International News Immigration

West Oxon Uā€™s said:
Click to expand...


From 'X', which is a complete cesspit of misinformation. Oh, and good to see the 'news source' is a local lad who clearly knows what's really going on in the UK.

His page is just a load of AI slop designed to make YOU angry, which is why 'X' is becoming a complete joke.

1770025684875.png
 
Aside from Twitter/X and social media.....

Illegal arrivals on boats dropped in January - thanks to the weather being :poop:

In Leicester we have Inclusion Healthcare - its a one stop medical centre (Same day GP, same day Dentist).

It was originally set up as a CIC for the Homeless - something I support 100%.

Now its remit has extended to "other marginalised people"..................... guess who that is?

Its now reaching the point that its original patients can`t get an appointment because of the demand from local hotels.
 
Essexyellows said:
Aside from Twitter/X and social media.....

Illegal arrivals on boats dropped in January - thanks to the weather being :poop:

In Leicester we have Inclusion Healthcare - its a one stop medical centre (Same day GP, same day Dentist).

It was originally set up as a CIC for the Homeless - something I support 100%.

Now its remit has extended to "other marginalised people"..................... guess who that is?

Its now reaching the point that its original patients can`t get an appointment because of the demand from local hotels.
Click to expand...
Be careful complaining Essex you could end up on a far right watchlist
 
Strangely, I can not find a government document outlining what the far left is
 
SteMerritt said:
Good attempt to deflect. It is an old link.
Click to expand...
The last government presided over mass immigration and accused people who complained of being far right.

This government presided over mass mass migration and accuses people of being far right who complain.

Red or blue makes no odds. Which is exactly why this country needs little R and big R reform.
 
Oooh, this one aged like milk. Those two names at the bottom look vaguely familiar...
1770069380849.png
 
Londox said:
In the words of @Essexyellows the games gone. No matter who you vote for mass immigration continues.

Jenrick and Braverman will both claim, rightly or wrongly, that they have to kowtow to the civil service and that's the problem.
Click to expand...

This probably stemmed from when the Supreme Court said you cannot send to people to Rwanda, yet the Conservatives went and ordered the Civil Service to go and do it anyway. The Civil Service Union then said (not unreasonably) that the Civil Service are bound by the Civil Service code of conduct, and they will not do this. i.e. they refused to break the law!

Of course Reform's response is to leave the ECHR, and various other legal frameworks, and they plan to replace this with a 'British Bill of Rights'. I haven't even seen what this 'bill of rights' is going to contain in it. It hasn't even been published yet - Funny that šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø . What I do notice is the absence of the word 'human'. It's not a British bill of human rights, just 'rights'.

This is all designed so that the government in power has full authority to push through whatever legislation they like, no matter how extreme, with the minimum of pushback from civil service code of conduct, lawyers, human rights groups, Amnesty International etc. Sounds a bit fascism to me.
 
boogaloo said:
This probably stemmed from when the Supreme Court said you cannot send to people to Rwanda, yet the Conservatives went and ordered the Civil Service to go and do it anyway. The Civil Service Union then said (not unreasonably) that the Civil Service are bound by the Civil Service code of conduct, and they will not do this. i.e. they refused to break the law!

Of course Reform's response is to leave the ECHR, and various other legal frameworks, and they plan to replace this with a 'British Bill of Rights'. I haven't even seen what this 'bill of rights' is going to contain in it. It hasn't even been published yet - Funny that šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø . What I do notice is the absence of the word 'human'. It's not a British bill of human rights, just 'rights'.

This is all designed so that the government in power has full authority to push through whatever legislation they like, no matter how extreme, with the minimum of pushback from civil service code of conduct, lawyers, human rights groups, Amnesty International etc. Sounds a bit fascism to me.
Click to expand...
I do think it is important that governments can deliver the promises they are elected on, really the job of the civil service isn't to make any moral judgment on government policy but to implement it.

I am all for some 'extreme' measures from the government to fix the problems we face, the constant centrism and kicking the can down the road seems to just be making living standards worse, and the problems we face are going nowhere.

I don't think an elected government implementing policy they were elected on is anything close to fascism. Non-elected bodies being able to block legislation sounds more fascistic to me.
 
Londox said:
I do think it is important that governments can deliver the promises they are elected on, really the job of the civil service isn't to make any moral judgment on government policy but to implement it.

I am all for some 'extreme' measures from the government to fix the problems we face, the constant centrism and kicking the can down the road seems to just be making living standards worse, and the problems we face are going nowhere.

I don't think an elected government implementing policy they were elected on is anything close to fascism. Non-elected bodies being able to block legislation sounds more fascistic to me.
Click to expand...

If your employer told you to go out and steal some food from M&S for a office party that you were having, would you do it? I suspect your answer to that would be no. If they then fired you for Gross misconduct, then I suspect you would take your former employer to court for unfair dismissal.

The civil service are doing nothing wrong - it is populist politics (post-Boris Tory and Reform), that are seem to think they just ride roughshod over any legislation and do whatever the hell they like. Some of the Reform policies are just absolute bonkers:- 'Send out the Royal Navy' (who have also said they will refuse to do this), 'dump them on the beaches of France' - what if the French don't want them? Why would want them, after all they are not French citizens.

As I've said before, with Reform - it is just simple policies to complex problems.

And furthermore, legislation has to be legal before it can be implemented. Rwanda was deemed an unsafe country, which is why it was blocked. In fact some of the asylum seekers the Tories were looking to deport were actually from Rwanda!
 
  • React
Reactions: QR
boogaloo said:
If your employer told you to go out and steal some food from M&S for a office party that you were having, would you do it? I suspect your answer to that would be no. If they then fired you for Gross misconduct, then I suspect you would take your former employer to court for unfair dismissal.
Click to expand...
This isn't a direct comparison. The civil service are there to follow orders.
boogaloo said:
The civil service are doing nothing wrong - it is populist politics (post-Boris Tory and Reform), that are seem to think they just ride roughshod over any legislation and do whatever the hell they like. Some of the Reform policies are just absolute bonkers:- 'Send out the Royal Navy' (who have also said they will refuse to do this), 'dump them on the beaches of France' - what if the French don't want them? Why would want them, after all they are not French citizens.
Click to expand...
What is the BRITISH don't want them? Why would WE want them, after all they are not British citizens. If the French don't want them maybe they should do this crazy thing and implement a strong border.
boogaloo said:
As I've said before, with Reform - it is just simple policies to complex problems.
Click to expand...
Anyone can be complicated, simplicity is difficult.
boogaloo said:
And furthermore, legislation has to be legal before it can be implemented. Rwanda was deemed an unsafe country, which is why it was blocked. In fact some of the asylum seekers the Tories were looking to deport were actually from Rwanda!
Click to expand...
No matter what governments try and do mass immigration and replacement migration continues, this is why people are angry.
 
Londox said:
This isn't a direct comparison. The civil service are there to follow orders.
Click to expand...

Yes it is a fair comparison. The civil service are there to obey orders - provided it does not involve breaking the law.

Londox said:
What is the BRITISH don't want them? Why would WE want them, after all they are not British citizens. If the French don't want them maybe they should do this crazy thing and implement a strong border.
Click to expand...

That's my point, the French WILL implement a stronger border at Calais - "What is this boat coming into land? Are these people French, do you have French passports? No? Well go back to where you came from (which would be Dover). What, you're not British? Not my problem - you're not French, therefore you're not coming in"

Londox said:
No matter what governments try and do mass immigration and replacement migration continues, this is why people are angry.
Click to expand...

We did have a pretty good system that wasn't perfect, but was far, far better than what we have now. That was the Dublin Convention, but we opted out of that when we decided to leave the EU. So instead of net migration in the 200 to 300 thousand per year, it went up as high as 900K. Also worth pointing out that a lot of this is now non-EU as opposed to EU citizens. But of course Farage and Boris told us Brexit was all about our 'Sovereignty' and 'taking back control'. And people took at face value from these two shysters. Why people still trust a single word that comes out of Farage's mouth completely baffles me.

Like I said - Simple problems to complex problem.

1770120004473.png
 
boogaloo said:
Yes it is a fair comparison. The civil service are there to obey orders - provided it does not involve breaking the law.



That's my point, the French WILL implement a stronger border at Calais - "What is this boat coming into land? Are these people French, do you have French passports? No? Well go back to where you came from (which would be Dover). What, you're not British? Not my problem - you're not French, therefore you're not coming in"



We did have a pretty good system that wasn't perfect, but was far, far better than what we have now. That was the Dublin Convention, but we opted out of that when we decided to leave the EU. So instead of net migration in the 200 to 300 thousand per year, it went up as high as 900K. Also worth pointing out that a lot of this is now non-EU as opposed to EU citizens. But of course Farage and Boris told us Brexit was all about our 'Sovereignty' and 'taking back control'. And people took at face value from these two shysters. Why people still trust a single word that comes out of Farage's mouth completely baffles me.

Like I said - Simple problems to complex problem.

View attachment 33354
Click to expand...

So it would be fair for us to do the same at Dover? We could just tell them come back to where they come from - Calais.
 
Londox said:
This isn't a direct comparison. The civil service are there to follow orders.
Click to expand...
So you genuinely believe civil servants can break the law if instructed to do so by the government.

Sorry but that's an off the scale level of ignorance. But I does kind of explain the volume of just complete lies and falsehoods you have post on here and been categorically called out for.
 
QR said:
So you genuinely believe civil servants can break the law if instructed to do so by the government.

Sorry but that's an off the scale level of ignorance. But I does kind of explain the volume of just complete lies and falsehoods you have post on here and been categorically called out for.
Click to expand...
Kind of stinks of "I was only following orders" doesn't it.
 
QR said:
So you genuinely believe civil servants can break the law if instructed to do so by the government.

Sorry but that's an off the scale level of ignorance. But I does kind of explain the volume of just complete lies and falsehoods you have post on here and been categorically called out for.
Click to expand...
If you're going to accuse people of ignorance you should learn grammar first.
 
Londox said:
This isn't a direct comparison. The civil service are there to follow orders.

What is the BRITISH don't want them? Why would WE want them, after all they are not British citizens. If the French don't want them maybe they should do this crazy thing and implement a strong border.

Anyone can be complicated, simplicity is difficult.

No matter what governments try and do mass immigration and replacement migration continues, this is why people are angry.
Click to expand...
"This isn't a direct comparison. The civil service are there to follow orders." - but not if that order goes against the law of the land. We are not in the time of the Wermacht.
The government of the time gambled on an interpretation of the laws and were found out. They had the ability to change the law, but instead chose to attack the people refusing to break the law, and the people like lawyers and the courts that upheld it.
 
holdsteady said:
So it would be fair for us to do the same at Dover? We could just tell them come back to where they come from - Calais.
Click to expand...

Well, yes there is that. But then you get into a tit-for-tat game of ping-pong across the Channel, and that just costs more hassle, money and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

Far better to build bridges between us and France, and the rest of the EU for that matter, and try and get some sort of agreement similar to the Dublin convention.
 
boogaloo said:
Well, yes there is that. But then you get into a tit-for-tat game of ping-pong across the Channel, and that just costs more hassle, money and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

Far better to build bridges between us and France, and the rest of the EU for that matter, and try and get some sort of agreement similar to the Dublin convention.
Click to expand...
Was all the money we gave to France not enough?

If France doesn't want the problem, why have they allowed these people to gain access to their country in the first place?

When we were in the Dublin Convention was illegal immigration not an issue?
 
Londox said:
If QR wants to insult me he should at least get his own house in order first.

I often have no idea the point he's trying to make as his sentences don't make sense.
Click to expand...
Some simple questions for you.

Are you honestly that thin skinned?

Do you expect the civil service to break the law?

What is your answer?

Your response thus far smacks of desperation and whataboutism.
 
  • React
Reactions: QR
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom