Priti Vacant has a plan, a deal with migrants plan.

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Well if you make life easier for people then naturally more people will make an application. If that application fails it doesn't mean they will give up, they may well get on a boat and risk their lives anyhow.

It seems controlling borders and having a figure that is acceptable isn't workable. Current world events seem to determine immigration levels rather than any thought out plan or policy. The only way to try and limit it is by costly obstacles.

A daft yank tried to sell a wall whereas the reality is holding your hands up and saying what the hell can you do.

If people know their application won’t be accepted, they’re far more likely not to make the crossing?

They‘re not coming across to bypass the system, they’re coming across to be processed by the system.

 

[hilts]

If people know their application won’t be accepted, they’re far more likely not to make the crossing?

They‘re not coming across to bypass the system, they’re coming across to be processed by the system.

In fairness that is your presumption. We have been here before if you are for no limits that is fine. If you accept that limitless numbers isn't realistic what happens when that limit is reached.

Its easy to argue against a policy that you believe has no negatives. We could all say let all genuine cases in no exceptions until the day came when it was a problem. Then you have to back track and try and solve an unsolvable situation.

The laws on asylum seekers in particular look great on paper but it seems like they were drafted in different times.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

In fairness that is your presumption. We have been here before if you are for no limits that is fine. If you accept that limitless numbers isn't realistic what happens when that limit is reached.

Its easy to argue against a policy that you believe has no negatives. We could all say let all genuine cases in no exceptions until the day came when it was a problem. Then you have to back track and try and solve an unsolvable situation.

The laws on asylum seekers in particular look great on paper but it seems like they were drafted in different times.

The figures show why people cross. 75% are accepted for asylum after appeal.

If they could be processed on foreign soil, they could travel here more safely.

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

With 'Buddhist' Braverman having taken over, we can probably expect something like this:

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Johnson promoted somebody knowing they were a sex-pest and protected somebody who was using his position to line his own position. A bit of bullying is very much accepted in this party.

To be fair to Johnson, Theresa May was also guilty of this. Pincher resigned a position in 2017 following an incident and was welcomed back into government in 2018.

Pincher rejoined the British government in January 2018 as Treasurer of the Household.[30] He was appointed to the Privy Council in November 2018.[31]

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

To be fair to Johnson, Theresa May was also guilty of this. Pincher resigned a position in 2017 following an incident and was welcomed back into government in 2018.

Pincher rejoined the British government in January 2018 as Treasurer of the Household.[30] He was appointed to the Privy Council in November 2018.[31]

Just shows that the Tories have very low moral standards and little insight to how the rest of the country works.

 

[stonerblue]

Is it me you are looking for..

Well I wondered..

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Well I wondered..

Are you somewhere feeling lonely or is someone loving you?

 

[stonerblue]

Are you somewhere feeling lonely or is someone loving you?

Both

 

[El_george]

Sadly, Braverman is no better.

I was thinking to start a new thread on something, but it is probably appropriate here. Because of all the Royal news, this has perhaps gone under the Radar somewhat:

Revealed: Suella Braverman sets Home Office ‘No boats crossing the Channel’ target

New home secretary upsets civil servants with speech on migrants, trashy TV and back-to-office call

www.theguardian.com

What I am interested in is not the actual article itself, or the issue of migrants per se, but this: who is actually running the country?

We all have a good laugh at 'Yes Minister' and 'Yes Prime Minister' but actually its beginning to bother me a bit. Things like: 'The new home secretary has already prompted consternation among Home Office officials after telling them she wants to ban all small boats crossing the Channel....' Oh really! but we elect the government - we don't elect civil servants, so perhaps they should keep their views to themselves and do their fukcing job - which is what Patel and now Braverman tells them to do.

The other thing annoying me is this: 'During her address last week, Braverman – who is expected to adopt an even more hardline agenda than Patel – also prompted widespread discontent from thousands of Home Office staff by challenging their working practices.'

I was told to get my arce back into work some 14 months ago - so how come these 'civil servants' can just do what they want and carry on with this hybrid working thing - especially if the boss says end it? Or have I misunderstood who is the boss of who?

To develop this further: look at this one

British navy rejects plan to push back Channel migrant boats

Britain's navy has rejected a plan to turn away boats illegally carrying migrants to its shores when it takes over responsibility for trying to stop people crossing the English Channel in small dinghies.

www.reuters.com

So again, who is in charge of whom? Do the government tell the Navy what to do (which I assumed was the case) or is it now the other way around and when did that change happen?