the country would avoid said country due to the persistence of that same reason. That's not an a fortiori argument. The circumstances and factors of the two situations are too dissimilar. Are they not dissimilar only in that one is a stronger case (to actively go to the UK) and one is a weaker case (to passively remain in the UK), hence a fortiori?" No, because the circumstances of each case are too dissimilar (people here, people not yet here) and there are different prevailing factors (motivation to avoid deportation, motovation to seek asylum). The actions are different as well (evading deportation, choosing to not seek asylum). We can't even know what an aspiring immigrant's perception of the risk of deportation is. But this is all theoretical. We have no credible evidence that the threat of the Rwanda scheme has deterred or would deter an asylum seeker's attempt to enter the country, and the attempt to escape deportation of asylum seekers who are already here has no bearing on that. | |||
" As I've explained, no it isn't. Scaring people who are here is absolutely not the same thing as discouraging people from coming here. Did you explain it ? I don't see why people leaving wouldn't be a deterrent to more people arriving I don't have to explain it. Guy up there is saying some guys going into hiding to avoid the Rwanda scheme proves that the Rwanda scheme deters illegal immigration. Still waiting to see any evidence of a causal relationship. It would be an a fortiori logical argument. If a subset of people who have already made the effort to enter a country are leaving it for a specific reason, then a fortiori similar people who have not entered the country would avoid said country due to the persistence of that same reason. That's not an a fortiori argument. The circumstances and factors of the two situations are too dissimilar. Are they not dissimilar only in that one is a stronger case (to actively go to the UK) and one is a weaker case (to passively remain in the UK), hence a fortiori? No, because the circumstances of each case are too dissimilar (people here, people not yet here) and there are different prevailing factors (motivation to avoid deportation, motovation to seek asylum). The actions are different as well (evading deportation, choosing to not seek asylum). We can't even know what an aspiring immigrant's perception of the risk of deportation is. But this is all theoretical. We have no credible evidence that the threat of the Rwanda scheme has deterred or would deter an asylum seeker's attempt to enter the country, and the attempt to escape deportation of asylum seekers who are already here has no bearing on that." Not convinced. But happy to agree to disagree.  | |||
" As I've explained, no it isn't. Scaring people who are here is absolutely not the same thing as discouraging people from coming here. Did you explain it ? I don't see why people leaving wouldn't be a deterrent to more people arriving I don't have to explain it. Guy up there is saying some guys going into hiding to avoid the Rwanda scheme proves that the Rwanda scheme deters illegal immigration. Still waiting to see any evidence of a causal relationship. It would be an a fortiori logical argument. If a subset of people who have already made the effort to enter a country are leaving it for a specific reason, then a fortiori similar people who have not entered the country would avoid said country due to the persistence of that same reason. That's not an a fortiori argument. The circumstances and factors of the two situations are too dissimilar. Are they not dissimilar only in that one is a stronger case (to actively go to the UK) and one is a weaker case (to passively remain in the UK), hence a fortiori? No, because the circumstances of each case are too dissimilar (people here, people not yet here) and there are different prevailing factors (motivation to avoid deportation, motovation to seek asylum). The actions are different as well (evading deportation, choosing to not seek asylum). We can't even know what an aspiring immigrant's perception of the risk of deportation is. But this is all theoretical. We have no credible evidence that the threat of the Rwanda scheme has deterred or would deter an asylum seeker's attempt to enter the country, and the attempt to escape deportation of asylum seekers who are already here has no bearing on that. Not convinced. But happy to agree to disagree. "Remember that old TV programme "confused? You won't be after next week's episode" lol Good ol' Al Bundy | |||
" A second ago you were saying it proves we were right to leave the EU. Now you've downgrading it to "having concerns". The difference between the two is the leap of logic you made. " "Having concerns" was just me lightening things. They stopped Italy from sending asylum seekers to Albania. There is no way for us to do anything like this if we are inside EU. " Yeah, I said "stupid" was reductive. But on balance, redefining the term "safe country" so you can send people to a country not deemed safe is, among other things, stupid. " Country not deemed safe... Who has the right to decide if a country is safe? Who is the arbiter of truth? " Big, unevidenced, if. " If people who travelled all the way to UK are running away after hearing that they might be sent to Rwanda, it's reasonable to say that once it gets going, it will be a deterrent for them to come here in the first place. Why do you think they will spend thousands to come here only to be shipped to Rwanda? " I also didn't say it was impossible. I said it was a logistical nightmare. " We had already figured out the logistics for it. Didn't look like a nightmare. " As I've explained, no it isn't. Scaring people who are here is absolutely not the same thing as discouraging people from coming here. " All these people have smartphones and internet. If people are being sent to Rwanda, it won't take long before they hear the news, unless you believe that these people are naive and stupid. The number of asylum applicants to Denmark dropped down days after they enforced lots of restrictions on asylum seekers. News spreads fast. " Mo, it's my historical opinion. You've heard of Australia, right? How are the two similar? Really? " Really. How are the two similar? " Are they indifferent or are they laughing? Or is that all just wishful thinking on your part and you haven't actually checked? " Anecdotally speaking, I have seen a lot of people laugh at this stupidity. No other culture resorts to self destruction in the name of charity. " No, talking about these issues on the Internet does not automatically make one morally superior. It does on the other hand make it more likely that one is, especially compared to those who argue in favour of treating humans like diseased cattle. " Not true. If it were true, politicians would automatically have higher probability to be morally superior because they all talk a lot about doing good. " Saying we should send asylum seekers to a far away country is literally NIMBYism. " NIMBYism is asking for something as a national policy but opposing any changes to implement those policies in their own backyard. Like wanting cheap electricity but protesting against solar farms in their areas. People who are against asylum seekers in Epping or any other places for that matter aren't asking the country to take asylum seekers and protesting against them in their areas. Most of them are happy with the country not taking them. | |||
" Mo, it's my historical opinion. You've heard of Australia, right? How are the two similar? Really? Really. How are the two similar? " Australia would process "irregular maritime arrivals" offshore. | |||
" Mo, it's my historical opinion. You've heard of Australia, right? How are the two similar? Really? Really. How are the two similar? Australia would process "irregular maritime arrivals" offshore." That I understand. The other poster compared processing asylums offshore with colonial mindset and that's somehow related to Australia. | |||
"What I was trying to say that any party that recommends leaving the ECHR need to be clear what areas they intend to replicate into UK law, for example workers rights etc, and what they don't want to replicate. It's all in UK law already, there's nothing to replicate. All they need to do is lay out which bits of UK law they want to change." Thank you. It seems on the face of it then that it would be possible to remove things that are proving troublesome while still keeping things like workers rights etc | |||
"What I was trying to say that any party that recommends leaving the ECHR need to be clear what areas they intend to replicate into UK law, for example workers rights etc, and what they don't want to replicate." "It's all in UK law already, there's nothing to replicate. All they need to do is lay out which bits of UK law they want to change." "Thank you. It seems on the face of it then that it would be possible to remove things that are proving troublesome while still keeping things like workers rights etc" It would indeed be possible to make small changes to achieve specific goals. But those that are against Reform are convinced that the changes that will be made will be to allow workers to be shackled to their machines, to ban homosexuality, and to kick out anyone that doesn't have the whitest of skin. That's why they want the EU to protect them from the evils that they see coming. | |||
"What I was trying to say that any party that recommends leaving the ECHR need to be clear what areas they intend to replicate into UK law, for example workers rights etc, and what they don't want to replicate. It's all in UK law already, there's nothing to replicate. All they need to do is lay out which bits of UK law they want to change. Thank you. It seems on the face of it then that it would be possible to remove things that are proving troublesome while still keeping things like workers rights etc It would indeed be possible to make small changes to achieve specific goals. But those that are against Reform are convinced that the changes that will be made will be to allow workers to be shackled to their machines, to ban homosexuality, and to kick out anyone that doesn't have the whitest of skin. That's why they want the EU to protect them from the evils that they see coming." Reform has said that they will do away with the Equalities Act 2010 and introduce 'specific' legislation instead. However, there is no indication what this specific legislation might be. I may be a sceptic, but Reform wants to increase birth rates in the UK and to help with this, will scrap the two child limit to universal credit. Sounds wonderful, but how will this be funded? Also, if the Equalities Act is scrapped, what protections will there be in terms of the gender pay gap and pregnancy in the workplace? So many questions, not many answers. | |||
"Reform has said that they will do away with the Equalities Act 2010 and introduce 'specific' legislation instead. However, there is no indication what this specific legislation might be." Yes there is. It says in their _anifesto that they want to remove "positive action" from the Equality Act 2010. "Also, if the Equalities Act is scrapped, what protections will there be in terms of the gender pay gap and pregnancy in the workplace?" Reform have made no suggestion that they might want to get rid of gender pay gap or pregnancy rules. | |||
" A second ago you were saying it proves we were right to leave the EU. Now you've downgrading it to "having concerns". The difference between the two is the leap of logic you made. "Having concerns" was just me lightening things. They stopped Italy from sending asylum seekers to Albania. There is no way for us to do anything like this if we are inside EU." Not that it bothers me personally that the EU are making it more difficult to just put asylum seekers on a plane to another country, but in the last five years alone EU countries have deported (an estimated) half-million asylum seekers. So let's not pretend like it's impossible. "Yeah, I said "stupid" was reductive. But on balance, redefining the term "safe country" so you can send people to a country not deemed safe is, among other things, stupid. Country not deemed safe... Who has the right to decide if a country is safe? Who is the arbiter of truth?" Great question. The body that found Rwanda to be an unsafe country was the United Kingdom's Supreme Court in 2003, who took additional advice from the United Nations in their ruling. Are we proposing to do away with those bodies too? "Big, unevidenced, if. If people who travelled all the way to UK are running away after hearing that they might be sent to Rwanda, it's reasonable to say that once it gets going, it will be a deterrent for them to come here in the first place. Why do you think they will spend thousands to come here only to be shipped to Rwanda?" The evidence shows that deportation does not function as a reliable deterrent. The threat of removal alone has, according to the data, not been successful in preventing people from immigrating illegally. "I also didn't say it was impossible. I said it was a logistical nightmare. We had already figured out the logistics for it. Didn't look like a nightmare." You hadn't figured out any logistics for it, so I'm sure to you it didn't look like a nightmare. But just one example would be the £135 million (of the £715 million total) spend on developing IT infrastructure to deal with the scheme. Another £95 million spent on expanding detention and reception centres. They had to create nearly 300 contractor roles to deal with it. So let's not pretend like it's wasn't logistically difficult. "As I've explained, no it isn't. Scaring people who are here is absolutely not the same thing as discouraging people from coming here. All these people have smartphones and internet. If people are being sent to Rwanda, it won't take long before they hear the news, unless you believe that these people are naive and stupid. The number of asylum applicants to Denmark dropped down days after they enforced lots of restrictions on asylum seekers. News spreads fast." Hey, that's a great example. You know why? Denmark is in the ECHR. Also, the picture is more nuanced than "they all have smartphones and the internet", but I don't expect you're interested in that level of detail. "No, it's my historical opinion. You've heard of Australia, right? How are the two similar? Really? Really. How are the two similar?" Transportation. "Are they indifferent or are they laughing? Or is that all just wishful thinking on your part and you haven't actually checked? Anecdotally speaking, I have seen a lot of people laugh at this stupidity. No other culture resorts to self destruction in the name of charity." Yeah the fact you frame accepting asylum seekers as cultural self-destruction gives us a big fat clue as to what kind of people are laughing in this anecdote of yours. And no offence but if I were you I would be careful about references to cultural self-destruction, given which groups of people are usually the targets of that kind of talk in this country. "No, talking about these issues on the Internet does not automatically make one morally superior. It does on the other hand make it more likely that one is, especially compared to those who argue in favour of treating humans like diseased cattle. Not true. If it were true, politicians would automatically have higher probability to be morally superior because they all talk a lot about doing good." They don't ALL talk a lot about doing good though, do they. The politicians who support this scheme you're defending very rarely talk about doing much other than protecting wealth and treating specific groups of people as enemies. So yeah, the politicians who talk about prioritising the wellbeing of our fellow human beings who come to this country in search of a better life are in fact more likely to have, by definition, moral superiority over those politicians who want to make the lives of those people harder in order to scare them away. "Saying we should send asylum seekers to a far away country is literally NIMBYism. NIMBYism is asking for something as a national policy but opposing any changes to implement those policies in their own backyard. Like wanting cheap electricity but protesting against solar farms in their areas. People who are against asylum seekers in Epping or any other places for that matter aren't asking the country to take asylum seekers and protesting against them in their areas. Most of them are happy with the country not taking them." I don't know what you're arguing here. The people I'm talking about are asking for a national policy of processing immigrants in another country, i.e. not in their back yard. Sure, people who don't want asylum seekers at all are not NIMBYs but that's not who we're talking about, is it. | |||
"Reform has said that they will do away with the Equalities Act 2010 and introduce 'specific' legislation instead. However, there is no indication what this specific legislation might be. Yes there is. It says in their _anifesto that they want to remove "positive action" from the Equality Act 2010. Also, if the Equalities Act is scrapped, what protections will there be in terms of the gender pay gap and pregnancy in the workplace? Reform have made no suggestion that they might want to get rid of gender pay gap or pregnancy rules." The Enquality Act is about positive action, not positive discrimination. Reform has not qualified which parts of the Equality Act they will maintain or enhance. THAT should be a huge concern to many. | |||
"The evidence shows that deportation does not function as a reliable deterrent. The threat of removal alone has, according to the data, not been successful in preventing people from immigrating illegally." What data would this be? | |||
"Reform has said that they will do away with the Equalities Act 2010 and introduce 'specific' legislation instead. However, there is no indication what this specific legislation might be." "Yes there is. It says in their _anifesto that they want to remove "positive action" from the Equality Act 2010." "Also, if the Equalities Act is scrapped, what protections will there be in terms of the gender pay gap and pregnancy in the workplace?" "Reform have made no suggestion that they might want to get rid of gender pay gap or pregnancy rules." "The Enquality Act is about positive action, not positive discrimination." Yes. That's why I used the phrase "positive action" in my post above, and why Reform use the phrase "positive action" in their _anifesto. "Reform has not qualified which parts of the Equality Act they will maintain or enhance. THAT should be a huge concern to many." It's only a major concern if you believe that they are out to get you. They've said what they intend to remove, and made no hints at removing anything else. | |||
"The evidence shows that deportation does not function as a reliable deterrent. The threat of removal alone has, according to the data, not been successful in preventing people from immigrating illegally. What data would this be?" I recommend a briefing paper by the International Detention Coalition called "Does Detention Deter (2015)" which studies the effectiveness of restrictive border policies on immigration outcomes and presents a meta-analysis of a good amount of research on the subject. | |||
"Reform has said that they will do away with the Equalities Act 2010 and introduce 'specific' legislation instead. However, there is no indication what this specific legislation might be. Yes there is. It says in their _anifesto that they want to remove "positive action" from the Equality Act 2010. Also, if the Equalities Act is scrapped, what protections will there be in terms of the gender pay gap and pregnancy in the workplace? Reform have made no suggestion that they might want to get rid of gender pay gap or pregnancy rules. The Enquality Act is about positive action, not positive discrimination. Yes. That's why I used the phrase "positive action" in my post above, and why Reform use the phrase "positive action" in their _anifesto. Reform has not qualified which parts of the Equality Act they will maintain or enhance. THAT should be a huge concern to many. It's only a major concern if you believe that they are out to get you. They've said what they intend to remove, and made no hints at removing anything else." Reform UK (also) called for "front-loading" of the child benefit system for children aged one to four, which it theorised would give parents the choice to spend more time with their children. “The majority of mothers would choose to stay at home more if they could,” the party suggested. The contract also suggested that the party would replace the 2010 “Equalities Act” (The Equality Act) that “requires discrimination in the name of ‘positive action’”. As well as this, it would scrap DEI rules that “have lowered standards and reduced economic productivity”. From HR magazine. | |||
" Not that it bothers me personally that the EU are making it more difficult to just put asylum seekers on a plane to another country, but in the last five years alone EU countries have deported (an estimated) half-million asylum seekers. So let's not pretend like it's impossible. " Half a million failed asylum seekers to their own countries. Not to a third country. Clearly different from where we are talking about here. " Great question. The body that found Rwanda to be an unsafe country was the United Kingdom's Supreme Court in 2003, who took additional advice from the United Nations in their ruling. Are we proposing to do away with those bodies too? " 20 years is a really long time. And the UN has been a joke for a long time now. " The evidence shows that deportation does not function as a reliable deterrent. The threat of removal alone has, according to the data, not been successful in preventing people from immigrating illegally. " Does that "evidence" take into account that these people were in France already. Not to mention that countries like Australia have actually shown that this works. " You hadn't figured out any logistics for it, so I'm sure to you it didn't look like a nightmare. But just one example would be the £135 million (of the £715 million total) spend on developing IT infrastructure to deal with the scheme. Another £95 million spent on expanding detention and reception centres. They had to create nearly 300 contractor roles to deal with it. So let's not pretend like it's wasn't logistically difficult. " I already showed that the money spent is similar and probably less than how much we are spending now. Spending money is not the same as being logistical nightmare. " Hey, that's a great example. You know why? Denmark is in the ECHR. " Sure, are you happy with UK introducing anti-ghetto rules, taking away money and jewellery from asylum seekers to pay for the cost of looking after them, reduced social benefits for asylum seekers and sent back a lot of them whenever their home country even got a little bit better. Would you be happy with UK doing that? Not to mention, their left wing government did all this, they were supportive of Rwanda plan and wanted to adopt it and are also asking for reinterpretation of ECHR laws. No, it's my historical opinion. You've heard of Australia, right? " Transportation. " Transportation happens all over the world all the time. Not sure how you can compare these two cases. " Yeah the fact you frame accepting asylum seekers as cultural self-destruction gives us a big fat clue as to what kind of people are laughing in this anecdote of yours. And no offence but if I were you I would be careful about references to cultural self-destruction, given which groups of people are usually the targets of that kind of talk in this country. " That's not what I meant. When the country itself is in debt, getting more people who are an economic and social burden in the name of charity is self destruction. No other culture prefers putting charitable interests towards people outside the society above the needs of the people in the society. " So yeah, the politicians who talk about prioritising the wellbeing of our fellow human beings who come to this country in search of a better life are in fact more likely to have, by definition, moral superiority over those politicians who want to make the lives of those people harder in order to scare them away. " How about politicians who talk about the well being of people in this country over people from other countries given the limitation of resources? " I don't know what you're arguing here. The people I'm talking about are asking for a national policy of processing immigrants in another country, i.e. not in their back yard. Sure, people who don't want asylum seekers at all are not NIMBYs but that's not who we're talking about, is it." The goal of processing asylum seekers in Rwanda is to stop them from coming to UK in the first place. It's just means to an end. So no, that's not NIMBYism | |||
" Not that it bothers me personally that the EU are making it more difficult to just put asylum seekers on a plane to another country, but in the last five years alone EU countries have deported (an estimated) half-million asylum seekers. So let's not pretend like it's impossible. Half a million failed asylum seekers to their own countries. Not to a third country. Clearly different from where we are talking about here." Yeah, and the ECJ preventing Italy from sending two Bangladeshis to Albania is clearly different to the EHCR preventing the UK from sending thousands of refugees to Rwanda, but that didn't stop you claiming that leaving the EU was necessary to enact the second based on the first. "Great question. The body that found Rwanda to be an unsafe country was the United Kingdom's Supreme Court in 2003, who took additional advice from the United Nations in their ruling. Are we proposing to do away with those bodies too? 20 years is a really long time. And the UN has been a joke for a long time now." That was a typo, it was 2023, so not such a long time. And the UN is obviously not a "joke". "The evidence shows that deportation does not function as a reliable deterrent. The threat of removal alone has, according to the data, not been successful in preventing people from immigrating illegally. Does that "evidence" take into account that these people were in France already. Not to mention that countries like Australia have actually shown that this works." I've referenced it above. Read it. "You hadn't figured out any logistics for it, so I'm sure to you it didn't look like a nightmare. But just one example would be the £135 million (of the £715 million total) spend on developing IT infrastructure to deal with the scheme. Another £95 million spent on expanding detention and reception centres. They had to create nearly 300 contractor roles to deal with it. So let's not pretend like it's wasn't logistically difficult. I already showed that the money spent is similar and probably less than how much we are spending now. Spending money is not the same as being logistical nightmare." Did I say that spending money was the same as a logistical nightmare? And you haven't shown anything. "Hey, that's a great example. You know why? Denmark is in the ECHR. Sure, are you happy with UK introducing anti-ghetto rules, taking away money and jewellery from asylum seekers to pay for the cost of looking after them, reduced social benefits for asylum seekers and sent back a lot of them whenever their home country even got a little bit better. Would you be happy with UK doing that? Not to mention, their left wing government did all this, they were supportive of Rwanda plan and wanted to adopt it and are also asking for reinterpretation of ECHR laws." Did I say I was supportive of any of that? No, I'm pointing out to you that using Denmark as the deportation-as-deterrent example for your argument that we need to leave the ECHR before we can deter immigration is nonsense because Denmark are in the ECHR. "No, it's my historical opinion. You've heard of Australia, right? Transportation. Transportation happens all over the world all the time. Not sure how you can compare these two cases." You don't know what I'm talking about, do you. Crack a fucking book from time to time. "Yeah the fact you frame accepting asylum seekers as cultural self-destruction gives us a big fat clue as to what kind of people are laughing in this anecdote of yours. And no offence but if I were you I would be careful about references to cultural self-destruction, given which groups of people are usually the targets of that kind of talk in this country. That's not what I meant. When the country itself is in debt, getting more people who are an economic and social burden in the name of charity is self destruction. No other culture prefers putting charitable interests towards people outside the society above the needs of the people in the society." You said "culture". If you meant "socio-economy" you would have said "socio-economy". This is the problem when you stray too far down the anti-immigration rabbit hole, it's not long before you start inadvertently parroting ethno-nationalist tropes. "So yeah, the politicians who talk about prioritising the wellbeing of our fellow human beings who come to this country in search of a better life are in fact more likely to have, by definition, moral superiority over those politicians who want to make the lives of those people harder in order to scare them away. How about politicians who talk about the well being of people in this country over people from other countries given the limitation of resources? " Those politicians are relying on the typical nationalist "us and them" false dichotomy, which is also deeply immoral, both in its fundamental dishonesty and also in the sentiment of hatred it breeds. "I don't know what you're arguing here. The people I'm talking about are asking for a national policy of processing immigrants in another country, i.e. not in their back yard. Sure, people who don't want asylum seekers at all are not NIMBYs but that's not who we're talking about, is it. The goal of processing asylum seekers in Rwanda is to stop them from coming to UK in the first place. It's just means to an end. So no, that's not NIMBYism" Oh, so at least you're clear that your ideal number of asylum seekers is zero. Weird you're always so keen to discuss morality if your stance is "fuck refugees, legitimate or not". I was just taking at face value that the idea was to process the claims in Rwanda, but happy for you to clarify that the deportees are in fact just being made examples of. How humane. | |||
| |||
"The USA has seen a dramatic decline in undocumented immigration in 2025, which is broadly agreed to be due to stronger immigration policies, including detention and deportation. This would suggest that deterrence is effective." That is true. But unless the USA's sole deterrent measure is to fly planeloads of undocumented migrants to the World's worst Butlins in a former Belgian colony, then we're not talking the same situation at all. Not to mention the undocumented migrants aren't in remotely similar situations either. Deterrence as a concept can be more or less effective, but suggesting that draconian measure A in country X reducing undocumented immigration means draconian measure B in country Y will reduce undocumented migration is wishful thinking. You just can't simplify the argument to that extent. | |||
"The USA has seen a dramatic decline in undocumented immigration in 2025, which is broadly agreed to be due to stronger immigration policies, including detention and deportation. This would suggest that deterrence is effective. That is true. But unless the USA's sole deterrent measure is to fly planeloads of undocumented migrants to the World's worst Butlins in a former Belgian colony, then we're not talking the same situation at all. Not to mention the undocumented migrants aren't in remotely similar situations either. Deterrence as a concept can be more or less effective, but suggesting that draconian measure A in country X reducing undocumented immigration means draconian measure B in country Y will reduce undocumented migration is wishful thinking. You just can't simplify the argument to that extent." The deterrent doesn’t need to be complicated, unique or shared. If the likelihood of deportation becomes high enough, then paying thousands to cross the Channel stops making sense, the risk outweighs the reward. A safe route offshore, with automatic deportation to a safe country for irregular entrants, would make the outcome predictable and the likelihood of losing the crossing fee a certainty. The key to a strong deterrent regardless of the model is 100% managed consequences. | |||
" Yeah, and the ECJ preventing Italy from sending two Bangladeshis to Albania is clearly different to the EHCR preventing the UK from sending thousands of refugees to Rwanda, but that didn't stop you claiming that leaving the EU was necessary to enact the second based on the first. " It does prove that leaving the EU was necessary if we want more flexibility in dealing with asylum seekers. " That was a typo, it was 2023, so not such a long time. And the UN is obviously not a "joke". " An organisation that had Saudi Arabia preside over women's rights forum. An organisation that had Pakistan chair some anti terror panels. An organisation that employed terrorists who had been part of the October 7 attack. Claiming that UN isn't a joke, is a joke. Treating them as the arbiter of truth is an even bigger joke. " I've referenced it above. Read it. " All it does is link to many other papers and claiming that "scholars said so". If you have actually read all those linked papers, it would be useful if you could summarise it and also explain why offshore processing worked for Australia. " Did I say that spending money was the same as a logistical nightmare? And you haven't shown anything. " When asked about why it's a logistical nightmare, your answer was the money spent on the infrastructure projects. Hence my reply. " Did I say I was supportive of any of that? No, I'm pointing out to you that using Denmark as the deportation-as-deterrent example for your argument that we need to leave the ECHR before we can deter immigration is nonsense because Denmark are in the ECHR. " Again, deporting to their home countries isn't same as deporting to a third country. " You don't know what I'm talking about, do you. Crack a fucking book from time to time. " You made a comparison that doesn't make any sense. So I am trying to get an explanation from your own mouth to make some sense out of it. " You said "culture". If you meant "socio-economy" you would have said "socio-economy". " I said "in the name of charity", which is where the socio-economic part comes from. For someone who makes smug remarks about reading books, you seem to have lots of troubles reading simple posts. " Those politicians are relying on the typical nationalist "us and them" false dichotomy, which is also deeply immoral, both in its fundamental dishonesty and also in the sentiment of hatred it breeds. " Now you are back to talking about moral superiority. Pretty much all the socialists in USSR and China under Mao "talked" about doing good for all the people and treating them all equally. They ended up killing tens of millions of people, didn't they? It's easy to talk. Anyone can talk. When it comes to action, you need to think about practicality, lack of resources and all that stuff. So no, talking about being morally superior doesn't make one morally superior. " Oh, so at least you're clear that your ideal number of asylum seekers is zero. Weird you're always so keen to discuss morality if your stance is "fuck refugees, legitimate or not". " Back to pretending like you are morally superior I see. We will take refugees when we have the resources to take them and ensure that they adapt to the new country. We don't take refugees if we don't have resources to do so. Just a practical take. If you think crying about it online somehow makes you morally superior, keep dreaming. No one else believes so. | |||
" You don't know what I'm talking about, do you. Crack a fucking book from time to time. You made a comparison that doesn't make any sense. So I am trying to get an explanation from your own mouth to make some sense out of it. " I'll tell you what, you keep arguing about deportation over here on your own, and I'll go argue about deportation with people who know stuff about deportation. You know that thing I've said to you before about how you seem to think you're really smart but you keep proving your ignorance? That. | |||
" Reform have made no suggestion that they might want to get rid of gender pay gap or pregnancy rules." Nor have they indicated that they will be legislated for. Also bear in mind his views on reducing the time frame for women to legally access abortions. Another ploy to increase the birth rate, by limiting women's autonomy? | |||
" You don't know what I'm talking about, do you. Crack a fucking book from time to time. You made a comparison that doesn't make any sense. So I am trying to get an explanation from your own mouth to make some sense out of it. I'll tell you what, you keep arguing about deportation over here on your own, and I'll go argue about deportation with people who know stuff about deportation. You know that thing I've said to you before about how you seem to think you're really smart but you keep proving your ignorance? That." If you have a clear explanation for the comparison you made, you would have been explained it already instead of beating around the bush. | |||
" You don't know what I'm talking about, do you. Crack a fucking book from time to time. You made a comparison that doesn't make any sense. So I am trying to get an explanation from your own mouth to make some sense out of it. I'll tell you what, you keep arguing about deportation over here on your own, and I'll go argue about deportation with people who know stuff about deportation. You know that thing I've said to you before about how you seem to think you're really smart but you keep proving your ignorance? That. If you have a clear explanation for the comparison you made, you would have been explained it already instead of beating around the bush." "If I wanted you to understand, I would have explained it better" - Johan Cruyff. | |||
" You don't know what I'm talking about, do you. Crack a fucking book from time to time. You made a comparison that doesn't make any sense. So I am trying to get an explanation from your own mouth to make some sense out of it. I'll tell you what, you keep arguing about deportation over here on your own, and I'll go argue about deportation with people who know stuff about deportation. You know that thing I've said to you before about how you seem to think you're really smart but you keep proving your ignorance? That. If you have a clear explanation for the comparison you made, you would have been explained it already instead of beating around the bush." If you had even rudimentary knowledge of the historical background of the subject we're discussing you would have immediately understood the reference. After a certain point it stops being my responsibility to cure you of your ignorance. | |||
"The evidence shows that deportation does not function as a reliable deterrent. The threat of removal alone has, according to the data, not been successful in preventing people from immigrating illegally." "What data would this be?" "I recommend a briefing paper by the International Detention Coalition called "Does Detention Deter (2015)" which studies the effectiveness of restrictive border policies on immigration outcomes and presents a meta-analysis of a good amount of research on the subject." Detention is not the same thing as deportation (or 'transportation' to use your word). So you don't have any data on the impact of deportation as a deterrent then. Fair enough. | |||
"If you had even rudimentary knowledge of the historical background of the subject we're discussing you would have immediately understood the reference. After a certain point it stops being my responsibility to cure you of your ignorance." If you want people to understand and respect your point of view, it's your job to provide them with the knowledge necessary to understand what you are saying. If you don't do that, you can't really be surprised if people start to think that you have no argument and are just being evasive. | |||
"The evidence shows that deportation does not function as a reliable deterrent. The threat of removal alone has, according to the data, not been successful in preventing people from immigrating illegally. What data would this be? I recommend a briefing paper by the International Detention Coalition called "Does Detention Deter (2015)" which studies the effectiveness of restrictive border policies on immigration outcomes and presents a meta-analysis of a good amount of research on the subject. Detention is not the same thing as deportation (or 'transportation' to use your word). So you don't have any data on the impact of deportation as a deterrent then. Fair enough." Didn't read it then? | |||
"If you had even rudimentary knowledge of the historical background of the subject we're discussing you would have immediately understood the reference. After a certain point it stops being my responsibility to cure you of your ignorance. If you want people to understand and respect your point of view, it's your job to provide them with the knowledge necessary to understand what you are saying. If you don't do that, you can't really be surprised if people start to think that you have no argument and are just being evasive." Bro up there has never and would never respect my point of view even if I took him to school on the entire seemingly inexhaustible list of shit he doesn't know about subjects he despite that insists on involving himself in. Not that I could teach him anything, anyway. Like you, he only ever scans the headlines. | |||
" (or 'transportation' to use your word)." Not my word. It's a specific word for a specific thing that you also have apparently never learnt about, thereby disqualifying you from this debate too. | |||
"The evidence shows that deportation does not function as a reliable deterrent. The threat of removal alone has, according to the data, not been successful in preventing people from immigrating illegally." "What data would this be?" "I recommend a briefing paper by the International Detention Coalition called "Does Detention Deter (2015)" which studies the effectiveness of restrictive border policies on immigration outcomes and presents a meta-analysis of a good amount of research on the subject." "Detention is not the same thing as deportation (or 'transportation' to use your word). So you don't have any data on the impact of deportation as a deterrent then. Fair enough." "Didn't read it then?" No. Why would I waste my time reading a paper about detention when I'm asking for data on deportation. Besides, someone above stated that "suggesting that draconian measure A in country X reducing undocumented immigration means draconian measure B in country Y will reduce undocumented migration is wishful thinking". If that's the case, it doesn't matter what your briefing paper says, it's from a different country so (according to that knowledgeable someone) it's not comparable. | |||
"The evidence shows that deportation does not function as a reliable deterrent. The threat of removal alone has, according to the data, not been successful in preventing people from immigrating illegally. What data would this be? I recommend a briefing paper by the International Detention Coalition called "Does Detention Deter (2015)" which studies the effectiveness of restrictive border policies on immigration outcomes and presents a meta-analysis of a good amount of research on the subject. Detention is not the same thing as deportation (or 'transportation' to use your word). So you don't have any data on the impact of deportation as a deterrent then. Fair enough. Didn't read it then? No. Why would I waste my time reading a paper about detention when I'm asking for data on deportation. Besides, someone above stated that "suggesting that draconian measure A in country X reducing undocumented immigration means draconian measure B in country Y will reduce undocumented migration is wishful thinking". If that's the case, it doesn't matter what your briefing paper says, it's from a different country so (according to that knowledgeable someone) it's not comparable." Screenshotting this this as evidence of your preparedness to dismiss information without bothering to find out what it is. Yet another reason to disqualify you from this (or any) argument. | |||
"Bro up there has never and would never respect my point of view even if I took him to school on the entire seemingly inexhaustible list of shit he doesn't know about subjects he despite that insists on involving himself in. Not that I could teach him anything, anyway. Like you, he only ever scans the headlines." However 'bro up there' explains his reasoning, and doesn't resort to personal insults when the conversation gets difficult. I imagine that people reading this will learn more from him than they do from you. | |||
"Bro up there has never and would never respect my point of view even if I took him to school on the entire seemingly inexhaustible list of shit he doesn't know about subjects he despite that insists on involving himself in. Not that I could teach him anything, anyway. Like you, he only ever scans the headlines. However 'bro up there' explains his reasoning, and doesn't resort to personal insults when the conversation gets difficult. I imagine that people reading this will learn more from him than they do from you." You'll definitely learn less from me if you refuse to read the stuff I suggest. | |||
"Didn't read it then?" "No. Why would I waste my time reading a paper about detention when I'm asking for data on deportation. Besides, someone above stated that "suggesting that draconian measure A in country X reducing undocumented immigration means draconian measure B in country Y will reduce undocumented migration is wishful thinking". If that's the case, it doesn't matter what your briefing paper says, it's from a different country so (according to that knowledgeable someone) it's not comparable." "Screenshotting this this as evidence of your preparedness to dismiss information without bothering to find out what it is. Yet another reason to disqualify you from this (or any) argument." You're sounding a little bit like the Stazi there, suggesting that you are maintaining a file of evidence to be used against anyone that could be trouble for you. I remember someone in another thread stating that fascists always out themselves by using fascist language. It seems that it's true. | |||
"Didn't read it then? No. Why would I waste my time reading a paper about detention when I'm asking for data on deportation. Besides, someone above stated that "suggesting that draconian measure A in country X reducing undocumented immigration means draconian measure B in country Y will reduce undocumented migration is wishful thinking". If that's the case, it doesn't matter what your briefing paper says, it's from a different country so (according to that knowledgeable someone) it's not comparable. Screenshotting this this as evidence of your preparedness to dismiss information without bothering to find out what it is. Yet another reason to disqualify you from this (or any) argument. You're sounding a little bit like the Stazi there, suggesting that you are maintaining a file of evidence to be used against anyone that could be trouble for you. I remember someone in another thread stating that fascists always out themselves by using fascist language. It seems that it's true." Whatever bro. Your opinion on literally anything is de facto worthless because you refuse to consider information that might invalidate your position. Enjoy the echo chamber. Bye bye. | |||
" (or 'transportation' to use your word)." "Not my word. It's a specific word for a specific thing that you also have apparently never learnt about, thereby disqualifying you from this debate too." It is a specific word for a specific thing. But you're the one that introduced it to this discussion by using it as a synonym for 'deportation', hence "your word". As it happens I know rather a lot about transportation, and I can't work out how you think that the Rwanda scheme is in any way comparable. But since you refuse to discuss the issue, I'll just have to cope with the agony of not knowing. | |||
"Whatever bro. Your opinion on literally anything is de facto worthless because you refuse to consider information that might invalidate your position. Enjoy the echo chamber. Bye bye." Oh, he's run away. How sad. | |||
" (or 'transportation' to use your word). Not my word. It's a specific word for a specific thing that you also have apparently never learnt about, thereby disqualifying you from this debate too. It is a specific word for a specific thing. But you're the one that introduced it to this discussion by using it as a synonym for 'deportation', hence "your word". As it happens I know rather a lot about transportation, and I can't work out how you think that the Rwanda scheme is in any way comparable. But since you refuse to discuss the issue, I'll just have to cope with the agony of not knowing." You literally won't read the evidence I supplied, so get lost with your "refuse to discuss the issue". You have zero intellectual integrity. No credibility to anything you say. | |||
"You literally won't read the evidence I supplied, so get lost with your "refuse to discuss the issue". You have zero intellectual integrity. No credibility to anything you say." We're discussing the deterrent effect of deportation. You offered a paper with a title that said it discussed detention. Those are different things. At no point have you even suggested that the paper also discusses deportation. Even if it does, you've already said that papers on things that happen in other countries are not usable as evidence because they aren't the same circumstances. Why do you think that the paper you're recommending is an exception to your own rule? | |||
"You literally won't read the evidence I supplied, so get lost with your "refuse to discuss the issue". You have zero intellectual integrity. No credibility to anything you say. We're discussing the deterrent effect of deportation. You offered a paper with a title that said it discussed detention. Those are different things. At no point have you even suggested that the paper also discusses deportation. Even if it does, you've already said that papers on things that happen in other countries are not usable as evidence because they aren't the same circumstances. Why do you think that the paper you're recommending is an exception to your own rule?" My fault for assuming you'd have anything like the intellectual capacity to find out for yourself. By, you know, reading it. Hey, I get it. Reading's not for everyone. | |||
"My fault for assuming you'd have anything like the intellectual capacity to find out for yourself. By, you know, reading it. Hey, I get it. Reading's not for everyone." So, still no attempt to explain why that paper is worth reading, just a stream of personal insults. I think we've all learned a lot from reading your posts in this thread. | |||
"My fault for assuming you'd have anything like the intellectual capacity to find out for yourself. By, you know, reading it. Hey, I get it. Reading's not for everyone. So, still no attempt to explain why that paper is worth reading, just a stream of personal insults. I think we've all learned a lot from reading your posts in this thread." You haven't. In fact you deliberately haven't. But you do you, buddy. | |||
"Should the UK decide to leave the ECHR, then there could be significant implications for employment rights. Without the protection of the ECHR, UK workers may lose important employment rights protections that are currently provided under the treaty. This could lead to a situation where UK workers have fewer protections and are more vulnerable to exploitation and mistreatment in the workplace. Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) could have significant implications for Health and Safety (H&S) in work. It may lead to a retrograde step in health and safety regulations, potentially undermining employers' duties to assess risks to their workforce. The EU has improved workers' rights and working conditions, which may influence H&S standards in the UK. Employers may face challenges in ensuring compliance with H&S regulations, which could affect employee safety and rights. There's an awful lot of the words 'could' and 'may' in that post." These bits will affect a lot of workers, not sure it is worth it | |||
"Should the UK decide to leave the ECHR, then there could be significant implications for employment rights. Without the protection of the ECHR, UK workers may lose important employment rights protections that are currently provided under the treaty. This could lead to a situation where UK workers have fewer protections and are more vulnerable to exploitation and mistreatment in the workplace. Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) could have significant implications for Health and Safety (H&S) in work. It may lead to a retrograde step in health and safety regulations, potentially undermining employers' duties to assess risks to their workforce. The EU has improved workers' rights and working conditions, which may influence H&S standards in the UK. Employers may face challenges in ensuring compliance with H&S regulations, which could affect employee safety and rights." "There's an awful lot of the words 'could' and 'may' in that post." "These bits will affect a lot of workers, not sure it is worth it" Those bits will only affect workers if Reform decide to make changes. So far they've given no indication that they intend to. | |||
" Those bits will only affect workers if Reform decide to make changes. So far they've given no indication that they intend to." "Replace the 2010 Equalities Act The Equalities Act requires discrimination in the name of ‘positive action’. We will scrap Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DE&I) rules that have lowered standards and reduced economic productivity." From the Reform UK website - Our Contract with You. The wording is very interesting. The Act requires discrimination in the name of "positive action". Also, what evidence is there that DEI rules have a detrimental effect on economic productivity "A new report by EY UK underlines the critical importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I) in improving productivity and workforce innovation in UK companies amid an unpredictable macroeconomic environment." EY website. | |||
"Those bits will only affect workers if Reform decide to make changes. So far they've given no indication that they intend to." ""Replace the 2010 Equalities Act The Equalities Act requires discrimination in the name of ‘positive action’. We will scrap Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DE&I) rules that have lowered standards and reduced economic productivity." From the Reform UK website - Our Contract with You. The wording is very interesting. The Act requires discrimination in the name of "positive action". Also, what evidence is there that DEI rules have a detrimental effect on economic productivity "A new report by EY UK underlines the critical importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I) in improving productivity and workforce innovation in UK companies amid an unpredictable macroeconomic environment." EY website." I was replying to the post from Just Rachel where they said "Those bits will affect a lot of workers". That was after a long quoted post about employment and health and safety rights. Reform have made no suggestion that they are going to change those. They have said that they will re-write the Equality Act to remove the "positive action" bits. | |||
"A new report by EY UK underlines the critical importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I) in improving productivity and workforce innovation in UK companies amid an unpredictable macroeconomic environment." I've not read the report but I'd be prepared to bet that it says that a diverse and inclusive workforce increases productivity. I'd further be prepared to bet that it doesn't say that DEI legislation and training result in an increase in productivity. Reform are not proposing a reduction in diversity, or in protections for minorities. They are proposing a reduction in legislation with the intention reducing the level of DEI training. | |||
" I've not read the report but I'd be prepared to bet that it says (...) I'd further be prepared to bet that it doesn't say (...)" This is your whole thing, isn't it, admitting that you haven't read something, and then confidently declaring what you think is in the thing you haven't read. How did you arrive at this position? Is it a Michael Gove-type thing, where your suspicion of experts has metastasised into a total rejection of any form of expertise, including absorbing even the smallest amount of knowledge on a subject before you start talking about it? Genuinely curious - do you expect your opinions to be taken as seriously as those of people who know what they're talking about? If so, why, and if not, what do you see as the point of your contribution? | |||
""A new report by EY UK underlines the critical importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I) in improving productivity and workforce innovation in UK companies amid an unpredictable macroeconomic environment." " Companies that like money should be falling over themselves to do this thing that improves productivity and workforce innovation. Those who don't will die through economic Darwinism. | |||
""A new report by EY UK underlines the critical importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I) in improving productivity and workforce innovation in UK companies amid an unpredictable macroeconomic environment."" "Companies that like money should be falling over themselves to do this thing that improves productivity and workforce innovation. Those who don't will die through economic Darwinism." It makes you wonder how we ever got into the 21st century without DEI legislation. | |||
| |||
"This is your whole thing, isn't it, ..." Someone's got a bee in their bonnet. In this case I can't read it because the poster hasn't identified which report they are talking about. There is no new report on the EY website covering this issue. There's one from January, but that's not new. If you read the one from January you will indeed find that it says that inclusion is a good thing, and it fails to mention whether legislation or training have any impact. They also admit in that report that there isn't enough data on the inclusion of minorities, and that they are extrapolating from data on women in the workplace. | |||
"Should the UK decide to leave the ECHR, then there could be significant implications for employment rights. Without the protection of the ECHR, UK workers may lose important employment rights protections that are currently provided under the treaty. This could lead to a situation where UK workers have fewer protections and are more vulnerable to exploitation and mistreatment in the workplace. Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) could have significant implications for Health and Safety (H&S) in work. It may lead to a retrograde step in health and safety regulations, potentially undermining employers' duties to assess risks to their workforce. The EU has improved workers' rights and working conditions, which may influence H&S standards in the UK. Employers may face challenges in ensuring compliance with H&S regulations, which could affect employee safety and rights. There's an awful lot of the words 'could' and 'may' in that post. These bits will affect a lot of workers, not sure it is worth it Those bits will only affect workers if Reform decide to make changes. So far they've given no indication that they intend to." And here's the difficulty. Reform has stated clearly their intention to repeal the Equalities Act and replace if with more specific legislation. However, I cannot find any information about what the proposed specific legislation is going to be. A natural consequence to this is that people consider the potential ramifications and have to use words like "might", "could" etc. Reform have given no indication that they intend to, nor have they given any indication that they don't intend to. | |||
"This is your whole thing, isn't it, ... Someone's got a bee in their bonnet." About people who don't, and in some cases refuse to, read any relevant literature while still insisting their points of view should be afforded any respect? Absolutely. "In this case I can't read it because the poster hasn't identified which report they are talking about. There is no new report on the EY website covering this issue. There's one from January, but that's not new. If you read the one from January you will indeed find that it says that inclusion is a good thing, and it fails to mention whether legislation or training have any impact. They also admit in that report that there isn't enough data on the inclusion of minorities, and that they are extrapolating from data on women in the workplace." So you did find it, then. But you have to actually read it, it doesn't really count if you skim it just enough to cherrypick its self-identified shortcomings and use them to try to dismiss the whole thing. It says quite a bit more than "inclusion is a good thing". | |||
"Should the UK decide to leave the ECHR, then there could be significant implications for employment rights. Without the protection of the ECHR, UK workers may lose important employment rights protections that are currently provided under the treaty. This could lead to a situation where UK workers have fewer protections and are more vulnerable to exploitation and mistreatment in the workplace. Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) could have significant implications for Health and Safety (H&S) in work. It may lead to a retrograde step in health and safety regulations, potentially undermining employers' duties to assess risks to their workforce. The EU has improved workers' rights and working conditions, which may influence H&S standards in the UK. Employers may face challenges in ensuring compliance with H&S regulations, which could affect employee safety and rights. There's an awful lot of the words 'could' and 'may' in that post. These bits will affect a lot of workers, not sure it is worth it Those bits will only affect workers if Reform decide to make changes. So far they've given no indication that they intend to. And here's the difficulty. Reform has stated clearly their intention to repeal the Equalities Act and replace if with more specific legislation. However, I cannot find any information about what the proposed specific legislation is going to be. A natural consequence to this is that people consider the potential ramifications and have to use words like "might", "could" etc. Reform have given no indication that they intend to, nor have they given any indication that they don't intend to. " Or you could simply wait 3 years to read what they have in their _anifesto. It is common practice for parties to announce intentions, and provide the detail closer to the GE. | |||
" Or you could simply wait 3 years to read what they have in their _anifesto. It is common practice for parties to announce intentions, and provide the detail closer to the GE. " You proposal is that we should wait three years without voicing any questions about a political party's stated intentions, and reserve all comments and concerns until a complete _anifesto is presented? Is it all parties you think should be able to trot out their talking points without challenge, or just Reform? | |||
"An article in Byline Times has challenged the £7 billion savings proposed by Reform, suggesting that the spend in 2022 - 2023 was around £27 million on EDI." £7bn does sound too high, but £27m is far too low. As an example, the company I currently work at (about 300 employees) has spent just over £500k this year. This includes the cost of the training company and promotional materials, and the labour cost of 90 minutes of time for each employee. I'm pretty sure my company isn't in the "top 50 wokest companies" list. | |||
| |||
"An article in Byline Times has challenged the £7 billion savings proposed by Reform, suggesting that the spend in 2022 - 2023 was around £27 million on EDI." £7bn does sound too high, but £27m is far too low. As an example, the company I currently work at (about 300 employees) has spent over £500k this year. This includes the cost of the training company and promotional materials, and the labour cost of 90 minutes of time for each employee. I'm pretty sure my company isn't in the "top 50 wokest companies" list. | |||
""A new report by EY UK underlines the critical importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I) in improving productivity and workforce innovation in UK companies amid an unpredictable macroeconomic environment." Companies that like money should be falling over themselves to do this thing that improves productivity and workforce innovation. Those who don't will die through economic Darwinism. It makes you wonder how we ever got into the 21st century without DEI legislation." There has been DEI legislation since long before the 21st Century. "DEI" as a branded management concept didn't exist before the turn of the millennium, but that means that before then no companies benefited from it. His point is that now some companies are benefiting from it, and those who choose not to are giving away a commercial advantage. | |||
" Or you could simply wait 3 years to read what they have in their _anifesto. It is common practice for parties to announce intentions, and provide the detail closer to the GE. You proposal is that we should wait three years without voicing any questions about a political party's stated intentions, and reserve all comments and concerns until a complete _anifesto is presented? Is it all parties you think should be able to trot out their talking points without challenge, or just Reform?" My proposal is to maybe consider that the detail will not be there for another few years, so what is the point of saying there is no mention of X, and no detail of Y? There is no point, everything is hypothetical and yet the argument becomes heated on purely personal opinion. | |||
" Or you could simply wait 3 years to read what they have in their _anifesto. It is common practice for parties to announce intentions, and provide the detail closer to the GE. You proposal is that we should wait three years without voicing any questions about a political party's stated intentions, and reserve all comments and concerns until a complete _anifesto is presented? Is it all parties you think should be able to trot out their talking points without challenge, or just Reform? My proposal is to maybe consider that the detail will not be there for another few years, so what is the point of saying there is no mention of X, and no detail of Y? There is no point, everything is hypothetical and yet the argument becomes heated on purely personal opinion." Well, if your position is there's no point talking about it, I look forward to three years of silence from you. | |||
"So you did find it, then. But you have to actually read it, it doesn't really count if you skim it just enough to cherrypick its self-identified shortcomings and use them to try to dismiss the whole thing. It says quite a bit more than "inclusion is a good thing"." Since you've obviously given it a good hard reading, you could just quote all the bits that support maintaining the current legislation, or prove that DEI training improves productivity. That would prove your point far better than just casting aspersions. Unless, of course, I was right all along | |||
"An article in Byline Times has challenged the £7 billion savings proposed by Reform, suggesting that the spend in 2022 - 2023 was around £27 million on EDI. £7bn does sound too high, but £27m is far too low. As an example, the company I currently work at (about 300 employees) has spent just over £500k this year. This includes the cost of the training company and promotional materials, and the labour cost of 90 minutes of time for each employee. I'm pretty sure my company isn't in the "top 50 wokest companies" list." The savings are allegedly in the public sector, not private. I have no idea which sector your employer falls into, I'm guessing private, though. "Woke" companies, you mean the ones that are abiding by the Equality Act 2010? | |||
" Or you could simply wait 3 years to read what they have in their _anifesto. It is common practice for parties to announce intentions, and provide the detail closer to the GE. You proposal is that we should wait three years without voicing any questions about a political party's stated intentions, and reserve all comments and concerns until a complete _anifesto is presented? Is it all parties you think should be able to trot out their talking points without challenge, or just Reform? My proposal is to maybe consider that the detail will not be there for another few years, so what is the point of saying there is no mention of X, and no detail of Y? There is no point, everything is hypothetical and yet the argument becomes heated on purely personal opinion. Well, if your position is there's no point talking about it, I look forward to three years of silence from you." Keep up... My point is the heated discussions of hypotheticals x and y are a little over the top as it is all opinion. | |||
"So you did find it, then. But you have to actually read it, it doesn't really count if you skim it just enough to cherrypick its self-identified shortcomings and use them to try to dismiss the whole thing. It says quite a bit more than "inclusion is a good thing". Since you've obviously given it a good hard reading, you could just quote all the bits that support maintaining the current legislation, or prove that DEI training improves productivity. That would prove your point far better than just casting aspersions. Unless, of course, I was right all along" Or people could just read the report and its copious supporting literature, which make those points far better than I could. And then they could read the many reports that offer contrasting viewpoints, then draw their own well-informed conclusions - intellectual rigour, and all that. Not you, obviously. We've established that reading is not your preferred method of acquiring knowledge. | |||
""A new report by EY UK underlines the critical importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I) in improving productivity and workforce innovation in UK companies amid an unpredictable macroeconomic environment." Companies that like money should be falling over themselves to do this thing that improves productivity and workforce innovation. Those who don't will die through economic Darwinism." I am a movie goer I like Star Trek, Star Wars, Marvel etc, now DEI has smashed these Francises to bits some say there is no come back from DEI. Apparently an employee from Disney during a meeting on the failed in box office of the movie Lightyear when asked what the issues are with this film an employee replied "get woke, go broke" So DEI hasn't worked for Hollywood it has brought it to his knees. It was Trump scrapping DEI in the US is the reason I am now seeing Hollywood starting to recover as DEI messaging is no longer required to secure cash to make movies. DEI may work for some, but the public a large proportion don't do DEI and voted with their feet by not watching theses types of movies. | |||
""A new report by EY UK underlines the critical importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I) in improving productivity and workforce innovation in UK companies amid an unpredictable macroeconomic environment." Companies that like money should be falling over themselves to do this thing that improves productivity and workforce innovation. Those who don't will die through economic Darwinism. I am a movie goer I like Star Trek, Star Wars, Marvel etc, now DEI has smashed these Francises to bits some say there is no come back from DEI. Apparently an employee from Disney during a meeting on the failed in box office of the movie Lightyear when asked what the issues are with this film an employee replied "get woke, go broke" So DEI hasn't worked for Hollywood it has brought it to his knees. It was Trump scrapping DEI in the US is the reason I am now seeing Hollywood starting to recover as DEI messaging is no longer required to secure cash to make movies. DEI may work for some, but the public a large proportion don't do DEI and voted with their feet by not watching theses types of movies." Maybe they were just shitty movies from oversaturated franchises? Correlation doesn't equal causation. | |||
""A new report by EY UK underlines the critical importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I) in improving productivity and workforce innovation in UK companies amid an unpredictable macroeconomic environment." Companies that like money should be falling over themselves to do this thing that improves productivity and workforce innovation. Those who don't will die through economic Darwinism. I am a movie goer I like Star Trek, Star Wars, Marvel etc, now DEI has smashed these Francises to bits some say there is no come back from DEI. Apparently an employee from Disney during a meeting on the failed in box office of the movie Lightyear when asked what the issues are with this film an employee replied "get woke, go broke" So DEI hasn't worked for Hollywood it has brought it to his knees. It was Trump scrapping DEI in the US is the reason I am now seeing Hollywood starting to recover as DEI messaging is no longer required to secure cash to make movies. DEI may work for some, but the public a large proportion don't do DEI and voted with their feet by not watching theses types of movies. Maybe they were just shitty movies from oversaturated franchises? Correlation doesn't equal causation." No that is not the case. The correlation is Box office ratings, box office takings on opening weekend fan feed back, screen test showings etc. When a Francises creates billion dollar movies, and the next movie loses 3 quarters of a billion on the next movie and the next and the next, correlating with the shift to DEI. I would say DEI is the issue as the fans go to escape reality not to be preached to. Hollywood have stated they are moving away from the DEI model. DEI in movies was a requirement to get the funding to make movies when Trump came in he scrapped that leaving Hollywood to make movies they want to make again. We all should notice that the comedy is making a come back as comedy makers no longer have to worry about offending others anymore in the US that is. | |||
"The savings are allegedly in the public sector, not private. I have no idea which sector your employer falls into, I'm guessing private, though." Ah. Yes, your right, I was talking about a private sector company. I have little direct knowledge of public sector DEI, but from what I've heard from others, I'd be surprised if spending was as low as £27m. Almost certainly nowhere near £7bn though. ""Woke" companies, you mean the ones that are abiding by the Equality Act 2010? " The Equality Act requires companies to treat people equally. It does not require companies to provide DEI training. | |||
". I am a movie goer I like Star Trek, Star Wars, Marvel etc, now DEI has smashed these Francises to bits some say there is no come back from DEI. Apparently an employee from Disney during a meeting on the failed in box office of the movie Lightyear when asked what the issues are with this film an employee replied "get woke, go broke" So DEI hasn't worked for Hollywood it has brought it to his knees. It was Trump scrapping DEI in the US is the reason I am now seeing Hollywood starting to recover as DEI messaging is no longer required to secure cash to make movies. DEI may work for some, but the public a large proportion don't do DEI and voted with their feet by not watching theses types of movies. Maybe they were just shitty movies from oversaturated franchises? Correlation doesn't equal causation. No that is not the case. The correlation is Box office ratings, box office takings on opening weekend fan feed back, screen test showings etc. When a Francises creates billion dollar movies, and the next movie loses 3 quarters of a billion on the next movie and the next and the next, correlating with the shift to DEI. I would say DEI is the issue as the fans go to escape reality not to be preached to. Hollywood have stated they are moving away from the DEI model. DEI in movies was a requirement to get the funding to make movies when Trump came in he scrapped that leaving Hollywood to make movies they want to make again. We all should notice that the comedy is making a come back as comedy makers no longer have to worry about offending others anymore in the US that is." Yeah, I just told you that correlation isn't causation, and you're still just describing correlations, without demonstrating any causation. There are a trillion factors that influence the success of the movie market. You might as well claim that the dip and subsequent recovery in movie earnings was caused by the studios switching from Folger's to Nescafé and back. | |||
". There are a trillion factors that influence the success of the movie market. You might as well claim that the dip and subsequent recovery in movie earnings was caused by the studios switching from Folger's to Nescafé and back." What evidence would be needed to establish causation between DEI and Hollywood's recent issues? | |||
". There are a trillion factors that influence the success of the movie market. You might as well claim that the dip and subsequent recovery in movie earnings was caused by the studios switching from Folger's to Nescafé and back. What evidence would be needed to establish causation between DEI and Hollywood's recent issues?" Not sure, but it would definitely need to be more compelling than that they happened roughly around the same time. | |||
". I am a movie goer I like Star Trek, Star Wars, Marvel etc, now DEI has smashed these Francises to bits some say there is no come back from DEI. Apparently an employee from Disney during a meeting on the failed in box office of the movie Lightyear when asked what the issues are with this film an employee replied "get woke, go broke" So DEI hasn't worked for Hollywood it has brought it to his knees. It was Trump scrapping DEI in the US is the reason I am now seeing Hollywood starting to recover as DEI messaging is no longer required to secure cash to make movies. DEI may work for some, but the public a large proportion don't do DEI and voted with their feet by not watching theses types of movies. Maybe they were just shitty movies from oversaturated franchises? Correlation doesn't equal causation. No that is not the case. The correlation is Box office ratings, box office takings on opening weekend fan feed back, screen test showings etc. When a Francises creates billion dollar movies, and the next movie loses 3 quarters of a billion on the next movie and the next and the next, correlating with the shift to DEI. I would say DEI is the issue as the fans go to escape reality not to be preached to. Hollywood have stated they are moving away from the DEI model. DEI in movies was a requirement to get the funding to make movies when Trump came in he scrapped that leaving Hollywood to make movies they want to make again. We all should notice that the comedy is making a come back as comedy makers no longer have to worry about offending others anymore in the US that is. Yeah, I just told you that correlation isn't causation, and you're still just describing correlations, without demonstrating any causation. There are a trillion factors that influence the success of the movie market. You might as well claim that the dip and subsequent recovery in movie earnings was caused by the studios switching from Folger's to Nescafé and back." The facts are Hollywood are moving away from the DEI model they have said so themselves, as they no longer need to pander to DEI to get funding needed to make movies. And their profits have been hit due to the DEI model all of these are facts printed in the movie rags like variety Hollywood reporter, YouTube influencers like the critical drinker. You may not be aware of this move and the move back to the old model. Anyone reading this can go find out for themselves. As proof I put into my search engine DEI Hollywood and several stories all at the top of the page will explain why DEI has killed Hollywood and what they intend to do to recover. Expected Billion dollar movies that fell on there arse due to DEI. Star Wars the last 3 all fell flat flat on their face losing millions making no profit. Star Trek which is modern DEI has also failed and the Francises is in turmoil. Bond. Upcoming movies like Red Sonia have been postponed due to the shift in DEI. Trump scrapped DEI. | |||
"So you did find it, then. But you have to actually read it, it doesn't really count if you skim it just enough to cherrypick its self-identified shortcomings and use them to try to dismiss the whole thing. It says quite a bit more than "inclusion is a good thing"." "Since you've obviously given it a good hard reading, you could just quote all the bits that support maintaining the current legislation, or prove that DEI training improves productivity. That would prove your point far better than just casting aspersions. Unless, of course, I was right all along." "Or people could just read the report and its copious supporting literature, which make those points far better than I could. And then they could read the many reports that offer contrasting viewpoints, then draw their own well-informed conclusions - intellectual rigour, and all that." So you're unable to quote any part of that report that invalidates what I said. OK then. | |||
" So you're unable to quote any part of that report that invalidates what I said. OK then." Yeah, I don't take notes on my referencing from people who offer confident commentary on stuff they admit they haven't read. I can't invalidate what you've said because nothing you say has any validity to begin with. In case you haven't noticed I'm not arguing with you. I'm signposting how illegitimate your participation in arguments is. | |||
"So you're unable to quote any part of that report that invalidates what I said. OK then." "Yeah, I don't take notes on my referencing from people who offer confident commentary on stuff they admit they haven't read. I can't invalidate what you've said because nothing you say has any validity to begin with. In case you haven't noticed I'm not arguing with you. I'm signposting how illegitimate your participation in arguments is." Good luck with that. | |||
" As proof I put into my search engine DEI Hollywood and several stories all at the top of the page will explain why DEI has killed Hollywood and what they intend to do to recover." "Proof". Well, I'm just spoilt for intellectual rigour today, aren't I. Hey, at least you read something, that's a start. | |||
" As proof I put into my search engine DEI Hollywood and several stories all at the top of the page will explain why DEI has killed Hollywood and what they intend to do to recover. "Proof". Well, I'm just spoilt for intellectual rigour today, aren't I. Hey, at least you read something, that's a start." I am surprised as I usually agree with yourself, but we disagree today strange I do not think my views have changed. Has yours? | |||
" As proof I put into my search engine DEI Hollywood and several stories all at the top of the page will explain why DEI has killed Hollywood and what they intend to do to recover. "Proof". Well, I'm just spoilt for intellectual rigour today, aren't I. Hey, at least you read something, that's a start. I am surprised as I usually agree with yourself, but we disagree today strange I do not think my views have changed. Has yours?" I've had a scout around and all I can see is a big celebration of the so-called end of woke Hollywood with absolutely no substantive analysis of any verifiable connection between the rollback of progressive hiring practices in the film industry and the alleged corresponding profit surge. Happy to be shown evidence of direct causation, but I've found none. | |||
"Those bits will only affect workers if Reform decide to make changes. So far they've given no indication that they intend to. "Replace the 2010 Equalities Act The Equalities Act requires discrimination in the name of ‘positive action’. We will scrap Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DE&I) rules that have lowered standards and reduced economic productivity." From the Reform UK website - Our Contract with You. The wording is very interesting. The Act requires discrimination in the name of "positive action". Also, what evidence is there that DEI rules have a detrimental effect on economic productivity "A new report by EY UK underlines the critical importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I) in improving productivity and workforce innovation in UK companies amid an unpredictable macroeconomic environment." EY website. I was replying to the post from Just Rachel where they said "Those bits will affect a lot of workers". That was after a long quoted post about employment and health and safety rights. Reform have made no suggestion that they are going to change those. They have said that they will re-write the Equality Act to remove the "positive action" bits. " But I can bet a lot of companies will straight away remove a lot of workers rights, I know several companies that only did stuff as it was law. They would remove it, the minute they don't have to. | |||
" As proof I put into my search engine DEI Hollywood and several stories all at the top of the page will explain why DEI has killed Hollywood and what they intend to do to recover. "Proof". Well, I'm just spoilt for intellectual rigour today, aren't I. Hey, at least you read something, that's a start. I am surprised as I usually agree with yourself, but we disagree today strange I do not think my views have changed. Has yours? I've had a scout around and all I can see is a big celebration of the so-called end of woke Hollywood with absolutely no substantive analysis of any verifiable connection between the rollback of progressive hiring practices in the film industry and the alleged corresponding profit surge. Happy to be shown evidence of direct causation, but I've found none." Now by reading your interactions with other posters, I assume any facts will be debunked. The facts are out there. Hollywood Ditches DEI to Avoid Donald Trump’s Wrath Thats one of many that date back to 2024. The strongest correlation is when trump banned DEI and training of DEI threatening companies with federal fines if they continued the process. You see when film makers want to fund their films they need money, when DEI came into effect in holloywood film makers couldn't get insured let alone funded if they did not include a DEI element in their movies. In other words DEI or no cash. Leading many to believe that DEI was being forced onto us, so many voted with their feet hence the fall of super hero movies action Francises, and streaming services. And the box office takings that fell through the floor. Another fact is the moderator success of superman a movie which changed the model and looked at life through a lens of social media rather than gender roles.the moderate success has been to this shift many commentators say. | |||
"But I can bet a lot of companies will straight away remove a lot of workers rights, I know several companies that only did stuff as it was law. They would remove it, the minute they don't have to." I agree with you that a lot of companies would immediately take advantage of any relaxation of workers rights. But Reform haven't suggested that they intend to change any workers rights legislation. | |||
"But I can bet a lot of companies will straight away remove a lot of workers rights, I know several companies that only did stuff as it was law. They would remove it, the minute they don't have to. I agree with you that a lot of companies would immediately take advantage of any relaxation of workers rights. But Reform haven't suggested that they intend to change any workers rights legislation." Nor have they suggested that they will protect workers rights. It would be helpful to know their plan, so that the electorate can make informed decisions. | |||
"But I can bet a lot of companies will straight away remove a lot of workers rights, I know several companies that only did stuff as it was law. They would remove it, the minute they don't have to." "I agree with you that a lot of companies would immediately take advantage of any relaxation of workers rights. But Reform haven't suggested that they intend to change any workers rights legislation." "Nor have they suggested that they will protect workers rights." They haven't given a guarantee that they will protect the right to own houses, or the right to drive a car, or the right to speak English. Are you worried about losing those things too? | |||
"But I can bet a lot of companies will straight away remove a lot of workers rights, I know several companies that only did stuff as it was law. They would remove it, the minute they don't have to. I agree with you that a lot of companies would immediately take advantage of any relaxation of workers rights. But Reform haven't suggested that they intend to change any workers rights legislation. Nor have they suggested that they will protect workers rights. They haven't given a guarantee that they will protect the right to own houses, or the right to drive a car, or the right to speak English. Are you worried about losing those things too?" They haven't declared their intent to do away with any legislation on those matters. They have, however, declared intent to repeal the Equalities Act 2010, with no reassurance to working people that the protection afforded by it will be maintained. | |||
| |||
"But I can bet a lot of companies will straight away remove a lot of workers rights, I know several companies that only did stuff as it was law. They would remove it, the minute they don't have to. I agree with you that a lot of companies would immediately take advantage of any relaxation of workers rights. But Reform haven't suggested that they intend to change any workers rights legislation. Nor have they suggested that they will protect workers rights. They haven't given a guarantee that they will protect the right to own houses, or the right to drive a car, or the right to speak English. Are you worried about losing those things too? They haven't declared their intent to do away with any legislation on those matters. They have, however, declared intent to repeal the Equalities Act 2010, with no reassurance to working people that the protection afforded by it will be maintained. " You will need to be patient, intent is just intent. The detail will be presented closer to the GE. | |||
"But I can bet a lot of companies will straight away remove a lot of workers rights, I know several companies that only did stuff as it was law. They would remove it, the minute they don't have to. I agree with you that a lot of companies would immediately take advantage of any relaxation of workers rights. But Reform haven't suggested that they intend to change any workers rights legislation. Nor have they suggested that they will protect workers rights. They haven't given a guarantee that they will protect the right to own houses, or the right to drive a car, or the right to speak English. Are you worried about losing those things too? They haven't declared their intent to do away with any legislation on those matters. They have, however, declared intent to repeal the Equalities Act 2010, with no reassurance to working people that the protection afforded by it will be maintained. You will need to be patient, intent is just intent. The detail will be presented closer to the GE." It's not about patience, it's about a political party stating what they intend to do, but without a plan to back it up. | |||
| |||
"But I can bet a lot of companies will straight away remove a lot of workers rights, I know several companies that only did stuff as it was law. They would remove it, the minute they don't have to." "I agree with you that a lot of companies would immediately take advantage of any relaxation of workers rights. But Reform haven't suggested that they intend to change any workers rights legislation." "Nor have they suggested that they will protect workers rights." "They haven't given a guarantee that they will protect the right to own houses, or the right to drive a car, or the right to speak English. Are you worried about losing those things too?" "They haven't declared their intent to do away with any legislation on those matters. They have, however, declared intent to repeal the Equalities Act 2010, with no reassurance to working people that the protection afforded by it will be maintained." Again, there are no workers' rights contained within the Equality Act 2010. Even if they repeal the whole act and replace it with nothing at all, that won't change workers' rights. | |||
"But I can bet a lot of companies will straight away remove a lot of workers rights, I know several companies that only did stuff as it was law. They would remove it, the minute they don't have to. I agree with you that a lot of companies would immediately take advantage of any relaxation of workers rights. But Reform haven't suggested that they intend to change any workers rights legislation. Nor have they suggested that they will protect workers rights. They haven't given a guarantee that they will protect the right to own houses, or the right to drive a car, or the right to speak English. Are you worried about losing those things too? They haven't declared their intent to do away with any legislation on those matters. They have, however, declared intent to repeal the Equalities Act 2010, with no reassurance to working people that the protection afforded by it will be maintained. Again, there are no workers' rights contained within the Equality Act 2010. Even if they repeal the whole act and replace it with nothing at all, that won't change workers' rights." The main points of the Equality Act 2010 are to protect people from discrimination based on nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. The Act prohibits direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, and victimisation in areas like WORK, education, and the provision of goods and services. | |||
"The main points of the Equality Act 2010 are to protect people from discrimination based on nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. The Act prohibits direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, and victimisation in areas like WORK, education, and the provision of goods and services." The act prohibits discrimination anywhere. This includes workers, but that doesn't make it a bill of workers' rights. | |||
| |||
"But I can bet a lot of companies will straight away remove a lot of workers rights, I know several companies that only did stuff as it was law. They would remove it, the minute they don't have to. I agree with you that a lot of companies would immediately take advantage of any relaxation of workers rights. But Reform haven't suggested that they intend to change any workers rights legislation. Nor have they suggested that they will protect workers rights. They haven't given a guarantee that they will protect the right to own houses, or the right to drive a car, or the right to speak English. Are you worried about losing those things too? They haven't declared their intent to do away with any legislation on those matters. They have, however, declared intent to repeal the Equalities Act 2010, with no reassurance to working people that the protection afforded by it will be maintained. You will need to be patient, intent is just intent. The detail will be presented closer to the GE. It's not about patience, it's about a political party stating what they intend to do, but without a plan to back it up. " You should be aware that they will lay down the vision at a high level to gain peripheral support and interest, before putting any detail into their _anifesto? What you are constantly calling out as no plan will remain that way for a few years yet. Obviously you are well within your rights to continue to ask questions that nobody has answers for yet. | |||
"But I can bet a lot of companies will straight away remove a lot of workers rights, I know several companies that only did stuff as it was law. They would remove it, the minute they don't have to. I agree with you that a lot of companies would immediately take advantage of any relaxation of workers rights. But Reform haven't suggested that they intend to change any workers rights legislation. Nor have they suggested that they will protect workers rights. They haven't given a guarantee that they will protect the right to own houses, or the right to drive a car, or the right to speak English. Are you worried about losing those things too? They haven't declared their intent to do away with any legislation on those matters. They have, however, declared intent to repeal the Equalities Act 2010, with no reassurance to working people that the protection afforded by it will be maintained. You will need to be patient, intent is just intent. The detail will be presented closer to the GE. It's not about patience, it's about a political party stating what they intend to do, but without a plan to back it up. You should be aware that they will lay down the vision at a high level to gain peripheral support and interest, before putting any detail into their _anifesto? What you are constantly calling out as no plan will remain that way for a few years yet. Obviously you are well within your rights to continue to ask questions that nobody has answers for yet." . Even though I wouldn't vote for reform or think they are particularly good, I must say all parties not in power would never give an advantage by letting out the workings of their policies when an election is so far away. It is like James Bond giving away his secrets. | |||
"The main points of the Equality Act 2010 are to protect people from discrimination based on nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. The Act prohibits direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, and victimisation in areas like WORK, education, and the provision of goods and services. The act prohibits discrimination anywhere. This includes workers, but that doesn't make it a bill of workers' rights." You are correct. It is not only an act that protects people from discrimination in the workplace, it protects them in relation to housing, health, education, services and so on, so to do away with the act, with no credible alternative, should be of grave concern to many. | |||
| |||
"https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/political-parties-prepare-government The general advice seems to be to prepare and have solid plans in place. " Of course, but there is no advice on when to publish the data  | |||
"But I can bet a lot of companies will straight away remove a lot of workers rights, I know several companies that only did stuff as it was law. They would remove it, the minute they don't have to. I agree with you that a lot of companies would immediately take advantage of any relaxation of workers rights. But Reform haven't suggested that they intend to change any workers rights legislation. Nor have they suggested that they will protect workers rights. They haven't given a guarantee that they will protect the right to own houses, or the right to drive a car, or the right to speak English. Are you worried about losing those things too? They haven't declared their intent to do away with any legislation on those matters. They have, however, declared intent to repeal the Equalities Act 2010, with no reassurance to working people that the protection afforded by it will be maintained. You will need to be patient, intent is just intent. The detail will be presented closer to the GE. It's not about patience, it's about a political party stating what they intend to do, but without a plan to back it up. You should be aware that they will lay down the vision at a high level to gain peripheral support and interest, before putting any detail into their _anifesto? What you are constantly calling out as no plan will remain that way for a few years yet. Obviously you are well within your rights to continue to ask questions that nobody has answers for yet.. Even though I wouldn't vote for reform or think they are particularly good, I must say all parties not in power would never give an advantage by letting out the workings of their policies when an election is so far away. It is like James Bond giving away his secrets." When Labour was in opposition, leading up to the GE, they waited as long as possible before declaring their policies and goals. The reasons given, including in here, was that it was perfectly normal to do that and people should wait. | |||
| |||
| |||
"But I can bet a lot of companies will straight away remove a lot of workers rights, I know several companies that only did stuff as it was law. They would remove it, the minute they don't have to. I agree with you that a lot of companies would immediately take advantage of any relaxation of workers rights. But Reform haven't suggested that they intend to change any workers rights legislation. Nor have they suggested that they will protect workers rights. They haven't given a guarantee that they will protect the right to own houses, or the right to drive a car, or the right to speak English. Are you worried about losing those things too? They haven't declared their intent to do away with any legislation on those matters. They have, however, declared intent to repeal the Equalities Act 2010, with no reassurance to working people that the protection afforded by it will be maintained. You will need to be patient, intent is just intent. The detail will be presented closer to the GE. It's not about patience, it's about a political party stating what they intend to do, but without a plan to back it up. You should be aware that they will lay down the vision at a high level to gain peripheral support and interest, before putting any detail into their _anifesto? What you are constantly calling out as no plan will remain that way for a few years yet. Obviously you are well within your rights to continue to ask questions that nobody has answers for yet.. Even though I wouldn't vote for reform or think they are particularly good, I must say all parties not in power would never give an advantage by letting out the workings of their policies when an election is so far away. It is like James Bond giving away his secrets. When Labour was in opposition, leading up to the GE, they waited as long as possible before declaring their policies and goals. The reasons given, including in here, was that it was perfectly normal to do that and people should wait. " As far as I know it is the norm, would you give me your policies, so I can muddy your waters? Would you give me the advantage? Course not neither would i. | |||
| |||
"But I can bet a lot of companies will straight away remove a lot of workers rights, I know several companies that only did stuff as it was law. They would remove it, the minute they don't have to. I agree with you that a lot of companies would immediately take advantage of any relaxation of workers rights. But Reform haven't suggested that they intend to change any workers rights legislation. Nor have they suggested that they will protect workers rights. They haven't given a guarantee that they will protect the right to own houses, or the right to drive a car, or the right to speak English. Are you worried about losing those things too? They haven't declared their intent to do away with any legislation on those matters. They have, however, declared intent to repeal the Equalities Act 2010, with no reassurance to working people that the protection afforded by it will be maintained. You will need to be patient, intent is just intent. The detail will be presented closer to the GE. It's not about patience, it's about a political party stating what they intend to do, but without a plan to back it up. You should be aware that they will lay down the vision at a high level to gain peripheral support and interest, before putting any detail into their _anifesto? What you are constantly calling out as no plan will remain that way for a few years yet. Obviously you are well within your rights to continue to ask questions that nobody has answers for yet.. Even though I wouldn't vote for reform or think they are particularly good, I must say all parties not in power would never give an advantage by letting out the workings of their policies when an election is so far away. It is like James Bond giving away his secrets. When Labour was in opposition, leading up to the GE, they waited as long as possible before declaring their policies and goals. The reasons given, including in here, was that it was perfectly normal to do that and people should wait. As far as I know it is the norm, would you give me your policies, so I can muddy your waters? Would you give me the advantage? Course not neither would i." It'll be 90% fantasy and 10% lies anyway | |||
| |||
"But I can bet a lot of companies will straight away remove a lot of workers rights, I know several companies that only did stuff as it was law. They would remove it, the minute they don't have to. I agree with you that a lot of companies would immediately take advantage of any relaxation of workers rights. But Reform haven't suggested that they intend to change any workers rights legislation. Nor have they suggested that they will protect workers rights. They haven't given a guarantee that they will protect the right to own houses, or the right to drive a car, or the right to speak English. Are you worried about losing those things too? They haven't declared their intent to do away with any legislation on those matters. They have, however, declared intent to repeal the Equalities Act 2010, with no reassurance to working people that the protection afforded by it will be maintained. You will need to be patient, intent is just intent. The detail will be presented closer to the GE. It's not about patience, it's about a political party stating what they intend to do, but without a plan to back it up. You should be aware that they will lay down the vision at a high level to gain peripheral support and interest, before putting any detail into their _anifesto? What you are constantly calling out as no plan will remain that way for a few years yet. Obviously you are well within your rights to continue to ask questions that nobody has answers for yet.. Even though I wouldn't vote for reform or think they are particularly good, I must say all parties not in power would never give an advantage by letting out the workings of their policies when an election is so far away. It is like James Bond giving away his secrets. When Labour was in opposition, leading up to the GE, they waited as long as possible before declaring their policies and goals. The reasons given, including in here, was that it was perfectly normal to do that and people should wait. As far as I know it is the norm, would you give me your policies, so I can muddy your waters? Would you give me the advantage? Course not neither would i. It'll be 90% fantasy and 10% lies anyway" HAha I can not disagree with you. The worrying thing is people keep on voting for this sh1t show, let no one vote and sit back and see what they do, they cannot take power without us, so if we didn't give them power what would they do? | |||
| |||
"But I can bet a lot of companies will straight away remove a lot of workers rights, I know several companies that only did stuff as it was law. They would remove it, the minute they don't have to. I agree with you that a lot of companies would immediately take advantage of any relaxation of workers rights. But Reform haven't suggested that they intend to change any workers rights legislation. Nor have they suggested that they will protect workers rights. They haven't given a guarantee that they will protect the right to own houses, or the right to drive a car, or the right to speak English. Are you worried about losing those things too? They haven't declared their intent to do away with any legislation on those matters. They have, however, declared intent to repeal the Equalities Act 2010, with no reassurance to working people that the protection afforded by it will be maintained. You will need to be patient, intent is just intent. The detail will be presented closer to the GE. It's not about patience, it's about a political party stating what they intend to do, but without a plan to back it up. You should be aware that they will lay down the vision at a high level to gain peripheral support and interest, before putting any detail into their _anifesto? What you are constantly calling out as no plan will remain that way for a few years yet. Obviously you are well within your rights to continue to ask questions that nobody has answers for yet.. Even though I wouldn't vote for reform or think they are particularly good, I must say all parties not in power would never give an advantage by letting out the workings of their policies when an election is so far away. It is like James Bond giving away his secrets. When Labour was in opposition, leading up to the GE, they waited as long as possible before declaring their policies and goals. The reasons given, including in here, was that it was perfectly normal to do that and people should wait. As far as I know it is the norm, would you give me your policies, so I can muddy your waters? Would you give me the advantage? Course not neither would i." That I understand. What is not so clear is why are the less established parties expected to do what the traditional parties refuse to do. | |||
