What Is Happening To Our Country?

[Farmer Saint]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

But we know that the prevailing attitude of failing to call out the minorities involved in grooming gangs has been a leading factor in its proliferation and continuation for decades. 

My issue is YOU using that language, as you know very well why you do that. There's 43k posts of you using provocative language, just on the edge, so that you can say "No, I didn't mean that" over and over again. Your implicit meaning is not lost on us, and the language you use is very deliberate.

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

My issue is YOU using that language, as you know very well why you do that. There's 43k posts of you using provocative language, just on the edge, so that you can say "No, I didn't mean that" over and over again. Your implicit meaning is not lost on us, and the language you use is very deliberate.

Time and again the likes of you and egg allege that. You continually assume bad faith rather than asking for a clarification or accepting what I say. It's not my fault if you refuse to accept what I believe when I've told you explicitly. This conversation began because you claimed I wanted people to think that Pakistani Muslims were the only people who are hooligans and paedophiles- something I have never claimed or ever thought.

Edited 5 hours ago by hypochondriac

[egg]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Time and again the likes of you and egg allege that. You continually assume bad faith rather than asking for a clarification or accepting what I say. It's not my fault if you refuse to accept what I believe when I've told you explicitly.

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

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Time and again the likes of you and egg allege that. You continually assume bad faith rather than asking for a clarification or accepting what I say. It's not my fault if you refuse to accept what I believe when I've told you explicitly.

Sorry, I just don't believe you as you have a profile that you like to have a go at, over and over and over again. If you even deviated slightly then maybe you wouldn't be treated like that, but unfortunately you don't.

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

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

I'm not sure what that means. I've got no desire to 'present well' however that manifests, I'm simply just giving my opinion. I don't think it's anywhere near as black and white as some people who disagree with me politically think it is. There's nothing to see through, simply a failure by the usual handful of largely like minded postera who think I secretly believe something I've said repeatedly I don't believe.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

Sorry, I just don't believe you as you have a profile that you like to have a go at, over and over and over again. If you even deviated slightly then maybe you wouldn't be treated like that, but unfortunately you don't.

I know you don't. Unfortunately not really anything I can do about that as you would believe I'm a secret racist whatever I said. All I can do is repeat again that I'm not and explain my reasons. Some posters understand that, even some who disagree with me.

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

I know you don't. Unfortunately not really anything I can do about that as you would believe I'm a secret racist whatever I said. All I can do is repeat again that I'm not and explain my reasons. Some posters understand that, even some who disagree with me.

I'm not sure many do TBF.

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Farmer Saint said:

I'm not sure many do TBF.

Enough of the ones that matter are able to apply a bit of critical thinking and can accomplish it.

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Enough of the ones that matter are able to apply a bit of critical thinking and can accomplish it.

I would argue they're not applying critical thinking.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

I would argue they're not applying critical thinking.

I'm sure you would. That's why it's difficult to have a sensible conversation.

Edited 5 hours ago by hypochondriac

[egg]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'm not sure what that means. I've got no desire to 'present well' however that manifests, I'm simply just giving my opinion. I don't think it's anywhere near as black and white as some people who disagree with me politically think it is. There's nothing to see through, simply a failure by the usual handful of largely like minded postera who think I secretly believe something I've said repeatedly I don't believe.

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. 

[Farmer Saint]

13 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'm sure you would. That's why it's difficult to have a sensible conversation.

Not sure it has any bearing on sensible conversations, it's just that we have a pretty good idea of the person we're arguing with, so it means that unless you display traits where you will look at holistic problems, not just those perpetrated by your favourite whipping boys (which you never do), then the conversations are largely pointless.

[hypochondriac]

23 minutes ago, egg said:

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. 

It matters when people post falsehoods about what I think so ill correct the record. What the usual handful of posters think individually means very little.

[hypochondriac]

13 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Not sure it has any bearing on sensible conversations, it's just that we have a pretty good idea of the person we're arguing with, so it means that unless you display traits where you will look at holistic problems, not just those perpetrated by your favourite whipping boys (which you never do), then the conversations are largely pointless.

Again it's not a consensus of opinion, it's the same handful of posters who largely agree with each other on most other things. Regarding pointless conversations, it's quite simple for you to not reply and waste your time in that manner. Strange that you wouldn't.

[egg]

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It matters when people post falsehoods about what I think so ill correct the record. What the usual handful of posters think individually means very little.

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. 

[Farmer Saint]

18 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Again it's not a consensus of opinion, it's the same handful of posters who largely agree with each other on most other things. Regarding pointless conversations, it's quite simple for you to not reply and waste your time in that manner. Strange that you wouldn't.

You quoted my post because I didn't reply to you originally, and you knew my opinion of you as you've mentioned many times.

Again, you say it's not a consensus of opinion, and I'm sure not everyone does agree, but quite a few do, so I would put that (apparent) confusion on you, rather than them.

Edited 4 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

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. 

Rubbish. You and others constantly tell me what I've meant by what I've posted which is your uncharitable interpretation of a post because you disagree with me politically.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

You quoted my post because I didn't reply to you originally, and you knew my opinion of you as you've mentioned many times.

Honestly I was not aware you were talking about me specifically when I replied to you. It subsequently became clear that you were talking about me and what you posted was a lie.

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Rubbish. You and others constantly tell me what I've meant by what I've posted which is your uncharitable interpretation of a post because you disagree with me politically.

This is not a political thing by any stretch, and it's disingenuous for you to say that.

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Honestly I was not aware you were talking about me specifically when I replied to you. It subsequently became clear that you were talking about me and what you posted was a lie.

What lie is that?

[badgerx16]

 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Rubbish. You and others constantly tell me what I've meant by what I've posted which is your uncharitable interpretation of a post because you disagree with me politically.

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

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, egg said:

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

Great news.

[iansums]

50 minutes ago, egg said:

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. 

To be honest, the posting style of anyone right of centre is likely to cause great distress to you and Farmer.

[hypochondriac]

Just now, iansums said:

To be honest, the posting style of anyone right of centre is likely to cause great distress to you and Farmer.

Is the correct answer.

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, iansums said:

To be honest, the posting style of anyone right of centre is likely to cause great distress to you and Farmer.

And yet it doesn't seem to be with other posters...but there we go. I'm not calling him out as racist because he is right of centre, that's for sure. I voted Conservative at every election until Boris took over and I would traditionally call myself a One Nation Tory. This is not political.

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Yes, seems so. Collective pre emptive punishment of every illegal immigrant,

Ridiculous statement, it’s not pre emptive if they’re illegal. 

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Ridiculous statement, it’s not pre emptive if they’re illegal. 

Can children be tried for it though? Do they get due process?

Edited 4 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[AlexLaw76]

1 of the 2 ex Army barracks being used will house c300 men (Cameron Barracks).

300? That will be full in a couple of days, then what? And no doubt these sites would have housed far more than that when crammed with squaddies.

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

1 of the 2 ex Army barracks being used will house c300 men (Cameron Barracks).

300? That will be full in a couple of days, then what? And no doubt these sites would have housed far more than that when crammed with squaddies.

If we had the space to house people now we would already be using it. We don't, and that's why hotels have had to be used. What's happened to all the old Pontins sites? Although not sure they deserve to be put in places like that.

[egg]

13 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Ridiculous statement, it’s not pre emptive if they’re illegal. 

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? 

[AlexLaw76]

2 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

If we had the space to house people now we would already be using it. We don't, and that's why hotels have had to be used. What's happened to all the old Pontins sites? Although not sure they deserve to be put in places like that.

One day, a government of ours might actually make pretty undesirable to illegally cross the channel to be here.

Until then, the slow march to a reform government will continue. 

[sadoldgit]

12 hours ago, east-stand-nic said:

Still defending Muslim rapists I see. Disgusting vile excuse for a human being. 

I’m not defending anyone you cretin. For someone who claims to be so intelligent you really are a clueless idiot. Little wonder you are also a Trump apologist. 

[Farmer Saint]

3 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

One day, a government of ours might actually make pretty undesirable to illegally cross the channel to be here.

Until then, the slow march to a reform government will continue. 

The issue is, and no-one has managed to argue the process properly, is how.

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

The issue is, and no-one has managed to argue the process properly, is how.

Political will. Difficult for those in power when half of the front bench were literally welcoming them across the channel 18m+ ago.

[iansums]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

The issue is, and no-one has managed to argue the process properly, is how.

Why do they pay large sums of money and risk their lives crossing the channel in a rubber dinghy rather than staying in mainland Europe? A genuine question, something I’ve never really understood.

[iansums]

28 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

And yet it doesn't seem to be with other posters...but there we go. I'm not calling him out as racist because he is right of centre, that's for sure. I voted Conservative at every election until Boris took over and I would traditionally call myself a One Nation Tory. This is not political.

Fair enough. I voted Labour once 😳

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, iansums said:

Why do they pay large sums of money and risk their lives crossing the channel in a rubber dinghy rather than staying in mainland Europe? A genuine question, something I’ve never really understood.

Because, hotels, medical care, free stuff, mobile phones, deliveroo jobs, hairdressing, black economy, the ability to sexually assault teenagers and get let out of prison...soon, a nice room indefinitely in a secure ex-army barrack.

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, iansums said:

Fair enough. I voted Labour once 😳

I once voted Plaid Cymru.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

7 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I once voted Plaid Cymru.

You think you're voting to revitalise the textile industry and suddenly Wales wants independence.

[Farmer Saint]

39 minutes ago, iansums said:

Why do they pay large sums of money and risk their lives crossing the channel in a rubber dinghy rather than staying in mainland Europe? A genuine question, something I’ve never really understood.

You say that, but France and Germany have more immigrants stay than we get coming over on boats. A lot come over due to language, some family etc.

[Farmer Saint]

41 minutes ago, iansums said:

Fair enough. I voted Labour once 😳

I've voted Conservative 3 times the amount I've voted for any other party...

[Farmer Saint]

48 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Political will. Difficult for those in power when half of the front bench were literally welcoming them across the channel 18m+ ago.

In what way were they welcoming them across? And what does political will mean in this situation?

Edited 3 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Gloucester Saint]

45 minutes ago, iansums said:

Fair enough. I voted Labour once 😳

I voted Tory once in 2017 because although May botched the Brexit negotiations (redlines far too early), it was clearly going to better as a deal economically than anything which followed (and factually was). Pragmatism didn’t pay off that time as we ended up Boris and Frost instead.

Abstained 2019 as Boris and Corbyn - never - and Swinson’s Brexit pledge was nonsensical. Lib Dem before and since. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[sadoldgit]

28 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

In what way were they welcoming them across? And what does political will mean in this situation?

Indeed. It is quite obvious that it has been difficult to deal with people coming across on dinghies and they are hardly being welcomed, they are being dealt with which is something completely different. The idea that Reform could deal with the situation any better is frankly absurd. Farage, in being successful in his campaign to get us out of the EU has made a rod for his own back in that we can’t just send them back to France now.

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, egg said:

People who have entered the country illegally cannot be presumed to be a risk and locked up. 

 

They should be locked up because they’ve entered the country illegally. They’ve committed an offence which they should be detained for.

It’s not a hard concept to grasp. I knew a bloke who over stayed his US tourist visa in the 80’s. A bird he dumped grassed him up and the INS came and took him away. They put him in a detention centre, they didn’t give him a mobile phone, a few dollars and put him up in the nearest Howard Johnson…..

[Lord Duckhunter]

55 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

we can’t just send them back to France now.

#clueless.

We took more from other EU countries the last 2 years, then we sent back. 
 

676 Sent back to the EU

1,019 sent to us from The EU. 

 Better than Starmers 17,000 in 1 out policy, I’ll give you that….

 

[egg]

7 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

They should be locked up because they’ve entered the country illegally. They’ve committed an offence which they should be detained for.

It’s not a hard concept to grasp. I knew a bloke who over stayed his US tourist visa in the 80’s. A bird he dumped grassed him up and the INS came and took him away. They put him in a detention centre, they didn’t give him a mobile phone, a few dollars and put him up in the nearest Howard Johnson…..

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.  

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

#clueless.

We took more from other EU countries the last 2 years, then we sent back. 
 

676 Sent back to the EU

1,019 sent to us from The EU. 

 Better than Starmers 17,000 in 1 out policy, I’ll give you 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. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

Err. He's said that we can't just send people bac

He said we can’t send them back now, because we’ve left the EU and therefore   no longer in the Dublin convention.
 

Pointing out the numbers when we were in said convention, doesn’t make him right, however much you’d like him to be. 
 

leaving the EU hasn’t made a blind bit of difference, so blaming Nigel for this shambles is laughable. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Lord Duckhunter