Cable Forum

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   The boat people (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33711870)

Sephiroth 30-04-2023 19:20
The boat people
 
I didn't want to go off topic in another thread, but Ian does need to be dealt with in relation to this topic. The originating thread is at https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...4&postcount=40

Ian said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99
The positioning of integrity and Braverman in the same response I think proves the point being made. The women is a Goebbels wannabe and certified moron. If you think she represents your values, and the country's, then you may need a rethink.
My reply included:

Quote:
I suppose you used the term "Goebbels" because you think that Braverman is victimising poor defenceless people (the ones I call illegal migrants). I and the country at large want these illegal migrants and the associated trafficking stopped. If you don't want this, then it is you that needs a rethink.
Ian then went off piste in his retort:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36150834)
Just to be clear, and to correct your deliberate misrepresentation, I am not "describing people [plural] I do not like". Rather, I am describing a person [singular] I do not like.

Comparing Braverman to the 1930 Germany is not my claim, it is the claim of an actual Holocaust survivor who said:

Quote:
“Now, when I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family, and millions of others.

“Why do you find the need to use that kind of language.”
Same tactic, different century. We used to be a compassionate nation but this Government, with its hateful gaslighting of the reality of Asylum Seeking in the UK, is turning us into a spiteful, insular shadow of our former selves.

The deliberate action of not providing legal routes to claim asylum from Sudan, Syria, etc. and then labelling people who are forced to travel by sea "illegal" is a sinister play and is designed to manipulate the gullible. The people who you should be worrying about arriving in this country do not arrive on small boats, they arrive on private jets.
I'll critique Ian's reply in my next post.

---------- Post added at 19:20 ---------- Previous post was at 18:51 ----------


Ian very specifically likened Braverman to Goebbels (Holocaust, remember?).

Then, in his next post, Ian denied what he had openly done. I don't think Braverman ever used the word "swarms". She did use the word "invasion" and with good reason: daily boatloads of fit young men, who have deliberately destroyed their documents and mobile phones, many of them Albanians who are known to enter the criminal world. This seems to have changed now to other types of would-be migrants. Those who have a genuine reason to want to claim asylum, could do so in France.

Ian has raised a separate matter - no doubt to divert attention from his Goebbels slur: legal asylum routes for Sudanese & Syrians, etc. That's a difficult one. Due to the "invasion" by the boat people, the asylum system is clogged with an enormous backlog that costs us £6m/day in hotel charges. Thus, the only recourse we have, in addition to the Bill going through Parliament, is not to allow new legal routes for the time being.

The hysterical, personalised attack on Braverman (remember, he hates Tories) is completely unjustified.

Jaymoss 30-04-2023 19:26
Re: The boat people
 
They are committing an horrendous amount of crime too. The doo gooders will inevitable poo poo it but it is clear. From violent crime and theft to child molestation and targeting young girls.

I do not want them here

Mad Max 30-04-2023 19:27
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36150838)
They are committing an horrendous amount of crime too. The doo gooders will inevitable poo poo it but it is clear. From violent crime and theft to child molestation and targeting young girls.

I do not want them here

:clap::clap::clap:

Taf 30-04-2023 19:39
Re: The boat people
 
Undoubtedly, there are some that are getting here undetected. Are they all rushing to the nearest police station to claim political asylum?

Ms NTL 30-04-2023 20:56
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taf (Post 36150840)
Undoubtedly, there are some that are getting here undetected. Are they all rushing to the nearest police station to claim political asylum?
Most Albanians are blond and almost all of them white. I guess that's why.

Mr K 30-04-2023 22:58
Re: The boat people
 
Dog whistle of a thread, all because the OP "needs to deal" with someone.
.

jfman 01-05-2023 08:52
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36150847)
Dog whistle of a thread, all because the OP "needs to deal" with someone.
.
Not to be pedantic, isn’t a dog whistle meant to be subtle?

Hugh 01-05-2023 09:38
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36150847)
Dog whistle of a thread, all because the OP "needs to deal" with someone.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36150852)
Not to be pedantic, isn’t a dog whistle meant to be subtle?
Strangely enough, the wiki article on that term has this…

Quote:
Australia

The term was first picked up in Australian politics in the mid-1990s, and was frequently applied to the political campaigning of John Howard.[7] Throughout his 11 years as Australian prime minister and particularly in his fourth term, Howard was accused of communicating messages appealing to anxious Australian voters using code words such as "un-Australian", "mainstream", and "illegals".[8][9]

One notable example was the Howard government's message on refugee arrivals. His government's tough stance on immigration was popular with voters, but was accused of using the issue to additionally send veiled messages of support to voters with racist leanings,[10] while maintaining plausible deniability by avoiding overtly racist language.[11] Another example was the publicity of the Australian citizenship test in 2007.[11] It has been argued that the test may appear reasonable at face value, but is really intended to appeal to those opposing immigration from particular geographic regions.[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)

Sephiroth 01-05-2023 09:58
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36150847)
Dog whistle of a thread, all because the OP "needs to deal" with someone.
.


My message isn’t coded nor carefully framed to be suggestive.


ianch99 01-05-2023 17:50
Re: The boat people
 
I'm going to be "dealt with", sounds sinister :D

Let's be very clear here, this whole "small boat" scenario is one totally confected by the Tory Party. Three decisions made by this Government make this inevitable:

1. stop all legal routes to claim asylum from Sudan, Syria, Ethiopia, etc.
2. refuse offer by France to process claims on French soil
3. deliberately stop processing asylum claims

Re: point #3, since 2014, the % of asylum applications completed within 6 months fell from 80%+ to ~10%.

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2023/05/1.jpg

This is an artificial problem created by design to distract from a broken country, a country that was broken by the very people shouting "dinghies!". The saddest part of all of this is not that they did this, it is that enough people are gullible to taken in by it.

---------- Post added at 17:50 ---------- Previous post was at 17:47 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36150852)
Not to be pedantic, isn’t a dog whistle meant to be subtle?
To be very pedantic, a dog whistle is loud but only to those who can hear it .... woof.

Sephiroth 01-05-2023 17:58
Re: The boat people
 
Your argument, Ian, is founded on there not being sufficient leagal routes to the UK.

I'll certainly grant your point #2 - but it would still take some time for determination of claims made in France.

If the UK had taken up that offer, would it have stopped the boat people? I suspect not. They can be across the channel on a boat in a couple of hours rather than a couple of months.

The whole point here is that the boat people do not need to come to the UK.

1andrew1 01-05-2023 18:12
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36150884)
Your argument, Ian, is founded on there not being sufficient leagal routes to the UK.

I'll certainly grant your point #2 - but it would still take some time for determination of claims made in France.

If the UK had taken up that offer, would it have stopped the boat people? I suspect not. They can be across the channel on a boat in a couple of hours rather than a couple of months.

The whole point here is that the boat people do not need to come to the UK.
There are no legal rights into the UK apart from hopping onto a small boat and making your asylum claim upon arrival. No one's going to spend thousands of Pounds and risk their life doing so if they can apply from France.

The UK does not want a processing centre in France as it fears it will lead to an increase in asylum-seekers as the risky and costly channel deterrent would be removed.

Sephiroth 01-05-2023 18:15
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36150886)
There are no legal rights into the UK apart from hopping onto a small boat and making your asylum claim upon arrival. No one's going to spend thousands of Pounds and risk their life doing so if they can apply from France.

The UK does not want a processing centre in France as it fears it will lead to an increase in asylum-seekers as the risky and costly channel deterrent would be removed.
They don't need to come to the UK to be safe.

TheDaddy 02-05-2023 02:24
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36150888)
They don't need to come to the UK to be safe.
They don't need to claim asylum anywhere else either

1andrew1 02-05-2023 06:35
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36150888)
They don't need to come to the UK to be safe.
The Daddy is right.

And as others have pointed out, the UK is not doing the heavy lifting on taking in asylum seekers.

ianch99 02-05-2023 11:40
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36150884)
Your argument, Ian, is founded on there not being sufficient leagal routes to the UK.

I'll certainly grant your point #2 - but it would still take some time for determination of claims made in France.

If the UK had taken up that offer, would it have stopped the boat people? I suspect not. They can be across the channel on a boat in a couple of hours rather than a couple of months.

The whole point here is that the boat people do not need to come to the UK.
My argument is founded on 3 of the points.

What you seem to be saying is that the UK should not accept asylum seekers at all which is unacceptable for a G7 nation.

TheDaddy 02-05-2023 11:53
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36150947)
My argument is founded on 3 of the points.

What you seem to be saying is that the UK should not accept asylum seekers at all which is unacceptable for a G7 nation.
It's okay, we won't be one of them soon

Sephiroth 06-05-2023 09:36
Re: The boat people
 

The summer season has started. We can watch the goings on at https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/cha...ssings-tracker

Mr K 06-05-2023 10:16
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36151338)

The summer season has started. We can watch the goings on at https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/cha...ssings-tracker
You can also watch NHS staff going in the other direction.

Working out well this 'independent' UK, Nigel and Boris' promises were lies. A poorer country, with spiralling inflation and lower standards of living. This is what will deter the boat people in the end.

Paul 06-05-2023 11:58
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36151347)
This is what will deter the boat people in the end.
So the plan is working then ?

TheDaddy 06-05-2023 12:12
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36151357)
So the plan is working then ?
Omg, wonder if they'll have the bare faced cheek to try and claim that's why they've run the country into the ground and made us all much poorer, to stop the boat people, bozo would if he was still in charge, not sure the prime miniature has enough about him to try it

Mad Max 06-05-2023 19:40
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36151347)
You can also watch NHS staff going in the other direction.

Working out well this 'independent' UK, Nigel and Boris' promises were lies. A poorer country, with spiralling inflation and lower standards of living. This is what will deter the boat people in the end.

Brilliant....:D

1andrew1 12-05-2023 14:15
Re: The boat people
 
Interesting attack by Labour.
Quote:
Starmer claims government has 'lost control' of overall migration numbers

Yesterday the Financial Times reported that migration figures due out later this month are expected to show net migration at record levels. It said net migration was at 504,000 between June 2021 and June 2022, but that the figure for 2022 could pass 700,000.

Today the Telegraph reports that the figure could reach almost one million.

Asked about the reports, Keir Starmer told broadcasters the government had “lost control” of immigration.

I think we need to wait and see what those figures are, but I’ve seen that speculation. I think if we’re anywhere near that figure then it will show the government has completely lost control. We need a managed approach and we haven’t got that.

Like almost everything else under this government, there’s no plan, there’s no control and, just like everything else, it seems like the system is broken.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...089152205da0d0

Sephiroth 12-05-2023 14:51
Re: The boat people
 
Starmer now needs to support the government's immigration bill and minimise his hypocrisy.

jfman 12-05-2023 15:04
Re: The boat people
 
40,000 is small beer whether it’s half a million or 700k. Even smaller beer at 1 mil.

Hugh 12-05-2023 15:33
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36151694)
Starmer now needs to support the government's immigration bill and minimise his hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is "taking back control" then not allowing appropriate scrutiny of proposed new Bills.

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 underwent detailed scrutiny in 24 committee sittings

Immigration Act 2014 had 11 committee sittings and received 66 pieces of written evidence

Immigration Act 2016 had 15 committee sessions and received 55 written pieces of evidence.

Illegal Immigration Bill - two Readings in the HoC, two days in the Committee of the Whole House, then a Third Reading in the HoC before going to the Lords (now in its Second Reading) with no opportunity for evidence taking.

Sephiroth 12-05-2023 16:01
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36151696)
Hypocrisy is "taking back control" then not allowing appropriate scrutiny of proposed new Bills.

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 underwent detailed scrutiny in 24 committee sittings

Immigration Act 2014 had 11 committee sittings and received 66 pieces of written evidence

Immigration Act 2016 had 15 committee sessions and received 55 written pieces of evidence.

Illegal Immigration Bill - two Readings in the HoC, two days in the Committee of the Whole House, then a Third Reading in the HoC before going to the Lords (now in its Second Reading) with no opportunity for evidence taking.
So what? Get it done.

Hugh 12-05-2023 16:08
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36151699)
So what? Get it done.
”taking back control" was sold as allowing our Parliament to make our laws - they are not being allowed to take the time to scrutinise what is proposed.

Quick unsuitably scrutinised Laws are usually bad laws.

"Just Get It Done" usually means "I don’t care what the problems are, just do it", and unfortunately later down the road someone else has to sort it out.

Chris 12-05-2023 16:12
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36151699)
So what? Get it done.
Rushed law is bad law. C.f. the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991), which was rushed in a similarly Somebody Do Something fashion, and failed to achieve its stated aim (to reduce the number of serious dog attacks on people which had become a particular problem).

Taf 12-05-2023 16:19
Re: The boat people
 
I was listening to French radio yesterday. Whilst we have "the boat people" they have the "border hoppers" coming in from Italy. And many people are really upset at this flow of "economic migrants who flout our laws".

Sephiroth 12-05-2023 16:34
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36151701)
”taking back control" was sold as allowing our Parliament to make our laws - they are not being allowed to take the time to scrutinise what is proposed.

Quick unsuitably scrutinised Laws are usually bad laws.

"Just Get It Done" usually means "I don’t care what the problems are, just do it", and unfortunately later down the road someone else has to sort it out.
I've scrutinised the Bill and it looks perfectly reasonable to me, covering all the necessary bases.

Is there anything in the Bill to which you object?


---------- Post added at 16:34 ---------- Previous post was at 16:33 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taf (Post 36151707)
I was listening to French radio yesterday. Whilst we have "the boat people" they have the "border hoppers" coming in from Italy. And many people are really upset at this flow of "economic migrants who flout our laws".
We have a Bill before Parliament that the French could copy.

Chris 12-05-2023 16:36
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36151709)
[COLOR="Blue"]I've scrutinised the Bill and it looks perfectly reasonable to me, covering all the necessary bases.
Ah well that’s fine then. Why don’t we scrap the committee system and just have the Commons run everything by you. What could possibly go wrong …

Sephiroth 12-05-2023 16:40
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36151711)
Ah well that’s fine then. Why don’t we scrap the committee system and just have the Commons run everything by you. What could possibly go wrong …
Don't be silly. We can all scrutinise the Bill and comment or indeed tell our MPs what we think.

Chris 12-05-2023 16:49
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36151713)
Don't be silly. We can all scrutinise the Bill and comment or indeed tell our MPs what we think.
We can, and it would still be less useful in terms of well-drafted law than public hearings and written reports by experts who can be questioned by MPs who are not taking the government shilling.

I’m not sure why you’re so down on the committee system - even Margaret Thatcher grudgingly accepted its value (even though she sacked the minister who implemented them after her victory in 1979).

Sephiroth 12-05-2023 16:53
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36151714)
We can, and it would still be less useful in terms of well-drafted law than public hearings and written reports by experts who can be questioned by MPs who are not taking the government shilling.

I’m not sure why you’re so down on the committee system - even Margaret Thatcher grudgingly accepted its value (even though she sacked the minister who implemented them after her victory in 1979).

I'm not "down on the Committee system" at all. I was asking Hugh what was wrong with the Bill as drafted rather than commenting on the process. Indeed it has gone through Parliament (Commons) so it can't all be bad.

My question to Hugh arose because I thought that if Labour is going to whinge abut migrant numbers they should not oppose a Bill that finishes the job that Boris failed to do.

Chris 12-05-2023 17:02
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36151715)

I'm not "down on the Committee system" at all. I was asking Hugh what was wrong with the Bill as drafted rather than commenting on the process. Indeed it has gone through Parliament (Commons) so it can't all be bad.

My question to Hugh arose because I thought that if Labour is going to whinge abut migrant numbers they should not oppose a Bill that finishes the job that Boris failed to do.
What’s wrong with the Bill as drafted is that it has not had adequate scrutiny. At this stage the lack of process *is* the problem. The ‘Committee of the Whole House’ is a process used deliberately to shorten time set aside for scrutiny and the fact that it has happened that way rather than through a full select committee process gives us every right to be concerned that it could be all bad.

Unintended consequences can be disastrous, and we ought to expect thorough process from the sovereign law-making institution of the land.

Sephiroth 12-05-2023 17:12
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36151716)
What’s wrong with the Bill as drafted is that it has not had adequate scrutiny. At this stage the lack of process *is* the problem. The ‘Committee of the Whole House’ is a process used deliberately to shorten time set aside for scrutiny and the fact that it has happened that way rather than through a full select committee process gives us every right to be concerned that it could be all bad.

Unintended consequences can be disastrous, and we ought to expect thorough process from the sovereign law-making institution of the land.
How do you know there's anything wrong with the Bill?
It's the process to which you seem to be objecting. Nothing wrong with scrutiny in Parliament, but it would be a fight between those who want t stop the boat people and those who side with the Arch Kent of Cant.

Chris 12-05-2023 17:27
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36151720)
How do you know there's anything wrong with the Bill?
It's the process to which you seem to be objecting. Nothing wrong with scrutiny in Parliament, but it would be a fight between those who want t stop the boat people and those who side with the Arch Kent of Cant.
How do you know you can trust anything? If it is safety critical or liable to have other serious consequences then it is subject to regulations, tests and certifications. Through these, we may reasonably trust the product/service/whatever.

Your problem is you are asking the wrong question. It’s not whether I *know* there’s anything wrong with it; I am not an expert in legislation any more than I am an expert in food safety or medicines production. The question is whether I can *trust* that there’s nothing wrong with it. As it has not been subjected to the usual tests, I cannot trust it.

Sephiroth 12-05-2023 23:11
Re: The boat people
 
You should read it for yourself and then decide if you like it. The MPs aren't any more qualified than you - they're just political players.

1andrew1 16-05-2023 23:06
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
UK and EU agree to collaborate over cross-Channel migration

The EU and the UK have agreed to collaborate on curbing irregular migration across the English Channel in a further sign of warming relations after years of post-Brexit tension.

Brussels and London will negotiate a deal to exchange intelligence, expertise and personnel to combat smugglers after six months of deadlock over the plan.

UK prime minister Rishi Sunak and Ursula von der Leyen, European Commission president, endorsed the idea of London working with Frontex, the EU border agency, at a meeting on the sidelines of the Council of Europe summit in Reykjavik.

“We need to do more to co-operate across borders and across jurisdictions to end illegal migration and stop the boats,” Sunak said.

Sunak has come under growing pressure from cabinet ministers and senior Tory MPs to tackle migrant crossings on the English Channel after bruising local election results when the party lost 1,000 council seats.
https://www.ft.com/content/4971f9be-...3-7f245266c1d3

Jaymoss 17-05-2023 09:20
Re: The boat people
 
Didn't they already do that a few times then France did nowt?

Hugh 17-05-2023 09:30
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36152021)
Didn't they already do that a few times then France did nowt?
No…

Jaymoss 17-05-2023 09:33
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36152023)
No…
Well France did in March and nothing changed and seeing as they come from France mainly I see nothing changing ...

Hugh 17-05-2023 09:37
Re: The boat people
 
Link?

Jaymoss 17-05-2023 09:40
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36152026)
Link?
How many you want?

Agreement March 10th

https://www.asil.org/ILIB/uk-and-fra...itish%20Summit.

Agreement last November

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/...ossing-channel

July 2021

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-p...g-the-channel/

Each time costing us millions. Each time resulting in nothing

ianch99 17-05-2023 09:54
Re: The boat people
 
Don't forget that now the UK is a third country, the interests of France no longer align with those of the UK. Yes, we can give them money to try and stop the smuggling and they will probably try and help:

https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post...ds-of-migrants

Quote:
Police prevented more than 600 people from crossing the Channel from France to the UK over the weekend, according to French officials. Meanwhile, hundreds of migrants and refugees arrived in southern England via the Channel.

French police released a statement on Tuesday, April 19, saying that they had prevented more than 600 people from crossing without documents into the United Kingdom via the Channel. They said that they detained 11 people smugglers and seized boats and equipment.

French rescue services reportedly also saved 72 migrants from boats in distress, returning them to France on Friday night.
but always rember their strategic interests no longer align with ours especially as we are deliberately trying to stoke the anger of the Daily Express/Mail readers by not allowing legal asylum routes, delaying claim processing and refusing a France-based processing centre.

Jaymoss 17-05-2023 10:24
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36152032)
Don't forget that now the UK is a third country, the interests of France no longer align with those of the UK. Yes, we can give them money to try and stop the smuggling and they will probably try and help:

https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post...ds-of-migrants



but always rember their strategic interests no longer align with ours especially as we are deliberately trying to stoke the anger of the Daily Express/Mail readers by not allowing legal asylum routes, delaying claim processing and refusing a France-based processing centre.
I am sure you have seen the videos that show French Police just watching?

This vid falls after the 2021 agreement



---------- Post added at 10:21 ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 ----------

https://news.sky.com/video/migrants-...annel-12429301

---------- Post added at 10:24 ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 ----------

Lets be real, The French are glad to see as many of them go as possible. They want em out of their country as much as some of us do not want em in ours

Sephiroth 17-05-2023 11:02
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36152028)
How many you want?

Agreement March 10th

https://www.asil.org/ILIB/uk-and-fra...itish%20Summit.

Agreement last November

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/...ossing-channel

July 2021

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-p...g-the-channel/

Each time costing us millions. Each time resulting in nothing
Don’t humour Hugh. He’ll waste your time re-explaining the bleedin’ obvious.

1andrew1 17-05-2023 11:12
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36152028)
Each time costing us millions. Each time resulting in nothing
It's not nothing given that Ian posts
Quote:
Police prevented more than 600 people from crossing the Channel from France to the UK over the weekend.

Jaymoss 17-05-2023 11:15
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36152042)
It's not nothing given that Ian posts
woopeedeedooodarrr a token effort well worth the millions given

Nothing
Informal Adjective
having no prospect of progress; of no value.
"he had a series of nothing jobs"

Hugh 17-05-2023 13:58
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36152039)
Don’t humour Hugh. He’ll waste your time re-explaining the bleedin’ obvious.
https://media.tenor.com/F2nADfu1YewA...rrell-kiss.gif

Ms NTL 30-05-2023 09:17
Re: The boat people
 
Good news. One Albanian is leaving Britain

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2023/05/1.jpeg

TheDaddy 30-05-2023 10:25
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms NTL (Post 36152980)
Good news. One Albanian is leaving Britain
Aww he was one of the only ones paying tax

ianch99 30-05-2023 11:38
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36152984)
Aww he was one of the only ones paying tax
and he was probably paid to leave :)

GrimUpNorth 30-05-2023 12:47
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36152984)
Aww he was one of the only ones paying tax
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36152990)
and he was probably paid to leave :)
Doubt he arrived crammed on a small boat either.

Paul 30-05-2023 15:03
Re: The boat people
 
Are we supposed to know who that is ?

Ms NTL 30-05-2023 19:05
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36153021)
Are we supposed to know who that is ?
Dear tree

He is Granit Xhaka, I fully understand you want to erase him from your memory because
Quote:
Granit Xhaka, a £35million signing over the summer, fired another beauty in his side's 4-0 victory over Nottingham Forest in the EFL Cup.
;) :)

Paul 30-05-2023 23:04
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms NTL (Post 36153037)
I fully understand you want to erase him from your memory because ..
Ummm, to erase something, you have to know it in the first place, which clearly I did not. :dozey:

I dont actually memorize who scored in every single Forest match. ;)

Mad Max 31-05-2023 18:47
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36153056)
Ummm, to erase something, you have to know it in the first place, which clearly I did not. :dozey:

I dont actually memorize who scored in every single Forest match. ;)

Shouldn't be too hard, they don't score many....;)

Paul 01-06-2023 20:13
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36153094)
Shouldn't be too hard, they don't score many....;)
Haha, almost (but not quite) funny. :sleep:

[ and just to burst your bubble, we were actually talking about goals scored against them :p: ]

tweetiepooh 06-06-2023 13:53
Re: The boat people
 
Still never heard of him.

Sephiroth 06-06-2023 19:33
Re: The boat people
 
While you are all having a laugh, they'll be coming.

That idiot Sunak has boasted that his efforts werte working without waiting to see what the summer rush would bring.

They're coming.

Mr K 06-06-2023 19:51
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36153348)


They're coming.
Who are ? People that will provide the services our ageing population needs and no on one can be arsed to ? We got our country back and sent 'home' those nasty Europeans. Beggars can't be choosers. This is your dividend. Complain to Nigel about it.

Sephiroth 06-06-2023 20:18
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36153351)
Who are ? People that will provide the services our ageing population needs and no on one can be arsed to ? We got our country back and sent 'home' those nasty Europeans. Beggars can't be choosers. This is your dividend. Complain to Nigel about it.
I'll list who's coming:

1. Albanian criminals.
2. Afghans who pass through safe countries and who want to sponge of my taxes.
3. Sudanese ditto.
4. Syrians ditto.
4. Eritreans ditto who bring their knife culture with them.


All of whom dump their documents - singular act of deception that should not be countenanced.

Young children arriving do need to be looked after and treated differently.

Mr K 06-06-2023 20:33
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36153352)
I'll list who's coming:

1. Albanian criminals.
2. Afghans who pass through safe countries and who want to sponge of my taxes.
3. Sudanese ditto.
4. Syrians ditto.
4. Eritreans ditto who bring their knife culture with them.


All of whom dump their documents - singular act of deception that should not be countenanced.

Young children arriving do need to be looked after and treated differently.
You forgot the worst people, the Welsh. I'm all for building one of Trump's walls along Offas Dyke.

GrimUpNorth 07-06-2023 07:32
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36153352)
I'll list who's coming:

1. Albanian criminals.
2. Afghans who pass through safe countries and who want to sponge of my taxes.
3. Sudanese ditto.
4. Syrians ditto.
4. Eritreans ditto who bring their knife culture with them.


All of whom dump their documents - singular act of deception that should not be countenanced.

Young children arriving do need to be looked after and treated differently.
I wonder how many of these Afghans are the same ones who helped us when we'd invaded their country? You know the people we then shafted good and proper when we pulled out and abandoned them to their fate.

Yes we must look after the children, I suppose we can just make sure we chuck a couple of cheap toys in the holding cell before we slam the door shut.

Ms NTL 19-06-2023 00:57
Re: The boat people
 
Good news, Ryanair can bring Albanians here fast and cheaply

https://www.heraldscotland.com/busin...23%20schedule.

No more treacherous boat trips.

And Ryanair will distribute them in 17 destinations. Nice touch. No Albanian enclaves. Spread them around.

Problem solved.

1andrew1 29-06-2023 11:08
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Government's Rwanda policy ruled unlawful by Court of Appeal

Campaigners and asylum seekers have won a Court of Appeal challenge over the government's planned Rwanda deportation scheme.

The judge has said that Rwanda is not a safe country for people to be removed to, but does not accept people would be at risk of removal to their home countries if sent there.
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-...orski-12593360

jfman 29-06-2023 11:25
Re: The boat people
 
What a waste of taxpayers money.

GrimUpNorth 29-06-2023 12:24
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36154834)
What a waste of taxpayers money.
I suppose that depends how many party donors have benefited from the hairbrained idea.

Ms NTL 29-06-2023 12:50
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 36154837)
I suppose that depends how many party donors have benefited from the hairbrained idea.
and Cruella herself.

TheDaddy 29-06-2023 15:06
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 36154837)
I suppose that depends how many party donors have benefited from the hairbrained idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms NTL (Post 36154839)
and Cruella herself.
Her link to Rwanda is already established, I wonder if it's nothing more than an opportunity to blame those woke activist lawyers and lefty judges for thwarting the will of the people again, maybe with a view to eroding the rights of those very thwarted people some more

Chris 29-06-2023 16:17
Re: The boat people
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36154834)
What a waste of taxpayers money.
The whole thing has collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. The very point of threatening to deport people to Rwanda was to make them think it’s not worth the hassle of trying to get into the UK because they’ll only end up somewhere awful. The Court has now agreed that sending people to Rwanda is indeed awful, and therefore HMG can’t do it.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 18:16.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum