Channel deaths | Four confirmed dead after migrant boat tragically capsizes (p 41)

[bluethrunthru]

Tories tell lies

 

[Vic]

They know there are no safe legal routes but they persist with lies

Is that someone boiling piss next to her?

 

[Corky]

Tories tell lies

Both data could be correct, one was saying last 12 months' arrivals, one was saying decisions since 2018 which arrived at least 5 years before to get a decision, if lucky.

It also doesn't take into account those who disappear and never get a decision in the 53%.

 

[El_george]

I know my views and well my politics in general are a bit out of step with most on here - although having said that I myself are now despairing of this current lot: Johnson/Truss and now Sunak..... all clowns.

But can someone explain the politics of this to me:

On Tuesday Sunak announces a new 5 point plan on migration and says this - “I said enough is enough, and I mean it. And that means I am prepared to do what must be done. So early next year we will introduce new legislation to make unambiguously clear that if you enter the UK illegally, you should not be able to remain here.

Instead you will be detained and swiftly returned, either to your home country, or to a safe country where your asylum claim will be considered. And you will no longer be able to frustrate removal attempts with late or spurious claims or appeals.”

Furthermore, he has previously stated his support for the Rwanda plan.

Then yesterday, I read this: "Rishi Sunak has rejected calls by dozens of Conservative MPs to toughen up his asylum plans further by ignoring rulings from the European court of human rights over the deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Downing Street said it opposed a short bill introduced on Wednesday by the Tory backbencher Jonathan Gullis to allow the government to remove asylum seekers even if that went against against the judgment of the European court, which oversees the implementation of the convention, or other international law.

The proposal, which Gullis said would ensure “parliament, not unaccountable foreign judges in Europe, have the final say” on the UK’s asylum system, was backed by the former prime minister, Boris Johnson, and other senior Tory MPs, including Priti Patel, the former home secretary and architect of the Rwanda scheme.

Gullis’s bid was rejected by MPs by 188 votes to 69, but the scale of support it attracted from the Conservative benches highlights deep splits within the party, with dozens of MPs, many of them representing red wall seats and enough to overturn the prime minister’s majority, pressing for him to toughen up his plans."

(https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...rights-court-rulings-over-rwanda-deportations)

So even though they still have a sizeable majority, because of abstentions by (most) of the government, the Bill failed at the first hurdle.

I don't understand. It is as if the Torys want to lose the next election, because yet again they are talking tough on migration, but when it comes to actually really doing something about it - e.g. flights to Rwanda (and in the future, maybe other places) they bow down to European Law, so nothing will ever change. Sunak can say in the New Year "we will introduce new legislation to make unambiguously clear that if you enter the UK illegally, you should not be able to remain here." But whilst there remains a court with powers above the UK law, it means diddly squat.

P.S. Another question: why hasn't Suella Braverman not resigned today? That Downing Street opposed the Gullis plan to ensure “parliament, not unaccountable foreign judges in Europe, have the final say on the UK’s asylum system." must go against everything she believes in (even her predecessor endorsed it) I just don't get it.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I know my views and well my politics in general are a bit out of step with most on here - although having said that I myself are now despairing of this current lot: Johnson/Truss and now Sunak..... all clowns.

But can someone explain the politics of this to me:

On Tuesday Sunak announces a new 5 point plan on migration and says this - “I said enough is enough, and I mean it. And that means I am prepared to do what must be done. So early next year we will introduce new legislation to make unambiguously clear that if you enter the UK illegally, you should not be able to remain here.

Instead you will be detained and swiftly returned, either to your home country, or to a safe country where your asylum claim will be considered. And you will no longer be able to frustrate removal attempts with late or spurious claims or appeals.”

Furthermore, he has previously stated his support for the Rwanda plan.

Then yesterday, I read this: "Rishi Sunak has rejected calls by dozens of Conservative MPs to toughen up his asylum plans further by ignoring rulings from the Europesan court of human rights over the deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Downing Street said it opposed a short bill introduced on Wednesday by the Tory backbencher Jonathan Gullis to allow the government to remove asylum seekers even if that went against against the judgment of the European court, which oversees the implementation of the convention, or other international law.

The proposal, which Gullis said would ensure “parliament, not unaccountable foreign judges in Europe, have the final say” on the UK’s asylum system, was backed by the former prime minister, Boris Johnson, and other senior Tory MPs, including Priti Patel, the former home secretary and architect of the Rwanda scheme.

Gullis’s bid was rejected by MPs by 188 votes to 69, but the scale of support it attracted from the Conservative benches highlights deep splits within the party, with dozens of MPs, many of them representing red wall seats and enough to overturn the prime minister’s majority, pressing for him to toughen up his plans."

(https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...rights-court-rulings-over-rwanda-deportations)

So even though they still have a sizeable majority, because of absentions by (most) of the government, the Bill failed at the first hurdle.

I don't understand. It is as if the Torys want to lose the next election, because yet again they are talking tough on migration, but when it comes to actually really doing something about it - e.g. flights to Rwanda (and in the future, maybe other places) they bow down to European Law, so nothing will ever change.

Are you one of those people who buys stuff from late night shopping channels?

 

[domalino]

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Farage plays that card, as does GB News and TalkTV, though they never put it in such bold terms.

The right wing outrage around Ngozi Fulani was very much about ethnic nationalism and the cultural identity that supposidly flows from it. The argument being that if Ngozi Fulani can cling to her ethnic origins by adopting a confected West African name and a composite West African costume, despite the fact she was born here, and then use it to undermine a pillar of the British establishment, then it's OK for a pasty faced Brit of Anglo Saxon/Norman ancestry and the cultural identity that flows from that to tell her to fuck off.

Multiculturalism! What a lark it is.

​

Isn't she just reclaiming a heritage that was taken away from her ancesters?

Old name seems to come as a gift from slavers.

In a country where Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Battenberg can become Windsor and Mountbatten, and Ján Ludvík Hyman Binyamin Hoch can become Robert Maxwell, what's the problem with going the other way?

Can the Anglo Saxon pride cunts at least go back to middle or Olde English names like Aethelred and Alfric so we know who to avoid.

 

[west didsblue]

I know my views and well my politics in general are a bit out of step with most on here - although having said that I myself are now despairing of this current lot: Johnson/Truss and now Sunak..... all clowns.

But can someone explain the politics of this to me:

On Tuesday Sunak announces a new 5 point plan on migration and says this - “I said enough is enough, and I mean it. And that means I am prepared to do what must be done. So early next year we will introduce new legislation to make unambiguously clear that if you enter the UK illegally, you should not be able to remain here.

Instead you will be detained and swiftly returned, either to your home country, or to a safe country where your asylum claim will be considered. And you will no longer be able to frustrate removal attempts with late or spurious claims or appeals.”

Furthermore, he has previously stated his support for the Rwanda plan.

Then yesterday, I read this: "Rishi Sunak has rejected calls by dozens of Conservative MPs to toughen up his asylum plans further by ignoring rulings from the Europesan court of human rights over the deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Downing Street said it opposed a short bill introduced on Wednesday by the Tory backbencher Jonathan Gullis to allow the government to remove asylum seekers even if that went against against the judgment of the European court, which oversees the implementation of the convention, or other international law.

The proposal, which Gullis said would ensure “parliament, not unaccountable foreign judges in Europe, have the final say” on the UK’s asylum system, was backed by the former prime minister, Boris Johnson, and other senior Tory MPs, including Priti Patel, the former home secretary and architect of the Rwanda scheme.

Gullis’s bid was rejected by MPs by 188 votes to 69, but the scale of support it attracted from the Conservative benches highlights deep splits within the party, with dozens of MPs, many of them representing red wall seats and enough to overturn the prime minister’s majority, pressing for him to toughen up his plans."

(https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...rights-court-rulings-over-rwanda-deportations)

So even though they still have a sizeable majority, because of abstentions by (most) of the government, the Bill failed at the first hurdle.

I don't understand. It is as if the Torys want to lose the next election, because yet again they are talking tough on migration, but when it comes to actually really doing something about it - e.g. flights to Rwanda (and in the future, maybe other places) they bow down to European Law, so nothing will ever change. Sunak can say in the New Year "we will introduce new legislation to make unambiguously clear that if you enter the UK illegally, you should not be able to remain here." But whilst there remains a court with powers above the UK law, it means diddly squat.

P.S. Another question: why hasn't Suella Braverman not resigned today? That Downing Street opposed the Gullis plan to ensure “parliament, not unaccountable foreign judges in Europe, have the final say on the UK’s asylum system." must go against everything she believes in (even her predecessor endorsed it) I just don't get it.

Most of us don’t base our political views on 40 year old sitcoms so it’s no surprise you’re a little out of step with the majority.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Isn't she just reclaiming a heritage that was taken away from her ancesters?

Old name seems to come as a gift from slavers.

In a country where Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Battenberg can become Windsor and Mountbatten, and Ján Ludvík Hyman Binyamin Hoch can become Robert Maxwell, what's the problem with going the other way?

Can the Anglo Saxon pride cunts at least go back to middle or Olde English names like Aethelred and Alfric so we know who to avoid.

Have you ever wondered why American school kids sing the Star Spangled Banner each morning and raise the Stars and Stripes?

They do this and many other things to bind their country together, to create a common purpose, a more perfect union, a common identity as American citizens, not just a collection of various ethnic groups with little in common. These things do not subvert difference, they create a commonality between citizens, shaped around shared values. Because if citizens of a country don't have at least some shared values, everything falls apart.

Multiculturalism flies in the face of that, it states simply that there is no prevailing culture in this country and in so doing there is no commonality, nothing that binds us together, no common purpose. Of course you, me, Ngozi Fulani can call ourselves what we want, wear what we want, identify with what we want, but without shared values eventually we have nothing in common whatsoever, to quote Theresa May, we become citizens of nowhere.

 

[El_george]

Most of us don’t base our political views on 40 year old sitcoms so it’s no surprise you’re a little out of step with the majority.

Well 'Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister' just couldn't be made in the current time - as half of Civil Servants are still working from home!