Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2023 6:26:34 GMT
No I do not. Is that important in the context of the topic or my statement? I am trying for clarification of a position. You say that you do not support no limit to migration. For many people the limit was reached and passed many years ago as the polls will indicate. Where does your limit lie, is it a moving limit, is it based on our own population, is it dependant on several years numbers, is it dependant on other countries or circumstances as yet undefined. Your statement was you do not support no limits to migration but want a fair system. Perhaps if we knew what you meant as regards both we could get a handle on how far we are below your limit and what a fair system actually entails. Some believe that a fair system should be principally fair to the people of the UK most of whom, as polls continually show, think it is very unfair to them as the numbers arriving increase. Oh, I see you are one of the conspiracy theorists that believe that we are 'full'. A fair system has been described many, many times and I see no need to repeat it. A lot of people do believe "it is very unfair to them as the numbers arriving increase" but we have a global problem with refugees and the UK is towards the bottom of the list when it comes to 'doing our bit'. When the UK issued 10,492 positive decisions. These include Germany (59,850), France (33,875), Italy (21,805), Spain (20,405), Greece (16,575), Austria (12,105) and the Netherlands (12,065). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2023 6:28:19 GMT
So it is only foreign people crossing the channel that is the focus of the discussion. They are only defined by the fact they cross the channel and enter the UK illegally. That is the only common identity. If they are entering the UK illegally why do the police not arrest and hold them in custody ass soon as they land? |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Apr 28, 2023 7:51:58 GMT
So it is only foreign people crossing the channel that is the focus of the discussion. They are only defined by the fact they cross the channel and enter the UK illegally. That is the only common identity. If they are entering the UK illegally why do the police not arrest and hold them in custody ass soon as they land? That's a good question and I don't know why Sir Mark Rowley hasn't been asked it. He wouldn't have an answer. But The comparison with Hitler's treatment of Jews is inappropriate. For a start we're not trying to kill the boat migrants. The trouble here is that the English language has been abused so much that it's hard to talk rationally about it. Muslims are not a "race" of course, but Jews are also not technically a separate race - they're part of the white race, though I suspect Hitler regarded them as a separate race. The rule of law (in the UK) is that people cannot be discriminated against because of their religion (a protected characteristic). But you can criticise a religion as we scrapped the law against blasphemy some years ago. So we can't ban muslim immigration - and neither can the USA. Trump plainly wanted to stop muslim immigration but it would violate the American Constitution so instead he tried to ban immigration from countries that sponsor terrorism - which is pretty much the same thing. But I think the courts struck that down too - in fact Obama also tried to do this. So Jenrick talks about damaging "cultural cohesiveness" and importing "different lifestyles" when what he means is that we don't want muslims because Islam is incompatible with a tolerant society - but that would be an offence. It's an anomaly in the law that people are free to follow a religion even if its beliefs are toxic (and deeply racist) but if a person has an ideology that he doesn't like people who follow Islam (because of their beliefs) he can be arrested for discriminating against people for a protected characteristic. Which makes no sense. My personal opinion is that beliefs (religious or not) should not be a protected characteristic. It should be perfectly legal to discriminate against people if they follow a religion that breaks our laws - which Islam does on many counts. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 28, 2023 9:18:26 GMT
I am trying for clarification of a position. You say that you do not support no limit to migration. For many people the limit was reached and passed many years ago as the polls will indicate. Where does your limit lie, is it a moving limit, is it based on our own population, is it dependant on several years numbers, is it dependant on other countries or circumstances as yet undefined. Your statement was you do not support no limits to migration but want a fair system. Perhaps if we knew what you meant as regards both we could get a handle on how far we are below your limit and what a fair system actually entails. Some believe that a fair system should be principally fair to the people of the UK most of whom, as polls continually show, think it is very unfair to them as the numbers arriving increase. Oh, I see you are one of the conspiracy theorists that believe that we are 'full'. A fair system has been described many, many times and I see no need to repeat it. A lot of people do believe "it is very unfair to them as the numbers arriving increase" but we have a global problem with refugees and the UK is towards the bottom of the list when it comes to 'doing our bit'. When the UK issued 10,492 positive decisions. These include Germany (59,850), France (33,875), Italy (21,805), Spain (20,405), Greece (16,575), Austria (12,105) and the Netherlands (12,065). Well if we are not 'full' then we have to build on land that many people do not want built on. There is a balance between numbers arriving and quality of life of British citizens. If British Citizens do not wish to see many more arrivals, and the polls indicate that is the case, then fairness and democracy should work to that end. Most citizens in all the other countries you mentioned are also pretty fed up with the continued influx, largely of overflow population in Africa or those who do not wish to stay in Turkey to whom we give oodles of cash to help with the refugee problem. Europe has done its bit and is now being overrun in a slow motion sort of way but there is no visible end to the problem. We have taken over 1.5 million migrants this past year and now about one in six UK residents were born outside the UK, in Germany it is about one in 8. So we are pretty far down the line of 'doing our bit'. In France it is about one in seven. So outline once again what a 'fair system' is how you measure it and whose wishes do you consider to arrive at a 'fair' outcome. I see no 'fairness' in what we are being subjected to and it is undoubtedly against the wishes of the UK population whose wishes I would have thought were paramount in any implemented system. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 28, 2023 9:21:14 GMT
So it is only foreign people crossing the channel that is the focus of the discussion. They are only defined by the fact they cross the channel and enter the UK illegally. That is the only common identity. If they are entering the UK illegally why do the police not arrest and hold them in custody ass soon as they land? Are you saying they are not entering illegally and it is still the point of the discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Apr 28, 2023 9:22:04 GMT
He obviously agrees with former Home Secretary David Blunkett's view that there is no obvious upper limit to the number of migrants that Britain can absorb.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2023 10:12:32 GMT
If they are entering the UK illegally why do the police not arrest and hold them in custody ass soon as they land? That's a good question and I don't know why Sir Mark Rowley hasn't been asked it. He wouldn't have an answer. Tim Smith is the CC of Kent where a lot of the arrivals appear. Sussex Police have Jo Shiner. The main answer though, is Home Office direction. Illegals found on the streets were arrested in times gone by, then handed over to immigration. Nowadays the sheer volume of numbers would flood the prison system, even though that is where they should be. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Apr 28, 2023 10:18:48 GMT
That's a good question and I don't know why Sir Mark Rowley hasn't been asked it. He wouldn't have an answer. Tim Smith is the CC of Kent where a lot of the arrivals appear. Sussex Police have Jo Shiner. The main answer though, is Home Office direction. Illegals found on the streets were arrested in times gone by, then handed over to immigration. Nowadays the sheer volume of numbers would flood the prison system, even though that is where they should be. Yes they could also be prosecuted with entering the UK unlawfully but they don't , if they did the Courts would be inundated with thousands of hearings, more cost to the taxpayers |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Apr 28, 2023 10:49:42 GMT
The more this issue goes on and the more it escalates unabated the rhetoric around it will rise also (right or wrong).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2023 11:01:15 GMT
If they are entering the UK illegally why do the police not arrest and hold them in custody ass soon as they land? That's a good question and I don't know why Sir Mark Rowley hasn't been asked it. He wouldn't have an answer. But The comparison with Hitler's treatment of Jews is inappropriate. For a start we're not trying to kill the boat migrants. The trouble here is that the English language has been abused so much that it's hard to talk rationally about it. Muslims are not a "race" of course, but Jews are also not technically a separate race - they're part of the white race, though I suspect Hitler regarded them as a separate race. The rule of law (in the UK) is that people cannot be discriminated against because of their religion (a protected characteristic). But you can criticise a religion as we scrapped the law against blasphemy some years ago. So we can't ban muslim immigration - and neither can the USA. Trump plainly wanted to stop muslim immigration but it would violate the American Constitution so instead he tried to ban immigration from countries that sponsor terrorism - which is pretty much the same thing. But I think the courts struck that down too - in fact Obama also tried to do this. So Jenrick talks about damaging "cultural cohesiveness" and importing "different lifestyles" when what he means is that we don't want muslims because Islam is incompatible with a tolerant society - but that would be an offence. It's an anomaly in the law that people are free to follow a religion even if its beliefs are toxic (and deeply racist) but if a person has an ideology that he doesn't like people who follow Islam (because of their beliefs) he can be arrested for discriminating against people for a protected characteristic. Which makes no sense. My personal opinion is that beliefs (religious or not) should not be a protected characteristic. It should be perfectly legal to discriminate against people if they follow a religion that breaks our laws - which Islam does on many counts. He has and he has categorically said "it is not illegal to seek asylum in any country by any means". Look it up. Nobody is accusing us of attempting to kill the asylum seekers, you still do not seem to understand the point. It is the language being used by our government to describe people fleeing oppression, torture and war that is being compared, criminals, cannibalising, illegals, destroying our culture, invasion, jetting refugees to Rwanda in body restraints the list goes on. Thus, the Nazis referred to Jews as a “parasitic race.” In particular, they believed that Jews were parasites that were destroying the Aryan race. Does this sound familiar with the ideas, expressed on this board about asylum seekers "destroying our culture". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2023 11:04:32 GMT
Oh, I see you are one of the conspiracy theorists that believe that we are 'full'. A fair system has been described many, many times and I see no need to repeat it. A lot of people do believe "it is very unfair to them as the numbers arriving increase" but we have a global problem with refugees and the UK is towards the bottom of the list when it comes to 'doing our bit'. When the UK issued 10,492 positive decisions. These include Germany (59,850), France (33,875), Italy (21,805), Spain (20,405), Greece (16,575), Austria (12,105) and the Netherlands (12,065). Well if we are not 'full' then we have to build on land that many people do not want built on. There is a balance between numbers arriving and quality of life of British citizens. If British Citizens do not wish to see many more arrivals, and the polls indicate that is the case, then fairness and democracy should work to that end. Most citizens in all the other countries you mentioned are also pretty fed up with the continued influx, largely of overflow population in Africa or those who do not wish to stay in Turkey to whom we give oodles of cash to help with the refugee problem. Europe has done its bit and is now being overrun in a slow motion sort of way but there is no visible end to the problem. We have taken over 1.5 million migrants this past year and now about one in six UK residents were born outside the UK, in Germany it is about one in 8. So we are pretty far down the line of 'doing our bit'. In France it is about one in seven. So outline once again what a 'fair system' is how you measure it and whose wishes do you consider to arrive at a 'fair' outcome. I see no 'fairness' in what we are being subjected to and it is undoubtedly against the wishes of the UK population whose wishes I would have thought were paramount in any implemented system. We do not have to build on land that many people do not want us to as you say. "Developers are “gorging” on greenfield sites in rural areas to build despite a record amount of brownfield land being available for construction, a charity has said". Developers want to maximise their profits. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2023 11:06:35 GMT
If they are entering the UK illegally why do the police not arrest and hold them in custody ass soon as they land? Are you saying they are not entering illegally and it is still the point of the discussion. You work it out, if they are entering illegally why are they not arrested and detained in the prison system for committing a crime? The point of the discussion is the language being used by the Tories to describe vulnerable people. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2023 11:07:20 GMT
That's a good question and I don't know why Sir Mark Rowley hasn't been asked it. He wouldn't have an answer. Tim Smith is the CC of Kent where a lot of the arrivals appear. Sussex Police have Jo Shiner. The main answer though, is Home Office direction. Illegals found on the streets were arrested in times gone by, then handed over to immigration. Nowadays the sheer volume of numbers would flood the prison system, even though that is where they should be. 😂 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2023 11:08:59 GMT
Juvenile response. At least you didn't post a link to a blank page, to waste my time. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 28, 2023 11:26:01 GMT
Nobody is accusing us of attempting to kill the asylum seekers, you still do not seem to understand the point. It is the language being used by our government to describe people fleeing oppression, torture and war that is being compared, The biggest group of asylum seekers crossing the Channel last year were from Albania - this year its people from India. Neither of which are known for oppression, torture and war - India being quite a popular holiday destination. |
|
