Still still not worthy of a thread

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

Once the current routes are closed as long as controlled routes are opened I am all for the current steps being taken.  At the moment we have criminal gangs profiteering and people drowning.  What ever needs to be to stop this should be done.  As I say as long as we then open up ligitimate ways for people to seek asylum. 

They’re coming in boats because the others routes are closed.  If you want to stop people risking their lives you need to do the opposite of what you’re saying. 

[madras]

43 minutes ago, wyn davies said:

Don't have a problem with Free Speech have a problem with individuals ( not yourself btw) such as wokes determining how people voice there opinions , example England colonising Northern Ireland is one prime example , where clearly they don't have a clue about history , just like Liniker

Is it "the wokes" saying Gary can't say what he wants but Alan and Andrew can ?

[TheBrownBottle]

2 minutes ago, madras said:

Is it "the wokes" saying Gary can't say what he wants but Alan and Andrew can ?

There’s something really depressing about grown adults from Britain using the term ‘woke’ as an insult.  

[Rod]

47 minutes ago, wyn davies said:

Don't have a problem with Free Speech have a problem with individuals ( not yourself btw) such as wokes determining how people voice there opinions , example England colonising Northern Ireland is one prime example , where clearly they don't have a clue about history , just like Liniker

How difficult is it to spell Lineker correctly?

[madras]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

There’s something really depressing about grown adults from Britain using the term ‘woke’ as an insult.  

It's also funny as by implication they are saying they themselves are sleeping.

[madras]

1 minute ago, Rod said:

How difficult is it to spell Lineker correctly?

I'm pretty sure I've covered all variants in this thread just to be safe.

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

5 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

They’re coming in boats because the others routes are closed.  If you want to stop people risking their lives you need to do the opposite of what you’re saying. 

Or they’re coming in boats as they don’t have a legitimate asylum claim.  More likely it’s a combination of both.  
 

And by opposite I think you’re just talking about the order in which things are changed.  

[madras]

3 minutes ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

Or they’re coming in boats as they don’t have a legitimate asylum claim.  More likely it’s a combination of both.  
 

And by opposite I think you’re just talking about the order in which things are changed.  

Yet over 60% get their claim granted.

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

1 minute ago, madras said:

Yet over 60% get their claim granted.

So we agree ?

[madras]

1 minute ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

So we agree ?

You said they don't have a legitimate claim. I pointed that over 60% do 

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

Or they’re coming in boats as they don’t have a legitimate asylum claim.  More likely it’s a combination of both.  
 

And by opposite I think you’re just talking about the order in which things are changed.  

If you’re going to a country to claim asylum, you don’t have a visa.  So therefore what does it matter whether you arrive on a small boat or in a plane?  It has zero bearing on the ‘legitimacy’ of your claim for asylum.  It’s likely just the means of crossing the Channel, given that the UK has arrangements with France to stop people crossing the Channel via safer means.

 

The UK has forced these people into dangerous routes to enter and claim asylum.  It’s a fucking travesty and needs to be stopped.  Btw, allowing asylum seekers to safely cross the Channel would have the added benefit of stopping them trying via small boats - and would expose the economic migrants from Albania etc immediately.  The problem with that of course is the vast, vast portion of the public which is narrow-minded bigots won’t allow this, as ultimately they don’t want anyone coming in.  And definitely not actual asylum seekers, who are likely to have a different pigmentation to them. 

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

8 minutes ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

More likely it’s a combination of both.  

 

5 minutes ago, madras said:

Yet over 60% get their claim granted.

 

1 minute ago, madras said:

You said they don't have a legitimate claim. I pointed that over 60% do 

so 40% don’t…. I.e a combination!  

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

8 minutes ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

Or they’re coming in boats as they don’t have a legitimate asylum claim.  More likely it’s a combination of both.  
 

And by opposite I think you’re just talking about the order in which things are changed.  

There is a reason the number of boat crossings have increased in the last few years. That is categorically down to the government closing down the routes by which people could apply for asylum in the U.K. from outside of the U.K. The current situation is almost entirely of their own making. What’s more sickening is that their current responses are solely performative. They know they’re not workable, they know they won’t solve the problem, but it wins votes with xenophobes.

 

The last point I’ll make, and I make this as someone who left the RAF after 23 years in 2019, the fact that there are so many refugees from Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan has a good deal to do with our disastrous foreign policy over the past few decades. If you can find the money to raze their countries to the ground; I would think you have some moral responsibility to house some of the refugees that process creates.

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

2 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

If you’re going to a country to claim asylum, you don’t have a visa.  So therefore what does it matter whether you arrive on a small boat or in a plane?  It has zero bearing on the ‘legitimacy’ of your claim for asylum.  It’s likely just the means of crossing the Channel, given that the UK has arrangements with France to stop people crossing the Channel via safer means.

 

The UK has forced these people into dangerous routes to enter and claim asylum.  It’s a fucking travesty and needs to be stopped.  Btw, allowing asylum seekers to safely cross the Channel would have the added benefit of stopping them trying via small boats - and would expose the economic migrants from Albania etc immediately.  The problem with that of course is the vast, vast portion of the public which is narrow-minded bigots won’t allow this, as ultimately they don’t want anyone coming in.  And definitely not actual asylum seekers, who are likely to have a different pigmentation to them. 

I honestly do t think we’re a million miles away in our views. We need to fix the uk forcing people into dangerous routes.  I just hope this comes after the current routes are closed.  I think the message could have been better delivered if we were doing both at the same time. We’re closing this though ever means, this is how we plan to facilitate legitimate routes. 

[Wilson]

There's a lot of  in here I see.

 

 

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

6 minutes ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

There is a reason the number of boat crossings have increased in the last few years. That is categorically down to the government closing down the routes by which people could apply for asylum in the U.K. from outside of the U.K. The current situation is almost entirely of their own making. What’s more sickening is that their current responses are solely performative. They know they’re not workable, they know they won’t solve the problem, but it wins votes with xenophobes.

 

Or did they close down the legitimate routes as we’re overwhelmed with the quantity of applications through the other routes?  I honestly don’t know. 
 

 

 

 

Edited March 11, 2023 by KetsbaiaIsBald

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

I honestly do t think we’re a million miles away in our views. We need to fix the uk forcing people into dangerous routes.  I just hope this comes after the current routes are closed.  I think the message could have been better delivered if we were doing both at the same time. We’re closing this though ever means, this is how we plan to facilitate legitimate routes. 

Opening the legitimate routes allows for the closing of the dangerous routes; one leads to the other.  I don’t doubt that you’re ok for both to occur (I just disagree re the order of events), but that’s not the intent of the vicious fuckers in govt at the minute.  They know they’ve shut down the safe and legitimate routes and forced people into those small boats, and now they’re attacking the victims of their own policies.  It’s the Tory way - along with their good mates in the Mail, Sun, Telegraph etc.  Blame the victims of their actions for the consequences.  It’s evil stuff, and it’s also not a coincidence that they’re doing this when their poll numbers are in the toilet.  They’re hoping for the great gammon resurgence to save them. 

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

1 minute ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

 

Or did they close down the legitimate routes as were overwhelmed with the quantity of applications through the other routes?  I honestly don’t know. 
 

 

No it was a deliberate policy choice and continuation of Theresa May's hostile environment

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

1 minute ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

No it was a deliberate policy choice and continuation of Theresa May's hostile environment

Do you have sources for this so I can read up?  Or is this opinion?

[christ]

Love discussing impartiality in journalism. Absolutely cock-in-hand at this turn of events.

 

First of all impartiality doesn’t exist. It’s a nebulous concept which can’t be applied in practice. Nor should it. Good journalism is never impartial. Think of any piece of meaningful, award winning reporting you can. Was it impartial? No. 
 

The BBC is not and has never been impartial. If it were to exist a truly impartial BBC would look markedly different from what we currently have, and be loathed by the people who are complaining about Lineker’s apparent lack of impartiality this week. In this context impartiality only exists as a cudgel to beat the BBC with if it dares try and move outside guide rails in which it is expected to operate. 
 

In short, stop going on about impartiality if you don’t want to look like a know-nowt tit. It’s like watching adults say they still believe in Santa.
 

Two further points:

a) Biggest credit goes to the comms and production team for walking out. Doubt they can rock up at Sky and double their salary.

b) If the man who introduces the football highlights makes you feel bad about yourself it’s maybe time to reassess your politics.

[CM1961]

There's a world of difference between Asylum Seekers and Economic Migrants, yet many want to lump them is the same definition.  Can't fault either gourp for wanting to live in the UK with us, but let's not kid ourselves that they are all fleeing war zones ... they clearly aren't.

[The Butcher]

 

[The Butcher]

 

[Stifler]

6 minutes ago, CM1961 said:

There's a world of difference between Asylum Seekers and Economic Migrants, yet many want to lump them is the same definition.  Can't fault either gourp for wanting to live in the UK with us, but let's not kid ourselves that they are all fleeing war zones ... they clearly aren't.

So fuck if they aren’t.

You don’t have to be fleeing a war zone to be a refugee. Being unfairly imprisoned, persecuted, or even at risk of being so is enough.

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, Stifler said:

So fuck if they aren’t.

You don’t have to be fleeing a war zone to be a refugee. Being unfairly imprisoned, persecuted, or even at risk of being so is enough.

100% - to add to your point, here’s a map of the countries where the punishment for being born homosexual can be as extreme as the death penalty (and of course the map of countries where persecution exists is depressingly much, much larger):