egg

You horrible gravelist cunt.

It's probably because there isn't a better idea. You haven't come up with one, so you presumably agree it's the least worst option.

The best choice is detention centres. Basic needs provided for. What's obvious though is that people nearby won't like it. And yep, lots of people have an issue with brown people arriving.

W can't stop people (well about half) wanting war zones, or getting on a boat in a foreign country. No party can solve that. What we have to do is make us less attractive to those people, but this discussion is about the narrow point of where those people are accommodated while they're here. It's a blunt choice between Hotels, HMO's, detention centres, fields/woods/streets, shanty towns. People with an opinion on this issue should be able to express a preference, and explain why.

There's no denying that many people look at the men amongst brown asylum seekers and fear/assume rapist. That's an unfortunate fact. Where asylum seekers are accommodated needs discussion. You're complaining about a detention centre, but won't say what's preferred. Where do they get accommodated whilst here pending being processed?

That's exactly the issue. People don't want people arriving. People do and will. This issue is where to accommodate people when they do. What's your suggestion, apart from asking people to let them lodge with them?

Postcode lottery. Hotels, HMO's, detention centres, fields/woods/streets, shanty towns. Take your pick.

Daft options like that aren't options.

Yep. People complained about hotels and asked for detention centres to be used. That'll happen, only to become the next complaint. I get that some people don't want brown people arriving, but they do and will, and have to be housed somewhere. Or be left to camp in the fields/be left to build shanty towns. It's a lesser of evils scenario.

Nobody wants this on their doorstep, but what's the choice? We ain't closing the channel, and the asylum system as it stands, drags out processing claims. Small groups in HMO's in residential areas = complaints, bigger groups in Hotels mostly away from residential areas = complaints, even bigger groups in detention centres away from major towns = complaints. The latter is the least worst option for me.

Hasn't it been said that we need to bring in and keep cash? On the main point though, Neil on a free and cashing in on Charles would be brilliant business.

I keep a tiny residential mortgage to avoid that. Payments are about a tenner a month, but if keeps my credit rating up. I also carry a small credit card debt (zero percent) for the same reason.

Absolutely. They were desperate, and they tried incredibly hard to save the fella. None of us would want to have been in their shoes, and if we're honest, none of us could be certain we'd have handled it any better. Very sad.

Agreed. Although Gordon wasn't good, he made decent runs at times and wasn't played in (Rice was guilty, ditto against Croatia), and often was left against 2 because Spence often looked like he was playing left of a back 3 rather than a full back. Any decent movement from him would have made life easier for Gordon. Hopefully we'll see O'Reilly and Rashford down the left against Panama. And why Shaw isn't there is anyone's guess.

We were watching different games. He defended well, got forward, and stepped inside loads to give space to Madueke.