|
Post by Pilch on Jun 15, 2022 12:45:25 GMT 1
It's not "Flight of shame", it's "Government of shame".
what would you do instead ? re asylum seekers attempting to arrive from a safe country ?
|
|
|
Post by gainsparkshrew on Jun 15, 2022 12:53:22 GMT 1
Agree whole heartily it’s is a flight of shame….should have filled it to reduce cost I'd agree "whole heartily" if you and your likers were the ones filling the seats. Whoa,expect better from you.Very low shot, just shows how extreme the opposing views are on this subject
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jun 15, 2022 12:58:44 GMT 1
You need to explain how it's in any way racist to accuse Patel of hypocrisy, as a child of refugees now engaged in expelling refugees. You're also wrong in your earlier assertion that Rwanda has higher life expectancy than Scotland. It doesn't, as a simple check will tell you. Don't believe everything you read on Twitter. Too little attention has been paid to the claimed deterrent intention behind these removals. If Rwanda is as marvellous as is being claimed by the government and its supporters, why would that make removal there a deterrent to people seeking to cross the Channel? It wouldn't, of course, but that's glossed over, because this policy is primarily about a desperate government seeking to shore up its support. When the Church of England and the Crown, both pillars of the UK establishment, condemn the policy as 'immoral' and 'appalling', it's clear how much of an outlier this government has become. This is a policy that the National Front would have been proud of in the 1970s. That's how low we've sunk. 1. Look up the difference between legal and illegal 2. I've amended it to reflect 'parts of Scotland'. Life expectancy in Rwanda is roughly around the life expectancy in parts of Renfrewshire - notably Paisley 3. Well the government wouldn't be sending immigrants to Mauritius would they? Any temporary relocation has to surely satisfy the dual purpose of being enough of a disincentive to stop the constant flow of migrants into the UK at the mercy of people smugglers but also a reasonably safe place for the migrants to temporarily live free of prejudice. Offshore processing of migrant applications has been carried out previously by several governments, as mentioned the EU has a similar policy, as has Australia in the past. Migrants currently awaiting a decision on their application will be housed in decent lodgings. They are free to leave at any time. This is not imprisonment, they have not been 'banished'. 4. The Church of England has long ceased to have any considerable influence in this country. It seems to exist nowadays purely as a woke mouthpiece on the path to self-destruction. 5. Hyperbolic drool Well you've summarised your post adequately enough with point 5. Couple of extras though. First, there's no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker. Second, I note your half-hearted attempt to correct your life expectancy error, but you're still being disingenuous at best. A quick search reveals the world life expectancy rankings - UK 30th, Rwanda 141st. www.factsinstitute.com/ranking/countries-ranked-by-life-expectancy/No, you say, not the UK, Scotland. Wait, no, not Scotland, "parts of Renfrewshire - notably Paisley". OK - quick search reveals life expectancy in Paisley is in the range 69-82 for men and 80-88 for women. In Rwanda it hasn't yet reached 69 and is projected to be 71.4 in 10 years' time. Would you live there?
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jun 15, 2022 13:02:43 GMT 1
I'd agree "whole heartily" if you and your likers were the ones filling the seats. Whoa,expect better from you.Very low shot, just shows how extreme the opposing views are on this subject I don't think it's a low shot at all. I've no time for people trafficking and its supporters, whether it's perpetrated by criminals or governments. Sorry to disappoint but honestly, I've just about had enough of this country being dragged through the gutter.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jun 15, 2022 13:12:54 GMT 1
It's not "Flight of shame", it's "Government of shame".
what would you do instead ? re asylum seekers attempting to arrive from a safe country ? You have missed the point of my post. No bunch of politicians should contemplate removing legal checks on their activities. Do that and we end up with the sort of power the Kremlin has and Trump tried to have.
|
|
|
Post by sheltonsalopian on Jun 15, 2022 13:34:36 GMT 1
Absolutely madness how it’s now the European Court of Human Rights which is the problem and not the policy. We’re on such a slippery slope with talk of abandoning that. People have lost their minds. +1 from me, I'm a bit more sympathetic to the general idea of immigration control but when the government start being on the same side as Russia against the European court of human rights then I think they might just be going too far.
|
|
|
Post by block12massive on Jun 15, 2022 13:51:32 GMT 1
1. Look up the difference between legal and illegal 2. I've amended it to reflect 'parts of Scotland'. Life expectancy in Rwanda is roughly around the life expectancy in parts of Renfrewshire - notably Paisley 3. Well the government wouldn't be sending immigrants to Mauritius would they? Any temporary relocation has to surely satisfy the dual purpose of being enough of a disincentive to stop the constant flow of migrants into the UK at the mercy of people smugglers but also a reasonably safe place for the migrants to temporarily live free of prejudice. Offshore processing of migrant applications has been carried out previously by several governments, as mentioned the EU has a similar policy, as has Australia in the past. Migrants currently awaiting a decision on their application will be housed in decent lodgings. They are free to leave at any time. This is not imprisonment, they have not been 'banished'. 4. The Church of England has long ceased to have any considerable influence in this country. It seems to exist nowadays purely as a woke mouthpiece on the path to self-destruction. 5. Hyperbolic drool Well you've summarised your post adequately enough with point 5. Couple of extras though. First, there's no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker. Second, I note your half-hearted attempt to correct your life expectancy error, but you're still being disingenuous at best. A quick search reveals the world life expectancy rankings - UK 30th, Rwanda 141st. www.factsinstitute.com/ranking/countries-ranked-by-life-expectancy/No, you say, not the UK, Scotland. Wait, no, not Scotland, "parts of Renfrewshire - notably Paisley". OK - quick search reveals life expectancy in Paisley is in the range 69-82 for men and 80-88 for women. In Rwanda it hasn't yet reached 69 and is projected to be 71.4 in 10 years' time. Would you live there? An asylum seeker is someone who has entered into a legal process of achieving refugee status. Therefore by definition if they haven't, they are illegal. And you asked if I would live in Rwanda. No probably not but I'm not allegedly escaping persecution in which case I would be immensely grateful for any safe haven that took me in. Even if the weather or local delicacy wasn't to my tastes.
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Jun 15, 2022 13:52:36 GMT 1
Absolutely madness how it’s now the European Court of Human Rights which is the problem and not the policy. We’re on such a slippery slope with talk of abandoning that. People have lost their minds. +1 from me, I'm a bit more sympathetic to the general idea of immigration control but when the government start being on the same side as Russia against the European court of human rights then I think they might just be going too far. I think it's the nonsense red tape, there's great protections but utter stupidity, it needs massive reform/handpicking the best bits.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jun 15, 2022 14:04:04 GMT 1
+1 from me, I'm a bit more sympathetic to the general idea of immigration control but when the government start being on the same side as Russia against the European court of human rights then I think they might just be going too far. I think it's the nonsense red tape, there's great protections but utter stupidity, it needs massive reform/handpicking the best bits. And which bits would you like to get rid of? There's a list further up thread, perhaps you could have a look and let us all know which ones you disagree with. I'm prepared to be enlightened.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jun 15, 2022 14:04:25 GMT 1
+1 from me, I'm a bit more sympathetic to the general idea of immigration control but when the government start being on the same side as Russia against the European court of human rights then I think they might just be going too far. I think it's the nonsense red tape, there's great protections but utter stupidity, it needs massive reform/handpicking the best bits. But never let politicians be the ones to do any "handpicking the best bits".
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Jun 15, 2022 14:06:50 GMT 1
I think it's the nonsense red tape, there's great protections but utter stupidity, it needs massive reform/handpicking the best bits. And which bits would you like to get rid of? There's a list further up thread, perhaps you could have a look and let us all know which ones you disagree with. I'm prepared to be enlightened. There's plenty of red tape that needs removing. Btw I'm completely and utterly against this, it's ridiculous; but you can be both against this scheme and against the nonsense European Court.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Jun 15, 2022 14:47:47 GMT 1
By my reckoning at least 3 Conservative Party manifesos since 2000 have committed to pulling the UK out of the ECHR and despite a few papers on the subject we're no closer to a real policy on what in paractical terms a UK Bill of Rights would look like, how it would differ from the ECHR and how we'd interact internationally. It remains as Conservative Policy an a consultation was launced late last year www.gov.uk/government/news/plan-to-reform-human-rights-actOne of the big difficulties - much like Brexit - is that its far easier to say what's wrong with the exisiting system, than it is to develop a new system. The fact reform has been suggested for over 20 years and still not achieved suggests its not as simple as bit of tweeking things at the edges. Indeed the Brexit agreement with the EU has the ECHR written into it, as does the Good Friday agreement, so any reform will really require a clear policy and exceptionally well written legislation to be successful as its covers so many other areas of legislation. Evidence so far suggests the Government doesn't really have the capacity to deliver something of that scale
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jun 15, 2022 15:17:40 GMT 1
And which bits would you like to get rid of? There's a list further up thread, perhaps you could have a look and let us all know which ones you disagree with. I'm prepared to be enlightened. There's plenty of red tape that needs removing. Btw I'm completely and utterly against this, it's ridiculous; but you can be both against this scheme and against the nonsense European Court. How is the ECHR nonsense? Yeah it might be bloated and cumbersome, but it's there to protect the rights of everyone, you and I included. There is no perfect system, anywhere in the world, but the ECHR is probably among those that come closest. Would you rather have red tape or loopholes that governments can use to persecute their own people? With this lot in power I will take all the red tape I can if it slows down their erosion of my rights and the rights of everyone else who lives on this little island.
|
|
|
Post by block12massive on Jun 15, 2022 15:38:33 GMT 1
I wonder if the same people championing the ECHR were the ones also championing forced inoculations and vaccine passports a few months back.
For those that don't know, in several cases the ECHR ruled in favour of mandatory vaccinations - rejecting the appeal of healthcare workers in France and in a similar case in Czech Republic, ruled that discrimination against an unvaccinated child was not a violation of the child's right to a private life.
A beacon of morality though, eh?
Seems their position on 'human rights' is consistent with editorial decisions a left-leaning bureaucratic gravy train would make.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Jun 15, 2022 15:59:34 GMT 1
what would you do instead ? re asylum seekers attempting to arrive from a safe country ? You have missed the point of my post. No bunch of politicians should contemplate removing legal checks on their activities. Do that and we end up with the sort of power the Kremlin has and Trump tried to have. what would you do instead ? re asylum seekers attempting to arrive from a safe country ?
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jun 15, 2022 16:07:29 GMT 1
You have missed the point of my post. No bunch of politicians should contemplate removing legal checks on their activities. Do that and we end up with the sort of power the Kremlin has and Trump tried to have. what would you do instead ? re asylum seekers attempting to arrive from a safe country ? Did you miss my reply 6 hours previous? "As was stated further up the thread, the UK takes far fewer asylum seekers than Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Austria. So, what with our shortage of people for jobs, we probably should be taking more. We should also try to move to processing every applicant in France so that those coming over without permission in little boats had no chance of actually gaining refugee status here".
If processed before the trip in the little boat then failed applicants would have no point in risking their life to get here. Those that fail the asylum entry checks you deal with in the same way as those that fail the process in this country.
6 hours later and the debate has moved on to politicians talking about ignoring law courts and their decisions - Keep Up!
|
|
|
Post by shrewder on Jun 15, 2022 16:31:30 GMT 1
I don't know what the answer to this problem is but anyone with any human empathy for their fellow human will feel very uncomfortable with this process. To me it just doesn't feel right. I have no answers and accept it is a difficult issue to resolve
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Jun 15, 2022 16:32:44 GMT 1
I wonder if the same people championing the ECHR were the ones also championing forced inoculations and vaccine passports a few months back. For those that don't know, in several cases the ECHR ruled in favour of mandatory vaccinations - rejecting the appeal of healthcare workers in France and in a similar case in Czech Republic, ruled that discrimination against an unvaccinated child was not a violation of the child's right to a private life. A beacon of morality though, eh? Seems their position on 'human rights' is consistent with editorial decisions a left-leaning bureaucratic gravy train would make. I think these are the cases you are referencing www.bihr.org.uk/blog/what-does-the-european-court-of-human-rights-ecthr-ruling-on-compulsory-vaccination-mean-for-our-humIn the UK the Government didn't have a policy for mandatory vaccinations so it shows that different countries that are part of the HCHR can have different policies, but still be part of the wider framework. I think over the years the HCHR has made thousands of decisions on a range of issues, and has made decisions which both people on the left and on the right of politics don't agree with. Which from my perspective probably means its doing the right thing. If we're going to switch to a different sytem the reasons for that shouldn't just be based on a couple of cases but on a larger rational basis where benefits of persuing a differet system are clearly set out.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Jun 15, 2022 16:50:16 GMT 1
what would you do instead ? re asylum seekers attempting to arrive from a safe country ? Did you miss my reply 6 hours previous? "As was stated further up the thread, the UK takes far fewer asylum seekers than Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Austria. So, what with our shortage of people for jobs, we probably should be taking more. We should also try to move to processing every applicant in France so that those coming over without permission in little boats had no chance of actually gaining refugee status here".
If processed before the trip in the little boat then failed applicants would have no point in risking their life to get here. Those that fail the asylum entry checks you deal with in the same way as those that fail the process in this country.
6 hours later and the debate has moved on to politicians talking about ignoring law courts and their decisions - Keep Up!
I'll check back in a bit and see what you had to say about it over the last 20 years, like I said, its just a bandwagon at the moment to be shocked at anything and everything had we been taking more than the likes of Germany , said etc the thread would be asking why are we doing this, this has to stop etc it so boring to be honest, and honestly isn't welcome on this thread it seems
|
|
|
Post by block12massive on Jun 15, 2022 16:59:15 GMT 1
Did you miss my reply 6 hours previous? "As was stated further up the thread, the UK takes far fewer asylum seekers than Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Austria. So, what with our shortage of people for jobs, we probably should be taking more. We should also try to move to processing every applicant in France so that those coming over without permission in little boats had no chance of actually gaining refugee status here".
If processed before the trip in the little boat then failed applicants would have no point in risking their life to get here. Those that fail the asylum entry checks you deal with in the same way as those that fail the process in this country.
6 hours later and the debate has moved on to politicians talking about ignoring law courts and their decisions - Keep Up!
I'll check back in a bit and see what you had to say about it over the last 20 years, like I said, its just a bandwagon at the moment to be shocked at anything and everything had we been taking more than the likes of Germany , said etc the thread would be asking why are we doing this, this has to stop etc it so boring to be honest, and honestly isn't welcome on this thread it seems It does make you ask 'how much is enough' to satisfy the needs of some. What arbitrary number of asylum seekers would people be happy with? 100k per annum, 500k? It's like asking how many black or Asian faces in the Glastonbury crowd would satisfy Lenny Henry? And the answer is always the same. It will never be enough.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jun 15, 2022 17:00:40 GMT 1
Did you miss my reply 6 hours previous? "As was stated further up the thread, the UK takes far fewer asylum seekers than Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Austria. So, what with our shortage of people for jobs, we probably should be taking more. We should also try to move to processing every applicant in France so that those coming over without permission in little boats had no chance of actually gaining refugee status here".
If processed before the trip in the little boat then failed applicants would have no point in risking their life to get here. Those that fail the asylum entry checks you deal with in the same way as those that fail the process in this country. 6 hours later and the debate has moved on to politicians talking about ignoring law courts and their decisions - Keep Up!
I'll check back in a bit and see what you had to say about it over the last 20 years, like I said, its just a bandwagon at the moment to be shocked at anything and everything had we been taking more than the likes of Germany , said etc the thread would be asking why are we doing this, this has to stop etc it so boring to be honest, and honestly isn't welcome on this thread it seems I'll tell you what I'm bored with: The Northern Ireland protocol, a half arsed idea that came out of Boris' Botched Brexit, but that's another topic. Suffice to say I've had to give up on Radio 4's Today programme because they keep harping on about it.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jun 15, 2022 17:26:25 GMT 1
I don't know what the answer to this problem is but anyone with any human empathy for their fellow human will feel very uncomfortable with this process. To me it just doesn't feel right. I have no answers and accept it is a difficult issue to resolve I'd say that there are a decent percentage of posters on here that are more than comfortable with it. Human empathy is an alien concept to some people.
|
|
|
Post by Feedo Gnasher on Jun 15, 2022 17:33:34 GMT 1
Cracking take down by Yvette Cooper. Even putting the headline grabbing ethical side of it to one side, it highlights how poorly thought out it is and how ineffective it would likely be.
I’m not somebody that believes we should welcome all and sundry, and believe it or not I don’t have any answers of my own due to not being a full time politician or civil servant with access to experts and data, but it’s pretty clear this is a terrible policy.
As with everything these days though it’s government by division - left vs right, Brexit vs Remainers, Covid warriors vs Covid worriers, and so many people fall into the trap. It’s tiring.
|
|
|
Post by belfastshrew on Jun 15, 2022 18:50:09 GMT 1
What happens if an asylum seeker is seeking asylum from Rwanda?
|
|
|
Post by wookeywombat on Jun 15, 2022 19:12:31 GMT 1
Cracking take down by Yvette Cooper. Even putting the headline grabbing ethical side of it to one side, it highlights how poorly thought out it is and how ineffective it would likely be. I’m not somebody that believes we should welcome all and sundry, and believe it or not I don’t have any answers of my own due to not being a full time politician or civil servant with access to experts and data, but it’s pretty clear this is a terrible policy. As with everything these days though it’s government by division - left vs right, Brexit vs Remainers, Covid warriors vs Covid worriers, and so many people fall into the trap. It’s tiring. It is symptomatic of what "get Brexit done" has given us. A selection of third rate politicians who might have half decent ideas which are acceptable to their core support but they are completely incapable of putting them into practice without botching things up en route.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Jun 15, 2022 23:16:16 GMT 1
I don't know what the answer to this problem is but anyone with any human empathy for their fellow human will feel very uncomfortable with this process. To me it just doesn't feel right. I have no answers and accept it is a difficult issue to resolve I'd say that there are a decent percentage of posters on here that are more than comfortable with it. Human empathy is an alien concept to some people. typical blue and amber post from you , turn of the posters if your SHOUTING isn't being heard. this is how you felt about immigrants under a labour government plenty more of these if you want some ? There IMO needs to be a curb of some description on immigration and more importantly illegal immigration and asylum, but if there were no jobs here people wouldn't come. The majority of those that do come here work and pay taxes to help keep dole wallahs in the manner to which they've become accustomed.
|
|
|
Post by edgmond on Jun 15, 2022 23:48:59 GMT 1
That’s a sickening comment, although you no doubt consider it to be ‘humour’. These are human beings we are talking about. Shameful. these human beings you mention are said to have fled their own country due to them not feeling safe then after travelling through dozens of safe countries they reach the edge of france and pay someone to put their lives at a massive risk to attempt to take them illegally to the uk the uk has come up with a safe plan for them which hopefully in the long run will save lives and put traffickers out of business buy hey let's not look further than the ends of our noses , let's just take the opportunity to moan about something we don't normally moan about because it's a cheap shot at the government and those who speak out against cheap shots I was taking issue with the suggestion that the authorities should attempt to sink the inflatable boats to prevent them from reaching our shores. Whatever circumstances have led those people to attempt such a dangerous crossing, surely nothing would justify trying to drown them would it? As for the Rwanda plan itself, maybe it will work in the end. In the meantime, many of us have serious doubts about it for various reasons. It is perfectly legitimate to question/challenge/oppose a government policy so I am not sure why you have to characterise this as ‘moaning’ or having a ‘cheap shot’. An alternative approach (mentioned by others in this thread) would be to allow the majority of those wishing to come here to enter legally. There is hardly a business anywhere in the country that is not crying out for staff, not to mention the fact that many migrants have family members already here who would help them. Get them into paid employment and paying taxes and this will be a net gain for the country, rather than the drain on resources that we see with the current backlog of applications (thousands in holding accommodation awaiting processing) or Patel’s speculative and highly expensive plan.
|
|
|
Post by frankwellshrews on Jun 16, 2022 0:15:04 GMT 1
The whole thing reminds me of those Nigerian scam emails where they deliberately put spelling mistakes in; a majority of people see it for what it is but if anyone does go for it they immediately know they've found somebody naive, gullible or plain stupid enough to be duped.
A lot of these tory "red meat" policies are the same. Most people can spot this as an obvious stunt from ten miles away, but it's catnip to some people.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jun 16, 2022 7:54:32 GMT 1
I'd say that there are a decent percentage of posters on here that are more than comfortable with it. Human empathy is an alien concept to some people. typical blue and amber post from you , turn of the posters if your SHOUTING isn't being heard. this is how you felt about immigrants under a labour government plenty more of these if you want some ? There IMO needs to be a curb of some description on immigration and more importantly illegal immigration and asylum, but if there were no jobs here people wouldn't come. The majority of those that do come here work and pay taxes to help keep dole wallahs in the manner to which they've become accustomed. I haven't shouted.
One poster has clearly stated that he would happily sink the dinghies in the middle of the channel, so yeah I may actually turn on some people.
I don't actually see what is wrong with my post from 14 years ago. Yes something does need to be done about illegal immigration and possibly asylum too, because even I will concur that there are some spurious claims, but as I stated back then most of those coming here are coming to work, to earn money, pay taxes and hopefully be able to bring more of their family over here when they are settled.
There are more vacancies today than there are people out of work. If having to accept a very small minority of dodgy asylum claims is the price we have to pay for having a ready made workforce wanting to come here to fill these vacancies then I think it's a price worth paying. Put conditions on their asylum acceptance requiring them to work and pay taxes, that way they don't get swallowed up by the black economy. Having to pay to keep hundreds of people in hotels up and down the country is ridiculous when most of them would be happy to work for a living and attempt to better their lives.
We should be working night and day to process these asylum claims and get these people out of the hotels and into the workforce, but then some people would turn it around and say that ''aLL veez IMIGRUNTS r tAkin r jObs''.
You complain when people call you out for something you've posted Pilch, but I have said nothing to you for weeks, so why the unprovoked attack on me, with the threat of 'plenty more' to come? If I have inadvertently said something that has upset you to the point that you feel the need to attack me then you have my full and unreserved apology, but as far as I was aware the only mild attacks I have made on this thread were against the racists and surely you are not defending the sinking of dinghies in the English Channel and the loss of life that would entail.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Jun 16, 2022 9:05:41 GMT 1
typical blue and amber post from you , turn of the posters if your SHOUTING isn't being heard. this is how you felt about immigrants under a labour government plenty more of these if you want some ? I haven't shouted.
One poster has clearly stated that he would happily sink the dinghies in the middle of the channel, so yeah I may actually turn on some people.
I don't actually see what is wrong with my post from 14 years ago. Yes something does need to be done about illegal immigration and possibly asylum too, because even I will concur that there are some spurious claims, but as I stated back then most of those coming here are coming to work, to earn money, pay taxes and hopefully be able to bring more of their family over here when they are settled.
There are more vacancies today than there are people out of work. If having to accept a very small minority of dodgy asylum claims is the price we have to pay for having a ready made workforce wanting to come here to fill these vacancies then I think it's a price worth paying. Put conditions on their asylum acceptance requiring them to work and pay taxes, that way they don't get swallowed up by the black economy. Having to pay to keep hundreds of people in hotels up and down the country is ridiculous when most of them would be happy to work for a living and attempt to better their lives.
We should be working night and day to process these asylum claims and get these people out of the hotels and into the workforce, but then some people would turn it around and say that ''aLL veez IMIGRUNTS r tAkin r jObs''.
You complain when people call you out for something you've posted Pilch, but I have said nothing to you for weeks, so why the unprovoked attack on me, with the threat of 'plenty more' to come? If I have inadvertently said something that has upset you to the point that you feel the need to attack me then you have my full and unreserved apology, but as far as I was aware the only mild attacks I have made on this thread were against the racists and surely you are not defending the sinking of dinghies in the English Channel and the loss of life that would entail.
i'm just fed of of the latest craze on here some posters on here one poster in particular etc why not reply to them instead of idle gossiping about them ? all it ends up doing is others joining in , which i guess was the initial aim i don't like it , that's all
|
|