BreakTheLaw Boris

[Hilts]

Whats your solution? Carry on as we are? Keep enriching the global human trafficking trade? Allow everyone in?

Have them apply in France for Travel Documents to apply for a Visa to apply for the asylum in the UK.

[JamesWales]

Have them apply in France for Travel Documents to apply for a Visa to apply for the asylum in the UK.

Are France happy with that? Does France want to attract and house great camps of people destined for another country? What about people who know they will fail in applications(which many of those who arrive do) then carry on and travel across the UK anyway? What do we do with those people? Do we fly them back? Or is that France's job?

I'm not saying any system is perfect, but the current one is repulsive (abused, costly, deadly, enriches criminal gangs, relies on being rich enough to afford the boats etc) and the proposal you advocate has not happened probably for it's own good reasons.

I think a bit of a deterrent is no bad thing. Lots of these people are totally abusing a system designed to help the most vulnerable and that isn't okay.

Worth giving it a trial I think.

[cyril evans awaydays]

Are France happy with that? Does France want to attract and house great camps of people destined for another country? What about people who know they will fail in applications(which many of those who arrive do) then carry on and travel across the UK anyway? What do we do with those people? Do we fly them back? Or is that France's job?

I'm not saying any system is perfect, but the current one is repulsive (abused, costly, deadly, enriches criminal gangs, relies on being rich enough to afford the boats etc) and the proposal you advocate has not happened probably for it's own good reasons.

I think a bit of a deterrent is no bad thing. Lots of these people are totally abusing a system designed to help the most vulnerable and that isn't okay.

Worth giving it a trial I think.

Perhaps you didn't get it the first time but in the mass of issues that trouble me then people seeking asylum in this country is way down on the list. Millions of vulnerable people are suffering energy and price inflation whilst their incomes/benefits are being eroded. The country is being run by a cabal of self-serving individuals more than willing to break international and their own laws and try to divert attention onto relatively trivial issues because they are popular and pander to prejudice.

I can see why you haver taken up the Tory banner and feel more comfortable defending their policies rather than your dalliances with Respect and the Liberal Democrats though!

[the other bob wilson]

Is it dehumanising? Or is it a tough measure done in conjunction with another country to actually try and stop the trade in human beings.

You tell me. And given that there are predictions of 1,000 people a day crossing by the summer, you tell me what we do with everyone, where we house them, how we process them etc.

As usual, howls of outrage but zero solutions. And maybe these wont be a solution, but maybe it's also worth trialling it?

I'm tired that there just seems to be this position for some, and they claim the moral highground for it, thats it's okay for thousands to cross the channel from a safe country, to pay thousands to people trafickers, for us to somehow feed and process unlimited numbers, for some to die in the channel etc etc.

The situation needs sorting. How you gonna do it?

Whatever it is, I’ve a feeling we wouldn’t be discussing these measures today if it wasn’t for Johnson’s fine - it’s as predictable as night following day, Tories in trouble? Out comes the immigration/race card.

[JamesWales]

Perhaps you didn't get it the first time but in the mass of issues that trouble me then people seeking asylum in this country is way down on the list. Millions of vulnerable people are suffering energy and price inflation whilst their incomes/benefits are being eroded. The country is being run by a cabal of self-serving individuals more than willing to break international and their own laws and try to divert attention onto relatively trivial issues because they are popular and pander to prejudice.

I can see why you haver taken up the Tory banner and feel more comfortable defending their policies rather than your dalliances with Respect and the Liberal Democrats though!

You have a right to care about the issues you care about, and other people have a right to care about issues they care about.

I don't think it is the biggest issue in the country, but I also think it's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, and personally illegal immigration, abuse of asylum, people dying on dinghies and the enrichment of criminal gangs in the repulsive people traficking industry is something that we should try and solve, even if it upsets a few peoples sensitivities along the way.

You've also failed to come up with any solutions and just wheeled out a few predictable tropes, which doesn't move us forward at all.

[JamesWales]

Whatever it is, I’ve a feeling we wouldn’t be discussing these measures today if it wasn’t for Johnson’s fine - it’s as predictable as night following day, Tories in trouble? Out comes the immigration/race card.

I don't doubt some diary rejigging has occured in order to manage the press and get onto a topic the government are a little more comfortable discussing. But I think it's a bit of a conspiracy theory to suggest we wouldnt be talking about this otherwise. It's hardly a new topic and policy announcements typically come with many months preparation, especially given that Priti Patel is actually in Kigali today, which doesn't happen without some organisation.

I think this is all a big problem, it needs solving, and if this works, it's worth trialling.

[Tito Fuente]

You have a right to care about the issues you care about, and other people have a right to care about issues they care about.

I don't think it is the biggest issue in the country, but I also think it's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, and personally illegal immigration, abuse of asylum, people dying on dinghies and the enrichment of criminal gangs in the repulsive people traficking industry is something that we should try and solve, even if it upsets a few peoples sensitivities along the way.

You've also failed to come up with any solutions and just wheeled out a few predictable tropes, which doesn't move us forward at all.

If the government wanted to murder all of the people trying to seek asylum and I said that I disagreed with that policy; would I have to come up with a different solution or am I allowed to simply oppose the policy without having to do the government's job for them?

That was a rhetorical question.

TL:DR: It's ok to criticise a policy and not have a better one lined up.

[JamesWales]

If the government wanted to murder all of the people trying to seek asylum and I said that I disagreed with that policy; would I have to come up with a different solution or am I allowed to simply oppose the policy without having to do the government's job for them?

That was a rhetorical question.

TL:DR: It's ok to criticise a policy and not have a better one lined up.

I appreciate that was a rhetorical question, but no, you wouldn't have to in that instance.

But then if we lived in a country where the government wanted to murder all of the people trying to seek asylum, the last thing you would do is speak up and question and their policies anyway.

Yes - it is possible to criticise a problem and not have a better one lined up, but such opinions are just substantially less useful than also being able to offer up an alternative.

[ninian opinian]

Here you go, proof that this dog whistle idea will not work and it’s being done in order to fool the Tory right wing loons. https://twitter.com/mattuthompson/st...WmNWElM3qshBFg

[Hilts]

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon will be on the front bench soon after being fast tracked as an MP.

Maybe hes too left wing for Boris , Patel and co though.

[cyril evans awaydays]

You have a right to care about the issues you care about, and other people have a right to care about issues they care about.

I don't think it is the biggest issue in the country, but I also think it's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, and personally illegal immigration, abuse of asylum, people dying on dinghies and the enrichment of criminal gangs in the repulsive people traficking industry is something that we should try and solve, even if it upsets a few peoples sensitivities along the way.

You've also failed to come up with any solutions and just wheeled out a few predictable tropes, which doesn't move us forward at all.

You seem to have bundled up illegal immigration, abuse of asylum, people dying in dinghies and enrichment of criminal gangs into one big issue that is resolved by sending certain people legitimately seeking asylum in this country by whatever route they choose to Rwanda.

Illegal immigrants should be dealt with by the law as they are illegal and sent back to whence they came.

Bogus asylum seekers similarly. Though around eight out of 10 people (the one's being sent to Africa that you care so much about their exploitation) have their asylum claims granted because they are at risk in their homeland.

Dealing with criminal gangs making money trafficking people across the channel obviously requires international co-operation based on trust. However this government wants people to hate the French as much as the people in the boats so perhaps that goodwill and trust is in short supply.

Our asylum rules before this dead cat stuff were proportionate and the number of people seeking asylum is proportionate with the amount of unrest in the rest of the world.

Why you think sending trafficked people to the middle of Africa is the best way to deal with what you say is the biggest problem traffickers I guess you will be able to rationalise.

Still it's been about two or three pages since anyone posted about Boris Johnson breaking the law multiple times when he lied about that he had to Parliament so if this is mirrored on discussion groups across the country, job done eh!

[the other bob wilson]

You seem to have bundled up illegal immigration, abuse of asylum, people dying in dinghies and enrichment of criminal gangs into one big issue that is resolved by sending certain people legitimately seeking asylum in this country by whatever route they choose to Rwanda.

Illegal immigrants should be dealt with by the law as they are illegal and sent back to whence they came.

Bogus asylum seekers similarly. Though around eight out of 10 people (the one's being sent to Africa that you care so much about their exploitation) have their asylum claims granted because they are at risk in their homeland.

Dealing with criminal gangs making money trafficking people across the channel obviously requires international co-operation based on trust. However this government wants people to hate the French as much as the people in the boats so perhaps that goodwill and trust is in short supply.

Our asylum rules before this dead cat stuff were proportionate and the number of people seeking asylum is proportionate with the amount of unrest in the rest of the world.

Why you think sending trafficked people to the middle of Africa is the best way to deal with what you say is the biggest problem traffickers I guess you will be able to rationalise.

Still it's been about two or three pages since anyone posted about Boris Johnson breaking the law multiple times when he lied about that he had to Parliament so if this is mirrored on discussion groups across the country, job done eh!

Think that’s a bit unfair, Johnson’s always talking about our French friends.

[life on mars]

90% of 29k reaching Uk last year were male, 70 per cent were single. ????

Perhaps those with true sympathy for these chaps should house them ?? .

[Eric Cartman]

90% of 29k reaching Uk last year were male, 70 per cent were single. ????

Perhaps those with true sympathy for these chaps should house them ?? .

We pay taxes for a well managed and proportionate asylum/immigration process, it shouldn't require charity but since you asked, how about we start with Buckingham Palace?

What has their gender or their relationship status got to do with whether they deserve to be treated in a fair and proportionate way?

[cyril evans awaydays]

We pay taxes for a well managed and proportionate asylum/immigration process, it shouldn't require charity but since you asked, how about we start with Buckingham Palace?

What has their gender or their relationship status got to do with whether they deserve to be treated in a fair and proportionate way?

Bet he didn't get that feedback when he discussed the issue in Wetherspoons earlier!

[Eric Cartman]

You have a right to care about the issues you care about, and other people have a right to care about issues they care about.

I don't think it is the biggest issue in the country, but I also think it's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, and personally illegal immigration, abuse of asylum, people dying on dinghies and the enrichment of criminal gangs in the repulsive people traficking industry is something that we should try and solve, even if it upsets a few peoples sensitivities along the way.

You've also failed to come up with any solutions and just wheeled out a few predictable tropes, which doesn't move us forward at all.

I can't work out why will this stop people from paying for traffickers to get them into the UK.

[Tito Fuente]

I appreciate that was a rhetorical question, but no, you wouldn't have to in that instance.

But then if we lived in a country where the government wanted to murder all of the people trying to seek asylum, the last thing you would do is speak up and question and their policies anyway.

Yes - it is possible to criticise a problem and not have a better one lined up, but such opinions are just substantially less useful than also being able to offer up an alternative.

Opinions have to be useful too?! Bloody hell, I didn't realise how many rules there were.

[JamesWales]

I can't work out why will this stop people from paying for traffickers to get them into the UK.

Would you pay £10,000 or so to a human trafficker who you will never see again for a boat to the UK if you thought when you got here you would be flown to Rwanda and processed?

The idea here is to reduce illegal immigration done via criminal gangs. There is no ideal solution, but doing nothing isnt an option

[JamesWales]

Opinions have to be useful too?! Bloody hell, I didn't realise how many rules there were.

Yeah, I hang around in the wrong messageboards tbf

[Eric Cartman]

Would you pay £10,000 or so to a human trafficker who you will never see again for a boat to the UK if you thought when you got here you would be flown to Rwanda and processed?

The idea here is to reduce illegal immigration done via criminal gangs. There is no ideal solution, but doing nothing isnt an option

They aren't paying to reach a processing unit, they are paying 10k to avoid a processing unit. If everyone coming over is being rounded up and processed then where is the need to move it to Rwanda and if they aren't then this won't solve it, they still get through and become illegal immigrants.

Just because we hear 'Rwanda' and think 'feck me, no thanks', doesn't mean migrants from half destroyed shit holes will think the same and if they don't then that is your deterrent gone.

[Hilts]

I can't work out why will this stop people from paying for traffickers to get them into the UK.

It wont.

[Claude Blue]

Would you pay £10,000 or so to a human trafficker who you will never see again for a boat to the UK if you thought when you got here you would be flown to Rwanda and processed?

The idea here is to reduce illegal immigration done via criminal gangs. There is no ideal solution, but doing nothing isnt an option

They will focus their attention on women, children and family groups (genuine or not) thus increasing the risk to even more people.

The fact that women, children and family groups are excluded shows that even Johnson and Patel do not regard Rwanda as entirely safe. Add to that the fact that homosexuality is still frowned upon in that country and you may begin to understand why any decent human being would regard this policy as disgusting.

Sadly we are governed by people with no moral compass or decency and do not value human life.

[JamesWales]

They will focus their attention on women, children and family groups (genuine or not) thus increasing the risk to even more people.

The fact that women, children and family groups are excluded shows that even Johnson and Patel do not regard Rwanda as entirely safe. Add to that the fact that homosexuality is still frowned upon in that country and you may begin to understand why any decent human being would regard this policy as disgusting.

Sadly we are governed by people with no moral compass or decency and do not value human life.

If it helps to break the current cycle of human trafficking then it's worth trying. To do nothing, to tolerate the status quo should be more disgusting to any decent human being. I dont think people have any real idea quite how repulsive and global this industry is, and many people in this country dont seem to care as long as they can just claim some moral high ground and slag off the government.

Is this not what Denmark are doing? If it slows the trade in human trafficking and reduces illegal immigration we should try it.

[life on mars]

We pay taxes for a well managed and proportionate asylum/immigration process, it shouldn't require charity but since you asked, how about we start with Buckingham Palace?

What has their gender or their relationship status got to do with whether they deserve to be treated in a fair and proportionate way?

What's that got to do with single males in thier thousands leaving families to enter UK ??

If this was 29 thousand women and children I'd have a different view . ..

Never mind Buck House, charity starts at home and you have wonderful ideals which I admit most of us lack , so step up show your goodness and offer a room rather than pass the buck ( get it ) to queeny .

It's not about taxes it's about being a voice and going
over beyond and support what you belive in and offer up that spare room or find one for these unfortunate single fellas who I'm sure are in need . Even tent in you back garden would be haven for them ?

[life on mars]

It wont.

How do you know ?