egg

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?

It depends what people are looking for though. If the viable alternative is predominantly based on an aggressive approach to immigration, what credible party is going to make that their focus? Reform seem to be pandering to a crowd and leaving them to amplify their message.

I knew a fella who flew over every year to spend time with a woman who he described as his "kind of wife". While there he spent as much time as he could committing "kind of adultery" with anyone who'd take his cash. And I've never met anyone with a shipped in Thai bride who isn't weird. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I haven't met them yet.

Ah, the epitome of an advanced society - neighbours giving wife beaters a good kicking and the police ignoring it. Heart warming stuff. It'd be a tad better if there wasn't so much wife beating to begin with.

There's 3 now. Beggars belief that one person says keep the faith, let alone 3.

If that's what it takes to get Still gone, I'll take that.

He'd improve our midfield to be fair.

Jesus fecking wept. Still has never looked in his depth. He looks like a man who's drowning. Put the fella out of his misery. Now.

The lad is being asked to play a role he's not suited to playing. He's also far from the worst player starting today.

Inverted wing backs are the future.

Yep. Today he'd offer something up top, in the middle, or off the bench.

That team, and that bench, and your focus is Archer? That XI is a shit show. Aribo shouldn't be frozen out. Archer shouldn't be the scapegoat.

That's my take on it. Sure, Reform didn't get home, but they and Plaid got around 28k votes between them, and Labour less than 4k. The labour voters had Plaid as a centre-left alternative, and unless Lib Dem suddenly become attractive to the masses, disgruntled English Labour voters won't have much of an alternative come GE time. Like you, I fear Farage by default.