Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2023 8:07:50 GMT
Good plan. Put 500 young men with baggage in cramped quarters light the fuse and watch the fireworks.🤣 Are you suggesting that these young men are violent and a threat to the peace of the nation? I am suggesting that if you put 500 young men of different religions and customs, some of whom may have been tortured or/and abused, in cramped conditions you are asking for trouble. If you cannot see the potential for disaster then you are not as clever as you think. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Aug 8, 2023 8:10:29 GMT
At the time I posted it was reported in the media that only two people has boarded the Barge and that some had refused to go on board, later in the day only fifteen more boarded, it was also reported that Lawyers had intervened to stop some boarding, no kidding it has been in the media for ages that the Government wants to place 500 Alleged Asylum Seekers on board, a fact that you have only discovered now , outstanding there is hope for you yet. So you jumped on that number to sensationalise the fact but did not correct it when you found out. If it walks and talks like a Tory...... So you jumped on the poster as a Tory,can you tell us what plans labour has or in fact what you think will solve this problem? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2023 8:10:34 GMT
Good plan. Put 500 young men with baggage in cramped quarters light the fuse and watch the fireworks.🤣 I recall all the pictures of refugees in WW1 in WW2 in Korea and in Vietnam. They consisted of large numbers of women and children and the elderly. The lines consisted of very few young men. In the pictures of people at Dover I can see no baggage. How times change. The young men were killed either fighting or by genocidal maniacs as they were a bigger threat than the old men, women and children.. You have shown, quite clearly, why there are large groups of young men fleeing conflict, abuse and famine. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2023 8:11:37 GMT
So you jumped on that number to sensationalise the fact but did not correct it when you found out. If it walks and talks like a Tory...... So you jumped on the poster as a Tory,can you tell us what plans labour has or in fact what you think will solve this problem? Labour are a distraction, this is a Tory mess. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 8, 2023 8:12:03 GMT
Which law is the government breaking by accommodating asylum seekers on the barge? If a number of people have succeeded in legal challenges, it is fairly clear that the decision that was legally overturned was previously against the law. Surely even you can see that Dan. Not necessarily. It could just as easily be the government deciding it didn't want to board potential troublemakers. It's not as though there's a shortage of candidates, 50,000 the last I heard. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 8, 2023 8:15:58 GMT
They won a legal challenge.
What on earth are you talking about Dan?
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Aug 8, 2023 8:19:23 GMT
They won a legal challenge. What on earth are you talking about Dan? Still no answer on your outrage,no surprise. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Aug 8, 2023 8:23:03 GMT
So you jumped on the poster as a Tory,can you tell us what plans labour has or in fact what you think will solve this problem? Labour are a distraction, this is a Tory mess. You mean you cannot answer and that you have only criticisms and no solutions. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 8, 2023 8:23:49 GMT
Eh?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 8, 2023 8:26:18 GMT
They won a legal challenge. What on earth are you talking about Dan? They did?
Do you mean they applied for and were granted an injunction? When and where did that happen?
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Aug 8, 2023 8:27:26 GMT
If that’s a reply to me try answering questions to your posts. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 8, 2023 8:34:31 GMT
20 people won a legal challenge Dan. Go figure mate.
Sorry Wapentake, I may have missed a post?? Was it this one?
Which international law dictates the accommodation offered to asylum seekers?
It is UK law not international law that the Government has yet again breached. Whatever your political position all should be outraged at the casual disregard our government display with regards to the law. If they don’t care about the law, why should anyone else?
International law on asylum needs modernising,with regards your answer
where’s your outrage concerning people who are citizens of this country yet have limited or no choice in the places they have to reside?
Given I have pointed out that our government broke domestic law not international law so a little puzzled to what you refer.
If your second point refers to homeless people, I have criticised our casual approach to the homeless crisis before. We found a way to take people off the streets during lockdown but have allowed the problem to re-emerge as soon as lockdown finished. Shameful performance. Trouble is no votes in homeless people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 8, 2023 8:43:40 GMT
By legal challenge do you mean a decision was made by a court? If so, when, where and by whom? There has been no report of any such decision.
Or do you mean that that some lawyer(s) complained to the Home Office, which then took the usual path of least resistance and caved in?
Don't keep parroting 'legal challenge' as if it answers the question.
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Aug 8, 2023 8:45:27 GMT
20 people won a legal challenge Dan. Go figure mate. Sorry Wapentake, I may have missed a post?? Was it this one?
Which international law dictates the accommodation offered to asylum seekers?
It is UK law not international law that the Government has yet again breached. Whatever your political position all should be outraged at the casual disregard our government display with regards to the law. If they don’t care about the law, why should anyone else?
International law on asylum needs modernising,with regards your answer
where’s your outrage concerning people who are citizens of this country yet have limited or no choice in the places they have to reside? Given I have pointed out that our government broke domestic law not international law so a little puzzled to what you refer. If your second point refers to homeless people, I have criticised our casual approach to the homeless crisis before. We found a way to take people off the streets during lockdown but have allowed the problem to re-emerge as soon as lockdown finished. Shameful performance. Trouble is no votes in homeless people. Well it’s not just homeless people is it? Have you liooked at the state of many housing associations of which around a third are charities,the kid that died through damp and mould and that so many are indifferent at best like the one in London where a resident lay dead for years despite others reporting the smell. We have people and their families living in substandard accommodation who are serving this country in the military yet are expected to live in property that would have the legal sharks all over it were asylum seekers expected to live there. International law is very relevant in that it’s long overdue an overhaul and regards asylum seekers and movement of people we ain’t seen nothing yet. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 8, 2023 8:53:02 GMT
I agree.. The standard and quantity of our social housing is appalling. It started with Thatcher's disastrous policy of selling off council houses and refusing t allow the money raised to be spent on replacement stock all for gerrymandering. Successive governments have failed to grasp the issue. Shame on them all (of both sides)
International law was not the issue why 20 people succeeded in legal challenges against our law breaking government again yesterday.
|
|
