|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 20, 2023 10:16:54 GMT
That's why you've no business calling other people stupid. Whoooooooosh, Darling strikes again, like being slapped with a flounder. I'm sorry to have to tell you that the last flounder you sent my way slipped and broke its hip getting out of the shower. Got anything a little less tired? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 20, 2023 11:35:47 GMT
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. Your question is askew. We are not risking the life of one woman to stop 49 coming in we are risking one woman to stop the continued risks to British Citizens from uncontrolled entrants, the risk to the future people dying at sea (and it will happen) and the future tremendous costs that will ensue if this situation is not brought under control. We do not know one woman will die, we are risking the death of some to save the deaths of others in the future. With all life there is a cost benefit calculation. With cancer patients that calculation is carried out all the time whereby cost of treatment and drugs is weighed against the expected benefits and risks involved as regards the patient and the availability of that treatment to others. Why would it be wrong to do the same with cross channel illegal migrants. The problem with lawyers is that illegal entrants seem to have more access to legal help than British Citizens. If my neighbour takes a bit of my land I pay for all my legal costs to get it back even to the point of taking all my savings and going into debt. It is not the making and existence of laws that is the problem it is how it is all financed and how it operates against British Citizens. I pay for my legal costs, I pay for the legal costs of illegal entrants. I have no issue with a degree of legal protection but as in abu quatada like cases the costs become astronomical for one person. In all situations we are talking about people, |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 20, 2023 11:58:52 GMT
We should allow thousands in to threaten us in our home, lest one person is repressed by a regime we have no jurisdiction at all over. Is this garbled, custard-brained thinking or motivated reasoning?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2023 15:24:18 GMT
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. Your question is askew. We are not risking the life of one woman to stop 49 coming in we are risking one woman to stop the continued risks to British Citizens from uncontrolled entrants, the risk to the future people dying at sea (and it will happen) and the future tremendous costs that will ensue if this situation is not brought under control. We do not know one woman will die, we are risking the death of some to save the deaths of others in the future. With all life there is a cost benefit calculation. With cancer patients that calculation is carried out all the time whereby cost of treatment and drugs is weighed against the expected benefits and risks involved as regards the patient and the availability of that treatment to others. Why would it be wrong to do the same with cross channel illegal migrants. The problem with lawyers is that illegal entrants seem to have more access to legal help than British Citizens. If my neighbour takes a bit of my land I pay for all my legal costs to get it back even to the point of taking all my savings and going into debt. It is not the making and existence of laws that is the problem it is how it is all financed and how it operates against British Citizens. I pay for my legal costs, I pay for the legal costs of illegal entrants. I have no issue with a degree of legal protection but as in abu quatada like cases the costs become astronomical for one person. In all situations we are talking about people, No, it was a specific question, given a certain set of circumstances that will arise if this policy becomes law but you appear to be skirting around the edges and accepting that the horrible death of a desperate woman is worth it when there are other ways of dealing with the problem which would cost far less than we are paying now. You cannot compare, you losing a bit of money and the value of a human life which is what you are attempting to do now. By not processing these people, not boats people, we will be sending some home to certain death. Do you honestly believe they are coming across the channel, sometimes with small children, which they know is a dangerous journey for the fun of it? There is nothing askew about asking a question based on foreknowledge of what will happen if this policy becomes law. Would it be worth it? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 20, 2023 17:10:20 GMT
Your question is askew. We are not risking the life of one woman to stop 49 coming in we are risking one woman to stop the continued risks to British Citizens from uncontrolled entrants, the risk to the future people dying at sea (and it will happen) and the future tremendous costs that will ensue if this situation is not brought under control. We do not know one woman will die, we are risking the death of some to save the deaths of others in the future. With all life there is a cost benefit calculation. With cancer patients that calculation is carried out all the time whereby cost of treatment and drugs is weighed against the expected benefits and risks involved as regards the patient and the availability of that treatment to others. Why would it be wrong to do the same with cross channel illegal migrants. The problem with lawyers is that illegal entrants seem to have more access to legal help than British Citizens. If my neighbour takes a bit of my land I pay for all my legal costs to get it back even to the point of taking all my savings and going into debt. It is not the making and existence of laws that is the problem it is how it is all financed and how it operates against British Citizens. I pay for my legal costs, I pay for the legal costs of illegal entrants. I have no issue with a degree of legal protection but as in abu quatada like cases the costs become astronomical for one person. In all situations we are talking about people, No, it was a specific question, given a certain set of circumstances that will arise if this policy becomes law but you appear to be skirting around the edges and accepting that the horrible death of a desperate woman is worth it when there are other ways of dealing with the problem which would cost far less than we are paying now. You cannot compare, you losing a bit of money and the value of a human life which is what you are attempting to do now. By not processing these people, not boats people, we will be sending some home to certain death. Do you honestly believe they are coming across the channel, sometimes with small children, which they know is a dangerous journey for the fun of it? There is nothing askew about asking a question based on foreknowledge of what will happen if this policy becomes law. Would it be worth it? It was a specific question but the answer cannot be seen in isolation. It has to be seen in the context of why it is necessary. I did not compare me losing a bit of money with a human life, I stated the precise circumstances in the round. Where has 'certain death' suddenly appeared from. Many are coming across the channel because they live in generally shit countries, that is not a valid asylum claim. Just as there is nothing askew about asking a question based on foreknowledge of what will happen with raising the question as regards what will happen if we do not. So far you have not tackled the alternative of accepting small boats and what you forecast will happen in five years time. Do you wish to give it an attempt instead of concentrating on one so far hypothetical woman and not on the real sufferance of British Citizens who are realistically victims of the current policy. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Mar 20, 2023 18:08:32 GMT
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. there is an elephant on the beach you seem keen to ignore. What possible threat to life and limb exists in the Republic of France that demands we shelter hundreds of thousands from the long arm of the french authorities. There is in fact no threat of any kind warranting an asylum claim be granted to any who stand on that shoreline. They have already reached the most migrant- friendly collection of countries forca thousand miles. We are sod all to do with them and the bloc of so called sovereign nations on whose beaches they stand. Sod them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2023 18:15:19 GMT
We should allow thousands in to threaten us in our home, lest one person is repressed by a regime we have no jurisdiction at all over. Is this garbled, custard-brained thinking or motivated reasoning? Got to take it to the extreme. Who is suggesting such a proposition. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2023 18:23:55 GMT
No, it was a specific question, given a certain set of circumstances that will arise if this policy becomes law but you appear to be skirting around the edges and accepting that the horrible death of a desperate woman is worth it when there are other ways of dealing with the problem which would cost far less than we are paying now. You cannot compare, you losing a bit of money and the value of a human life which is what you are attempting to do now. By not processing these people, not boats people, we will be sending some home to certain death. Do you honestly believe they are coming across the channel, sometimes with small children, which they know is a dangerous journey for the fun of it? There is nothing askew about asking a question based on foreknowledge of what will happen if this policy becomes law. Would it be worth it? It was a specific question but the answer cannot be seen in isolation. It has to be seen in the context of why it is necessary. I did not compare me losing a bit of money with a human life, I stated the precise circumstances in the round. Where has 'certain death' suddenly appeared from. Many are coming across the channel because they live in generally shit countries, that is not a valid asylum claim. Just as there is nothing askew about asking a question based on foreknowledge of what will happen with raising the question as regards what will happen if we do not. So far you have not tackled the alternative of accepting small boats and what you forecast will happen in five years time. Do you wish to give it an attempt instead of concentrating on one so far hypothetical woman and not on the real sufferance of British Citizens who are realistically victims of the current policy. Of course the answer can be seen in isolation just like the answer to all the other instances that will arise from such an evil policy. Why do you think some of these people are making the perilous journey across the channel, because they face certain death in their country. I have not said we should accept small boats or rather the people on them, see what you did there, dehumanising. Numbers may go up in five years but we need to process these people and either give them asylum and save lives or return them if they do not meet the genuine level for an asylum seeker. That would cost less and save lives. Given 'every' person arriving on small boats will not be processed, and refused entry forever and some will be killed if they are returned to their homeland, will it be worth it. It's a straight forward question. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 20, 2023 18:26:34 GMT
My question still stands, "is it worth the life of that woman just to stop 49 coming in".
Yes - if it stops the murder of 49 British Citizens
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 20, 2023 18:31:48 GMT
We should allow thousands in to threaten us in our home, lest one person is repressed by a regime we have no jurisdiction at all over. Is this garbled, custard-brained thinking or motivated reasoning? Got to take it to the extreme. Who is suggesting such a proposition. Then this is an excellent opportunity for you explain yourself. According to you, under what circumstances should we not agree to take in thousands of people to reduce the risks you mention? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2023 18:33:51 GMT
My question still stands, "is it worth the life of that woman just to stop 49 coming in". Yes - if it stops the murder of 49 British Citizens I see. You have obviously missed the point, sorry no prize. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 20, 2023 18:35:26 GMT
My question still stands, "is it worth the life of that woman just to stop 49 coming in". Yes - if it stops the murder of 49 British Citizens I see. You have obviously missed the point, sorry no prize. My prize is 49 British Citizens walking around who otherwise wouldn't if you had your way. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2023 18:36:37 GMT
Got to take it to the extreme. Who is suggesting such a proposition. Then this is an excellent opportunity for you explain yourself. According to you, under what circumstances should we not agree to take in thousands of people to reduce the risks you mention? What's the first thing you do with a new pack of cards after removing the cellophane before playing poker? It's really that simple. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 20, 2023 19:05:27 GMT
Then this is an excellent opportunity for you explain yourself. According to you, under what circumstances should we not agree to take in thousands of people to reduce the risks you mention? What's the first thing you do with a new pack of cards after removing the cellophane before playing poker? It's really that simple. opportunity refused - for obvious reasons |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Mar 20, 2023 19:07:19 GMT
Then this is an excellent opportunity for you explain yourself. According to you, under what circumstances should we not agree to take in thousands of people to reduce the risks you mention? What's the first thing you do with a new pack of cards after removing the cellophane before playing poker? It's really that simple. Take out the Jokers and shuffle. |
|
