Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
Border force being G4s ..... outsourced by the Tories to one of Soames companies in 2012.......after they had fucked up the security at the Olympics
Priti Vacant has a plan, a deal with migrants plan.
- Thread starter Rascal
- Start date
Border force being G4s ..... outsourced by the Tories to one of Soames companies in 2012.......after they had fucked up the security at the Olympics
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 58,804
Bodicoteblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 5,883
Given this govts. propensity for bare-faced lies, not only to we the people, but even to the monarch herself (RIP) and the continuing degradation of our rights and freedoms, with worse to come disguised as the ‘bonfire of regulations’ reaching into our lives and jobs with serious consequences, and the alacrity with which they will disregard and break laws, domestic and international, as well as the sneering blatant contempt with they treat us, does anybody not think that there is the slightest possibility that they might be working towards creating the kind of ‘national emergency’ type scenario where the suspension of the democratic process itself could be ‘justified’.
Nothing seems too far-fetched anymore.
Ah, the wider influences of morality and truth.
Hey, you're talking about the good old woke days when we used to write the international laws to protect people.
Sometimes I get involved in the threads (after the cool aid) at other times I just enjoy to read what people write. There are some interesting people on here.
Like I said the other day, currently I'm more interested in who is the 'boss' so to speak, rather than the actual issue of channel crossings.
For example, look at this from the beginning of the year:
Royal Navy unlikely to pursue Channel refugee ‘pushback’ policy
Military preparing options for No 10 but use of warships to turn back refugees seen as disproportionate
www.theguardian.com
One line jumps out: "Navy sources said officers had little interest in carrying out the "pushback" policy put forward by Priti Patel
Now, assuming Patel was acting under the authority of the PM, one could re-write that as Navy sources said officers had little interest in carrying out the "pushback" policy put forward by Boris Johnson
In 1982, when Margaret Thatcher ordered HMS Conqueror to attack and sink the General Belgrano cruiser in the Falklands War was there any debate about it (pushback!) or did the Officers on the sub just do what they were told to do?
What has changed in the intervening years so that the Navy now acts differently?
I don't care if it is right or wrong, what I'm asking is who is in charge of who?
P.S. To all the people saying we can't do x, y or z on this (e.g. the Rwanda plan) because its against international law, well sinking that ship (outsize the exclusion zone) must have broken international laws too - killing 323 people - did the United Nations round on Britain, did America end its 'special relationship'? I don't recall so
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
we were at war with a foreign power then whereas now we are not at war with refugee's in dinghies for a start
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 58,804
How come you didn’t respond to the “if your boss told you to murder somebody, why wouldn’t you do it? Who’s really in charge?” part?
Good grief. We're not at war with refugees. Would you welcome the Sun's GOTCHA headline for a sunk dinghy?Sometimes I get involved in the threads (after the cool aid) at other times I just enjoy to read what people write. There are some interesting people on here.
Like I said the other day, currently I'm more interested in who is the 'boss' so to speak, rather than the actual issue of channel crossings.
For example, look at this from the beginning of the year:
Royal Navy unlikely to pursue Channel refugee ‘pushback’ policy
Military preparing options for No 10 but use of warships to turn back refugees seen as disproportionate
One line jumps out: "Navy sources said officers had little interest in carrying out the "pushback" policy put forward by Priti Patel
Now, assuming Patel was acting under the authority of the PM, one could re-write that as Navy sources said officers had little interest in carrying out the "pushback" policy put forward by Boris Johnson
In 1982, when Margaret Thatcher ordered HMS Conqueror to attack and sink the General Belgrano cruiser in the Falklands War was there any debate about it (pushback!) or did the Officers on the sub just do what they were told to do?
What has changed in the intervening years so that the Navy now acts differently?
I don't care if it is right or wrong, what I'm asking is who is in charge of who?
P.S. To all the people saying we can't do x, y or z on this (e.g. the Rwanda plan) because its against international law, well sinking that ship (outsize the exclusion zone) must have broken international laws too - killing 323 people - did the United Nations round on Britain, did America end its 'special relationship'? I don't recall so
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 16,715