What Is Happening To Our Country?

[egg]

6 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Please don't quote him, ignore doesn't work on quotes! We've been through the Rwanda thing numerous times (only for 300 people/cost per person issues etc) but he forgets that every time it's posted.

But nobody would get on boat if they could become one of the 300. Or something like that. 

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

But nobody would get on boat if they could become one of the 300. Or something like that. 

1 in 150 chance I work it out as. I think we'd all take those odds...

[The Kraken]

Bibby Stockholm was 35 million quid incredibly well spent though.  Until the lefties got rid of it.

 

 

Edited 11 hours ago by The Kraken

[Holmes_and_Watson]

54 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Bibby Stockholm was 35 million quid incredibly well spent though.  Until the lefties got rid of it.

 

 

Glad you're kidding.

For a moment I thought you had Bibby Stockholm syndrome. 🙂

[rallyboy]

1 hour ago, The Kraken said:

Bibby Stockholm was 35 million quid incredibly well spent though.  Until the lefties got rid of it.

 

 

I think the Tory donor who took most of the money thought it was well spent.

Has it made it to Rwanda yet?

[Sir Ralph]

7 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

Please don't quote him, ignore doesn't work on quotes! We've been through the Rwanda thing numerous times (only for 300 people/cost per person issues etc) but he forgets that every time it's posted.

The point is that once up and running it the intention was that it would have been a disincentive for people so could have resulted in fewer people coming hence an overall saving. 
 

Anyway my overall response wasn’t about the merits of the schemes it was in relation to those on the left who will seek to stop any proposals which restrict immigration. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

23 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

The point is that once up and running it the intention was that it would have been a disincentive for people so could have resulted in fewer people coming hence an overall saving. 
 

Anyway my overall response wasn’t about the merits of the schemes it was in relation to those on the left who will seek to stop any proposals which restrict immigration. 

Who exactly ?

Plenty question whether a specific proposal is workable, or the motivation behind it, or the emphasis on the Channel boats ( an emotive minority of migrants coming here ), but I'm not aware of anybody espousing unrestricted immigration.

Edited 4 hours ago by badgerx16

[Sir Ralph]

56 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Who exactly ?

Plenty question whether a specific proposal is workable, or the motivation behind it, or the emphasis on the Channel boats ( an emotive minority of migrants coming here ), but I'm not aware of anybody espousing unrestricted immigration.

Please refer to my previous post

[badgerx16]

7 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Please refer to my previous post

So you cannot name a sngle person, just a vague assertion about "...left wing MPs, human rights lawyers, unions, civil rights groups, etc,..."

Gve one specific example of somebody publicly championing unrestricted immigration.

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

So you cannot name a sngle person, just a vague assertion about "...left wing MPs, human rights lawyers, unions, civil rights groups, etc,..."

Gve one specific example of somebody publicly championing unrestricted immigration.

I didn’t say anyone was openly championing unrestricted immigration (not in public at least). I said there are groups on the left and in the human rights sector who have tried to oppose government policies to restrict illegal immigration.

Amnesty international, liberty, unison, pcs, Lucas, cherry, Corbyn - there were a number of Labour, Lib Dem and Green MPS. There are other groups and parties or individuals that are to the left. I assume you acknowledge that all those named are?

Edited 1 hour ago by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

43 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I didn’t say anyone was openly championing unrestricted immigration (not in public at least). I said there are groups on the left and in the human rights sector who have tried to oppose government policies to restrict illegal immigration.

Amnesty international, liberty, unison, pcs, Lucas, cherry, Corbyn - there were a number of Labour, Lib Dem and Green MPS. There are other groups and parties or individuals that are to the left. I assume you acknowledge that all those named are?

Do those organisations and individuals "... seek to stop any proposals which restrict immigration. " ? ( I would assume they have actually come out and said that they actively oppose such proposals ).

Edited 1 hour ago by badgerx16

[Sir Ralph]

13 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Do those organisations and individuals "... seek to stop any proposals which restrict immigration. " ? ( I would assume they have actually come out and said that they actively oppose such proposals ).

Ok be pedantic - if that singular word is what you’re hanging onto I know you’re struggling . Left wing groups or individuals as a collective will try and stop any proposals to restrict immigration 
 

Do you agree that the left wing in the whole are the ones that resist proposals to reduce illegal immigration?

Edited 1 hour ago by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Ok be pedantic - you get the point and have to accept it hence why are benign pedantic. End of conversation 

I don't accept it. You are, as usual, spouting exaggerated waffle.

If the Government passes effective legislation which the Courts, domestic and international, can support, ultimately no amount of vocal opposition and activism can prevent the policies being carried out. The issues lie with politicians being unable, or unwilling, to develop a legal workable solution, ( NOT Rwanda Mk2 ).

Edited 1 hour ago by badgerx16

[Turkish]

Back to these documents which tell our culture enrichers not to rape women or nonce kids 

is this an admission from the government that it is a problem or something else?

[The Kraken]

 

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I don't accept it. You are, as usual, spouting exaggerated waffle.

If the Government passes effective legislation which the Courts, domestic and international, can support, ultimately no amount of vocal opposition and activism can prevent the policies being carried out. The issues lie with politicians being unable, or unwilling, to develop a legal workable solution, ( NOT Rwanda Mk2 ).

Correct, and you’re right to point it out.  It’s not pedantic, it is an important distinction to make.

The constant need to identify a leftie bogeyman is just bizarre to me. Show me any person who agrees with the notion that there are people of any political persuasion who, I quote, try to restrict any attempt at restricting immigration and I’ll call them a bloody leftie idiot myself. Even Zack Polanski, a man I have absolutely no favour for at all, has confirmed that his party do not think open borders is in any way a pragmatic solution.

It’s quite interesting to note that the poster in question laments the loss of Bibby Stockholm and the hideously priced Rwanda scheme. And, while previously acknowledging the Dublin agreement as an extremely useful tool, does not seem to encourage a return to it. I find that approach somewhat contradictory and strange. The blame game of lefties for the current immigration mess is just such a simple approach that kind of misses the point.

[The Kraken]

Just now, Turkish said:

Back to these documents which tell our culture enrichers not to rape women or nonce kids 

is this an admission from the government that it is a problem or something else?

It’s a stupid mess, is what it is. And makes a charade of a very serious and obvious problem.

[Sir Ralph]

45 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I don't accept it. You are, as usual, spouting exaggerated waffle.

If the Government passes effective legislation which the Courts, domestic and international, can support, ultimately no amount of vocal opposition and activism can prevent the policies being carried out. The issues lie with politicians being unable, or unwilling, to develop a legal workable solution, ( NOT Rwanda Mk2 ).

You ignored the question

[Sir Ralph]

49 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

 

Correct, and you’re right to point it out.  It’s not pedantic, it is an important distinction to make.

The constant need to identify a leftie bogeyman is just bizarre to me. Show me any person who agrees with the notion that there are people of any political persuasion who, I quote, try to restrict any attempt at restricting immigration and I’ll call them a bloody leftie idiot myself. Even Zack Polanski, a man I have absolutely no favour for at all, has confirmed that his party do not think open borders is in any way a pragmatic solution.

It’s quite interesting to note that the poster in question laments the loss of Bibby Stockholm and the hideously priced Rwanda scheme. And, while previously acknowledging the Dublin agreement as an extremely useful tool, does not seem to encourage a return to it. I find that approach somewhat contradictory and strange. The blame game of lefties for the current immigration mess is just such a simple approach that kind of misses the point.

The point is collectively leftist groups or individuals have tried to block most if not all serious attempts to restrict immigration . The point of difference was whoether those on the left try to hinder these policies. I didn’t lament the policies - point out where I did? I said they were policies that were intended to restrict immigration that were opposed by groups / individuals from a particular political spectrum. Please quote correctly 

Edited 1 minute ago by Sir Ralph