What is that "mate" of mine Sadiq Khan trying to achieve ?

 

You lost you demented little cretin, get over it and concentrate on your job you terrorist sympathiser.

5 hours ago, royal white said:

Fkinell another M0ng. It helps if you know what’s being discussed “if safe and legal routes do come in”

 

It’s not hard is it. 

 

Is the question you are asking 'if we have safe and legal routes and someone using an unsafe and illegal route should we send them back ?'

If so the answer is - When they arrive the question is why did you use an unsafe and illegal route and if they do not have a legitimate reason they should be deported.
 

The second bit I think you are asking us that if we have safe and legal routes for everyone will it stop the boats ? In terms of asylum seekers yes.

In terms of illegal immigrants who want to just come here but not claim citizenship , well if they are illegal there can not by definition do so by a legal route so there likelihood of getting a boat won't be affected. 

21 minutes ago, Ani said:

Is the question you are asking 'if we have safe and legal routes and someone using an unsafe and illegal route should we send them back ?'

If so the answer is - When they arrive the question is why did you use an unsafe and illegal route and if they do not have a legitimate reason they should be deported.
 

The second bit I think you are asking us that if we have safe and legal routes for everyone will it stop the boats ? In terms of asylum seekers yes.

In terms of illegal immigrants who want to just come here but not claim citizenship , well if they are illegal there can not by definition do so by a legal route so there likelihood of getting a boat won't be affected. 

So we need some kind of deterrent then. 

5 minutes ago, royal white said:

So we need some kind of deterrent then. 

We would need a deterrent for illegal immigrants, but not for asylum seekers. As all asylum seekers would use safe routes.

The Rwanda scheme is for asylum seekers i think. 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-61782866.amp 

14 minutes ago, royal white said:

So we need some kind of deterrent then. 

What would you suggest as a deterrent old bean?

Edited June 30, 20232 yr by gonzo

39 minutes ago, gonzo said:

What would you suggest as a deterrent old bean?

Not a clue, way above my pay scale. But it’s blatantly obvious we need one, not sure why some folk are against them 

Edited June 30, 20232 yr by royal white

5 minutes ago, royal white said:

Not a clue, way above my pay scale. But it’s blatantly obvious we need one, not sure why some folk are against it. 

Tbf you question comes with a massive caveat 'if we have safe and legal' 

If you think once we have safe and legal passage for everyone you are left with unsafe and illegal and we need deterrents against anything illegal. (In my 3 attempts we needed detergents !)

 

Good Night - enjoy the night shift 👍😘 

2 minutes ago, Ani said:

Tbf you question comes with a massive caveat 'if we have safe and legal' 

If you think once we have safe and legal passage for everyone you are left with unsafe and illegal and we need deterrents against anything illegal. (In my 3 attempts we needed detergents !)

 

Good Night - enjoy the night shift 👍😘 

I’m asking it as I’m under the impression another party will be in power after the next GE and I thought the Labour rep mentioned it on QT the other night, it’s one of labours proposals. 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

Toodle pip 

8 hours ago, Casino said:

Because there isnt a safe and legal route, you clown

Watch the video

Reet, youre either thick as fuck or taking the piss

See if cheese will play, but iamoot

 

This new approach will never get old  1/10. Expect better.

4 hours ago, London Wanderer said:

Just keep calling everyone you disagree with m0ngs, that’ll do it 👍

Give it an hour and he’ll be saying you’re shite at your job.

Some top level debating skills there.

Another selective post from "Mr. Fairandequitable". I take it your eco filter prevents you seeing insults flying the other way?

1 hour ago, royal white said:

Not a clue, way above my pay scale. But it’s blatantly obvious we need one, not sure why some folk are against them 

Because they appear to be incapable of seeing the problems which would inevitably arise if intake continues or even grows. It would be easy for me to say 'fuck it' let them get what they appear to be voting for and learn the hard way (as they will next year). Sometimes it is necessary and the only way.

I have extended family there and would prefer for them not to experience the inevitable strain on services which is already there but due to multiply year on year.

Too many apparently insurmountable issues starting with no government (or politician) with the iron will to ditch the ECHR and other EU leftover laws and really get to work on solutions which might have the side effect of most of the marigolds sobbing into their lace handkerchiefs.

8 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

Because they appear to be incapable of seeing the problems which would inevitably arise if intake continues or even grows. It would be easy for me to say 'fuck it' let them get what they appear to be voting for and learn the hard way (as they will next year). Sometimes it is necessary and the only way.

I have extended family there and would prefer for them not to experience the inevitable strain on services which is already there but due to multiply year on year.

Too many apparently insurmountable issues starting with no government (or politician) with the iron will to ditch the ECHR and other EU leftover laws and really get to work on solutions which might have the side effect of most of the marigolds sobbing into their lace handkerchiefs.

I honestly don’t get it. Yes give them safe routes, those who want to come and are able to then crack on, still it doesn’t stop the 10s of thousands who want to get over here by any means necessary. We’ve also got the problem with approx a million people already here illegally, I wonder how the next government are going to deal with that? 

Once we open up enough safe & legal routes can we cap the numbers we allow in or are we just leaving the door open? And will that satisfy those who seem to advocate we take ever increasing numbers because it’s morally and ethically the right thing to do. 🙄

Edited July 1, 20232 yr by Mounts Kipper

6 hours ago, royal white said:

I honestly don’t get it. Yes give them safe routes, those who want to come and are able to then crack on, still it doesn’t stop the 10s of thousands who want to get over here by any means necessary. We’ve also got the problem with approx a million people already here illegally, I wonder how the next government are going to deal with that? 

Hopefully a bit better than the current cluster fuck on the back of 13 years of Tory power.

Taking back control.

9 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Once we open up enough safe & legal routes can we cap the numbers we allow in or are we just leaving the door open? And will that satisfy those who seem to advocate we take ever increasing numbers because it’s morally and ethically the right thing to do. 🙄

We can do whatever we want. The fact is the current lot have done fuck all. Let's assume @royal white is right that they're a million here illegally. That means they are unable to work and contribute in any way. We are taking on average 18 months to process them and having to put them up in barges , hotels whatever. 
I am sure anyone who has worked in any job will know if you have a blockage in any process you work to get that fixed so the process can work well. They have ignored the problem and let it build up. Absolute neglect as they have chosen to focus money and resource on the Rwanda plan. This trial will take 1000 and we will take some from them. So we no longer have 1m we have 999000 ! Why not put all that time and effort into processing the backlog? 
 

At the moment the message is get to the UK, you get at least 18 months before they start to look at you. If that was the 6 months it is meant to be that would be a bigger deterrent than knowing that 0.1% might get sent to Rwanda. 
 

Then whilst being processed you will expected to take on suitable work, which if you do not have proof of suitable qualifications picking fruit and cleaning toilets. 

1 minute ago, Ani said:

We can do whatever we want. The fact is the current lot have done fuck all. Let's assume @royal white is right that they're a million here illegally. That means they are unable to work and contribute in any way. We are taking on average 18 months to process them and having to put them up in barges , hotels whatever. 
I am sure anyone who has worked in any job will know if you have a blockage in any process you work to get that fixed so the process can work well. They have ignored the problem and let it build up. Absolute neglect as they have chosen to focus money and resource on the Rwanda plan. This trial will take 1000 and we will take some from them. So we no longer have 1m we have 999000 ! Why not put all that time and effort into processing the backlog? 
 

At the moment the message is get to the UK, you get at least 18 months before they start to look at you. If that was the 6 months it is meant to be that would be a bigger deterrent than knowing that 0.1% might get sent to Rwanda. 
 

Then whilst being processed you will expected to take on suitable work, which if you do not have proof of suitable qualifications picking fruit and cleaning toilets. 

I agree with you, but that wasn’t my question. 

1 minute ago, Mounts Kipper said:

I agree with you, but that wasn’t my question. 

The answer to your question was the first line we can do whatever we want, rather than doing nothing as the problem grows.

Will everyone be happy ? No. There will always be too many for some and the controls too strict for others but instead of reacting to the extremes start will the vast majority in the middle and demonstrate we are progressing and solving the problem.

16 hours ago, Casino said:

Thr deterrent is you get processed in a month and fucked off

That’s it. Precisely that.

At least some of us know how this should actually work.

7 hours ago, bolty58 said:

Because they appear to be incapable of seeing the problems which would inevitably arise if intake continues or even grows. It would be easy for me to say 'fuck it' let them get what they appear to be voting for and learn the hard way (as they will next year). Sometimes it is necessary and the only way.

I have extended family there and would prefer for them not to experience the inevitable strain on services which is already there but due to multiply year on year.

Too many apparently insurmountable issues starting with no government (or politician) with the iron will to ditch the ECHR and other EU leftover laws and really get to work on solutions which might have the side effect of most of the marigolds sobbing into their lace handkerchiefs.

Extended family here.

Who are experiencing strain on services.

I hope they didn’t vote Tory or one might suggest it’s their own fault and they need to take ownership of their clearly terrible decision.

Again, you do seem to be getting there and realising this 13 year run of diarrhoea is finally being exposed for what it is.

Well done old timer.

40 minutes ago, Ani said:

The answer to your question was the first line we can do whatever we want, rather than doing nothing as the problem grows.

Will everyone be happy ? No. There will always be too many for some and the controls too strict for others but instead of reacting to the extremes start will the vast majority in the middle and demonstrate we are progressing and solving the problem.

It seems not, every time government attempt to deal with illegal immigration there is a backlash from the left, woke, liberals, immigration charities, resulting in a court case, most folk want our government to actually be able to govern without oversight by the aforementioned do gooders, if that means we have to review or actively push for change in outdated international law, then so be it. 

1 minute ago, Mounts Kipper said:

It seems not, every time government attempt to deal with illegal immigration there is a backlash from the left, woke, liberals, immigration charities, resulting in a court case, most folk want our government to actually be able to govern without oversight by the aforementioned do gooders, if that means we have to review or actively push for change in outdated international law, then so be it. 

So you think the solution is, the Government should be allowed to break the law, instead of doing their actual fucking job. Jesus wept.

8 hours ago, bolty58 said:

Another selective post from "Mr. Fairandequitable". I take it your eco filter prevents you seeing insults flying the other way?

We’re all cunts ❤️ 

Hope ya have a nice day, Bolsonaro de Bolty. 

8 minutes ago, Cheese said:

So you think the solution is, the Government should be allowed to break the law, instead of doing their actual fucking job. Jesus wept.

Nope… actively push to change law, did you miss that sentence. 

21 minutes ago, Spider said:

That’s it. Precisely that.

At least some of us know how this should actually work.

They also seem to be forgetting that concerns over immigration have dropped way down in the polls. Now sitting far behind the cost of living, the economy and climate change. Sitting at no fckin 8 in this chart.

 What a waste of money and time this Rwanda fiasco has been. 

Clear the backlog and let’s have much bigger sentences for traffickers and start catching them. Let’s also let those waiting work in the process, so we don’t have to pay them and they can have some dignity in the process. 
 

And then can we move on and grapple with the issues voters most care about.

Illegals know that as things stand they get bed and board for 3 months and will then sidle anonymously into the darkness.

If they know the UK has a bulletproof processing system, they will eventually learn that we’re not a soft touch.

But as things stand, they’re a vote winner. A pawn to be pushed around the political chess board.

And the ruddier cheeked “patriots” fall for it every single time.

Nobody wants illegal migrants here to take the piss. But that can be sorted. We do need genuine migrants and we should be doing our bit for those in real need of our help.

Theyre handy, though, when a headline is required.

6 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Nope… actively push to change law, did you miss that sentence. 

Why not just do their job properly? You do realise this "crisis" is entirely of their own making, don't you?