Election Year or Fear!

[Andy_Faber]

What I am fed up with is the pedantic semantics used at times. Someone posts a view at one end of the spectrum. Someone else says that's totally false because of whatever. The first person then says OK but..... going along with the slight tweak to what was first written. Person #2 keeps hammering "falsehood". If the truth in the original claim hugely outweighs any shortcomings therein, I find it petty, at best, to keep hammering it. especially when the original poster has admitted his first comment wasn't 100% accurate and goes on to point out holes in #2's argument.

Whatever happened to reasoned discussion where #2 is equally as humble in accepting the basic truth of the opening statement as #1 is in accepting #2's "amendment" but points out that that only applies to a very small amount of people wanting to come to the UK?

Please, everybody, not just #1 and #2, stop being right fighters. There's a point in every exchange where enough is enough. This particular "right fight" has, IMHO gone way too far so, for sanity of the rest of us, put a bloody sock in it!!!

I have

[Andy_Faber]

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.

Tugendhat v Starmer would be a good matchup, both put their POVS over well and in a way that doesn’t make you hate them for having a view you don’t share (well me anyway). I might ask them to join the Ram Inn

[Andy_Faber]

Hmmm, who’da thought?
Seems like a familiar ‘strategy’…

Backing off from pointless to and fro Seems to be what the forum (max and MA) recently) are looking for, so you may be out of step with sentiment. Would you like a sock?

[Trickytreesreds]

Oh please, your being pedantic here, but for the sake of accuracy I will explain further.

In your reply you stated there were many safe route for asylum seekers, that wasn't true. I knew at the time I'd need to add additional explanation, but I guess those who remain convinced that those coming over on the boats are nothing more than "chancers" will basically not believe the FACTS because it doesn't suit their narrative.

The legislation in 2022 was specifically designed to appear as if the Government was making safe and legal routes available for Refugees or those claiming Asylum but in reality they provide for only specific sets of people.

So of the three schemes, the UNHCR resettlement scheme is both restrictive and ineffective, with the UK having accepted a fraction of those it pledged to accept.

To be considered, a person must have fled their home country due to conflict or persecution and have entered another country. This is often difficult and dangerous. They must then register with UNHCR.

A person cannot request or apply to be resettled, they can only hope to be selected according to the protection criteria of the resettlement programme (for instance a specific medical need that canÂ’t be met in the country of displacement), and if enough resettlement places have been offered.

No viable for most people as highly likely one could qualify but never get picked for the scheme and could end up in any country.

Bespoke schemes have been designed as a specific response to events in Ukraine and Afghanistan and are an important way to bring some Ukrainians and Afghans to safety. There was also the Hongkong scheme.

Obviously none of those in boats qualify under this scheme.

Family reunion is a rights-based route which allows refugees who have already fled and been given refugee status in another country to bring immediate family members to join them.

So if your a genuine refugee or Asylum seeker without family in the UK, you can't use this scheme!

When I stated that the Tories closed off the safe routes for Asylum seekers, i was speaking the truth, because although there exist 3 "safe" routes for refugees, asylum seekers to come into the UK in the vast majority of cases none of them can be accessed by those using boats because even if under International Law they would be deemed to qualify as a refugee or Asylum seeker they can't access a safe and legal scheme, or get a visa to travel to the UK to make a claim!

Now seeing as the UK Government requires a person to be in the UK, BEFORE they can claim Asylum, perhaps you can explain to me how the majority of those who qualify but want to make a claim can do so?

The last government was very good at putting things into law or making claims that something existed when despite appearances in reality it did not. This is a classic example whereby safe and legal routes are largely an illusion.

If Brexit has nothing to do with the rise in small boats crossings, explain why prior to Brexit such crossings were minimal?

Your comment about returns being minimal is odd, given it has been the resumption of a return agreement with Albania for their nationals that has largely stopped that nationality ( most of whom clearly weren't asylum seekers) crossing.

The point about the previous returns agreement, is that those for whom France or Italy was a reasonable safe country to claim asylum, never entered the UK.

As for THicky's contributions, they are littered with racist, xenophobic and bigoted remarks, often lifted straight from right wing media and internet sources, unapologetically so. He has been openly derogatory about Eastern Europeans, Syrians and many other nationalities, if the cap fits I will call it out. The fact that you as moderator don't see fit to do so is perhaps an indication of where your views lie?

1. That ones easy.
The number one smuggling route was lorries. Over time, the checks/ sterile zones around ports grew. It got harder and harder.
Since Brexit, the numbers have grown in proportion to European countries clamping down on them and either deporting or blocking any more. You only have to listen to the stories from the illegals themselves and to know this. Even the French government will tell you, we give them too much and they all know it. You being the smartest man on here, ought to know this.


2. you just can't help yourself can you? I asked for proof, not your opinion.
You are the classic left wing rhetoric infesting the country, a mantle taken up by Starmer. Instead of curing the disease, lets attack the sympton.
The 2 tier policing is in full swing on this one and anyone with right wing views is far right Nazi.

NB, I notice no one has expained this plank yet either?
A man who on video(damn the internet), called for right wingers to have their throats slit, pleads not guilty to incitement to violence.
A charge that reduced by DPP from incitement to murder to the lesser charge.
Meanwhile a Granny who posted 9 nasty words gets 15 months immediately.
Did I mention he's a Labour councillor as well?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...-b1180481.html

[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.

[swaledale]

Backing off from pointless to and fro Seems to be what the forum (max and MA) recently) are looking for, so you may be out of step with sentiment. Would you like a sock?

Or you could just try applying your self confessed maxim of accuracy and truth to your own posts? Then there would have been no need to explain the bleeding obvious to you.

[ramAnag]

Backing off from pointless to and fro Seems to be what the forum (max and MA) recently) are looking for, so you may be out of step with sentiment. Would you like a sock?

As you may have noticed MA and mac are two of the posters I have the greatest respect for. That doesn’t however make it conditional that I have to agree with them on everything and for me it’s really simple…if you don’t like a thread, ignore it. I, for instance, don’t comment on any F1 threads because it’s something I have no interest in but, according to the numbers, the political threads do generate a fair amount of interest, debate does involve ‘to and fro’ and, tbf, MA has hardly avoided having plenty to say on the subject…he just invariably says it respectfully.

[macstheman]

As you may have noticed MA and mac are two of the posters I have the greatest respect for. That doesn’t however make it conditional that I have to agree with them on everything and for me it’s really simple…if you don’t like a thread, ignore it. I, for instance, don’t comment on any F1 threads because it’s something I have no interest in but, according to the numbers, the political threads do generate a fair amount of interest, debate does involve ‘to and fro’ and, tbf, MA has hardly avoided having plenty to say on the subject…he just invariably says it respectfully.

Unfortunately, your last six words aren't always applied by some I'm afraid rA.

As I have said on another thread my concern is the impact on the future of this forum. I have no problem with the political threads at all but for the 'footie' threads to have some depth and interest it is essential that as many varied opinions as possible are available to be expressed and read. By definition that requires as many contributors as possible to still use the site!

In my opinion we have lost some good posters over the years and tbh we can't afford to lose anymore, indeed not long ago MA inferred that he was considering, because of the tone being used by some, whether to continue posting on here. Recently, imo, a line has been crossed too many times especially when it comes to your term 'respectfully'!

As MA says there is a point where 'enough is enough'!

[Trickytreesreds]

hilarious

https://www.gbnews.com/news/tony-bla...close-links-eu

[ramAnag]

Unfortunately, your last six words aren't always applied by some I'm afraid rA.

As I have said on another thread my concern is the impact on the future of this forum. I have no problem with the political threads at all but for the 'footie' threads to have some depth and interest it is essential that as many varied opinions as possible are available to be expressed and read. By definition that requires as many contributors as possible to still use the site!

In my opinion we have lost some good posters over the years and tbh we can't afford to lose anymore, indeed not long ago MA inferred that he was considering, because of the tone being used by some, whether to continue posting on here. Recently, imo, a line has been crossed too many times especially when it comes to your term 'respectfully'!

As MA says there is a point where 'enough is enough'!

Understand your concerns, mac and indeed there have been times when MA and I have exchanged PM’s about whether it’s worth remaining on a forum where the atmosphere is sometimes so toxic.

I suspect that during ‘international breaks’ the situation worsens because there are essentially two weeks of no domestic football, no potential signings to speak of and no one seems remotely interested in international football, even with the ‘Carsley factor’ this time around.

You’ve been on here long enough to know that this isn’t the first time there’s been such toxicity, it’s been around for years, but I have to say that if the likes of you and MA call it a day I won’t be far behind.

In the meantime, and as an example, consider TTR’s latest offering. He posts a link from GBNews with the simple comment ‘Hilarious’. At this point those, like me, have a choice…ignore it (‘put a sock in it’) which allows him/GBNews to perpetuate his/their (imo) usually foolish and often offensive views…challenge it, which will inevitably lead to a row…or simply ask ‘why hilarious’? because, to me, it’s a well reasoned stance with anything but ‘hilarious’ implications. I’ll go for the last one and see what happens.