|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 2, 2024 22:36:17 GMT
Boris is smarter than he gets credit for. He's a very calculated man who we've all seen scruff himself up to try and give a disheveled look which some find endearing. He was PM when the elections act 2022 was introduced. I don't think he's dumb enough to do this. The fact he brought an envelope with his name and address on it shows that it was pre meditated. Wonder if it's some stunt and will be used to try and give confidence in the changes imposed in the gerrymandering election act 2022. There's defo a play of some sort here. Even I know he's not that thick.
Really don't think it's to do with him being thick or making a play.
Rather, it's just another example of privilege and him believing that the rules couldn't ever apply to him, after all, he was/still is, the King of the World!
|
|
|
London
May 2, 2024 14:45:19 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on May 2, 2024 14:45:19 GMT
Spot on mate. If my memory serves me right, we actually lived extremely close to each other (albeit at different times) on the edge of Tulse Hill/Herne Hill. I absolutely love Ladbroke Grove, the last company I worked for was based just off it. I have always been a staunch Labour voter too but I'm no fan of Khan either. Yes I'm still in the middle of Norwood Road Paul, renting of course but it's still a great place to live. What was the company in Ladbroke Grove if you don't mind me asking? Amato Music Distribution, the original company, long gone now I'm afraid mate.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 2, 2024 14:43:43 GMT
Just catching up with this, are you talking about Martin Smith? Cheers Yep - in connection that they new that Jenkins was saying that there were problems in the software and Smith knew this and he should have reported it ("to the Police") as it was perjury - and therefore Smith is implicit Absolutely. He has been utterly rinsed, hasn't he? You were right, an utter car crash!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 2, 2024 14:13:48 GMT
Vennels and Angela coaching him. Anyway bring your popcorn it will be a car crash tomorrow. The bloke in the box tomorrow appeared before and was a shambles. Deserves jail time. It was so bad if it wasn't so serious you'd mistake his last appearance as a comedy skit. i think the car crash is happening now Just catching up with this, are you talking about Martin Smith? Cheers
|
|
|
London
May 2, 2024 12:46:33 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on May 2, 2024 12:46:33 GMT
London is the best city in the world. And I have been to lots.The thing is, it always has been. I go there once every week or maximum every other and in Central London its honestly the best there is. I witnessed a guy having his phone stolen last week by them scooter gangs. There is zero deterrent in London currently and I'd love to know them stats by postcode. For instance I'd agree W1-3 is extremely safe but there is without doubt some areas you just wouldn't go to now. I live in South London and work in West London, Ladbroke Grove/Notting Hill. I can categorically say there is not one single area of London that I would think twice about going to because I feel unsafe. Most of us are probably from Stoke and I can only imagine the reason I read stuff like that on this thread is because we're not used to every other area being a bit more like Shelton which is fine and I get it but they're absolutely not unsafe. For what it's worth, I haven't voted today and won't be. I am a staunch Labour supporter whether it be Corbyn or Starmer, hate the Tories, hate the Greens in fact. I would never vote for Sadiq Khan though. Spot on mate. If my memory serves me right, we actually lived extremely close to each other (albeit at different times) on the edge of Tulse Hill/Herne Hill. I absolutely love Ladbroke Grove, the last company I worked for was based just off it. I have always been a staunch Labour voter too but I'm no fan of Khan either.
|
|
|
London
May 2, 2024 12:28:05 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on May 2, 2024 12:28:05 GMT
That'll change when they find it harder and harder to get a sparky, gas fitter, builder, roofer or dyno rod to come and clear their shit up. You'll see... Surely most Londoners are bright enough to have considered this as a possibility though?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 2, 2024 12:15:59 GMT
And it is. What's the issue? Paul...on my simplistic reading of your posts you seem to be saying thst I asked two different questions and I asked the same question Rather than scrolling back through the thread, look at Eggybread's post a couple above this one. You can see that in your post you asked two questions. I answered both of them. For your first question (which is the same as the one as you asked last week) I gave you the same answer as Eggybread has done. And for your second question, I gave you the same answer as wannabee has done.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 2, 2024 11:16:51 GMT
A country completely tying itself up in knots!
Lord knows where this is going to end ...
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 2, 2024 11:08:05 GMT
Why did THIS FAMILY still try to enter “ illegally “ ...... Particularly given that that already had 14 applications turned down in safe ( similarly welcoming Western democracies?) countries ? Why were they rejected 14 times? Surely the odds were that their application would not be considered , let alone rejected. So why put themselvesat risk. Desperation, the last hope?...BUT it seems to me it would more than likely result in failure? Just to address this particular point and not interject in your overall conversation with Paul I doubt we know or will ever know all of the circumstances of this Family The answer is in the first Paragraph of the link you posted, they were, according to the Father, about to be sent back to Basra in Iraq by France who considered it safe to do so. Whether this is true or the Father believed it who knows. Human nature makes people do extraordinary brave or stupid things when faced with adversity, it's why we see extraordinary acts of bravery during Wars. In his interview with BBC the Father said his goal was to find a safe haven where he and his wife could work to support their children in a stable environment so they could receive an education. It's a modest ambition shared by the majority of Family Units. What prompted him as head of the Family to risk the lives of his Family? He apparently had been turned down for Asylum Status 14 times in Belgium, Sweden and France I assume so facing the prospect of he and his Family being sent to Iraq he took a gamble that ended in Tragic circumstances. Did he think if he and his Family reached UK their passage to settled status would be easily successful, I doubt it given his previous experience but I'm guessing having lived a nomadic life for 14 years another period wasn't daunting compared to being sent to Iraq in his mind. Sometimes there just isn't a perfect answer as to why people do certain things, not least because we just don't know all the facts. What this episode has done hopefully and it was through pure luck that BBC had a film crew on the Beach to see all the events unfold and subsequent interview with the Father. It puts a Human Face on who some, not all, Asylum Seekers are as opposed to the view they are all scroungers trying to get Benefits Which is pretty much exactly the same answer that I gave BJR.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 2, 2024 11:05:34 GMT
Eh? I've literally just said that you asked two different questions. I answered your first one originally and have done so again now and I've also answered your second question this time. What's the problem? You have also literally said "And the answer to your question, is the same as it was, when you asked the same question last week" And it is. What's the issue?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 2, 2024 10:37:04 GMT
With the greatest of reapect John I'm NOT answering the question I want to ask, I'm answering YOUR question. You even made the point of saying that you were asking two questions, I answered your first question but not the second one. And the answer to your question, is the same as it was, when you asked the same question last week ... there ISN'T a way for they (and other similar families) to enter by "legitimate" means, as your question (incorrectly) seems to suggest that there is. If you had already watched the video, then I would have assumed that that would have been clear. The reason that I didn't answer your original second question is because it appeared to follow on from the belief that there were other legitimate alternatives available to them but to enter the UK by small boat. And once it had been established that this wasn't the case, it made it much more tricky to answer. However, I'll have a crack at it ... I'm not really sure how anybody COULD answer your question, save to base a reply on what has already been established in the original report. What terrible circumstances must people have to endure before they make the decision to have to undertake such a perilous journey? The guy said that he had been repeatedly refused asylum in more than one mainland European nation and that he would have loved to have stayed in Europe and not have to put at risk the lives of himself and his family but that wasn't possible, so a journey to the UK was their last possible resort. Would it be safe to assume, that as this was the case, then they were about to be deported back to Iraq and he saw the risk of a channel crossing as the lesser of two terrible evils? I genuinely can't think of any other answer to your question, why do you think that he elected to take the decision that he did? I'll leave it at that then Paul. They are two different questions. The second one was asking for opinions on why a family would risk the channel crossing virtually knowing that asylum application would not be considered. I'll leave it there Eh? I've literally just said that you asked two different questions. I answered your first one originally and have done so again now and I've also answered your second question this time. What's the problem?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 2, 2024 10:09:26 GMT
No it's not just this family. Please watch the video, it takes 2 mins to view and it is a Tory in conversation with another Tory (there is no political agenda but rather just an attempt to get to the truth) and it explains the situation perfectly. I’ve seen your video Paul. I had seen it before. I'm not asking the same question. I think you are not understanding my question and are answering the question you want to answer which is to do with the criticism of the UK policy. I'm not particularly CRITIQUING the UK policy , which has been criticised many times. I know and accept that it isn’t easy for a person to gain entry to the UK and then be successful in an Asylum Application, under the UK requirements. ( I can remember Afghan interpreters acting on behalf of the British who were denied Asylum , a few years back, and think thst was disgraceful). Whether the UK policy is “ fair”, “ right” , “ sensible, workable, disingenuous or compassionate can be and has been debated. Whether the UK has the “right “ to lay down any conditions or policies it wants is “ right “ again can also be debated. I AM NOT TALKING OR ASKING MY QUESTION ABOUT THAT. My question is much simpler ( it actually is but I’m sure it can be complicated a dissertation could be written on it) What I an asking opinions on is ( I’m not particularly trying to debate the issue or argue the point, just simply trying to hear posters’ views).... Given the UK policy, given the difficulties ( IMPOSSIBILITIES if you like ) of entering the UK legally, knowing that to enter illegally would result in a rejection, given that the UK only accepts people under strict criteria...... Why did THIS FAMILY still try to enter “ illegally “ ...... Particularly given that that already had 14 applications turned down in safe ( similarly welcoming Western democracies?) countries ? Why were they rejected 14 times? Surely the odds were that their application would not be considered , let alone rejected. So why put themselvesat risk. Desperation, the last hope?...BUT it seems to me it would more than likely result in failure? ( I guess as an aside, why did they think their UK application would be successful if 14 previous ones were rejected) I’m NOT asking a wider question or a different question. I know the UK policy has been criticised, as have many countries ‘ policies. This is what I meant by entering a marathon. I think it is also what Fos is referring to for instance when he refers to the meaning of words rather than the words. You have to allow contributors to put in and get out of posts what they want and accept that it might be different from your rules. With the greatest of reapect John I'm NOT answering the question I want to ask, I'm answering YOUR question. You even made the point of saying that you were asking two questions, I answered your first question but not the second one. And the answer to your question, is the same as it was, when you asked the same question last week ... there ISN'T a way for they (and other similar families) to enter by "legitimate" means, as your question (incorrectly) seems to suggest that there is. If you had already watched the video, then I would have assumed that that would have been clear. The reason that I didn't answer your original second question is because it appeared to follow on from the belief that there were other legitimate alternatives available to them but to enter the UK by small boat. And once it had been established that this wasn't the case, it made it much more tricky to answer. However, I'll have a crack at it ... I'm not really sure how anybody COULD answer your question, save to base a reply on what has already been established in the original report. What terrible circumstances must people have to endure before they make the decision to have to undertake such a perilous journey? The guy said that he had been repeatedly refused asylum in more than one mainland European nation and that he would have loved to have stayed in Europe and not have to put at risk the lives of himself and his family but that wasn't possible, so a journey to the UK was their last possible resort. Would it be safe to assume, that as this was the case, then they were about to be deported back to Iraq and he saw the risk of a channel crossing as the lesser of two terrible evils? I genuinely can't think of any other answer to your question, why do you think that he elected to take the decision that he did?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 2, 2024 0:44:46 GMT
Have you conveniently forgotten, or just not kept up with the thread? I'll go back and pull them all up for you if you like but a moment ago, you were telling me to get a life and go to bed ... No idea what reports you're referring to bro. Go and pull them all up for me and I'll look at them ASAP. Thanks Paula Is it okay with you, if I do it tomorrow, it's just that I meant to go to bed an hour ago and im absolutely shagged but I ended up getting side tracked, replying to you?
|
|
|
London
May 2, 2024 0:34:45 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on May 2, 2024 0:34:45 GMT
The thread is littered with them. OK, so you have zero. Great argument Pedro. Have you conveniently forgotten, or just not kept up with the thread? I'll go back and pull them all up for you if you like but a moment ago, you were telling me to get a life and go to bed ...
|
|
|
London
May 2, 2024 0:29:49 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on May 2, 2024 0:29:49 GMT
Jesus, no they don't. There are numerous other reports that contradict that specific link. Great argument Paula. What reports? The thread is littered with them.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 2, 2024 0:23:45 GMT
Just go back and look at the posts on this thread from when you entered it an hour ago. Just an hour of deliberately antagonistic bollocks that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion in hand. It's a regular MO of yours ... Dunno what you're rambling on about Paulo. But trying to dictate threads based on your own forum rules, thread titles and places you've lived seems to be your MO. To be honest, you've become a bit of a running joke recently. I'm not sure why you've become the way you have so I won't delve more into it. Again, just more immature nonsense. And please, go back and actually read what you've posted over the last hour, you've completely hijacked the thread, to prompt a discussion about, erm ... nothing really.
|
|
|
London
May 2, 2024 0:16:25 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on May 2, 2024 0:16:25 GMT
Not sure if I should post this as I don't live in London, and as such may be labelled as ignorant. 'The overall crime rate in London in 2023 was 105 crimes per 1,000, and the most common crimes were violence and sexual offences, which happened to roughly every 30 out of 1,000 daytime population. Compared with the UK as a whole, London’s crime rate is 32% worse than the UK average of 79.52 per 1,000 people.' crimerate.co.uk/london#:~:text=The%20overall%20crime%20rate%20in,of%2079.52%20per%201%2C000%20people. Any argument to this? Or does everyone accept it as fact that London is more dangerous than the UK as a whole? Jesus, no they don't. There are numerous other reports that contradict that specific link.
|
|
|
London
May 2, 2024 0:13:08 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on May 2, 2024 0:13:08 GMT
Proving the point entirely, just more utter drivel ... Do you ever sleep? Ffs get a life Paul. Sweetdreams. You do realise that I'm replying to YOU, who is awake in a later time zone than me don't you? As i said ... absolutely no self awareness.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 2, 2024 0:10:06 GMT
I think he's referring to you being, 'an immature, petty, vindictive poster, completely incapable of developing any sort of meaningful discussion on this board.'. Ouch. Just go back and look at the posts on this thread from when you entered it an hour ago. Just an hour of deliberately antagonistic bollocks that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion in hand. It's a regular MO of yours ...
|
|
|
London
May 2, 2024 0:01:41 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on May 2, 2024 0:01:41 GMT
Bloody hell. I quoted that post before reading the rest of the thread. Paul. With the greatest respect. Please but the spade down and let bygones be bygones. I mean that with the best intentions. And also so that Cobham can't call me a hypocrite for when I've done so to him 😁 Less division more united. Unless it's a different view from mine of course. What 'bygones'?
|
|
|
London
May 1, 2024 23:45:09 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on May 1, 2024 23:45:09 GMT
Sigh ... absolutely no self awareness whatsoever. Why do so many of the threads that you join in with, end up being (for the time that you are on at least) nothing more but endless immature drivel about, well ... pretty much nothing? Not everything is about you Paul. Back to why you think London is a crime free paradise thanks. Proving the point entirely, just more utter childish drivel ...
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 1, 2024 23:43:07 GMT
|
|
|
London
May 1, 2024 23:34:39 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on May 1, 2024 23:34:39 GMT
Yes, I do see your point. But to be fair the 'debate' hadn't even begun, I just assumed that he was attempting to begin a convo by posting in the first place, it's something I'm going to have to take on board ... people posting but not wanting to be replied to, it's a new concept for me on public forums. But I will keep alert to it, from now on. Replying with a decent response is fine. Replying like a know it all oatcake dictator nobend isn't. Just some advise from your friendly neighbourhood fosterman. Sigh ... absolutely no self awareness whatsoever. Why do so many of the threads that you join in with, end up being (for the time that you are on at least) nothing more but endless immature drivel about, well ... pretty much nothing?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 1, 2024 23:21:34 GMT
But he didn't, did he? He posted somebody else's and I asked him to clarify what his actual thoughts were because otherwise the post could be interpreted in many different ways. How can than that be deemed to be unreasonable on a public discussion forum? Wouldn't you want people to be clear on the point you were attempting to convey Cobs? Not really. To some my waffle is total gobbledygook so it would be pointless I like a good debate but I wouldn’t demand an answer I’d just take it that they don’t want to carry on the debate and leave it at that. Yes, I do see your point. But to be fair the 'debate' hadn't even begun, I just assumed that he was attempting to begin a convo by posting in the first place, it's something I'm going to have to take on board ... people posting but not wanting to be replied to, it's a new concept for me on public forums. But I will keep alert to it, from now on.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 1, 2024 23:15:46 GMT
Absolutely perfect! 👏
|
|
|
London
May 1, 2024 23:01:39 GMT
Post by Paul Spencer on May 1, 2024 23:01:39 GMT
You really are, an immature, petty, vindictive poster, completely incapable of developing any sort of meaningful discussion on this board.
Truth hurts doesn't it Paul.
I'm sure it must Fozzy, I'm sure it must ...
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 1, 2024 22:54:03 GMT
Maybe sometimes people just want to post their own thoughts without debating them to death. I don’t see anything wrong with that, it’s a free country and not everyone has the time to get into lengthy conversations. It’s not a debating society it’s just a message board where people can post as much or as little as they want. Paul thinks he owns the board mate. He tries to dictate the rules and who can post about what on every thread. If you agree with him then no limit. If you don't then you have the stick to the thread title only. Also, he lived in London once and knows some peole there so he speaks on behalf of 10 million people.
You really are, an immature, petty, vindictive poster, completely incapable of developing any sort of meaningful discussion on this board.
|
|
|
London
May 1, 2024 22:48:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on May 1, 2024 22:48:21 GMT
Jeez, what a truly bizarre forum this has turned in to, people posting stuff and then steadfastly refusing to explain what they meant by the post, never mind even attempting to discuss it ... Maybe sometimes people just want to post their own thoughts But he didn't, did he? He posted somebody else's and I asked him to clarify what his actual thoughts were because otherwise the post could be interpreted in many different ways. How can than that be deemed to be unreasonable on a public discussion forum? Wouldn't you want people to be clear on the point you were attempting to convey Cobs?
|
|
|
Israel
May 1, 2024 22:40:37 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on May 1, 2024 22:40:37 GMT
Sick fucks ...
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 1, 2024 22:36:30 GMT
Someone on here’s been I’m sure. Is Dortmund's ground as awesome as it looks on the telly?
|
|