You are logged in as a guest. 
  Home Forums Home  Search our Forums Search our Forums    Log in to the Forums Log in to the Forums  register Register on the Forums  

 Forums ->  General Chat -> Chatterbox
Jump to page : FirstPrevious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast
Format:  Go
Migrants
AuthorMessage
userBirdbrain
Posted: 13 August 2020 6:10 AM
Subject: RE: Migrants
 


Lord of the posts

Posts: 6019
50001000


Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 9:20 PM

Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 7:01 PM

Barryd999 - 2020-08-12 6:40 AM

Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 6:18 AM

Barryd999 - 2020-08-11 10:58 PM

jumpstart - 2020-08-11 8:56 PM

Some! We are talking about 50% of the population voting leave. Not wanting immigration does not make a person a racist.
Can you not think of any other reasons why people voted leave other than what’s in the crappy press?


It was the crappy press that convinced so many over the years that Immigration was responsible for their crappy lives. It was the crappy press that convinced people that the EU bestowed a shed load of stupid laws on us that were pretty much all made up.

I could see through the crappy press but 52% (of those that voted) clearly could not. Whether people who were against immigration and free movement of people are racist or not, I have no idea but all the racists I have come across in the last four years for sure voted for Brexit. Every single one.


Chuckle ... From the fella who campaigned for and voted for a racist party that has just paid out half a million big ones because of his parties racism and his party still has the results of the EHRC inquiry into its racism to be published ... Stop being such a hypocrite from your whites only village ... BFN


From what I Can see Starmer coughed up that money to just be done with it so he can move on. From what I have seen and from the lack of evidence you or anyone else has been able to produce on here regarding "real" racism from elected and serving Labour MP's it doesn't exist. Unlike the inherent and blatant racism in the Tory party with your PM being a prime example.


So lets get this right, your leader Sir Keir Starmer a former highly regarded and highly paid lawyer specialising in human rights has admitted his party is racist and paid out half a million big ones just so his and your party can "move on" .

Keir Starmer still is a qualified QC. That he chose the direction he has is testament to his strength in leadership. Having seen no evidence plus conflicting reports from Jewish LP members who even disagree among themselves, there seems to be much conjecture flying around with very little substance so it's about time a line was drawn under it.

One things for sure. It's put your racist PM Johnson to absolute shame over his Tory parties disgusting institutionalised Islamophobia which has been totally ignored. A Tory Baroness spent years battling to get an independent investigation to no avail. Racist Johnson was even challenged by Sajid Javid on the matter during the leadership debate and Johnson agreed to an investigation....but as usual he was lying and since he became PM, he's refused to have an independent inquiry.

When you and your girlfriend can set the record straight with your precious Tory party and it's racist leader.....then you can come back and start throwing mud around but until then i suggest you get your own house in order first before calling others out as you're in no position at all to level any criticism at any other party. You simply draw attention to the Tory parties shortcomings and it's racist leader, so well done on that score.


Wondered when the organ Grindr would be along to try to help out his monkey ... "strength in leadership" is a top lawyer throwing in the towel, paying out half a million quid and admitting his party is racist??? ... Chuckle, I reckon he knows whats coming from the EHRC inquiry dont you ... As for the Tories of course there are what you call Islamaphobes in the party and quite rightly too ... With everything Islam gives to the modern world and this country how couldn't there be ... There'll also be law dodgers, homophobes and even some horrible Remoaners in the party ... Im not the one pretending any different with my party ... I'll leave that to you and ya monkey ... Hate on
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 13 August 2020 12:20 PM
Subject: RE: Migrants
 


50005000500020001000100
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 7:07 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-12 1:25 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 6:13 AM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-10 12:52 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-09 2:23 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-09 11:44 AM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:08 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 6:18 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 3:45 PM
……………………………... I said I dont care how the Navy deals with them, is that so difficult to understand and I dont need to think anything through and its certainly not uncomfortable Princess ... As long as they dont land on our shores I dont care ... Simple enough for ya

So you'd be happy for the navy to bring them into a UK port?

Not particularly no but until the laws are changed and we brought these types back to a UK port to be moved immediately into a secure compound with basic needs rather than 4 star luxury till they were removed then yes I suppose I can live with that ... Would you prefer to put them up at your gaffe or use your motorhome than my secure compound idea ??? ... Just asking

So involving the navy would achieve nothing under present circumstances that the coastguard is not already achieving. So, why then involve the navy who would have to use vessels currently employed on fisheries protection duties? This "navy stuff" is all bluff and bluster with no purpose.
Housing the migrants in hotels is not a matter of choice; it is being done because the existing secure accommodation is full. So, which is the cheaper alternative? Temporarily use under used hotel accommodation, or start a crash building operation to provide additional secure accommodation for the present surge in numbers, which will decline over winter, and will eventually permanently decline? It is a reasonable stop-gap measure that also keeps a few hotels in business.
If you want to keep the migrants out, why do you also want more accommodation for them? Doesn't add up, does it?

Depends what the navy does doesnt it as to comparing it to what is done now ... I told you before put these types up in containers in a secure compound, maybe near you if your so concerned or better still you put them up at your home Merkel Mansions ??? ... Doesnt need any new buildings just containers

So you think the UK should just renege on its international obligations (that it helped draft) and then what, leave the UN and other international organisations (that it helped found) - because it can't handle a relative handful of migrants? You and Dave love banana republics, don't you? That'd do our international reputation and influence no end of good, wouldn't it? And what then for all those Brexity trade deals our future now depends on? Great scheme!

1 You seem unable to grasp that Brexit happened partly because of "international obligations" like The Dublin Regulation
2 and Brexit voters, the winners of the referendum are sick and stalled of laws that do nothing for them and Blighty yet everything for chancers …
3 "handful of migrants" , the world according to Brian ... There is another world outside of leafy East Sussex Princess

1 I was unaware that the Dublin Regulations were a factor in the Brexit vote. I don't recall them being mentioned. Can you say where they figured, and how? But, having said that, the Dublin Regulations provide a right for an EU state that is entered by a refugee seeking asylum, where the refugee has clearly entered from a neighbouring EU state, to require the neighbouring state to take back the refugee, on the basis that the correct place for the application for asylum to be lodged and assessed was the first EU state the refugee entered. Through Brexit that right is now lost, so the only applicable law is that which I outlined in my above post of 11 August 2020 at 4:41 PM.
2 Brexiters may be as sick as the proverbial parrot about international obligations, nut unless and until the UK withdraws from its international undertakings, they remain legally binding. Brexiters should bear in mind that all such obligations are mutually binding, so if the UK withdraws the provisions will cease equally to apply to British subjects abroad. Which seems to take us back to Dirty Harry: "You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do you, punk?" So do you?
3 The annual number entering the UK by crossing the channel each year varies between a few hundred and a few thousand. It has increased since the Brexit vote, especially since Brexit. It is part of what Brexiters voted for. The UK has a population of approximately 66 million. It receives about 40,000 (6%) asylum claims annually (meaning 94% enter by alternative routes), and about 4,000 (0.06%) have so far crossed the Channel this year, so yes, a relative handful. Not all claims are successful.

1 ... Chuckle, you who I have asked for evidence of the vile insults you have chucked my way at times and offered nothing now want me to provide evidence of my claim ... Chuckle
2 ... Dont remember anyone saying they want to withdraw from all regulations, just the ones that serve others more than UK residents
3 ... Its not 66 million folk that have to put the chancers up though Brian is it ... The chancers get sent to the same old places, not anywhere near you though of course

1 So no, you can't
2 According to who?
3 So just a handful then.
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 13 August 2020 12:45 PM
Subject: RE: Migrantsn
 


50005000500020001000100
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 9:20 PM
jumpstart - 2020-08-12 6:44 PM
Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 4:56 PM
jumpstart - 2020-08-12 9:25 AM
pepe63 - 2020-08-12 8:57 AM
As I posted recently on another thread, there will be a range of reasons why people voted as they did..but to now pretend that immigration was not uppermost in the various high profile bodies that pushed for Leave, is a complete nonsense...

Absolutely,my point entirely, there was a range of reasons. I would agree that various papers and others tried to make immigration a high spot, but I don’t think it was the main reason why people voted leave. As you said there was a range of reasons.

They didn't need to "try" Jumpstart! All they had to do was keep the Leave campaign rolling feeding the xenophobes the horror stories about "swarms" of migrants "invading" OUR country. They had Farage whipping up the fanatics and Johnson delivering Cummings' soundbites to the Brexit adherents. Yes there was obviously more than immigration alone with the campaign, but to claim it was 'never about immigration' is simply being disingenuous or naive.

All just a lot of supposition,what ifs and maybe’s. You’ll all just have to wait till the next vote.

It was a referendum, not an election.

Let's try a different tack.

Allowing that those for whom immigration was a major concern may well have had other reasons to vote leave, would the referendum result have been the same had the immigration issue not been given such prominence?

After all, there was a reason why immigration figured so prominently, wasn't there? It was a device to sway public opinion, through fear, towards leave, was it not? Especially the complete nonsense about Turkey, and all those millions of Turks queueing at the border. That was a travesty.
userjumpstart
Posted: 13 August 2020 1:13 PM
Subject: RE: Migrantsn
 
Forum master

Posts: 2585
2000500252525
Location: Somerset Elddis 115,2019 Peugeot.


Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 12:45 PM

Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 9:20 PM
jumpstart - 2020-08-12 6:44 PM
Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 4:56 PM
jumpstart - 2020-08-12 9:25 AM
pepe63 - 2020-08-12 8:57 AM
As I posted recently on another thread, there will be a range of reasons why people voted as they did..but to now pretend that immigration was not uppermost in the various high profile bodies that pushed for Leave, is a complete nonsense...

Absolutely,my point entirely, there was a range of reasons. I would agree that various papers and others tried to make immigration a high spot, but I don’t think it was the main reason why people voted leave. As you said there was a range of reasons.

They didn't need to "try" Jumpstart! All they had to do was keep the Leave campaign rolling feeding the xenophobes the horror stories about "swarms" of migrants "invading" OUR country. They had Farage whipping up the fanatics and Johnson delivering Cummings' soundbites to the Brexit adherents. Yes there was obviously more than immigration alone with the campaign, but to claim it was 'never about immigration' is simply being disingenuous or naive.

All just a lot of supposition,what ifs and maybe’s. You’ll all just have to wait till the next vote.

It was a referendum, not an election.

Let's try a different tack.

Allowing that those for whom immigration was a major concern may well have had other reasons to vote leave, would the referendum result have been the same had the immigration issue not been given such prominence?

After all, there was a reason why immigration figured so prominently, wasn't there? It was a device to sway public opinion, through fear, towards leave, was it not? Especially the complete nonsense about Turkey, and all those millions of Turks queueing at the border. That was a travesty.


We will never know. But at least it gives a REASON why vote leave won to all those who voted stay and they can continue to debate the if only’s for many years to come.
userpelmetman
Posted: 13 August 2020 3:13 PM
Subject: RE: Migrantsn
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 32592
5000500050005000500050002000500252525
Location: Brexit On Sea. 1990 Ford Travelhome.


Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 12:45 PM

Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 9:20 PM
jumpstart - 2020-08-12 6:44 PM
Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 4:56 PM
jumpstart - 2020-08-12 9:25 AM
pepe63 - 2020-08-12 8:57 AM
As I posted recently on another thread, there will be a range of reasons why people voted as they did..but to now pretend that immigration was not uppermost in the various high profile bodies that pushed for Leave, is a complete nonsense...

Absolutely,my point entirely, there was a range of reasons. I would agree that various papers and others tried to make immigration a high spot, but I don’t think it was the main reason why people voted leave. As you said there was a range of reasons.

They didn't need to "try" Jumpstart! All they had to do was keep the Leave campaign rolling feeding the xenophobes the horror stories about "swarms" of migrants "invading" OUR country. They had Farage whipping up the fanatics and Johnson delivering Cummings' soundbites to the Brexit adherents. Yes there was obviously more than immigration alone with the campaign, but to claim it was 'never about immigration' is simply being disingenuous or naive.

All just a lot of supposition,what ifs and maybe’s. You’ll all just have to wait till the next vote.

It was a referendum, not an election.

Let's try a different tack.

Allowing that those for whom immigration was a major concern may well have had other reasons to vote leave, would the referendum result have been the same had the immigration issue not been given such prominence?

After all, there was a reason why immigration figured so prominently, wasn't there? It was a device to sway public opinion, through fear, towards leave, was it not? Especially the complete nonsense about Turkey, and all those millions of Turks queueing at the border. That was a travesty.


"Membership status
Candidate country

Background
In 1987, Turkey applied to join what was then the European Economic Community, and in 1997 it was declared eligible to join the EU."

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/countries/detailed-country-information/turkey_

Still making stuff up eh Brian? ........
userBulletguy
Posted: 13 August 2020 3:16 PM
Subject: RE: Migrants
 


The special one

Posts: 14034
500050002000200025
Location: Cheshire


Birdbrain - 2020-08-13 6:10 AM

Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 9:20 PM

Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 7:01 PM

Barryd999 - 2020-08-12 6:40 AM

Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 6:18 AM

Barryd999 - 2020-08-11 10:58 PM

jumpstart - 2020-08-11 8:56 PM

Some! We are talking about 50% of the population voting leave. Not wanting immigration does not make a person a racist.
Can you not think of any other reasons why people voted leave other than what’s in the crappy press?


It was the crappy press that convinced so many over the years that Immigration was responsible for their crappy lives. It was the crappy press that convinced people that the EU bestowed a shed load of stupid laws on us that were pretty much all made up.

I could see through the crappy press but 52% (of those that voted) clearly could not. Whether people who were against immigration and free movement of people are racist or not, I have no idea but all the racists I have come across in the last four years for sure voted for Brexit. Every single one.


Chuckle ... From the fella who campaigned for and voted for a racist party that has just paid out half a million big ones because of his parties racism and his party still has the results of the EHRC inquiry into its racism to be published ... Stop being such a hypocrite from your whites only village ... BFN


From what I Can see Starmer coughed up that money to just be done with it so he can move on. From what I have seen and from the lack of evidence you or anyone else has been able to produce on here regarding "real" racism from elected and serving Labour MP's it doesn't exist. Unlike the inherent and blatant racism in the Tory party with your PM being a prime example.


So lets get this right, your leader Sir Keir Starmer a former highly regarded and highly paid lawyer specialising in human rights has admitted his party is racist and paid out half a million big ones just so his and your party can "move on" .

Keir Starmer still is a qualified QC. That he chose the direction he has is testament to his strength in leadership. Having seen no evidence plus conflicting reports from Jewish LP members who even disagree among themselves, there seems to be much conjecture flying around with very little substance so it's about time a line was drawn under it.

One things for sure. It's put your racist PM Johnson to absolute shame over his Tory parties disgusting institutionalised Islamophobia which has been totally ignored. A Tory Baroness spent years battling to get an independent investigation to no avail. Racist Johnson was even challenged by Sajid Javid on the matter during the leadership debate and Johnson agreed to an investigation....but as usual he was lying and since he became PM, he's refused to have an independent inquiry.

When you and your girlfriend can set the record straight with your precious Tory party and it's racist leader.....then you can come back and start throwing mud around but until then i suggest you get your own house in order first before calling others out as you're in no position at all to level any criticism at any other party. You simply draw attention to the Tory parties shortcomings and it's racist leader, so well done on that score.


As for the Tories of course there are what you call Islamaphobes in the party and quite rightly too ... With everything Islam gives to the modern world and this country how couldn't there be ...

"Everything"??? Such sweeping generalisations you're always making are ridiculous to the point of farce. Islamophobia in the Tory party is not "right" at all. Islam is a protected characteristic under EHRC in exactly the same way as Judaism and any other faiths. It explains why your racist leader Johnson went back on his promise to hold an independent inquiry into the parties history of Islamophobia. Until an independent inquiry in the Tory party happens, neither you or your girlfriend are in a position to criticise others for what your own party has indulged for years.

userpelmetman
Posted: 13 August 2020 3:23 PM
Subject: RE: Migrants
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 32592
5000500050005000500050002000500252525
Location: Brexit On Sea. 1990 Ford Travelhome.


Bulletguy - 2020-08-13 3:16 PM

Birdbrain - 2020-08-13 6:10 AM

Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 9:20 PM

Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 7:01 PM

Barryd999 - 2020-08-12 6:40 AM

Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 6:18 AM

Barryd999 - 2020-08-11 10:58 PM

jumpstart - 2020-08-11 8:56 PM

Some! We are talking about 50% of the population voting leave. Not wanting immigration does not make a person a racist.
Can you not think of any other reasons why people voted leave other than what’s in the crappy press?


It was the crappy press that convinced so many over the years that Immigration was responsible for their crappy lives. It was the crappy press that convinced people that the EU bestowed a shed load of stupid laws on us that were pretty much all made up.

I could see through the crappy press but 52% (of those that voted) clearly could not. Whether people who were against immigration and free movement of people are racist or not, I have no idea but all the racists I have come across in the last four years for sure voted for Brexit. Every single one.


Chuckle ... From the fella who campaigned for and voted for a racist party that has just paid out half a million big ones because of his parties racism and his party still has the results of the EHRC inquiry into its racism to be published ... Stop being such a hypocrite from your whites only village ... BFN


From what I Can see Starmer coughed up that money to just be done with it so he can move on. From what I have seen and from the lack of evidence you or anyone else has been able to produce on here regarding "real" racism from elected and serving Labour MP's it doesn't exist. Unlike the inherent and blatant racism in the Tory party with your PM being a prime example.


So lets get this right, your leader Sir Keir Starmer a former highly regarded and highly paid lawyer specialising in human rights has admitted his party is racist and paid out half a million big ones just so his and your party can "move on" .

Keir Starmer still is a qualified QC. That he chose the direction he has is testament to his strength in leadership. Having seen no evidence plus conflicting reports from Jewish LP members who even disagree among themselves, there seems to be much conjecture flying around with very little substance so it's about time a line was drawn under it.

One things for sure. It's put your racist PM Johnson to absolute shame over his Tory parties disgusting institutionalised Islamophobia which has been totally ignored. A Tory Baroness spent years battling to get an independent investigation to no avail. Racist Johnson was even challenged by Sajid Javid on the matter during the leadership debate and Johnson agreed to an investigation....but as usual he was lying and since he became PM, he's refused to have an independent inquiry.

When you and your girlfriend can set the record straight with your precious Tory party and it's racist leader.....then you can come back and start throwing mud around but until then i suggest you get your own house in order first before calling others out as you're in no position at all to level any criticism at any other party. You simply draw attention to the Tory parties shortcomings and it's racist leader, so well done on that score.


As for the Tories of course there are what you call Islamaphobes in the party and quite rightly too ... With everything Islam gives to the modern world and this country how couldn't there be ...

"Everything"??? Such sweeping generalisations you're always making are ridiculous to the point of farce. Islamophobia in the Tory party is not "right" at all. Islam is a protected characteristic under EHRC in exactly the same way as Judaism and any other faiths. It explains why your racist leader Johnson went back on his promise to hold an independent inquiry into the parties history of Islamophobia. Until an independent inquiry in the Tory party happens, neither you or your girlfriend are in a position to criticise others for what your own party has indulged for years.



Any Nonbeliever who has read the Koran is entitled to be Islamaphobic in my book ........

Seeing as their creed is deffo Nonbelieverphobic .........

userBulletguy
Posted: 13 August 2020 3:28 PM
Subject: RE: Migrantsn
 


The special one

Posts: 14034
500050002000200025
Location: Cheshire


jumpstart - 2020-08-13 1:13 PM

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 12:45 PM

Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 9:20 PM
jumpstart - 2020-08-12 6:44 PM
Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 4:56 PM
jumpstart - 2020-08-12 9:25 AM
pepe63 - 2020-08-12 8:57 AM
As I posted recently on another thread, there will be a range of reasons why people voted as they did..but to now pretend that immigration was not uppermost in the various high profile bodies that pushed for Leave, is a complete nonsense...

Absolutely,my point entirely, there was a range of reasons. I would agree that various papers and others tried to make immigration a high spot, but I don’t think it was the main reason why people voted leave. As you said there was a range of reasons.

They didn't need to "try" Jumpstart! All they had to do was keep the Leave campaign rolling feeding the xenophobes the horror stories about "swarms" of migrants "invading" OUR country. They had Farage whipping up the fanatics and Johnson delivering Cummings' soundbites to the Brexit adherents. Yes there was obviously more than immigration alone with the campaign, but to claim it was 'never about immigration' is simply being disingenuous or naive.

All just a lot of supposition,what ifs and maybe’s. You’ll all just have to wait till the next vote.

It was a referendum, not an election.

Let's try a different tack.

Allowing that those for whom immigration was a major concern may well have had other reasons to vote leave, would the referendum result have been the same had the immigration issue not been given such prominence?

After all, there was a reason why immigration figured so prominently, wasn't there? It was a device to sway public opinion, through fear, towards leave, was it not? Especially the complete nonsense about Turkey, and all those millions of Turks queueing at the border. That was a travesty.


We will never know. But at least it gives a REASON why vote leave won to all those who voted stay and they can continue to debate the if only’s for many years to come.

J/start.......we do already know! Come on, be honest about it, we've all known immigration was one of the key points used in the Leave campaign and how anyone could pretend other is beyond me!! Most knew even before the referendum and the few that didn't, most certainly did after as the racists and xenophobes became emboldened and were out on the streets telling any 'foreigny' looking folk to 'go back to your country', slapping posters up about Polish 'vermin go home'.....remember those? Police reported a massive spike in race hate crime post referendum.
userpelmetman
Posted: 13 August 2020 4:17 PM
Subject: RE: Migrantsn
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 32592
5000500050005000500050002000500252525
Location: Brexit On Sea. 1990 Ford Travelhome.


Bulletguy - 2020-08-13 3:28 PM

jumpstart - 2020-08-13 1:13 PM

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 12:45 PM

Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 9:20 PM
jumpstart - 2020-08-12 6:44 PM
Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 4:56 PM
jumpstart - 2020-08-12 9:25 AM
pepe63 - 2020-08-12 8:57 AM
As I posted recently on another thread, there will be a range of reasons why people voted as they did..but to now pretend that immigration was not uppermost in the various high profile bodies that pushed for Leave, is a complete nonsense...

Absolutely,my point entirely, there was a range of reasons. I would agree that various papers and others tried to make immigration a high spot, but I don’t think it was the main reason why people voted leave. As you said there was a range of reasons.

They didn't need to "try" Jumpstart! All they had to do was keep the Leave campaign rolling feeding the xenophobes the horror stories about "swarms" of migrants "invading" OUR country. They had Farage whipping up the fanatics and Johnson delivering Cummings' soundbites to the Brexit adherents. Yes there was obviously more than immigration alone with the campaign, but to claim it was 'never about immigration' is simply being disingenuous or naive.

All just a lot of supposition,what ifs and maybe’s. You’ll all just have to wait till the next vote.

It was a referendum, not an election.

Let's try a different tack.

Allowing that those for whom immigration was a major concern may well have had other reasons to vote leave, would the referendum result have been the same had the immigration issue not been given such prominence?

After all, there was a reason why immigration figured so prominently, wasn't there? It was a device to sway public opinion, through fear, towards leave, was it not? Especially the complete nonsense about Turkey, and all those millions of Turks queueing at the border. That was a travesty.


We will never know. But at least it gives a REASON why vote leave won to all those who voted stay and they can continue to debate the if only’s for many years to come.

J/start.......we do already know! Come on, be honest about it, we've all known immigration was one of the key points used in the Leave campaign and how anyone could pretend other is beyond me!! Most knew even before the referendum and the few that didn't, most certainly did after as the racists and xenophobes became emboldened and were out on the streets telling any 'foreigny' looking folk to 'go back to your country', slapping posters up about Polish 'vermin go home'.....remember those? Police reported a massive spike in race hate crime post referendum.


So is uncontrolled migration not a problem to deluded LLLLB folk? .........

BTW......Your Massive spike dosen't seem to have put those EU migrants from staying .........

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8623807/More-3-8million-EU-citizens-apply-stay-UK-Brexit-transition.html

Edited by pelmetman 2020-08-13 4:33 PM
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 13 August 2020 5:13 PM
Subject: RE: Migrantsn
 


50005000500020001000100
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


jumpstart - 2020-08-13 1:13 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 12:45 PM
Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 9:20 PM
jumpstart - 2020-08-12 6:44 PM
Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 4:56 PM
jumpstart - 2020-08-12 9:25 AM
pepe63 - 2020-08-12 8:57 AM
As I posted recently on another thread, there will be a range of reasons why people voted as they did..but to now pretend that immigration was not uppermost in the various high profile bodies that pushed for Leave, is a complete nonsense...

Absolutely,my point entirely, there was a range of reasons. I would agree that various papers and others tried to make immigration a high spot, but I don’t think it was the main reason why people voted leave. As you said there was a range of reasons.

They didn't need to "try" Jumpstart! All they had to do was keep the Leave campaign rolling feeding the xenophobes the horror stories about "swarms" of migrants "invading" OUR country. They had Farage whipping up the fanatics and Johnson delivering Cummings' soundbites to the Brexit adherents. Yes there was obviously more than immigration alone with the campaign, but to claim it was 'never about immigration' is simply being disingenuous or naive.

All just a lot of supposition,what ifs and maybe’s. You’ll all just have to wait till the next vote.

It was a referendum, not an election.

Let's try a different tack.
Allowing that those for whom immigration was a major concern may well have had other reasons to vote leave, would the referendum result have been the same had the immigration issue not been given such prominence?
After all, there was a reason why immigration figured so prominently, wasn't there? It was a device to sway public opinion, through fear, towards leave, was it not? Especially the complete nonsense about Turkey, and all those millions of Turks queueing at the border. That was a travesty.

We will never know. But at least it gives a REASON why vote leave won to all those who voted stay and they can continue to debate the if only’s for many years to come.

But the reasons are reasonably clear. A survey, published in late 2016, provides the main reasons people voted leave.

This shows that the main reasons people gave for voting leave were the economy (21%), immigration (20%) and sovereignty/EU bureaucracy (17%). Other reasons were the campaign, cosmopolitanism, foreign policy, protection of rights, EU spending/regulation/costs, other stability or uncertainty concern, British/English identity, family, social identity/partisanship, and EU integration/stability, in order of importance, ranging down from 7% to 1%.

The research was carried out by NatCen, drawing on information from the British Social Attitudes Survey, random sampling of their own panel, and the British Election Study Internet Panel. The full survey report, and the accompanying Excel data sets, can be downloaded here: https://tinyurl.com/y4nwdohv

But, immigration clearly figures alongside the economy as one of the two largest concerns people has about EU membership.

The newspapers most read by leave voters are also (if predictably) interesting. In descending order, the Sun, the Express, the Mail, the Star, the Telegraph, the Mirror, the Times, the FT, the Independent and the Guardian. Surprisingly, 12% read no paper, and a further 8% read an "other" paper.
userBirdbrain
Posted: 13 August 2020 5:20 PM
Subject: RE: Migrants
 


Lord of the posts

Posts: 6019
50001000


Bulletguy - 2020-08-13 3:16 PM

Birdbrain - 2020-08-13 6:10 AM

Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 9:20 PM

Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 7:01 PM

Barryd999 - 2020-08-12 6:40 AM

Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 6:18 AM

Barryd999 - 2020-08-11 10:58 PM

jumpstart - 2020-08-11 8:56 PM

Some! We are talking about 50% of the population voting leave. Not wanting immigration does not make a person a racist.
Can you not think of any other reasons why people voted leave other than what’s in the crappy press?


It was the crappy press that convinced so many over the years that Immigration was responsible for their crappy lives. It was the crappy press that convinced people that the EU bestowed a shed load of stupid laws on us that were pretty much all made up.

I could see through the crappy press but 52% (of those that voted) clearly could not. Whether people who were against immigration and free movement of people are racist or not, I have no idea but all the racists I have come across in the last four years for sure voted for Brexit. Every single one.


Chuckle ... From the fella who campaigned for and voted for a racist party that has just paid out half a million big ones because of his parties racism and his party still has the results of the EHRC inquiry into its racism to be published ... Stop being such a hypocrite from your whites only village ... BFN


From what I Can see Starmer coughed up that money to just be done with it so he can move on. From what I have seen and from the lack of evidence you or anyone else has been able to produce on here regarding "real" racism from elected and serving Labour MP's it doesn't exist. Unlike the inherent and blatant racism in the Tory party with your PM being a prime example.


So lets get this right, your leader Sir Keir Starmer a former highly regarded and highly paid lawyer specialising in human rights has admitted his party is racist and paid out half a million big ones just so his and your party can "move on" .

Keir Starmer still is a qualified QC. That he chose the direction he has is testament to his strength in leadership. Having seen no evidence plus conflicting reports from Jewish LP members who even disagree among themselves, there seems to be much conjecture flying around with very little substance so it's about time a line was drawn under it.

One things for sure. It's put your racist PM Johnson to absolute shame over his Tory parties disgusting institutionalised Islamophobia which has been totally ignored. A Tory Baroness spent years battling to get an independent investigation to no avail. Racist Johnson was even challenged by Sajid Javid on the matter during the leadership debate and Johnson agreed to an investigation....but as usual he was lying and since he became PM, he's refused to have an independent inquiry.

When you and your girlfriend can set the record straight with your precious Tory party and it's racist leader.....then you can come back and start throwing mud around but until then i suggest you get your own house in order first before calling others out as you're in no position at all to level any criticism at any other party. You simply draw attention to the Tory parties shortcomings and it's racist leader, so well done on that score.


As for the Tories of course there are what you call Islamaphobes in the party and quite rightly too ... With everything Islam gives to the modern world and this country how couldn't there be ...

"Everything"??? Such sweeping generalisations you're always making are ridiculous to the point of farce. Islamophobia in the Tory party is not "right" at all. Islam is a protected characteristic under EHRC in exactly the same way as Judaism and any other faiths. It explains why your racist leader Johnson went back on his promise to hold an independent inquiry into the parties history of Islamophobia. Until an independent inquiry in the Tory party happens, neither you or your girlfriend are in a position to criticise others for what your own party has indulged for years.



Your defending by attacking is really quite sickening ... Breathe in and admit your beloved party has an issue with anti-Semitism
userBirdbrain
Posted: 13 August 2020 5:23 PM
Subject: RE: Migrants
 


Lord of the posts

Posts: 6019
50001000


Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 12:20 PM

Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 7:07 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-12 1:25 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 6:13 AM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-10 12:52 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-09 2:23 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-09 11:44 AM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:08 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 6:18 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 3:45 PM
……………………………... I said I dont care how the Navy deals with them, is that so difficult to understand and I dont need to think anything through and its certainly not uncomfortable Princess ... As long as they dont land on our shores I dont care ... Simple enough for ya

So you'd be happy for the navy to bring them into a UK port?

Not particularly no but until the laws are changed and we brought these types back to a UK port to be moved immediately into a secure compound with basic needs rather than 4 star luxury till they were removed then yes I suppose I can live with that ... Would you prefer to put them up at your gaffe or use your motorhome than my secure compound idea ??? ... Just asking

So involving the navy would achieve nothing under present circumstances that the coastguard is not already achieving. So, why then involve the navy who would have to use vessels currently employed on fisheries protection duties? This "navy stuff" is all bluff and bluster with no purpose.
Housing the migrants in hotels is not a matter of choice; it is being done because the existing secure accommodation is full. So, which is the cheaper alternative? Temporarily use under used hotel accommodation, or start a crash building operation to provide additional secure accommodation for the present surge in numbers, which will decline over winter, and will eventually permanently decline? It is a reasonable stop-gap measure that also keeps a few hotels in business.
If you want to keep the migrants out, why do you also want more accommodation for them? Doesn't add up, does it?

Depends what the navy does doesnt it as to comparing it to what is done now ... I told you before put these types up in containers in a secure compound, maybe near you if your so concerned or better still you put them up at your home Merkel Mansions ??? ... Doesnt need any new buildings just containers

So you think the UK should just renege on its international obligations (that it helped draft) and then what, leave the UN and other international organisations (that it helped found) - because it can't handle a relative handful of migrants? You and Dave love banana republics, don't you? That'd do our international reputation and influence no end of good, wouldn't it? And what then for all those Brexity trade deals our future now depends on? Great scheme!

1 You seem unable to grasp that Brexit happened partly because of "international obligations" like The Dublin Regulation
2 and Brexit voters, the winners of the referendum are sick and stalled of laws that do nothing for them and Blighty yet everything for chancers …
3 "handful of migrants" , the world according to Brian ... There is another world outside of leafy East Sussex Princess

1 I was unaware that the Dublin Regulations were a factor in the Brexit vote. I don't recall them being mentioned. Can you say where they figured, and how? But, having said that, the Dublin Regulations provide a right for an EU state that is entered by a refugee seeking asylum, where the refugee has clearly entered from a neighbouring EU state, to require the neighbouring state to take back the refugee, on the basis that the correct place for the application for asylum to be lodged and assessed was the first EU state the refugee entered. Through Brexit that right is now lost, so the only applicable law is that which I outlined in my above post of 11 August 2020 at 4:41 PM.
2 Brexiters may be as sick as the proverbial parrot about international obligations, nut unless and until the UK withdraws from its international undertakings, they remain legally binding. Brexiters should bear in mind that all such obligations are mutually binding, so if the UK withdraws the provisions will cease equally to apply to British subjects abroad. Which seems to take us back to Dirty Harry: "You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do you, punk?" So do you?
3 The annual number entering the UK by crossing the channel each year varies between a few hundred and a few thousand. It has increased since the Brexit vote, especially since Brexit. It is part of what Brexiters voted for. The UK has a population of approximately 66 million. It receives about 40,000 (6%) asylum claims annually (meaning 94% enter by alternative routes), and about 4,000 (0.06%) have so far crossed the Channel this year, so yes, a relative handful. Not all claims are successful.

1 ... Chuckle, you who I have asked for evidence of the vile insults you have chucked my way at times and offered nothing now want me to provide evidence of my claim ... Chuckle
2 ... Dont remember anyone saying they want to withdraw from all regulations, just the ones that serve others more than UK residents
3 ... Its not 66 million folk that have to put the chancers up though Brian is it ... The chancers get sent to the same old places, not anywhere near you though of course

1 So no, you can't
2 According to who?
3 So just a handful then.


1 ... Ive already answered but you dont like it
2 ... See above
3 ... See above
4 ... Night night
userBulletguy
Posted: 13 August 2020 5:37 PM
Subject: RE: Migrantsn
 


The special one

Posts: 14034
500050002000200025
Location: Cheshire


pelmetman - 2020-08-13 4:17 PM

Bulletguy - 2020-08-13 3:28 PM

jumpstart - 2020-08-13 1:13 PM

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 12:45 PM

Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 9:20 PM
jumpstart - 2020-08-12 6:44 PM
Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 4:56 PM
jumpstart - 2020-08-12 9:25 AM
pepe63 - 2020-08-12 8:57 AM
As I posted recently on another thread, there will be a range of reasons why people voted as they did..but to now pretend that immigration was not uppermost in the various high profile bodies that pushed for Leave, is a complete nonsense...

Absolutely,my point entirely, there was a range of reasons. I would agree that various papers and others tried to make immigration a high spot, but I don’t think it was the main reason why people voted leave. As you said there was a range of reasons.

They didn't need to "try" Jumpstart! All they had to do was keep the Leave campaign rolling feeding the xenophobes the horror stories about "swarms" of migrants "invading" OUR country. They had Farage whipping up the fanatics and Johnson delivering Cummings' soundbites to the Brexit adherents. Yes there was obviously more than immigration alone with the campaign, but to claim it was 'never about immigration' is simply being disingenuous or naive.

All just a lot of supposition,what ifs and maybe’s. You’ll all just have to wait till the next vote.

It was a referendum, not an election.

Let's try a different tack.

Allowing that those for whom immigration was a major concern may well have had other reasons to vote leave, would the referendum result have been the same had the immigration issue not been given such prominence?

After all, there was a reason why immigration figured so prominently, wasn't there? It was a device to sway public opinion, through fear, towards leave, was it not? Especially the complete nonsense about Turkey, and all those millions of Turks queueing at the border. That was a travesty.


We will never know. But at least it gives a REASON why vote leave won to all those who voted stay and they can continue to debate the if only’s for many years to come.

J/start.......we do already know! Come on, be honest about it, we've all known immigration was one of the key points used in the Leave campaign and how anyone could pretend other is beyond me!! Most knew even before the referendum and the few that didn't, most certainly did after as the racists and xenophobes became emboldened and were out on the streets telling any 'foreigny' looking folk to 'go back to your country', slapping posters up about Polish 'vermin go home'.....remember those? Police reported a massive spike in race hate crime post referendum.


1) So is uncontrolled migration not a problem to deluded LLLLB folk? .........

2) BTW......Your Massive spike dosen't seem to have put those EU migrants from staying .........

1) Uncontrolled suited BOTH governments who chose to ignore EU ruling, the subject has been raised many times before and explained in detail but you, don't listen and refuse to read so never learn. I've no idea what the silly acronym is either but the forum uses English as it's form of communicating posts. Try using it.

https://www.bruegel.org/2017/02/questionable-immigration-claims-in-the-brexit-white-paper/

2) LOL....Daily Mail. You can't leave it alone for a minute can you? Get sight of a juicy header and you're off playing with yourself.

Naturally you didn't READ any of the detail as only the header got you excited.

4,600 applications refused,

36,500 withdrawn or void

34,900 were invalid.


So yes it's put A LOT of EU workers off staying in a country that hates them as the graph Barry posted on another thread shows.



(ONS chart.JPG)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments ONS chart.JPG (33KB - 15 downloads)
userjumpstart
Posted: 13 August 2020 5:38 PM
Subject: RE: Migrantsn
 
Forum master

Posts: 2585
2000500252525
Location: Somerset Elddis 115,2019 Peugeot.


Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 5:13 PM

jumpstart - 2020-08-13 1:13 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 12:45 PM
Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 9:20 PM
jumpstart - 2020-08-12 6:44 PM
Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 4:56 PM
jumpstart - 2020-08-12 9:25 AM
pepe63 - 2020-08-12 8:57 AM
As I posted recently on another thread, there will be a range of reasons why people voted as they did..but to now pretend that immigration was not uppermost in the various high profile bodies that pushed for Leave, is a complete nonsense...

Absolutely,my point entirely, there was a range of reasons. I would agree that various papers and others tried to make immigration a high spot, but I don’t think it was the main reason why people voted leave. As you said there was a range of reasons.

They didn't need to "try" Jumpstart! All they had to do was keep the Leave campaign rolling feeding the xenophobes the horror stories about "swarms" of migrants "invading" OUR country. They had Farage whipping up the fanatics and Johnson delivering Cummings' soundbites to the Brexit adherents. Yes there was obviously more than immigration alone with the campaign, but to claim it was 'never about immigration' is simply being disingenuous or naive.

All just a lot of supposition,what ifs and maybe’s. You’ll all just have to wait till the next vote.

It was a referendum, not an election.

Let's try a different tack.
Allowing that those for whom immigration was a major concern may well have had other reasons to vote leave, would the referendum result have been the same had the immigration issue not been given such prominence?
After all, there was a reason why immigration figured so prominently, wasn't there? It was a device to sway public opinion, through fear, towards leave, was it not? Especially the complete nonsense about Turkey, and all those millions of Turks queueing at the border. That was a travesty.

We will never know. But at least it gives a REASON why vote leave won to all those who voted stay and they can continue to debate the if only’s for many years to come.

But the reasons are reasonably clear. A survey, published in late 2016, provides the main reasons people voted leave.

This shows that the main reasons people gave for voting leave were the economy (21%), immigration (20%) and sovereignty/EU bureaucracy (17%). Other reasons were the campaign, cosmopolitanism, foreign policy, protection of rights, EU spending/regulation/costs, other stability or uncertainty concern, British/English identity, family, social identity/partisanship, and EU integration/stability, in order of importance, ranging down from 7% to 1%.

The research was carried out by NatCen, drawing on information from the British Social Attitudes Survey, random sampling of their own panel, and the British Election Study Internet Panel. The full survey report, and the accompanying Excel data sets, can be downloaded here: https://tinyurl.com/y4nwdohv

But, immigration clearly figures alongside the economy as one of the two largest concerns people has about EU membership.

The newspapers most read by leave voters are also (if predictably) interesting. In descending order, the Sun, the Express, the Mail, the Star, the Telegraph, the Mirror, the Times, the FT, the Independent and the Guardian. Surprisingly, 12% read no paper, and a further 8% read an "other" paper.


Excuse me for being cynical , surveys are like polls,every few years one will come and be accurate. Immigration and the love /hate relationship has been with us a long time .....even before Powell “ rivers of blood”. Of coarse immigration was part of the voting equation, but to say it was solely the reason for failure to stay in the Eu is just wistfully looking for an excuse.
So of your figures above 80% of people asked said Immigration was not the main reason for voting to leave. It would be interesting to have the reasons why people wanted to stay......most of the ones I saw on TV seemed to have no reason to vote stay .
The above doesn’t show those who look at news on line which isn’t just the usually suspects.
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 13 August 2020 5:41 PM
Subject: RE: Migrants
 


50005000500020001000100
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


Birdbrain - 2020-08-13 5:23 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 12:20 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 7:07 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-12 1:25 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 6:13 AM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-10 12:52 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-09 2:23 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-09 11:44 AM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:08 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 6:18 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 3:45 PM
……………………………... I said I dont care how the Navy deals with them, is that so difficult to understand and I dont need to think anything through and its certainly not uncomfortable Princess ... As long as they dont land on our shores I dont care ... Simple enough for ya

So you'd be happy for the navy to bring them into a UK port?

Not particularly no but until the laws are changed and we brought these types back to a UK port to be moved immediately into a secure compound with basic needs rather than 4 star luxury till they were removed then yes I suppose I can live with that ... Would you prefer to put them up at your gaffe or use your motorhome than my secure compound idea ??? ... Just asking

So involving the navy would achieve nothing under present circumstances that the coastguard is not already achieving. So, why then involve the navy who would have to use vessels currently employed on fisheries protection duties? This "navy stuff" is all bluff and bluster with no purpose.
Housing the migrants in hotels is not a matter of choice; it is being done because the existing secure accommodation is full. So, which is the cheaper alternative? Temporarily use under used hotel accommodation, or start a crash building operation to provide additional secure accommodation for the present surge in numbers, which will decline over winter, and will eventually permanently decline? It is a reasonable stop-gap measure that also keeps a few hotels in business.
If you want to keep the migrants out, why do you also want more accommodation for them? Doesn't add up, does it?

Depends what the navy does doesnt it as to comparing it to what is done now ... I told you before put these types up in containers in a secure compound, maybe near you if your so concerned or better still you put them up at your home Merkel Mansions ??? ... Doesnt need any new buildings just containers

So you think the UK should just renege on its international obligations (that it helped draft) and then what, leave the UN and other international organisations (that it helped found) - because it can't handle a relative handful of migrants? You and Dave love banana republics, don't you? That'd do our international reputation and influence no end of good, wouldn't it? And what then for all those Brexity trade deals our future now depends on? Great scheme!

1 You seem unable to grasp that Brexit happened partly because of "international obligations" like The Dublin Regulation
2 and Brexit voters, the winners of the referendum are sick and stalled of laws that do nothing for them and Blighty yet everything for chancers …
3 "handful of migrants" , the world according to Brian ... There is another world outside of leafy East Sussex Princess

1 I was unaware that the Dublin Regulations were a factor in the Brexit vote. I don't recall them being mentioned. Can you say where they figured, and how? But, having said that, the Dublin Regulations provide a right for an EU state that is entered by a refugee seeking asylum, where the refugee has clearly entered from a neighbouring EU state, to require the neighbouring state to take back the refugee, on the basis that the correct place for the application for asylum to be lodged and assessed was the first EU state the refugee entered. Through Brexit that right is now lost, so the only applicable law is that which I outlined in my above post of 11 August 2020 at 4:41 PM.
2 Brexiters may be as sick as the proverbial parrot about international obligations, nut unless and until the UK withdraws from its international undertakings, they remain legally binding. Brexiters should bear in mind that all such obligations are mutually binding, so if the UK withdraws the provisions will cease equally to apply to British subjects abroad. Which seems to take us back to Dirty Harry: "You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do you, punk?" So do you?
3 The annual number entering the UK by crossing the channel each year varies between a few hundred and a few thousand. It has increased since the Brexit vote, especially since Brexit. It is part of what Brexiters voted for. The UK has a population of approximately 66 million. It receives about 40,000 (6%) asylum claims annually (meaning 94% enter by alternative routes), and about 4,000 (0.06%) have so far crossed the Channel this year, so yes, a relative handful. Not all claims are successful.

1 ... Chuckle, you who I have asked for evidence of the vile insults you have chucked my way at times and offered nothing now want me to provide evidence of my claim ... Chuckle
2 ... Dont remember anyone saying they want to withdraw from all regulations, just the ones that serve others more than UK residents
3 ... Its not 66 million folk that have to put the chancers up though Brian is it ... The chancers get sent to the same old places, not anywhere near you though of course

1 So no, you can't
2 According to who?
3 So just a handful then.

1 ... Ive already answered but you dont like it
2 ... See above
3 ... See above
4 ... Night night

All you've done is post a meaningless reply that provides no answers at all.

BTW, in respect of the "vile insults" you refer to, I think you'll find there are no insults at all, just a few unwelcome home truths.

Insults tend to be your territory, not mine.

Try this:
Insult.
verb
To treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront.
To affect as an affront; offend or demean.
To behave with insolent triumph; exult contemptuously (usually followed by on, upon, or over).
An insolent or contemptuously rude action or remark; affront.
userpelmetman
Posted: 13 August 2020 6:21 PM
Subject: RE: Migrantsn
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 32592
5000500050005000500050002000500252525
Location: Brexit On Sea. 1990 Ford Travelhome.


Bulletguy - 2020-08-13 5:37 PM

pelmetman - 2020-08-13 4:17 PM

Bulletguy - 2020-08-13 3:28 PM

jumpstart - 2020-08-13 1:13 PM

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 12:45 PM

Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 9:20 PM
jumpstart - 2020-08-12 6:44 PM
Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 4:56 PM
jumpstart - 2020-08-12 9:25 AM
pepe63 - 2020-08-12 8:57 AM
As I posted recently on another thread, there will be a range of reasons why people voted as they did..but to now pretend that immigration was not uppermost in the various high profile bodies that pushed for Leave, is a complete nonsense...

Absolutely,my point entirely, there was a range of reasons. I would agree that various papers and others tried to make immigration a high spot, but I don’t think it was the main reason why people voted leave. As you said there was a range of reasons.

They didn't need to "try" Jumpstart! All they had to do was keep the Leave campaign rolling feeding the xenophobes the horror stories about "swarms" of migrants "invading" OUR country. They had Farage whipping up the fanatics and Johnson delivering Cummings' soundbites to the Brexit adherents. Yes there was obviously more than immigration alone with the campaign, but to claim it was 'never about immigration' is simply being disingenuous or naive.

All just a lot of supposition,what ifs and maybe’s. You’ll all just have to wait till the next vote.

It was a referendum, not an election.

Let's try a different tack.

Allowing that those for whom immigration was a major concern may well have had other reasons to vote leave, would the referendum result have been the same had the immigration issue not been given such prominence?

After all, there was a reason why immigration figured so prominently, wasn't there? It was a device to sway public opinion, through fear, towards leave, was it not? Especially the complete nonsense about Turkey, and all those millions of Turks queueing at the border. That was a travesty.


We will never know. But at least it gives a REASON why vote leave won to all those who voted stay and they can continue to debate the if only’s for many years to come.

J/start.......we do already know! Come on, be honest about it, we've all known immigration was one of the key points used in the Leave campaign and how anyone could pretend other is beyond me!! Most knew even before the referendum and the few that didn't, most certainly did after as the racists and xenophobes became emboldened and were out on the streets telling any 'foreigny' looking folk to 'go back to your country', slapping posters up about Polish 'vermin go home'.....remember those? Police reported a massive spike in race hate crime post referendum.


1) So is uncontrolled migration not a problem to deluded LLLLB folk? .........

2) BTW......Your Massive spike dosen't seem to have put those EU migrants from staying .........

1) Uncontrolled suited BOTH governments who chose to ignore EU ruling, the subject has been raised many times before and explained in detail but you, don't listen and refuse to read so never learn. I've no idea what the silly acronym is either but the forum uses English as it's form of communicating posts. Try using it.

https://www.bruegel.org/2017/02/questionable-immigration-claims-in-the-brexit-white-paper/

2) LOL....Daily Mail. You can't leave it alone for a minute can you? Get sight of a juicy header and you're off playing with yourself.

Naturally you didn't READ any of the detail as only the header got you excited.

4,600 applications refused,

36,500 withdrawn or void

34,900 were invalid.


So yes it's put A LOT of EU workers off staying in a country that hates them as the graph Barry posted on another thread shows.


2018 is Sooo 2 years ago ............

userJohn52
Posted: 13 August 2020 6:23 PM
Subject: RE: Migrants
 


Legendary contributor

Posts: 7695
50002000500100252525
Location: Pissindoon, Scotland


pelmetman - 2020-08-12 9:54 PM

Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 9:50 PM


Are you on drugs?


Yep .......

Prepreration "H" when dealing with the likes of you .......


Well stop talking out of your arse then
userpelmetman
Posted: 13 August 2020 6:28 PM
Subject: RE: Migrants
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 32592
5000500050005000500050002000500252525
Location: Brexit On Sea. 1990 Ford Travelhome.


John52 - 2020-08-13 6:23 PM

pelmetman - 2020-08-12 9:54 PM

Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 9:50 PM


Are you on drugs?


Yep .......

Prepreration "H" when dealing with the likes of you .......


Well stop talking out of your arse then


At least I don't leave the outpourings of my arse in public bins ..........

Just sayin ........

userBulletguy
Posted: 13 August 2020 6:43 PM
Subject: RE: Migrantsn
 


The special one

Posts: 14034
500050002000200025
Location: Cheshire


jumpstart - 2020-08-13 5:38 PM

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 5:13 PM

jumpstart - 2020-08-13 1:13 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 12:45 PM
Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 9:20 PM
jumpstart - 2020-08-12 6:44 PM
Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 4:56 PM
jumpstart - 2020-08-12 9:25 AM
pepe63 - 2020-08-12 8:57 AM
As I posted recently on another thread, there will be a range of reasons why people voted as they did..but to now pretend that immigration was not uppermost in the various high profile bodies that pushed for Leave, is a complete nonsense...

Absolutely,my point entirely, there was a range of reasons. I would agree that various papers and others tried to make immigration a high spot, but I don’t think it was the main reason why people voted leave. As you said there was a range of reasons.

They didn't need to "try" Jumpstart! All they had to do was keep the Leave campaign rolling feeding the xenophobes the horror stories about "swarms" of migrants "invading" OUR country. They had Farage whipping up the fanatics and Johnson delivering Cummings' soundbites to the Brexit adherents. Yes there was obviously more than immigration alone with the campaign, but to claim it was 'never about immigration' is simply being disingenuous or naive.

All just a lot of supposition,what ifs and maybe’s. You’ll all just have to wait till the next vote.

It was a referendum, not an election.

Let's try a different tack.
Allowing that those for whom immigration was a major concern may well have had other reasons to vote leave, would the referendum result have been the same had the immigration issue not been given such prominence?
After all, there was a reason why immigration figured so prominently, wasn't there? It was a device to sway public opinion, through fear, towards leave, was it not? Especially the complete nonsense about Turkey, and all those millions of Turks queueing at the border. That was a travesty.

We will never know. But at least it gives a REASON why vote leave won to all those who voted stay and they can continue to debate the if only’s for many years to come.

But the reasons are reasonably clear. A survey, published in late 2016, provides the main reasons people voted leave.

This shows that the main reasons people gave for voting leave were the economy (21%), immigration (20%) and sovereignty/EU bureaucracy (17%). Other reasons were the campaign, cosmopolitanism, foreign policy, protection of rights, EU spending/regulation/costs, other stability or uncertainty concern, British/English identity, family, social identity/partisanship, and EU integration/stability, in order of importance, ranging down from 7% to 1%.

The research was carried out by NatCen, drawing on information from the British Social Attitudes Survey, random sampling of their own panel, and the British Election Study Internet Panel. The full survey report, and the accompanying Excel data sets, can be downloaded here: https://tinyurl.com/y4nwdohv

But, immigration clearly figures alongside the economy as one of the two largest concerns people has about EU membership.

The newspapers most read by leave voters are also (if predictably) interesting. In descending order, the Sun, the Express, the Mail, the Star, the Telegraph, the Mirror, the Times, the FT, the Independent and the Guardian. Surprisingly, 12% read no paper, and a further 8% read an "other" paper.


Of course immigration was part of the voting equation......

If only you'd said that from the beginning rather than claiming it was 'never about immigration'!

......but to say it was solely the reason for failure to stay in the Eu is just wistfully looking for an excuse.

Nobody ever has.....but it was certainly one of the Leave campaigns key battle cries.
userJohn52
Posted: 13 August 2020 6:45 PM
Subject: RE: Migrants
 


Legendary contributor

Posts: 7695
50002000500100252525
Location: Pissindoon, Scotland


pelmetman - 2020-08-13 6:28 PM

John52 - 2020-08-13 6:23 PM

pelmetman - 2020-08-12 9:54 PM

Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 9:50 PM


Are you on drugs?


Yep .......

Prepreration "H" when dealing with the likes of you .......


Well stop talking out of your arse then


At least I don't leave the outpourings of my arse in public bins ..........

Just sayin ........



Neither do I because I use dog waste bins as I have told you before.
The fact you change it to 'public bins' to make it sound worse shows you can't be trusted.
userBulletguy
Posted: 13 August 2020 6:48 PM
Subject: RE: Migrantsn
 


The special one

Posts: 14034
500050002000200025
Location: Cheshire


pelmetman - 2020-08-13 6:21 PM

Bulletguy - 2020-08-13 5:37 PM

pelmetman - 2020-08-13 4:17 PM

Bulletguy - 2020-08-13 3:28 PM

jumpstart - 2020-08-13 1:13 PM

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 12:45 PM

Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 9:20 PM
jumpstart - 2020-08-12 6:44 PM
Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 4:56 PM
jumpstart - 2020-08-12 9:25 AM
pepe63 - 2020-08-12 8:57 AM
As I posted recently on another thread, there will be a range of reasons why people voted as they did..but to now pretend that immigration was not uppermost in the various high profile bodies that pushed for Leave, is a complete nonsense...

Absolutely,my point entirely, there was a range of reasons. I would agree that various papers and others tried to make immigration a high spot, but I don’t think it was the main reason why people voted leave. As you said there was a range of reasons.

They didn't need to "try" Jumpstart! All they had to do was keep the Leave campaign rolling feeding the xenophobes the horror stories about "swarms" of migrants "invading" OUR country. They had Farage whipping up the fanatics and Johnson delivering Cummings' soundbites to the Brexit adherents. Yes there was obviously more than immigration alone with the campaign, but to claim it was 'never about immigration' is simply being disingenuous or naive.

All just a lot of supposition,what ifs and maybe’s. You’ll all just have to wait till the next vote.

It was a referendum, not an election.

Let's try a different tack.

Allowing that those for whom immigration was a major concern may well have had other reasons to vote leave, would the referendum result have been the same had the immigration issue not been given such prominence?

After all, there was a reason why immigration figured so prominently, wasn't there? It was a device to sway public opinion, through fear, towards leave, was it not? Especially the complete nonsense about Turkey, and all those millions of Turks queueing at the border. That was a travesty.


We will never know. But at least it gives a REASON why vote leave won to all those who voted stay and they can continue to debate the if only’s for many years to come.

J/start.......we do already know! Come on, be honest about it, we've all known immigration was one of the key points used in the Leave campaign and how anyone could pretend other is beyond me!! Most knew even before the referendum and the few that didn't, most certainly did after as the racists and xenophobes became emboldened and were out on the streets telling any 'foreigny' looking folk to 'go back to your country', slapping posters up about Polish 'vermin go home'.....remember those? Police reported a massive spike in race hate crime post referendum.


1) So is uncontrolled migration not a problem to deluded LLLLB folk? .........

2) BTW......Your Massive spike dosen't seem to have put those EU migrants from staying .........

1) Uncontrolled suited BOTH governments who chose to ignore EU ruling, the subject has been raised many times before and explained in detail but you, don't listen and refuse to read so never learn. I've no idea what the silly acronym is either but the forum uses English as it's form of communicating posts. Try using it.

https://www.bruegel.org/2017/02/questionable-immigration-claims-in-the-brexit-white-paper/

2) LOL....Daily Mail. You can't leave it alone for a minute can you? Get sight of a juicy header and you're off playing with yourself.

Naturally you didn't READ any of the detail as only the header got you excited.

4,600 applications refused,

36,500 withdrawn or void

34,900 were invalid.


So yes it's put A LOT of EU workers off staying in a country that hates them as the graph Barry posted on another thread shows.


2018 is Sooo 2 years ago ............

So post a graph showing EU migration to UK on a par with that of non-EU. Come on motormouth, instead of gobbing off meaningless inane drink fuelled drivel, lets see what you can manage.
userjumpstart
Posted: 13 August 2020 6:49 PM
Subject: RE: Migrantsn
 
Forum master

Posts: 2585
2000500252525
Location: Somerset Elddis 115,2019 Peugeot.


Bulletguy - 2020-08-13 6:43 PM

jumpstart - 2020-08-13 5:38 PM

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 5:13 PM

jumpstart - 2020-08-13 1:13 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 12:45 PM
Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 9:20 PM
jumpstart - 2020-08-12 6:44 PM
Bulletguy - 2020-08-12 4:56 PM
jumpstart - 2020-08-12 9:25 AM
pepe63 - 2020-08-12 8:57 AM
As I posted recently on another thread, there will be a range of reasons why people voted as they did..but to now pretend that immigration was not uppermost in the various high profile bodies that pushed for Leave, is a complete nonsense...

Absolutely,my point entirely, there was a range of reasons. I would agree that various papers and others tried to make immigration a high spot, but I don’t think it was the main reason why people voted leave. As you said there was a range of reasons.

They didn't need to "try" Jumpstart! All they had to do was keep the Leave campaign rolling feeding the xenophobes the horror stories about "swarms" of migrants "invading" OUR country. They had Farage whipping up the fanatics and Johnson delivering Cummings' soundbites to the Brexit adherents. Yes there was obviously more than immigration alone with the campaign, but to claim it was 'never about immigration' is simply being disingenuous or naive.

All just a lot of supposition,what ifs and maybe’s. You’ll all just have to wait till the next vote.

It was a referendum, not an election.

Let's try a different tack.
Allowing that those for whom immigration was a major concern may well have had other reasons to vote leave, would the referendum result have been the same had the immigration issue not been given such prominence?
After all, there was a reason why immigration figured so prominently, wasn't there? It was a device to sway public opinion, through fear, towards leave, was it not? Especially the complete nonsense about Turkey, and all those millions of Turks queueing at the border. That was a travesty.

We will never know. But at least it gives a REASON why vote leave won to all those who voted stay and they can continue to debate the if only’s for many years to come.

But the reasons are reasonably clear. A survey, published in late 2016, provides the main reasons people voted leave.

This shows that the main reasons people gave for voting leave were the economy (21%), immigration (20%) and sovereignty/EU bureaucracy (17%). Other reasons were the campaign, cosmopolitanism, foreign policy, protection of rights, EU spending/regulation/costs, other stability or uncertainty concern, British/English identity, family, social identity/partisanship, and EU integration/stability, in order of importance, ranging down from 7% to 1%.

The research was carried out by NatCen, drawing on information from the British Social Attitudes Survey, random sampling of their own panel, and the British Election Study Internet Panel. The full survey report, and the accompanying Excel data sets, can be downloaded here: https://tinyurl.com/y4nwdohv

But, immigration clearly figures alongside the economy as one of the two largest concerns people has about EU membership.

The newspapers most read by leave voters are also (if predictably) interesting. In descending order, the Sun, the Express, the Mail, the Star, the Telegraph, the Mirror, the Times, the FT, the Independent and the Guardian. Surprisingly, 12% read no paper, and a further 8% read an "other" paper.


Of course immigration was part of the voting equation......

If only you'd said that from the beginning rather than claiming it was 'never about immigration'!

......but to say it was solely the reason for failure to stay in the Eu is just wistfully looking for an excuse.

Nobody ever has.....but it was certainly one of the Leave campaigns key battle cries.


Accepted, I didn’t mean it wasn’t there at all just that there were lots of issues.
userBirdbrain
Posted: 13 August 2020 7:18 PM
Subject: RE: Migrants
 


Lord of the posts

Posts: 6019
50001000


Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 5:41 PM

Birdbrain - 2020-08-13 5:23 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 12:20 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 7:07 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-12 1:25 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 6:13 AM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-10 12:52 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-09 2:23 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-09 11:44 AM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:08 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 6:18 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 3:45 PM
……………………………... I said I dont care how the Navy deals with them, is that so difficult to understand and I dont need to think anything through and its certainly not uncomfortable Princess ... As long as they dont land on our shores I dont care ... Simple enough for ya

So you'd be happy for the navy to bring them into a UK port?

Not particularly no but until the laws are changed and we brought these types back to a UK port to be moved immediately into a secure compound with basic needs rather than 4 star luxury till they were removed then yes I suppose I can live with that ... Would you prefer to put them up at your gaffe or use your motorhome than my secure compound idea ??? ... Just asking

So involving the navy would achieve nothing under present circumstances that the coastguard is not already achieving. So, why then involve the navy who would have to use vessels currently employed on fisheries protection duties? This "navy stuff" is all bluff and bluster with no purpose.
Housing the migrants in hotels is not a matter of choice; it is being done because the existing secure accommodation is full. So, which is the cheaper alternative? Temporarily use under used hotel accommodation, or start a crash building operation to provide additional secure accommodation for the present surge in numbers, which will decline over winter, and will eventually permanently decline? It is a reasonable stop-gap measure that also keeps a few hotels in business.
If you want to keep the migrants out, why do you also want more accommodation for them? Doesn't add up, does it?

Depends what the navy does doesnt it as to comparing it to what is done now ... I told you before put these types up in containers in a secure compound, maybe near you if your so concerned or better still you put them up at your home Merkel Mansions ??? ... Doesnt need any new buildings just containers

So you think the UK should just renege on its international obligations (that it helped draft) and then what, leave the UN and other international organisations (that it helped found) - because it can't handle a relative handful of migrants? You and Dave love banana republics, don't you? That'd do our international reputation and influence no end of good, wouldn't it? And what then for all those Brexity trade deals our future now depends on? Great scheme!

1 You seem unable to grasp that Brexit happened partly because of "international obligations" like The Dublin Regulation
2 and Brexit voters, the winners of the referendum are sick and stalled of laws that do nothing for them and Blighty yet everything for chancers …
3 "handful of migrants" , the world according to Brian ... There is another world outside of leafy East Sussex Princess

1 I was unaware that the Dublin Regulations were a factor in the Brexit vote. I don't recall them being mentioned. Can you say where they figured, and how? But, having said that, the Dublin Regulations provide a right for an EU state that is entered by a refugee seeking asylum, where the refugee has clearly entered from a neighbouring EU state, to require the neighbouring state to take back the refugee, on the basis that the correct place for the application for asylum to be lodged and assessed was the first EU state the refugee entered. Through Brexit that right is now lost, so the only applicable law is that which I outlined in my above post of 11 August 2020 at 4:41 PM.
2 Brexiters may be as sick as the proverbial parrot about international obligations, nut unless and until the UK withdraws from its international undertakings, they remain legally binding. Brexiters should bear in mind that all such obligations are mutually binding, so if the UK withdraws the provisions will cease equally to apply to British subjects abroad. Which seems to take us back to Dirty Harry: "You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do you, punk?" So do you?
3 The annual number entering the UK by crossing the channel each year varies between a few hundred and a few thousand. It has increased since the Brexit vote, especially since Brexit. It is part of what Brexiters voted for. The UK has a population of approximately 66 million. It receives about 40,000 (6%) asylum claims annually (meaning 94% enter by alternative routes), and about 4,000 (0.06%) have so far crossed the Channel this year, so yes, a relative handful. Not all claims are successful.

1 ... Chuckle, you who I have asked for evidence of the vile insults you have chucked my way at times and offered nothing now want me to provide evidence of my claim ... Chuckle
2 ... Dont remember anyone saying they want to withdraw from all regulations, just the ones that serve others more than UK residents
3 ... Its not 66 million folk that have to put the chancers up though Brian is it ... The chancers get sent to the same old places, not anywhere near you though of course

1 So no, you can't
2 According to who?
3 So just a handful then.

1 ... Ive already answered but you dont like it
2 ... See above
3 ... See above
4 ... Night night

All you've done is post a meaningless reply that provides no answers at all.

BTW, in respect of the "vile insults" you refer to, I think you'll find there are no insults at all, just a few unwelcome home truths.

Insults tend to be your territory, not mine.

Try this:
Insult.
verb
To treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront.
To affect as an affront; offend or demean.
To behave with insolent triumph; exult contemptuously (usually followed by on, upon, or over).
An insolent or contemptuously rude action or remark; affront.


"vile insults" or "home truths" you have never to this day proved any when challenged ... Says more about you princess
userBulletguy
Posted: 13 August 2020 8:28 PM
Subject: RE: Migrants
 


The special one

Posts: 14034
500050002000200025
Location: Cheshire


Birdbrain - 2020-08-13 7:18 PM

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 5:41 PM

Birdbrain - 2020-08-13 5:23 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 12:20 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 7:07 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-12 1:25 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 6:13 AM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-10 12:52 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-09 2:23 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-09 11:44 AM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:08 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 6:18 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 3:45 PM
……………………………... I said I dont care how the Navy deals with them, is that so difficult to understand and I dont need to think anything through and its certainly not uncomfortable Princess ... As long as they dont land on our shores I dont care ... Simple enough for ya

So you'd be happy for the navy to bring them into a UK port?

Not particularly no but until the laws are changed and we brought these types back to a UK port to be moved immediately into a secure compound with basic needs rather than 4 star luxury till they were removed then yes I suppose I can live with that ... Would you prefer to put them up at your gaffe or use your motorhome than my secure compound idea ??? ... Just asking

So involving the navy would achieve nothing under present circumstances that the coastguard is not already achieving. So, why then involve the navy who would have to use vessels currently employed on fisheries protection duties? This "navy stuff" is all bluff and bluster with no purpose.
Housing the migrants in hotels is not a matter of choice; it is being done because the existing secure accommodation is full. So, which is the cheaper alternative? Temporarily use under used hotel accommodation, or start a crash building operation to provide additional secure accommodation for the present surge in numbers, which will decline over winter, and will eventually permanently decline? It is a reasonable stop-gap measure that also keeps a few hotels in business.
If you want to keep the migrants out, why do you also want more accommodation for them? Doesn't add up, does it?

Depends what the navy does doesnt it as to comparing it to what is done now ... I told you before put these types up in containers in a secure compound, maybe near you if your so concerned or better still you put them up at your home Merkel Mansions ??? ... Doesnt need any new buildings just containers

So you think the UK should just renege on its international obligations (that it helped draft) and then what, leave the UN and other international organisations (that it helped found) - because it can't handle a relative handful of migrants? You and Dave love banana republics, don't you? That'd do our international reputation and influence no end of good, wouldn't it? And what then for all those Brexity trade deals our future now depends on? Great scheme!

1 You seem unable to grasp that Brexit happened partly because of "international obligations" like The Dublin Regulation
2 and Brexit voters, the winners of the referendum are sick and stalled of laws that do nothing for them and Blighty yet everything for chancers …
3 "handful of migrants" , the world according to Brian ... There is another world outside of leafy East Sussex Princess

1 I was unaware that the Dublin Regulations were a factor in the Brexit vote. I don't recall them being mentioned. Can you say where they figured, and how? But, having said that, the Dublin Regulations provide a right for an EU state that is entered by a refugee seeking asylum, where the refugee has clearly entered from a neighbouring EU state, to require the neighbouring state to take back the refugee, on the basis that the correct place for the application for asylum to be lodged and assessed was the first EU state the refugee entered. Through Brexit that right is now lost, so the only applicable law is that which I outlined in my above post of 11 August 2020 at 4:41 PM.
2 Brexiters may be as sick as the proverbial parrot about international obligations, nut unless and until the UK withdraws from its international undertakings, they remain legally binding. Brexiters should bear in mind that all such obligations are mutually binding, so if the UK withdraws the provisions will cease equally to apply to British subjects abroad. Which seems to take us back to Dirty Harry: "You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do you, punk?" So do you?
3 The annual number entering the UK by crossing the channel each year varies between a few hundred and a few thousand. It has increased since the Brexit vote, especially since Brexit. It is part of what Brexiters voted for. The UK has a population of approximately 66 million. It receives about 40,000 (6%) asylum claims annually (meaning 94% enter by alternative routes), and about 4,000 (0.06%) have so far crossed the Channel this year, so yes, a relative handful. Not all claims are successful.

1 ... Chuckle, you who I have asked for evidence of the vile insults you have chucked my way at times and offered nothing now want me to provide evidence of my claim ... Chuckle
2 ... Dont remember anyone saying they want to withdraw from all regulations, just the ones that serve others more than UK residents
3 ... Its not 66 million folk that have to put the chancers up though Brian is it ... The chancers get sent to the same old places, not anywhere near you though of course

1 So no, you can't
2 According to who?
3 So just a handful then.

1 ... Ive already answered but you dont like it
2 ... See above
3 ... See above
4 ... Night night

All you've done is post a meaningless reply that provides no answers at all.

BTW, in respect of the "vile insults" you refer to, I think you'll find there are no insults at all, just a few unwelcome home truths.

Insults tend to be your territory, not mine.

Try this:
Insult.
verb
To treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront.
To affect as an affront; offend or demean.
To behave with insolent triumph; exult contemptuously (usually followed by on, upon, or over).
An insolent or contemptuously rude action or remark; affront.


"vile insults" or "home truths" you have never to this day proved any when challenged ... Says more about you princess

Remember when you were crying about being 'picked on', 'accused of being a racist' etc then claiming you were not at all? I seem to recall Brian spending a lot of time and effort explaining to you if that was genuinely the case, perhaps if you learned to moderate your tone more in posts, others might just begin to take you a bit more seriously. But you can't and revert to type in a flash, hence the reason you were so quickly caught out as pbu Antony1969. That's an example of the 'home truths' but as usual it fell on deaf ears and your manic obsession with incessant postings about Muslims, ethnics and migrants, along with your usual blustering arrogance and contempt toward anyone not sharing your views continues unabated.
userBirdbrain
Posted: 13 August 2020 8:51 PM
Subject: RE: Migrants
 


Lord of the posts

Posts: 6019
50001000


Bulletguy - 2020-08-13 8:28 PM

Birdbrain - 2020-08-13 7:18 PM

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 5:41 PM

Birdbrain - 2020-08-13 5:23 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 12:20 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 7:07 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-12 1:25 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 6:13 AM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-10 12:52 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-09 2:23 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-09 11:44 AM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:08 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 6:18 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 3:45 PM
……………………………... I said I dont care how the Navy deals with them, is that so difficult to understand and I dont need to think anything through and its certainly not uncomfortable Princess ... As long as they dont land on our shores I dont care ... Simple enough for ya

So you'd be happy for the navy to bring them into a UK port?

Not particularly no but until the laws are changed and we brought these types back to a UK port to be moved immediately into a secure compound with basic needs rather than 4 star luxury till they were removed then yes I suppose I can live with that ... Would you prefer to put them up at your gaffe or use your motorhome than my secure compound idea ??? ... Just asking

So involving the navy would achieve nothing under present circumstances that the coastguard is not already achieving. So, why then involve the navy who would have to use vessels currently employed on fisheries protection duties? This "navy stuff" is all bluff and bluster with no purpose.
Housing the migrants in hotels is not a matter of choice; it is being done because the existing secure accommodation is full. So, which is the cheaper alternative? Temporarily use under used hotel accommodation, or start a crash building operation to provide additional secure accommodation for the present surge in numbers, which will decline over winter, and will eventually permanently decline? It is a reasonable stop-gap measure that also keeps a few hotels in business.
If you want to keep the migrants out, why do you also want more accommodation for them? Doesn't add up, does it?

Depends what the navy does doesnt it as to comparing it to what is done now ... I told you before put these types up in containers in a secure compound, maybe near you if your so concerned or better still you put them up at your home Merkel Mansions ??? ... Doesnt need any new buildings just containers

So you think the UK should just renege on its international obligations (that it helped draft) and then what, leave the UN and other international organisations (that it helped found) - because it can't handle a relative handful of migrants? You and Dave love banana republics, don't you? That'd do our international reputation and influence no end of good, wouldn't it? And what then for all those Brexity trade deals our future now depends on? Great scheme!

1 You seem unable to grasp that Brexit happened partly because of "international obligations" like The Dublin Regulation
2 and Brexit voters, the winners of the referendum are sick and stalled of laws that do nothing for them and Blighty yet everything for chancers …
3 "handful of migrants" , the world according to Brian ... There is another world outside of leafy East Sussex Princess

1 I was unaware that the Dublin Regulations were a factor in the Brexit vote. I don't recall them being mentioned. Can you say where they figured, and how? But, having said that, the Dublin Regulations provide a right for an EU state that is entered by a refugee seeking asylum, where the refugee has clearly entered from a neighbouring EU state, to require the neighbouring state to take back the refugee, on the basis that the correct place for the application for asylum to be lodged and assessed was the first EU state the refugee entered. Through Brexit that right is now lost, so the only applicable law is that which I outlined in my above post of 11 August 2020 at 4:41 PM.
2 Brexiters may be as sick as the proverbial parrot about international obligations, nut unless and until the UK withdraws from its international undertakings, they remain legally binding. Brexiters should bear in mind that all such obligations are mutually binding, so if the UK withdraws the provisions will cease equally to apply to British subjects abroad. Which seems to take us back to Dirty Harry: "You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do you, punk?" So do you?
3 The annual number entering the UK by crossing the channel each year varies between a few hundred and a few thousand. It has increased since the Brexit vote, especially since Brexit. It is part of what Brexiters voted for. The UK has a population of approximately 66 million. It receives about 40,000 (6%) asylum claims annually (meaning 94% enter by alternative routes), and about 4,000 (0.06%) have so far crossed the Channel this year, so yes, a relative handful. Not all claims are successful.

1 ... Chuckle, you who I have asked for evidence of the vile insults you have chucked my way at times and offered nothing now want me to provide evidence of my claim ... Chuckle
2 ... Dont remember anyone saying they want to withdraw from all regulations, just the ones that serve others more than UK residents
3 ... Its not 66 million folk that have to put the chancers up though Brian is it ... The chancers get sent to the same old places, not anywhere near you though of course

1 So no, you can't
2 According to who?
3 So just a handful then.

1 ... Ive already answered but you dont like it
2 ... See above
3 ... See above
4 ... Night night

All you've done is post a meaningless reply that provides no answers at all.

BTW, in respect of the "vile insults" you refer to, I think you'll find there are no insults at all, just a few unwelcome home truths.

Insults tend to be your territory, not mine.

Try this:
Insult.
verb
To treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront.
To affect as an affront; offend or demean.
To behave with insolent triumph; exult contemptuously (usually followed by on, upon, or over).
An insolent or contemptuously rude action or remark; affront.


"vile insults" or "home truths" you have never to this day proved any when challenged ... Says more about you princess

Remember when you were crying about being 'picked on', 'accused of being a racist' etc then claiming you were not at all? I seem to recall Brian spending a lot of time and effort explaining to you if that was genuinely the case, perhaps if you learned to moderate your tone more in posts, others might just begin to take you a bit more seriously. But you can't and revert to type in a flash, hence the reason you were so quickly caught out as pbu Antony1969. That's an example of the 'home truths' but as usual it fell on deaf ears and your manic obsession with incessant postings about Muslims, ethnics and migrants, along with your usual blustering arrogance and contempt toward anyone not sharing your views continues unabated.


From the forums very own homophobe ... Who denied it of course ... Only to be shown hes not just a homophobe but a liar ... Chuckle ... Your funny and confused
userBulletguy
Posted: 13 August 2020 9:08 PM
Subject: RE: Migrants
 


The special one

Posts: 14034
500050002000200025
Location: Cheshire


Birdbrain - 2020-08-13 8:51 PM

Bulletguy - 2020-08-13 8:28 PM

Birdbrain - 2020-08-13 7:18 PM

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 5:41 PM

Birdbrain - 2020-08-13 5:23 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 12:20 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 7:07 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-12 1:25 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 6:13 AM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-10 12:52 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-09 2:23 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-09 11:44 AM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:08 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 6:18 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 3:45 PM
……………………………... I said I dont care how the Navy deals with them, is that so difficult to understand and I dont need to think anything through and its certainly not uncomfortable Princess ... As long as they dont land on our shores I dont care ... Simple enough for ya

So you'd be happy for the navy to bring them into a UK port?

Not particularly no but until the laws are changed and we brought these types back to a UK port to be moved immediately into a secure compound with basic needs rather than 4 star luxury till they were removed then yes I suppose I can live with that ... Would you prefer to put them up at your gaffe or use your motorhome than my secure compound idea ??? ... Just asking

So involving the navy would achieve nothing under present circumstances that the coastguard is not already achieving. So, why then involve the navy who would have to use vessels currently employed on fisheries protection duties? This "navy stuff" is all bluff and bluster with no purpose.
Housing the migrants in hotels is not a matter of choice; it is being done because the existing secure accommodation is full. So, which is the cheaper alternative? Temporarily use under used hotel accommodation, or start a crash building operation to provide additional secure accommodation for the present surge in numbers, which will decline over winter, and will eventually permanently decline? It is a reasonable stop-gap measure that also keeps a few hotels in business.
If you want to keep the migrants out, why do you also want more accommodation for them? Doesn't add up, does it?

Depends what the navy does doesnt it as to comparing it to what is done now ... I told you before put these types up in containers in a secure compound, maybe near you if your so concerned or better still you put them up at your home Merkel Mansions ??? ... Doesnt need any new buildings just containers

So you think the UK should just renege on its international obligations (that it helped draft) and then what, leave the UN and other international organisations (that it helped found) - because it can't handle a relative handful of migrants? You and Dave love banana republics, don't you? That'd do our international reputation and influence no end of good, wouldn't it? And what then for all those Brexity trade deals our future now depends on? Great scheme!

1 You seem unable to grasp that Brexit happened partly because of "international obligations" like The Dublin Regulation
2 and Brexit voters, the winners of the referendum are sick and stalled of laws that do nothing for them and Blighty yet everything for chancers …
3 "handful of migrants" , the world according to Brian ... There is another world outside of leafy East Sussex Princess

1 I was unaware that the Dublin Regulations were a factor in the Brexit vote. I don't recall them being mentioned. Can you say where they figured, and how? But, having said that, the Dublin Regulations provide a right for an EU state that is entered by a refugee seeking asylum, where the refugee has clearly entered from a neighbouring EU state, to require the neighbouring state to take back the refugee, on the basis that the correct place for the application for asylum to be lodged and assessed was the first EU state the refugee entered. Through Brexit that right is now lost, so the only applicable law is that which I outlined in my above post of 11 August 2020 at 4:41 PM.
2 Brexiters may be as sick as the proverbial parrot about international obligations, nut unless and until the UK withdraws from its international undertakings, they remain legally binding. Brexiters should bear in mind that all such obligations are mutually binding, so if the UK withdraws the provisions will cease equally to apply to British subjects abroad. Which seems to take us back to Dirty Harry: "You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do you, punk?" So do you?
3 The annual number entering the UK by crossing the channel each year varies between a few hundred and a few thousand. It has increased since the Brexit vote, especially since Brexit. It is part of what Brexiters voted for. The UK has a population of approximately 66 million. It receives about 40,000 (6%) asylum claims annually (meaning 94% enter by alternative routes), and about 4,000 (0.06%) have so far crossed the Channel this year, so yes, a relative handful. Not all claims are successful.

1 ... Chuckle, you who I have asked for evidence of the vile insults you have chucked my way at times and offered nothing now want me to provide evidence of my claim ... Chuckle
2 ... Dont remember anyone saying they want to withdraw from all regulations, just the ones that serve others more than UK residents
3 ... Its not 66 million folk that have to put the chancers up though Brian is it ... The chancers get sent to the same old places, not anywhere near you though of course

1 So no, you can't
2 According to who?
3 So just a handful then.

1 ... Ive already answered but you dont like it
2 ... See above
3 ... See above
4 ... Night night

All you've done is post a meaningless reply that provides no answers at all.

BTW, in respect of the "vile insults" you refer to, I think you'll find there are no insults at all, just a few unwelcome home truths.

Insults tend to be your territory, not mine.

Try this:
Insult.
verb
To treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront.
To affect as an affront; offend or demean.
To behave with insolent triumph; exult contemptuously (usually followed by on, upon, or over).
An insolent or contemptuously rude action or remark; affront.


"vile insults" or "home truths" you have never to this day proved any when challenged ... Says more about you princess

Remember when you were crying about being 'picked on', 'accused of being a racist' etc then claiming you were not at all? I seem to recall Brian spending a lot of time and effort explaining to you if that was genuinely the case, perhaps if you learned to moderate your tone more in posts, others might just begin to take you a bit more seriously. But you can't and revert to type in a flash, hence the reason you were so quickly caught out as pbu Antony1969. That's an example of the 'home truths' but as usual it fell on deaf ears and your manic obsession with incessant postings about Muslims, ethnics and migrants, along with your usual blustering arrogance and contempt toward anyone not sharing your views continues unabated.


From the forums very own homophobe ... Who denied it of course ... Only to be shown hes not just a homophobe but a liar ... Chuckle ... Your funny and confused

Something else you've had explained to you before but you can't leave alone. As i have no dislike of genuine homosexuals it's impossible for me to be homophobic unlike you who not only tried masquerading on this forum as one for some odd reason, but openly refers to them as "Batty boys". So not only are you a fake and a liar, you're certainly homophobic.

You're confused, not funny, and sick in the head. Go and get professional help.

Edited by Bulletguy 2020-08-13 9:08 PM
userjumpstart
Posted: 13 August 2020 9:13 PM
Subject: RE: Migrants
 
Forum master

Posts: 2585
2000500252525
Location: Somerset Elddis 115,2019 Peugeot.


Birdbrain - 2020-08-13 8:51 PM

Bulletguy - 2020-08-13 8:28 PM

Birdbrain - 2020-08-13 7:18 PM

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 5:41 PM

Birdbrain - 2020-08-13 5:23 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 12:20 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 7:07 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-12 1:25 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 6:13 AM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-10 12:52 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-09 2:23 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-09 11:44 AM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:08 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 6:18 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 3:45 PM
……………………………... I said I dont care how the Navy deals with them, is that so difficult to understand and I dont need to think anything through and its certainly not uncomfortable Princess ... As long as they dont land on our shores I dont care ... Simple enough for ya

So you'd be happy for the navy to bring them into a UK port?

Not particularly no but until the laws are changed and we brought these types back to a UK port to be moved immediately into a secure compound with basic needs rather than 4 star luxury till they were removed then yes I suppose I can live with that ... Would you prefer to put them up at your gaffe or use your motorhome than my secure compound idea ??? ... Just asking

So involving the navy would achieve nothing under present circumstances that the coastguard is not already achieving. So, why then involve the navy who would have to use vessels currently employed on fisheries protection duties? This "navy stuff" is all bluff and bluster with no purpose.
Housing the migrants in hotels is not a matter of choice; it is being done because the existing secure accommodation is full. So, which is the cheaper alternative? Temporarily use under used hotel accommodation, or start a crash building operation to provide additional secure accommodation for the present surge in numbers, which will decline over winter, and will eventually permanently decline? It is a reasonable stop-gap measure that also keeps a few hotels in business.
If you want to keep the migrants out, why do you also want more accommodation for them? Doesn't add up, does it?

Depends what the navy does doesnt it as to comparing it to what is done now ... I told you before put these types up in containers in a secure compound, maybe near you if your so concerned or better still you put them up at your home Merkel Mansions ??? ... Doesnt need any new buildings just containers

So you think the UK should just renege on its international obligations (that it helped draft) and then what, leave the UN and other international organisations (that it helped found) - because it can't handle a relative handful of migrants? You and Dave love banana republics, don't you? That'd do our international reputation and influence no end of good, wouldn't it? And what then for all those Brexity trade deals our future now depends on? Great scheme!

1 You seem unable to grasp that Brexit happened partly because of "international obligations" like The Dublin Regulation
2 and Brexit voters, the winners of the referendum are sick and stalled of laws that do nothing for them and Blighty yet everything for chancers …
3 "handful of migrants" , the world according to Brian ... There is another world outside of leafy East Sussex Princess

1 I was unaware that the Dublin Regulations were a factor in the Brexit vote. I don't recall them being mentioned. Can you say where they figured, and how? But, having said that, the Dublin Regulations provide a right for an EU state that is entered by a refugee seeking asylum, where the refugee has clearly entered from a neighbouring EU state, to require the neighbouring state to take back the refugee, on the basis that the correct place for the application for asylum to be lodged and assessed was the first EU state the refugee entered. Through Brexit that right is now lost, so the only applicable law is that which I outlined in my above post of 11 August 2020 at 4:41 PM.
2 Brexiters may be as sick as the proverbial parrot about international obligations, nut unless and until the UK withdraws from its international undertakings, they remain legally binding. Brexiters should bear in mind that all such obligations are mutually binding, so if the UK withdraws the provisions will cease equally to apply to British subjects abroad. Which seems to take us back to Dirty Harry: "You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do you, punk?" So do you?
3 The annual number entering the UK by crossing the channel each year varies between a few hundred and a few thousand. It has increased since the Brexit vote, especially since Brexit. It is part of what Brexiters voted for. The UK has a population of approximately 66 million. It receives about 40,000 (6%) asylum claims annually (meaning 94% enter by alternative routes), and about 4,000 (0.06%) have so far crossed the Channel this year, so yes, a relative handful. Not all claims are successful.

1 ... Chuckle, you who I have asked for evidence of the vile insults you have chucked my way at times and offered nothing now want me to provide evidence of my claim ... Chuckle
2 ... Dont remember anyone saying they want to withdraw from all regulations, just the ones that serve others more than UK residents
3 ... Its not 66 million folk that have to put the chancers up though Brian is it ... The chancers get sent to the same old places, not anywhere near you though of course

1 So no, you can't
2 According to who?
3 So just a handful then.

1 ... Ive already answered but you dont like it
2 ... See above
3 ... See above
4 ... Night night

All you've done is post a meaningless reply that provides no answers at all.

BTW, in respect of the "vile insults" you refer to, I think you'll find there are no insults at all, just a few unwelcome home truths.

Insults tend to be your territory, not mine.

Try this:
Insult.
verb
To treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront.
To affect as an affront; offend or demean.
To behave with insolent triumph; exult contemptuously (usually followed by on, upon, or over).
An insolent or contemptuously rude action or remark; affront.


"vile insults" or "home truths" you have never to this day proved any when challenged ... Says more about you princess

Remember when you were crying about being 'picked on', 'accused of being a racist' etc then claiming you were not at all? I seem to recall Brian spending a lot of time and effort explaining to you if that was genuinely the case, perhaps if you learned to moderate your tone more in posts, others might just begin to take you a bit more seriously. But you can't and revert to type in a flash, hence the reason you were so quickly caught out as pbu Antony1969. That's an example of the 'home truths' but as usual it fell on deaf ears and your manic obsession with incessant postings about Muslims, ethnics and migrants, along with your usual blustering arrogance and contempt toward anyone not sharing your views continues unabated.


From the forums very own homophobe ... Who denied it of course ... Only to be shown hes not just a homophobe but a liar ... Chuckle ... Your funny and confused


Is your memory so vacant. Many here have tried to dissuade you from your constant verbal abuse,but hey ho, it’s ironic that you should take offence.
userBirdbrain
Posted: 14 August 2020 6:17 AM
Subject: RE: Migrants
 


Lord of the posts

Posts: 6019
50001000


Bulletguy - 2020-08-13 9:08 PM

Birdbrain - 2020-08-13 8:51 PM

Bulletguy - 2020-08-13 8:28 PM

Birdbrain - 2020-08-13 7:18 PM

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 5:41 PM

Birdbrain - 2020-08-13 5:23 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 12:20 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 7:07 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-12 1:25 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 6:13 AM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-10 12:52 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-09 2:23 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-09 11:44 AM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:08 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 6:18 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 3:45 PM
……………………………... I said I dont care how the Navy deals with them, is that so difficult to understand and I dont need to think anything through and its certainly not uncomfortable Princess ... As long as they dont land on our shores I dont care ... Simple enough for ya

So you'd be happy for the navy to bring them into a UK port?

Not particularly no but until the laws are changed and we brought these types back to a UK port to be moved immediately into a secure compound with basic needs rather than 4 star luxury till they were removed then yes I suppose I can live with that ... Would you prefer to put them up at your gaffe or use your motorhome than my secure compound idea ??? ... Just asking

So involving the navy would achieve nothing under present circumstances that the coastguard is not already achieving. So, why then involve the navy who would have to use vessels currently employed on fisheries protection duties? This "navy stuff" is all bluff and bluster with no purpose.
Housing the migrants in hotels is not a matter of choice; it is being done because the existing secure accommodation is full. So, which is the cheaper alternative? Temporarily use under used hotel accommodation, or start a crash building operation to provide additional secure accommodation for the present surge in numbers, which will decline over winter, and will eventually permanently decline? It is a reasonable stop-gap measure that also keeps a few hotels in business.
If you want to keep the migrants out, why do you also want more accommodation for them? Doesn't add up, does it?

Depends what the navy does doesnt it as to comparing it to what is done now ... I told you before put these types up in containers in a secure compound, maybe near you if your so concerned or better still you put them up at your home Merkel Mansions ??? ... Doesnt need any new buildings just containers

So you think the UK should just renege on its international obligations (that it helped draft) and then what, leave the UN and other international organisations (that it helped found) - because it can't handle a relative handful of migrants? You and Dave love banana republics, don't you? That'd do our international reputation and influence no end of good, wouldn't it? And what then for all those Brexity trade deals our future now depends on? Great scheme!

1 You seem unable to grasp that Brexit happened partly because of "international obligations" like The Dublin Regulation
2 and Brexit voters, the winners of the referendum are sick and stalled of laws that do nothing for them and Blighty yet everything for chancers …
3 "handful of migrants" , the world according to Brian ... There is another world outside of leafy East Sussex Princess

1 I was unaware that the Dublin Regulations were a factor in the Brexit vote. I don't recall them being mentioned. Can you say where they figured, and how? But, having said that, the Dublin Regulations provide a right for an EU state that is entered by a refugee seeking asylum, where the refugee has clearly entered from a neighbouring EU state, to require the neighbouring state to take back the refugee, on the basis that the correct place for the application for asylum to be lodged and assessed was the first EU state the refugee entered. Through Brexit that right is now lost, so the only applicable law is that which I outlined in my above post of 11 August 2020 at 4:41 PM.
2 Brexiters may be as sick as the proverbial parrot about international obligations, nut unless and until the UK withdraws from its international undertakings, they remain legally binding. Brexiters should bear in mind that all such obligations are mutually binding, so if the UK withdraws the provisions will cease equally to apply to British subjects abroad. Which seems to take us back to Dirty Harry: "You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do you, punk?" So do you?
3 The annual number entering the UK by crossing the channel each year varies between a few hundred and a few thousand. It has increased since the Brexit vote, especially since Brexit. It is part of what Brexiters voted for. The UK has a population of approximately 66 million. It receives about 40,000 (6%) asylum claims annually (meaning 94% enter by alternative routes), and about 4,000 (0.06%) have so far crossed the Channel this year, so yes, a relative handful. Not all claims are successful.

1 ... Chuckle, you who I have asked for evidence of the vile insults you have chucked my way at times and offered nothing now want me to provide evidence of my claim ... Chuckle
2 ... Dont remember anyone saying they want to withdraw from all regulations, just the ones that serve others more than UK residents
3 ... Its not 66 million folk that have to put the chancers up though Brian is it ... The chancers get sent to the same old places, not anywhere near you though of course

1 So no, you can't
2 According to who?
3 So just a handful then.

1 ... Ive already answered but you dont like it
2 ... See above
3 ... See above
4 ... Night night

All you've done is post a meaningless reply that provides no answers at all.

BTW, in respect of the "vile insults" you refer to, I think you'll find there are no insults at all, just a few unwelcome home truths.

Insults tend to be your territory, not mine.

Try this:
Insult.
verb
To treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront.
To affect as an affront; offend or demean.
To behave with insolent triumph; exult contemptuously (usually followed by on, upon, or over).
An insolent or contemptuously rude action or remark; affront.


"vile insults" or "home truths" you have never to this day proved any when challenged ... Says more about you princess

Remember when you were crying about being 'picked on', 'accused of being a racist' etc then claiming you were not at all? I seem to recall Brian spending a lot of time and effort explaining to you if that was genuinely the case, perhaps if you learned to moderate your tone more in posts, others might just begin to take you a bit more seriously. But you can't and revert to type in a flash, hence the reason you were so quickly caught out as pbu Antony1969. That's an example of the 'home truths' but as usual it fell on deaf ears and your manic obsession with incessant postings about Muslims, ethnics and migrants, along with your usual blustering arrogance and contempt toward anyone not sharing your views continues unabated.


From the forums very own homophobe ... Who denied it of course ... Only to be shown hes not just a homophobe but a liar ... Chuckle ... Your funny and confused

Something else you've had explained to you before but you can't leave alone. As i have no dislike of genuine homosexuals it's impossible for me to be homophobic unlike you who not only tried masquerading on this forum as one for some odd reason, but openly refers to them as "Batty boys". So not only are you a fake and a liar, you're certainly homophobic.

You're confused, not funny, and sick in the head. Go and get professional help.


Ye one who calls others "Pansy Boy" a well known homosexual slur obviously likes homosexuals ... Chuckle ... Im "sick in the head" ??? yet you are the one that follows me around the internet and hunts out my home address??? ... Chuckle
userBirdbrain
Posted: 14 August 2020 6:21 AM
Subject: RE: Migrants
 


Lord of the posts

Posts: 6019
50001000


jumpstart - 2020-08-13 9:13 PM

Birdbrain - 2020-08-13 8:51 PM

Bulletguy - 2020-08-13 8:28 PM

Birdbrain - 2020-08-13 7:18 PM

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 5:41 PM

Birdbrain - 2020-08-13 5:23 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-13 12:20 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 7:07 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-12 1:25 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-12 6:13 AM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-10 12:52 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-09 2:23 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-09 11:44 AM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:08 PM
Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 6:18 PM
Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 3:45 PM
……………………………... I said I dont care how the Navy deals with them, is that so difficult to understand and I dont need to think anything through and its certainly not uncomfortable Princess ... As long as they dont land on our shores I dont care ... Simple enough for ya

So you'd be happy for the navy to bring them into a UK port?

Not particularly no but until the laws are changed and we brought these types back to a UK port to be moved immediately into a secure compound with basic needs rather than 4 star luxury till they were removed then yes I suppose I can live with that ... Would you prefer to put them up at your gaffe or use your motorhome than my secure compound idea ??? ... Just asking

So involving the navy would achieve nothing under present circumstances that the coastguard is not already achieving. So, why then involve the navy who would have to use vessels currently employed on fisheries protection duties? This "navy stuff" is all bluff and bluster with no purpose.
Housing the migrants in hotels is not a matter of choice; it is being done because the existing secure accommodation is full. So, which is the cheaper alternative? Temporarily use under used hotel accommodation, or start a crash building operation to provide additional secure accommodation for the present surge in numbers, which will decline over winter, and will eventually permanently decline? It is a reasonable stop-gap measure that also keeps a few hotels in business.
If you want to keep the migrants out, why do you also want more accommodation for them? Doesn't add up, does it?

Depends what the navy does doesnt it as to comparing it to what is done now ... I told you before put these types up in containers in a secure compound, maybe near you if your so concerned or better still you put them up at your home Merkel Mansions ??? ... Doesnt need any new buildings just containers

So you think the UK should just renege on its international obligations (that it helped draft) and then what, leave the UN and other international organisations (that it helped found) - because it can't handle a relative handful of migrants? You and Dave love banana republics, don't you? That'd do our international reputation and influence no end of good, wouldn't it? And what then for all those Brexity trade deals our future now depends on? Great scheme!

1 You seem unable to grasp that Brexit happened partly because of "international obligations" like The Dublin Regulation
2 and Brexit voters, the winners of the referendum are sick and stalled of laws that do nothing for them and Blighty yet everything for chancers …
3 "handful of migrants" , the world according to Brian ... There is another world outside of leafy East Sussex Princess

1 I was unaware that the Dublin Regulations were a factor in the Brexit vote. I don't recall them being mentioned. Can you say where they figured, and how? But, having said that, the Dublin Regulations provide a right for an EU state that is entered by a refugee seeking asylum, where the refugee has clearly entered from a neighbouring EU state, to require the neighbouring state to take back the refugee, on the basis that the correct place for the application for asylum to be lodged and assessed was the first EU state the refugee entered. Through Brexit that right is now lost, so the only applicable law is that which I outlined in my above post of 11 August 2020 at 4:41 PM.
2 Brexiters may be as sick as the proverbial parrot about international obligations, nut unless and until the UK withdraws from its international undertakings, they remain legally binding. Brexiters should bear in mind that all such obligations are mutually binding, so if the UK withdraws the provisions will cease equally to apply to British subjects abroad. Which seems to take us back to Dirty Harry: "You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do you, punk?" So do you?
3 The annual number entering the UK by crossing the channel each year varies between a few hundred and a few thousand. It has increased since the Brexit vote, especially since Brexit. It is part of what Brexiters voted for. The UK has a population of approximately 66 million. It receives about 40,000 (6%) asylum claims annually (meaning 94% enter by alternative routes), and about 4,000 (0.06%) have so far crossed the Channel this year, so yes, a relative handful. Not all claims are successful.

1 ... Chuckle, you who I have asked for evidence of the vile insults you have chucked my way at times and offered nothing now want me to provide evidence of my claim ... Chuckle
2 ... Dont remember anyone saying they want to withdraw from all regulations, just the ones that serve others more than UK residents
3 ... Its not 66 million folk that have to put the chancers up though Brian is it ... The chancers get sent to the same old places, not anywhere near you though of course

1 So no, you can't
2 According to who?
3 So just a handful then.

1 ... Ive already answered but you dont like it
2 ... See above
3 ... See above
4 ... Night night

All you've done is post a meaningless reply that provides no answers at all.

BTW, in respect of the "vile insults" you refer to, I think you'll find there are no insults at all, just a few unwelcome home truths.

Insults tend to be your territory, not mine.

Try this:
Insult.
verb
To treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront.
To affect as an affront; offend or demean.
To behave with insolent triumph; exult contemptuously (usually followed by on, upon, or over).
An insolent or contemptuously rude action or remark; affront.


"vile insults" or "home truths" you have never to this day proved any when challenged ... Says more about you princess

Remember when you were crying about being 'picked on', 'accused of being a racist' etc then claiming you were not at all? I seem to recall Brian spending a lot of time and effort explaining to you if that was genuinely the case, perhaps if you learned to moderate your tone more in posts, others might just begin to take you a bit more seriously. But you can't and revert to type in a flash, hence the reason you were so quickly caught out as pbu Antony1969. That's an example of the 'home truths' but as usual it fell on deaf ears and your manic obsession with incessant postings about Muslims, ethnics and migrants, along with your usual blustering arrogance and contempt toward anyone not sharing your views continues unabated.


From the forums very own homophobe ... Who denied it of course ... Only to be shown hes not just a homophobe but a liar ... Chuckle ... Your funny and confused


Is your memory so vacant. Many here have tried to dissuade you from your constant verbal abuse,but hey ho, it’s ironic that you should take offence.


Chuckle ... Its now "verbal abuse" to call one that gets away with homophobic slurs on here a "homophobe" ... Now thats "ironic"
userjumpstart
Posted: 14 August 2020 6:47 AM
Subject: RE: Migrants
 
Forum master

Posts: 2585
2000500252525
Location: Somerset Elddis 115,2019 Peugeot.


Not what I was referring to.
Jump to page : FirstPrevious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread
Jump to forum :


(Delete all cookies set by this site)(Return to Homepage)

Any problems? Contact the administrator