|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Nov 15, 2023 17:49:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Nov 15, 2023 20:16:16 GMT
“Anonymous source” Also known as “making up whatever shit I like and if I get challenged I’ll say I must protect my source even though I don’t actually have one” |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 15, 2023 22:53:54 GMT
“Anonymous source” Also known as “making up whatever shit I like and if I get challenged I’ll say I must protect my source even though I don’t actually have one” 🔥 It's The Blob Init |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 16, 2023 11:41:49 GMT
The Rwanda plan is really just a way of doing what we should be doing on our own soil on the cheap. It really isn't. It's far, far worse than that. It is the UK signalling to the world that we no longer take ANY refugees that haven't come here with a visa, so essentially, refugees from Ukraine and Hong Kong and maybe a tiny handful from Afghanistan. It's a policy that disgraces us all. |
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Nov 16, 2023 17:40:00 GMT
How much has been spent on the Rwanda scheme so far, £140m? Not a single person has moved as part of the scheme, and not a single person will ever move as part of the Rwanda scheme. It was a shit idea at the outset which should have been laughed out of town. For a party preaching conservatism, they haven't half frittered money up the wall. And by 'up the wall', I obviously mean into their own pockets. Furthermore Rwanda have only ever agreed to take 'up to 1000' asylum seekers as part of a 5 year trial and currently only have capacity for 200. Even if we started sending folk there it would never amount to much snd Rwanda could walk away if it proved to be more aggravation than it was worth. If anyone believes Kigame's palm hasn't been greased as part of this fiasco I have a bridge you may be interested in. |
|
|
|
Post by rickyfullerbeer on Nov 16, 2023 18:29:43 GMT
How much has been spent on the Rwanda scheme so far, £140m? Not a single person has moved as part of the scheme, and not a single person will ever move as part of the Rwanda scheme. It was a shit idea at the outset which should have been laughed out of town. For a party preaching conservatism, they haven't half frittered money up the wall. And by 'up the wall', I obviously mean into their own pockets. Furthermore Rwanda have only ever agreed to take 'up to 1000' asylum seekers as part of a 5 year trial and currently only have capacity for 200. Even if we started sending folk there it would never amount to much snd Rwanda could walk away if it proved to be more aggravation than it was worth. If anyone believes Kigame's palm hasn't been greased as part of this fiasco I have a bridge you may be interested in. "Well what do you expect for One Hundred and Forty Million nicker" |
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Nov 16, 2023 18:40:14 GMT
How much has been spent on the Rwanda scheme so far, £140m? Not a single person has moved as part of the scheme, and not a single person will ever move as part of the Rwanda scheme. It was a shit idea at the outset which should have been laughed out of town. For a party preaching conservatism, they haven't half frittered money up the wall. And by 'up the wall', I obviously mean into their own pockets. Furthermore Rwanda have only ever agreed to take 'up to 1000' asylum seekers as part of a 5 year trial and currently only have capacity for 200. Even if we started sending folk there it would never amount to much snd Rwanda could walk away if it proved to be more aggravation than it was worth. If anyone believes Kigame's palm hasn't been greased as part of this fiasco I have a bridge you may be interested in. £140m spent so far for 1000 folk!! We could have given them £140,000 each and they would still be on a round the world trip now eating in the best hotels if we'd wanted them gone. |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Nov 16, 2023 21:43:09 GMT
Fascinating to hear the lawyer on the BBC's 'Context' show commenting on Rishi Sunak's plan to bring in emergency law after the supreme court’s Rwanda ruling.
His analogy is that just because you pass a law to say 'black is white' it doesn't mean black is white.
The inference being the new law will not make a scrap of difference to the ruling just passed.
I am not a lawyer but I can see exactly where he is coming from.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Nov 16, 2023 21:48:57 GMT
Fascinating to here the lawyer on the BBC's 'Context' show commenting on Rishi Sunak's plan to bring in emergency law after the supreme court’s Rwanda ruling. His analogy is that just because you pass a law to say 'black is white' it doen't mean black is white. The inference being the new law will not make a scrap of difference to the ruling just passed. I am not a lawyer but I can see exactly where he is coming from. Oggy will set you straight dunna worry about that😉 |
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 17, 2023 15:08:20 GMT
Fascinating to here the lawyer on the BBC's 'Context' show commenting on Rishi Sunak's plan to bring in emergency law after the supreme court’s Rwanda ruling. His analogy is that just because you pass a law to say 'black is white' it doesn't mean black is white. The inference being the new law will not make a scrap of difference to the ruling just passed. I am not a lawyer but I can see exactly where he is coming from. I think the government knows that full well and, from what I read and hear, no planes will be leaving for Rwanda ahead of any general election, even if called as late as possible in January 2025. But, rather like MrCoke and Brexit, the government has backed itself firmly into a corner on this, their flagship policy, and they can't simply admit that they got it very wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Nov 18, 2023 9:25:48 GMT
So more people are actually still coming into England than moving out? That's weird.🤔
|
|
|
|
Post by mrnovember on Nov 18, 2023 10:16:58 GMT
Meanwhile, in Pakistan:
The questions surrounding what the UK will do to support. Presumably we have some obligations. The bare minimum, I imagine.
The apparent lack of, or tempered, international condemnation and the absence of public outrage is another question.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2023 11:03:22 GMT
Meanwhile, in Pakistan: The questions surrounding what the UK will do to support. Presumably we have some obligations. The bare minimum, I imagine. The apparent lack of, or tempered, international condemnation and the absence of public outrage is another question. I can’t read the article as I don’t have a WaPo subscription. However, I believe that I found it’s equivalent on Amnesty International: www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/11/pakistan-halt-mass-detentions-and-deportations-of-afghan-refugees/It sound horrific. Pakistan have an awful human rights record but sending refugees back to the place that they have fled from is impressively cold-hearted/outright evil. “ In another incident, a 17-year-old boy was detained in a raid in Sohrab Goth in Karachi on 3 November. Despite being born in Pakistan, holding a Proof of Registration (POR) card issued by the UNHCR and a minor, his family was not given access to the detention center. He was deported the next day and his exact whereabouts remain unknown.” So, essentially millions of Afghans are being thrown out because of a militant group that supports the Taliban? Then you have this: “ Pakistani authorities have also said they will confiscate money and property belonging to “illegal foreigners” and take punitive action against locals housing or protecting anyone who, in their view, fits into that category. ” www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-asia/pakistan-afghanistan/pakistans-mass-deportation-afghans-poses-risks-regional-stability#:~:text=The%20more%20specific%20reason%20for,to%20the%20Taliban%20in%20Kabul. So, Pakistan cheer for the Taliban’s return and then get angry when they do what they always do and their decision is to punish the refugees who’ve fled from the Taliban themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 18, 2023 11:19:52 GMT
Fascinating to hear the lawyer on the BBC's 'Context' show commenting on Rishi Sunak's plan to bring in emergency law after the supreme court’s Rwanda ruling. His analogy is that just because you pass a law to say 'black is white' it doesn't mean black is white. The inference being the new law will not make a scrap of difference to the ruling just passed. I am not a lawyer but I can see exactly where he is coming from. |
|
|
|
Post by LDE76 on Nov 18, 2023 12:34:00 GMT
Fascinating to hear the lawyer on the BBC's 'Context' show commenting on Rishi Sunak's plan to bring in emergency law after the supreme court’s Rwanda ruling. His analogy is that just because you pass a law to say 'black is white' it doesn't mean black is white. The inference being the new law will not make a scrap of difference to the ruling just passed. I am not a lawyer but I can see exactly where he is coming from. "To make myself clear, guano has proven to be a highly useful product worldwide, and its benefits are manifold..." Whipety-whip. Odin's frenulum. What a hill they've chosen to die defending. EDIT: Didn't realise at first that this is actually satire, which says something about a) my being up-to-date with current comedians and lunatic MPs; b) the pitfalls of posting while only half paying attention; c) the jawdropping stunts the current government has being trying to pull. Still, I think my last sentence is pertinent  |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 18, 2023 12:43:00 GMT
The Rwanda plan is really just a way of doing what we should be doing on our own soil on the cheap. It really isn't. It's far, far worse than that. It is the UK signalling to the world that we no longer take ANY refugees that haven't come here with a visa, so essentially, refugees from Ukraine and Hong Kong and maybe a tiny handful from Afghanistan. It's a policy that disgraces us all. Good point |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 18, 2023 12:52:17 GMT
Fascinating to here the lawyer on the BBC's 'Context' show commenting on Rishi Sunak's plan to bring in emergency law after the supreme court’s Rwanda ruling. His analogy is that just because you pass a law to say 'black is white' it doesn't mean black is white. The inference being the new law will not make a scrap of difference to the ruling just passed. I am not a lawyer but I can see exactly where he is coming from. I think the government knows that full well and, from what I read and hear, no planes will be leaving for Rwanda ahead of any general election, even if called as late as possible in January 2025. But, rather like MrCoke and Brexit, the government has backed itself firmly into a corner on this, their flagship policy, and they can't simply admit that they got it very wrong. Looks like they are just kicking the can down the road to the general election and leave it up to Labour to drop the policy and then blame them for it not happening. They know full well the UK would be an international pariah if they backed out of our commitments to human rights - it's just a charade to retain as much of the right wing vote as they can. |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Nov 18, 2023 20:05:30 GMT
Fascinating to hear the lawyer on the BBC's 'Context' show commenting on Rishi Sunak's plan to bring in emergency law after the supreme court’s Rwanda ruling. His analogy is that just because you pass a law to say 'black is white' it doesn't mean black is white. The inference being the new law will not make a scrap of difference to the ruling just passed. I am not a lawyer but I can see exactly where he is coming from. I don't know who she is but I'm struggling to believe this isn't some sort of parody 🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 18, 2023 20:12:00 GMT
I don't know who she is but I'm struggling to believe this isn't some sort of parody 🤔 Oh it is mate but she's very good isn't she? We went to see her one woman show at Nantwich Civic not too long ago, she was bloody brilliant! |
|
|
|
Post by Biblical on Nov 18, 2023 20:24:41 GMT
I don't know who she is but I'm struggling to believe this isn't some sort of parody 🤔 Oh it is mate but she's very good isn't she? We went to see her one woman show at Nantwich Civic not too long ago, she was bloody brilliant! There’s an art to the sort of precision that she manages to insert into anything she does. I wonder if she ever manages to get hardcore Tories thinking about that David Mitchell meme that is popular ‘are we the baddies?’ |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Nov 23, 2023 9:41:30 GMT
Back in 2010, the Conservatives pledged to get net migration below 100,000.
The last figure for 2022 was 606,000 - almost three times higher than pre-pandemic levels and described by Rishi Sunak as "too high".
But some still believe this is the party to sort immigration. 6x higher than pledged in 2010.
They don't give a fuck about manifestos. They care about power and corruption.
|
|
|
|
Post by knype on Nov 23, 2023 9:44:18 GMT
Back in 2010, the Conservatives pledged to get net migration below 100,000. The last figure for 2022 was 606,000 - almost three times higher than pre-pandemic levels and described by Rishi Sunak as "too high". But some still believe this is the party to sort immigration. 6x higher than pledged in 2010. They don't give a fuck about manifestos. They care about power and corruption. Time will tell if where we are at is good or bad... |
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Nov 23, 2023 9:46:34 GMT
Back in 2010, the Conservatives pledged to get net migration below 100,000. The last figure for 2022 was 606,000 - almost three times higher than pre-pandemic levels and described by Rishi Sunak as "too high". But some still believe this is the party to sort immigration. 6x higher than pledged in 2010. They don't give a fuck about manifestos. They care about power and corruption. |
|
|
|
Post by LL Cool Dave on Nov 23, 2023 10:00:41 GMT
Back in 2010, the Conservatives pledged to get net migration below 100,000. The last figure for 2022 was 606,000 - almost three times higher than pre-pandemic levels and described by Rishi Sunak as "too high". But some still believe this is the party to sort immigration. 6x higher than pledged in 2010. They don't give a fuck about manifestos. They care about power and corruption. Bloody Labour letting in all these people. |
|
|
|
Post by vidigal7 on Nov 23, 2023 10:08:50 GMT
Might move to France and set up a dingy business near Calais, i'll be rich by the end of next year
|
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 23, 2023 10:24:19 GMT
Back in 2010, the Conservatives pledged to get net migration below 100,000. The last figure for 2022 was 606,000 - almost three times higher than pre-pandemic levels and described by Rishi Sunak as "too high". But some still believe this is the party to sort immigration. 6x higher than pledged in 2010. They don't give a fuck about manifestos. They care about power and corruption. Absolutely correct. Can I say as one of the main supporters of Brexit on this MB that I fully support immigration. Everyone (living in the UK) on this MB is either an immigrant or descended from an immigrant. Many of the others are emigrants. The country needs to grow its population to support the aging population. Immigrants support our essential health and welfare services, which could not function without them. There are also other activities that depend heavily on immigrants include farmers, the slaughter houses, and the fishing industry (half of England’s fishing quota is ultimately owned by Dutch, Icelandic, or Spanish interests). Most immigration and most of the increase is people coming to join family or to study. The numbers coming to work are broadly the same as when the UK was in the EU and all come on permits/visas to fill jobs that there are not enough UK citizens willing or capable of doing. Hence there are nearly a million job vacancies and low unemployment. The Romans brought Asian and African immigrants to these islands 2,000 years ago, long before Anglo Saxons, Danes, and Normans arrived. Due to the shortage of cheap labour, automation will increase by much needed productivity investment, which will ultimately reduce the need for immigration. The UK nations have populated the rest of the world. Immigrants keep coming because this is still one of the best countries in the world to live in (despite our politicians). As for political party manifestos, I left the Liberal Party in the 1980s because I could no longer stomach the lies and deceit, and the Liberals were "amateurs" compared with the Tories and Labour! The Lib Dems tore up their manifesto promises to support Cameron's government. They are all only interested in grabbing power. The Labour Party of Jack Ashley, Michael Foot and Wedgie Benn is long dead - Alistair Campbell made lying and deceit an art form, spinning bad news into "good news". |
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Nov 23, 2023 12:13:30 GMT
Might move to France and set up a dingy business near Calais, i'll be rich by the end of next year How many of those immigrants came by dinghy do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by vidigal7 on Nov 23, 2023 12:17:26 GMT
Might move to France and set up a dingy business near Calais, i'll be rich by the end of next year How many of those immigrants came by dinghy do you think? This year, 27,284 more than should have done. 45,755 more than should have done in 2022. As of 13 November, 27,284 people had crossed the English Channel in 2023. In 2022, 45,755 migrants made the crossing, the highest number since figures began to be collected in 2018. In total, more than 100,000 people have come to the UK this way since 2018. And we have no idea who they are when they switch their 4* hotel bedlamp off at night at a cost of £8 million a day to the u.k tax payer |
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Nov 23, 2023 12:20:40 GMT
670,000 net migration, the vast majority legal for work purposes, yet the economy barely grew.
Not great for GDP per capita .
|
|
|
|
Post by vidigal7 on Nov 23, 2023 12:24:40 GMT
670,000 net migration, the vast majority legal for work purposes, yet the economy barely grew. Not great for GDP per capita . In the last 2 years the number men of fighting age that have crossed the channel via boat could fill old trafford football ground |
|
