Sir Ralph

The legal system is creating lots of problems which mean that the bad apples are taking advantage. This leaves the genuine asylum seekers being naturally tarred with the same brush. You need to change the legal system otherwise the grouping of people will and is occurring. Those wanting to protect the existing system and its huge associated problems will actually likely cause the discrimination of the genuine claimants. The bad apples need to be dealt with in a robust and speedy manner (as part of a new system) for people to differentiate between them and the genuine claimants.

The actions of an uncivilised country is to allow rape, murder and harassing of it’s citizens to continue without attaching importance to it by addressing the cause.

That’s what you took from my post?! I didnt see those reports. He then went missing for a number of days despite it being splashed across the national press. What a lovely paedo. I mean are you serious? Are you defending the bloke and the shitshow of a legal system? your response isnt normal in the context

I understand why he has been paid in the context of the current system to avoid additional costs. The key point is how is this fucker allowed access to a system which protects him to the extent he can try to disrupt his deportation and mean that we have to pay this wanker £500. The legal framework (including the ECHR) that facilitates this is therefore perverse and I would go as far as to say, immoral. Surely you can see why people have the hump, are fed up and want a change to the legal framework that facilitates this? If you agree that this is wrong, by virtue of this you would have an isue with the legal system that allows it

My comment relates more to the legal system that means that we have to pander to them. A legal system is allegedly fair and just. This is not which is why it’s such a politically charged topic How can someone arrive illegally, break the law, run from jail and the legal system has so little teeth that we have to pay this bloke £500 to leave. And people laugh at people saying we need to leave the ECHR and other legal entities- it’s not bloody surprising!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly9rxlvp85o Brilliant. It’s just astounding. Illegal imigrant, touched up kids, runs from jail, give the guy £500. What a joke. That proves how fucked up our legal system is that defines these people as legal. The fucked up system can call them what it wants and we can have legal interpretations all day long. In short they shouldn’t be here.

Ok legally they are not illegal but morally they are.

It’s the same thing. It’s semantics if you want to get into the legal interpretation you are technically correct but essentially the majority of people shouldn’t be here when they arrive as they aren’t fleeing from risk of life or persecution so most people see them as illegal, rather than using the technically correct terms. If my gran from Bolivia came here and tried to claim asylum I would describe her as illegal because she has no reason or right to enter the country’s shores coming from a safe country

My periods come every Friday afternoon and when I’m hungover

Why arent we recalling him from loan? We need a physical striker

Let me know if you can help me with the two questions above though as it maybe that we find common ground on these two points.

Thats fine - I have my doubts about Reform and their ability to govern too. The question is who is a credible alternative. Labour are not.

Its ok - I copied and pasted it for you. If you think that guy is a serious journalist then good luck to you. If you want to take your opinions from people like that then its legitimate to question your opinion on such matters as they are informed by dunces.

I said I dont believe it has significant merit because of the source. If I quoted a Daily Mail article I suspect you wouldnt read it (and I agree with that). Having read it its very sarcastic so I believe the author is biased. Its also quite subjective. If the Telegraph wrote this I would take the same view. Its childish journalism. The authors Wiki page is here and he sounds like a BSer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Crace_(writer) The only discernible information about him is the following so he has an anti - Reform agenda before (I'm not necessarily a Reform supporter), which further supports my view aout the quality of the Guardian if it lets people like this write in it: In July 2019, The Guardian retracted statements by Crace implying that right-wing political journalist Isabel Oakeshott had obtained confidential files by having sex with Nigel Farage and Arron Banks. His article included the claim that Oakeshott only got confidential emails if Farage and Banks "slips it to her". Following the threat of legal action by Oakeshott, the text was amended to: "leave it conveniently tucked under her pillow". This second revision was then removed, with the final version stating: "if he or Arron Banks leave it conveniently to one side for her". Oakeshott stated: "It gives me great pleasure to teach ⁦John Crace⁩ and The ⁦Guardian a little lesson about casually slurring women whose politics they dislike".[8]

I havent read the article and dont know enough about the subject to be honest. Its a very sarcastic article which leads me to believe the author is biased on the matter. Its not very balanced. The Guardian is biased, as is the Telegraph, on such matters which is why I take what it says with a bit of a pinch of salt and wouldnt quote either when making a point.

Ok I understand that you aren’t defending Reeves. In the context that we are both looking at this in the same way ….. 1. how has the government policies helped to reduce interest rates;and 2. What policies has it introduced to encourage business? In respect of the latter I assume you agree with me that there is no discernible policy we can both think of where they have encouraged business and we agree this is a huge failure on their part? As a side point I don’t think you address the deficit by increasing public sector day to day spending which they have. That has the opposite effect

.

I didn’t say you were anti business. I said you appear to be more pro state intervention / taxes and I can’t recall you prioritising business in many (if any) of your statements which I would expect. In terms of the second assertion, I would anticipate that would impact your views, as it does me as a business owner.

But to date what has she done to encourage business? If they want to drive economic growth (which they continue to say they do) it should be easy to reel off…. What annoys me is that she is blaming everything else but they have been in power for coming up to 1.5 years. I won’t hold my breath on the budget based on her comments to date

I think your views are quite pro tax / state intervention and I don’t see much pro business rhetoric in your messaging which I would have expected. I appreciate that your personal views and business views can be different but my experience is that your day to day business work and what you see in that (the good and bad impact of government) would change your personal views.

Ok so the question is how is she helping to grow the economy if you are a business owner? She says she is going to show the worsening economic forecasts wrong. Genuinely what is she putting in place to help achieve this from a business perspective?

Inflation in the uk and it having nothing to do with government policy for one, despite multiple sources saying it does. I found that particular stance unusual. You consistently allege how you are advising xy and z but of all the people in the higher echelons of business, I’ve genuinely never met anyone with the views that you have. So respectfully I have my doubts and we clearly both have doubts about each other. I don’t want to have a slagging match as it won’t achieve anything and whilst we may both think each other talk BS I don’t think we will come to agreement on that so best to continue to be polite

So have you on a number of occasions

Pretty patronising. I’m not young unfortunately but you seem to think that you know everything about the world too which I don’t believe you do. When people don’t agree with your world view it doesn’t make your case to patronise them as that’s quite immature. I don’t patronise you

But reeves keeps saying that she is going to grow the economy which was the headline of the BBC article. I agree that higher taxes won’t. How are they encouraging business growth then?