Also In The News - part 3

[jgtuk]

9 hours ago, MPH said:

 

id much rather we produce our own oil than  feed another monster like we have done Russia. Whilst some people are throwing orange paint around, people in Ukraine  are having their lives destroyed by a war machine we have helped to feed by buying their oil and Europe their gas.

I think you’re confused about the aims of JSO, unless there’s something hidden in their literature I haven’t seen. They are not advocating buying oil or gas from anyone, their aim is to stop new licenses and a phased changeover to renewables. 
You really are targeting the wrong people. Most, if not all, are against any war. 
 

[Lionator]

The ultimate crowning glory for this government would be Rwanda pulling out of the deal having taken £290m of UK taxpayers money.

[Mike Oxlong]

https://news.sky.com/story/london-paddington-major-disruption-to-elizabeth-line-and-heathrow-after-overhead-cables-damaged-13025216

 

The headline - A sign of a “celebrity” obsessed culture ? ! 

[bovril]

39 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

https://news.sky.com/story/london-paddington-major-disruption-to-elizabeth-line-and-heathrow-after-overhead-cables-damaged-13025216

 

The headline - A sign of a “celebrity” obsessed culture ? ! 

Imagine if he whipped out the guitar

[Mickyblueeyes]

The former US state sec on CNN talking about the IDF raping a 13 year old is horrendous. It seems everyday brings harrowing details of abuse. Gushing up of the designated charity who brought the offence to light. The IDF and Hamas coming across as two sides of the same coin. 

[Mike Oxlong]

17 minutes ago, bovril said:

Imagine if he whipped out the guitar

The passengers wouldn’t have needed one of those hammers to smash the windows to get out 

[Collymore]

53 minutes ago, bovril said:

Imagine if he whipped out the guitar

She smiled at me on the subway
She was with another man
But I won't lose no sleep on that
'Cause I've got a..... "Ladies and gentleman, the British transport police have been informed of the threat on carriage D and will be evacuating shortly and the terrorist will be arrested" 

[dsr-burnley]

4 hours ago, Lionator said:

The problem is that the amount Rwanda would take is very small, so I’m not even sure it would be worth it in the long run? Especially as we’ll be getting Rwandan refugees in return. 
 

They could’ve just spent that money to clear the backlog or to go harder on people smugglers, but no, they’ve put all of their eggs in this absolutely pointless basket. 

The point of the Rwanda scheme isn't to send boat people there, it's to stop them crossing the Channel.  It would be like the Australian equivalent scheme - the fact that it is there is enough to stop it being used.

 

People are crossing from France because they much prefer claiming asylum in the UK to claiming asylum in France.  If the choice was France or Rwanda, they would stop putting their lives at risk.

 

What are the alternatives?  There are three options - one, allow things to carry on as they are; two, allow everyone in without restriction; three, deter the boat people while allowing restricted entry for other (perhaps more genuine) refugees.

 

I know the government's approach (option three via Rwanda) is unpopular.  What is the popular option?

[jgtuk]

9 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

The point of the Rwanda scheme isn't to send boat people there, it's to stop them crossing the Channel.  It would be like the Australian equivalent scheme - the fact that it is there is enough to stop it being used.

 

People are crossing from France because they much prefer claiming asylum in the UK to claiming asylum in France.  If the choice was France or Rwanda, they would stop putting their lives at risk.

 

What are the alternatives?  There are three options - one, allow things to carry on as they are; two, allow everyone in without restriction; three, deter the boat people while allowing restricted entry for other (perhaps more genuine) refugees.

 

I know the government's approach (option three via Rwanda) is unpopular.  What is the popular option?

How about faster processing. 
It won’t stop the numbers wanting to come here though as lots are fleeing persecution/war/famine etc. 

Also, I’m led to believe that the majority of the “boat” people are genuine refugees. 
The Rwanda scheme is a folly and I don’t believe it will ever be used long term. 
 

[RoboFox]

42 minutes ago, jgtuk said:

How about faster processing. 
It won’t stop the numbers wanting to come here though as lots are fleeing persecution/war/famine etc. 

Also, I’m led to believe that the majority of the “boat” people are genuine refugees. 
The Rwanda scheme is a folly and I don’t believe it will ever be used long term. 
 

Absolutely. 

 

It's straight out of the Trump "build a wall" playbook. The Tories are absolutely desperate so are enacting these absurd policies to appeal to the disillusioned working classes and Tory heartlands who are abandoning them. It's the same scare tactics that Leave used during the Brexit campaign. 

 

Immigration is the most divisive issue amongst the electorate, so they're just going hardline to try to cling onto voters.

 

Thankfully it won't work. They're finished for the foreseeable future. 

 

Edited 8 December 2023 by RoboFox

[Daggers]

3 hours ago, Lionator said:

The ultimate crowning glory for this government would be Rwanda pulling out of the deal having taken £290m of UK taxpayers money.

 

[Greg2607]

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

The point of the Rwanda scheme isn't to send boat people there, it's to stop them crossing the Channel.  It would be like the Australian equivalent scheme - the fact that it is there is enough to stop it being used.

 

People are crossing from France because they much prefer claiming asylum in the UK to claiming asylum in France.  If the choice was France or Rwanda, they would stop putting their lives at risk.

 

What are the alternatives?  There are three options - one, allow things to carry on as they are; two, allow everyone in without restriction; three, deter the boat people while allowing restricted entry for other (perhaps more genuine) refugees.

 

I know the government's approach (option three via Rwanda) is unpopular.  What is the popular option?

obviously, the 4th option would be to have actual legal channels in place so that people could apply for asylum without HAVING to be in the UK. 

 

that isn't an option at the minute, they have to have feet on the ground in the UK itself. 

 

Set up an application and processing centre elsewhere.  Those seeking genuine asylum then get granted access into the Uk..... those that arrive illegally, not through those routes, well, then we kind of know they aren't genuine applicants for asylum, so we have a much easier argument for deporting them,. 

[Sampson]

I don’t understand why the Tories are trying to fight the election on this issue. Do people really care? Most polls I see show the cost of living issue is the biggest issue for the voter. Is asylum seeking really that big an issue for most voters?

Or are they just trying to find a scapegoat to tie to the cost of living issue and make out that’s the real reason behind the cost of living issue to get people to gloss over 13 years of running the country’s economy into the ground, after they can no longer use the EU forcing them to make laws lie as a scapegoat anymore, because they already shot their load on that one?

Edited 8 December 2023 by Sampson

[Robo61]

2 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

The point of the Rwanda scheme isn't to send boat people there, it's to stop them crossing the Channel.  It would be like the Australian equivalent scheme - the fact that it is there is enough to stop it being used.

 

People are crossing from France because they much prefer claiming asylum in the UK to claiming asylum in France.  If the choice was France or Rwanda, they would stop putting their lives at risk.

 

What are the alternatives?  There are three options - one, allow things to carry on as they are; two, allow everyone in without restriction; three, deter the boat people while allowing restricted entry for other (perhaps more genuine) refugees.

 

I know the government's approach (option three via Rwanda) is unpopular.  What is the popular option?

The legislation was enacted over a year ago, yet they are still getting into boats. Why would anyone think they this would act as a deterent for people who are willing to pay what little they've got to get in a dingy to cross one of the busiest shipping lanes in the worle, is beyond me. Given also that they will have around a 1 in 500 chance of being sent to Rwanda if they were successful in getting here.

The money would have been much better spent on clearing the backlog so that those without a right to asylum (the minority remember) could be sent home and the remainder given work to earn their keep.

[SecretPro]

1 hour ago, jgtuk said:

How about faster processing. 
It won’t stop the numbers wanting to come here though as lots are fleeing persecution/war/famine etc. 

Also, I’m led to believe that the majority of the “boat” people are genuine refugees. 
The Rwanda scheme is a folly and I don’t believe it will ever be used long term. 
 

Lets not forget the "boat people" comprise a nigh on insignificant number of total migrants entering the UK. The "boat people" are being pushed by the Tories simply as a tool to anger the gammon and far right that don't know any better and thus drive votes their way. Stopping the "boat people" has very, very little impact on Migration figures. It's all just a divide and rule ploy, as per usual.

[Zear0]

Just now, Sampson said:

I don’t understand why the Tories are trying to fight the election on this issue. Do people really care? Most polls I see show the cost of living issue is the biggest issue for the voter. Is immigrantion really that big an issue for most voters?

Or are they just trying to find a scapegoat to tie to the cost of living issue and make out that’s the real reason behind the cost of living issue to get people to gloss over 13 years of running the country’s economy into the ground, after they can no longer use the EU forcing them to make laws lie as a scapegoat anymore, because they already shot their load on that one?

Think they're of the view that they've lost any credit with cost of living. Claiming Rwanda as a success is all they've got. 

[Greg2607]

6 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

BBC News - UK paid Rwanda an extra £100m for asylum deal

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67656220

 

Make that a total of £240 million.

 

Total disgrace how they throw money around and then can't pump money into services that desperately need it here.

if you are angry about that... wait until you find out they are spending £1.6bn overs two years on the Bibby Stockholm........  

[dsr-burnley]

24 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Lets not forget the "boat people" comprise a nigh on insignificant number of total migrants entering the UK. The "boat people" are being pushed by the Tories simply as a tool to anger the gammon and far right that don't know any better and thus drive votes their way. Stopping the "boat people" has very, very little impact on Migration figures. It's all just a divide and rule ploy, as per usual.

If you're arguing that the number of successful boat people is insignificant, then are you also arguing that the number of people who die in the attempt is insignificant?

 

Whatever our stances about immigration, whether it's zero or unlimited or anything in between, there should surely be a consensus that the small boat crossings are a bad thing?

[Dunge]

44 minutes ago, Sampson said:

I don’t understand why the Tories are trying to fight the election on this issue. Do people really care? Most polls I see show the cost of living issue is the biggest issue for the voter. Is asylum seeking really that big an issue for most voters?

Or are they just trying to find a scapegoat to tie to the cost of living issue and make out that’s the real reason behind the cost of living issue to get people to gloss over 13 years of running the country’s economy into the ground, after they can no longer use the EU forcing them to make laws lie as a scapegoat anymore, because they already shot their load on that one?

They’re definitely going to try to drive this into being the number one issue over coming months. The Liz Truss saga has massively damaged the Conservatives on the economy, to the point where people are laughing at them. So they’ll go with two lines of attack: Migration numbers (legal or otherwise) and social policy, particularly trans and cancel culture. They’ll threaten that if Labour get into power then the Old English culture that the older population know will be taken from them forever, and by a man who tried to put Jeremy Corbyn into Number 10. (Missing out the part where he later kicked Corbyn out of the same party.)

 

But immigration will be the main line because it’s somewhere that the Tories can speak strong words while Starmer will likely squirm.

Edited 8 December 2023 by Dunge

[dsr-burnley]

2 hours ago, jgtuk said:

How about faster processing. 
It won’t stop the numbers wanting to come here though as lots are fleeing persecution/war/famine etc. 

Also, I’m led to believe that the majority of the “boat” people are genuine refugees. 
The Rwanda scheme is a folly and I don’t believe it will ever be used long term. 
 

Faster processing would be an excellent idea.  Unfortunately I don't think the Home Office is capable of it.  My brother took in three refugees from Ukraine in 2022, and all their paperwork was completed and agreed in April - but they had to wait two months in Poland because it proved impossible to sign the paperwork until June.

[wurmer]

22 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

The actual governing party of the UK. 
 

 

Not for long at this rate...

[MPH]

6 hours ago, jgtuk said:

I think you’re confused about the aims of JSO, unless there’s something hidden in their literature I haven’t seen. They are not advocating buying oil or gas from anyone, their aim is to stop new licenses and a phased changeover to renewables. 
You really are targeting the wrong people. Most, if not all, are against any war. 
 

 No i understand that this is their stated desire. I . And i have a lot of sympathy with their concerns.  However, i just cant align myself with the idea that its ok if someone produces oil just as long as it isn't us, which is pretty much what they are wanting by protesting against the issuing of new permits. I actually think it would be so much better for us AND the environment if we are the ones producing oil rather than having it shipped in from thousands of miles away..  The cost of oil would be so much cheaper and therefore the cost of pretty much everything else would be so much cheaper and therefore the cost of living in general , Whilst we continue to make the transition to more renewable energy sources where possible.  I have just accepted thats going to happen at a slightly more manageable pace than some have. I feel we are making good progress and are one of the nations leading the way and this should be recognised.

[Trav Le Bleu]

3 hours ago, jgtuk said:

How about faster processing. 
It won’t stop the numbers wanting to come here though as lots are fleeing persecution/war/famine etc. 

Also, I’m led to believe that the majority of the “boat” people are genuine refugees. 
The Rwanda scheme is a folly and I don’t believe it will ever be used long term. 
 

Computing technology - faster and faster processing.

 

UK immigration - "dur?"

 

Perhaps we should let AI sort it out?

 

(Unless they try to use immigrants for batteries, target practice, body parts or Soylent Green.)

Edited 8 December 2023 by Trav Le Bleu

[Daggers]

2 hours ago, Sampson said:

I don’t understand why the Tories are trying to fight the election on this issue. Do people really care? Most polls I see show the cost of living issue is the biggest issue for the voter. Is asylum seeking really that big an issue for most voters?

Or are they just trying to find a scapegoat to tie to the cost of living issue and make out that’s the real reason behind the cost of living issue to get people to gloss over 13 years of running the country’s economy into the ground, after they can no longer use the EU forcing them to make laws lie as a scapegoat anymore, because they already shot their load on that one?

Name one other thing they could fight it on?

 

Competence? Economy? Armed Forces? Education? Health Service? Environment? 
 

You point to any of the traditional battlegrounds and they’ve spectacularly, comprehensively and demonstrably fvcked it up.
 

A battle with themselves over a fictional threat when the country needs immigration to boost the economy is the only thing they have left other than worrying about alien attacks. 

[SecretPro]

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

If you're arguing that the number of successful boat people is insignificant, then are you also arguing that the number of people who die in the attempt is insignificant?

 

Whatever our stances about immigration, whether it's zero or unlimited or anything in between, there should surely be a consensus that the small boat crossings are a bad thing?

Are we really going to pretend that the reasons the Tories want to stop the boats is to preserve human life?

 

Of Course the small boat crossings are a bad thing - the answer is to open legal routes so that people don't have to risk life and limb to get here - which is the bit the Tories aren't interested, because they don't value human life, they just value votes.