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

[AlexLaw76]

18 minutes ago, Turkish said:

/\ agreed. We should put them in small, white towns in rural areas with aging populations, places like Romney Marsh. Not only does that tick all the boxes you mention as being a rural town with an aging population, it could also do with a bit of diversity in it's 97% white, British population, where the residents there tell us from the comfort of their middle class homes how terrible it is the way immigrants are being treated so would be sure of a warm welcome there. Plus there is a muslim barber and a mixed race barmaid in the local so anyone moving there from overseas would immediately have a couple of friendly faces

Bit like Maidstone?

[Turkish]

6 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Bit like Maidstone?

they wont feel safe there, it's one of the most violent towns in Europe! Out of the frying pan into the fire comes to mind.

[ashnats]

Surely this is all nonsense, if 100m people come here, surely that is basically an invasion? For those who believe our government, shouldn't we be setting up the home front and going to war? We can't just sit and watch 100m people come to the uk, we can't detain 100m people, and we can't even deport 100m to Rwanda, it's logistically impossible. So surely we should be setting up some camps to 'process' them?

 

Or is the water not boiling yet, maybe we come back to that idea later.

[sadoldgit]

15 hours ago, egg said:

They are rich enough to pay people smugglers... that's how they end up on the boats of people smugglers. 

Isn't putting the money they'd give to the people smugglers better used on starting a life in one of the other safe countries they've passed through? 

Rich? Even the Tory mouthpiece on QT last night started off by saying they were spending their “life savings” on the crossing. These people are risking their lives and some lose them. Shouldn’t that put this into perspective.? And you know full well that the migrants coming here are a small percentage of the total. There are good reasons for people wanting to settle is specific countries from speaking the language to having a support network there of family and friends. Strangely enough, not all migrants want to settle in the UK ( and those wanting to go to Rwanda, wouldn’t they go there first rather than coming here to be sent there later?).

So back to the Tory policy of distraction. They and the right wing press have managed to pull it off again. A football programme presenter through one small tweet has managed to displace the actual discussion about the bill has managed to become the story now. How ridiculous is that? When you actually look at what he said he was also spot on. The fact that virtually all of the far right organisations across Europe are lining up to praise the bill should be a major indicator of what is going on here. 

[LuckyNumber7]

28 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

Seriously? huge swathes of countryside are not being concreted. Drive like 20-30 minutes out of Southampton in many directions and there is huge amounts of empty land, the north of Hampshire alone is not densely populated at all and that is the South East. Also actually some of the more densely populated places in the UK are in the north like Manchester, Liverpool etc. plus the Birmingham area, whilst other areas like the south west, east anglia, even like Kent, north Hampshire, Dorset etc. none of these places are densely populated. Many rural communities are fading away, they have no young people in them, village shops and pubs are closing due to lack of trade, they have no bus services, schools are closing, no police in the area. If we moved away from the dependency on urban areas and being London centric housing would not be an issue, but of course you have the dumb government demanding people go back to work in the cities after covid even though millions upon millions of people proved that working from home was not only viable but better for them and their productivity, but that would leave offices empty and rich landlords losing money, so mates of Tories get less rich and that is who they really care about.

Also overall we are not a very densely populated country, we are like 52nd in the world, with a population density of around 700 people per square km, which is massively skewed by London where it's 5,700 people per km2, whereas the south east it goes down to 481. So you are painting a false picture to drive a narrative, probably crowded countries are like South Korea, India, Belgium etc. where overall population density average is in the thousands per km2.

You also get that people die yeh? people emigrate, go work abroad, migrants leave, its not a 1 for 1 situation, talking about a massive complicated issue like housing in such simple terms is well just simple and blaming any part of it on immigrants is just flat out wrong.  Again it just highlights the whole point, the real issues are ones within the country that the government has been failing on for years, but instead they try to con people that it's immigrants causing the issues, 50k immigrants have basically nothing to do with our housing issues.

Try travelling around the US and you will see what 'huge amounts of empty land' looks like, it ain't this country where you're rarely more than a few miles away from the nearest town or village. Countryside is important for many reasons and does not just exist to be built on.

Yes I get that people die, emigrate etc, and? NET migration is currently over half a million people and that's not even including the ones coming over on boats. That means we have to effectively build TWO Southamptons every year just to accommodate the people coming here legally, and still you want more. That is nowhere near sustainable and is it any wonder so many younger people will never be able to own their own home.

28 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

As for 'illegal' well they just aren't at all, people seeking asylum or have refugee status are not 'illegal' immigrants and considering around 80-90% asylum applications are actually approved, that would make the vast majority of the people crossing on boats not illegal immigrants. 

Nor does crossing through multiple safe countries have anything to do with it.  There is no provision in the rights of refugees, of which we are a signatory to and helped originally draft, that they have to apply for asylum in the first 'safe' country they find. We also take far less than most other European countries, including France, so that argument is complete nonsense on every level. 

We take less because we are a much smaller country so it's not nonsense at all. If France want to take in millions then that's up to them but should have no bearing on how many we allow in. When would enough be enough for you, or should we just wave everyone through who wants to come here?

28 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

They aren't illegal, they have every right to apply for asylum here and we take in far less than everyone else. That is also despite the fact that many of them are coming from countries we have interfered with and destabilised, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan being key ones. 

Nor will this stop the boats at all, anyone who thinks that is completely stupid. Not only is this plan by the Tories illegal and literally contravenes international law, but it will do sweet FA about the boats, it will just lead to more people trying to bypass the asylum system, more people going into modern slavery, being sex trafficked etc. 

If you want to stop the boats then you formalise the whole process properly, invest in more resources, processing centres in France, go after the criminal gangs, more people to process asylum claims and then let people come across in ferries, planes, trains etc. open up safe routes of entry for asylum seekers and you cut the boats problem.

Yes they have a right to apply for asylum, that is very different to travelling over on dinghies. On that last paragraph I agree, we should be doing that AS WELL as cracking down on the illegal boat crossings.

28 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

This 'stick' you are talking about is nonsense, the Rwanda programme didn't work either, this is just as nonsense as that plan.

I never mentioned stick, I said remove the carrot. If they know they won't be allowed to stay then they would be pretty stupid to still pay thousands to a criminal gang to risk their lives and be permanently banned from the UK.

28 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

As for this line - 'A government's job is to look after it's own people first, not anyone who decides they want to come here.' Well no for a start, we are obligated by international law to look after and let in people seeking asylum, again we literally helped draft these international laws and agreements after WW2, and pretty much every Tory government of the last 60-70 years has recognised that right and thought it was important, right up to this one that has swung so far right they make Thatcher look like a centrist. 

Then we need to re-draft it or rip it up altogether as it's not working in this day and age. The rights of foreigners should always be second to those of the people living here.

28 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

But also they don't do that, the country is a mess, everything is screwed up through Tory mismanagement, lack of investment, corruption, austerity policies. So instead of wasting time, money, attention on a non-existent problem, they should be actually looking out for the British people but they haven't done that for 13 years. 

500 people died unnecessarily last year because of excessive ambulance waiting times.  That is scandalous, yet her we are talking about an irrelevant problem of some people coming across in boats acting like it's the biggest issue facing the country right now. The NHS is broken, waiting lists are through the roof, Tories stole hundreds of millions of pounds in PPE contracts for their mates, cost of living is through the roof, living standards are the worst they have ever been, trade and business is being hamstrung by Brexit, sewage is being pumped into our rivers and seas whilst water companies give their CEOs huge bonuses of millions, people can't afford to heat their homes whilst energy companies pay millions to their shareholders, but yeh let's focus on some desperate people crossing the channel.....

Lol and this just sounds like anti Tory, anti Brexit frothing at the mouth. Some valid points in there but I have no love for any of the political parties. 

But yeah let's make things better by welcoming in more of these 'poor, desperate' people, like this guy.

https://www.aol.co.uk/news/man-came-uk-illegal-boat-171222786.html

28 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

 

 

[trousers]

9 hours ago, moonraker said:

It’s a myth that they have to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, is not has been part of the UN rules for refugees we are signatories to

1 hour ago, tajjuk said:

Nor does crossing through multiple safe countries have anything to do with it.  There is no provision in the rights of refugees, of which we are a signatory to and helped originally draft, that they have to apply for asylum in the first 'safe' country they find.

I think we can all acknowledge and agree that international law allows people to claim asylum in whatever country they choose to do so. That's a given. I guess what some people find hard to comprehend, perhaps understandably to a certain degree, is why someone fleeing their homeland for fear of their life wouldn't naturally seek to claim asylum as soon as they reach safety, in whatever country that may be. I guess what some people are thinking is: "surely the relief of having saved their life would lead them to claim asylum as soon as possible rather than possibly risk their life further by extending/prolonging their journeys more than they need to in order to stay safe?"

In other words, just because the law allows someone to do something, it may not actually be logical and/or sensible to do what the law allows you to do?

Edited 10 March, 2023 by trousers

[egg]

25 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Rich? Even the Tory mouthpiece on QT last night started off by saying they were spending their “life savings” on the crossing. These people are risking their lives and some lose them. Shouldn’t that put this into perspective.? And you know full well that the migrants coming here are a small percentage of the total. There are good reasons for people wanting to settle is specific countries from speaking the language to having a support network there of family and friends. Strangely enough, not all migrants want to settle in the UK ( and those wanting to go to Rwanda, wouldn’t they go there first rather than coming here to be sent there later?).

So back to the Tory policy of distraction. They and the right wing press have managed to pull it off again. A football programme presenter through one small tweet has managed to displace the actual discussion about the bill has managed to become the story now. How ridiculous is that? When you actually look at what he said he was also spot on. The fact that virtually all of the far right organisations across Europe are lining up to praise the bill should be a major indicator of what is going on here. 

You misunderstand the concept of asylum SOG. It is different to illegal economic migration. 

[Turkish]

26 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Rich? Even the Tory mouthpiece on QT last night started off by saying they were spending their “life savings” on the crossing. These people are risking their lives and some lose them. Shouldn’t that put this into perspective.? And you know full well that the migrants coming here are a small percentage of the total. There are good reasons for people wanting to settle is specific countries from speaking the language to having a support network there of family and friends. Strangely enough, not all migrants want to settle in the UK ( and those wanting to go to Rwanda, wouldn’t they go there first rather than coming here to be sent there later?).

So back to the Tory policy of distraction. They and the right wing press have managed to pull it off again. A football programme presenter through one small tweet has managed to displace the actual discussion about the bill has managed to become the story now. How ridiculous is that? When you actually look at what he said he was also spot on. The fact that virtually all of the far right organisations across Europe are lining up to praise the bill should be a major indicator of what is going on here. 

Forget the Tory policy for minute, do you think it's right that criminal gangs are taking life savings off of potentially vunerable people to get them to risk their lives by travelling across a sea in a dingy, so they can enter a country illegally? 

Do you also believe that if you were genuinely in fear of your safety you would travel thousands of miles further than you needed to, risking your life so you could get to where you want to be, not need to be to be safe. 

 

 

[swannymere]

9 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Forget the Tory policy for minute, do you think it's right that criminal gangs are taking life savings off of potentially vunerable people to get them to risk their lives by travelling across a sea in a dingy, so they can enter a country illegally? 

Do you also believe that if you were genuinely in fear of your safety you would travel thousands of miles further than you needed to, risking your life so you could get to where you want to be, not need to be to be safe. 

 

 

Those are not the rules, it doesn't have to be the first place of safety. Maybe targeting the smugglers would be the better idea.  I believe that many people coming to the UK do so because they speak English as a second language. If you're coming to start a new life or even temporary safety then being able to speak the language is an advantage. It also doesn't help that they're not allowed to work upon entry, surely giving them an NI number and tax code would remove some of the resentment?

[Turkish]

11 minutes ago, swannymere said:

Those are not the rules, it doesn't have to be the first place of safety. Maybe targeting the smugglers would be the better idea.  I believe that many people coming to the UK do so because they speak English as a second language. If you're coming to start a new life or even temporary safety then being able to speak the language is an advantage. It also doesn't help that they're not allowed to work upon entry, surely giving them an NI number and tax code would remove some of the resentment?

I never said it was the rules. I'm trying to put myself in the position of someone fleeing their home country because they're in fear of their life. Why would you risk extending your journey for hundreds or thousands more miles, weeks or months, with little money, then risk your life again by crossing a sea in a dingy paying criminal gangs, when you could be safe an awful lot sooner. If i had to ever flee England because of fear of death but wales was safe, i'd settle over the border there, i wouldn't give my life savings to a criminal gang trying to cross the Irish sea in a dingy especially if had wife and children with me would you?

Edited 10 March, 2023 by Turkish

[swannymere]

10 minutes ago, Turkish said:

I never said it was the rules. I'm trying to put myself in the position of someone fleeing their home country because they're in fear of their life. Why would you risk extending your journey for hundreds or thousands more miles, weeks or months, with little money, then risk your life again by crossing a sea in a dingy paying criminal gangs, when you could be safe an awful lot sooner. If i had to ever flee England because of fear of death but wales was safe, i'd settle over the border there, i wouldn't give my life savings to a criminal gang trying to cross the Irish sea in a dingy especially if had wife and children with me would you?

That analogy doesn't work as they speak English in Wales and Ireland, what about a choice of Ireland or a european country where you don't speak the language. Let's face it the English would be terrible refugees as the vast majority are crap at languages.

[Turkish]

6 minutes ago, swannymere said:

That analogy doesn't work as they speak English in Wales and Ireland, what about a choice of Ireland or a european country where you don't speak the language. Let's face it the English would be terrible refugees as the vast majority are crap at languages.

You're totally missing the point, it's a safety issue so  it's the point that why would you put yourself at further risk when saving your life is your priority, only to then risk it again by doing something very dangerous when you are already safe. Why would the language matter if you were so desperate to save the lives of your family and yourself? 

Try it the other way then, if the safety of myself and family was the priority it'd still be the same, i'd settle in France, i wouldn't spend weeks or months trying to get to the Amalfi coast or the Algarve with no money, even though that is where i would want to be

Edited 10 March, 2023 by Turkish

[swannymere]

Not missing the point at all, you think one way, i think another. You think i'm wrong, i think you're wrong. Etc. etc.

[trousers]

7 minutes ago, swannymere said:

Not missing the point at all, you think one way, i think another. You think i'm wrong, i think you're wrong. Etc. etc.

I don't think Turkish is expressing an opinion here, rather he's trying to understand what goes through someone's mind when they've accomplished what they set out to do, i.e. save their life, but who then go on to do something thereafter that puts their life back in danger again. I think it's a valid scenario to want to understand as it does appear somewhat illogical on the surface.

Edited 10 March, 2023 by trousers

[Turkish]

28 minutes ago, swannymere said:

Not missing the point at all, you think one way, i think another. You think i'm wrong, i think you're wrong. Etc. etc.

Trousers sums it up, if safety of you and your family was the sole concern then why would you risk your life again? It doesn't make sense. 

22 minutes ago, trousers said:

I don't think Turkish is expressing an opinion here, rather he's trying to understand what goes through someone's mind when they've accomplished what they set out to do, i.e. save their life, but who then go on to do something thereafter that puts their life back in danger again. I think it's a valid scenario to want to understand as it does appear somewhat illogical on the surface.

 

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, egg said:

You misunderstand the concept of asylum SOG. It is different to illegal economic migration. 

But we don’t know until the people are processed about why they are seeking to relocate here. Perhaps the Government should make it easier/possible to apply to resettle here without actually having to be in the country?

[Lord Duckhunter]

58 minutes ago, Turkish said:

 If i had to ever flee England because of fear of death but wales was safe, i'd settle over the border there, i wouldn't give my life savings to a criminal gang trying to cross the Irish sea in a dingy especially if had wife and children with me would you?

I’d stay in England and take my chances or make that perilous crossing rather than live amongst Taffs.

Perhaps that’s the problem, these people are desperate, but not desperate enough to have to socialise and work with Frenchmen. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

Perhaps the Government should make it easier/possible to apply to resettle here without actually having to be in the country?

Perhaps we could process them in Rwanda. 

[AlexLaw76]

24 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

But we don’t know until the people are processed about why they are seeking to relocate here. Perhaps the Government should make it easier/possible to apply to resettle here without actually having to be in the country?

I remember when you championed a migrant processing centre, located over seas...

 

That was until the Government actually set one up, and you went all frothy-mouthed about it

[Whitey Grandad]

3 hours ago, tajjuk said:

Seriously? huge swathes of countryside are not being concreted. Drive like 20-30 minutes out of Southampton in many directions and there is huge amounts of empty land, the north of Hampshire alone is not densely populated at all and that is the South East. Also actually some of the more densely populated places in the UK are in the north like Manchester, Liverpool etc. plus the Birmingham area, whilst other areas like the south west, east anglia, even like Kent, north Hampshire, Dorset etc. none of these places are densely populated. Many rural communities are fading away, they have no young people in them, village shops and pubs are closing due to lack of trade, they have no bus services, schools are closing, no police in the area. If we moved away from the dependency on urban areas and being London centric housing would not be an issue, but of course you have the dumb government demanding people go back to work in the cities after covid even though millions upon millions of people proved that working from home was not only viable but better for them and their productivity, but that would leave offices empty and rich landlords losing money, so mates of Tories get less rich and that is who they really care about.

Also overall we are not a very densely populated country, we are like 52nd in the world, with a population density of around 700 people per square km, which is massively skewed by London where it's 5,700 people per km2, whereas the south east it goes down to 481. So you are painting a false picture to drive a narrative, probably crowded countries are like South Korea, India, Belgium etc. where overall population density average is in the thousands per km2.

You also get that people die yeh? people emigrate, go work abroad, migrants leave, its not a 1 for 1 situation, talking about a massive complicated issue like housing in such simple terms is well just simple and blaming any part of it on immigrants is just flat out wrong.  Again it just highlights the whole point, the real issues are ones within the country that the government has been failing on for years, but instead they try to con people that it's immigrants causing the issues, 50k immigrants have basically nothing to do with our housing issues.

As for 'illegal' well they just aren't at all, people seeking asylum or have refugee status are not 'illegal' immigrants and considering around 80-90% asylum applications are actually approved, that would make the vast majority of the people crossing on boats not illegal immigrants. 

Nor does crossing through multiple safe countries have anything to do with it.  There is no provision in the rights of refugees, of which we are a signatory to and helped originally draft, that they have to apply for asylum in the first 'safe' country they find. We also take far less than most other European countries, including France, so that argument is complete nonsense on every level. 

They aren't illegal, they have every right to apply for asylum here and we take in far less than everyone else. That is also despite the fact that many of them are coming from countries we have interfered with and destabilised, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan being key ones. 

Nor will this stop the boats at all, anyone who thinks that is completely stupid. Not only is this plan by the Tories illegal and literally contravenes international law, but it will do sweet FA about the boats, it will just lead to more people trying to bypass the asylum system, more people going into modern slavery, being sex trafficked etc. 

If you want to stop the boats then you formalise the whole process properly, invest in more resources, processing centres in France, go after the criminal gangs, more people to process asylum claims and then let people come across in ferries, planes, trains etc. open up safe routes of entry for asylum seekers and you cut the boats problem.

This 'stick' you are talking about is nonsense, the Rwanda programme didn't work either, this is just as nonsense as that plan.

As for this line - 'A government's job is to look after it's own people first, not anyone who decides they want to come here.' Well no for a start, we are obligated by international law to look after and let in people seeking asylum, again we literally helped draft these international laws and agreements after WW2, and pretty much every Tory government of the last 60-70 years has recognised that right and thought it was important, right up to this one that has swung so far right they make Thatcher look like a centrist. 

But also they don't do that, the country is a mess, everything is screwed up through Tory mismanagement, lack of investment, corruption, austerity policies. So instead of wasting time, money, attention on a non-existent problem, they should be actually looking out for the British people but they haven't done that for 13 years. 

500 people died unnecessarily last year because of excessive ambulance waiting times.  That is scandalous, yet her we are talking about an irrelevant problem of some people coming across in boats acting like it's the biggest issue facing the country right now. The NHS is broken, waiting lists are through the roof, Tories stole hundreds of millions of pounds in PPE contracts for their mates, cost of living is through the roof, living standards are the worst they have ever been, trade and business is being hamstrung by Brexit, sewage is being pumped into our rivers and seas whilst water companies give their CEOs huge bonuses of millions, people can't afford to heat their homes whilst energy companies pay millions to their shareholders, but yeh let's focus on some desperate people crossing the channel.....

 

The south east of England is very densely populated.

You seem to think that all you need for housing is a bit of land. This is the simple logic of a simpleton. You also need electricity, gas (or more electricity), water, waste water, sewerage, schools, doctors, dentists, hospitals, roads, and some other land in order to replace the land that you’ve just built over.

Yet thickheads like you (I don’t abuse people very often) haven’t begun to think about any of these requirements.

You also need to find somebody to pay for all this. 200,000 new homes at £200,000 each minimum is £40bn that is taken out of the economy and invested in bricks and mortar. And that is just the direct cost. There is also the detrimental effect in the rest of the economy.

And don’t get me started in CO2 emissions. 

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

they wont feel safe there, it's one of the most violent towns in Europe! Out of the frying pan into the fire comes to mind.

Terrible soulless place.

[CB Fry]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

You also need to find somebody to pay for all this. 200,000 new homes at £200,000 each minimum is £40bn that is taken out of the economy and invested in bricks and mortar. And that is just the direct cost. There is also the detrimental effect in the rest of the economy.

Housebuilding isn't contributing to the economy now?

And you're calling other people thick.

[egg]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

But we don’t know until the people are processed about why they are seeking to relocate here. Perhaps the Government should make it easier/possible to apply to resettle here without actually having to be in the country?

The fact that they are safe before they make an unsafe journey to get here tells me that they are not coming here to seek asylum/safety. 

[badgerx16]

5 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Perhaps we could process them in Rwanda. 

 

4 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I remember when you championed a migrant processing centre, located over seas...

 

That was until the Government actually set one up, and you went all frothy-mouthed about it

The Rwanda scheme is not intended to "process" their applications, it is a one way ticket at the end of which Rwanda will decide if the migrants will be accepted to live in Rwanda.

Interestingly, the agreement with Rwanda states that the UK agrees to accept from Rwanda a number of that country's own refugees;

From the Memorandum of Understanding,

"16 Resettlement of vulnerable Refugees

16.1 The Participants will make arrangements for the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom, recognising both Participants’ commitment towards providing better international protection for refugees."

 

Edited 10 March, 2023 by badgerx16

[sadoldgit]

On 09/03/2023 at 18:35, Lord Duckhunter said:

The people smugglers do it for free do they? 
 

Classic Sog 😂

I did not say or suggest that they do it for free. You are either being deliberately obtuse or you are not very bright. Given that you have likes from Dumb and Dumber I would favour the latter. Most people with a shred of humanity and compassion can see through the B/S spouted by the likes of Patel, Braverman and even your hero Farage, but you swallow it hook line and sinker. The further right people are from the political centre, the less humane, intelligent and more gullible they seem to become.

[egg]

3 hours ago, egg said:

The fact that they are safe before they make an unsafe journey to get here tells me that they are not coming here to seek asylum/safety. 

What's confusing SoG? Is France a dangerous place mate? 

[whelk]

Does anyone think Suella Braverman has ever had sex?

[whelk]

Is Sunak shrinking? Fucking puny fella even Macron towers over him. And wear normal clothes and maybe platform shoes

[Turkish]

25 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I did not say or suggest that they do it for free. You are either being deliberately obtuse or you are not very bright. Given that you have likes from Dumb and Dumber I would favour the latter. Most people with a shred of humanity and compassion can see through the B/S spouted by the likes of Patel, Braverman and even your hero Farage, but you swallow it hook line and sinker. The further right people are from the political centre, the less humane, intelligent and more gullible they seem to become.

What's your excuse?

[ecuk268]

58 minutes ago, egg said:

What's confusing SoG? Is France a dangerous place mate? 

France has a much more efficient means of removing those who do not qualify.

Their national ID card scheme means that it is much more difficult to work illegally, so the UK is a more attractive destination.

Also a lot of them speak English and can disappear into the black economy (car washes, restaurants etc).

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, egg said:

What's confusing SoG? 

The modern world is. He longs for far off days when there was nothing wrong with assuming a non white was a migrant , and “they” were called something else. 

[Turkish]

3 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I did not say or suggest that they do it for free. You are either being deliberately obtuse or you are not very bright. Given that you have likes from Dumb and Dumber I would favour the latter. Most people with a shred of humanity and compassion can see through the B/S spouted by the likes of Patel, Braverman and even your hero Farage, but you swallow it hook line and sinker. The further right people are from the political centre, the less humane, intelligent and more gullible they seem to become.

How can wallies like you and the other clowns on here say we are far right or anything like 1930s Germany. We’ve got politicians that think men can have a cervix, they bend over backwards not to be seen as racist, we’ve got a person of Asian descent as prime minister, the constant promotion of gay rights, police forces that turn a blind eye to crime because they don’t want to offend the local communities, the mayor of our capital says being hit by terrorism is just part of life in a big city. We’re about as far away from a far right, Germany 1930s government as you can get. Yet some of you mugs bang on about facism because they’ve decided to make it slightly more difficult than rolling out the red carpet to anyone who wants to come here. 

Edited 10 March, 2023 by Turkish

[Holmes_and_Watson]

11 hours ago, Turkish said:

 If i had to ever flee England because of fear of death but wales was safe, i'd settle over the border there, i wouldn't give my life savings to a criminal gang trying to cross the Irish sea in a dingy especially if had wife and children with me would you?

Safe in this new land, Turkish decides to connect with the community, by taking in a match. Settled in the terrace, he hears a familiar voice behind him. "Oh nice. Lovely. Good to see front footed new supporters. I'm the manager. My name's Nathan."

Tune in next week, for Turkish in Dublin. 🙂

[ashnats]

Hypothetical.

I'm trans, from the uk, with family in gibraltar. I only speak English.

Badenoch gets her way and it is no longer safe for me here. I flee to France, stowing away on a portsmouth ferry.

I'm scared. No job, nowhere to live, the French aren't particularly welcoming and I don't speak the language so getting a job is really hard. My family is settled in gibraltar and can shelter me though. 

I would absolutely start that journey to safety. Yes France is safe(r) for trans people, but I won't feel safe until I am with my family and can start to rebuild my life.

 

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, ashnats said:

Hypothetical.

I'm trans, from the uk, with family in gibraltar. I only speak English.

Badenoch gets her way and it is no longer safe for me here. I flee to France, stowing away on a portsmouth ferry.

I'm scared. No job, nowhere to live, the French aren't particularly welcoming and I don't speak the language so getting a job is really hard. My family is settled in gibraltar and can shelter me though. 

I would absolutely start that journey to safety. Yes France is safe(r) for trans people, but I won't feel safe until I am with my family and can start to rebuild my life.

 

Hypothetically I’m a ginger Scottish pansexual Muslim, only speak latin and Russian, my family for some reason have settled in the Faroe Island. I get to France on a Portsmouth ferry and end up in Bordeaux. although I’m completely safe from death am still really upset that people look at me funny in supermarkets in Bordeaux. But I find and join the community group of  latin and Russian speaking Scottish ginger pansexuals Muslim expats and make lots of new friends who introduce me to someone who can give a job, I find somewhere nice to live, even the Iman at the local mosque is a top fella and a I get welcomed intro the community with open arms and live the rest of my days out happily sipping red wine with my new friends in a lovey city 

these hypothetical situations are brilliant aren’t they. We can find any end result we want to any made up scenario 

 

Edited 11 March, 2023 by Turkish

[Turkish]

9 hours ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Safe in this new land, Turkish decides to connect with the community, by taking in a match. Settled in the terrace, he hears a familiar voice behind him. "Oh nice. Lovely. Good to see front footed new supporters. I'm the manager. My name's Nathan."

Tune in next week, for Turkish in Dublin. 🙂

*immediately looks for criminal gang with dingy*

[whelk]

3 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Hypothetically I’m a ginger Scottish pansexual Muslim, only speak latin and Russian, my family for some reason have settled in the Faroe Island. I get to France on a Portsmouth ferry and end up in Bordeaux. although I’m completely safe from death am still really upset that people look at me funny in supermarkets in Bordeaux. But I find and join the community group of  latin and Russian speaking Scottish ginger pansexuals Muslim expats and make lots of new friends who introduce me to someone who can give a job, I find somewhere nice to live, even the Iman at the local mosque is a top fella and a I get welcomed intro the community with open arms and live the rest of my days out happily sipping red wine with my new friends in a lovey city 

these hypothetical situations are brilliant aren’t they. We can find any end result we want to any made up scenario 

 

No way an imam is welcoming in a ginger. Ridiculous!

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, ashnats said:

Hypothetical.

I'm trans, from the uk, with family in gibraltar. I only speak English.

Badenoch gets her way and it is no longer safe for me here. I flee to France, stowing away on a portsmouth ferry.

I'm scared. No job, nowhere to live, the French aren't particularly welcoming and I don't speak the language so getting a job is really hard. My family is settled in gibraltar and can shelter me though. 

I would absolutely start that journey to safety. Yes France is safe(r) for trans people, but I won't feel safe until I am with my family and can start to rebuild my life.

 

Learn French sharpish

[Turkish]

7 minutes ago, whelk said:

No way an imam is welcoming in a ginger. Ridiculous!

Wrong. It’s all the rage 

[Turkish]

3 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Learn French sharpish

Very good point. The whole attitude of well I don’t speak the language so everyone who was born and raised here should bend over backwards to accommodate me is an arrogant and ridiculous. 

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Very good point. The whole attitude of well I don’t speak the language so everyone who was born and raised here should bend over backwards to accommodate me is an arrogant and ridiculous. 

Surely the correct way to deal with language issues is to speak English VERY SLOWLY AND WITH YOUR VOICE RAISED.

[AlexLaw76]

And just like that, Matt Hancock's text messages are off the front page.

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Learn French sharpish

Wanker

[badgerx16]

10 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Wanker

Le Wanker, ( La Jilleuse).

Edited 11 March, 2023 by badgerx16

[Weston Super Saint]

6 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Le Wanker, ( La Jilleuse).

'La'???

[badgerx16]

20 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

'La'???

Women masturbate too, apparently.

[Weston Super Saint]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Women masturbate too, apparently.

'Les' is safer these days, never presume  

[badgerx16]

49 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

'Les' is safer these days, never presume  

Surely 'Les' is a follower of Sappho ?

Edited 11 March, 2023 by badgerx16

[tajjuk]

On 10/03/2023 at 11:04, LuckyNumber7 said:

Try travelling around the US and you will see what 'huge amounts of empty land' looks like, it ain't this country where you're rarely more than a few miles away from the nearest town or village. Countryside is important for many reasons and does not just exist to be built on.

Yes I get that people die, emigrate etc, and? NET migration is currently over half a million people and that's not even including the ones coming over on boats. That means we have to effectively build TWO Southamptons every year just to accommodate the people coming here legally, and still you want more. That is nowhere near sustainable and is it any wonder so many younger people will never be able to own their own home.

We take less because we are a much smaller country so it's not nonsense at all. If France want to take in millions then that's up to them but should have no bearing on how many we allow in. When would enough be enough for you, or should we just wave everyone through who wants to come here?

Yes they have a right to apply for asylum, that is very different to travelling over on dinghies. On that last paragraph I agree, we should be doing that AS WELL as cracking down on the illegal boat crossings.

I never mentioned stick, I said remove the carrot. If they know they won't be allowed to stay then they would be pretty stupid to still pay thousands to a criminal gang to risk their lives and be permanently banned from the UK.

Then we need to re-draft it or rip it up altogether as it's not working in this day and age. The rights of foreigners should always be second to those of the people living here.

Lol and this just sounds like anti Tory, anti Brexit frothing at the mouth. Some valid points in there but I have no love for any of the political parties. 

But yeah let's make things better by welcoming in more of these 'poor, desperate' people, like this guy.

https://www.aol.co.uk/news/man-came-uk-illegal-boat-171222786.html

 

You get that most of that net migration is students, a huge proportion in fact and that is welcomed by this country and our universities, in fact it's massive for the economy.

Then there are all the actual visas given out, by our government by the way. Hundreds of thousands of people are basically invited in. 

I mean if it's such a problem and we are overflowing with people, no space, blah blah all your other dumb arguments then why when we have full control now over non-EU and EU immigration has immigration GONE UP since Brexit and the end of EU freedom of movement?, and why are giving so many visas to people exactly?

Also if it's half a million or more people that we are welcoming with open arms by the way, then why are a particular 30-40k such a problem?  These people are apparently a tipping point now are they? the 450k others oh those are fine, but the ones coming on boats it's suddenly 'OMG there is no space' and all these other silly excuses.

I wonder why.

'We take less because we are a much smaller country so it's not nonsense at all'

Land mass or space is a pretty irrelevant argument overall, but if you want to go with it then how come Italy took in more than us, despite having a similar land mass? 

Austria is about 1/3rd the size of the UK (and a lot of its mountains) yet it had 38k people applying for asylum in 2021, which is only 10k less than the UK had.

Germany had 190k people applying for asylum in 2021, almost four times what we did, but Germany isn't four times bigger than us, it's not even twice the size. 

So yes it's a nonsense argument. There are a displaced people in the world, there are refugees fleeing all sorts of things, many from countries that we had a role in fucking up, yet we take in far far less than our fair share. Which makes the whole fuss and all the absurd language about it completely dumb, it's a completely overblown problem. 

'Yes they have a right to apply for asylum, that is very different to travelling over on dinghies.'

No it isn't. 

They have a right to apply for asylum in this country and if safe and legal routes do no exist to then people crossing on dinghies have that right and in fact around 90% do then apply for asylum.

And aside from those coming from Albania, which has around 25% asylum approval rate, all the other countries have around 80-90% asylum application success rates, which means in basic terms around 65% of those crossing the channel in the boats are genuine refugees who get given asylum to stay in the UK. 

Also just on Albania -

"Since 2014, UK Governments have also agreed eight bilateral agreements with the Albanian Government relating
to migration issues. This includes an agreement for the readmission of respective citizens of the two countries.
Despite being agreed on 8 July 2021, this agreement does not appear to have come into force. If it did, it could in
theory allow the UK Government to more quickly return Albanians who arrive via small boats"

So we have an agreement to quickly process Albanian asylum applications and send back to Albania any that don't get asylum granted, which would be around 75% based on previous figures, yet we are not doing it, many of them are sat at tax payers expense in migrant centres and hotels.  People harping on about 'Economic migrants', well they are mainly the Albanians, and we can already quickly deport them, yet the government isn't doing it. 

So the solution for those people is already there. 

'Then we need to re-draft it or rip it up altogether as it's not working in this day and age. The rights of foreigners should always be second to those of the people living here.'

Not working according to how exactly? You.  It works fine, as the statistics above show, people come here as genuine refugees, and the vast majority are granted asylum. Over 65% of those coming across in the boats in 2021 got their asylum applications approved, and considering a large proportion of the others are Albanians who we could quickly deport but aren't, I think it's pretty clear what is not working. 

What is not working is the laws preventing them coming here safely and legally, there are no safe routes of passage for most of them.

As an example no Ukrainians are recorded as crossing the channel in 2022, yet over 219,000 visas have been granted to Ukrainian citizens to stay in the UK. So hundreds of thousands have come here and have wanted to come here (and many of them would have come through multiple other European countries on the way, I see no one is asking why the Ukrainians didn't stay in Poland or Germany or France etc. etc).

So why didn't the Ukrainians come on the the small boats? Why, well it is obvious why, they have safe routes of passage into the country to apply for asylum so of course they did that.

So no the laws on refugees do not need change, they have worked for last 70 years as laws of compassion and humanity for suffering displaced people. What needs to change is the routes to apply for asylum so they don't need the boats. 

And yeh using a anecdotal really shows you have a well thought out argument....

I mean there are no British people who stab others are there, no, and stereotyping a whole group of people on the actions of a handful that is perfectly fine, cos all football fans are hooligans right?  

On 10/03/2023 at 11:04, trousers said:

I think we can all acknowledge and agree that international law allows people to claim asylum in whatever country they choose to do so. That's a given. I guess what some people find hard to comprehend, perhaps understandably to a certain degree, is why someone fleeing their homeland for fear of their life wouldn't naturally seek to claim asylum as soon as they reach safety, in whatever country that may be. I guess what some people are thinking is: "surely the relief of having saved their life would lead them to claim asylum as soon as possible rather than possibly risk their life further by extending/prolonging their journeys more than they need to in order to stay safe?"

In other words, just because the law allows someone to do something, it may not actually be logical and/or sensible to do what the law allows you to do?

I saw this eloquently explained the other day.

If you are forced out from your home, your country, your people, your family, friends, possibly suffered trauma or injury or persecution, basically having very little choice in your life. Instead of people doing the compassionate, empathetic human response of 'Oh that is terrible, of course you can come here and start a new life in safety', people want to take away the only choice those people have left, i.e. what country they restart their life in. 

So no I do not think that is understandable to question that. 

On 10/03/2023 at 13:21, Whitey Grandad said:

The south east of England is very densely populated.

You seem to think that all you need for housing is a bit of land. This is the simple logic of a simpleton. You also need electricity, gas (or more electricity), water, waste water, sewerage, schools, doctors, dentists, hospitals, roads, and some other land in order to replace the land that you’ve just built over.

Yet thickheads like you (I don’t abuse people very often) haven’t begun to think about any of these requirements.

You also need to find somebody to pay for all this. 200,000 new homes at £200,000 each minimum is £40bn that is taken out of the economy and invested in bricks and mortar. And that is just the direct cost. There is also the detrimental effect in the rest of the economy.

And don’t get me started in CO2 emissions. 

You'd think someone calling some else a 'thickhead' wouldn't be so much a simpleton to not realise the 'land argument' wasn't made by me, I was just responding to it. I'd already said it was a dumb argument.

You'd also think someone who wasn't a simpleton would realise that infrastructure building, house building etc. is actually a huge net gain to the economy. 

Dumbass. 

[sadoldgit]

On 10/03/2023 at 18:56, egg said:

What's confusing SoG? Is France a dangerous place mate? 

So everyone should settle in France? I am sure the French will be delighted that all migrants will have to settle there. You seem completely oblivious to the fact that we take far less migrants than many other countries. Sort of sounds like Braverman has done a job on you and you believe that millions, nay billions of migrants are heading this way.