CONservative government incompetence.

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

CONservative government incompetence.

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 440 of 603 < 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 >

HKOwen Hong Kong 10 Mar 23 7.36am
Originally posted by steeleye20 The conservative party are deliberately creating a new industry. The cause of illegal immigration, the profit being made by criminal gangs, has not, and will not, be addressed by the tories. They need immigration, it plays to the prejudices of the voters and obscures the disastrous state of the country today, caused by them. This is so close to parody that it must be parody Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.
Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen

Hong Kong 10 Mar 23 7.36am

Originally posted by steeleye20

The conservative party are deliberately creating a new industry.

The cause of illegal immigration, the profit being made by criminal gangs, has not, and will not, be addressed by the tories.

They need immigration, it plays to the prejudices of the voters and obscures the disastrous state of the country today, caused by them.

This is so close to parody that it must be parody

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 10 Mar 23 7.44am
Originally posted by steeleye20 The conservative party are deliberately creating a new industry. The cause of illegal immigration, the profit being made by criminal gangs, has not, and will not, be addressed by the tories. They need immigration, it plays to the prejudices of the voters and obscures the disastrous state of the country today, caused by them. The only industry that has been created is one by ambulance chasing lawyers and activists posing as charities all earning a nice living out of the UK taxpayer. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 10 Mar 23 7.44am

Originally posted by steeleye20

The conservative party are deliberately creating a new industry.

The cause of illegal immigration, the profit being made by criminal gangs, has not, and will not, be addressed by the tories.

They need immigration, it plays to the prejudices of the voters and obscures the disastrous state of the country today, caused by them.

The only industry that has been created is one by ambulance chasing lawyers and activists posing as charities all earning a nice living out of the UK taxpayer.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman Horsham 10 Mar 23 9.16am
Originally posted by steeleye20 This is a deliberate, and probably illegal, policy of cruelty to vulnerable people designed to whip up feeling before an election. Does anyone think it will be successful? How, because it does not even refer to the cause of the problem, the profits made by the criminal gangs, they must be rubbing their hands in glee. Still no safe and legal route it just plays into their hands. Firstly it is not illegal. Secondly they are not ALL vulnerable. Thirdly there are safe and legal routes, the fact is the vast majority have no claim to asylum so would have to apply for a visa in some other capacity and they would not qualify. The criminal gangs are predominantly plying their trade in Europe, what are those countries doing about it? I doubt it will be successful due to the HRA and lefties here blocking it at every turn. Macron has said he would not accept them back, that is illegal. Oh and by the way, nothing to do with Brexit, 3rd country removals are worldwide
Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman

Horsham 10 Mar 23 9.16am

Originally posted by steeleye20

This is a deliberate, and probably illegal, policy of cruelty to vulnerable people designed to whip up feeling before an election.

Does anyone think it will be successful?

How, because it does not even refer to the cause of the problem, the profits made by the criminal gangs, they must be rubbing their hands in glee.

Still no safe and legal route it just plays into their hands.

Firstly it is not illegal. Secondly they are not ALL vulnerable. Thirdly there are safe and legal routes, the fact is the vast majority have no claim to asylum so would have to apply for a visa in some other capacity and they would not qualify.
The criminal gangs are predominantly plying their trade in Europe, what are those countries doing about it?
I doubt it will be successful due to the HRA and lefties here blocking it at every turn.
Macron has said he would not accept them back, that is illegal. Oh and by the way, nothing to do with Brexit, 3rd country removals are worldwide

Alert a moderator to this post

EverybodyDannsNow SE19 10 Mar 23 4.14pm
Originally posted by Spiderman Firstly it is not illegal. Secondly they are not ALL vulnerable. Thirdly there are safe and legal routes, the fact is the vast majority have no claim to asylum so would have to apply for a visa in some other capacity and they would not qualify. The criminal gangs are predominantly plying their trade in Europe, what are those countries doing about it? I doubt it will be successful due to the HRA and lefties here blocking it at every turn. Macron has said he would not accept them back, that is illegal. Oh and by the way, nothing to do with Brexit, 3rd country removals are worldwide "Before Brexit, the UK was a signatory to the Dublin III Treaty which allowed us to return migrants back across the Channel. This was the main reason migrants didn't cross before 2018. They had the money and the desire to get here but it wasn't worth shelling out for only to be taken straight back to where they started, but with less money. The government repeatedly ignored the warnings and lacked the foresight to come up with an alternative. By 2020 crossings are into the thousands - the risk reward equation for migrants is now compellingly in their favour. They know if they can get to the UK then they can't be returned." I know you are well versed in matters of immigration - is the above incorrect in terms of the treaty/arrangement with EU? I have no idea. What are the safe and legal routes for asylum? Why do you say the vast majority have no claim? My understanding was the majority of claims are approved upon processing.
Alert a moderator to this post

EverybodyDannsNow

SE19 10 Mar 23 4.14pm

Send a Private Message to EverybodyDannsNow

Originally posted by Spiderman

Firstly it is not illegal. Secondly they are not ALL vulnerable. Thirdly there are safe and legal routes, the fact is the vast majority have no claim to asylum so would have to apply for a visa in some other capacity and they would not qualify.
The criminal gangs are predominantly plying their trade in Europe, what are those countries doing about it?
I doubt it will be successful due to the HRA and lefties here blocking it at every turn.
Macron has said he would not accept them back, that is illegal. Oh and by the way, nothing to do with Brexit, 3rd country removals are worldwide

"Before Brexit, the UK was a signatory to the Dublin III Treaty which allowed us to return migrants back across the Channel. This was the main reason migrants didn't cross before 2018. They had the money and the desire to get here but it wasn't worth shelling out for only to be taken straight back to where they started, but with less money. The government repeatedly ignored the warnings and lacked the foresight to come up with an alternative. By 2020 crossings are into the thousands - the risk reward equation for migrants is now compellingly in their favour. They know if they can get to the UK then they can't be returned."

I know you are well versed in matters of immigration - is the above incorrect in terms of the treaty/arrangement with EU? I have no idea.

What are the safe and legal routes for asylum?

Why do you say the vast majority have no claim? My understanding was the majority of claims are approved upon processing.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 10 Mar 23 4.21pm
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow "Before Brexit, the UK was a signatory to the Dublin III Treaty which allowed us to return migrants back across the Channel. This was the main reason migrants didn't cross before 2018. They had the money and the desire to get here but it wasn't worth shelling out for only to be taken straight back to where they started, but with less money. The government repeatedly ignored the warnings and lacked the foresight to come up with an alternative. By 2020 crossings are into the thousands - the risk reward equation for migrants is now compellingly in their favour. They know if they can get to the UK then they can't be returned." I know you are well versed in matters of immigration - is the above incorrect in terms of the treaty/arrangement with EU? I have no idea. What are the safe and legal routes for asylum? Why do you say the vast majority have no claim? My understanding was the majority of claims are approved upon processing. The usual distortion or reality. Hardly any illegals were actually returned under that treaty. 209 in fact. It wasn't working.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

10 Mar 23 4.21pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

"Before Brexit, the UK was a signatory to the Dublin III Treaty which allowed us to return migrants back across the Channel. This was the main reason migrants didn't cross before 2018. They had the money and the desire to get here but it wasn't worth shelling out for only to be taken straight back to where they started, but with less money. The government repeatedly ignored the warnings and lacked the foresight to come up with an alternative. By 2020 crossings are into the thousands - the risk reward equation for migrants is now compellingly in their favour. They know if they can get to the UK then they can't be returned."

I know you are well versed in matters of immigration - is the above incorrect in terms of the treaty/arrangement with EU? I have no idea.

What are the safe and legal routes for asylum?

Why do you say the vast majority have no claim? My understanding was the majority of claims are approved upon processing.

The usual distortion or reality.

Hardly any illegals were actually returned under that treaty.

209 in fact.

It wasn't working.

Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 10 Mar 23 4.30pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger The usual distortion or reality. Hardly any illegals were actually returned under that treaty. 209 in fact. It wasn't working. As far as I am aware - nobody returns anyone anywhere. Some countries just put up fences and get rid where they can. Not Britain obviously. The whole situation is untenable: exacerbated greatly by the Ukrainian situation. In Ireland, the Inn is full but so are the stables too. The government can't hide it so are glibly just saying it, no doubt to deter people coming. Red and Blue Army!
Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 10 Mar 23 4.30pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

The usual distortion or reality.

Hardly any illegals were actually returned under that treaty.

209 in fact.

It wasn't working.

As far as I am aware - nobody returns anyone anywhere. Some countries just put up fences and get rid where they can. Not Britain obviously. The whole situation is untenable: exacerbated greatly by the Ukrainian situation. In Ireland, the Inn is full but so are the stables too. The government can't hide it so are glibly just saying it, no doubt to deter people coming.

Red and Blue Army!

Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman Horsham 10 Mar 23 4.33pm
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow "Before Brexit, the UK was a signatory to the Dublin III Treaty which allowed us to return migrants back across the Channel. This was the main reason migrants didn't cross before 2018. They had the money and the desire to get here but it wasn't worth shelling out for only to be taken straight back to where they started, but with less money. The government repeatedly ignored the warnings and lacked the foresight to come up with an alternative. By 2020 crossings are into the thousands - the risk reward equation for migrants is now compellingly in their favour. They know if they can get to the UK then they can't be returned." I know you are well versed in matters of immigration - is the above incorrect in terms of the treaty/arrangement with EU? I have no idea. What are the safe and legal routes for asylum? Why do you say the vast majority have no claim? My understanding was the majority of claims are approved upon processing. Although this sounds absurd, unless there was cast iron evidence (ie fingerprint match) that a person had been in another EU country, we could not remove them, despite them coming off a cross channel ferry/ small boat or flight from Madrid. The Dublin convention really was a waste of time. The majority of claims are approved due to backlog clearing excercises, basically an amnesty but no Government will admit to this. I have interviewed hundreds of claimants and can honestly say only a handful were true asylum seekers. Any genuine asylum seeker can go to UNHCR offices and claim. They can also go to any Embassy/HC. TBF this is not easy as they would have to wait for application to be considered, however if they are that desperate, a trip over neighbouring border and a visit to the Embassy based there is not beyond realms of possibility. What people to get to grips with is the difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants. Believe me, when you interview a genuine asylum seeker, their story hits home. When you interview an economic migrant, claiming asylum, it irritates big time
Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman

Horsham 10 Mar 23 4.33pm

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

I know you are well versed in matters of immigration - is the above incorrect in terms of the treaty/arrangement with EU? I have no idea.

What are the safe and legal routes for asylum?

Why do you say the vast majority have no claim? My understanding was the majority of claims are approved upon processing.

Although this sounds absurd, unless there was cast iron evidence (ie fingerprint match) that a person had been in another EU country, we could not remove them, despite them coming off a cross channel ferry/ small boat or flight from Madrid. The Dublin convention really was a waste of time.
The majority of claims are approved due to backlog clearing excercises, basically an amnesty but no Government will admit to this. I have interviewed hundreds of claimants and can honestly say only a handful were true asylum seekers.
Any genuine asylum seeker can go to UNHCR offices and claim. They can also go to any Embassy/HC. TBF this is not easy as they would have to wait for application to be considered, however if they are that desperate, a trip over neighbouring border and a visit to the Embassy based there is not beyond realms of possibility.
What people to get to grips with is the difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants.
Believe me, when you interview a genuine asylum seeker, their story hits home. When you interview an economic migrant, claiming asylum, it irritates big time

Alert a moderator to this post

EverybodyDannsNow SE19 10 Mar 23 4.34pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger The usual distortion or reality. Hardly any illegals were actually returned under that treaty. 209 in fact. It wasn't working. 209 in 2019 only, which is a reasonable percentage of people making the crossing back then. There were 510 returned in 2015, 362 in 2016 and 314 in 2017. Back in 2008 and 2009 it was over 1000 per year.
Alert a moderator to this post

EverybodyDannsNow

SE19 10 Mar 23 4.34pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

The usual distortion or reality.

Hardly any illegals were actually returned under that treaty.

209 in fact.

It wasn't working.

209 in 2019 only, which is a reasonable percentage of people making the crossing back then.

There were 510 returned in 2015, 362 in 2016 and 314 in 2017. Back in 2008 and 2009 it was over 1000 per year.

Alert a moderator to this post

EverybodyDannsNow SE19 10 Mar 23 4.43pm
Originally posted by Spiderman Although this sounds absurd, unless there was cast iron evidence (ie fingerprint match) that a person had been in another EU country, we could not remove them, despite them coming off a cross channel ferry/ small boat or flight from Madrid. The Dublin convention really was a waste of time. The majority of claims are approved due to backlog clearing excercises, basically an amnesty but no Government will admit to this. I have interviewed hundreds of claimants and can honestly say only a handful were true asylum seekers. Any genuine asylum seeker can go to UNHCR offices and claim. They can also go to any Embassy/HC. TBF this is not easy as they would have to wait for application to be considered, however if they are that desperate, a trip over neighbouring border and a visit to the Embassy based there is not beyond realms of possibility. What people to get to grips with is the difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants. Believe me, when you interview a genuine asylum seeker, their story hits home. When you interview an economic migrant, claiming asylum, it irritates big time Fair enough - I think it's difficult to conclude it was a waste of time when a) we now return 0 per year and b) it clearly seems to have worked as a deterrent to people attempting the crossing. What do you attribute the huge increases in people attempting the crossing since 2019 to?
Alert a moderator to this post

EverybodyDannsNow

SE19 10 Mar 23 4.43pm

Originally posted by Spiderman

Fair enough - I think it's difficult to conclude it was a waste of time when a) we now return 0 per year and b) it clearly seems to have worked as a deterrent to people attempting the crossing.

What do you attribute the huge increases in people attempting the crossing since 2019 to?

Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20 Croydon 10 Mar 23 5.25pm
Originally posted by HKOwen This is so close to parody that it must be parody Asylum is the growth industry of the tory years. It hardly existed before. If you want a career move, get into migration. Another 500 millions today the UK paying for a migrant centre, plus the 70 millions per annum that have resulted in the number of crossings doubled, 120 millions to Rwanda for 200 slots that may never be used. Think what the accommodation bill will now be and how many people are now employed in this. Imagine the legal costs going forward of the latest bill. And all for something that could have been avoided.
Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20

Croydon 10 Mar 23 5.25pm

Originally posted by HKOwen

This is so close to parody that it must be parody

Asylum is the growth industry of the tory years.

It hardly existed before.

If you want a career move, get into migration.

Another 500 millions today the UK paying for a migrant centre, plus the 70 millions per annum that have resulted in the number of crossings doubled, 120 millions to Rwanda for 200 slots that may never be used.

Think what the accommodation bill will now be and how many people are now employed in this.

Imagine the legal costs going forward of the latest bill.

And all for something that could have been avoided.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 10 Mar 23 5.47pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 Asylum is the growth industry of the tory years. It hardly existed before. If you want a career move, get into migration. Another 500 millions today the UK paying for a migrant centre, plus the 70 millions per annum that have resulted in the number of crossings doubled, 120 millions to Rwanda for 200 slots that may never be used. Think what the accommodation bill will now be and how many people are now employed in this. Imagine the legal costs going forward of the latest bill. And all for something that could have been avoided. It hardly existed before Blair destabilised the middle east with his illegal war.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

10 Mar 23 5.47pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

Asylum is the growth industry of the tory years.

It hardly existed before.

If you want a career move, get into migration.

Think what the accommodation bill will now be and how many people are now employed in this.

Imagine the legal costs going forward of the latest bill.

And all for something that could have been avoided.

It hardly existed before Blair destabilised the middle east with his illegal war.

Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman Horsham 10 Mar 23 6.38pm
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow Fair enough - I think it's difficult to conclude it was a waste of time when a) we now return 0 per year and b) it clearly seems to have worked as a deterrent to people attempting the crossing. What do you attribute the huge increases in people attempting the crossing since 2019 to? How many did we previously return? It really didn’t work as a deterrent, unless you have statistics to prove otherwise. I know you blame Brexit for this but that really is wide of the mark. You could, of course, apportion blame to the French who make no effort whatsoever to stop them, as a “punishment “ for Brexit, how childish of them, going against International law. Bear in mind whilst still in the EU, we gave millions to the French to shut down Sangatte ( we took many of these, I worked there, processing them). They shut it down and just allowed the migrants to set up another cam along the coast. Let’s put this another way, if we are such a terrible country in the way we deal with migrants, why are these people desperate to get here and not stay in Western Europe? Several European countries except more ( Thanks for the info Linekar) but they give them next to nothing in handouts, do not provide food, clothing and accommodation on arrival. Before criticising the UK, perhaps people should delve into how migrants are dealt with elsewhere Edited by Spiderman (10 Mar 2023 6.46pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman

Horsham 10 Mar 23 6.38pm

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

Fair enough - I think it's difficult to conclude it was a waste of time when a) we now return 0 per year and b) it clearly seems to have worked as a deterrent to people attempting the crossing.

What do you attribute the huge increases in people attempting the crossing since 2019 to?

How many did we previously return? It really didn’t work as a deterrent, unless you have statistics to prove otherwise. I know you blame Brexit for this but that really is wide of the mark. You could, of course, apportion blame to the French who make no effort whatsoever to stop them, as a “punishment “ for Brexit, how childish of them, going against International law.
Bear in mind whilst still in the EU, we gave millions to the French to shut down Sangatte ( we took many of these, I worked there, processing them). They shut it down and just allowed the migrants to set up another cam along the coast.
Let’s put this another way, if we are such a terrible country in the way we deal with migrants, why are these people desperate to get here and not stay in Western Europe?
Several European countries except more ( Thanks for the info Linekar) but they give them next to nothing in handouts, do not provide food, clothing and accommodation on arrival.
Before criticising the UK, perhaps people should delve into how migrants are dealt with elsewhere

Edited by Spiderman (10 Mar 2023 6.46pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 440 of 603 < 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

CONservative government incompetence.

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors