LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

1. Your argument is basically “because Britain happens to be bad island Britain shouldn’t take any” which, if you see it that way, is a bit childish.

2. UK has as much obligation as any signatory to look after refugees.

3. You think they should take on none just by virtue of being an island away from where the fighting is?

1. I've not even mentioned the subject of how many refugees the UK should take.
2. Agreed.
3. Again, I've not commented on the extent to which the UK is morally, legally or geographically obligated to take in refugees.

And for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not a supporter of the Tories or their immigration policies.

But in the interests of balance, reading that those arriving in the UK in small boats are fleeing a warzone narks me as it's not true, notwithstanding the propensity of the Frenchies to burn their town halls, torch their (or most likely other folks') eScooters and otherwise create photo-worthy fires.

Isn’t the stat something like 80% of those arriving on small boats are legit?

The issue is the Uk shut all the legal routes in.

80% sounds about right.

Small boats is a particular issue as all other illegal routes in (eg via trucks) have apparently been successfully shut down in addition to there being no legal routes in. Or should we say “approved” routes in. Under international law, arriving unapproved in a country isn’t illegal. Failing to report to the authorise when you arrive is illegal though.

All utterly irrelevant to my original point about France’s implied status as a war zone.

Now I know you are deliberately pretending to misunderstand.

The country that a refugee was in immediately before the UK is irrelevant and is almost certainly not the country they are fleeing from.

The EU managed to justify returning refugees both in its agreement with Turkey and the Dublin Regulation. The UK case law is stronger on this point and considers "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” to allow stopovers.

That arrangement in itself was an effort to avoid Italy, Spain and Greece having to deal with the entirety of migration from Africa and Asia. Opportunities to apply from overseas or arrive other than by land and sea have been removed so the vast majority only have the option of travelling through Europe to reach the UK so it is not reasonable to disqualify applications on that basis. Unless people want to make the argument that the UK - which has played an active role in generating migration - should somehow be let off even its already pretty minimal contribution to dealing with the problem.

pblakeney

…- should somehow be let off even its already pretty minimal contribution to dealing with the problem.

I see that you have a full comprehension of the unwritten objective.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

1. Your argument is basically “because Britain happens to be bad island Britain shouldn’t take any” which, if you see it that way, is a bit childish.

2. UK has as much obligation as any signatory to look after refugees.

3. You think they should take on none just by virtue of being an island away from where the fighting is?

1. I've not even mentioned the subject of how many refugees the UK should take.
2. Agreed.
3. Again, I've not commented on the extent to which the UK is morally, legally or geographically obligated to take in refugees.

And for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not a supporter of the Tories or their immigration policies.

But in the interests of balance, reading that those arriving in the UK in small boats are fleeing a warzone narks me as it's not true, notwithstanding the propensity of the Frenchies to burn their town halls, torch their (or most likely other folks') eScooters and otherwise create photo-worthy fires.

Isn’t the stat something like 80% of those arriving on small boats are legit?

The issue is the Uk shut all the legal routes in.

80% sounds about right.

Small boats is a particular issue as all other illegal routes in (eg via trucks) have apparently been successfully shut down in addition to there being no legal routes in. Or should we say “approved” routes in. Under international law, arriving unapproved in a country isn’t illegal. Failing to report to the authorise when you arrive is illegal though.

All utterly irrelevant to my original point about France’s implied status as a war zone.

Now I know you are deliberately pretending to misunderstand.

The country that a refugee was in immediately before the UK is irrelevant and is almost certainly not the country they are fleeing from.

The EU managed to justify returning refugees both in its agreement with Turkey and the Dublin Regulation. The UK case law is stronger on this point and considers "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” to allow stopovers.

That arrangement in itself was an effort to avoid Italy, Spain and Greece having to deal with the entirety of migration from Africa and Asia. Opportunities to apply from overseas or arrive other than by land and sea have been removed so the vast majority only have the option of travelling through Europe to reach the UK so it is not reasonable to disqualify applications on that basis. Unless people want to make the argument that the UK - which has played an active role in generating migration - should somehow be let off even its already pretty minimal contribution to dealing with the problem.

You are talking about morality and not legality.

The EU managed to interpret international law in a way that would be illegal in UK.

Also, if you want to discuss morality then you should accept that other people have different views on the subject.

rjsterry

I would have thought it is obvious that some start from the position that the UK shouldn't accept refugees from Africa or Asia and work from there.

I also think it's pretty obvious what the root of that position is.

I'm not sure I should accept it as a valid viewpoint merely because it exists.

wallace_and_gromit

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

Pross said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

I have to admit I'm mildly narked about the "We must be charitable to people fleeing a warzone" rhetoric when the people landing in Kent are actually fleeing France. I'm not bothered about immigration, but I am bothered about blatant misrepresentation of the facts for political gain.

I mean this is an obvious misnomer.

UK barely gets any refugees versus other countries already for precisely this reason and the reasons for why they have come all this way are usually specific to them ie they already have connection here etc

Your logic also goes against the UN refugee convention.

Can I humbly suggest that you have completely missed my point?

I'm on top of the numbers and reasons points you make. But neither of these make the claim that the arrivals in Kent are fleeing a warzone true. They are not. They have already successfully fled the warzone and ended up in France, a safe country. They are then choosing - for understandable reasons - to come to the UK in preference to staying in France.

So do you think the countries that are more easily accessible for refugees should have to take them all?

I wasn't commenting on who should take in refugees. I was commenting on those that claim that by coming from France to the UK the refugees are fleeing a warzone.

Can't tell if you are deliberately pretending to misunderstand.

Refugees may claim asylum in any country of their choice. They are not obliged to stop in the first safe country although the vast majority of. Having closed off the vast majority of other routes to claim asylum in the UK, the only viable option for money is to make their way over land to northern France and get a boat over the Channel. France is just in the way.

To give another example, we allowed Ukrainian refugees into the country despite them having transited through Poland.

Don’t want to sound arrogant but I understand all the issues, thanks. I’m not commenting on the refugees, how to claim asylum, safe routes etc. I’m commenting on “progressive” types who misrepresent the status of the country in which the refuges were immediately prior to sailing for the U.K.

It's a bit rich to be complaining about other people misrepresenting things when nobody has said France is a warzone.

Not directly, but to claim the arrivals in small boats are fleeing a warzone, as is a common claim on social media e.g. "below the line" in the Guardian, is logically equivalent, as the small boats come from France. However, this is a subject where emotion and rhetoric tend to prevail over logic.

wallace_and_gromit

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

1. Your argument is basically “because Britain happens to be bad island Britain shouldn’t take any” which, if you see it that way, is a bit childish.

2. UK has as much obligation as any signatory to look after refugees.

3. You think they should take on none just by virtue of being an island away from where the fighting is?

1. I've not even mentioned the subject of how many refugees the UK should take.
2. Agreed.
3. Again, I've not commented on the extent to which the UK is morally, legally or geographically obligated to take in refugees.

And for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not a supporter of the Tories or their immigration policies.

But in the interests of balance, reading that those arriving in the UK in small boats are fleeing a warzone narks me as it's not true, notwithstanding the propensity of the Frenchies to burn their town halls, torch their (or most likely other folks') eScooters and otherwise create photo-worthy fires.

Isn’t the stat something like 80% of those arriving on small boats are legit?

The issue is the Uk shut all the legal routes in.

80% sounds about right.

Small boats is a particular issue as all other illegal routes in (eg via trucks) have apparently been successfully shut down in addition to there being no legal routes in. Or should we say “approved” routes in. Under international law, arriving unapproved in a country isn’t illegal. Failing to report to the authorise when you arrive is illegal though.

All utterly irrelevant to my original point about France’s implied status as a war zone.

The country that a refugee was in immediately before the UK is irrelevant and is almost certainly not the country they are fleeing from.

The country in which a refugee resided immediately before coming to the UK is irrelevant to where they can/can't claim asylum unlike when the UK was in the EU when the Dublin Convention applied.

However, once in France, "fleeing of warzone" has been successfully completed. Many refugees claim asylum in France. More than in the UK per numerous sources. Therefore any subsequent move from France to the UK is a "lifestyle choice" rather than attempt to secure safety for self and family. I don't know what is so hard to understand about this concept.

pangolin

Irrespective of their ultimate destination, they are making the move because they are fleeing a warzone.

"I don't know what is so hard to understand about this concept."

pangolin

Describing refugees fleeing a warzone and making a miserable journey across Europe as making "lifestyle choices" is pretty shitty.

kingstongraham

Which warzone did they flee directly into France?

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

I would have thought it is obvious that some start from the position that the UK shouldn't accept refugees from Africa or Asia and work from there.

I also think it's pretty obvious what the root of that position is.

I'm not sure I should accept it as a valid viewpoint merely because it exists.

I don't believe that is wallance_and_gromit's point of view. I also think "but racists" isn't a particularly strong argument.

rjsterry

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

1. Your argument is basically “because Britain happens to be bad island Britain shouldn’t take any” which, if you see it that way, is a bit childish.

2. UK has as much obligation as any signatory to look after refugees.

3. You think they should take on none just by virtue of being an island away from where the fighting is?

1. I've not even mentioned the subject of how many refugees the UK should take.
2. Agreed.
3. Again, I've not commented on the extent to which the UK is morally, legally or geographically obligated to take in refugees.

And for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not a supporter of the Tories or their immigration policies.

But in the interests of balance, reading that those arriving in the UK in small boats are fleeing a warzone narks me as it's not true, notwithstanding the propensity of the Frenchies to burn their town halls, torch their (or most likely other folks') eScooters and otherwise create photo-worthy fires.

Isn’t the stat something like 80% of those arriving on small boats are legit?

The issue is the Uk shut all the legal routes in.

80% sounds about right.

Small boats is a particular issue as all other illegal routes in (eg via trucks) have apparently been successfully shut down in addition to there being no legal routes in. Or should we say “approved” routes in. Under international law, arriving unapproved in a country isn’t illegal. Failing to report to the authorise when you arrive is illegal though.

All utterly irrelevant to my original point about France’s implied status as a war zone.

The country that a refugee was in immediately before the UK is irrelevant and is almost certainly not the country they are fleeing from.

The country in which a refugee resided immediately before coming to the UK is irrelevant to where they can/can't claim asylum unlike when the UK was in the EU when the Dublin Convention applied.

However, once in France, "fleeing of warzone" has been successfully completed. Many refugees claim asylum in France. More than in the UK per numerous sources. Therefore any subsequent move from France to the UK is a "lifestyle choice" rather than attempt to secure safety for self and family. I don't know what is so hard to understand about this concept.

This is just dressing up 'first safe country' in longer sentences. Aside from the obvious reasons why someone from Afghanistan who previously worked with British forces might want to move to Britain rather than France, it's also pretty obvious why that is not an equitable solution on an international basis.

And if that is now government policy, against the principles of the treaty to which we are a signatory, why are we waiving that requirement for people fleeing from Ukraine or HK?

rjsterry

Double post

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

I would have thought it is obvious that some start from the position that the UK shouldn't accept refugees from Africa or Asia and work from there.

I also think it's pretty obvious what the root of that position is.

I'm not sure I should accept it as a valid viewpoint merely because it exists.

I don't believe that is wallance_and_gromit's point of view. I also think "but racists" isn't a particularly strong argument.

That's not what I was suggesting.

kingstongraham

https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1641041514783551488?t=lN6NZlC6gPrMREjk7HCqoQ&s=19

Astonishingly true. He paid tribute to Paul Grayson.

Pross

kingstongraham said:

https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1641041514783551488?t=lN6NZlC6gPrMREjk7HCqoQ&s=19

Astonishingly true. He paid tribute to Paul Grayson.

I wonder if he got confused with the ex-England rugby player or Larry Grayson?

briantrumpet

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1641041514783551488?t=lN6NZlC6gPrMREjk7HCqoQ&s=19

Astonishingly true. He paid tribute to Paul Grayson.

I wonder if he got confused with the ex-England rugby player or Larry Grayson?

The latter, as I suspect he probably puts those two in the same 'those people' category.

briantrumpet

This kind of thing is no way to instil confidence in your openness & honesty. Worth reading the whole exchange.

https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1641051720347185152

Jezyboy

Haha of course, the Tories wouldn't do anything to help the under 50s because they actually thought it was a good idea.

rjsterry

https://twitter.com/PollingReportUK/status/1640687726155427841?t=oY5tXsfxD_vHTETVg744gw&s=19

Some good news.

kingstongraham

rjsterry said:

https://twitter.com/PollingReportUK/status/1640687726155427841?t=oY5tXsfxD_vHTETVg744gw&s=19

Some good news.

Labour's not getting that many votes there. Only had 5% last time and clearly going to be tactical voting again. What's the point of obviously bad predictions?

pangolin

Government kicks can down the road for Labour to deal with

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65120317

kingstongraham

Giveaways are never enough for some scroungers: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/two-million-face-more-tax-pensions-jeremy-hunt/

morstar

kingstongraham said:

Giveaways are never enough for some scroungers: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/two-million-face-more-tax-pensions-jeremy-hunt/

FFS,

Interestingly, when we were debating this change on here a few weeks before the budget, I read quite a bit.

Plenty of independent people said it was the tax free chunk which heavily favoured the better off more than increasing the lifetime limit would.

So what Hunt has done is broadly in line with that thinking. But yes, even that’s not good enough.

I wonder if they have heard how the tax bands are static too?

Pross

I'm very sad for the poor people who can only take about quarter of a million tax free in one go. How will they cope?

Pross

Incidentally, I started a new pension with AJ Bell last month and have lost 2.5% in the first month so I'm going to panic and sell then stuff the money under a mattress instead.

morstar

Pross said:

Incidentally, I started a new pension with AJ Bell last month and have lost 2.5% in the first month so I'm going to panic and sell then stuff the money under a mattress instead.

I was a bit gutted. Stuck my year end chunk of money in that promptly devalued itself quite significantly.

Has now bounced back though fortunately.

surrey_commuter

Pross said:

Incidentally, I started a new pension with AJ Bell last month and have lost 2.5% in the first month so I'm going to panic and sell then stuff the money under a mattress instead.

I know you are joking but the apocryphal story amongst wealth managers is that there best clients are dead as they don't panic and sell at the wrong time

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

Giveaways are never enough for some scroungers: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/two-million-face-more-tax-pensions-jeremy-hunt/

Removing the percentage link seems quite sensible. They can then slowly reduce it further.

pangolin

Pross said:

Incidentally, I started a new pension with AJ Bell last month and have lost 2.5% in the first month so I'm going to panic and sell then stuff the money under a mattress instead.

My current work pension has done nothing over the 2 years I've worked there. In fact over they last 12 months it's 6% down.

rick_chasey

pangolin said:

Pross said:

Incidentally, I started a new pension with AJ Bell last month and have lost 2.5% in the first month so I'm going to panic and sell then stuff the money under a mattress instead.

My current work pension has done nothing over the 2 years I've worked there. In fact over they last 12 months it's 6% down.

Markets had their worst year since ‘08 last year. Absolute shocker.

RIP my ‘23 as a result 😑