Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
A Good Thing? Or Not
https:/
There’s already talk of increased taxes across the board which I’d assume will be at local level having cuts made to them
Your thoughts?
There’s already talk of increased taxes across the board which I’d assume will be at local level having cuts made to them
Your thoughts?
Answers
if it is that word that causes offence then i will not use it again. in my defence i have seen it used elsewhere on the site...
the gist of my post without the offending sentence was that the 11 million figure given would include the parents of both the current Prime minister and the current home secretary... there are millions of people like that and i do not consider their existence to be a "damaging reality"
the gist of my post without the offending sentence was that the 11 million figure given would include the parents of both the current Prime minister and the current home secretary... there are millions of people like that and i do not consider their existence to be a "damaging reality"
//…the conditions at Marston detention centre reached inhumane levels//
Just a correction – it’s Manston, not Marston. Not a nit-picking criticism, but just a polite correction since you’ve used the wrong name twice (and “R” is nowhere near “N” on the keyboard).
Manston is a former RAF station near Ramsgate, in Kent. It was used extensively in the war as a Fighter Command station and has one of the widest (though not particularly long) runways in the country. The RAF had a few stations in the east of the country with such runways to accommodate returning aircraft that may have suffered damage and which may not be able to line up with the runway accurately. After the RAF reduced operations there it became a joint civil and RAF base and was known as Kent International Airport. It was also branded “London Manston” for a time (albeit situated some 75 miles from Charing Cross). All operations ceased in 2014 and from 2015 it was adapted to serve as a lorry park. The owners have announced plans to reopen it as a freight airport in 2025 (provided, of course, the migrants have left by then).
But back to its current use. How “inhumane” do you consider the conditions there, considering the occupants left their luxurious accommodation in northern France, where their homes often consisted of tarpaulins and wooden pallets, sited in muddy woodland?
// We have already heard about the plight of some Albanian women//
Yes we have. Leaving aside their very small numbers (Albanian migrants are overwhelmingly young men) why doesn’t the Albanian government address their plight? Albania is a candidate nation for EU membership and one of the tests for admission will be law and order.
//zebu is right that under international law as presently written the UK like all signatories does have an obligation to at least consider applications for asylum...//
Indeed. And as I have reiterated, it is time for the UK government to consider whether it wants to continue with those obligations because, apart from being unable to properly accommodate people who arrive potless, we don’t even have the ability to assess their claims promptly.
//the born overseas figure is extremely misleading... it would include people born to servicepeople serving overseas and also to the children of British families working abroad at the time of their birth...//
Yeah right. The current strength of UK’s armed forces is around 150,000 of whom less than 6,000 serve abroad. That strength has not been very much greater for some time so even if every one of those personnel produced a child (as either the mother or the father) once a year whilst abroad – something that is highly unlikely – it would account for only 150,000 people born abroad in the last 25 years. And that’s at the absolute top end of the range that is remotely probable. How does that square with the estimated 16% of the population (well over 10 million) who live here but were born abroad? It's two pennyworth of nothing.
// i think the best means of reducing the scale is to allow people to make asylum applications outside the uk.//
And I believe the best means of reducing the scale is for the UK government to seriously consider whether it wants to remain as signatories to the international treaties that were signed more than 70 years ago because even if it is shown that very few applicants are taking the pee (which is unlikely), we’re full up.
Just a correction – it’s Manston, not Marston. Not a nit-picking criticism, but just a polite correction since you’ve used the wrong name twice (and “R” is nowhere near “N” on the keyboard).
Manston is a former RAF station near Ramsgate, in Kent. It was used extensively in the war as a Fighter Command station and has one of the widest (though not particularly long) runways in the country. The RAF had a few stations in the east of the country with such runways to accommodate returning aircraft that may have suffered damage and which may not be able to line up with the runway accurately. After the RAF reduced operations there it became a joint civil and RAF base and was known as Kent International Airport. It was also branded “London Manston” for a time (albeit situated some 75 miles from Charing Cross). All operations ceased in 2014 and from 2015 it was adapted to serve as a lorry park. The owners have announced plans to reopen it as a freight airport in 2025 (provided, of course, the migrants have left by then).
But back to its current use. How “inhumane” do you consider the conditions there, considering the occupants left their luxurious accommodation in northern France, where their homes often consisted of tarpaulins and wooden pallets, sited in muddy woodland?
// We have already heard about the plight of some Albanian women//
Yes we have. Leaving aside their very small numbers (Albanian migrants are overwhelmingly young men) why doesn’t the Albanian government address their plight? Albania is a candidate nation for EU membership and one of the tests for admission will be law and order.
//zebu is right that under international law as presently written the UK like all signatories does have an obligation to at least consider applications for asylum...//
Indeed. And as I have reiterated, it is time for the UK government to consider whether it wants to continue with those obligations because, apart from being unable to properly accommodate people who arrive potless, we don’t even have the ability to assess their claims promptly.
//the born overseas figure is extremely misleading... it would include people born to servicepeople serving overseas and also to the children of British families working abroad at the time of their birth...//
Yeah right. The current strength of UK’s armed forces is around 150,000 of whom less than 6,000 serve abroad. That strength has not been very much greater for some time so even if every one of those personnel produced a child (as either the mother or the father) once a year whilst abroad – something that is highly unlikely – it would account for only 150,000 people born abroad in the last 25 years. And that’s at the absolute top end of the range that is remotely probable. How does that square with the estimated 16% of the population (well over 10 million) who live here but were born abroad? It's two pennyworth of nothing.
// i think the best means of reducing the scale is to allow people to make asylum applications outside the uk.//
And I believe the best means of reducing the scale is for the UK government to seriously consider whether it wants to remain as signatories to the international treaties that were signed more than 70 years ago because even if it is shown that very few applicants are taking the pee (which is unlikely), we’re full up.
Treatment by fair and due processes under the auspices of British border control should consist of asking if they had obtained prior agreement to come, if so insisting documents are produced as evidence, if not, asking which war torn or natural disaster nation they came from, and again wanting evidence. If it is clear they had come from a safe country and had no prior agreement to be here, sending them back immediately. Ditto if they produce no evidence to back up their tale. Shouldn't take much more than an hour or so after arrival before they get returned, and the camp wouldn't get so crowded with invading illegals. In fact much of this could be done mid-channel and save them half the trip.
//1. Who supplies the boats?//
The same people who provide them to facilitate their onward journey from mid-Channel to the UK.
//2. Do they sail from the UK to Albania (or wherever)?//
They didn't come from Albania (or wherever). They came from France.
//3. Who pays?//
The same people who pay for their hotel accommodation (current cost £2bn pa) after they have arrived - the taxpayer. Far cheaper to fund a 20 mile boat trip than to fund the cost of hotel accommodation.
The same people who provide them to facilitate their onward journey from mid-Channel to the UK.
//2. Do they sail from the UK to Albania (or wherever)?//
They didn't come from Albania (or wherever). They came from France.
//3. Who pays?//
The same people who pay for their hotel accommodation (current cost £2bn pa) after they have arrived - the taxpayer. Far cheaper to fund a 20 mile boat trip than to fund the cost of hotel accommodation.
We appear to be fond of polls to solve issues. I have the results of one.
//The GB News People's Poll interviewed 1,212 people online and was weighted to be fully representative of the entire British population.
We asked whether voters thought people who arrive unlawfully in the UK by small boats from a safe country, such as France, should be granted a right to settle in the UK.
The poll also examined whether Albanians should be required to leave the country and return directly to Albania - a safe country itself - and which political leader people trust to sort out the scandal.//
1. 58% of the country think “The British government has lost control of the country’s borders”, according to new and exclusive polling by People Polling for GB News. This jumps to an even higher 75% among Conservative and 76% among Leavers. Only 14% of the country disagree the country has lost control of its borders.
2. Amid a spiralling crisis in the Channel, we also find: more than half the country (53%) REJECT the suggestion “European courts and judges in Strasbourg should be able to override decisions about Britain’s borders that are made in Britain”. This jumps to 79% among Conservative voters and 78% among Leavers, the key groups Rishi Sunak will need to win back if he is to have a chance at the next general election.
3. A large majority of voters, 61%, think Albanians should be required to leave the country and return to Albania while only 13% of the country think they should be allowed to stay. 84% of Conservatives and 85% of Leavers think they should be required to leave Britain and return to Albania.
4. We also asked whether people who arrive unlawfully in the UK by a small boat from a safe country, such as France, should be granted a right to settle in the UK. Almost half the country, 49%, agree with this rising to 74% of Conservatives and 74% of Leavers but falling to 30% of Labour voters and 31% of Remainers. The proportion who agree, at 49%, is larger than the proportion who disagree, at 25%.
5. We also asked voters which political leader “would best manage the issue of the small boats crossing the Channel?” While the most popular answer was “none of the above”, the most popular individual leader was Nigel Farage followed by Keir Starmer and then Rishi Sunak. 28% of Conservatives backed Farage while only 8% backed Sunak.
It looks as if the only solution is a General Election whereby the voters can show their disdain of our current shambles and vote Reform UK.
//The GB News People's Poll interviewed 1,212 people online and was weighted to be fully representative of the entire British population.
We asked whether voters thought people who arrive unlawfully in the UK by small boats from a safe country, such as France, should be granted a right to settle in the UK.
The poll also examined whether Albanians should be required to leave the country and return directly to Albania - a safe country itself - and which political leader people trust to sort out the scandal.//
1. 58% of the country think “The British government has lost control of the country’s borders”, according to new and exclusive polling by People Polling for GB News. This jumps to an even higher 75% among Conservative and 76% among Leavers. Only 14% of the country disagree the country has lost control of its borders.
2. Amid a spiralling crisis in the Channel, we also find: more than half the country (53%) REJECT the suggestion “European courts and judges in Strasbourg should be able to override decisions about Britain’s borders that are made in Britain”. This jumps to 79% among Conservative voters and 78% among Leavers, the key groups Rishi Sunak will need to win back if he is to have a chance at the next general election.
3. A large majority of voters, 61%, think Albanians should be required to leave the country and return to Albania while only 13% of the country think they should be allowed to stay. 84% of Conservatives and 85% of Leavers think they should be required to leave Britain and return to Albania.
4. We also asked whether people who arrive unlawfully in the UK by a small boat from a safe country, such as France, should be granted a right to settle in the UK. Almost half the country, 49%, agree with this rising to 74% of Conservatives and 74% of Leavers but falling to 30% of Labour voters and 31% of Remainers. The proportion who agree, at 49%, is larger than the proportion who disagree, at 25%.
5. We also asked voters which political leader “would best manage the issue of the small boats crossing the Channel?” While the most popular answer was “none of the above”, the most popular individual leader was Nigel Farage followed by Keir Starmer and then Rishi Sunak. 28% of Conservatives backed Farage while only 8% backed Sunak.
It looks as if the only solution is a General Election whereby the voters can show their disdain of our current shambles and vote Reform UK.
GB News people's poll.
"We asked whether voters thought people who arrive unlawfully in the UK by small boats from a safe country, such as France, should be granted a right to settle in the UK."
What a loaded question. Beginners' guide to how to conduct a meaningful poll would show this as an example of what should not be used. And yet some feel that such a poll supports their long-held beliefs. Why try to use science to support long-held beliefs?
"We asked whether voters thought people who arrive unlawfully in the UK by small boats from a safe country, such as France, should be granted a right to settle in the UK."
What a loaded question. Beginners' guide to how to conduct a meaningful poll would show this as an example of what should not be used. And yet some feel that such a poll supports their long-held beliefs. Why try to use science to support long-held beliefs?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Crosswords3 mins ago
Are Labour Preparing To Dump The P M ?
News10 mins ago
Society & Culture14 mins ago
