egg

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?

Quite. I've never encountered the notion that people should be killed because corpses haven't been returned.

Fair point.

Your persona craves the last word, so I'll leave that one unanswered.

I'm not sure anyone has ever pointed out anything other than your own words. You seeking too argue your claimed intent after the event is not you correcting the record.

Yep. Israel have played the US again. Get the living hostages back with their help, then look for a pretext to resume.

Yep. The deal apparently anticipated these issues too.

Unsurprisingly, Israel to resume smashing up the remnants of Gaza. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c891ex72nj7t?post=asset%3Abe579a52-b91f-44ef-bc53-343c81e50ca5#post Is there previous anywhere for creating more dead bodies because dead bodies can't be returned?

It seems very obvious that how people perceive your persona matters to you hence your posting style as Farmer explained it. You'll disagree, of course.

You're an intelligent fella, but you're posting can be disingenuous in your attempt to present well. Several of us see through it

So lock all the men away? What about the women and kids? Splitting families just in case dad's a potential nonce or thug? Ditto.

That's true, but Farmer makes the valid point that your attention has exclusively been on that group.

Yes, seems so. Collective pre emptive punishment of every illegal immigrant, just in case a few are wrong uns, but keep the vulnerable women and kids with them. It's almost as though people don't think when it comes to immigrants.

The call is for non criminals to be locked away just in case a minority of their group become dangerous. That's not how it works.

That doesn't make any sense, but I'm not after sympathy.

Plenty of people walking the streets are potentially bloody dangerous. That's not a reason to lock them away.

If they're charged under the immigration act, they're potential criminals. If they're not, they aren't, so they shouldn't be "remanded" through the back door.

I struggle with the idea of essentially imprisoning people. House them in a facility where basic needs are provided for by all means though.

I think his point is that people will be allowed freedom of movement.

There are discussions taking place about security arrangements. People aren't being detained though, they're being accommodated, so people will come and go. Am I sensing that the messaging has morphed from no more expensive hotels, to accommodate these people on army bases, to detain then?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjr0lx7n0y3o That'll cheer a few people up.

He's there I reckon, just seems to have a moral compass that spins around like a roulette wheel.

Amongst all that, you haven't addressed the actual point Weston was making about high levels of domestic abuse. You don't exactly sell a dream when you say that it happens, and that it's the social norm for the public to beat up on the perpetrators with the police accepting that. Call me old fashioned, but a society with that, kids selling their bodies, sex tourism, etc, isn't one that appeals on any level.

So are you saying there's a risk that east-stand-nic could have his identity stolen and we get two of him?