It'll be.....yes but, no but.....ad infinitum 😭Quote:
Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY
Printable View
It'll be.....yes but, no but.....ad infinitum 😭Quote:
Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY
He is Tory Boy from Harry EnfieldQuote:
Originally Posted by Dorcus
Loadsamoney, loadsamoney!Quote:
Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY
I'm taking my wad for a walk.
No political sophisticate here Cyril. I just disagree with several of you on here and think the proposed solutions outlined would not work. I know many dwell in silos but it's not that uncommon for people to disagree with you is it?!Quote:
Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays
You also didn't really address the points raised and went straight for the ad hominem attack. A consistent attack if nothing else! Like I said, I think loads of you know what you propose won't work, but you perhaps don't care, I dunno?
There were also more transfers to the UK than from it under the Dublin III agreement
And James Wales struggles up from the canvas for the fifteenth time in this thread, I suppose you’ve got to admire his resilience, but his corner really should throw the towel in now - failing that, maybe a moderator could step in to avoid him taking further punishment :hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Still confused?Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
What argument do you think you, or anyone else have won here?! Baffling!
Would you like an ice pack Jimbo?Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
It's warm today but no need for that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorcus
My interpretation of this thread: A number of well argued and common sense proposals and points from a range of individuals who don't like the Government's policy but absolutely don't underestimate the problem, or complexity of the solution, and probably have quite diverse political standpoints, views and thoughts on the detail of how any mitigating policies are implemented.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
How I assume James sees this thread (using some of his own words): The usual 'pile on' from the 'lefty angry mob'. Easiest just to parrot the Government line.
Anyway, I'm out. It's boring now.
From my perspective, it's a mixture of the two, Peter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Swiss Peter
If I'm honest your posting history suggests otherwise. There is no evidence of any sense of openness (or still less, respect) to other ways of thinking in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Have you read what others have written? I, and others, get a shed load of abuse from a small number of people for having any alternative opinion and it does get ones back up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Swiss Peter
Sorry, but I don't think I've seen a solution on here that stops criminal gangs and reduces numbers claiming asylum in the UK or does so without creating a greater number of issues elsewhere. I'm perfectly entitled to come to that conclusion.
And on page 1, before I even posted, we have:Quote:
Originally Posted by Swiss Peter
"lefty lawyers" - Bob (admittedly using the term ironically, but still..)
"Slimy Tory" - Sludge
"Idiot" - Sludge
"Everything they touch turns to shit" - RJK.
They don't sound like particularly useful tone setters to a sensible discussion on a legionnaire's disease outbreak to me. I admit, I shouldn't assume that most left wing people who have strong opinions on such matters are generally privileged and insulated from such matters, although in my experience it is often true.
It would be great if we could have a genuinely open debate that isn't based on Disney politics.
double post
Alternative opinion? :hehe: You just parrot Government policy. Tell us something alternative...Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
No I don't. And by alternative, I mean alternative to the prevailing wind on this messageboard boardQuote:
Originally Posted by Swiss Peter
And in reposte you gave.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
1. Comfortably off left-wingers far from the problem usually) will moan and moan and moan whatever happens.
2. you toxic lot!
3. Your naivity is quite somethng.
4. What I'm saying is that you are a middle class leftie who screams and moans and offers no solutions and uses other people as pawns in issues that you will never, ever, be impacted by.
5. It's just the angry crew reforming the band!
6. This is what I mean when I talk of a convenient naiivity on the left.
You did have an ironic kick out at Ad Hominems though.
Perhaps we should move on though. I mentioned Dublin III and you rightly pointed out that in the last year of the accord slightly more people were relocated to the UK than from it (though applications were higher the other way). This study, though soft left in my opinion, provides major evidence that before we left DIII small boats were statistically insignificant. Only when traffickers and the trafficked realised that the deterrent effect no longer exst did small boats increase exponentially.
https://www.durham.ac.uk/departments...r-thom-brooks/
We purposely excluded an agreement on maintaining a returns policy with the EU when we hastily negotiated the "oven ready" deal. Do you think that a future government trying to negotiate such a deal may have more benefit than exports to Africa or leaving internationally negotiated treaties?
Happy to personally apologise to anyone offended. It does get my back up that the default position is always one of division and 'black and white', but that is no excuse and I will try better.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays
Outbreaks of this kind do occur, unfortunately. It's almost as if it's not easy to find housing for x number of people arriving daily.
However, yes, good to move on. 👍
It absolutely is "black and white". There are no shades of grey. It amazes me an obviously fairly intelligent man cannot understand that.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
https://youtu.be/CohnFb1tOUUQuote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Suck on that
Go to bed
The game is over
I don't think you are supposed to take comedians so seriously Sludge. And no way was I going to go to bed at 7.24 when I had only just woken up. Ridiculous suggestion.Quote:
Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY
The thread could do with a long lie down, but just to perhaps leave it on some questions, it is black and white. And if it isn't, what part isn't?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorcus
Is the govt right to house people on barges?
Is the humanitarian process of asylum claims riddled with criminal abuse?
Is the positive test of legionella in one of hundreds of sites a sign of wider mismanagement?
Is the asylum process reaching those most in need or rewarding the fittest?
Should the UK house absolutely everyone who successfully applies for asylum here or are there limits?
Is it okay to be concerned for communities where people are housed?
Should asylum seekers receive housing over other people awaiting it?
Has leaving the EU made any difference?
Are current human rights laws fit for purpose?
Would the opposition do anything different?
There's an enormous amount of black and white issues in this debate. It's very very complex.
But apparently the "Only solution increasingly seems to involve leaving the ECHR if we are to have any control". Explain how the complexities of these issues are resolved by your solution and how the negative impacts on the Good Friday Agreement and the the Withdrawal Agreements with the EU can be mitigated. Then we can all join in and gaze in wonderment at the nuanced thinker you claim to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Calm down Cyril, I just left a series of ponderables in response to Dorcus saying the issue absolutely is 'black and white' when I would suggest that on any level of the debate, it absolutely is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays
Thanks for the advice. I mistakenly thought that by calling out every alternative offered in this thread as simplistic, half-baked, naive or lacking complexity that your solution of leaving the ECHR would suffer from none of those faults. No biggie!Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Nothing is without its consequences, although I do think it would benefit the solution of this problem, but it's perfectly reasonable to present the idea that it may open up new challenges alsoQuote:
Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays
But still what? If I’d meant it like the snowflake Tories who use the term do, it would have been okay?Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Just pointing out that you used the term first on this thread, all on page one, which perhaps helps set the tone for how these threads pan out?Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
But, all I was doing, albeit in an ironic manner, is repeating what Government Ministers and spokespeople (the people you defend on here as a reflex action) were saying. So, what is your point? Are you saying me pointing out an example of this Government’s tendency to blame someone else when anything goes wrong is the reason for the “but still what” or it’s wrong for the Government to apply lazy and simple generalisation to a complex problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
I see the squatter in number 10 has moved the goalposts AGAIN!
Jan: I will Stop The Boats!
Feb: I will Stop The Boats!
Mar: I will Stop The Boats!
Apr: I will Stop The Boats!
May: I will Stop The Boats!
June: I will Stop The Boats!
July: I will Stop The Boats!
Aug: Well obviously I didn’t mean we would actually stop the boats…
https://x.com/itvnewspolitics/status...ZQyp-iO2wYo4Kg
Was just in response to Peters post, which I can see his point in tbh, but I wanted to point out that often these threads have a tone set early on based on general insults, mocking, claims the govt are the worst in history and other various examples of hyperbole.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
I don't endlessly defend the govt by the way. I just consistently think those who do all the criticising on here rarely offer better ideas
You do endlessly defend the Government - as I mentioned, it’s a reflex action, so maybe you don’t know you’re doing it? You’ve not answered my question either, is it okay for the Government to talk about lefty lawyers, but not me?Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
In response to infantile posts about it being the worst govt in history / they should be liquidated and things like that, then yes I will naturally defend them. Would do the same for the Welsh Govt in the face of such ridiculousness.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
In general though, no. But on this I do think their hands are largely tied (as will the future govts) and I do think my responses are more to highlight the lack of genuine solutions put forward elsewhere. But I guess we all see these things in different ways.
You can both talk about lefty lawyers if you like,that's up to you.
But that’s not what you said earlier when you included what I said in your “list of shame” - you correctly identified that I wasn’t being serious, yet had to add the words “but still”. Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Cos it still sets the tone for the debate, when some of the criticism of lawyers may be perfectly valid.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
Nonetheless, this does seem a rather pedantic interjection. Should all language on here by analysed in such detail? Seems strange to pick up on 'but still' but overlook talk of people being scum etc
You are like a festering wartQuote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Your ego is the size of a fridge
You are a parent ?
Jesus christ
So, it’s “perfectly valid” when people of the right political persuasion, as you see it, use the term and a “but still” when I do? You often try to moderate the threads you get involved in, but we’ve already got people who do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
For goodness sake Bob. In response to Peter, I highlighted some of the comments on Page 1 of this thread to illustrate how the tone of debates is often set. I rightly pointed out what you wrote and said it was ironic.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
Now if you are going to play language police may I suggest you start speaking out about the person who has posted immediately above you?
You don't like that someone wrote 'but still..' imagine waking up to see someone call you a festering wart, question your parenting etc, all because you don't vote for his political party.
You could actually help to cut out the kind of personal abuse that is common on here and usually starts from a small number of people.
Why don't you do that and call him out instead of nitpicking?
Your implication was clear, I shouldn’t be saying what I did. If and when a moderator tells me I’ve gone too far, I’ll accept it (probably:hehe:), not when you do. I’d say it’s the people who use the term “lefty lawyers” to describe someone who takes a case which succeeds in the courts who have the problem, not.me.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
You can say what you like Bob! I was just quoting you and did the fair thing of mentioning you mentioned it ironically. Was hardly unreasonable on my behalf.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
Now as I said, if you want to play language police, maybe you have something to say about the post just above your first one this morning? Or is that okay cos he shares similar views?