Election Year or Fear!

[swaledale]

My views lie with truth and accuracy, and then a decent discussion. If you'd started the discussion with 'The Tories (you could have kept it non party political by just saying UK HMG) only had minimal, hard to access legal routes' etc then there wouldn't have been any disagreement. The conversation could then have progressed to whether such routes are 'plenty' (a stretch on my part I'll accept) or are a bare minimum, whether such routes would stop the 'flood' (Tricky's word) or just delay it (MA's assertion which I support, not with an anti-immigration stance but with a well-read belief that the 'gangs' just won't stop (until something more lucrative is found)). The conversation could THEN progress about whether such numbers actually matter anyway in the scheme of things, whether the balance of productive souls v crims, stay at homes and fundamentalists is worth accepting, and whether in any case in the connected world we should just accept a shift in the way we look/are/act as a population (you've suggested 'that ship has sailed' in the past, I'm inclined to agree, Tricky would see that as the disaster scenario) etc etc blah blah

But you started with a falsehood and it went downhill from there

Except what I stated was that there had not been an increase in Asylum seekers coming to the Uk since Brexit, numbers vary over the years in any case, but that the failure of the Tory government to negotiate a replacement agreement on Asylum Seekers following Brexit and the lack of actual safe and legal routes for them was what had led to the increase in numbers crossing to the Uk in small boats.

Your response to my original post, was not, oh but there are safe and legal routes, but its clear that the vast majority of those who wish to claim asylum wouldn't qualify or be able to access them. You were being pedantic and (I'm paraphrasing here) saying that isn't true, there are many safe and legal routes and it was your view that those using boats were likely either not asylum seekers or those that wouldn't qualify.

You boldly stated that my post was inaccurate and biased and that neither Brexit or the lack of a safe and legal route was why they came by boat. One might almost believe you have swallowed the patently obvious lies peddled by the Tory government on this issue, but I can't believe that because you claim to be concerned with truth and accuracy.

The fact that there are just 3 supposedly safe and legal routes to claim asylum, only 1 of route is available to those crossing by boats to potentially use, the UNHCR scheme, but that relies upon them being picked for the scheme and that the Uk wasn't the guaranteed destination, rather suggests that the lack of an actual safe and legal route or indeed a visa system to allow an asylum seeker to claim asylum on UK soil, which is what they are required to do means that my initial statement about the lack of a safe and legal route for a potential asylum seeker to travel to the Uk to make a claim is true.

To argue about the semantics, is rather like thinking the Tory government passing a law which says that Rwanda is a safe country to deport asylum seekers to, is true. If anyone actually believes that, then we have truly entered the era where calling white, black is believed provided it is accords with the views of an individual. That's deluded thinking.

But don't take my word for it, here are the findings of a respected academic - I make this clear, because I know how much you like to attack the messenger on the basis of what's written is so called plagiarism, rather than address the actual issue.

A notable new academic report by Professor Thom Brooks of Durham University takes a detailed look at the underlying reasons behind the large increase in the number of asylum seekers arriving in the UK after crossing the English Channel by small boat. Brooks is Professor of Law and Government at Durham Law School.

As the report notes, the number of people crossing the Channel has 'skyrocketed' from less than 300 in 2018 to over 45,000 last year.

Most notably, the report finds that the UK Government's failure to negotiate a post-Brexit returns policy for asylum seekers with the European Union (EU) is the main cause for the increase in small boat crossings.

The report explains: "The UK's lack of a returns policy is the most significant pull factor for small boat journeys. Leaving the EU without a returns arrangement has meant individuals can now travel to the UK with the knowledge it is much more difficult for them to be returned post-2020 – which has not been true when the UK was in the EU pre-2020. When coupled with slow processing times for asylum applications, the UK has become easier to remain inside if and when migrants are able to get to our shores."

It is acknowledged in the report that criminal gangs are the ultimate cause of small boat journeys, but Professor Brooks says they are effectively taking advantage of this regulatory change created by Brexit.

Brooks says the lack of a returns agreement was a significant flaw in the post-Brexit deal, and the UK Government appears to be unable or unwilling to acknowledge this failure.

You have done your utmost to claim my views were biased (how? It was the Tory government who ****ed up the post Brexit arrangements, especially with regard to asylum seekers, ad indeed who ahve done this for political capital, rather than get on with the job of managing the system effectively, so that those who had valid claims were processed and able to join society and become productive and those that didn't could be deported. And I might ad it was the Tory government that has wasted billions of tax payers money on this matter for purely political ends.

If your going to challenge something, it might be an idea to apply some "truth and accuracy" to your own claims first, otherwise you tend to look rather silly.

[Andy_Faber]

Except what I stated was that there had not been an increase in Asylum seekers coming to the Uk since Brexit, numbers vary over the years in any case, but that the failure of the Tory government to negotiate a replacement agreement on Asylum Seekers following Brexit and the lack of actual safe and legal routes for them was what had led to the increase in numbers crossing to the Uk in small boats.

Your response to my original post, was not, oh but there are safe and legal routes, but its clear that the vast majority of those who wish to claim asylum wouldn't qualify or be able to access them. You were being pedantic and (I'm paraphrasing here) saying that isn't true, there are many safe and legal routes and it was your view that those using boats were likely either not asylum seekers or those that wouldn't qualify.

You boldly stated that my post was inaccurate and biased and that neither Brexit or the lack of a safe and legal route was why they came by boat. One might almost believe you have swallowed the patently obvious lies peddled by the Tory government on this issue, but I can't believe that because you claim to be concerned with truth and accuracy.

The fact that there are just 3 supposedly safe and legal routes to claim asylum, only 1 of route is available to those crossing by boats to potentially use, the UNHCR scheme, but that relies upon them being picked for the scheme and that the Uk wasn't the guaranteed destination, rather suggests that the lack of an actual safe and legal route or indeed a visa system to allow an asylum seeker to claim asylum on UK soil, which is what they are required to do means that my initial statement about the lack of a safe and legal route for a potential asylum seeker to travel to the Uk to make a claim is true.

To argue about the semantics, is rather like thinking the Tory government passing a law which says that Rwanda is a safe country to deport asylum seekers to, is true. If anyone actually believes that, then we have truly entered the era where calling white, black is believed provided it is accords with the views of an individual. That's deluded thinking.

But don't take my word for it, here are the findings of a respected academic - I make this clear, because I know how much you like to attack the messenger on the basis of what's written is so called plagiarism, rather than address the actual issue.

A notable new academic report by Professor Thom Brooks of Durham University takes a detailed look at the underlying reasons behind the large increase in the number of asylum seekers arriving in the UK after crossing the English Channel by small boat. Brooks is Professor of Law and Government at Durham Law School.

As the report notes, the number of people crossing the Channel has 'skyrocketed' from less than 300 in 2018 to over 45,000 last year.

Most notably, the report finds that the UK Government's failure to negotiate a post-Brexit returns policy for asylum seekers with the European Union (EU) is the main cause for the increase in small boat crossings.

The report explains: "The UK's lack of a returns policy is the most significant pull factor for small boat journeys. Leaving the EU without a returns arrangement has meant individuals can now travel to the UK with the knowledge it is much more difficult for them to be returned post-2020 – which has not been true when the UK was in the EU pre-2020. When coupled with slow processing times for asylum applications, the UK has become easier to remain inside if and when migrants are able to get to our shores."

It is acknowledged in the report that criminal gangs are the ultimate cause of small boat journeys, but Professor Brooks says they are effectively taking advantage of this regulatory change created by Brexit.

Brooks says the lack of a returns agreement was a significant flaw in the post-Brexit deal, and the UK Government appears to be unable or unwilling to acknowledge this failure.

You have done your utmost to claim my views were biased (how? It was the Tory government who ****ed up the post Brexit arrangements, especially with regard to asylum seekers, ad indeed who ahve done this for political capital, rather than get on with the job of managing the system effectively, so that those who had valid claims were processed and able to join society and become productive and those that didn't could be deported. And I might ad it was the Tory government that has wasted billions of tax payers money on this matter for purely political ends.

If your going to challenge something, it might be an idea to apply some "truth and accuracy" to your own claims first, otherwise you tend to look rather silly.

I’m sure you went to a lot of effort on this but my point was you started with a falsehood, which you did. But I’m also sure everyone’s fed up listening to us so I’ll leave the discussion at that

[ramAnag]

I’m sure you went to a lot of effort on this but my point was you started with a falsehood, which you did. But I’m also sure everyone’s fed up listening to us so I’ll leave the discussion at that

Hmmm, who’da thought?
Seems like a familiar ‘strategy’…however, moving on…just watched Starmer on Kuenssberg. Appreciate that many won’t agree but I thought he came across very well. Tough decisions need to be made given the situation that’s been inherited and, imo, the PM came across as determined, fair minded and firm in his vision for the future.
Tugendhat, in comparison, seems like a surprisingly decent individual, given that he’s part of the current Tory party, but I’d be amazed if he’s elected leader.

[swaledale]

I’m sure you went to a lot of effort on this but my point was you started with a falsehood, which you did. But I’m also sure everyone’s fed up listening to us so I’ll leave the discussion at that

Too which you responded with a false claim, but hey who is worrying, you have achieved your undoubted aim of muddying the discussion with pedantry, semantics and false statements, then refuse to acknowledge that's what you did. As has been noted by others, on this one you were basically wrong, but it would take a big man to admit that and that's not you as evidence previously.

I'll leave it there until the next time you respond to a post of mine in your usual style.