Jump to content

The United Kingdom and the Death of Boris Johnson as we know it.

CB Fry

By CB Fry,
in The Lounge

 Share

SWF (Non Legally Binding) General Election  

193 members have voted

  1. 1. SWF (Non Legally Binding) General Election

    • Conservatives
      42
    • Labour
      65
    • Liberals
      54
    • UKIP
      1
    • Green
      18
    • Brexit
      8
    • Change UK
      0
    • Other
      5

Recommended Posts

buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

So Mad Lizzie has spoken. She wants to increase the retirement age even further, cut taxes (presumably because public services are all awash with too much cash) and reduce benefits. She did nothing wrong in office apart from slaughtering pigs too early . (presumably because of her obsession with pork markets).

How this woman still has the nerve to speak in public amazes me. Why the BBC choose to start their radio news bulletins with her thoughts is staggering.

 

She posted from a heating oil distributor a couple of days ago with some tosh designed to make her look good along the lines of "the Government shouldn't deliberately be making people poorer". She got absolutely hammered in the comments, 90% pointing out her hypocrisy and incredulous how she had the nerve to even still be in politics after  her 30 day disaster.    

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Tamesaint said:

So Mad Lizzie has spoken. She wants to increase the retirement age even further, cut taxes (presumably because public services are all awash with too much cash) and reduce benefits. She did nothing wrong in office apart from slaughtering pigs too early . (presumably because of her obsession with pork markets).

How this woman still has the nerve to speak in public amazes me. Why the BBC choose to start their radio news bulletins with her thoughts is staggering.

 

I used to defend the BBC but seems to be going rapidly downhill. The clowns on Breakfast tv are truly woeful interviewers constantly trying to try and pull Paxman type gotchas. Mostly embarrassing

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gloucester Saint

Gloucester Saint

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Fan The Flames said:

I wish Liz Truss would realise that only a handful of cunts want to live in her world.

One of the said (and sad) cunts is Alasdair Heath of the Telegraph who literally seems to have a teenage-type crush on her. The poor man’s Nick Robinson before Nick stopped being a cab for hire and became a proper journalist, not a third rate activist with dodgy non-Dom money. Bloke goes on about her all the time, constantly headlining when she’s about to make another side-splittingly stupid, wrong and just dopey set of comments. Hope she does become Tory leader again in opposition after they lose the next GE because it’s guaranteed to leave them as a third or fourth choice party with 40 seats left. 

Wow, that’s some quote from Kwarteng about her https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/liz-truss-tories-bank-england-b2413469.html

Loving the Carney quotes

Edited by Gloucester Saint
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tamesaint

Tamesaint

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, buctootim said:

She posted from a heating oil distributor a couple of days ago with some tosh designed to make her look good along the lines of "the Government shouldn't deliberately be making people poorer". She got absolutely hammered in the comments, 90% pointing out her hypocrisy and incredulous how she had the nerve to even still be in politics after  her 30 day disaster.    

Apparently, according to Truss, the current problems in the British economy have been caused by "the Left". You may think that the Conservatives have run the country over the last 13 years but in the Truss world the current problems are nothing to do with them. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
On 18/09/2023 at 22:29, whelk said:

These Laura K documentaries are interesting. Challenge anyone to watch and not be horrified at the lack of competency. Next week will be about Truss the fuckwit.

 

Just finished them. It is quite revealing hearing the Civil Servants and SPADs being allowed to speak.

A couple of points stood out; Dom Cummins plotting to oust Boris within days of their winning the GE, and Truss being so flustered during the fiasco of the fracking "is it / isn't it a Confidence Vote" that she forgot to vote herself.

Overall they just seem to ba bunch of chancers, and no doubt Labour and the LDs are pretty much from the same mould.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Screenshot_20230926_192700_WhatsApp.thumb.jpg.63570d2c04ce652a7704373535cca2e6.jpg

The dreadful woman has completely managed to trash the success of multiculturalism that led to her, the daughter of immigrants, rising to a senior cabinet position and serving a Prime Minister who is also the benefactor from immigration.

She also managed to repeat the lie that asylum seekers have to seek asylum in the first safe country they arrive at. No they do not and have not had to following the Refugee Convention in 1951.

No doubt this is a grandstanding stunt aimed at currying favour with the gammons ahead of a leadership bid when Sunak gets kicked out.

Edited by sadoldgit
Changed text
Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

The dreadful woman has completely managed to trash the success of multiculturalism that led to her, the daughter of immigrants, rising to a senior cabinet position and serving a Prime Minister who is also the benefactor from immigration.

 

But should these 'children of immigrants', now being British and therefore the beneficiaries of slavery, be contrite and willing to pay reparations, as Caribbean nations are stating ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Just finished them. It is quite revealing hearing the Civil Servants and SPADs being allowed to speak.

A couple of points stood out; Dom Cummins plotting to oust Boris within days of their winning the GE, and Truss being so flustered during the fiasco of the fracking "is it / isn't it a Confidence Vote" that she forgot to vote herself.

Overall they just seem to ba bunch of chancers, and no doubt Labour and the LDs are pretty much from the same mould.

Yes hearing from private secretary about clear continual lying about Pincher was staggering. Imagine being a thick twat that buys into ‘the blob’ being the problem when clear they have principles these charlatans don’t. Very interest programs alas probably not watched by many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rallyboy

rallyboy

Posted
Posted

As more detail emerges the Johnson cabinet is being exposed for what they were, and some still are.

History will not judge them well.

And if that involves a former SAS man chucking one of the corrupt cunts out of a helicopter into a lake, we just have to reluctantly accept that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Turkish said:

My sources tell me SAS who dares wins is going to be excellent viewing for those who are Matt Hancock fans 😉

If nobody saw it it was worth a watch, called "an absolute buffoon" by the DS then got questioned by the guys as to why he thought it was okay for him to break his own laws. 👏

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted (edited)

So if what they’re doing isn’t illegal, why is Starmer going on about cracking  down on the guys who arrange the crossings, why are lefties always criticising the people traffickers. Surely they’re just providing a service for people to legally come to the UK? 

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fan The Flames

Fan The Flames

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

So if what they’re doing isn’t illegal, why is Starmer going on about cracking  down on the guys who arrange the crossings, why are lefties always criticising the people traffickers. Surely they’re just providing a service for people to legally come to the UK? 

That's not really the gotcha you think it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
egg

egg

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, rallyboy said:

Someone seems to be confusing people-trafficking criminal gangs with asylum seekers.

Easy mistake to make...

 

That's a very confused statement. If the people arriving aren't doing anything wrong in your eyes, then it must follow that the gangs helping them arrive aren't doing anything wrong. Conversely, if the gangs helping the people arrive are "criminal gangs" then it must follow that the people are doing something illegal. 

Edited by egg
Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Confusing legitimate economic migrants with illegal economic migrants.

Easy mistake to make...

Breaking the law is breaking the law isn't it?  I'm sure every burglar in the land is just 'wanting a better life', doesn't stop them being scumbags.

I think it's clear who the scumbags are around here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, egg said:

That's a very confused statement. If the people arriving aren't doing anything wrong in your eyes, then it must follow that the gangs helping them arrive aren't doing anything wrong. Conversely, if the gangs helping the people arrive are "criminal gangs" then it must follow that the people are doing something illegal. 

Not necessarily....

The criminal gangs could be illegally trafficking people i.e. modern day slavery. The "people" are therefore not doing anything wrong per se if they have no control, as they are legitimate victims.

There is a distinction between all those that cross the channel illegally (i.e. without the documents to do so legally), some choose to do so willingly, others are forced to do so. Some will claim asylum legitimately, some will claim asylum spuriously.

It's a complicated area, so little wonder folk like aintclever get confused.

Easy mistake to make.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tamesaint

Tamesaint

Posted
Posted

People bang on about illegal asylum seekers but the sad truth is that there no legal ways for asylum seekers to enter the country (with the exception of Ukrainians, Syrians and Afghans).

Witness this shafting of hapless Braverman by the right wing Tory MP Tim Loughton.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D6Nhl87CLU70&ved=2ahUKEwjvyNPF6cyBAxXrRkEAHcJKB1MQwqsBegQIDxAG&usg=AOvVaw17tdJuEVWiW5v6mxOyikW6

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

 some choose to do so willingly, others are forced to 

So what you’re saying is some pay to do so, but others are taken over against their will.

I presume the ones brought over against their will, want to go back to France if they end up with the British Authorities. How many of those “forced” to come over, end up staying? And what % of room on the boats are used for these “forced” people.
 

If I was one of these ruthless criminal gang members, I’d want paying punters on board rather than “forced” people. Particularly as my two customer groups have entirely different goals. My legal asylum seekers actual want the British authorities to find them (so that they can claim asylum), whereas the people doing the trafficking don’t want the “forced” people to come to the authorities attention. It is a bit of a conundrum, no wonder they’re paid so much. 
 

Personally, if I was trafficking people against their will, I wouldn’t try and get them into the country via a rickety boat across a dangerous stretch of water. I certainly wouldn’t want them travelling with legal asylum seekers either. If they don’t make it, or get caught I’ve lost my dough. 
 

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tamesaint

Tamesaint

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

So what you’re saying is some pay to do so, but others are taken over against their will.

I presume the ones brought over against their will, want to go back to France if they end up with the British Authorities. How many of those “forced” to come over, end up staying? And what % of room on the boats are used for these “forced” people.
 

If I was one of these ruthless criminal gang members, I’d want paying punters on board rather than “forced” people. Particularly as my two customer groups have entirely different goals. My legal asylum seekers actual want the British authorities to find them (so that they can claim asylum), whereas the people doing the trafficking don’t want the “forced” people to come to the authorities attention. It is a bit of a conundrum, no wonder they’re paid so much. 
 

Personally, if I was trafficking people against their will, I wouldn’t try and get them into the country via a rickety boat across a dangerous stretch of water. I certainly wouldn’t want them travelling with legal asylum seekers either. If they don’t make it, or get caught I’ve lost my dough. 
 

FFS. Let's say it again.

Unless you come from Ukraine, Syria or Afghanistan there is NO LEGAL route into the country for asylum seekers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

So what you’re saying is some pay to do so, but others are taken over against their will.

I presume the ones brought over against their will, want to go back to France if they end up with the British Authorities. How many of those “forced” to come over, end up staying? And what % of room on the boats are used for these “forced” people.
 

If I was one of these ruthless criminal gang members, I’d want paying punters on board rather than “forced” people. Particularly as my two customer groups have entirely different goals. My legal asylum seekers actual want the British authorities to find them (so that they can claim asylum), whereas the people doing the trafficking don’t want the “forced” people to come to the authorities attention. It is a bit of a conundrum, no wonder they’re paid so much. 
 

Personally, if I was trafficking people against their will, I wouldn’t try and get them into the country via a rickety boat across a dangerous stretch of water. I certainly wouldn’t want them travelling with legal asylum seekers either. If they don’t make it, or get caught I’ve lost my dough. 
 

They aren't being trafficked against their will to sit around claiming benefits. They are classed as modern day slaves and will be put to work by their "owners" in jobs where the "owners" control the money they earn, or they will be used as sex workers and never see any money. That is what the traffickers "get" out of the arrangement.

That is very different to many others crossing on the boats who have already paid someone for their crossing based on promises of the golden goose at the other end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Tamesaint said:

FFS. Let's say it again.

Unless you come from Ukraine, Syria or Afghanistan there is NO LEGAL route into the country for asylum seekers. 

Are the people arriving from France in small boats acting illegally or not? 
 

If they are legally attempting to seek asylum, then it stands to reason that the people facilitating their arrival are also acting legally. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Tamesaint said:

FFS. Let's say it again.

Unless you come from Ukraine, Syria or Afghanistan there is NO LEGAL route into the country for asylum seekers. 

Isn't that through the application of the 1951 charter on refugees rather than a decision made wholly by the UK?

Also, isn't it the UNHCR that decides who is and who isn't a refugee rather than someone who crosses the channel on a small boat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Isn't that through the application of the 1951 charter on refugees rather than a decision made wholly by the UK?

 

No, it is defined in UK Law;

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes

There is also this;

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/refugees-and-asylum-seekers-uk-policy/#heading-2

Which includes "To claim asylum in the UK, a person must be physically in the UK. It is not possible to apply from outside the country, and there is no asylum visa. A person cannot obtain a visa with the explicit purpose of seeking asylum. Therefore, for individuals who do not have visa-free travel to the UK, they must enter either irregularly, such as by a small boat; by using false documents; or on a visa for some other purpose, such as tourism or study."

Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

No, it is defined in UK Law;

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes

There is also this;

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/refugees-and-asylum-seekers-uk-policy/#heading-2

Which includes "To claim asylum in the UK, a person must be physically in the UK. It is not possible to apply from outside the country, and there is no asylum visa. A person cannot obtain a visa with the explicit purpose of seeking asylum. Therefore, for individuals who do not have visa-free travel to the UK, they must enter either irregularly, such as by a small boat; by using false documents; or on a visa for some other purpose, such as tourism or study."

Very true.

The question is, was UK law put in place to ensure we abide by the refugee act?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Are the people arriving from France in small boats acting illegally or not? 
 

If they are legally attempting to seek asylum, then it stands to reason that the people facilitating their arrival are also acting legally. 

No, because there are numerous other laws undoubtedly being broken by the traffickers which are not directly related to the law covering the claiming of asylum.

They're not exactly running a legitimate, licensed ferry service are they. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

No, it is defined in UK Law;

Which includes "To claim asylum in the UK, a person must be physically in the UK. It is not possible to apply from outside the country, and there is no asylum visa. A person cannot obtain a visa with the explicit purpose of seeking asylum. Therefore, for individuals who do not have visa-free travel to the UK, they must enter either irregularly, such as by a small boat; by using false documents; or on a visa for some other purpose, such as tourism or study."

I assume this is governed by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, so presumably we have Tony and the loving, caring Labour party to thank for these stipulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I assume this is governed by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, so presumably we have Tony and the loving, caring Labour party to thank for these stipulations.

I think that Act defines what happens once they have arrived, not how they might get here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Fan The Flames said:

So why is Stop the Boats one of Sunaks pledges.

Because he thinks people crossing the channel are acting illegally. Therefore the people helping them are criminal gangs.
 

If you think these people are genuine asylum seekers acting legally, then surely the people helping them are simply helping the oppressed and persecuted reach a safe country. 

 

Who cares if their boats don’t conform with regulations, or theyre not a “legitimate ferry service”. If I was fearing for my life and needed somebody to help me find a safe country where I can claim asylum, I wouldn’t really care how they got me there. I certainly would want them prosecuted or called a “criminal gang”. 
 

 

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

So Liz Truss wants to "Make Britain Grow Again".

Amazing, original slogan Liz. You must be so pleased with yourself for totally coming up with that on your own.

Why that useless fucker gets any coverage is beyond me. Is it her tits?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...