ChatterBank0 min ago
A Good Thing? Or Not
https:/
There’s already talk of increased taxes across the board which I’d assume will be at local level having cuts made to them
Your thoughts?
There’s already talk of increased taxes across the board which I’d assume will be at local level having cuts made to them
Your thoughts?
Answers
Yes it raises questions, Zacs. But we look to politicians to provide the answers because the current shambles is not sustainable.
My suggestion that we should abandon our responsibilities under the seventy year old treaties is not glib. It is a serious suggestion because it seems that without such a move this country will continue to be taken for a ride that it cannot deal with. It will lead to many and various serious problems (and in fact in some respects already is) and it is not acceptable for politicians to simply say that their hands are tied. They're paid to solve the country's problems, not to simply accept them. The country cannot deal with the influx and that is unfair on the incomers (whom I don't particularly care about) and those who are already here (whom I do). Since it cannot be dealt with it needs to be stopped.
My suggestion that we should abandon our responsibilities under the seventy year old treaties is not glib. It is a serious suggestion because it seems that without such a move this country will continue to be taken for a ride that it cannot deal with. It will lead to many and various serious problems (and in fact in some respects already is) and it is not acceptable for politicians to simply say that their hands are tied. They're paid to solve the country's problems, not to simply accept them. The country cannot deal with the influx and that is unfair on the incomers (whom I don't particularly care about) and those who are already here (whom I do). Since it cannot be dealt with it needs to be stopped.
i stand by my words, unlike some on here, this is an invasion and one that should be dealt with. NJ has it about right, i have read through the posts and concluded that some on here are just lefty do gooders who when push comes to shove will let anyone in, no matter their right to be here. Disgusted that the successive governments have let it get this far. God help us if Labour get into power, as they are many known left wing activists, and will let heaven knows who into the country. Croatia may be nice, but they don't want these people do they.
// i stand by my words, unlike some on here, this is an invasion //
I implore you to choose your language carefully!
To use the 'i' word in this context, is to describe these migrants as running rife and uncontrollably throughout the land.
Unlike some, you still have to learn that certain language can be offensive.
Since the majority of those who reach our shores are intercepted by various maritime agencies, your useage of the 'i' word is at best... a misnomer!
Hope this helps.
I implore you to choose your language carefully!
To use the 'i' word in this context, is to describe these migrants as running rife and uncontrollably throughout the land.
Unlike some, you still have to learn that certain language can be offensive.
Since the majority of those who reach our shores are intercepted by various maritime agencies, your useage of the 'i' word is at best... a misnomer!
Hope this helps.
https:/
You have to feel sorry for them ... don't you? No 'invasion' here!
You have to feel sorry for them ... don't you? No 'invasion' here!
//Since the majority of those who reach our shores are intercepted by various maritime agencies, your useage of the 'i' word is at best... a misnomer!//
I doesn't pay to get hung up on the language used. It diverts from the issue (which perhaps is the intention of some people). If the term "invasion" offends some people they will have to get over it. Whatever you might call this influx, those involved are not invited and they are not fleeing for their safety. They are in France. If they were French citizens living in Paris, would they be treated in the same way? No, because they are in a safe country and not in any danger.Neither are those coming here in rubber boats (until they set forth in the boats, that is).
To concentrate on Albanians for a moment, around 55% of Albanian asylum applications to the UK are successful. In Germany, Sweden and a few other European countries that figure is zero. In France it is 2%, Ireland 3% and Spain 4%. So why are they treated so differently in the UK, which is subject to just the same UN treaties as the others I have mentioned? The answer lies in Mrs May's ridiculous "Modern Slavery" legislation which those coming here exploit. Many of the arrivals from Albania claim to have been "trafficked" from there by criminal gangs. Albania is a peaceful country which has not been at war for 25 years and it has an advanced law enforcement and judicial system. So the issue of abduction is a matter for the Albanian authorities to address; it is not one that can be sub-contracted out to another country. In the north of England there have been many cases involving girls and young women being exploited and abused by (mainly) Muslim men. Using the same argument as the Albanians, they should be able to set off for France and claim asylum there. This is clearly ridiculous; the issue of their safety is one for the UK authorities.
The Modern Slavery Act (or at least its interpretation) is something else the government needs to address. It is clearly allowing large numbers of people to remain here under the guise of "asylum" who realistically have no such right. For its part the UN has moved the goalposts and now believes it is quite acceptable for large numbers of people to roam the world, seeking a destination of choice because they don't like it where they are. That was not the purpose of the 1951 treaty and Article 31 clearly makes a distinction between those people and those who arrive directly from a country where they are in peril.
These are the issues the UK government needs to address. They should not be concentrating their minds on what to do with people after they have arrived, they should prevent or deter them from arriving.
I doesn't pay to get hung up on the language used. It diverts from the issue (which perhaps is the intention of some people). If the term "invasion" offends some people they will have to get over it. Whatever you might call this influx, those involved are not invited and they are not fleeing for their safety. They are in France. If they were French citizens living in Paris, would they be treated in the same way? No, because they are in a safe country and not in any danger.Neither are those coming here in rubber boats (until they set forth in the boats, that is).
To concentrate on Albanians for a moment, around 55% of Albanian asylum applications to the UK are successful. In Germany, Sweden and a few other European countries that figure is zero. In France it is 2%, Ireland 3% and Spain 4%. So why are they treated so differently in the UK, which is subject to just the same UN treaties as the others I have mentioned? The answer lies in Mrs May's ridiculous "Modern Slavery" legislation which those coming here exploit. Many of the arrivals from Albania claim to have been "trafficked" from there by criminal gangs. Albania is a peaceful country which has not been at war for 25 years and it has an advanced law enforcement and judicial system. So the issue of abduction is a matter for the Albanian authorities to address; it is not one that can be sub-contracted out to another country. In the north of England there have been many cases involving girls and young women being exploited and abused by (mainly) Muslim men. Using the same argument as the Albanians, they should be able to set off for France and claim asylum there. This is clearly ridiculous; the issue of their safety is one for the UK authorities.
The Modern Slavery Act (or at least its interpretation) is something else the government needs to address. It is clearly allowing large numbers of people to remain here under the guise of "asylum" who realistically have no such right. For its part the UN has moved the goalposts and now believes it is quite acceptable for large numbers of people to roam the world, seeking a destination of choice because they don't like it where they are. That was not the purpose of the 1951 treaty and Article 31 clearly makes a distinction between those people and those who arrive directly from a country where they are in peril.
These are the issues the UK government needs to address. They should not be concentrating their minds on what to do with people after they have arrived, they should prevent or deter them from arriving.
//You have to feel sorry for them ... don't you? No 'invasion' here!//
Indeed naomi. It comes to something when even the BBC is highlighting exactly what is happening here. This is nothing to do with "asylum". "Where do the people crossing the Channel come from?" It is an organised effort to flood this country with people who are in all probability simply going to adopt a criminal lifestyle here.
Indeed naomi. It comes to something when even the BBC is highlighting exactly what is happening here. This is nothing to do with "asylum". "Where do the people crossing the Channel come from?" It is an organised effort to flood this country with people who are in all probability simply going to adopt a criminal lifestyle here.
/When asked why Albanians want to come to the UK, Besnik Cahani laughs and points at his pockets.
The 58-year-old knows only too well the benefits of having a relative brave the illegal journey – it is the one his son made seven years ago hiding in a lorry.
“He is sending £100 back here and my pocket is getting fat with Albanian lek,” Mr Cahani said, adding with widening eyes that “sometimes at Christmas or New Year, he sends £200”//
https:/
The 58-year-old knows only too well the benefits of having a relative brave the illegal journey – it is the one his son made seven years ago hiding in a lorry.
“He is sending £100 back here and my pocket is getting fat with Albanian lek,” Mr Cahani said, adding with widening eyes that “sometimes at Christmas or New Year, he sends £200”//
https:/
//i dont understand how the post and the link are related what is this about taxes//
They are related because the problem that local councils are trying address (from the link) is the block booking by the government of hotel rooms (or sometimes entire hotels) to accommodate those arriving in Kent on board rubber boats (supposedly to claim asylum). Surprising as it may seem, the owners of those hotels want to be paid (current cost - just of the hotels - is £7m per week or £2bn per year). That payment comes from taxes, hence the comments about taxes in the post.
They are related because the problem that local councils are trying address (from the link) is the block booking by the government of hotel rooms (or sometimes entire hotels) to accommodate those arriving in Kent on board rubber boats (supposedly to claim asylum). Surprising as it may seem, the owners of those hotels want to be paid (current cost - just of the hotels - is £7m per week or £2bn per year). That payment comes from taxes, hence the comments about taxes in the post.
