Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Lionator

The I cant believe it’s not politics thread.

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Idealistically, a human life should have price beyond anything material, and only comparable to another life in terms of price.

 

Practically, in a time and space where the generation and distribution of resources necessary for life is still imperfect enough to have scarcity be a factor, of course some decisions have to be made that put a material price on a human life.

 

Perhaps the hallmark of a truly developed society is one where such discussions are no longer needed. Maybe we'll get there one day.

There will always be a value placed on lives. If you look at the number deaths on the roads, we could take the approach lives must be saved at any cost then all cars will be limited to 20mph, require an MOT every month and pedestrians would be required to wear protective clothing. Yes there would be no deaths on the road but we'd live in a ridiculously expensive nanny state. (Not really sure what this adds to the discussion).

 

If the government really were concerned about the lives lost crossing the channel they would create an effective and efficient processing system on both sides of the channel. The fact that the channel crossing is expensive and dangerous fits their agenda and so have no desire to actually resolve, they are just determined to make the idea of coming to the UK illegally as unpleasant as possible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bmt said:

"On the amount of money the scheme costs, she says you cannot place a price on a life lost at sea in the English Channel" from BBC PMQs coverage.

 

This is such bollocks. A huge amount of government spending, in particular decision-making on health funding, is founded in the belief that you absolutely can put a price on the value of life (ie. the statistical value of a life).

It's obviously bollocks because this policy isn't about saving lives. It's not even about targeting human trafficking. It's about trying to have a political scene dominated by culture war and emotional reasoning. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Captain... said:

There will always be a value placed on lives. If you look at the number deaths on the roads, we could take the approach lives must be saved at any cost then all cars will be limited to 20mph, require an MOT every month and pedestrians would be required to wear protective clothing. Yes there would be no deaths on the road but we'd live in a ridiculously expensive nanny state. (Not really sure what this adds to the discussion).

 

If the government really were concerned about the lives lost crossing the channel they would create an effective and efficient processing system on both sides of the channel. The fact that the channel crossing is expensive and dangerous fits their agenda and so have no desire to actually resolve, they are just determined to make the idea of coming to the UK illegally as unpleasant as possible.

...as long as there are roads, and cars, and other forms of transport that have an attendant risk, yes. Thing is, a hundred years ago cars were barely a thing. What will personal transportation be like in a hundred years time?

 

My point that adds to the discussion is that: of course we put a price on life now, but it's rather short-sighted to think it will "always" be the case when change often happens so quickly, relatively speaking, nor that no longer having to do so isn't something worth working towards.

 

Certainly agree with all of the second paragraph.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

I don't much like the Rwanda policy, and I wonder whether the Government are even serious about it, or whether it is part of the 'being seen to be doing something about the boats" approach.  That said, I do think there is an argument for returning people who are clearly economic migrants and come to the UK via several safe countries looking for work.  And I don't blame people for wanting to come here, but they must go through the proper channels - not across the channel.  For a start it is not safe to do so, and more people succeed the more will try it.  Policy which welcomes people who come illegally puts others at risk of death.  

The question is then, if you cannot send them back to France, where do you send them?

It's never been legal to just decide to come over to the UK for economic reasons. This policy doesn't apply to economic migrants who don't have valid reason to be here. Those would be deported to their country of origin or ideally refused entry in the first place. The obvious solution is you simply make it a legal reason to come to the UK to claim asylum. Then when people arrive they are processed in an efficient and respectful process with those failing being sent back. There's no need for this Rwanda policy which isn't actually saving any money. On top of that it's well worth having the capacity to process refugees because who knows what the future might hold, we've recently struggled to accommodate Afghan and Ukrainian refugees despite strong public support.

 

If you did this then the only people with an incentive to use unsafe routes would be people who intended to hide from the authorities. Nobody is paying human traffickers several thousand pounds to make a potentially lethal channel crossing instead of buying a ticket on a ferry.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, weller54 said:

Bozo's ethics adviser just resigned!!...

😂😂😂.. what ethics?

..the c**t hasn't got any to be advised on!

 

Apparently unable to continue in the role after the PM's huge gaffes around partygate and other issues.

 

Lord Geidt resigns as Boris Johnson's ethics adviser (telegraph.co.uk)

 

At least Lord Geidt seems to have ethics and a conscience.

Edited by Parafox
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SecretPro said:

What a home secretary should be:

 

 

 

Very well said.  Impressed with Cooper these days.  She should be leader imo, much more electable than Starmer.  Speaks better, more passion, more experience.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/06/2022 at 20:28, Daggers said:

Pigs culled because of a shortage of meat processors. Fields left fallow or crops trashed because of the absence of farm workers. Flights cancelled because no one wants their shit underpaid job back after being sacked…

 

We have space and jobs. The only sad thing is that we also have world-leading bigots and idiots who hate forinaz

I also find it bewildering how there seems to be this feeling that everyone wants to come here and we're overrun with refuges. It's simply not true....

 

 

 

Edited by Brizzle Fox
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brizzle Fox said:

I also find it bewildering how there seems to be this feeling that everyone wants to come here and we're overrun with refuges. It's simply not true....

 

 

 

I don't even want to be here...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, weller54 said:

Bozo's ethics adviser just resigned!!...

😂😂😂.. what ethics?

..the c**t hasn't got any to be advised on!

 

14 hours ago, Parafox said:

 

Apparently unable to continue in the role after the PM's huge gaffes around partygate and other issues.

 

Lord Geidt resigns as Boris Johnson's ethics adviser (telegraph.co.uk)

 

At least Lord Geidt seems to have ethics and a conscience.

To lose one ethics adviser could be described as careless ……… how you lose two within three years …….

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Very well said.  Impressed with Cooper these days.  She should be leader imo, much more electable than Starmer.  Speaks better, more passion, more experience.

 

Just throwing the word electable around gratuitously now aren't you? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Brizzle Fox said:

I also find it bewildering how there seems to be this feeling that everyone wants to come here and we're overrun with refuges. It's simply not true....

 

 

 

Has anyone said refugees are the issue?  Economic migrants are the issue, and indeed for some parts of the country where a lot of EU migration happened, people remain concerned. 

Of course some people don't want anyone to come from anywhere, but that is not who this charade is aimed at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

How long until the new ethics advisor is announced as Stanley Johnson?

Well he's a EU citizen now so can probably facilitate some advantageous tax arrangements for his salary..

 

Nah Bojo will I'd imagine appoint himself 

 

 

 

Or Nad...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

Has anyone said refugees are the issue?  Economic migrants are the issue, and indeed for some parts of the country where a lot of EU migration happened, people remain concerned. 

Of course some people don't want anyone to come from anywhere, but that is not who this charade is aimed at.

Quite right. This aimed at the boats full of young adult males coming from Albania. This problem takes resources away from genuine refugees in need. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...