egg

I took it as a kind of, I want to make a point, but actually haven't got a sensible word to say, so will just post a senseless rant.

The nonsense gets worse. Local authorities are skint, so let's hire non existent social workers, pay non existent foster carers, and divert the judiciary away from dealing with immigration and asylum cases so they can deal with more care cases. Brilliant idea. It's almost as though the red mist makes people unable to think sensibly.

I'm glad you asked...people keep banging on about the EHCR and overlook the HRA. If we exit the EHCR, we still have the HRA. I guess they expect both to go. I'm intrigued to understand what people actually want us to give up. I'm assuming it's the right to family life, but I'd be surprised if people really want our legal system to relinquish a right to family life. I'd appreciate a response from those calling for an end or amendment to EHCR.

So the kids fot into care. Ok. Our system won't cope, but I appreciate the answer. What about the women? Kept separate from the men, or do they stay together?

You still haven't said what you want to do with the women and kids. Separate them from their spouses/fathers? What about single parent dads - separate from their kids?

Another interpretation is that a wrong un is booted out, saving us a fortune.

Legal is not illegal. That's not semantics. It's basics.

Jesus wept.

People struggle with these basics.

I'll do a you and presume that's bollox and save my time.

A friend of mine was intending to stand as a Reform candidate. He came to his senses today and resigned his membership. He's posted this: "I have today resigned from Reform UK Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that our country is in urgent need of significant reform, I find myself unable to reconcile my personal beliefs with the direction the party has recently taken. In particular, I cannot condone the ongoing and relentless barracking of local councils, which has escalated into a level of rhetoric so intense that it has fostered an environment where individuals are genuinely fearful for their safety. Such conduct is, in my view, wholly unacceptable and detrimental to the principles of respectful political discourse. Although I sincerely wish Reform UK every success in its future endeavours, I must express my deep concern that the recent behaviour exhibited does not serve the best interests of local communities, nor does it align with my values. This disconnect has compelled me to step away from the party, as I believe that our focus should remain on addressing the pressing local issues with integrity and civility. I remain committed to working towards the betterment of our society, albeit through different avenues" Hopefully more decent people will see the party for what it is.

Pretty daft to knock an article that you haven't read.

People often criticise the source when an article is correct but differs from their views. In what way is it wrong?

Let's stick to Europe when discussing a European convention.

Become an international pariah alongside Russia and Belarus?

Yes. That's international law - asylum seekers should not be detained solely for seeking asylum. Detention must be a matter of last resort and necessary. Why's it necessary to detain a kid and it's mother? An old lady? An old man? Why keep them locked up with the people you're concerned may be dangerous? Duck and Hyo have avoided those issues so feel free to answer - I'd like someone to. What process do you have mind to find out if someone is a potential risk to others? I'll answer, there isn't one. If there was, we'd be living in a world free of violent crime. You get irritated by what you regard as soft arsed attitudes. I get irritated by people who don't play the tape forwards and think about the feasibility of what they want.

None of that addresses that we need to process thousands of people, and have the resources to do it. Where we agree is that we need to become a less attractive proposition.

We can't just abandon our legal system, or change the process that people are in midstream. There's christ knows how many people here claiming asylum. We all know that many of them have left somewhere safe, but, their claims have to be processed. The home office needs cash to process the claims, and the Tribunal system needs resources to deal with the appeals from that. The delay in getting to that stage is unacceptable. Sorting that is the only realistic way of dealing with the people here. The problem on the ground won't go away in the meantime, and, we have to accept that there'll be wrong uns amongst those who successfully claim asylum.

That's the issue, what happens after the space is used up. There needs to be a massive speed up of dealing with the appeals, and removing people who've been through the system and lost. Whether direct action will be taken in the channel, I'm not sure, but the government will be aware of the sentiment of the masses.

Whatever the reason, we cannot just send people back. That's the point I was making. You know that.

The point is that we can't just send them back now. What is incorrect about that statement? He is correct about that. You know that.

Err. He's said that we can't just send people back. What's incorrect with that statement? I know that you would like him to be wrong, but he isn't. I'll avoid repeating your insult, but.

If they've been charged with an offence, they can be remanded, and the courts will determine if they are bailed. If they haven't been charged with an offence, they can't be detained in something akin to custody. That's our legal process. The US legal process is theirs, not ours. That's not a hard concept to grasp.

Eh? They agreed to return bodies, and signed an agreement which acknowledged there'd be a delay finding them. Are you saying Hamas agreed to Israel bombing their people if corpses couldn't be found? Is it proportionate to do that?

Ridiculous statement. People who have entered the country illegally cannot be presumed to be a risk and locked up. If the police want to treat them as criminals and seek to detain then, charge them. If not, they aren't criminals and cannot be treated as if they are. Will you answer the point that Hypo swerved. Are we locking up just the blokes, or the women and kids too? If the rationale for locking up the blokes is that a few may be nonces, why's it ok to keep them locked up with kids and women?