 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's actually up to £10,000 per individual with a maximum of £40,000 for a family of 4 or more." Just as I said above:- "£10,000 per person, capped at £40,000 per family, with just 7 days to decide." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its for failed asylum seekers, right So if they have failed in their application, we send them back - so why the feck are we paying them to go" This makes my brain hurt. Does this mean if I break the law & have to go to prison I should get £10000 to make sure I go? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I recall it was the Tony Blair labour government that allowed a huge influx of migrants. However. I'm sorry that so many Polish people and others left due to Brexit, leaving services short of skilled and unskilled staff. Now we have unskilled unemployed people wandering around the streets. What's so special about wanting to come here now ?? " Trying to blame Tony Blair for 14 years of conservative incompetence (especially the back end) is certainly a bold take 😂. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I recall it was the Tony Blair labour government that allowed a huge influx of migrants. However. I'm sorry that so many Polish people and others left due to Brexit, leaving services short of skilled and unskilled staff. Now we have unskilled unemployed people wandering around the streets. What's so special about wanting to come here now ?? Trying to blame Tony Blair for 14 years of conservative incompetence (especially the back end) is certainly a bold take 😂." You've been listening to Starmer's record too much!!! 😂 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I recall it was the Tony Blair labour government that allowed a huge influx of migrants. However. I'm sorry that so many Polish people and others left due to Brexit, leaving services short of skilled and unskilled staff. Now we have unskilled unemployed people wandering around the streets. What's so special about wanting to come here now ?? " To understand the roots of the current immigration issue in the UK, it's essential to look back to 1948 when the British Nationality Act was passed. This Act, introduced by Clement Attlee's Labour government, granted Commonwealth citizens the right to live and work in the UK, paving the way for the Windrush generation's migration. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I recall it was the Tony Blair labour government that allowed a huge influx of migrants. However. I'm sorry that so many Polish people and others left due to Brexit, leaving services short of skilled and unskilled staff. Now we have unskilled unemployed people wandering around the streets. What's so special about wanting to come here now ?? Trying to blame Tony Blair for 14 years of conservative incompetence (especially the back end) is certainly a bold take 😂. You've been listening to Starmer's record too much!!! 😂" Just trying to live in reality whilst everyone else increasingly insists not to tbh. I don't have any particular admiration for the current PM but important to reject disinformation and propaganda. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As this current clown show of a government tries to make up policies on illegal migration hundreds more invade our country each week ( or day in good weather conditions) so they can’t really keep blaming the mess they’ve been left with by the previous government do we all remember one in one out ? Since they made that policy how many people are in ? And how many people have been deported? . They should be honest with us and admit that they don’t have the political will to deport immigrants. Another point our home security made a recent statement saying if you come to this country as a migrant and commit a crime you will be deported , so if she’s genuine why not deport 20,000 plus foreigners who are currently in our prison system that would show the country she’s getting the job done she’s being paid for, save millions of pounds and free up much needed prison cells . " They have deported 60,000 since labour took over. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I recall it was the Tony Blair labour government that allowed a huge influx of migrants. However. I'm sorry that so many Polish people and others left due to Brexit, leaving services short of skilled and unskilled staff. Now we have unskilled unemployed people wandering around the streets. What's so special about wanting to come here now ?? Trying to blame Tony Blair for 14 years of conservative incompetence (especially the back end) is certainly a bold take 😂." Not blaming anyone. Just the facts. It's time for Starmer and Reeves to stop blaming the Tories for everything every time they open their gobs | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As this current clown show of a government tries to make up policies on illegal migration hundreds more invade our country each week ( or day in good weather conditions) so they can’t really keep blaming the mess they’ve been left with by the previous government do we all remember one in one out ? Since they made that policy how many people are in ? And how many people have been deported? . They should be honest with us and admit that they don’t have the political will to deport immigrants. Another point our home security made a recent statement saying if you come to this country as a migrant and commit a crime you will be deported , so if she’s genuine why not deport 20,000 plus foreigners who are currently in our prison system that would show the country she’s getting the job done she’s being paid for, save millions of pounds and free up much needed prison cells . " So you only want British people in our prisons and let all foreign convicts free to go back home, is this a reform policy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" They have deported 60,000 since labour took over. " Bull. That 60k includes 43k voluntary leavers, which are not deportations, and has been proven as dodgy statistics. In any case, illegals are at a record high, especially via boats, under Labour pushing on for 70k and only à tiny fraction have been deported in the figures you quoted. So there is a clear net figure of more coming than leaving. And that’s even ignoring visa overstayers. Nice try buddy! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" They have deported 60,000 since labour took over. Bull. That 60k includes 43k voluntary leavers, which are not deportations, and has been proven as dodgy statistics. In any case, illegals are at a record high, especially via boats, under Labour pushing on for 70k and only à tiny fraction have been deported in the figures you quoted. So there is a clear net figure of more coming than leaving. And that’s even ignoring visa overstayers. Nice try buddy! " Just sharing facts. How do you presume anyone else will just stop the boats? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So you only want British people in our prisons and let all foreign convicts free to go back home, is this a reform policy " No, not free, but deported back to their country of origin to serve out their sentence and the host country to pay for there incarceration rather than Mr Muggins UK tax payer. Reform have said any country that doesn’t agree with this will effectively be frozen out of trade, aid, work & education visas etc etc Perfectly sensible policy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So you only want British people in our prisons and let all foreign convicts free to go back home, is this a reform policy No, not free, but deported back to their country of origin to serve out their sentence and the host country to pay for there incarceration rather than Mr Muggins UK tax payer. Reform have said any country that doesn’t agree with this will effectively be frozen out of trade, aid, work & education visas etc etc Perfectly sensible policy." Foreign prisoners that get deported are set free once they arrive back in their home country | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" They have deported 60,000 since labour took over. Just sharing facts. How do you presume anyone else will just stop the boats? " Dodgy statistics are dodgy statistics, not fact. Many countries have essentially completely stopped illegals, including several EU countries, Poland, Hungary, Italy, Greece etc. Australia, USA & Japan has eradicated to zero. There are a variety of ways this has been done but a common theme is being strict & tough. The message is if you enter our country illegally you will never be allowed to stay. Full stop. Reform will leave the ECHR so no lefty lawyers like Starmer can convince lefty judges that young men arriving into the UK are fleeing war torn France. Reform will stop not just the illegals but the abuse of the Vida system too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Foreign prisoners that get deported are set free once they arrive back in their home country" If that is happening now then that is not the fault of Reform. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" They have deported 60,000 since labour took over. Just sharing facts. How do you presume anyone else will just stop the boats? Dodgy statistics are dodgy statistics, not fact. Many countries have essentially completely stopped illegals, including several EU countries, Poland, Hungary, Italy, Greece etc. Australia, USA & Japan has eradicated to zero. There are a variety of ways this has been done but a common theme is being strict & tough. The message is if you enter our country illegally you will never be allowed to stay. Full stop. Reform will leave the ECHR so no lefty lawyers like Starmer can convince lefty judges that young men arriving into the UK are fleeing war torn France. Reform will stop not just the illegals but the abuse of the Vida system too. Yeah of course they will "  and other fairy tales they will tell you.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This country is fucked. " And that's with a capital F ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All we need to do is close the door on Muslims and send home the ones that are here,there's no need to give them any money. Let anyone else in that needs asylum, plenty of Christians in Syria in need of help, plenty of Buddhist people in need of help in Myanmar." Are Nigerian Christians welcome ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All we need to do is close the door on Muslims and send home the ones that are here,there's no need to give them any money. Let anyone else in that needs asylum, plenty of Christians in Syria in need of help, plenty of Buddhist people in need of help in Myanmar. Are Nigerian Christians welcome ? " Yes of course. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All we need to do is close the door on Muslims and send home the ones that are here,there's no need to give them any money. Let anyone else in that needs asylum, plenty of Christians in Syria in need of help, plenty of Buddhist people in need of help in Myanmar. Are Nigerian Christians welcome ? " Unfortunately not, we're already oversubscribed in the UK! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Illegal immigrants don't deserve a penny. But if this retarded government is going ahead with the hairbrained scheme, then at least take the 40k, or whatever the parasites are awarded, out of the existing Overseas Development Aid budget. " 👇👇👇🚽 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Illegal👇👇👇🚽" Perhaps you'd consider engaging with the discussion instead of resorting to the juvenile and lazy use of emojis Peepeter? A written contribution would be far more constructive and meaningful! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Illegal👇👇👇🚽 Perhaps you'd consider engaging with the discussion instead of resorting to the juvenile and lazy use of emojis Peepeter? A written contribution would be far more constructive and meaningful! " juvenile that a big word with a the Reformers on here use a 1970s word Retard is even worse. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All we need to do is close the door on Muslims and send home the ones that are here,there's no need to give them any money. Let anyone else in that needs asylum, plenty of Christians in Syria in need of help, plenty of Buddhist people in need of help in Myanmar. Are Nigerian Christians welcome ? Yes of course." So how will you know who's Muslim | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All we need to do is close the door on Muslims and send home the ones that are here,there's no need to give them any money. Let anyone else in that needs asylum, plenty of Christians in Syria in need of help, plenty of Buddhist people in need of help in Myanmar. Are Nigerian Christians welcome ? Yes of course. So how will you know who's Muslim " Lots of people are really clever, they can spot a Muslim just by the colour of their skin | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Illegal👇👇👇🚽 Perhaps you'd consider engaging with the discussion instead of resorting to the juvenile and lazy use of emojis Peepeter? A written contribution would be far more constructive and meaningful! juvenile that a big word with a the Reformers on here use a 1970s word Retard is even worse." In view of that somewhat nonsensical reply, perhaps it's best to maintain the status quo with the emojis then Peepeter. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All we need to do is close the door on Muslims and send home the ones that are here,there's no need to give them any money. Let anyone else in that needs asylum, plenty of Christians in Syria in need of help, plenty of Buddhist people in need of help in Myanmar." UK immigration should prioritise individuals who contribute positively to the economy and support services. No exceptions, strict entry criteria apply! ⛔ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I recall it was the Tony Blair labour government that allowed a huge influx of migrants. However. I'm sorry that so many Polish people and others left due to Brexit, leaving services short of skilled and unskilled staff. Now we have unskilled unemployed people wandering around the streets. What's so special about wanting to come here now ?? Trying to blame Tony Blair for 14 years of conservative incompetence (especially the back end) is certainly a bold take 😂. You've been listening to Starmer's record too much!!! 😂 Just trying to live in reality whilst everyone else increasingly insists not to tbh. I don't have any particular admiration for the current PM but important to reject disinformation and propaganda." Labelling recorded history as 'disinformation and propaganda' isn't an argument – it's a God complex! It's a documented fact that the 2004 A8 decision by the Blair government, neglecting to impose vital transitional controls that other EU countries applied, detrimentally reshaped the UK's demographics and economy. Even Labour's Jack Straw called it a 'spectacular mistake'. You're using 'incompetence' to dismiss views that don't fit your timeline. Both parties have used mass migration to prop up a low-productivity economy, but the system is now seriously out of hand and a much stricter approach is urgently needed; resources are beyond stretched! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All we need to do is close the door on Muslims and send home the ones that are here,there's no need to give them any money. Let anyone else in that needs asylum, plenty of Christians in Syria in need of help, plenty of Buddhist people in need of help in Myanmar. Are Nigerian Christians welcome ? Yes of course. So how will you know who's Muslim Lots of people are really clever, they can spot a Muslim just by the colour of their skin "I thought it was the bacon sandwich test | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just exactly who's money is this?? Presumably it's out money we pay in tax....where in the manifesto does it say we give it away??? As far as I'm concerned the gov should go on the same flight. " Exactly mixxy! Yet another example of how illogical in mind this diabolical government really is, just ship the immigrants back out, no reason to give them a golden handshake when our own people are struggling! Totally crazy! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Foreign prisoners that get deported are set free once they arrive back in their home country If that is happening now then that is not the fault of Reform. " This is not the fault of any one in the UK, if the country of origin chooses to release that is up to them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All we need to do is close the door on Muslims and send home the ones that are here,there's no need to give them any money. Let anyone else in that needs asylum, plenty of Christians in Syria in need of help, plenty of Buddhist people in need of help in Myanmar. Are Nigerian Christians welcome ? Unfortunately not, we're already oversubscribed in the UK! " Scientologist? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I recall it was the Tony Blair labour government that allowed a huge influx of migrants. However. I'm sorry that so many Polish people and others left due to Brexit, leaving services short of skilled and unskilled staff. Now we have unskilled unemployed people wandering around the streets. What's so special about wanting to come here now ?? Trying to blame Tony Blair for 14 years of conservative incompetence (especially the back end) is certainly a bold take 😂. You've been listening to Starmer's record too much!!! 😂 Just trying to live in reality whilst everyone else increasingly insists not to tbh. I don't have any particular admiration for the current PM but important to reject disinformation and propaganda. Labelling recorded history as 'disinformation and propaganda' isn't an argument – it's a God complex! It's a documented fact that the 2004 A8 decision by the Blair government, neglecting to impose vital transitional controls that other EU countries applied, detrimentally reshaped the UK's demographics and economy. Even Labour's Jack Straw called it a 'spectacular mistake'. You're using 'incompetence' to dismiss views that don't fit your timeline. Both parties have used mass migration to prop up a low-productivity economy, but the system is now seriously out of hand and a much stricter approach is urgently needed; resources are beyond stretched! " Given that many returned, and we still seem to have an issue can anyone think of a more recent spectacular mistake that might be relevant? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is not new in the early 2000 it was 3000 per person who left voulanterily they would leave then come back and do it again home office is corrupt and dumb also those leaving were recorded as a depotation for home office stats" Indeed, the early 2000s programme under Blair's Labour government faced issues with exploitation and data accuracy, with some ex-deportees returning to the UK! Similar concerns are being raised about the current hair brained scheme! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let’s all think about one illegal immigrant who for arguments sake is 20 years old he comes to the Uk on a rubber dinghy and wins his case to remain here for good , he never works and gets housed fed and clothed claims Universal credit until he officially retires and then gets his state pension! He never puts one penny into the system that’s just one person imagine how many thousands will be doing the same thing, surely as a country that must be self harm on a huge scale and cannot continue?? " Or, let's think about the fact someone born here does exactly the same thing. The only difference is that one has had there education for free and has had free healthcare for life just because they were lucky enough to be born here but haven't paid a single penny in. Also, let's think that you are talking complete bollox as its just hypothetical. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When a religion thinks it's ok to marry a 7 year old girl but it's not ok to eat a bacon sandwich then there is something severely wrong and backward with that religion. " Attempts to rationalize any religion/cult/fairystory etc will surely lead to madness. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When a religion thinks it's ok to marry a 7 year old girl but it's not ok to eat a bacon sandwich then there is something severely wrong and backward with that religion. Attempts to rationalize any religion/cult/fairystory etc will surely lead to madness." Old Testament? Eat no fat….. well thats us all fucked then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When a religion thinks it's ok to marry a 7 year old girl but it's not ok to eat a bacon sandwich then there is something severely wrong and backward with that religion. Attempts to rationalize any religion/cult/fairystory etc will surely lead to madness." Old Testament? Eat no fat….. well thats us all fucked then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let’s all think about one illegal immigrant who for arguments sake is 20 years old he comes to the Uk on a rubber dinghy and wins his case to remain here for good , he never works and gets housed fed and clothed claims Universal credit until he officially retires and then gets his state pension! He never puts one penny into the system that’s just one person imagine how many thousands will be doing the same thing, surely as a country that must be self harm on a huge scale and cannot continue?? Or, let's think about the fact someone born here does exactly the same thing. The only difference is that one has had there education for free and has had free healthcare for life just because they were lucky enough to be born here but haven't paid a single penny in. Also, let's think that you are talking complete bollox as its just hypothetical. " At the moment being on benefits is a career choice for some people. There needs to be done radical thinking and big changes made to stop this. For example let’s say you are made redundant and go onto benefits as a married person with 2 children. You shouldn’t be able to have a 3rd or 4th child even and have your benefits increased and maybe get a bigger house. If you’re in work and have kids, your salary doesn’t automatically increase to reflect it, and you don’t automatically get a bigger house to fit them in. Before any benefits increase, you should have to do a certain number of years in work before you are eligible for any increases. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What a surprise... As of February 2026, the UK-France "1 in, 1 out" pilot, which began in August 2025 to manage Channel crossings, has resulted in 281 migrants being expelled from the UK to France, while 350 have been accepted into the UK under the scheme. The initiative operates as a pilot, with the number of arrivals currently outpacing returns. Why on earth should we trust them." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let’s all think about one illegal immigrant who for arguments sake is 20 years old he comes to the Uk on a rubber dinghy and wins his case to remain here for good , he never works and gets housed fed and clothed claims Universal credit until he officially retires and then gets his state pension! He never puts one penny into the system that’s just one person imagine how many thousands will be doing the same thing, surely as a country that must be self harm on a huge scale and cannot continue?? Or, let's think about the fact someone born here does exactly the same thing. The only difference is that one has had there education for free and has had free healthcare for life just because they were lucky enough to be born here but haven't paid a single penny in. Also, let's think that you are talking complete bollox as its just hypothetical. At the moment being on benefits is a career choice for some people. There needs to be done radical thinking and big changes made to stop this. For example let’s say you are made redundant and go onto benefits as a married person with 2 children. You shouldn’t be able to have a 3rd or 4th child even and have your benefits increased and maybe get a bigger house. If you’re in work and have kids, your salary doesn’t automatically increase to reflect it, and you don’t automatically get a bigger house to fit them in. Before any benefits increase, you should have to do a certain number of years in work before you are eligible for any increases." Being on benefits has always been a career choice for some. Remember the comedy Bread? Royal Family? Where did you think the idea from | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let’s all think about one illegal immigrant who for arguments sake is 20 years old he comes to the Uk on a rubber dinghy and wins his case to remain here for good , he never works and gets housed fed and clothed claims Universal credit until he officially retires and then gets his state pension! He never puts one penny into the system that’s just one person imagine how many thousands will be doing the same thing, surely as a country that must be self harm on a huge scale and cannot continue?? Or, let's think about the fact someone born here does exactly the same thing. The only difference is that one has had there education for free and has had free healthcare for life just because they were lucky enough to be born here but haven't paid a single penny in. Also, let's think that you are talking complete bollox as its just hypothetical. At the moment being on benefits is a career choice for some people. There needs to be done radical thinking and big changes made to stop this. For example let’s say you are made redundant and go onto benefits as a married person with 2 children. You shouldn’t be able to have a 3rd or 4th child even and have your benefits increased and maybe get a bigger house. If you’re in work and have kids, your salary doesn’t automatically increase to reflect it, and you don’t automatically get a bigger house to fit them in. Before any benefits increase, you should have to do a certain number of years in work before you are eligible for any increases. Being on benefits has always been a career choice for some. Remember the comedy Bread? Royal Family? Where did you think the idea from "The ideas behind the programmes "Bread" and "The Royle Family" (not the Royal Family!) both depicted a stark, gritty snapshot of the negative and infectious stagnation that socialism can produce. Those shows weren't just comedies; they were critiques highlighting the flawed socialist philosophy – 'The State is my shepherd, I shall not want!' – on which benefits careerists thrive! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It is only the most intellectually lost who argue " Indeed! It is only the most intellectually lost who argue:- that dependency is a virtue and self-sufficiency a vice! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You'd think a news story like this would damage the reputation of a government. But no, only because there's no reputation left to uphold. People basically don't care now. It's just the latest stupid policy on a problem where they are clueless. 1 in 1 out. Anyone remember that? What a shit show." Equity & Incluson 1 in 1 Out Diversity Is Our Strength Smash The Gangs A Vibrantly Multicultural Society Stop The Boats Heterogeneous Community Cohesion Lessons Will Be Learnt We will Not Be Divided Bullshit slogans that pull the wool over everyone's eyes and are supposed to make us feel that everything is going to be just fine. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let’s all think about one illegal immigrant who for arguments sake is 20 years old he comes to the Uk on a rubber dinghy and wins his case to remain here for good , he never works and gets housed fed and clothed claims Universal credit until he officially retires and then gets his state pension! He never puts one penny into the system that’s just one person imagine how many thousands will be doing the same thing, surely as a country that must be self harm on a huge scale and cannot continue?? Or, let's think about the fact someone born here does exactly the same thing. The only difference is that one has had there education for free and has had free healthcare for life just because they were lucky enough to be born here but haven't paid a single penny in. Also, let's think that you are talking complete bollox as its just hypothetical. At the moment being on benefits is a career choice for some people. There needs to be done radical thinking and big changes made to stop this. For example let’s say you are made redundant and go onto benefits as a married person with 2 children. You shouldn’t be able to have a 3rd or 4th child even and have your benefits increased and maybe get a bigger house. If you’re in work and have kids, your salary doesn’t automatically increase to reflect it, and you don’t automatically get a bigger house to fit them in. Before any benefits increase, you should have to do a certain number of years in work before you are eligible for any increases. Being on benefits has always been a career choice for some. Remember the comedy Bread? Royal Family? Where did you think the idea from
The ideas behind the programmes "Bread" and "The Royle Family" (not the Royal Family!) both depicted a stark, gritty snapshot of the negative and infectious stagnation that socialism can produce. Those shows weren't just comedies; they were critiques highlighting the flawed socialist philosophy – 'The State is my shepherd, I shall not want!' – on which benefits careerists thrive!
"You say ‘not the Royal Family’ how much do we pay one of the richest families in the world? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This government is a circus without a tent the uk is now a world wide laughing stock starmer is a compulsive liar and honestly should be fully investigated and prosecuted just for his behaviour over Mandelson " And farage? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"Let’s all think about one illegal immigrant who for arguments sake is 20 years old he comes to the Uk on a rubber dinghy and wins his case to remain here for good , he never works and gets housed fed and clothed claims Universal credit until he officially retires and then gets his state pension! He never puts one penny into the system that’s just one person imagine how many thousands will be doing the same thing, surely as a country that must be self harm on a huge scale and cannot continue?? Or, let's think about the fact someone born here does exactly the same thing. The only difference is that one has had there education for free and has had free healthcare for life just because they were lucky enough to be born here but haven't paid a single penny in. Also, let's think that you are talking complete bollox as its just hypothetical. At the moment being on benefits is a career choice for some people. There needs to be done radical thinking and big changes made to stop this. For example let’s say you are made redundant and go onto benefits as a married person with 2 children. You shouldn’t be able to have a 3rd or 4th child even and have your benefits increased and maybe get a bigger house. If you’re in work and have kids, your salary doesn’t automatically increase to reflect it, and you don’t automatically get a bigger house to fit them in. Before any benefits increase, you should have to do a certain number of years in work before you are eligible for any increases. Being on benefits has always been a career choice for some. Remember the comedy Bread? Royal Family? Where did you think the idea from
The ideas behind the programmes "Bread" and "The Royle Family" (not the Royal Family!) both depicted a stark, gritty snapshot of the negative and infectious stagnation that socialism can produce. Those shows weren't just comedies; they were critiques highlighting the flawed socialist philosophy – 'The State is my shepherd, I shall not want!' – on which benefits careerists thrive!
You say ‘not the Royal Family’ how much do we pay one of the richest families in the world?"Yes, I said 'not the Royal Family' because the poster was clearly referencing the TV show 'The Royle Family' (different spelling!). Slightly off topic on this particular thread, but, since you mention it, the British Royal Family costs the UK taxpayer around £100-£150 million annually, while generating approximately £500 million in revenue, resulting in a net benefit to the UK economy of around £350-£400 million, so not quite the financial burden the republican lobby would have us believe! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let’s all think about one illegal immigrant who for arguments sake is 20 years old he comes to the Uk on a rubber dinghy and wins his case to remain here for good , he never works and gets housed fed and clothed claims Universal credit until he officially retires and then gets his state pension! He never puts one penny into the system that’s just one person imagine how many thousands will be doing the same thing, surely as a country that must be self harm on a huge scale and cannot continue?? Or, let's think about the fact someone born here does exactly the same thing. The only difference is that one has had there education for free and has had free healthcare for life just because they were lucky enough to be born here but haven't paid a single penny in. Also, let's think that you are talking complete bollox as its just hypothetical. At the moment being on benefits is a career choice for some people. There needs to be done radical thinking and big changes made to stop this. For example let’s say you are made redundant and go onto benefits as a married person with 2 children. You shouldn’t be able to have a 3rd or 4th child even and have your benefits increased and maybe get a bigger house. If you’re in work and have kids, your salary doesn’t automatically increase to reflect it, and you don’t automatically get a bigger house to fit them in. Before any benefits increase, you should have to do a certain number of years in work before you are eligible for any increases. Being on benefits has always been a career choice for some. Remember the comedy Bread? Royal Family? Where did you think the idea from
The ideas behind the programmes "Bread" and "The Royle Family" (not the Royal Family!) both depicted a stark, gritty snapshot of the negative and infectious stagnation that socialism can produce. Those shows weren't just comedies; they were critiques highlighting the flawed socialist philosophy – 'The State is my shepherd, I shall not want!' – on which benefits careerists thrive!
You say ‘not the Royal Family’ how much do we pay one of the richest families in the world?
Yes, I said 'not the Royal Family' because the poster was clearly referencing the TV show 'The Royle Family' (different spelling!).
Slightly off topic on this particular thread, but, since you mention it, the British Royal Family costs the UK taxpayer around £100-£150 million annually, while generating approximately £500 million in revenue, resulting in a net benefit to the UK economy of around £350-£400 million, so not quite the financial burden the republican lobby would have us believe!
"Not sure the revenue figure is wholly accurate, but even if it is close I am not sure why we are paying these people when they clearly have enough to heat and eat. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let’s all think about one illegal immigrant who for arguments sake is 20 years old he comes to the Uk on a rubber dinghy and wins his case to remain here for good , he never works and gets housed fed and clothed claims Universal credit until he officially retires and then gets his state pension! He never puts one penny into the system that’s just one person imagine how many thousands will be doing the same thing, surely as a country that must be self harm on a huge scale and cannot continue?? Or, let's think about the fact someone born here does exactly the same thing. The only difference is that one has had there education for free and has had free healthcare for life just because they were lucky enough to be born here but haven't paid a single penny in. Also, let's think that you are talking complete bollox as its just hypothetical. At the moment being on benefits is a career choice for some people. There needs to be done radical thinking and big changes made to stop this. For example let’s say you are made redundant and go onto benefits as a married person with 2 children. You shouldn’t be able to have a 3rd or 4th child even and have your benefits increased and maybe get a bigger house. If you’re in work and have kids, your salary doesn’t automatically increase to reflect it, and you don’t automatically get a bigger house to fit them in. Before any benefits increase, you should have to do a certain number of years in work before you are eligible for any increases. Being on benefits has always been a career choice for some. Remember the comedy Bread? Royal Family? Where did you think the idea from
The ideas behind the programmes "Bread" and "The Royle Family" (not the Royal Family!) both depicted a stark, gritty snapshot of the negative and infectious stagnation that socialism can produce. Those shows weren't just comedies; they were critiques highlighting the flawed socialist philosophy – 'The State is my shepherd, I shall not want!' – on which benefits careerists thrive!
You say ‘not the Royal Family’ how much do we pay one of the richest families in the world?
Yes, I said 'not the Royal Family' because the poster was clearly referencing the TV show 'The Royle Family' (different spelling!).
Slightly off topic on this particular thread, but, since you mention it, the British Royal Family costs the UK taxpayer around £100-£150 million annually, while generating approximately £500 million in revenue, resulting in a net benefit to the UK economy of around £350-£400 million, so not quite the financial burden the republican lobby would have us believe!
Not sure the revenue figure is wholly accurate, but even if it is close I am not sure why we are paying these people when they clearly have enough to heat and eat."The point is, the British Royals generate significant revenue for the UK. As for paying them, the Sovereign Grant supports official duties, although not personal luxuries. We are also slightly off-topic for this particular thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let’s all think about one illegal immigrant who for arguments sake is 20 years old he comes to the Uk on a rubber dinghy and wins his case to remain here for good , he never works and gets housed fed and clothed claims Universal credit until he officially retires and then gets his state pension! He never puts one penny into the system that’s just one person imagine how many thousands will be doing the same thing, surely as a country that must be self harm on a huge scale and cannot continue?? Or, let's think about the fact someone born here does exactly the same thing. The only difference is that one has had there education for free and has had free healthcare for life just because they were lucky enough to be born here but haven't paid a single penny in. Also, let's think that you are talking complete bollox as its just hypothetical. At the moment being on benefits is a career choice for some people. There needs to be done radical thinking and big changes made to stop this. For example let’s say you are made redundant and go onto benefits as a married person with 2 children. You shouldn’t be able to have a 3rd or 4th child even and have your benefits increased and maybe get a bigger house. If you’re in work and have kids, your salary doesn’t automatically increase to reflect it, and you don’t automatically get a bigger house to fit them in. Before any benefits increase, you should have to do a certain number of years in work before you are eligible for any increases. Being on benefits has always been a career choice for some. Remember the comedy Bread? Royal Family? Where did you think the idea from
The ideas behind the programmes "Bread" and "The Royle Family" (not the Royal Family!) both depicted a stark, gritty snapshot of the negative and infectious stagnation that socialism can produce. Those shows weren't just comedies; they were critiques highlighting the flawed socialist philosophy – 'The State is my shepherd, I shall not want!' – on which benefits careerists thrive!
You say ‘not the Royal Family’ how much do we pay one of the richest families in the world?
Yes, I said 'not the Royal Family' because the poster was clearly referencing the TV show 'The Royle Family' (different spelling!).
Slightly off topic on this particular thread, but, since you mention it, the British Royal Family costs the UK taxpayer around £100-£150 million annually, while generating approximately £500 million in revenue, resulting in a net benefit to the UK economy of around £350-£400 million, so not quite the financial burden the republican lobby would have us believe!
"Well done on spotting it! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country would be far better off without them here. Think of every terrorist incident over the last 26 years and what religion is behind them all. " What the Royal Family? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let’s all think about one illegal immigrant who for arguments sake is 20 years old he comes to the Uk on a rubber dinghy and wins his case to remain here for good , he never works and gets housed fed and clothed claims Universal credit until he officially retires and then gets his state pension! He never puts one penny into the system that’s just one person imagine how many thousands will be doing the same thing, surely as a country that must be self harm on a huge scale and cannot continue?? Or, let's think about the fact someone born here does exactly the same thing. The only difference is that one has had there education for free and has had free healthcare for life just because they were lucky enough to be born here but haven't paid a single penny in. Also, let's think that you are talking complete bollox as its just hypothetical. At the moment being on benefits is a career choice for some people. There needs to be done radical thinking and big changes made to stop this. For example let’s say you are made redundant and go onto benefits as a married person with 2 children. You shouldn’t be able to have a 3rd or 4th child even and have your benefits increased and maybe get a bigger house. If you’re in work and have kids, your salary doesn’t automatically increase to reflect it, and you don’t automatically get a bigger house to fit them in. Before any benefits increase, you should have to do a certain number of years in work before you are eligible for any increases. Being on benefits has always been a career choice for some. Remember the comedy Bread? Royal Family? Where did you think the idea from
The ideas behind the programmes "Bread" and "The Royle Family" (not the Royal Family!) both depicted a stark, gritty snapshot of the negative and infectious stagnation that socialism can produce. Those shows weren't just comedies; they were critiques highlighting the flawed socialist philosophy – 'The State is my shepherd, I shall not want!' – on which benefits careerists thrive!
You say ‘not the Royal Family’ how much do we pay one of the richest families in the world?
Yes, I said 'not the Royal Family' because the poster was clearly referencing the TV show 'The Royle Family' (different spelling!).
Slightly off topic on this particular thread, but, since you mention it, the British Royal Family costs the UK taxpayer around £100-£150 million annually, while generating approximately £500 million in revenue, resulting in a net benefit to the UK economy of around £350-£400 million, so not quite the financial burden the republican lobby would have us believe!
Not sure the revenue figure is wholly accurate, but even if it is close I am not sure why we are paying these people when they clearly have enough to heat and eat.
The point is, the British Royals generate significant revenue for the UK. As for paying them, the Sovereign Grant supports official duties, although not personal luxuries.
We are also slightly off-topic for this particular thread.
"Someone bought up benefits claimants, which includes the sovereign grant… | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country would be far better off without them here. Think of every terrorist incident over the last 26 years and what religion is behind them all. What the Royal Family?" Are you thick? 😂 No I meant the illegals you donut. Get with the programme 😂 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s because the majority of failed applications appeal, which they’re legally allowed to do and of course we pay for the appeal which costs more then 10k per person, so believe it or not it’s a cost cutting exercise. The whole situation is ludicrous. " Rupert Lowe has the best ideas, they would have no rights to appeal anything under him. They will be fucked off with no appeal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country would be far better off without them here. Think of every terrorist incident over the last 26 years and what religion is behind them all. What the Royal Family? Are you thick? 😂 No I meant the illegals you donut. Get with the programme 😂" No, I am not but there is no reason for rudeness, and if you look at the Royals, although not illegal ( mainly because people can’t be illegal) they are of German and Grecian stock most recently…. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s because the majority of failed applications appeal, which they’re legally allowed to do and of course we pay for the appeal which costs more then 10k per person, so believe it or not it’s a cost cutting exercise. The whole situation is ludicrous. Rupert Lowe has the best ideas, they would have no rights to appeal anything under him. They will be fucked off with no appeal." Here Here !  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never thought I would end my days in a communist Muslim country" Or a world full of my own paranoia… | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well if you bright sparks hadn't voted to leave the EU the boat loads could have been returned to France." The notion that the boat crisis is solely a Brexit issue is just overly simplistic. The roots of the problem stretch back to Tony Blair's administration, specifically the 2003 Le Touquet Agreement, which shifted the UK border to French soil and created the Calais bottleneck that's still a major issue today. Even during EU membership, the Dublin Regulation return mechanism was flawed. It required proof of prior processing in France, which was often disputed, leading to more people entering the UK than being returned. The current situation reflects the long-term consequences of a disjointed border policy and the 2004 decision to allow high migration levels without adequate controls, rather than a single event in 2016! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s because the majority of failed applications appeal, which they’re legally allowed to do and of course we pay for the appeal which costs more then 10k per person, so believe it or not it’s a cost cutting exercise. The whole situation is ludicrous. Rupert Lowe has the best ideas, they would have no rights to appeal anything under him. They will be fucked off with no appeal." Somebody's former claims to be a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn were just a big fat lie, weren't they? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let’s all think about one illegal immigrant who for arguments sake is 20 years old he comes to the Uk on a rubber dinghy and wins his case to remain here for good , he never works and gets housed fed and clothed claims Universal credit until he officially retires and then gets his state pension! He never puts one penny into the system that’s just one person imagine how many thousands will be doing the same thing, surely as a country that must be self harm on a huge scale and cannot continue?? Or, let's think about the fact someone born here does exactly the same thing. The only difference is that one has had there education for free and has had free healthcare for life just because they were lucky enough to be born here but haven't paid a single penny in. Also, let's think that you are talking complete bollox as its just hypothetical. At the moment being on benefits is a career choice for some people. There needs to be done radical thinking and big changes made to stop this. For example let’s say you are made redundant and go onto benefits as a married person with 2 children. You shouldn’t be able to have a 3rd or 4th child even and have your benefits increased and maybe get a bigger house. If you’re in work and have kids, your salary doesn’t automatically increase to reflect it, and you don’t automatically get a bigger house to fit them in. Before any benefits increase, you should have to do a certain number of years in work before you are eligible for any increases. Being on benefits has always been a career choice for some. Remember the comedy Bread? Royal Family? Where did you think the idea from
The ideas behind the programmes "Bread" and "The Royle Family" (not the Royal Family!) both depicted a stark, gritty snapshot of the negative and infectious stagnation that socialism can produce. Those shows weren't just comedies; they were critiques highlighting the flawed socialist philosophy – 'The State is my shepherd, I shall not want!' – on which benefits careerists thrive!
You say ‘not the Royal Family’ how much do we pay one of the richest families in the world?
Yes, I said 'not the Royal Family' because the poster was clearly referencing the TV show 'The Royle Family' (different spelling!).
Slightly off topic on this particular thread, but, since you mention it, the British Royal Family costs the UK taxpayer around £100-£150 million annually, while generating approximately £500 million in revenue, resulting in a net benefit to the UK economy of around £350-£400 million, so not quite the financial burden the republican lobby would have us believe!
Not sure the revenue figure is wholly accurate, but even if it is close I am not sure why we are paying these people when they clearly have enough to heat and eat.
The point is, the British Royals generate significant revenue for the UK. As for paying them, the Sovereign Grant supports official duties, although not personal luxuries.
We are also slightly off-topic for this particular thread.
Someone bought up benefits claimants, which includes the sovereign grant…"Well!!.....UK benefit claimants don't generate a £1.1 billion annual profit for the Treasury, only to receive a 12% rebate for office expenses. If the King were a 'claimant', he'd keep the Crown Estate revenue – but I suspect taxpayers are glad that £960 million surplus went to fund schools and hospitals instead! Now perhaps back to the matter under discussion:- "£40k to Leave:- UK Trial Offers Cash to Failed Asylum Seekers" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let’s all think about one illegal immigrant who for arguments sake is 20 years old he comes to the Uk on a rubber dinghy and wins his case to remain here for good , he never works and gets housed fed and clothed claims Universal credit until he officially retires and then gets his state pension! He never puts one penny into the system that’s just one person imagine how many thousands will be doing the same thing, surely as a country that must be self harm on a huge scale and cannot continue?? Or, let's think about the fact someone born here does exactly the same thing. The only difference is that one has had there education for free and has had free healthcare for life just because they were lucky enough to be born here but haven't paid a single penny in. Also, let's think that you are talking complete bollox as its just hypothetical. At the moment being on benefits is a career choice for some people. There needs to be done radical thinking and big changes made to stop this. For example let’s say you are made redundant and go onto benefits as a married person with 2 children. You shouldn’t be able to have a 3rd or 4th child even and have your benefits increased and maybe get a bigger house. If you’re in work and have kids, your salary doesn’t automatically increase to reflect it, and you don’t automatically get a bigger house to fit them in. Before any benefits increase, you should have to do a certain number of years in work before you are eligible for any increases. Being on benefits has always been a career choice for some. Remember the comedy Bread? Royal Family? Where did you think the idea from
The ideas behind the programmes "Bread" and "The Royle Family" (not the Royal Family!) both depicted a stark, gritty snapshot of the negative and infectious stagnation that socialism can produce. Those shows weren't just comedies; they were critiques highlighting the flawed socialist philosophy – 'The State is my shepherd, I shall not want!' – on which benefits careerists thrive!
You say ‘not the Royal Family’ how much do we pay one of the richest families in the world?
Yes, I said 'not the Royal Family' because the poster was clearly referencing the TV show 'The Royle Family' (different spelling!).
Slightly off topic on this particular thread, but, since you mention it, the British Royal Family costs the UK taxpayer around £100-£150 million annually, while generating approximately £500 million in revenue, resulting in a net benefit to the UK economy of around £350-£400 million, so not quite the financial burden the republican lobby would have us believe!
Not sure the revenue figure is wholly accurate, but even if it is close I am not sure why we are paying these people when they clearly have enough to heat and eat.
The point is, the British Royals generate significant revenue for the UK. As for paying them, the Sovereign Grant supports official duties, although not personal luxuries.
We are also slightly off-topic for this particular thread.
Someone bought up benefits claimants, which includes the sovereign grant…
Well!!.....UK benefit claimants don't generate a £1.1 billion annual profit for the Treasury, only to receive a 12% rebate for office expenses. If the King were a 'claimant', he'd keep the Crown Estate revenue – but I suspect taxpayers are glad that £960 million surplus went to fund schools and hospitals instead!
Now perhaps back to the matter under discussion:-
"£40k to Leave:- UK Trial Offers Cash to Failed Asylum Seekers"
"Still don’t see why we are paying for them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let’s all think about one illegal immigrant who for arguments sake is 20 years old he comes to the Uk on a rubber dinghy and wins his case to remain here for good , he never works and gets housed fed and clothed claims Universal credit until he officially retires and then gets his state pension! He never puts one penny into the system that’s just one person imagine how many thousands will be doing the same thing, surely as a country that must be self harm on a huge scale and cannot continue?? Or, let's think about the fact someone born here does exactly the same thing. The only difference is that one has had there education for free and has had free healthcare for life just because they were lucky enough to be born here but haven't paid a single penny in. Also, let's think that you are talking complete bollox as its just hypothetical. At the moment being on benefits is a career choice for some people. There needs to be done radical thinking and big changes made to stop this. For example let’s say you are made redundant and go onto benefits as a married person with 2 children. You shouldn’t be able to have a 3rd or 4th child even and have your benefits increased and maybe get a bigger house. If you’re in work and have kids, your salary doesn’t automatically increase to reflect it, and you don’t automatically get a bigger house to fit them in. Before any benefits increase, you should have to do a certain number of years in work before you are eligible for any increases. Being on benefits has always been a career choice for some. Remember the comedy Bread? Royal Family? Where did you think the idea from
The ideas behind the programmes "Bread" and "The Royle Family" (not the Royal Family!) both depicted a stark, gritty snapshot of the negative and infectious stagnation that socialism can produce. Those shows weren't just comedies; they were critiques highlighting the flawed socialist philosophy – 'The State is my shepherd, I shall not want!' – on which benefits careerists thrive!
You say ‘not the Royal Family’ how much do we pay one of the richest families in the world?
Yes, I said 'not the Royal Family' because the poster was clearly referencing the TV show 'The Royle Family' (different spelling!).
Slightly off topic on this particular thread, but, since you mention it, the British Royal Family costs the UK taxpayer around £100-£150 million annually, while generating approximately £500 million in revenue, resulting in a net benefit to the UK economy of around £350-£400 million, so not quite the financial burden the republican lobby would have us believe!
Not sure the revenue figure is wholly accurate, but even if it is close I am not sure why we are paying these people when they clearly have enough to heat and eat.
The point is, the British Royals generate significant revenue for the UK. As for paying them, the Sovereign Grant supports official duties, although not personal luxuries.
We are also slightly off-topic for this particular thread.
Someone bought up benefits claimants, which includes the sovereign grant…
Well!!.....UK benefit claimants don't generate a £1.1 billion annual profit for the Treasury, only to receive a 12% rebate for office expenses. If the King were a 'claimant', he'd keep the Crown Estate revenue – but I suspect taxpayers are glad that £960 million surplus went to fund schools and hospitals instead!
Now perhaps back to the matter under discussion:-
"£40k to Leave:- UK Trial Offers Cash to Failed Asylum Seekers"
Still don’t see why we are paying for them."It's ok, you aren't expected to, it's not mandatory! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well if you bright sparks hadn't voted to leave the EU the boat loads could have been returned to France. The notion that the boat crisis is solely a Brexit issue is just overly simplistic. The roots of the problem stretch back to Tony Blair's administration, specifically the 2003 Le Touquet Agreement, which shifted the UK border to French soil and created the Calais bottleneck that's still a major issue today. Even during EU membership, the Dublin Regulation return mechanism was flawed. It required proof of prior processing in France, which was often disputed, leading to more people entering the UK than being returned. The current situation reflects the long-term consequences of a disjointed border policy and the 2004 decision to allow high migration levels without adequate controls, rather than a single event in 2016! " None of which are the fault of the current government then. Thanks for pointing that out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well if you bright sparks hadn't voted to leave the EU the boat loads could have been returned to France. The notion that the boat crisis is solely a Brexit issue is just overly simplistic. The roots of the problem stretch back to Tony Blair's administration, specifically the 2003 Le Touquet Agreement, which shifted the UK border to French soil and created the Calais bottleneck that's still a major issue today. Even during EU membership, the Dublin Regulation return mechanism was flawed. It required proof of prior processing in France, which was often disputed, leading to more people entering the UK than being returned. The current situation reflects the long-term consequences of a disjointed border policy and the 2004 decision to allow high migration levels without adequate controls, rather than a single event in 2016! None of which are the fault of the current government then. Thanks for pointing that out. " As I intimated earlier, the roots of the problem stretch back to Tony Blair's Labour government, specifically the 2003 Le Touquet Agreement, which shifted the UK border to French soil and created the Calais bottleneck that's still a major issue today! Do feel free to draw your own conclusions as to where Starmer's legacy originates! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well if you bright sparks hadn't voted to leave the EU the boat loads could have been returned to France. The notion that the boat crisis is solely a Brexit issue is just overly simplistic. The roots of the problem stretch back to Tony Blair's administration, specifically the 2003 Le Touquet Agreement, which shifted the UK border to French soil and created the Calais bottleneck that's still a major issue today. Even during EU membership, the Dublin Regulation return mechanism was flawed. It required proof of prior processing in France, which was often disputed, leading to more people entering the UK than being returned. The current situation reflects the long-term consequences of a disjointed border policy and the 2004 decision to allow high migration levels without adequate controls, rather than a single event in 2016! None of which are the fault of the current government then. Thanks for pointing that out. " But offering bribes of up to 40k to illegal immigrants using taxpayers' money Is the policy of the present government. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well if you bright sparks hadn't voted to leave the EU the boat loads could have been returned to France. The notion that the boat crisis is solely a Brexit issue is just overly simplistic. The roots of the problem stretch back to Tony Blair's administration, specifically the 2003 Le Touquet Agreement, which shifted the UK border to French soil and created the Calais bottleneck that's still a major issue today. Even during EU membership, the Dublin Regulation return mechanism was flawed. It required proof of prior processing in France, which was often disputed, leading to more people entering the UK than being returned. The current situation reflects the long-term consequences of a disjointed border policy and the 2004 decision to allow high migration levels without adequate controls, rather than a single event in 2016! None of which are the fault of the current government then. Thanks for pointing that out. But offering bribes of up to 40k to illegal immigrants using taxpayers' money Is the policy of the present government." Thats not what was being discussed there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Good deal I suppose. Pay the smugglers £10000 to get on a rubber boat and if you get caught in England you get your money back!! Only this bloody country could think up this!!" . That's Liebour for you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I believe this has already been happening in Scandinavia and has worked quite well. Labour don't get anywhere near as much credit as they should for their efforts in fixing the immigration crisis caused by the conservatives. But eh, that's the current status of the media for you. Damned if you do damned if you don't." . Ha ha. Seriously. Liebour blocked the Tories scheme time after time in the courts until election time. Since Liebour got on the illegal immigrants are at an all time high | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I believe this has already been happening in Scandinavia and has worked quite well. Labour don't get anywhere near as much credit as they should for their efforts in fixing the immigration crisis caused by the conservatives. But eh, that's the current status of the media for you. Damned if you do damned if you don't.. Ha ha. Seriously. Liebour blocked the Tories scheme time after time in the courts until election time. Since Liebour got on the illegal immigrants are at an all time high " Thats because it was illegal and made no sense, like most of the tory ideas on immigration. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I believe this has already been happening in Scandinavia and has worked quite well. Labour don't get anywhere near as much credit as they should for their efforts in fixing the immigration crisis caused by the conservatives. But eh, that's the current status of the media for you. Damned if you do damned if you don't.. Ha ha. Seriously. Liebour blocked the Tories scheme time after time in the courts until election time. Since Liebour got on the illegal immigrants are at an all time high Thats because it was illegal and made no sense, like most of the tory ideas on immigration. " The UK's modern immigration problem actually stems from the blunders of two Labour governments. The 1948 British Nationality Act, under Clement Attlee, granted citizenship to over 800 million people without time restrictions, creating a framework for permanent settlement. This led to the Windrush scandal. Later, Tony Blair's government opened the EU doors in 2004 without limits, despite warnings, causing unplanned migration. Both decisions prioritised ideology over controlled migration, leaving a lasting legacy. Successive governments, including Conservative and Labour, have struggled to control and resolve the issue, but the roots of the problem lie in Labour's shortsightedness! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Asylum claim fails. Government offers £10k per person to a max £40k per family. If not accepted within 7 days they are removed forcibly. The claim has failed, why pay? Just remove them. " No idea, maybe cheaper than going to human rights courts? Just a thought. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I believe this has already been happening in Scandinavia and has worked quite well. Labour don't get anywhere near as much credit as they should for their efforts in fixing the immigration crisis caused by the conservatives. But eh, that's the current status of the media for you. Damned if you do damned if you don't.. Ha ha. Seriously. Liebour blocked the Tories scheme time after time in the courts until election time. Since Liebour got on the illegal immigrants are at an all time high Thats because it was illegal and made no sense, like most of the tory ideas on immigration. The UK's modern immigration problem actually stems from the blunders of two Labour governments. The 1948 British Nationality Act, under Clement Attlee, granted citizenship to over 800 million people without time restrictions, creating a framework for permanent settlement. This led to the Windrush scandal. Later, Tony Blair's government opened the EU doors in 2004 without limits, despite warnings, causing unplanned migration. Both decisions prioritised ideology over controlled migration, leaving a lasting legacy. Successive governments, including Conservative and Labour, have struggled to control and resolve the issue, but the roots of the problem lie in Labour's shortsightedness! " I would assume in 1948 we needed workers because we lost so many in the war to help rebuild the country. Bet racists didn't like that at the time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I believe this has already been happening in Scandinavia and has worked quite well. Labour don't get anywhere near as much credit as they should for their efforts in fixing the immigration crisis caused by the conservatives. But eh, that's the current status of the media for you. Damned if you do damned if you don't.. Ha ha. Seriously. Liebour blocked the Tories scheme time after time in the courts until election time. Since Liebour got on the illegal immigrants are at an all time high Thats because it was illegal and made no sense, like most of the tory ideas on immigration. The UK's modern immigration problem actually stems from the blunders of two Labour governments. The 1948 British Nationality Act, under Clement Attlee, granted citizenship to over 800 million people without time restrictions, creating a framework for permanent settlement. This led to the Windrush scandal. Later, Tony Blair's government opened the EU doors in 2004 without limits, despite warnings, causing unplanned migration. Both decisions prioritised ideology over controlled migration, leaving a lasting legacy. Successive governments, including Conservative and Labour, have struggled to control and resolve the issue, but the roots of the problem lie in Labour's shortsightedness! I would assume in 1948 we needed workers because we lost so many in the war to help rebuild the country. Bet racists didn't like that at the time. " Indeed, clearly The 1948 British Nationality Act was Atlee's Labour government's response to an urgent need for labour to rebuild post-war Britain. A workable solution in principle, but one that overlooked long-term implications - migrants were brought in without a time limit on their stay once their work in the UK was completed. The Windrush generation were invited to help rebuild the nation and contributed significantly. Let's acknowledge their great contribution and focus on how Labour's mismanagement is the root cause of the raging issue the UK currently faces, where our nationality and heritage are being threatened. The composition of the UK population in 1948 was, of course, much different than 2026, with a totally different attitude - a huge relief that the heavy hardships of the War years were over and also a deep sadness for the millions of lives lost in the name of freedom, which is often taken for granted today. Labour's failure to manage migration has had lasting consequences, their short-sightedness has led to unsustainable pressures on our infrastructure, housing, and national identity. The situation was, of course further exacerbated by Blair's government in 2004, when EU expansion led to unprecedented levels of immigration, yet unlike other EU member countries, no transitional controls were put in place to manage the flow, putting additional strain on our already pressured systems! It's time to address the impact of unchecked migration and take back control – not just of our borders, but of our own national destiny. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Unfortunately if you say it might be a problem to have tens of thousands of unchecked immigrants living on benefits you are simply accused of being racist! So it’s probably best to bury your head in the sand and say nothing, I’m sure in 20 years time it will have been sorted out by this fabulously intelligent government. " The same accusations were hurled at the late Baron Powell of Ulminster, but how right he was! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Safe and legal routes! Giving money to people fleeing the worst of humanity isn't going to work " The French ain’t all that bad. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Safe and legal routes! Giving money to people fleeing the worst of humanity isn't going to work " We already have safe and legal routes ... They're called Airports & Seaports  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let’s all think about one illegal immigrant who for arguments sake is 20 years old he comes to the Uk on a rubber dinghy and wins his case to remain here for good , he never works and gets housed fed and clothed claims Universal credit until he officially retires and then gets his state pension! He never puts one penny into the system that’s just one person imagine how many thousands will be doing the same thing, surely as a country that must be self harm on a huge scale and cannot continue?? Or, let's think about the fact someone born here does exactly the same thing. The only difference is that one has had there education for free and has had free healthcare for life just because they were lucky enough to be born here but haven't paid a single penny in. Also, let's think that you are talking complete bollox as its just hypothetical. At the moment being on benefits is a career choice for some people. There needs to be done radical thinking and big changes made to stop this. For example let’s say you are made redundant and go onto benefits as a married person with 2 children. You shouldn’t be able to have a 3rd or 4th child even and have your benefits increased and maybe get a bigger house. If you’re in work and have kids, your salary doesn’t automatically increase to reflect it, and you don’t automatically get a bigger house to fit them in. Before any benefits increase, you should have to do a certain number of years in work before you are eligible for any increases. Being on benefits has always been a career choice for some. Remember the comedy Bread? Royal Family? Where did you think the idea from
The ideas behind the programmes "Bread" and "The Royle Family" (not the Royal Family!) both depicted a stark, gritty snapshot of the negative and infectious stagnation that socialism can produce. Those shows weren't just comedies; they were critiques highlighting the flawed socialist philosophy – 'The State is my shepherd, I shall not want!' – on which benefits careerists thrive!
You say ‘not the Royal Family’ how much do we pay one of the richest families in the world?
Yes, I said 'not the Royal Family' because the poster was clearly referencing the TV show 'The Royle Family' (different spelling!).
Slightly off topic on this particular thread, but, since you mention it, the British Royal Family costs the UK taxpayer around £100-£150 million annually, while generating approximately £500 million in revenue, resulting in a net benefit to the UK economy of around £350-£400 million, so not quite the financial burden the republican lobby would have us believe!
Not sure the revenue figure is wholly accurate, but even if it is close I am not sure why we are paying these people when they clearly have enough to heat and eat.
The point is, the British Royals generate significant revenue for the UK. As for paying them, the Sovereign Grant supports official duties, although not personal luxuries.
We are also slightly off-topic for this particular thread.
Someone bought up benefits claimants, which includes the sovereign grant…
Well!!.....UK benefit claimants don't generate a £1.1 billion annual profit for the Treasury, only to receive a 12% rebate for office expenses. If the King were a 'claimant', he'd keep the Crown Estate revenue – but I suspect taxpayers are glad that £960 million surplus went to fund schools and hospitals instead!
Now perhaps back to the matter under discussion:-
"£40k to Leave:- UK Trial Offers Cash to Failed Asylum Seekers"
Still don’t see why we are paying for them."Thinking on it… it’s UC for multi millionaires isn’t it? They work, they don’t get enough from that to finance their lifestyle, taxpayers make up the shortfall. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let’s all think about one illegal immigrant who for arguments sake is 20 years old he comes to the Uk on a rubber dinghy and wins his case to remain here for good , he never works and gets housed fed and clothed claims Universal credit until he officially retires and then gets his state pension! He never puts one penny into the system that’s just one person imagine how many thousands will be doing the same thing, surely as a country that must be self harm on a huge scale and cannot continue?? Or, let's think about the fact someone born here does exactly the same thing. The only difference is that one has had there education for free and has had free healthcare for life just because they were lucky enough to be born here but haven't paid a single penny in. Also, let's think that you are talking complete bollox as its just hypothetical. At the moment being on benefits is a career choice for some people. There needs to be done radical thinking and big changes made to stop this. For example let’s say you are made redundant and go onto benefits as a married person with 2 children. You shouldn’t be able to have a 3rd or 4th child even and have your benefits increased and maybe get a bigger house. If you’re in work and have kids, your salary doesn’t automatically increase to reflect it, and you don’t automatically get a bigger house to fit them in. Before any benefits increase, you should have to do a certain number of years in work before you are eligible for any increases. Being on benefits has always been a career choice for some. Remember the comedy Bread? Royal Family? Where did you think the idea from
The ideas behind the programmes "Bread" and "The Royle Family" (not the Royal Family!) both depicted a stark, gritty snapshot of the negative and infectious stagnation that socialism can produce. Those shows weren't just comedies; they were critiques highlighting the flawed socialist philosophy – 'The State is my shepherd, I shall not want!' – on which benefits careerists thrive!
You say ‘not the Royal Family’ how much do we pay one of the richest families in the world?
Yes, I said 'not the Royal Family' because the poster was clearly referencing the TV show 'The Royle Family' (different spelling!).
Slightly off topic on this particular thread, but, since you mention it, the British Royal Family costs the UK taxpayer around £100-£150 million annually, while generating approximately £500 million in revenue, resulting in a net benefit to the UK economy of around £350-£400 million, so not quite the financial burden the republican lobby would have us believe!
Not sure the revenue figure is wholly accurate, but even if it is close I am not sure why we are paying these people when they clearly have enough to heat and eat.
The point is, the British Royals generate significant revenue for the UK. As for paying them, the Sovereign Grant supports official duties, although not personal luxuries.
We are also slightly off-topic for this particular thread.
Someone bought up benefits claimants, which includes the sovereign grant…
Well!!.....UK benefit claimants don't generate a £1.1 billion annual profit for the Treasury, only to receive a 12% rebate for office expenses. If the King were a 'claimant', he'd keep the Crown Estate revenue – but I suspect taxpayers are glad that £960 million surplus went to fund schools and hospitals instead!
Now perhaps back to the matter under discussion:-
"£40k to Leave:- UK Trial Offers Cash to Failed Asylum Seekers"
Still don’t see why we are paying for them.
Thinking on it… it’s UC for multi millionaires isn’t it? They work, they don’t get enough from that to finance their lifestyle, taxpayers make up the shortfall."You've clearly hit the nail on the head, albeit the completely wrong nail! As it's also clearly off topic of this thread!! Yet, despite my previous comprehensive explanation, it's also a spectacular example of economic illiteracy and a misunderstanding of how basic arithmetic works. Universal Credit is a net cost to the taxpayer; the Sovereign Grant is a net profit for the taxpayer! You've got the ledger exactly upside down, or are you standing on your anti-royalist head Docbig? 😂 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Back to the topic in question:- The hair-brained £10,000 exit grant is a desperate, short-term accounting trick doomed to fail. It creates a perverse incentive for illegal migration, de-risking the journey for economic migrants with a five-figure payout even if their claims fail. This scheme is an ethical and legal contradiction: the Home Office consults on forced removals whilst bribing families to leave quietly. Incoherent and likely to be paralysed by Judicial Reviews, it's an expensive admission of systemic failure, costing more in legal fees and incentives than it saves! " Excellent response 👏 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Safe and legal routes! Giving money to people fleeing the worst of humanity isn't going to work We already have safe and legal routes ... They're called Airports & Seaports "Not for war zones | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Back to the topic in question:- The hair-brained £10,000 exit grant is a desperate, short-term accounting trick doomed to fail. It creates a perverse incentive for illegal migration, de-risking the journey for economic migrants with a five-figure payout even if their claims fail. This scheme is an ethical and legal contradiction: the Home Office consults on forced removals whilst bribing families to leave quietly. Incoherent and likely to be paralysed by Judicial Reviews, it's an expensive admission of systemic failure, costing more in legal fees and incentives than it saves! Excellent response 👏 " France is safe to you. Who are you to tell anyone where they feel safe? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Back to the topic in question:- The hair-brained £10,000 exit grant is a desperate, short-term accounting trick doomed to fail. It creates a perverse incentive for illegal migration, de-risking the journey for economic migrants with a five-figure payout even if their claims fail. This scheme is an ethical and legal contradiction:- the Home Office consults on forced removals whilst bribing families to leave quietly. Incoherent and likely to be paralysed by Judicial Reviews, it's an expensive admission of systemic failure, costing more in legal fees and incentives than it saves! Excellent response 👏 France is safe to you. Who are you to tell anyone where they feel safe?" Whoa!!! You appear to be missing the point, it's about the law, not personal opinion! Schedule 3 of the 2004 Asylum Act designates France as a safe country (as one of the 27 EU safe member countries), implying life and liberty aren't threatened there. In fact, the UK is currently attempting to use the 2025 returns treaty to send people back to France right now. If a G7 democracy doesn't meet the standard for safety, then the word is meaningless and you're just describing a travel preference! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Back to the topic in question:- The hair-brained £10,000 exit grant is a desperate, short-term accounting trick doomed to fail. It creates a perverse incentive for illegal migration, de-risking the journey for economic migrants with a five-figure payout even if their claims fail. This scheme is an ethical and legal contradiction:- the Home Office consults on forced removals whilst bribing families to leave quietly. Incoherent and likely to be paralysed by Judicial Reviews, it's an expensive admission of systemic failure, costing more in legal fees and incentives than it saves! Excellent response 👏 France is safe to you. Who are you to tell anyone where they feel safe? Whoa!!! You appear to be missing the point, it's about the law, not personal opinion! Schedule 3 of the 2004 Asylum Act designates France as a safe country (as one of the 27 EU safe member countries), implying life and liberty aren't threatened there. In fact, the UK is currently attempting to use the 2025 returns treaty to send people back to France right now. If a G7 democracy doesn't meet the standard for safety, then the word is meaningless and you're just describing a travel preference!" France is not a safe country to some people. And they aren't leaving France they are transitioning through France from country of unsafe origin. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know law and decency is an abortion to you people but Churchill and his mates did set this system up against people like you to help Jews at the time but to everyone essentially " Actually, my father at the age of 19 and uncle fought with the Royal Welch Fusiliers (53rd Div.), in WWII in France, Belgium and Germany, so I'm well aware of what Churchill's generation stood for – and it wasn't abandoning the rule of law! You're clearly misrepresenting history The 1951 Refugee Convention provided safety, not a choice of destination. Churchill's generation built a system based on the first available refuge; they didn't envision people 'transitioning' through safe, democratic G7 nations like France to pick a preferred economic outcome. Using the 1951 Convention to justify ignoring the 2004 Asylum Act and the 2025 Returns Treaty isn't 'decency' – it's a misunderstanding of international law and national borders! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"[Removed by poster at 14/03/26 05:37:28]" Oh dear were you nasty again? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But no one mention the war that's going to increase people seeking refuge or petrol prices that these ghouls were shouting we should be in involved in " Shifting focus to petrol prices and the Iran conflict is a massive deflection. We were discussing France's legal status, which remains a safe G7 nation regardless of global oil markets. My father and his comrades fought for principles, not for international law to be taken lightly. We're advocating for common sense here, not taking sides in a war. If someone is safe in France, choosing to go to the UK is a destination choice, not a survival necessity. It seems legal arguments have been exhausted, you are now desperately resorting to throwing futile insults! To quote WLSC:- "There are bitter w**ds in England"....and Wales! ✌️🏴 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But no one mention the war that's going to increase people seeking refuge or petrol prices that these ghouls were shouting we should be in involved in Shifting focus to petrol prices and the Iran conflict is a massive deflection. We were discussing France's legal status, which remains a safe G7 nation regardless of global oil markets. My father and his comrades fought for principles, not for international law to be taken lightly. We're advocating for common sense here, not taking sides in a war. If someone is safe in France, choosing to go to the UK is a destination choice, not a survival necessity. It seems legal arguments have been exhausted, you are now desperately resorting to throwing futile insults! To quote WLSC:- "There are bitter w**ds in England"....and Wales! ✌️🏴" That's where your reading of the law is wrong. People who don't speak French or have a colonial history with France are not "safe" but in Britain from British colonial history they are! You know that history you want every one to be proud of? We also have to take responsibility for! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Show me where it says refugees must stop in a safe country. If you Google it the first thing it says is no they don't " I always apply a caveat when using Google for the very reason you have inadvertently illustrated – it often gives you half-truths! The 1951 Convention doesn't explicitly say a refugee must stop at the first border, but it does allow states to declare claims inadmissible if someone's passed through a safe third country. That's exactly what Schedule 3 of the 2004 Asylum Act does for the UK. It's also why the 2025 Returns Treaty exists – as of February 2026, the UK has returned over 300 people to France specifically because they bypassed a safe G7 democracy. You're arguing for a 'right' the UK courts and treaties are rejecting. If France is 'unsafe' due to colonial history or language, international law is dead and you're advocating open borders. I'm sticking with the law and my family's proud legacy. Further engagement now seems futile, so I will close the dialogue with you here. But thanks for your.... intriguing perspective. ✌️🏴🇬🇧 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you don't keep your house in order you will get cockroaches, if you don't keep your country in order you will get Muslims. " How very racist of you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you don't keep your house in order you will get cockroaches, if you don't keep your country in order you will get Muslims. How very racist of you. " Agreed! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Show me where it says refugees must stop in a safe country. If you Google it the first thing it says is no they don't I always apply a caveat when using Google for the very reason you have inadvertently illustrated – it often gives you half-truths! The 1951 Convention doesn't explicitly say a refugee must stop at the first border, but it does allow states to declare claims inadmissible if someone's passed through a safe third country. That's exactly what Schedule 3 of the 2004 Asylum Act does for the UK. It's also why the 2025 Returns Treaty exists – as of February 2026, the UK has returned over 300 people to France specifically because they bypassed a safe G7 democracy. You're arguing for a 'right' the UK courts and treaties are rejecting. If France is 'unsafe' due to colonial history or language, international law is dead and you're advocating open borders. I'm sticking with the law and my family's proud legacy. Further engagement now seems futile, so I will close the dialogue with you here. But thanks for your.... intriguing perspective. ✌️🏴🇬🇧" You've said it yourself the refugee convention doesn't mention safe countries. Britain is signed to that convention everything else is nonsense as you know and why we are in this mess | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you don't keep your house in order you will get cockroaches, if you don't keep your country in order you will get Muslims. " Vile | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you don't keep your house in order you will get cockroaches, if you don't keep your country in order you will get Muslims. How very racist of you. Agreed! " Surprised you usually agree | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you don't keep your house in order you will get cockroaches, if you don't keep your country in order you will get Muslims. How very racist of you. Agreed! Surprised you usually agree " I'm at a loss at your surprise, racism is totally abhorrent it has no place at all in any society! The issue under discussion focuses on protecting and harmonising UK interests such as culture, nationality, and sovereignty as an integral part of a comprehensive society. As I intimated earlier, further discussion with you on this topic seems futile. Thanks for the discussion; I'll close our exchange here. Enjoy the day ahead! 🌞😎 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Round them up and throw them out. This is the best way. Put the army in the channel and turn them round. But for years our government have been working against the real people of the Uk. This government is by far the worst. " Hope they're good at swimming | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Round them up and throw them out. This is the best way. Put the army in the channel and turn them round. But for years our government have been working against the real people of the Uk. This government is by far the worst. " Seems nice! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you don't keep your house in order you will get cockroaches, if you don't keep your country in order you will get Muslims. How very racist of you. Agreed! Surprised you usually agree I'm at a loss at your surprise, racism is totally abhorrent it has no place at all in any society! The issue under discussion focuses on protecting and harmonising UK interests such as culture, nationality, and sovereignty as an integral part of a comprehensive society. As I intimated earlier, further discussion with you on this topic seems futile. Thanks for the discussion; I'll close our exchange here. Enjoy the day ahead! 🌞😎 " No I just know your type, pretend to care but ultimately your no better than those two above | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Round them up and throw them out. This is the best way. Put the army in the channel and turn them round. But for years our government have been working against the real people of the Uk. This government is by far the worst. " I assume you mean navy in the channel, not the army and thats not their job. I believe they were contacted many years ago and that was their answer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Round them up and throw them out. This is the best way. Put the army in the channel and turn them round. But for years our government have been working against the real people of the Uk. This government is by far the worst. " I concur with your remarks regarding the current administration and appreciate your concerns, but the proposed approach raises significant legal and humanitarian issues. The UK is bound by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to rescue vessels in distress, making it challenging to turn away overcrowded dinghies without risking lives and exposing personnel to legal penalties. The focus has to be on a system that's legally defined, effective and humane, and that's the only direction in which we can ethically and legally proceed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Round them up and throw them out. This is the best way. Put the army in the channel and turn them round. But for years our government have been working against the real people of the Uk. This government is by far the worst. " Need to tell the life boats to stop picking them up as well | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We all need to trust in our prime minister and his government that they are acting in the best interests of our country, they are the most intelligent people and will always put us before any self interest.. " Trust in politics has to be earned through delivery, not assumed by status of office. The recent U-turn on military base usage and the National Insurance increase despite manifesto pledges raise concerns about consistency. With 75% of the UK now viewing the leadership unfavourably, it's clear people expect more 'country before self' leadership. Intelligence is one thing, but leadership requires conviction and consistency. Many see a weak government dithering on key issues while living costs and the NHS struggle. I'll believe it when results match the rhetoric. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Round them up and throw them out. This is the best way. Put the army in the channel and turn them round. But for years our government have been working against the real people of the Uk. This government is by far the worst. Need to tell the life boats to stop picking them up as well " The RNLI's mission is a legal and humanitarian requirement, not a political choice. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the UK is mandated to rescue those in distress at sea. Ordering the RNLI to stop rescuing people is asking them to break maritime law. The RNLI's 200-year record of saving lives without judgment is why they're a highly respected institution. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe we just need to give them more time but I do understand your concerns " Yes indeed, I understand your hope for patience, but almost two years in??... Hmmmm!. . . the trend seems to be more U-turns than progress. This month alone, we've seen the government allow US use of UK bases for Middle East strikes, and the National Insurance hike went ahead despite pledges to 'working people'. With the government polling at 17% and three-quarters of the country viewing the leadership unfavourably, it feels like 'more time' isn't delivering results. Leadership's about keeping promises when things get tough, not breaking them. I'll believe the 'country first' ethic when policies match their manifesto. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe we just need to give them more time but I do understand your concerns Yes indeed, I understand your hope for patience, but almost two years in??... Hmmmm!. . . the trend seems to be more U-turns than progress. This month alone, we've seen the government allow US use of UK bases for Middle East strikes, and the National Insurance hike went ahead despite pledges to 'working people'. With the government polling at 17% and three-quarters of the country viewing the leadership unfavourably, it feels like 'more time' isn't delivering results. Leadership's about keeping promises when things get tough, not breaking them. I'll believe the 'country first' ethic when policies match their manifesto." The country is in a hole and the majority of people won't accept that, and that to try to climb out of that hole difficult decisions need to be made. Far too easy to blame Johnny Foreigner. Let's see what happens if Reform or another bunch of nationalist loons get in. The hole will become bottomless pretty quickly | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let’s all think about one illegal immigrant who for arguments sake is 20 years old he comes to the Uk on a rubber dinghy and wins his case to remain here for good , he never works and gets housed fed and clothed claims Universal credit until he officially retires and then gets his state pension! He never puts one penny into the system that’s just one person imagine how many thousands will be doing the same thing, surely as a country that must be self harm on a huge scale and cannot continue?? Or, let's think about the fact someone born here does exactly the same thing. The only difference is that one has had there education for free and has had free healthcare for life just because they were lucky enough to be born here but haven't paid a single penny in. Also, let's think that you are talking complete bollox as its just hypothetical. " What a load of nonsense. The ‘only’ difference you point out, being British, is a pretty big bloody difference. We should not be the dumping ground of the world to give these invaders the same, and often more, rights than our own. Welfare needs to be overhauled and the budget seriously cut, not ever more expanded to give to young men rocking up on a dingy from France. In the lottery of life unfortunately some draw the short straw. This is the British state and governments are meant to serve the British people, not whoever else breaks into our country. The lazy, feckless, welfare loving British are our own domestic problem that needs urgent attention. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
