Politics

[bolty58]

3 hours ago, burnden said:

Just read on twatter that the uk is sending 19 million quid to Pakistan to deal with child exploitation.?

Also read (telegraph) the government are offering migrants £100 a week (on top of what they already get) to move out of hotels.

 

Mental

 

Unbelievable until you sit back and consider who is in power atm

It all makes sense then.

[Winchester White]

1 minute ago, bolty58 said:

No. Not ever.

None is so blind as he who will not see.

Matters not - the chickens are finally coming home to roost.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see" Jeremiah 5:21

I have said this to you before and you are still so blind and even get the quote wrong. 

[bolty58]

11 minutes ago, Winchester White said:

"There are none so blind as those who will not see" Jeremiah 5:21

I have said this to you before and you are still so blind and even get the quote wrong. 

I'll leave the semantics to you biblical types.

Fuck off.

[Winchester White]

1 minute ago, bolty58 said:

I'll leave the semantics to you biblical types.

Fuck off.

😬

[Spider]

11 minutes ago, Winchester White said:

😬

His chubby fingers aren’t helping

[royal white]

Does anyone on here disagree with this statement?

 

 

[Bertie]

3 hours ago, royal white said:

Does anyone on here disagree with this statement?

 

 

Nope…..as long as we don’t do anything illegal ourselves. We have to be better than that at least.

[bolty58]

3 hours ago, royal white said:

Does anyone on here disagree with this statement?

 

 

I would think that criticism from those two absolute clowns should be worn as a badge of honour. One sucks up to terrorists, the other is trying to convince women he can increase the size of their tits with hypnotism and we all know where this would lead.

[bolty58]

40 minutes ago, Bertie said:

Nope…..as long as we don’t do anything illegal ourselves. We have to be better than that at least.

Define 'illegal'. Against foreign laws or against our own? I have a hunch ours will be changing a little in 2029.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

43 minutes ago, Bertie said:

Nope…..as long as we don’t do anything illegal ourselves. We have to be better than that at least.

No chance of us doing anything "illegal" is there!

SKS would see to that. 

Unfortunately, he doesn't seem arsed about doing anything "legal" neither.

[Bertie]

1 minute ago, bolty58 said:

Define 'illegal'. Against foreign laws or against our own? I have a hunch ours will be changing a little in 2029.

Our own. Goes back to the main reason I voted Brexit. That way if we don’t like them we can vote for a different government and change them. Democracy.

[bolty58]

2 minutes ago, Bertie said:

Our own. Goes back to the main reason I voted Brexit. That way if we don’t like them we can vote for a different government and change them. Democracy.

You just went up in my estimation.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

6 minutes ago, Bertie said:

Our own. Goes back to the main reason I voted Brexit. That way if we don’t like them we can vote for a different government and change them. Democracy.

🙌

The former big two parties will get the message sooner or later.

In fairness to both, a good number of non-eu trade deals have since been agreed. Which is a start (putting aside the quality of any agreements).

So much more to do though.

[Sweep]

4 hours ago, royal white said:

Does anyone on here disagree with this statement?

 

 

I don't disagree at all, but he certainly knew what he was doing when he used the word "hostile" which was used deliberately to provoke some sort of reaction.

[London Wanderer]

3 hours ago, royal white said:

Does anyone on here disagree with this statement?

 

 

“Would I make life so uncomfortable for these illegals that they chose to leave themselves, before they were forcibly turfed out? Yes. Yes I do”

That would depend on what he means by ‘make so uncomfortable that they chose to leave’. These people are happy to risk drowning on a packed boat in the freezing cold. You’d have to put them through pretty grim conditions to force them out. Which is probably why his comments have been interpreted as nasty.

 

We clearly can’t take everyone , even genuine refugees. The numbers are just too high. Things need to change , but why can’t we treat people humanely in the meantime ? 

[Zico]

7 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

“Would I make life so uncomfortable for these illegals that they chose to leave themselves, before they were forcibly turfed out? Yes. Yes I do”

That would depend on what he means by ‘make so uncomfortable that they chose to leave’. These people are happy to risk drowning on a packed boat in the freezing cold. You’d have to put them through pretty grim conditions to force them out. Which is probably why his comments have been interpreted as nasty.

 

We clearly can’t take everyone , even genuine refugees. The numbers are just too high. Things need to change , but why can’t we treat people humanely in the meantime ? 

I'm sure it will be about confining them to camps, where they can't leave

As opposed to getting digs, cash, freedom to do whatever they want while they wait for a decision which they will appeal and drag out

With some getting up to no good, committing crime etc probably out of boredom

If they were confined somewhere, many issues would be avoided I'm sure

It's not working at the minute, I'm not sure about extreme measures, need to find a middle ground 

[DazBob]

1 hour ago, bolty58 said:

Define 'illegal'. Against foreign laws or against our own? I have a hunch ours will be changing a little in 2029.

Ours?

[Cheese]

23 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

We clearly can’t take everyone , even genuine refugees. The numbers are just too high. Things need to change , but why can’t we treat people humanely in the meantime ? 

Because the Right think cruelty is the best tool to solve almost any issue.

[royal white]

2 hours ago, London Wanderer said:

“Would I make life so uncomfortable for these illegals that they chose to leave themselves, before they were forcibly turfed out? Yes. Yes I do”

That would depend on what he means by ‘make so uncomfortable that they chose to leave’. These people are happy to risk drowning on a packed boat in the freezing cold. You’d have to put them through pretty grim conditions to force them out. Which is probably why his comments have been interpreted as nasty.

 

We clearly can’t take everyone , even genuine refugees. The numbers are just too high. Things need to change , but why can’t we treat people humanely in the meantime ? 

There’s a difference between being uncomfortable for a couple of hours and a couple of months. 

[Sweep]

1 hour ago, Cheese said:

Because the Right think cruelty is the best tool to solve almost any issue.

It may not be the best way, but it may be the quickest way to reduce the crossings (although, we could put them in concentration camps and feed them bread and water, and they'd still come in their droves)

[London Wanderer]

3 hours ago, Zico said:

I'm sure it will be about confining them to camps, where they can't leave

As opposed to getting digs, cash, freedom to do whatever they want while they wait for a decision which they will appeal and drag out

With some getting up to no good, committing crime etc probably out of boredom

If they were confined somewhere, many issues would be avoided I'm sure

It's not working at the minute, I'm not sure about extreme measures, need to find a middle ground 

I get that, it would still be very expensive though. Money saved if you’re not giving an allowance though. I’ve no idea what the stats are regarding new arrivals and crime, so couldn’t say if it would make a significant difference to reducing issues.

But Rupert Lowe said he would make life so uncomfortable for these that they choose to leave themselves.

The changes you’ve suggested might be popular with the public, but they aren’t going to make it so uncomfortable they’d opt to leave, or even not come. 

So I’m curious what it is the MP thinks we should do ? 

 

Edited November 11, 2025 by London Wanderer

[royal white]

2 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

I get that, it would still be very expensive though. I’ve no idea what the stats are regarding new arrivals and crime, so couldn’t say if it would make a significant difference to reducing issues.

But Rupert Lowe said he would make life so uncomfortable for these that they choose to leave themselves.

The changes you’ve suggested might be popular with the public, but they aren’t going to make it so uncomfortable they’d opt to leave, or even not come. 

So I’m curious what it is the MP thinks we should do ? 

 

A large tent with camp beds. No spending money, no jollies into town. 

[Zico]

6 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

I get that, it would still be very expensive though. Money saved if you’re not giving an allowance though. I’ve no idea what the stats are regarding new arrivals and crime, so couldn’t say if it would make a significant difference to reducing issues.

But Rupert Lowe said he would make life so uncomfortable for these that they choose to leave themselves.

The changes you’ve suggested might be popular with the public, but they aren’t going to make it so uncomfortable they’d opt to leave, or even not come. 

So I’m curious what it is the MP thinks we should do ? 

 

aye, that's the middle ground I'm looking for - it would probably help more with the public perception of the issue, whilst still giving folk a chance to come over and make an application

no idea what Lowe is suggesting, looks to be just a sound bite to me, though I'm sure if he did elaborate, I woudl disagree with it

[Spider]

The boats need to stop.

I don’t think a single person on here thinks otherwise.

Bit what options are available to ensure this? Because it’s escaped the intelligence of 2 governments (I use that word cautiously).

Im sure the sages of this board will have a legal solution?

[London Wanderer]

2 minutes ago, royal white said:

A large tent with camp beds. No spending money, no jollies into town. 

Okay. So we’re getting somewhere. 
 

I assume you’re on board with them being given 3 nutritious meals a day at this camp? A warm enough bed in the tent? Freedom to move around the camp & socialise with each other until the decision is processed?

You’re not evil after all 😄

I genuinely can’t see those conditions being enough to deter people & force them to leave before they’re deported (if they are that is). Especially given the conditions they’ve experienced on the journey to get here, which often does take months. 
 

Around half of asylum claims are accepted - Even those rejected are overturned on appeal more often than not.

I’m sure they’d happily put up with no allowance and jollies into town for a chance of refugee status. Do you honestly believe it would work?