Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
Tory ministers are in fact on record as saying they don't want to speed up the processing of claims, allegedly because they think it will be a "pull" factor if people aren't stuck in dingey hotels and run down former barracks for months or years.
What is especially dumb about that, is if they did it properly it would speed up sending back the people who aren’t meant to be coming here - which is in theory what they are supposed to want.
Their thinking seems to be that handing over wads of cash to criminals and then getting into a small boat to cross the Channel where there's a very real risk of drowning isn't sufficient of a deterrent. They don't seem to realise that when getting into a small boat is seen as safer than staying on land people will keep on doing it. Getting locked up into former army bases or barges like prisoners for an indeterminate, but long, period of time isn't really that much of a deterrent compared to the Channel crossing itself - and the same applies to all the other sea crossings being taken by increasing numbers of desperate people.
The solution is simple - let people seeking asylum buy tickets on cross-Channel ferries and put the criminals out of business. End of small boats. Then accelerate the claims process so it's a few weeks at most, which will eliminate the expensive hotels and barges. You've then got the workers the country needs - many refugees are skilled professionals (because they have the money for the journey, and also in many cases they're the targets of persecution because they're people of potential influence), though there may need to be a process of testing their skills given they might not have their paper work such as degree certificates to prove they have the skills, we could do with doctors, nurses, care workers etc.
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
There is no desire to reduce the time taken to process claims because of their pals who own the hotels making vast sums of money. The BBC seem to have misspelled profiteering in the headline.
There is no desire to reduce the time taken to process claims because of their pals who own the hotels making vast sums of money. The BBC seem to have misspelled profiteering in the headline.
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Dealing with what? Processing the claims, or sending people to Rwanda?
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Dealing with what? Processing the claims, or sending people to Rwanda?
Reducing the numbers, as specified in the governments 5 goals. I have heard that the French Police have prevented 15,000 leaving in small boats. Can we assume that they are all still in France ?
They don't seem to realise that when getting into a small boat is seen as safer than staying on land people will keep on doing it.
I still don't get what's so dangerous about being in northern France. It's not like the boats are coming all the way from Afghanistan, Somalia, or wherever.
They don't seem to realise that when getting into a small boat is seen as safer than staying on land people will keep on doing it.
I still don't get what's so dangerous about being in northern France. It's not like the boats are coming all the way from Afghanistan, Somalia, or wherever.
They want to come to the UK. They are clearly not aware that the UK is doing so badly.
Yes, and, in some cases, they believe they will find a safe haven here.
They may well be the subject of Hideous Fibs - even from our own government - but the fact remains that, for better or worse, they think they'll be better off here than back in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, or wherever.
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Dealing with what? Processing the claims, or sending people to Rwanda?
Reducing the numbers, as specified in the governments 5 goals. I have heard that the French Police have prevented 15,000 leaving in small boats. Can we assume that they are all still in France ?
OK, so do you think sending people to Rwanda (or Ascension Island) is a good idea?
In addition, please can you provide a link to the source of your belief that 15000 people have been prevented from leaving France in small boats?
Yes, and, in some cases, they believe they will find a safe haven here.
They may well be the subject of Hideous Fibs - even from our own government - but the fact remains that, for better or worse, they think they'll be better off here than back in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, or wherever.
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Dealing with what? Processing the claims, or sending people to Rwanda?
Reducing the numbers, as specified in the governments 5 goals. I have heard that the French Police have prevented 15,000 leaving in small boats. Can we assume that they are all still in France ?
OK, so do you think sending people to Rwanda (or Ascension Island) is a good idea?
In addition, please can you provide a link to the source of your belief that 15000 people have been prevented from leaving France in small boats?
Yes, and, in some cases, they believe they will find a safe haven here.
They may well be the subject of Hideous Fibs - even from our own government - but the fact remains that, for better or worse, they think they'll be better off here than back in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, or wherever.
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Dealing with what? Processing the claims, or sending people to Rwanda?
Reducing the numbers, as specified in the governments 5 goals. I have heard that the French Police have prevented 15,000 leaving in small boats. Can we assume that they are all still in France ?
OK, so do you think sending people to Rwanda (or Ascension Island) is a good idea?
In addition, please can you provide a link to the source of your belief that 15000 people have been prevented from leaving France in small boats?
I heard it on GB News. .
Hmm - it's that evaluation of sources thing again isn't it?
Yes, and, in some cases, they believe they will find a safe haven here.
They may well be the subject of Hideous Fibs - even from our own government - but the fact remains that, for better or worse, they think they'll be better off here than back in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, or wherever.
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Dealing with what? Processing the claims, or sending people to Rwanda?
Reducing the numbers, as specified in the governments 5 goals. I have heard that the French Police have prevented 15,000 leaving in small boats. Can we assume that they are all still in France ?
OK, so do you think sending people to Rwanda (or Ascension Island) is a good idea?
In addition, please can you provide a link to the source of your belief that 15000 people have been prevented from leaving France in small boats?
I heard it on GB News. .
Hmm - it's that evaluation of sources thing again isn't it?
Yes, and, in some cases, they believe they will find a safe haven here.
They may well be the subject of Hideous Fibs - even from our own government - but the fact remains that, for better or worse, they think they'll be better off here than back in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, or wherever.
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Dealing with what? Processing the claims, or sending people to Rwanda?
Reducing the numbers, as specified in the governments 5 goals. I have heard that the French Police have prevented 15,000 leaving in small boats. Can we assume that they are all still in France ?
OK, so do you think sending people to Rwanda (or Ascension Island) is a good idea?
In addition, please can you provide a link to the source of your belief that 15000 people have been prevented from leaving France in small boats?
I heard it on GB News. .
Hmm - it's that evaluation of sources thing again isn't it?
You need to start watching GB news more often
Going by the headlines that I occasionally see advertised at me by The Web, I'm pretty sure I need no such thing.
Yes, and, in some cases, they believe they will find a safe haven here.
They may well be the subject of Hideous Fibs - even from our own government - but the fact remains that, for better or worse, they think they'll be better off here than back in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, or wherever.
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Dealing with what? Processing the claims, or sending people to Rwanda?
Reducing the numbers, as specified in the governments 5 goals. I have heard that the French Police have prevented 15,000 leaving in small boats. Can we assume that they are all still in France ?
OK, so do you think sending people to Rwanda (or Ascension Island) is a good idea?
In addition, please can you provide a link to the source of your belief that 15000 people have been prevented from leaving France in small boats?
I heard it on GB News. .
Hmm - it's that evaluation of sources thing again isn't it?
You need to start watching GB news more often
Would this be the same GB News that is registered as an *entertainment* channel, thus absolving it of any need to even attempt to avoid political bias? Whilst at the same time making its very name a lie? Sid and Doris Bonkers probably love that, those of us who understand evaluating our sources...
One gets the impression that the tories are hellbent on ruining just about everything they can before they are finally consigned to the Outer Darkness (complete with Weeping, and Gnashing of Teeth, got up regardless, no expense spared) that they so richly deserve.
Yes, and, in some cases, they believe they will find a safe haven here.
They may well be the subject of Hideous Fibs - even from our own government - but the fact remains that, for better or worse, they think they'll be better off here than back in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, or wherever.
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Dealing with what? Processing the claims, or sending people to Rwanda?
Reducing the numbers, as specified in the governments 5 goals. I have heard that the French Police have prevented 15,000 leaving in small boats. Can we assume that they are all still in France ?
OK, so do you think sending people to Rwanda (or Ascension Island) is a good idea?
In addition, please can you provide a link to the source of your belief that 15000 people have been prevented from leaving France in small boats?
I heard it on GB News. .
Hmm - it's that evaluation of sources thing again isn't it?
You need to start watching GB news more often
Would this be the same GB News that is registered as an *entertainment* channel, thus absolving it of any need to even attempt to avoid political bias? Whilst at the same time making its very name a lie? Sid and Doris Bonkers probably love that, those of us who understand evaluating our sources...
There is the news every hour and people of every political persuasion appear to give their views.
They don't seem to realise that when getting into a small boat is seen as safer than staying on land people will keep on doing it.
I still don't get what's so dangerous about being in northern France.
They wish to be reunited with family members and go to a country where they speak the language, this is the flip side of Empire and foreign adventures.
Yes, and, in some cases, they believe they will find a safe haven here.
They may well be the subject of Hideous Fibs - even from our own government - but the fact remains that, for better or worse, they think they'll be better off here than back in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, or wherever.
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Dealing with what? Processing the claims, or sending people to Rwanda?
Reducing the numbers, as specified in the governments 5 goals. I have heard that the French Police have prevented 15,000 leaving in small boats. Can we assume that they are all still in France ?
OK, so do you think sending people to Rwanda (or Ascension Island) is a good idea?
In addition, please can you provide a link to the source of your belief that 15000 people have been prevented from leaving France in small boats?
I heard it on GB News. .
Hmm - it's that evaluation of sources thing again isn't it?
You need to start watching GB news more often
Nobody needs to watch that heap of crap ever.
If that is where you get your news from Telford, it explains a lot. I will stick to the Beano - more accurate and a lot funnier.
Yes, and, in some cases, they believe they will find a safe haven here.
They may well be the subject of Hideous Fibs - even from our own government - but the fact remains that, for better or worse, they think they'll be better off here than back in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, or wherever.
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Dealing with what? Processing the claims, or sending people to Rwanda?
Reducing the numbers, as specified in the governments 5 goals. I have heard that the French Police have prevented 15,000 leaving in small boats. Can we assume that they are all still in France ?
OK, so do you think sending people to Rwanda (or Ascension Island) is a good idea?
In addition, please can you provide a link to the source of your belief that 15000 people have been prevented from leaving France in small boats?
I heard it on GB News. .
Hmm - it's that evaluation of sources thing again isn't it?
You need to start watching GB news more often
Nobody needs to watch that heap of crap ever.
If that is where you get your news from Telford, it explains a lot. I will stick to the Beano - more accurate and a lot funnier.
Yes, and, in some cases, they believe they will find a safe haven here.
They may well be the subject of Hideous Fibs - even from our own government - but the fact remains that, for better or worse, they think they'll be better off here than back in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, or wherever.
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Dealing with what? Processing the claims, or sending people to Rwanda?
Reducing the numbers, as specified in the governments 5 goals. I have heard that the French Police have prevented 15,000 leaving in small boats. Can we assume that they are all still in France ?
OK, so do you think sending people to Rwanda (or Ascension Island) is a good idea?
In addition, please can you provide a link to the source of your belief that 15000 people have been prevented from leaving France in small boats?
I heard it on GB News. .
Hmm - it's that evaluation of sources thing again isn't it?
You need to start watching GB news more often
Nobody needs to watch that heap of crap ever.
If that is where you get your news from Telford, it explains a lot. I will stick to the Beano - more accurate and a lot funnier.
How often do you watch it? If yor answer is never, how can you criticise it ?
They don't seem to realise that when getting into a small boat is seen as safer than staying on land people will keep on doing it.
I still don't get what's so dangerous about being in northern France.
They wish to be reunited with family members and go to a country where they speak the language, this is the flip side of Empire and foreign adventures.
Sure, but that's a very different thing to Alan's claim that getting into a small boat is safer than staying on (French) land.
They're getting into small boats because they think the reward of getting to Britain is worth the risk of making the journey from France, not because they're desperate to escape from the existential threat of staying in France.
I took Alan to mean that the people concerned do indeed think the risk is worthwhile, and not that they're safer in the boat than remaining on land in France.
They don't seem to realise that when getting into a small boat is seen as safer than staying on land people will keep on doing it.
I still don't get what's so dangerous about being in northern France.
They wish to be reunited with family members and go to a country where they speak the language, this is the flip side of Empire and foreign adventures.
Sure, but that's a very different thing to Alan's claim that getting into a small boat is safer than staying on (French) land.
They're getting into small boats because they think the reward of getting to Britain is worth the risk of making the journey from France, not because they're desperate to escape from the existential threat of staying in France.
I don't think such a sharp distinction exists between the two cases. Many of these people are escaping from war zones and fear being sent back. In that situation being in contact with other family members and/or understanding the language well enough to improve ones chances at asylum can well be seen as an existential issue.
This is even before we get to the possibility of trauma, PTSD etc.
The people coming to the UK think that the journey from wherever they are to the UK is a risk worthwhile. The boat crossing from France to the UK is but a part of that journey, albeit a part that presents particular risks of drowning. It's not the only part of the journey where there are risks - several refugees have died recently when caught up in wild fires, others have been assaulted (by the criminals they've been forced to rely on for the journey, by others on the same journey, by people on the way who fear them - without justification, but the media and some politicians in many countries in Europe and beyond have used lies to scare people into thinking others are a risk to them), there's probably no point on the journey where women wouldn't be at risk of rape, there are risks of falling ill, getting cold (or this summer heat stroke), going hungry.
There's no reason to isolate one particular part of the journeys they're taking as being special in that regard. They set out to come to the UK, that they pass through France (which is safe, at least no less dangerous than the UK) and other nations is irrelevant.
Yes, and, in some cases, they believe they will find a safe haven here.
They may well be the subject of Hideous Fibs - even from our own government - but the fact remains that, for better or worse, they think they'll be better off here than back in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, or wherever.
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Dealing with what? Processing the claims, or sending people to Rwanda?
Reducing the numbers, as specified in the governments 5 goals. I have heard that the French Police have prevented 15,000 leaving in small boats. Can we assume that they are all still in France ?
OK, so do you think sending people to Rwanda (or Ascension Island) is a good idea?
In addition, please can you provide a link to the source of your belief that 15000 people have been prevented from leaving France in small boats?
I heard it on GB News. .
Hmm - it's that evaluation of sources thing again isn't it?
You need to start watching GB news more often
Nobody needs to watch that heap of crap ever.
If that is where you get your news from Telford, it explains a lot. I will stick to the Beano - more accurate and a lot funnier.
How often do you watch it? If yor answer is never, how can you criticise it ?
Would you not agree that GB News has a certain reputation for ... er .... dreadfulness. Could you tell us why you think the critisms are wrong? Why should we watch GB News as opposed to the BBC News?
Yes, and, in some cases, they believe they will find a safe haven here.
They may well be the subject of Hideous Fibs - even from our own government - but the fact remains that, for better or worse, they think they'll be better off here than back in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, or wherever.
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Dealing with what? Processing the claims, or sending people to Rwanda?
Reducing the numbers, as specified in the governments 5 goals. I have heard that the French Police have prevented 15,000 leaving in small boats. Can we assume that they are all still in France ?
OK, so do you think sending people to Rwanda (or Ascension Island) is a good idea?
In addition, please can you provide a link to the source of your belief that 15000 people have been prevented from leaving France in small boats?
I heard it on GB News. .
Hmm - it's that evaluation of sources thing again isn't it?
You need to start watching GB news more often
Nobody needs to watch that heap of crap ever.
If that is where you get your news from Telford, it explains a lot. I will stick to the Beano - more accurate and a lot funnier.
How often do you watch it? If yor answer is never, how can you criticise it ?
For much the same reason I can criticise Mein Kampf despite never having read it - I have a pretty good idea of the contents from the reporting of others and I know the utter knob jockey(s) responsible and the dangerous crap they say in other contexts.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that the motley crew of far right ideologues, conspiracy theorist whack jobs and assorted grifters presenting GBeebies suddenly become fair, reasonable people presenting a balanced case based on facts and evidence once they're on air?
Yes, and, in some cases, they believe they will find a safe haven here.
They may well be the subject of Hideous Fibs - even from our own government - but the fact remains that, for better or worse, they think they'll be better off here than back in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, or wherever.
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Lots of cartoonists using the crumbling concrete story as a metaphor for the Tory govt. I agree that the small boats crisis is deliberately engineered, but seems to backfire. I suppose they could blame Labour.
I keep reading this on here but I can't find any evidence of it. If it's the government idea to engineer it, why is it one of their 5 priorities to reduce it.
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Dealing with what? Processing the claims, or sending people to Rwanda?
Reducing the numbers, as specified in the governments 5 goals. I have heard that the French Police have prevented 15,000 leaving in small boats. Can we assume that they are all still in France ?
OK, so do you think sending people to Rwanda (or Ascension Island) is a good idea?
In addition, please can you provide a link to the source of your belief that 15000 people have been prevented from leaving France in small boats?
I heard it on GB News. .
Hmm - it's that evaluation of sources thing again isn't it?
You need to start watching GB news more often
Nobody needs to watch that heap of crap ever.
If that is where you get your news from Telford, it explains a lot. I will stick to the Beano - more accurate and a lot funnier.
How often do you watch it? If yor answer is never, how can you criticise it ?
Would you not agree that GB News has a certain reputation for ... er .... dreadfulness.
Usually among those who have never watched it.
Could you tell us why you think the critisms are wrong? Why should we watch GB News as opposed to the BBC News?
The news is the news and because I watch both I cannot detect much difference, if any. GB news is both informative and entertaining, All sides of any argument are represented.
How do you know? How would you know if a side in an argument was not represented?
Let me give you an example. They have a debate on Just stop oil protests. One of the organisers is invited along to explain themselves. They get a chance to do this without being shouted down.
How do you know? How would you know if a side in an argument was not represented?
Let me give you an example. They have a debate on Just stop oil protests. One of the organisers is invited along to explain themselves. They get a chance to do this without being shouted down.
Ok, but what about those who think Just Stop Oil aren't going far enough? And where does offering all sides of an argument drift into giving a platform to people who are making provably false claims? And why is it that JSO are expected to "explain themselves" as if they're somehow the problem. Do they also get the oil companies on to "explain themselves" about why they lied about climate change for so long? How arguments are framed, what questions are asked, and who or what is chosen as representing a "side" are all areas prone to manipulation. Even who gets treated as an "expert" vs an "activist" vs a "vested interest" matters a lot.
How do you know? How would you know if a side in an argument was not represented?
Let me give you an example. They have a debate on Just stop oil protests. One of the organisers is invited along to explain themselves. They get a chance to do this without being shouted down.
Ok, but what about those who think Just Stop Oil aren't going far enough? And where does offering all sides of an argument drift into giving a platform to people who are making provably false claims? And why is it that JSO are expected to "explain themselves" as if they're somehow the problem. Do they also get the oil companies on to "explain themselves" about why they lied about climate change for so long? How arguments are framed, what questions are asked, and who or what is chosen as representing a "side" are all areas prone to manipulation. Even who gets treated as an "expert" vs an "activist" vs a "vested interest" matters a lot.
People get very annoyed by the antics of Just stop oil. It gives them the opportunity to persuade the public that the protests are justified.
People get very annoyed by the antics of oil and gas companies who make vast profits from a product that's destroying the world, selling it to people who can't really afford it because the government has rigged the system so they have little real choice. Do the media get oil and gas executives in front of the public to explain why they have a business model that's not that dissimilar to a drug dealer.
How do you know? How would you know if a side in an argument was not represented?
Let me give you an example. They have a debate on Just stop oil protests. One of the organisers is invited along to explain themselves. They get a chance to do this without being shouted down.
Ok, but what about those who think Just Stop Oil aren't going far enough? And where does offering all sides of an argument drift into giving a platform to people who are making provably false claims? And why is it that JSO are expected to "explain themselves" as if they're somehow the problem. Do they also get the oil companies on to "explain themselves" about why they lied about climate change for so long? How arguments are framed, what questions are asked, and who or what is chosen as representing a "side" are all areas prone to manipulation. Even who gets treated as an "expert" vs an "activist" vs a "vested interest" matters a lot.
People get very annoyed by the antics of Just stop oil. It gives them the opportunity to persuade the public that the protests are justified.
See, that's the sort of biased framing I'm talking about (not least because the GBeebies crew are the ones encouraging people to rage against JSO). Can you not see how that is going produce a very different discussion from (for example) "the climate crisis requires urgent action, what are the fastest and most effective ways to push the government and private business to do what is necessary"?
Perhaps the most telling aspect of the systemic bias at play here is that this supposed balance has resulted repeatedly in you parroting inaccurate far right talking points and never, not once, an argument from the left.
How do you know? How would you know if a side in an argument was not represented?
Let me give you an example. They have a debate on Just stop oil protests. One of the organisers is invited along to explain themselves. They get a chance to do this without being shouted down.
Ok, but what about those who think Just Stop Oil aren't going far enough? And where does offering all sides of an argument drift into giving a platform to people who are making provably false claims? And why is it that JSO are expected to "explain themselves" as if they're somehow the problem. Do they also get the oil companies on to "explain themselves" about why they lied about climate change for so long? How arguments are framed, what questions are asked, and who or what is chosen as representing a "side" are all areas prone to manipulation. Even who gets treated as an "expert" vs an "activist" vs a "vested interest" matters a lot.
People get very annoyed by the antics of Just stop oil. It gives them the opportunity to persuade the public that the protests are justified.
See, that's the sort of biased framing I'm talking about (not least because the GBeebies crew are the ones encouraging people to rage against JSO). Can you not see how that is going produce a very different discussion from (for example) "the climate crisis requires urgent action, what are the fastest and most effective ways to push the government and private business to do what is necessary"?
Perhaps the most telling aspect of the systemic bias at play here is that this supposed balance has resulted repeatedly in you parroting inaccurate far right talking points and never, not once, an argument from the left.
But that's what most other posters already do.
I find that GB News criticises the government on a daily basis.
How do you know? How would you know if a side in an argument was not represented?
Let me give you an example. They have a debate on Just stop oil protests. One of the organisers is invited along to explain themselves. They get a chance to do this without being shouted down.
Ok, but what about those who think Just Stop Oil aren't going far enough? And where does offering all sides of an argument drift into giving a platform to people who are making provably false claims? And why is it that JSO are expected to "explain themselves" as if they're somehow the problem. Do they also get the oil companies on to "explain themselves" about why they lied about climate change for so long? How arguments are framed, what questions are asked, and who or what is chosen as representing a "side" are all areas prone to manipulation. Even who gets treated as an "expert" vs an "activist" vs a "vested interest" matters a lot.
People get very annoyed by the antics of Just stop oil. It gives them the opportunity to persuade the public that the protests are justified.
See, that's the sort of biased framing I'm talking about (not least because the GBeebies crew are the ones encouraging people to rage against JSO). Can you not see how that is going produce a very different discussion from (for example) "the climate crisis requires urgent action, what are the fastest and most effective ways to push the government and private business to do what is necessary"?
Perhaps the most telling aspect of the systemic bias at play here is that this supposed balance has resulted repeatedly in you parroting inaccurate far right talking points and never, not once, an argument from the left.
But that's what most other posters already do.
If someone repeatedly parroted inaccurate left-wing talking points which on questioning always came from the same source, then you'd have an equivalence.
I find that GB News criticises the government on a daily basis.
I would be intrigued to learn that any of those criticisms were that it's too right wing and harming marginalised groups.
Comments
It's a deflection. Make out there's a massive problem; make the problem bigger by failing to deal with it (ie by actually processing claims efficiently) the bring in grandiose daft schemes (like sending people to Rwanda) the failure of which is then blamed on lefties getting in the way.
Tory ministers are in fact on record as saying they don't want to speed up the processing of claims, allegedly because they think it will be a "pull" factor if people aren't stuck in dingey hotels and run down former barracks for months or years.
The solution is simple - let people seeking asylum buy tickets on cross-Channel ferries and put the criminals out of business. End of small boats. Then accelerate the claims process so it's a few weeks at most, which will eliminate the expensive hotels and barges. You've then got the workers the country needs - many refugees are skilled professionals (because they have the money for the journey, and also in many cases they're the targets of persecution because they're people of potential influence), though there may need to be a process of testing their skills given they might not have their paper work such as degree certificates to prove they have the skills, we could do with doctors, nurses, care workers etc.
As a voter I would be more impressed if they actually made progress in dealing with it
Fucking Serco again.
Dealing with what? Processing the claims, or sending people to Rwanda?
Reducing the numbers, as specified in the governments 5 goals. I have heard that the French Police have prevented 15,000 leaving in small boats. Can we assume that they are all still in France ?
I still don't get what's so dangerous about being in northern France. It's not like the boats are coming all the way from Afghanistan, Somalia, or wherever.
Especially the former.
They may well be the subject of Hideous Fibs - even from our own government - but the fact remains that, for better or worse, they think they'll be better off here than back in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, or wherever.
OK, so do you think sending people to Rwanda (or Ascension Island) is a good idea?
In addition, please can you provide a link to the source of your belief that 15000 people have been prevented from leaving France in small boats?
I heard it on GB News. .
Hmm - it's that evaluation of sources thing again isn't it?
My question about sending people to Rwanda remains unanswered, you will observe.
You need to start watching GB news more often
Going by the headlines that I occasionally see advertised at me by The Web, I'm pretty sure I need no such thing.
Would this be the same GB News that is registered as an *entertainment* channel, thus absolving it of any need to even attempt to avoid political bias? Whilst at the same time making its very name a lie? Sid and Doris Bonkers probably love that, those of us who understand evaluating our sources...
Meanwhile, there appears to be some hope that the Lords might banjax the Slithy Tove's attempt to increase pollution:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/05/tory-peers-could-stop-gove-plan-relax-pollution-rules-england
One gets the impression that the tories are hellbent on ruining just about everything they can before they are finally consigned to the Outer Darkness (complete with Weeping, and Gnashing of Teeth, got up regardless, no expense spared) that they so richly deserve.
They wish to be reunited with family members and go to a country where they speak the language, this is the flip side of Empire and foreign adventures.
Nobody needs to watch that heap of crap ever.
If that is where you get your news from Telford, it explains a lot. I will stick to the Beano - more accurate and a lot funnier.
Oh .. I dunno: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5Vxa32XAAA1Bh7?format=jpg&name=small
How often do you watch it? If yor answer is never, how can you criticise it ?
Sure, but that's a very different thing to Alan's claim that getting into a small boat is safer than staying on (French) land.
They're getting into small boats because they think the reward of getting to Britain is worth the risk of making the journey from France, not because they're desperate to escape from the existential threat of staying in France.
I don't think such a sharp distinction exists between the two cases. Many of these people are escaping from war zones and fear being sent back. In that situation being in contact with other family members and/or understanding the language well enough to improve ones chances at asylum can well be seen as an existential issue.
This is even before we get to the possibility of trauma, PTSD etc.
There's no reason to isolate one particular part of the journeys they're taking as being special in that regard. They set out to come to the UK, that they pass through France (which is safe, at least no less dangerous than the UK) and other nations is irrelevant.
Would you not agree that GB News has a certain reputation for ... er .... dreadfulness. Could you tell us why you think the critisms are wrong? Why should we watch GB News as opposed to the BBC News?
How would you argue your case in a court of law?
For much the same reason I can criticise Mein Kampf despite never having read it - I have a pretty good idea of the contents from the reporting of others and I know the utter knob jockey(s) responsible and the dangerous crap they say in other contexts.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that the motley crew of far right ideologues, conspiracy theorist whack jobs and assorted grifters presenting GBeebies suddenly become fair, reasonable people presenting a balanced case based on facts and evidence once they're on air?
How do you know? How would you know if a side in an argument was not represented?
Interesting, if rather alarming.
Are you worried about all news programmes then ?
Let me give you an example. They have a debate on Just stop oil protests. One of the organisers is invited along to explain themselves. They get a chance to do this without being shouted down.
Ok, but what about those who think Just Stop Oil aren't going far enough? And where does offering all sides of an argument drift into giving a platform to people who are making provably false claims? And why is it that JSO are expected to "explain themselves" as if they're somehow the problem. Do they also get the oil companies on to "explain themselves" about why they lied about climate change for so long? How arguments are framed, what questions are asked, and who or what is chosen as representing a "side" are all areas prone to manipulation. Even who gets treated as an "expert" vs an "activist" vs a "vested interest" matters a lot.
People get very annoyed by the antics of Just stop oil. It gives them the opportunity to persuade the public that the protests are justified.
See, that's the sort of biased framing I'm talking about (not least because the GBeebies crew are the ones encouraging people to rage against JSO). Can you not see how that is going produce a very different discussion from (for example) "the climate crisis requires urgent action, what are the fastest and most effective ways to push the government and private business to do what is necessary"?
Perhaps the most telling aspect of the systemic bias at play here is that this supposed balance has resulted repeatedly in you parroting inaccurate far right talking points and never, not once, an argument from the left.
I find that GB News criticises the government on a daily basis.
If someone repeatedly parroted inaccurate left-wing talking points which on questioning always came from the same source, then you'd have an equivalence.
I would be intrigued to learn that any of those criticisms were that it's too right wing and harming marginalised groups.
Of course. For the usual licensing fee, naturally.