|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 20, 2023 20:20:46 GMT
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. Then in isolation what is your comment on any asylum seeker coming in on the small boats who murders or rapes British Citizens. If we had not allowed the influx those victims would not be either dead or traumatised. To save one woman you are prepared to accept this? In their home countries yes possibly but not in France. That journey across the channel is made to obtain a better outcome for them and not specifically to escape danger. So I ask again what numbers and costs do you see in five years if we adhere to your preferred outcome? I have answered the question several times and you are still trying to restrict the answer. Yes some will die, just as some UK citizens will die if we continue as we are. Those are the choices and the risks. If some die it will be worth it if we stop potentially hundreds dying in the channel and many UK citizens being the victims of criminality to the person not to mention the escalating cost. So have you a limit on deaths and crimes against British citizens, the numbers arriving, the cost? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2023 4:00:52 GMT
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. You obviously believe the right-wing claptrap that the majority of asylum seekers entering our country are intent on murdering us. There is no excuse for a country to treat human beings in such a way as this bill would allow. 50 people enter our country by boat and all of them are returned leading directly to the death of one woman is not a price people should be willing to pay when there are perfectly sensible alternatives that would not lead to her death. Not once have you come close to the simple, cheaper solution to the problem and asked why the government is not doing it. This policy will only serve the traffickers who will make a fortune out of it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2023 4:01:26 GMT
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 Shame. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2023 4:02:16 GMT
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. Correct. That's exactly what we should be doing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2023 4:12:06 GMT
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. Then in isolation what is your comment on any asylum seeker coming in on the small boats who murders or rapes British Citizens. If we had not allowed the influx those victims would not be either dead or traumatised. To save one woman you are prepared to accept this? In their home countries yes possibly but not in France. That journey across the channel is made to obtain a better outcome for them and not specifically to escape danger. So I ask again what numbers and costs do you see in five years if we adhere to your preferred outcome? I have answered the question several times and you are still trying to restrict the answer. Yes some will die, just as some UK citizens will die if we continue as we are. Those are the choices and the risks. If some die it will be worth it if we stop potentially hundreds dying in the channel and many UK citizens being the victims of criminality to the person not to mention the escalating cost. So have you a limit on deaths and crimes against British citizens, the numbers arriving, the cost? I agree, that is a risk but those sort of people should and would, with a competent government be identified and removed before they enter the country proper. Why do you not see that this government is deliberately stoking the fires by not having a 'sensible' asylum system in place, which incidentally would cost a lot less than putting them up in hotels, giving them the opportunities to commit crimes. Six million pounds a day could employ a lot of border staff and infrastructure to efficiently deal with this problem but the government wants the rumbling discontent putting them in hotels for electioneering purposes. As you keep asking what it will be like in 5, 10 years time, I have to say I don't know but neither do you. Any possible outcome can only be predicted by assumption. I feel it will get worse though and if we have constructed the facilities to deal with the problem now it will be easier and cheaper in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Mar 21, 2023 5:38:48 GMT
Then in isolation what is your comment on any asylum seeker coming in on the small boats who murders or rapes British Citizens. If we had not allowed the influx those victims would not be either dead or traumatised. To save one woman you are prepared to accept this? In their home countries yes possibly but not in France. That journey across the channel is made to obtain a better outcome for them and not specifically to escape danger. So I ask again what numbers and costs do you see in five years if we adhere to your preferred outcome? I have answered the question several times and you are still trying to restrict the answer. Yes some will die, just as some UK citizens will die if we continue as we are. Those are the choices and the risks. If some die it will be worth it if we stop potentially hundreds dying in the channel and many UK citizens being the victims of criminality to the person not to mention the escalating cost. So have you a limit on deaths and crimes against British citizens, the numbers arriving, the cost? I agree, that is a risk but those sort of people should and would, with a competent government be identified and removed before they enter the country proper. Why do you not see that this government is deliberately stoking the fires by not having a 'sensible' asylum system in place, which incidentally would cost a lot less than putting them up in hotels, giving them the opportunities to commit crimes. Six million pounds a day could employ a lot of border staff and infrastructure to efficiently deal with this problem but the government wants the rumbling discontent putting them in hotels for electioneering purposes. As you keep asking what it will be like in 5, 10 years time, I have to say I don't know but neither do you. Any possible outcome can only be predicted by assumption. I feel it will get worse though and if we have constructed the facilities to deal with the problem now it will be easier and cheaper in the future. It's not six million, it's seven million pounds a day and that just the hotel bill. It was revealed earlier, in fact yesterday, that the phones issued to illegals cost tax payers £55 million a year. And I havent even got to the pocket money they issued with every week as homeless people in this country continue to live in shop doorways. No one has a 'right' to come to this country. It should be up to people in this country who come here, it should be up to people who pay tax and pay for this country who decide who comes here and belive me, the vast majority of the electorate want an end to it and with an election looming, lol, even Labour aren't going to be shouting too loudly for immigrants. Starmer might be a lefty, but he aint daft and he knows that defending immigration is a vote loser. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2023 7:40:28 GMT
I agree, that is a risk but those sort of people should and would, with a competent government be identified and removed before they enter the country proper. Why do you not see that this government is deliberately stoking the fires by not having a 'sensible' asylum system in place, which incidentally would cost a lot less than putting them up in hotels, giving them the opportunities to commit crimes. Six million pounds a day could employ a lot of border staff and infrastructure to efficiently deal with this problem but the government wants the rumbling discontent putting them in hotels for electioneering purposes. As you keep asking what it will be like in 5, 10 years time, I have to say I don't know but neither do you. Any possible outcome can only be predicted by assumption. I feel it will get worse though and if we have constructed the facilities to deal with the problem now it will be easier and cheaper in the future. It's not six million, it's seven million pounds a day and that just the hotel bill. It was revealed earlier, in fact yesterday, that the phones issued to illegals cost tax payers £55 million a year. And I havent even got to the pocket money they issued with every week as homeless people in this country continue to live in shop doorways. No one has a 'right' to come to this country. It should be up to people in this country who come here, it should be up to people who pay tax and pay for this country who decide who comes here and belive me, the vast majority of the electorate want an end to it and with an election looming, lol, even Labour aren't going to be shouting too loudly for immigrants. Starmer might be a lefty, but he aint daft and he knows that defending immigration is a vote loser. Evern worse. Can that money not be better used by employing people to deal with the problem, it is simple really. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Mar 21, 2023 7:43:29 GMT
It's not six million, it's seven million pounds a day and that just the hotel bill. It was revealed earlier, in fact yesterday, that the phones issued to illegals cost tax payers £55 million a year. And I havent even got to the pocket money they issued with every week as homeless people in this country continue to live in shop doorways. No one has a 'right' to come to this country. It should be up to people in this country who come here, it should be up to people who pay tax and pay for this country who decide who comes here and belive me, the vast majority of the electorate want an end to it and with an election looming, lol, even Labour aren't going to be shouting too loudly for immigrants. Starmer might be a lefty, but he aint daft and he knows that defending immigration is a vote loser. Evern worse. Can that money not be better used by employing people to deal with the problem, it is simple really. You utter fucking left wing pillock. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Mar 21, 2023 7:45:58 GMT
Apologies, that was a tad harsh. But, you are defo an utter fucking pillock.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 21, 2023 8:23:56 GMT
My prize is 49 British Citizens walking around who otherwise wouldn't if you had your way. You obviously believe the right-wing claptrap that the majority of asylum seekers entering our country are intent on murdering us. There is no excuse for a country to treat human beings in such a way as this bill would allow. 50 people enter our country by boat and all of them are returned leading directly to the death of one woman is not a price people should be willing to pay when there are perfectly sensible alternatives that would not lead to her death. Not once have you come close to the simple, cheaper solution to the problem and asked why the government is not doing it. This policy will only serve the traffickers who will make a fortune out of it. How do you know that 49 anonymous guys will not murder someone? - you have no idea who these people are or what they will do once they get here. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 21, 2023 8:27:03 GMT
So in your book, having a decent society is our fault. Do get real The French claim they are attracted by the black economy. And Pacifico has argued recently that more applications are accepted in the UK than elsewhere, thus making the UK more attractive. Here’s a question: X dumps all his rubbish in his back garden. After some time, the rubbish begins to attract rats. X notices that the rats are crossing his neighbour’s land to get to the rubbish in his garden. X sues his neighbour for not preventing the rats from crossing his garden. The neighbour countersues X, saying that X's backyard rubbish dump is drawing rats across his land, creating a nuisance for him. Who will win in a UK court? The above is how the French see it. And they have a point. And no, I'm not suggesting these people are rats. Well any talk of black economy apart the French have made it clear on more than one occasion that they see our whole benefit and social care system is attractive to migrants. Its all very well portraying us as the bad guys but on more than one occasion I’ve seen migrants asked why they don’t want to stay in France,almost all reply “they hate us here” They usually go onto say it’s their dream to come to the UK,given some where to live and money in many cases that’s the perception of the UK. And a question to you if the predictions of global warming are correct and these places the migrants come from become more uninhabitable and poorer do you think we should open our doors to all comers. Poulation is still rising in the world though some poster on here can’t remember who called it out as false saying population is falling (in the developed world yes) but not elsewhere. Harsh as it may seem if that all comes to pass and I think it will we cannot take all comers,unless you have different ideas. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2023 8:51:25 GMT
Evern worse. Can that money not be better used by employing people to deal with the problem, it is simple really. You utter fucking left wing pillock. Typical, make a simple statement and because you have no real answer you resort to abuse. The Tories have spent billions of our money in the last 13 years 'dealing' with this problem and. as far as I can see, it is getting worse. With an 80 seat majority they can practically pass any law that they want, so why don't they. They repeatedly say they are trying to deal with it but the 'lefty' judiciary want let them, rubbish. 'Lefty lawyers' will not break the law and put forward agreements to a judge or judges, the judges interpret the law under advisement. It is not their fault if the Tories are attempting to circumvent the laws and act illegally. The Tories know 'immigration' is a vote winner for them so they are quite happy to 'allow' it to multiply. People like you also blame the 'lefty' civil service who are told what to do by the government but they still have a responsibility to follow the law. There are reasons to break the law, self or family defence, starvation.... but these don't apply in a work situation and unless the Tories write legal requests the civil service has every right to reject it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2023 8:52:11 GMT
You obviously believe the right-wing claptrap that the majority of asylum seekers entering our country are intent on murdering us. There is no excuse for a country to treat human beings in such a way as this bill would allow. 50 people enter our country by boat and all of them are returned leading directly to the death of one woman is not a price people should be willing to pay when there are perfectly sensible alternatives that would not lead to her death. Not once have you come close to the simple, cheaper solution to the problem and asked why the government is not doing it. This policy will only serve the traffickers who will make a fortune out of it. How do you know that 49 anonymous guys will not murder someone? - you have no idea who these people are or what they will do once they get here. 😒 |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 21, 2023 8:55:36 GMT
Take out the Jokers and shuffle. Correct. That's exactly what we should be doing. Using your analogy - there is no way of doing that without identification. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 21, 2023 9:11:43 GMT
The French claim they are attracted by the black economy. And Pacifico has argued recently that more applications are accepted in the UK than elsewhere, thus making the UK more attractive. Here’s a question: X dumps all his rubbish in his back garden. After some time, the rubbish begins to attract rats. X notices that the rats are crossing his neighbour’s land to get to the rubbish in his garden. X sues his neighbour for not preventing the rats from crossing his garden. The neighbour countersues X, saying that X's backyard rubbish dump is drawing rats across his land, creating a nuisance for him. Who will win in a UK court? The above is how the French see it. And they have a point. And no, I'm not suggesting these people are rats. Well any talk of black economy apart the French have made it clear on more than one occasion that they see our whole benefit and social care system is attractive to migrants. Its all very well portraying us as the bad guys but on more than one occasion I’ve seen migrants asked why they don’t want to stay in France,almost all reply “they hate us here” They usually go onto say it’s their dream to come to the UK,given some where to live and money in many cases that’s the perception of the UK. And a question to you if the predictions of global warming are correct and these places the migrants come from become more uninhabitable and poorer do you think we should open our doors to all comers. Poulation is still rising in the world though some poster on here can’t remember who called it out as false saying population is falling (in the developed world yes) but not elsewhere. Harsh as it may seem if that all comes to pass and I think it will we cannot take all comers,unless you have different ideas. You say that they don't stay in France because, as they say, 'they hate us here'. That begs the question: why do they go to France? According to something I read (at least 6 months ago), the people in the dinghies enter France specifically for the purpose of getting to the UK. For reasons I don't quite understand, they enter France from Belgium and head straight to the French beaches. France is just a stepping stone for these people. If the Netherlands were closer to the UK coast than France, they would be going to The Netherlands. So, they don't leave France because 'they hate us here'; they leave France because they never had any intention of staying in France. The French just have the bad luck to be the country nearest the place that is attracting these people: the UK. As to your point about global warming: I really don't know. I would hope that safe countries would agree quotas. Hopefully, something will be done to address global warming before it reaches that point. |
|
