hypochondriac

That's not what I said.

Do countries not signed up to the ECHR have human rights ?

Pointing out the realistic steps a hypothetical government or country could take if they wanted to is not the same thing as advocating for those steps or even supporting that position. How is that a difficult concept for you to grasp?

I never said you did. Gassing everyone is not a serious suggestion. Leaving the ECHR is something that could feasibly happen and coukd well happen at some point in the future therefore it's worthy of discussion unlike mass murder.

I give up. You're incapable of understanding.

How is leaving the ECHR comparable to mass murder ?

How so?

Leaving the ECHR isn't illegal.

Innocent British people who have been assaulted by some of these people are out in a lot of danger too through no fault of their own.

I won't bother responding to you on this point because you never seem to read things in context. The claim was that nothing could be done to stop the amount of people coming here illegally in small boats. That in my view is untrue. There are lots of things you could do if you wanted to including leaving the ECHR. That is not me advocating for anything, I'm simply saying that that is something which could be done as one of many measures in order to reduce numbers. You could completely disagree with the entire concept of leaving and still concede that it is an option albeit one that we don't want to take at present.

They aren't the only countries not in it but again, I'm not saying we should leave the ECHR I'm saying we could. My post was in response to a poster saying there was nothing we could do .

Right so deport those whose identities we can ascertain, put resources into finding out the true identities of others, detain those who refuse to say. Not a perfect system by any means but would see numbers fall.

I haven't said that. What I'm replying to is the idea that there is nothing we can do.

Having a more robust policy worked very well for Australia. We've never tried it so there's no evidence it wouldn't work.

It obviously is a deterrent. You talk as if all these people are fleeing for their lives. They aren't. That perception is half the problem.

Some we already know who they are, I'd be putting resources into finding out the identities of some of them. Others if they refuse to say where they're from would be detained until they talk or if we do make agreements with a third party country they can be sent there. What we definitely shouldn't do is let someone unknown roam the country because they won't tell us who they are.

What link? Have we poured resources into expanding an old army barrack in order to securely hold people whilst they are processed? Have we left the ECHR and are we looking into deporting as many people as we can and ignoring the charity and activists looking to delay and hold up flights? Hypothetically if we did that for a year and it makes no difference to numbers then I would hold my hands up and say I was wrong.

How do you keep anyone anywhere? I'd keep it secure. I agree it would need time to get it ready but we could make resources and kit it out properly if there was the will to do so. I agree that this would be expensive and potentially difficult but it isn't impossible so it's not true to say that there is nothing that can be done about it, particularly because they haven't been tried properly. If we get to a situation where people are housed in basic accommodation securely with others and substantial number are leaving regularly and attempted crossings don't come down then I will accept there is nothing that can really be done.

There are ideas outlined above for reducing the number coming here. It won't stop it entirely but the numbers coming will be much lower. I completely understand if people disagree with those ideas or think they are not what we should be doing but they do exist.

I agree it will cost quite a lot of money initially but over time it will cost less once the infrastructure is up and running and less people come because they know they won't be staying. I would look to revive the idea of an overseas territory or a nearby island for processing but I accept that has difficulties or may be unfeasible. I see that other countries have looked for agreements with Rwanda but if something like that is tried it needs to be done properly. The main thing is to get many people being deported in a short space of time and keep it running so that the message gets out there that if you come here illegally you aren't staying. I'd simultaneously be looking at old army barracks-like Weathersfield and maybe looking to expand them- to see how much of that can be repurposed to hold people whilst they are processed. Once people realise that once they get here they won't be staying and it will likely be worse than France the numbers are very likely to go down significantly. I also saw the idea mooted of paying some people to leave but I'm not sure how successful that would be because it would likely act as a pull factor for some.

In all seriousness is he suffering from a serious mental problem or something in his personal life? He was relatively successful abroad albeit in a lower league and looked decent with that finish in pre season but since then he's done virtually nothing. It's almost bizarre how poor he has been.

The fact that a sizable number do mind is the only thing that matters and how do we know for sure how many women feel uncomfortable by the presence of a man in a female only space? No women should be in a position where they have to use a female changing room and have a biological man in it. Similarly things like female prisons, rape crisis centres etc. If you ensure that female only spaces are restricted to biological women then the only people inconvenienced by that will be biological me who feel comfortable presenting as a woman. Unfortunately that will mean they will have to either use the spaces that are aligned with their biological sex or an alternative neutral space if one is provided.

The previous government are twats but they were rightly voted out so I don't care about them anymore. What matters now is what the current government are doing. TBF to them on this issue, if you aren't appointing a judge then it's going to be hard to find someone with a distinguished history in child safeguarding that wasn't involved in social work or the police in some way. I would definitely try to get someone neutral that's beyond reproach and without anything to do with the Labour party.

Are you blind?

See above.