|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 21, 2023 15:59:54 GMT
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. How do you 'know' they will. The indication "to do us harm" does not necessarily mean murder. You said;- "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." Could you put a cost on the sensible alternatives, including potential risks to British Citizens? After all it is the risk of one woman being killed that you are referring to not the actuality. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 21, 2023 16:12:52 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. We have not had a competent government for over three decades if asylum is the measure and it is unlikely to be any different in the next few years. So we have to have a different outlook to protect UK citizens. I agree that there does seem to be elements of electioneering in the Tory actions but then we can clearly see that Labour would not solve the problems of arrivals, they may deal more efficiently with processing but then that probably means over half arriving staying and the other half fighting tooth and nail to stay, mostly at our cost. I do not know what will happen in five years but I can extrapolate from the information so far, as any sensible person can, and has done and been proven correct over the last few years assuming little changes and it does not look like it will. The forecasting looks ominous in terms of costs, numbers, criminals, housing and control, or lack thereof. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2023 17:17:29 GMT
Correct identify who is coming to our shores. Identify (if we can) people coming into the country? I think we already do that This law will eliminate the the identity stage. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2023 17:19:27 GMT
Identify (if we can) people coming into the country? I think we already do that This law will eliminate the the identity stage. I notice you're on here around the clock and at some very peculiar times (counting the hours backs shows ~4am). What country are you posting from? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2023 17:19:41 GMT
How do you 'know' they will. The indication "to do us harm" does not necessarily mean murder. You said;- "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." Could you put a cost on the sensible alternatives, including potential risks to British Citizens? After all it is the risk of one woman being killed that you are referring to not the actuality. Yes it's simple. It would cost less to 'process' the immigrants than it does to put them up in hotels, give them phones.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2023 17:21:11 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. We have not had a competent government for over three decades if asylum is the measure and it is unlikely to be any different in the next few years. So we have to have a different outlook to protect UK citizens. I agree that there does seem to be elements of electioneering in the Tory actions but then we can clearly see that Labour would not solve the problems of arrivals, they may deal more efficiently with processing but then that probably means over half arriving staying and the other half fighting tooth and nail to stay, mostly at our cost. I do not know what will happen in five years but I can extrapolate from the information so far, as any sensible person can, and has done and been proven correct over the last few years assuming little changes and it does not look like it will. The forecasting looks ominous in terms of costs, numbers, criminals, housing and control, or lack thereof. So you are against this new policy of returning immigrants without processing? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2023 17:22:19 GMT
This law will eliminate the the identity stage. I notice you're on here around the clock and at some very peculiar times. What country are you posting from? UK. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2023 17:23:07 GMT
I notice you're on here around the clock and at some very peculiar times. What country are you posting from? UK. Ah, so you're up all day and night supporting the invasion of England. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 21, 2023 17:28:36 GMT
Pursuing his interests at the expense of yours.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2023 17:39:16 GMT
Ah, so you're up all day and night supporting the invasion of England. I don't sleep a lot but that is due to a number of ongoing conditions which are very painful but I will not bore you with details.. As to my supporting an invasion you are well off the mark, indeed I wish to see all who enter our country without good reason sent home, within the law of the land. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 21, 2023 18:05:35 GMT
We have not had a competent government for over three decades if asylum is the measure and it is unlikely to be any different in the next few years. So we have to have a different outlook to protect UK citizens. I agree that there does seem to be elements of electioneering in the Tory actions but then we can clearly see that Labour would not solve the problems of arrivals, they may deal more efficiently with processing but then that probably means over half arriving staying and the other half fighting tooth and nail to stay, mostly at our cost. I do not know what will happen in five years but I can extrapolate from the information so far, as any sensible person can, and has done and been proven correct over the last few years assuming little changes and it does not look like it will. The forecasting looks ominous in terms of costs, numbers, criminals, housing and control, or lack thereof. So you are against this new policy of returning immigrants without processing? Not sure how you work that one out. I am for any policy that deals with the situation effectively and stops the channel crossings ASAP notwithstanding my criticism of the current government and HM Opposition. If the policy being proposed works, and I have my doubts, then I am for it. If it does not, and I suspect it will not, then it will just kick the can further down the road to the disadvantage of British Citizens generally and specifically those of the same who will die or be raped as a result of illegal arrivals. Also to the disadvantage of those destined to die in the channel during the continuation of this farce. As well as the exorbitant cost that will ensue from the inability of the government to deal effectively with the situation. As a sensible person can you not extrapolate the figures and the costs one two and three years down the line irrespective of which process is followed. The costs of what you wish are astronomical in the short term and high in the long term. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 21, 2023 18:14:29 GMT
You said;- "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." Could you put a cost on the sensible alternatives, including potential risks to British Citizens? After all it is the risk of one woman being killed that you are referring to not the actuality. Yes it's simple. It would cost less to 'process' the immigrants than it does to put them up in hotels, give them phones.... Not quite, the number of processors, and consequent investigations, will have to be increased ten fold, the hotels will still be needed as the numbers keep increasing, it costs £13,000 to deport one person. If 100,000 come and 50,000 fail that is, I think, £650 million, plus hotels, plus legal costs, plus phones, plus pocket money, plus crime etc etc. The influx has to be stopped, not processed so we have to be cruel to be kind. Better than being kind and being cruel to British Citizens. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 21, 2023 18:21:16 GMT
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. The indication "to do us harm" does not necessarily mean murder. The same way you know this woman will be killed if she is sent home. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Mar 21, 2023 19:11:21 GMT
Right - It doesn't compel signatories to invite in, or collect in, anyone who can't, or won't, identify themselves and wants to enter. You keep repeating ''invite in'' as if it were true. Nobody is inviting refugees to come to Britain. That's just hysteria. I don't even know what you mean by ''collect in''. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Mar 21, 2023 19:14:27 GMT
Ah, so you're up all day and night supporting the invasion of England. More 1930s rhetoric. There is no invasion of England. Hasn't been since 1066 unless you count the Glorious Revolution of 1688. |
|
