To absolutely hate this government, and what they are doing to our country? PART 2

Just listen to yourself, has this thread really descended into which photo of a child is more distressing. I'm surprised at you, I thought you were better than that.

I think you’re looking at the wrong things, I mean by all means suggest it if you want.

It is a bigger issue than just here though, more EU countries are becoming restrictive with domestic policies.

No you didn’t and we’ve moved on. I just asked you a question.

Then why are the crossing falling?

The government could do a lot more by setting up humanitarian routes

I think including the image was entirely appropriate. It's been in the public domain for years, so it's not anything new, and it demonstrates perfectly what the ultimate consequences of the "send them back" attitude can be.

Thank you for posting it.

But they don't NEED to. France is a safe country.

If the Government wanted to stop these crossings they could do

So why haven't they? Do you really think Labour wants the crossings to continue?

Your post doesn't make sense. What question have you asked me?

If the Government wanted to stop these crossings they could do.

Then why have successive governments failed? If it’s so easy why didn’t Sunak do it? It would probably have won him the last election. And please don’t mention Rwanda because it wouldn’t have worked.

It’s shows how chaotic and risky the current system is. And how it’s typically young people or women who suffer from what we have in place.

So is Italy, Spain, Greece

Just because the UK is at the end of the journey doesn't mean we can reject people claiming asylum. We signed up to the 1951 Refugee Convention for starters.

People have to be physically present on British soil to claim asylum.

I didn't think my opinion of Reform could sink much lower, but if this is true, it will now hurtle through the earth's crust and be well on the way to the inner core.

It’s pointless. It’s obviously a distressing image. Posters will argue against it because @LuckyHazelFoxhas said it. It’s too much.

You don't even HAVE to adhere to that. The UK deported 8 afghans back to Kabul, the USA has been doing it more frequently. India has returned Rohingya men back to Myanmar.

Hungary just refuses to accept asylum claims and just marches the person to be sent out to Serbia.

So they don't NEED to make the crossing. They might WANT to, but there's a big difference between the two. Nobody NEEDS to put their lives or their children's lives at risk. They are not fleeing persecution from France.

Some people are so determined to find an axe to grind that it is pointless providing them with facts and evidence that show they are wrong. They simply refuse to believe them.

If a small boat never came ashore again, some would probably claim that they arrived in secret on remote stretches of coast and the government lied about it.

And then there are those who say that a 46% reduction isn't good enough and it needs to be down to zero. If it was zero, they'd probably want people already here to be sent back.

Your examples are not exactly shining ones.

Would you send back a woman to Iran, Afghanistan?

Let's remove ourselves from the convention and then reject them.

If only. There's a queue of human rights barristers waiting to react to that attempt.

Do you not think it should be zero crossings? Were you in favour of people being smuggled in to the UK in the back of lorries?

As regards the question why migrants don't just stay in France, well, obviously a lot do. I've never been to the migrant camps myself, but all my kids spent at least 3 days over there because this was routine at their school in sixth form (the last time one of them went was about 4 or 5 years ago, however). My DS actually went back twice. All the girls in the school went and there was never a mention of anyone feeling threatened or sexually harassed - these are London kids who are used to coming to and from school by tube and then walking up through Hammersmith etc and you are rubbing shoulders with anyone and everyone every day of the week. They asked the people there this precise question - "Why not just stay in France?" The answer was always that they only understood English; or that they had family already here that they wanted to be reunited with; or that they thought they had some U.K. contact who could find them a job. So I don't know. Maybe the traffickers persuade them that there's something here that's not available in France?

"Let's remove us from the convention"

That says it all.

What’s wrong with zero? It would mean zero deaths at sea for a start.

There’s other ways to give refuge if people still want to. Which doesn’t involve traffickers, violence and risk.

I would be very happy for there to be zero dangerous small boats crossings - as I’m sure the Labour government be, as I’m also sure the Conservative government would have been too. The difficulty is over how to achieve that.

I personally am incredibly wary of any politicians - be they on the left or the right - who pretend there are easy solutions to incredibly difficult problems. And in particular those who weaponise those problems to whip up hatred and division.

Who do you think the "some" are that is a game to?

Now me for example. I am atheist, and I do have a moral code that includes such concepts as compassion, equality, right to life and so on. Pretty much along the lines of the various UN charters. I choose to stand up for what think is right and stand against what I think is wrong.

It's not a game to me.

Why do I mention I am atheist? Well consider a Christian. And I am sure there are plenty on this board. For them, this subject is far from a game. This could be about their eternal life. To follow the teachings of their Christ or not. ( I am aware of this because I was a Christian. now ex.

It's deffo not a game for them. It is potentially well beyond that for them.

So, who does that leave ?

But hang on. I made a claim above without evidence. That there will be plenty of Christians on this board. I really should evidence that. How about I quote Rupert Lowe. Is that ok ?

"Rupert Lowe launches Restore Britain with an unapologetically Christian platform, vowing cultural restoration, mass deportations and bold defence of Western values — even at political cost.
The United Kingdom’s newest political party is asserting an unapologetic Christian position.
Rupert Lowe officially launched Restore Britain on February 13, asserting that,
“Britain is a Christian country, and under a Restore Britain Government, it will remain a Christian country.”"

Source :

Restore Britain’s Rupert Lowe: “Britain Is a Christian Country, and It Will Remain So.” - The Daily Declaration

Oh wait. Now I am confused. He said that ? And what is with all these Tommah fans with crosses and all that. ?

Well, I suppose, if we say those folk can't really be Christian, because they are not being very.... Christian... then perhaps it is a game for them ?

Bit of a leap I know. But Occam's razor and all that.