• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Interesting slant on this discussion which doesn't seem to be mentioned

These boats seem to arrive as part of wider underworld operations who supply the boats and passage. Would people on here not want to see that kind of illegal operation come to an end even if it meant one less passage for asylum seekers?

The illegal underworld profiteering I this seems to be the part ignored and accepted. I would like to see that eradicated first and foremost before we even talk immigration.
 
Interesting slant on this discussion which doesn't seem to be mentioned

These boats seem to arrive as part of wider underworld operations who supply the boats and passage. Would people on here not want to see that kind of illegal operation come to an end even if it meant one less passage for asylum seekers?

The illegal underworld profiteering I this seems to be the part ignored and accepted. I would like to see that eradicated first and foremost before we even talk immigration.

I think most want it to end whilst we take our fair share in

I think what people are failing to realise is it’s gunna get worse after Brexit.

the french have us over a rock

the irony is Farage has made it worse, but wouldn’t be shocked if that was his plan
 
I think most want it to end whilst we take our fair share in

I think what people are failing to realise is it’s gunna get worse after Brexit.

the french have us over a rock

the irony is Farage has made it worse, but wouldn’t be shocked if that was his plan

I'm talking the multi-million pound underworld profiting to supply the boats, surely that has to end regardless if it cuts off passage.

Surely the first instinct should be to stop criminality regardless if it creates some kind of service
 
of course people do

I would hope so

Seems people's reticence on numbers rather than the underworkd criminality of it all is top of the agenda. Over filling a boat at 6k a pop is the same as sending a truck of Chinese to Essex.

Haven't seen too many comments on the exploited more people's dismay at the BBC reporting. I focus more on the crimes of how they got there personally
 
I think the fact that body armour has made its way into the situation/discussion suggests we're probably talking about a little bit more than pen knives here.

You seem quite determined to deny or downplay the issue, which I find a little bit strange considering your earlier, laudable sentiment regarding these people going on to become valuable members of our society. Quite apart from the immediate, direct risk posed to border staff, such a problem were it to actually exist, would surely be a significant obstacle to this vision. One that is surely better confronted than ignored? I posted an article in the coronavirus thread that is quite pertinent to this conversation.

I will believe it if I see evidence. I haven't so I am downplaying it. In my experience if there was an opportunity to make these refugees look bad then it would be all over the news.

I'm talking the multi-million pound underworld profiting to supply the boats, surely that has to end regardless if it cuts off passage.

Surely the first instinct should be to stop criminality regardless if it creates some kind of service

This is important - the criminality and the fact there is a refugee crisis are two problems. The criminals need dealing with. And legitimate asylum cases should be reviewed in the legal and correct manner.
 
I will believe it if I see evidence. I haven't so I am downplaying it. In my experience if there was an opportunity to make these refugees look bad then it would be all over the news.



This is important - the criminality and the fact there is a refugee crisis are two problems. The criminals need dealing with. And legitimate asylum cases should be reviewed in the legal and correct manner.

I feel unlike other crimes the multi-million pound industry which this is which then feeds into a wider web of crime such as prostitutes and drugs is overlooked some as it provides passage
 
I feel unlike other crimes the multi-million pound industry which this is which then feeds into a wider web of crime such as prostitutes and drugs is overlooked some as it provides passage

Of course. But I think that the conversation around the criminals who make money from trafficking desperate people shouldn't make the refugees asylum less legitimate. It just means the authorities need to catch those criminals. Also the world should stop being such absolute tossers to its fellow human beings who are in need. Especially when the countries saying no have been complicit in destabilising the regions these people arrive from.
 
Of course. But I think that the conversation around the criminals who make money from trafficking desperate people shouldn't make the refugees asylum less legitimate. It just means the authorities need to catch those criminals. Also the world should stop being such absolute tossers to its fellow human beings who are in need. Especially when the countries saying no have been complicit in destabilising the regions these people arrive from.

No I agree on the majority of that

I just see a boat of people and a reporter calling the police and my first instinct is how and why that's allowed
 
No I agree on the majority of that

I just see a boat of people and a reporter calling the police and my first instinct is how and why that's allowed

I don't think we actually disagree on much mate. I think the conversations we have had in recent months have been very well mannered even where we have sat on opposite sides of the fence. It's great discussing with you!
 
I would hope so

Seems people's reticence on numbers rather than the underworkd criminality of it all is top of the agenda. Over filling a boat at 6k a pop is the same as sending a truck of Chinese to Essex.

Haven't seen too many comments on the exploited more people's dismay at the BBC reporting. I focus more on the crimes of how they got there personally


Being the person who posted the clip of the BBC reporter, I would say that the way in which the subject (any subject really) is reported in the media or spoken about by officials is hugely influential on how people react to it. So whether it’s a reporter treating a boat full of refugees (technically potential refugees to be correct about the status) as if they are on a jolly sea cruise whilst they are bailing out their boat, or whether it’s a government minister dodging answering whether she thinks language such as “migrant invasion” is acceptable (on the radio this morning), it’s perfectly valid imo to call it out.
That doesn’t mean I am more dismayed at that than anything else.

The criminal activity underlying the movement - trafficking - of refugees is well documented and oft referred to.
It’s abhorrent that people take advantage of others in this way and absolutely needs to be stopped. But I imagine it’s an enormous task as people trafficking is just one arm of organised crime and no doubt has links into all sorts of other illegal activities as well as corruption at high levels. Even when people are caught they are probably far enough down the chain to be replaced.

In the meantime there are people who believe their lives are in danger due to their race, gender, sexuality, political beliefs/activities etc and they have the right to seek safe refuge in a country of their choice. Their plight is separate to the issue of stopping the trafficking gangs who organise their passage and exploit them/their families for the privilege.
Whether these asylum-seekers come here through exploitative traffickers or through their own means they deserve to be treated with compassion whilst their applications are being heard/processed. (I don’t believe you are suggesting otherwise btw).
So yes, there should definitely be focus on how people trafficking can be prevented (and organised crime in general undermined) but that shouldn’t replace us being concerned at how these people are treated or stop us raising concerns at how the topic is reported.

And to those who have concerns about some of these people being economic migrants rather than genuine refugees, I suspect in some cases that will be true. One would hope most of those would be weeded out during the application and interview process. Some will however slip under the radar. That’s the price we pay for being a tolerant and compassionate country (most of the time) and given that the overall numbers are so low anyway in the grand scheme of things, it shouldn’t be the driving force behind our strategy for dealing with those who seek asylum on our shores.

Edit : just seen that @LutonSpurs made the point far more succinctly than I.
 
Being the person who posted the clip of the BBC reporter, I would say that the way in which the subject (any subject really) is reported in the media or spoken about by officials is hugely influential on how people react to it. So whether it’s a reporter treating a boat full of refugees (technically potential refugees to be correct about the status) as if they are on a jolly sea cruise whilst they are bailing out their boat, or whether it’s a government minister dodging answering whether she thinks language such as “migrant invasion” is acceptable (on the radio this morning), it’s perfectly valid imo to call it out.
That doesn’t mean I am more dismayed at that than anything else.

The criminal activity underlying the movement - trafficking - of refugees is well documented and oft referred to.
It’s abhorrent that people take advantage of others in this way and absolutely needs to be stopped. But I imagine it’s an enormous task as people trafficking is just one arm of organised crime and no doubt has links into all sorts of other illegal activities as well as corruption at high levels. Even when people are caught they are probably far enough down The nickname that will never catch on to be replaced.

In the meantime there are people who believe their lives are in danger due to their race, gender, sexuality, political beliefs/activities etc and they have the right to seek safe refuge in a country of their choice. Their plight is separate to the issue of stopping the trafficking gangs who organise their passage and exploit them/their families for the privilege.
Whether these asylum-seekers come here through exploitative traffickers or through their own means they deserve to be treated with compassion whilst their applications are being heard/processed. (I don’t believe you are suggesting otherwise btw).
So yes, there should definitely be focus on how people trafficking can be prevented (and organised crime in general undermined) but that shouldn’t replace us being concerned at how these people are treated or stop us raising concerns at how the topic is reported.

And to those who have concerns about some of these people being economic migrants rather than genuine refugees, I suspect in some cases that will be true. One would hope most of those would be weeded out during the application and interview process. Some will however slip under the radar. That’s the price we pay for being a tolerant and compassionate country (most of the time) and given that the overall numbers are so low anyway in the grand scheme of things, it shouldn’t be the driving force behind our strategy for dealing with those who seek asylum on our shores.

Edit : just seen that @LutonSpurs made the point far more succinctly than I.

Fair reply

I think we are a tolerant country officially and In opinion

Said many times I celebrate multiculturalism and London's one of the most accepting and multicultural cities in the world f not close to THEE most
 
First of all, I am keenly aware of the varnish you apply to your sentences (and sentiments), so no need to engage in tedious, patronizing explanations.

Secondly, my Mother is hardly someone who would "happily holiday in one of those backpacker places" and as is obvious, you have never been to the Royal Marsden (luckily I might add - I will do you the service of assuming you know of what 'luck' I speak.
Two cancers survived on the NHS in a 24 year span my friend; your snobbery cannot top that.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, you have apparently lost sight of the fact that a hospital's main function is to supply healthcare, not Michelin star meals or top shelf alcohol. The irony is that if more money was spent on the NHS, perhaps the (lack of) facilities you describe/lower standards of them could be addressed. Instead, the Tories continue to slowly bleed it to death.

Did your ailment/health issue get resolved?

I did not -BTW- know you were such an ardent acolyte of PG Wodehouse...
Not particularly well, no. BUPA did a very good job though.

I'm sure you're aware of this but private hospitals cure cancer (at an individual level) all the time, all over the world.

Your mum survived because she was in a hospital, not because she was in an NHS hospital.
 
I will believe it if I see evidence. I haven't so I am downplaying it. In my experience if there was an opportunity to make these refugees look bad then it would be all over the news.

I was genuinely shocked to be able to find little or no trace of this matter on a google search earlier, despite knowing what I saw (on what I'm almost certain was BBC news) just a few days ago and the seeming seriousness of it. In honesty, that alone leads me in the direction of taking an opposite perspective to the bolded text.
 
What spend in Scotland? I haven't followed story as they are a bunch of nomads but seems they had bad results from the abacus tests and have just upgraded results?
 
What happens if that asylum seeker fails to become a valuable part of the job market?

They live in society like anybody else. The data says that immigrants are net benefit to the economy. Personally I'm not too fussed. I am happy for the tiny amount from a GDP perspective being spent on them. I'm less comfortable with some of the other crap this govt spends our money on like Brexit for example.
 
What spend in Scotland? I haven't followed story as they are a bunch of nomads but seems they had bad results from the abacus tests and have just upgraded results?

I don't know the details but from half-listening to the news, it sounds like the exam board blanket-downgraded the teachers estimated grades to, I presume, something more realistic. Of course that was very unpopular, and everyone went hysterical about it. So the government stepped in and they've been revised back up.
 
They live in society like anybody else. The data says that immigrants are net benefit to the economy. Personally I'm not too fussed. I am happy for the tiny amount from a GDP perspective being spent on them. I'm less comfortable with some of the other crap this govt spends our money on like Brexit for example.

I have a sister who works in the civil service and waste in it is crap.

I have always thought we should accept refugees. I dont like the ones coming on the boats, i think there playing the system and it bothers my sense of fair play.

Go to the aid camps get them from there. What ever the current numbers are we settle a year we should continue if not slightly increase.

But the real desperate ones the families we could keep together. Not just the fit ones who can brave the channel and who have passed through safe countries to get here.

This is how i know im not a right wing nutter.
 
Back