Gary Lineker

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Ked said:

Canada and Holland have criminal gangs crossing these desperate people across rough seas do they.

And where da fek ye pulling Uganda from?

Are you serious?

Uganda ?

Shall we indulge.

Uganda is impressive, but next door Rwanda not so, it would seem.

[Ked]

3 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said:

Just one more thing : you seem to have zero comprehension where these  migrants come from : with the exception of Albania (where the UK is actually investing in order to try & reduce the scale of the problem) the OVERWHELMING majority of refugees come from countries that are currently war zones or have been destroyed by war in recent years. The table for it is on this very thread. 

Educate yourself. 

 

So the criminality behind transporting people in lorries (I won't lay the blame of their deaths on Ireland or other countries) and the people who are being crammed onto dinghy boats are not safe from war ?

Are they not already safe?

Please refrain from saying Ireland and France or other countries are not safe haven from which they are safe.

 

Getting to safety and then risking life to cross a channel of rough sea water doesn't natch your argument.

 

Now.

Getting to safety and trying to get residence in the UK is a different matter.

Or are you saying Ireland and France are not safe in comparison to the UK.

Or are you talking shite.

[Footballfirst]

4 minutes ago, Ked said:

Canada and Holland have criminal gangs crossing these desperate people across rough seas do they.

And where da fek ye pulling Uganda from?

Are you serious?

Uganda ?

Shall we indulge.

I'll indulge you re Uganda.  

 

I don't see the UK anywhere on the list below, but Uganda is 3rd.

 

Top 10 Countries Hosting the Highest Number of International Refugees (mid-2021 data):

1. Turkey — 3,696,831
2. Jordan — 3,027,729
3. Uganda — 1,475,311
4. Pakistan — 1,438,523
5. Lebanon — 1,338,197
6. Germany — 1,235,160
7. Sudan — 1,068,339
8. Bangladesh — 889,775
9. Iran — 800,025
10. Ethiopia — 782,896

[Ked]

8 minutes ago, Smithee said:

It isn't illegal

So people smuggling is legal ?

Really?

[Nucky Thompson]

Maybe they should stay in those more tolerant countries that they've passed through.

Why would you risk your neck coming to a country run by Nazis 

[periodictabledancer]

Just now, Ked said:

So the criminality behind transporting people in lorries (I won't lay the blame of their deaths on Ireland or other countries) and the people who are being crammed onto dinghy boats are not safe from war ?

Are they not already safe?

Please refrain from saying Ireland and France or other countries are not safe haven from which they are safe.

 

Getting to safety and then risking life to cross a channel of rough sea water doesn't natch your argument.

 

Now.

Getting to safety and trying to get residence in the UK is a different matter.

Or are you saying Ireland and France are not safe in comparison to the UK.

Or are you talking shite.

You clearly aren't coping well - you seem unable to actually address what I wrote (in response to what you said) and have gone off on another foul mouthed rant which I see you've done a few times already here. 

I'll leave you to your ignorance. 

[i wish jj was my dad]

7 minutes ago, Ked said:

Canada and Holland have criminal gangs crossing these desperate people across rough seas do they.

And where da fek ye pulling Uganda from?

Are you serious?

Uganda ?

Shall we indulge.

The Uganda reference came from a comment by Rory Stewart on his Rest is Politics podcast.  He now works in an NGO and does a lot of work in Africa.  I can't beyond that but he spoke highly of them.   Indulged enough? 

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

Just now, Nucky Thompson said:

Maybe they should stay in those more tolerant countries that they've passed through.

Why would you risk your neck coming to a country run by Nazis 

They probably don't know the UK is a basket case country until they arrive.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, Dawnrazor said:

There's bits in there that I agree with and some I don't and some bits are wrong, but this is way off topic so let's agree to disagree on points or PM me for more.

Cheers, and you're right, but it's been a pleasure to discuss this here though.

[Ked]

5 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

Maybe they should stay in those more tolerant countries that they've passed through.

Why would you risk your neck coming to a country run by Nazis 

Because they're full of shite arguments

[periodictabledancer]

18 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

Sorry to derail the thread , but...

 

...looks like some kind of solution is on the cards.

 

Talks with Lineker moving in right direction, says BBC (rte.ie)

It doesn't really say very much. 

[Ked]

3 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

They probably don't know the UK is a basket case country until they arrive.

Often a true word.

 

[Costanza]

26 minutes ago, Ked said:

No I'm not.

But you bash on with equating anything I've said sorry posted with that.

 

Vehemently speaking I'm against his views because they flirt with utter shite.

And his tax evasion and puerile shallow politics do not in any way take on the very real problem not only of UK migration but a world wide problem. 

 

That problem is simply economic .

And it hides or prevents migration from those in danger of violence or politically ,religious persecution. 

 

Although the lot are mostly derived from economics.

I am conservative .

I'm not a tory or a right wing racist.

Simply agreeing with a tweet from someone who doesn't like me put his fake mouth where his money is folly.

And the quicker the backlash from folk like you pointing out his shit and naybe just maybe getting him to shut up until he does will see the drowned the hopeless waves of those rushing to risk being drowned perhaps being addressed.

 

Whether you like Lineker or not, we're discussing the substance of his tweet, not the wider solution to the migration problem (which is only going to get worse with climate change and economic stagnation) but you bash on equating my views on his tweet with my views on worldwide immigration.

Anyway you played the man regarding his tweet and then when someone with considerably more investiture in the nature of the rhetoric of the tweet agreed with it, you just dismissed that as well. 

I don't think anyone is saying Gary Lineker is the person to sort out or direct commentary on immigration, just that this whole stupid furore has been caused by the BBC not just saying "Gary Lineker's views are his own and not those of the BBC and do not impact his ability to ask Alan Shearer whether Newcastle United will make the Champions League" and instead causing a mess by suspending him.

[Dawnrazor]

4 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

Cheers, and you're right, but it's been a pleasure to discuss this here though.

👍

[RobboM]

9 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

Maybe they should stay in those more tolerant countries that they've passed through.

Why would you risk your neck coming to a country run by Nazis 

If you want a sensible response to that question it was asked and answered at a hearing in parliament on the Borders Bill

 

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

Just now, Ked said:

Am I?

 

Still at least I give an account of myself .

You just snippet with fek all to say .

Rattled na.

So you gonna give an account of what you think or just muck in the background like a bitch.

How's that for rattling?

 

I've already said there was nothing wrong with Gary's tweet. 

So there's no more to say on it.

That's was the thread is about. 

 

[kila]

Anyone ever seen James and Ked in the same room?

 

[trotter]

5 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Wow. So Germany was not on a path to becoming Nazi Germany until the point it became Nazi Germany?

Yes. Germany was a 'reasonable' for want of a better word country, right up until it fell fully into the clutches of the NSDAP. That path was chosen by the politicians who used propaganda, rhetoric and vitriol to push their agenda. Once Hitler gained power, it was game over essentially. 

 

My point being, there was a different path that could've been taken that did not bring him to power based on the above, but he had used it to sway the voice of the people to his 'cause'. 

 

Feel free to disagree with me, buy please do not try to tell me that Germany was destined to be Nazi Germany. It did not have to be that way. 

[Unknown user]

28 minutes ago, Ked said:

So people smuggling is legal ?

Really?

 

You said illegal entry, they're not entering the country illegally 🤷‍♂️ 

 

Whether anyone likes it or not, if they claim asylum it was a legal entry - refugees can't be expected to have full paperwork and enter by normal channels.

[i wish jj was my dad]

16 minutes ago, RobboM said:

If you want a sensible response to that question it was asked and answered at a hearing in parliament on the Borders Bill

 

 

Hand wringing, lefty type no doubt.  

[RobboM]

4 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

Hand wringing, lefty type no doubt.  

Jonathan Gullis? Nah, a ***** of the highest order 😉

[Pasquale for King]

22 minutes ago, RobboM said:

If you want a sensible response to that question it was asked and answered at a hearing in parliament on the Borders Bill

 

 

Follow her, what a calm and detailed explanation to a clearly ill informed Tory MP. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

People who's claims are rejected get deported, under international law.

 

Until then, they have every right to be here, under international law.

 

It's on your own government to process these claims efficiently.

 

The Uk is appallingly slow at asylum applications. Which is why we have to house so many applicants.

Speed up the process.

Evaluate their claims.

Deport those that fail.

Backlog clear, hotels empty.

 

But then that doesn't help their political aims, so they don't.

They'd rather grab headlines in the Mail, Sun and Express and fight an election on the issue, which is their fault, because they've engineered the problem.

 

Manufacture a problem, sell yourself as the solution, hope that enough feckin morons vote for you.

Rinse and repeat every 5 years.

 

 

Conveniently forgetting that the countries bordering the UK where these boats are travelling from are perfectly safe and places where asylum can and should be claimed. Sangatte and the like have existed for years.

 

The real target here is to dry up the market for people amugglers sp that the potential customers won't pay them because they won't succeed. That did happen here in Australia with offshore processing. The UK's problem though is that the UK geography and Australia's geography are nothing alike. Trying to copy an Australian policy, therefore, won't work.

[RobboM]

[Lone Striker]

2 minutes ago, RobboM said:

😃

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

Sorry to derail the thread , but...

 

...looks like some kind of solution is on the cards.

 

Talks with Lineker moving in right direction, says BBC (rte.ie)

Who knew?

[Lone Striker]

48 minutes ago, Costanza said:

 

I don't think anyone is saying Gary Lineker is the person to sort out or direct commentary on immigration, just that this whole stupid furore has been caused by the BBC not just saying "Gary Lineker's views are his own and not those of the BBC and do not impact his ability to ask Alan Shearer whether Newcastle United will make the Champions League" and instead causing a mess by suspending him.

"Most Sensible Comment on this thread"  award   goes to Costanza. 

 

Pity it took 20 pages of mainly drivel to get to it though. 

Edited March 12, 2023 by Lone Striker

[pharmaceutical01]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

I'll indulge you re Uganda.  

 

I don't see the UK anywhere on the list below, but Uganda is 3rd.

 

Top 10 Countries Hosting the Highest Number of International Refugees (mid-2021 data):

1. Turkey — 3,696,831
2. Jordan — 3,027,729
3. Uganda — 1,475,311
4. Pakistan — 1,438,523
5. Lebanon — 1,338,197
6. Germany — 1,235,160
7. Sudan — 1,068,339
8. Bangladesh — 889,775
9. Iran — 800,025
10. Ethiopia — 782,896

Think Poland will have topped that with all the Ukrainians

[Shooter McGavin]

1 hour ago, RobboM said:

If you want a sensible response to that question it was asked and answered at a hearing in parliament on the Borders Bill

 

Bloody lefties with their logic and reasoning, makes me sick!

[periodictabledancer]

25 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Conveniently forgetting that the countries bordering the UK where these boats are travelling from are perfectly safe and places where asylum can and should be claimed. Sangatte and the like have existed for years.

 

The real target here is to dry up the market for people amugglers sp that the potential customers won't pay them because they won't succeed. That did happen here in Australia with offshore processing. The UK's problem though is that the UK geography and Australia's geography are nothing alike. Trying to copy an Australian policy, therefore, won't work.

Refugees can claim  asylum  where they like - Britain agree that  when it helped draw up the original principles post 1945. 

So it is incorrect to claim they "should" claim asylum somewhere else.  They are not legally obliged to do so. 

 

And as has been further explained - in fact, refugees DO claim refugee status in massive numbers 

in countries such as France & Germany, countries who take in FAR more refugees than the UK does. 

[redjambo]

19 minutes ago, pharmaceutical01 said:

Think Poland will have topped that with all the Ukrainians

 

1.5 million.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1312584/ukrainian-refugees-by-country/

[ColinSmith1255]

2 hours ago, Dawnrazor said:

Is it not the last programme that was cancelled?

Hi Dawnrazor, in a conciliatory manner, did you watch the programme? Strong case made for restoring native forests where they have been cleared.

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said:

Refugees can claim  asylum  where they like - Britain agree that  when it helped draw up the original principles post 1945. 

So it is incorrect to claim they "should" claim asylum somewhere else.  They are not legally obliged to do so. 

 

And as has been further explained - in fact, refugees DO claim refugee status in massive numbers 

in countries such as France & Germany, countries who take in FAR more refugees than the UK does. 

Signed off by Winston Churchill, gawd lav im!

[Cade]

19 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Conveniently forgetting that the countries bordering the UK where these boats are travelling from are perfectly safe and places where asylum can and should be claimed. Sangatte and the like have existed for years.

 

The real target here is to dry up the market for people amugglers sp that the potential customers won't pay them because they won't succeed. That did happen here in Australia with offshore processing. The UK's problem though is that the UK geography and Australia's geography are nothing alike. Trying to copy an Australian policy, therefore, won't work.

 

I have already explained this before.

 

The "safe country" thing is a right-wing invention.

Under the terms of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, anyone can claim asylum anywhere they wish.

There is no law that forces people to claim asylum in the first "safe" place they pass through.

 

In most cases, you first have to travel to the nation you wish to claim asylum in then submit your claim once there.

Some nations have treaties (such as the Dublin Regulation in the EU) that allows you to be held in one nation while your asylum claim in another nation is processed.

The UK was part of that arrangement until it did something stupid in 2016.

 

Now, if you want to claim asylum in the UK, you have to travel TO to the UK then make your claim.

And under international law, you have the right to do so.

There is so such thing as an "illegal asylum seeker".
FYI during your claim in the UK you are not allowed to get a job and all you get is £45 a week from the government, which is loaded into a pre-pay card each week.

 

There ARE "illegal immigrants", which are people that enter a nation without ever making a claim.
As nobody knows they're here, they don't get anything from the government and don't pay tax, most of them ending up in a flat with a dozen others, being paid cash in hand at various sweatshops. 

These are the problem. The way to deal with them is to jail their landlords and employers, cutting off that particular black market in modern slavery.
 

Somewhere along the line, the two things have become conflated and merged into a singular "THEM".

 

The UK should have a quick and easy asylum claim system.
Give them a safe way here, process the claims quickly, deport those that fail to prove that they are in danger in their home nation.

 

[Dawnrazor]

2 minutes ago, ColinSmith1255 said:

Hi Dawnrazor, in a conciliatory manner, did you watch the programme? Strong case made for restoring native forests where they have been cleared.

Never watched it, I don't generally watch nature programs now, too saccharine and sanitised.

I'd probably agree with a neutral regeneration of native woodland but not planting forests of non native trees.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Just now, periodictabledancer said:

Refugees can claim  asylum  where they like - Britain agree that  when it helped draw up the original principles post 1945. 

So it is incorrect to claim they "should" claim asylum somewhere else.  They are not legally obliged to do so. 

 

And as has been further explained - in fact, refugees DO claim refugee status in massive numbers 

in countries such as France & Germany, countries who take in FAR more refugees than the UK does. 

And two thirds are successful. Yes, I know that. The target is the one third who are found to be unsuccessful. If the scumbags known as people smugglers know that your country's asylum processing system is overrun to the point that claims can't be processed they will target that country, rightly assuming at some point that an amnesty will be granted. That creates a market in people for those who seek a "better life".

 

So I actually understand why HMG are announcing these proposals. The problem is, as I said above, the UK is not Australia and they won't work.

 

That's why Sunak also met with Macron and paid that cash because it will take full co-operation between the UK and France to take out the scumbag smugglers.

 

Back to Lineker though - whether or not you agree with his view on it, the bottom line for me is that he should have the right to state it.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

5 minutes ago, Cade said:

 

I have already explained this before.

 

The "safe country" thing is a right-wing invention.

Under the terms of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, anyone can claim asylum anywhere they wish.

There is no law that forces people to claim asylum in the first "safe" place they pass through.

 

In most cases, you first have to travel to the nation you wish to claim asylum in then submit your claim once there.

Some nations have treaties (such as the Dublin Regulation in the EU) that allows you to be held in one nation while your asylum claim in another nation is processed.

The UK was part of that arrangement until it did something stupid in 2016.

 

Now, if you want to claim asylum in the UK, you have to travel TO to the UK then make your claim.

And under international law, you have the right to do so.

There is so such thing as an "illegal asylum seeker".
FYI during your claim in the UK you are not allowed to get a job and all you get is £45 a week from the government, which is loaded into a pre-pay card each week.

 

There ARE "illegal immigrants", which are people that enter a nation without ever making a claim.
As nobody knows they're here, they don't get anything from the government and don't pay tax, most of them ending up in a flat with a dozen others, being paid cash in hand at various sweatshops. 

These are the problem. The way to deal with them is to jail their landlords and employers, cutting off that particular black market in modern slavery.
 

Somewhere along the line, the two things have become conflated and merged into a singular "THEM".

 

The UK should have a quick and easy asylum claim system.
Give them a safe way here, process the claims quickly, deport those that fail to prove that they are in danger in their home nation.

 

Which is all well and good but the unintended consequence of "simplification" will be an increase in human trafficking of the latter groups. These evil *******s look at anyway they can sell that "dream" to people and evidence that a country will simply let them in will just cause the demand to ramp up.

 

So, as I say, I understand where HMG have sourced the thinking from but I also think it is fundamentally flawed.

[Unknown user]

5 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

And two thirds are successful. Yes, I know that. The target is the one third who are found to be unsuccessful. If the scumbags known as people smugglers know that your country's asylum processing system is overrun to the point that claims can't be processed they will target that country, rightly assuming at some point that an amnesty will be granted. That creates a market in people for those who seek a "better life".

 

So I actually understand why HMG are announcing these proposals. The problem is, as I said above, the UK is not Australia and they won't work.

 

That's why Sunak also met with Macron and paid that cash because it will take full co-operation between the UK and France to take out the scumbag smugglers.

 

Back to Lineker though - whether or not you agree with his view on it, the bottom line for me is that he should have the right to state it.

 

The processing system is overrun because, like everything else, it's been underfunded for years while the Tories focus on self enrichment.

 

But I agree, the long processing times, and our habit of losing track of who's in the country make us more attractive to people seeking asylum.

Can't really blame any refugee or people smuggler for that though.

[periodictabledancer]

6 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

And two thirds are successful. Yes, I know that. The target is the one third who are found to be unsuccessful. If the scumbags known as people smugglers know that your country's asylum processing system is overrun to the point that claims can't be processed they will target that country, rightly assuming at some point that an amnesty will be granted. That creates a market in people for those who seek a "better life".

 

So I actually understand why HMG are announcing these proposals. The problem is, as I said above, the UK is not Australia and they won't work.

 

That's why Sunak also met with Macron and paid that cash because it will take full co-operation between the UK and France to take out the scumbag smugglers.

 

Back to Lineker though - whether or not you agree with his view on it, the bottom line for me is that he should have the right to state it.

I don't know where this is coming from - you made two satements to the effect 

asylum seekers "should" be doing it somewhere else (I pointed out , they actually do and the figures from France & Germany prove it). I also pointed out they have a legal right to claim asylum where they like and this was enshrined in the various human rights act the UK helped create , but now wants to trash.

 

The people smugglers can and should be hunted down and jailed but it's a helluva embarrassment for the UK that so much of it is controlled from within the UK but the tories have been so fantastically innefective in dealing catching them. 

 

I totally agree with your final point. 

 

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

 

The processing system is overrun because, like everything else, it's been underfunded for years while the Tories focus on self enrichment.

 

But I agree, the long processing times, and our habit of losing track of who's in the country make us more attractive to people seeking asylum.

Can't really blame any refugee or people smuggler for that though.

No, I don't blame them in that sense for taking advantage of incompetence. Who wouldn't?

 

What would actually help in some senses, if they wanted to look at Australia, would be to introduce a card system like Aussies have for Medicare which links to Centrelink (covers public health and social security). That is only available to permanent residents, citizens and certain other immigrant level groups. No card, no benefits or free treatment. I'm not claiming perfection in any way but it also means it is far harder to hide or be hidden. No doubt civil liberty groups would shit themselves in the UK at such a suggestion.

[periodictabledancer]

4 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

The processing system is overrun because, like everything else, it's been underfunded for years while the Tories focus on self enrichment.

 

But I agree, the long processing times, and our habit of losing track of who's in the country make us more attractive to people seeking asylum.

Can't really blame any refugee or people smuggler for that though.

Braverman deliberately did nothing and watched it collapse in order  to stir up public opinion to the point she thinks (wrongly) she can renege on UKs commitment to human rights and create her own laws that she thinks might get her off the hook re this shambles. 

 

On the matter of why the UK might be more attractive option than say France or Germany. I heard one expert claim that France/Germany is much stricter on asylum seekers' rights to work whereas in the UK they literally, very easily,  can disappear into the black economy.

[Costanza]

1 hour ago, Lone Striker said:

"Most Sensible Comment on this thread"  award   goes to Costanza. 

 

Pity it took 20 pages of mainly drivel to get to it though. 

Thanks, I'm printing and framing that praise for my wife. 

There has been a lot of drivel but a lot of it has been quite funny. You can't beat a good old UK media frenzy.

 

 

 

[I P Knightley]

3 hours ago, Day@theraces said:

Turning back migrants when we can't even look after our own vulnerable citizens is not the same as Nazi Germany. We are probably the most tolerant country in the world

 

We could look after our vulnerable citizens but the Tory government over the last 13 years have chosen not to and, instead, to focus on making themselves and their chums obscenely wealthy. Education, health and welfare have all had substantial real-terms cuts but nothing that causes a ripple in the consciousness of the ruling classes.

 

We're not tolerant. 52% voted for a Brexit that was driven by intolerance. Intolerance and lies, to be fair; but mainly intolerance.

 

1 hour ago, RobboM said:

If you want a sensible response to that question it was asked and answered at a hearing in parliament on the Borders Bill

 

 

Unfortunately, the "once and for all" proved to be wishful thinking regarding Gullis. The calm, factual and measured explanation went in one ear and out the other. He's since been swinging on his tyre, masturbating and grunting about them having gone through France to get here so why didn't they stay there where it's safe. It's embarrassing that the guy was once a teacher but doubly embarrassing that he's an MP. I think it's the "Secret Tory" on Twitter who occasionally posts spoof leaked WhatsApp exchanges between various Tory MPs and always puts Gullis's 'contributions' in block capitals - very clever observation.

[DETTY29]

Deal nearing.

 

What do we reckon the compromise is?

 

Lineker adds 'views are my own' to his Twitter tag line....

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

9 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

Deal nearing.

 

What do we reckon the compromise is?

 

Lineker adds 'views are my own' to his Twitter tag line....

 

BBC confirms Lineker can express a view. Lineker "clarifies" his post. HMG breathes a sigh of relief.

[hughesie27]

 

 

Probably posted already.

[Ulysses]

29 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

BBC confirms Lineker can express a view. Lineker "clarifies" his post. HMG breathes a sigh of relief.

 

You forgot HMRC.   

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

You forgot HMRC.   

Oh yes, the taxes! 

[fabienleclerq]

7 hours ago, Ked said:

So what do you propose we do to counter the illegal entry to the UK?

 

Really do you think that allowing it to continue is beneficial to the migrants?

Do you think that housing education and health care can cope with non planned migration?

Do you think tax avoiding millionaires should be lecturing?

 

Come on tae fek.

This is in no way akin to Nazi Germany .

 

Again you're not that daft, his comments were about the rhetoric and its similar. 

 

We have the national broadcaster banning someone for critising the government. Regardless of your opinion of him you realise how dangerous that is?

 

Add that to the Begum situation, making her stateless is another dangerous precedent. I'm not a dan of hers but I understand why they shouldn't be making her stateless. 

Workers and human rights are being trod on, the comparison is a good one.

 

As for migrants it's probably a different thread needed. We are one of the richest countries in the world, if we wanted to help the vulnerable in our country we would, migrants are irrelevant to that.

 

It's not one or the other, that's what the tories want people to think. Divide and conquer. 

[i wish jj was my dad]

1 hour ago, fabienleclerq said:

 

Again you're not that daft, his comments were about the rhetoric and its similar. 

 

We have the national broadcaster banning someone for critising the government. Regardless of your opinion of him you realise how dangerous that is?

 

Add that to the Begum situation, making her stateless is another dangerous precedent. I'm not a dan of hers but I understand why they shouldn't be making her stateless. 

Workers and human rights are being trod on, the comparison is a good one.

 

As for migrants it's probably a different thread needed. We are one of the richest countries in the world, if we wanted to help the vulnerable in our country we would, migrants are irrelevant to that.

 

It's not one or the other, that's what the tories want people to think. Divide and conquer. 

We've gone down so many rabbit holes with this. 

The central point is that UKG are using this whole 'tough on migrants' line as a deflection from the arse they have made of the economy. The language used is inflammatory and aimed at the section of the electorate who bought into the 'taking back control' myth and are now seeing that brexit wasn't such a smart move after all. 

A BBC sports personality has called out the language used to support that policy and compared it to similar populist tactics and the BBC have buckled to UKG pressure while seemingly ignoring political statements made by other BBC media personalities. 

As much as he is a smarmy twat (and he may well be a tax avoiding twat at that) I can't see how he is the bad guy here.