Cable Forum - The boat people

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - The boat people (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33711870)

I didn't want to go off topic in another thread, but Ian does need to be dealt with in relation to this topic. The originating thread is at https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...4&postcount=40

Ian said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99
The positioning of integrity and Braverman in the same response I think proves the point being made. The women is a Goebbels wannabe and certified moron. If you think she represents your values, and the country's, then you may need a rethink.

My reply included:

Quote:

I suppose you used the term "Goebbels" because you think that Braverman is victimising poor defenceless people (the ones I call illegal migrants). I and the country at large want these illegal migrants and the associated trafficking stopped. If you don't want this, then it is you that needs a rethink.

Ian then went off piste in his retort:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36150834)

Just to be clear, and to correct your deliberate misrepresentation, I am not "describing people [plural] I do not like". Rather, I am describing a person [singular] I do not like.

Comparing Braverman to the 1930 Germany is not my claim, it is the claim of an actual Holocaust survivor who said:

Quote:

“Now, when I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family, and millions of others.

“Why do you find the need to use that kind of language.”

Same tactic, different century. We used to be a compassionate nation but this Government, with its hateful gaslighting of the reality of Asylum Seeking in the UK, is turning us into a spiteful, insular shadow of our former selves.

The deliberate action of not providing legal routes to claim asylum from Sudan, Syria, etc. and then labelling people who are forced to travel by sea "illegal" is a sinister play and is designed to manipulate the gullible. The people who you should be worrying about arriving in this country do not arrive on small boats, they arrive on private jets.

I'll critique Ian's reply in my next post.

---------- Post added at 19:20 ---------- Previous post was at 18:51 ----------

Ian very specifically likened Braverman to Goebbels (Holocaust, remember?).

Then, in his next post, Ian denied what he had openly done. I don't think Braverman ever used the word "swarms". She did use the word "invasion" and with good reason: daily boatloads of fit young men, who have deliberately destroyed their documents and mobile phones, many of them Albanians who are known to enter the criminal world. This seems to have changed now to other types of would-be migrants. Those who have a genuine reason to want to claim asylum, could do so in France.

Ian has raised a separate matter - no doubt to divert attention from his Goebbels slur: legal asylum routes for Sudanese & Syrians, etc. That's a difficult one. Due to the "invasion" by the boat people, the asylum system is clogged with an enormous backlog that costs us £6m/day in hotel charges. Thus, the only recourse we have, in addition to the Bill going through Parliament, is not to allow new legal routes for the time being.

The hysterical, personalised attack on Braverman (remember, he hates Tories) is completely unjustified.

Re: The boat people

They are committing an horrendous amount of crime too. The doo gooders will inevitable poo poo it but it is clear. From violent crime and theft to child molestation and targeting young girls.

I do not want them here

Re: The boat people

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36150838)

:clap::clap::clap:

Re: The boat people

Undoubtedly, there are some that are getting here undetected. Are they all rushing to the nearest police station to claim political asylum?

Re: The boat people

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 36150840)

Undoubtedly, there are some that are getting here undetected. Are they all rushing to the nearest police station to claim political asylum?

Most Albanians are blond and almost all of them white. I guess that's why.

Re: The boat people

Dog whistle of a thread, all because the OP "needs to deal" with someone.
.

Re: The boat people

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36150847)

Dog whistle of a thread, all because the OP "needs to deal" with someone.
.

Not to be pedantic, isn’t a dog whistle meant to be subtle?

Re: The boat people

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36150847)

Dog whistle of a thread, all because the OP "needs to deal" with someone.
.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36150852)

Not to be pedantic, isn’t a dog whistle meant to be subtle?

Strangely enough, the wiki article on that term has this…

Quote:

Australia

The term was first picked up in Australian politics in the mid-1990s, and was frequently applied to the political campaigning of John Howard.[7] Throughout his 11 years as Australian prime minister and particularly in his fourth term, Howard was accused of communicating messages appealing to anxious Australian voters using code words such as "un-Australian", "mainstream", and "illegals".[8][9]

One notable example was the Howard government's message on refugee arrivals. His government's tough stance on immigration was popular with voters, but was accused of using the issue to additionally send veiled messages of support to voters with racist leanings,[10] while maintaining plausible deniability by avoiding overtly racist language.[11] Another example was the publicity of the Australian citizenship test in 2007.[11] It has been argued that the test may appear reasonable at face value, but is really intended to appeal to those opposing immigration from particular geographic regions.[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)

Re: The boat people

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36150847)

Dog whistle of a thread, all because the OP "needs to deal" with someone.
.

My message isn’t coded nor carefully framed to be suggestive.

Re: The boat people

I'm going to be "dealt with", sounds sinister :D

Let's be very clear here, this whole "small boat" scenario is one totally confected by the Tory Party. Three decisions made by this Government make this inevitable:

1. stop all legal routes to claim asylum from Sudan, Syria, Ethiopia, etc.
2. refuse offer by France to process claims on French soil
3. deliberately stop processing asylum claims

Re: point #3, since 2014, the % of asylum applications completed within 6 months fell from 80%+ to ~10%.

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2023/05/1.jpg

This is an artificial problem created by design to distract from a broken country, a country that was broken by the very people shouting "dinghies!". The saddest part of all of this is not that they did this, it is that enough people are gullible to taken in by it.

---------- Post added at 17:50 ---------- Previous post was at 17:47 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36150852)

Not to be pedantic, isn’t a dog whistle meant to be subtle?

To be very pedantic, a dog whistle is loud but only to those who can hear it .... woof.

Re: The boat people

Your argument, Ian, is founded on there not being sufficient leagal routes to the UK.

I'll certainly grant your point #2 - but it would still take some time for determination of claims made in France.

If the UK had taken up that offer, would it have stopped the boat people? I suspect not. They can be across the channel on a boat in a couple of hours rather than a couple of months.

The whole point here is that the boat people do not need to come to the UK.

Re: The boat people

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36150884)

There are no legal rights into the UK apart from hopping onto a small boat and making your asylum claim upon arrival. No one's going to spend thousands of Pounds and risk their life doing so if they can apply from France.

The UK does not want a processing centre in France as it fears it will lead to an increase in asylum-seekers as the risky and costly channel deterrent would be removed.

Re: The boat people

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36150886)

They don't need to come to the UK to be safe.

Re: The boat people

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36150888)

They don't need to come to the UK to be safe.

They don't need to claim asylum anywhere else either

Re: The boat people

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36150888)

They don't need to come to the UK to be safe.

The Daddy is right.

And as others have pointed out, the UK is not doing the heavy lifting on taking in asylum seekers.