Starmer’s chronicles

[Carth]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

they just make you buy a license, which he has now done

It'll be listed in 'expenses' no doubt

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I think you're wrong.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.u...ers-to-rwanda/

The Labour government knew that the government's changes would not stand up to scrutiny, so decided not to throw good money after bad on it. And the source you link to reckons that Rwanda would not have acted as a deterrent anyway. Worth a read and thank for sharing it.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The Labour government knew that the government's changes would not stand up to scrutiny, so decided not to throw good money after bad on it. And the source you link to reckons that Rwanda would not have acted as a deterrent anyway. Worth a read and thank for sharing it.

All the more important to take France on using our naval and Border Force resources.

Imo, the Labour Government abandoned the Rwanda project out of political dogma rather than giving it a chance. Their current approach is useless.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

All the more important to take France on using our naval and Border Force resources.

Imo, the Labour Government abandoned the Rwanda project out of political dogma rather than giving it a chance. Their current approach is useless.

What do you mean by taking France on?

I think it's hard to find a country with an acceptable human rights record to take unlawful migrants on a cost effective basis. Rwanda was only meant to take small numbers and was very expensive.

Your link was sceptical about the Australian process as it found that migrants now come by plane instead of boat.

Trying to tackle the symptoms rather than the cause clearly doesn't work. You need to analyse where they're coming from and help resolve the issues there. That's something for a coalition of the willing. However, it's not something your average politician will advocate for because the British public have been led to believe there are easy solutions when there are clearly not.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

What do you mean by taking France on?

I think it's hard to find a country with an acceptable human rights record to take unlawful migrants on a cost effective basis. Rwanda was only meant to take small numbers and was very expensive.

Your link was sceptical about the Australian process as it found that migrants now come by plane instead of boat.

Trying to tackle the symptoms rather than the cause clearly doesn't work. You need to analyse where they're coming from and help resolve the issues there. That's something for a coalition of the willing.

You're going Hugh on me! Use your imagination!

To repeat, there is a national emergency that the government should declare. We should shut the door on migrants coming from safe countries using the forces at our disposal.

Your point about arriving by plane, according to my understanding airlines won't accept travellers who are not visa-cleared or visa-exempt. In any case, such travellers would be documented, would be detained at a UK airport and returned to flight origin; the airline would be fined for visa infringements.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You're going Hugh on me! Use your imagination!

And you’re going Nigel on us.

This is a discussion forum, the idea is you say what you mean. You don’t insinuate stuff so you can wait for other people to road test it for you by saying it out loud, then deny that’s what you meant when it turns out to be unworkable, idiotic or just plain nasty.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

And you’re going Nigel on us.

This is a discussion forum, the idea is you say what you mean. You don’t insinuate stuff so you can wait for other people to road test it for you by saying it out loud, then deny that’s what you meant when it turns out to be unworkable, idiotic or just plain nasty.

Very kind of you to provide your clairvoyance and for your second-guessing of my intentions. (Not).

Even less kind, is your use of the word "insinuate"; I haven't suggested anything bad.

My suggestions are in the realm of the bleedin' obvious and I don't have to be more specific so that not-pickers can feast.

What would be wrong with a response saying something like: "If you mean pushing the boats back into French territorial waters, then blah blah"?

Why should others have to guess what you mean, when you’re too Faragist to clarify it?

Originally Posted by Chris

And you’re going Nigel on us.

This is a discussion forum, the idea is you say what you mean. You don’t insinuate stuff so you can wait for other people to road test it for you by saying it out loud, then deny that’s what you meant when it turns out to be unworkable, idiotic or just plain nasty.

Exactly!

---------- Post added at 09:57 ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Why should others have to guess what you mean, when you’re too Faragist to clarify it?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What would be wrong with a response saying something like: "If you mean pushing the boats back into French territorial waters, then blah blah"?

What would be wrong with you saying that in the first place, if it’s what you actually mean?

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

<snip>

Trying to tackle the symptoms rather than the cause clearly doesn't work. You need to analyse where they're coming from and help resolve the issues there. That's something for a coalition of the willing. However, it's not something your average politician will advocate for because the British public have been led to believe there are easy solutions when there are clearly not.

The cause is varied and widespread, much of it with a snowball in a hot place chance of changing it.

Seems to me the British Public are becoming increasingly aware there are no easy solutions, and are probably starting to think a tougher 'harder' line is more acceptable than just carrying on getting nowhere.

Opinions vary of course