The boat people

[Sephiroth]

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:

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:

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:

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.

[Jaymoss]

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

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

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

[Taf]

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

[Ms NTL]

Originally Posted by Taf

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.

[Mr K]

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

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mr K

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?

Originally Posted by Mr K

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

Originally Posted by jfman

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

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

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)

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Mr K

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.

[ianch99]

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

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%.



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 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

[Sephiroth]

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.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

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.

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.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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.

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

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

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

They don't need to claim asylum anywhere else either

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

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.