|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 19, 2023 10:02:59 GMT
I see. So, debating/argumentation techniques used in courts aren't good enough for this place. This place has higher standards. No arguing by analogy here. You won't answer the question because you know it reveals a fatal flaw in the gammon position. And, for the record, I very much doubt you've ever read a book by Orwell. Maybe you're not in a position to judge the appropriateness of the reference to him. Nope. This isn’t a court and you were asking me to speculate about a situation that you made up in your made up in your head ( some shit about a dump in a neighbours garden)to get out of roping in Orwell to support your Nazi rhetoric. I’ve repeatedly told you this . You are getting rather boring now darling . Off you pop, then. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 19, 2023 10:08:45 GMT
Nope. This isn’t a court and you were asking me to speculate about a situation that you made up in your made up in your head ( some shit about a dump in a neighbours garden)to get out of roping in Orwell to support your Nazi rhetoric. I’ve repeatedly told you this . You are getting rather boring now darling . Off you pop, then. Darling has been shown up and wants to look dismissive.😁 |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 19, 2023 18:11:37 GMT
I missed this. My point is either the 50 land or none land and you say one woman subsequently dies if we do not allow them all to land. I say if we allow all to land then the other 49 may commit crimes, and we know that has happened. The welfare of the British people comes first. EDIT Is not whatiferry exactly what your question is? It is not actually whatifery, the government is attempting to enact a law that will lead to such a situation arising and it will be more than one person who has a right to claim asylum. Yes, I have said the 49 may mean us harm but my question was "is it ok to 'assist' the one genuine case to die when being sent back". The better idea would be to process them and send back the 49 and save one life. The government are enacting a law that may well lead to the situation you describe however currently they are trying to meet a law that has resulted directly in the murder, rape and criminal violence against innocent British Citizens by those who are allowed to come in by International law and roam free in our country. The best idea is to ensure that people know they have no right to waltz into the UK illegally and immediately expect to be cossetted and petted as they have fled, no two ways about it, immediate danger in France. If we process the 49 and save one life the expense will be enormous eventually, the dangers of the channel crossings will be unabated and will in all likelihood accelerate beyond teh current unsustainable levels. For some reason the future is hidden from the left, which is strange most especially as they can see AGW with amazing clarity 10, 20 and 100 years into the future. If you try some honest answers to some honest questions. If we process much quicker and if we follow International law to the letter. In five years time how many people will be crossing the channel, how many in total will have crossed, how many will have died crossing the channel and how many court cases will we be funding to stop deporting those who have failed in their asylum claims. I think it will be 150,000 per year at that time, I think the total will be about 600,000, I think the numbers that will have died will be about 300 and the court cases will be backlogged to about 100,000. The total costs on hotels assuming the turnaround remains the same will be about ten billion, the cost of processing will be along similar lines, the fighting deportation costs will be largely anyone's guess but if we assume 10% fight deportation that is potentially over 100,000 abu qutada type costs and his legal costs alone were ten million.Then there is housing for refugees, family reunifications all putting extra strain on our systems. In terms of cost and lives saved then we must be strong now otherwise the future is not bright it is very very dark. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 19, 2023 21:09:35 GMT
I see. So, debating/argumentation techniques used in courts aren't good enough for this place. This place has higher standards. No arguing by analogy here. You won't answer the question because you know it reveals a fatal flaw in the gammon position. And, for the record, I very much doubt you've ever read a book by Orwell. Maybe you're not in a position to judge the appropriateness of the reference to him. Nope. This isn’t a court the UK isn’t a garden . You were asking me to speculate about a situation that you made up in your made up in your head ( some shit about a dump in a neighbours garden)to get out of roping in Orwell to support your Nazi rhetoric. I’ve repeatedly told you this . You are getting rather boring now darling . May I intervine by saying this forum is different to a courtroom insofar that the IQ is higher. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 19, 2023 21:48:50 GMT
Nope. This isn’t a court the UK isn’t a garden . You were asking me to speculate about a situation that you made up in your made up in your head ( some shit about a dump in a neighbours garden)to get out of roping in Orwell to support your Nazi rhetoric. I’ve repeatedly told you this . You are getting rather boring now darling . May I intervine by saying this forum is different to a courtroom insofar that the IQ is higher. Except for your IQ, Sal. You had no problem bullying a dyslexic for spelling errors, yet called someone a pedant today for pointing out a simple fact. Your mind isn't exactly a precision instrument, is it? |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 19, 2023 22:57:08 GMT
May I intervine by saying this forum is different to a courtroom insofar that the IQ is higher. Except for your IQ, Sal. You had no problem bullying a dyslexic for spelling errors, yet called someone a pedant today for pointing out a simple fact. Your mind isn't exactly a precision instrument, is it? Mere repetition and the guy admitted he was being pedantic; please return to your other forum or however you waste your time. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 19, 2023 22:58:44 GMT
Except for your IQ, Sal. You had no problem bullying a dyslexic for spelling errors, yet called someone a pedant today for pointing out a simple fact. Your mind isn't exactly a precision instrument, is it? Mere repetition and the guy admitted he was being pedantic; please return to your other forum or however you waste your time. Hold on! You complained about the spelling of someone you knew to be dyslexic, and now you are calling others pedantic? |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 19, 2023 23:04:09 GMT
Mere repetition and the guy admitted he was being pedantic; please return to your other forum or however you waste your time. Hold on! You complained about the spelling of someone you knew to be dyslexic and you are calling others pedantic? Go away and stop shit-stirring. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 19, 2023 23:07:47 GMT
Hold on! You complained about the spelling of someone you knew to be dyslexic and you are calling others pedantic? Go away and stop shit-stirring. LOL!!! And your post wasn't shit stirring, Sal? Maybe you should consider how absurdly contradictory you are before criticising other people's intelligence. I mean, there's pedantic, and then there's hyper-pedantic. Someone who moans about the spelling of someone he knows to be dyslexic is certainly the latter. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 19, 2023 23:10:16 GMT
Go away and stop shit-stirring. LOL!!! And your post wasn't shit stirring, Sal? Maybe you should consider how absurdly contradictory you are before criticising other people's intelligence. I mean, there's pedantic, and then there's hyper-pedantic. Someone who moans about the spelling of someone he knows to be dyslexic is certainly the latter. Talk to the mods. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 19, 2023 23:11:01 GMT
LOL!!! And your post wasn't shit stirring, Sal? Maybe you should consider how absurdly contradictory you are before criticising other people's intelligence. I mean, there's pedantic, and then there's hyper-pedantic. Someone who moans about the spelling of someone he knows to be dyslexic is certainly the latter. Talk to the mods. No need. I've made my point. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2023 6:18:13 GMT
It is not actually whatifery, the government is attempting to enact a law that will lead to such a situation arising and it will be more than one person who has a right to claim asylum. Yes, I have said the 49 may mean us harm but my question was "is it ok to 'assist' the one genuine case to die when being sent back". The better idea would be to process them and send back the 49 and save one life. The government are enacting a law that may well lead to the situation you describe however currently they are trying to meet a law that has resulted directly in the murder, rape and criminal violence against innocent British Citizens by those who are allowed to come in by International law and roam free in our country. The best idea is to ensure that people know they have no right to waltz into the UK illegally and immediately expect to be cossetted and petted as they have fled, no two ways about it, immediate danger in France. If we process the 49 and save one life the expense will be enormous eventually, the dangers of the channel crossings will be unabated and will in all likelihood accelerate beyond teh current unsustainable levels. For some reason the future is hidden from the left, which is strange most especially as they can see AGW with amazing clarity 10, 20 and 100 years into the future. If you try some honest answers to some honest questions. If we process much quicker and if we follow International law to the letter. In five years time how many people will be crossing the channel, how many in total will have crossed, how many will have died crossing the channel and how many court cases will we be funding to stop deporting those who have failed in their asylum claims. I think it will be 150,000 per year at that time, I think the total will be about 600,000, I think the numbers that will have died will be about 300 and the court cases will be backlogged to about 100,000. The total costs on hotels assuming the turnaround remains the same will be about ten billion, the cost of processing will be along similar lines, the fighting deportation costs will be largely anyone's guess but if we assume 10% fight deportation that is potentially over 100,000 abu qutada type costs and his legal costs alone were ten million.Then there is housing for refugees, family reunifications all putting extra strain on our systems. In terms of cost and lives saved then we must be strong now otherwise the future is not bright it is very very dark. Oh, I agree but you are confusing two different things. One the one hand you have the 'illegal' immigrant that has overstayed his visa and is either working or, as you say, walking free to commit crimes willy nilly. These people are, when caught, are being deported through legal means but we do not have the border staff to keep pace with it. What we are talking about are 'people', people seem to forget that and just refer to boats ergo 'dehumanising', who are making desperate journeys across the channel to seek refuge in this country. These people, if the law is enacted will have their basic right to asylum stripped from them and be returned to the country of their origin no matter what the consequences of that deportation entail. They will also not have the right to seek asylum in this country for life, which of course is against international law on refugees. I for one do not know what the future holds and what the state of the refugee crisis will be but I do believe it is a problem that needs to be sorted. As to the costs and other things you are talking about it is obvious to see that if we had a sensible, 'legal' system of dealing with the 'people in boats' we would save money and lives. My question still stands, "is it worth the life of that woman just to stop 49 coming in".
The government does not want to solve the 'problem' it is the beginning of their election campaign for the next GE and some 'idiots' will vote for them based purely on what they say they are doing and not on what they actually do. As to the 'lefty lawyers' problem, lawyers can only work within the laws made by the government, if the government makes laws that break other laws, that they probably made, they will be held to account, thats incompetance. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 20, 2023 6:44:10 GMT
No need. I've made my point. I must have missed it. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 20, 2023 9:10:56 GMT
No need. I've made my point. I must have missed it. That's why you've no business calling other people stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 20, 2023 9:17:29 GMT
That's why you've no business calling other people stupid. Whoooooooosh, Darling strikes again, like being slapped with a flounder. |
|
