"National Security can't come at the cost of Social Security" - WTAF?

Basic care is fine. As in the minimum legal standard. Nothing more. We don't need to encourage people.

Id like our army numbers to increase significantly (ive already said there is a distinction between fit for soldiers v fit for illegal immigrants) But that would require defence spending and as we know, national security is not the main priority to AB. Spending money supporting these illegal immigrants amoung others, is.

I would as barracks are usually inside razor wire and security gates.

Are you saying that the PM can't influence where contracts are made? I mean in that case there was familial interest in the deal.
I think it is problematic that so much business and especially utilities are owned by other countries or business based in them.
I think this is far more of a security threat than not having weapons. Everything being digital is another weak security point. How often have companies been hacked or data about us been leaked?
Social media is a massive weapon that people don't see - how much has been spent on manipulating how people think about politics and stuff like othering different groups?

What do you mean?

I agree that is shocking to claim Hitler isn’t a war criminal because he was never convicted in a court while alive. Sadly, I think the same poster would not apply their exculpatory definition to any member of Hamas. It is both an extreme and inconsistent view.

The words the pp is referring to are their own, so any loophole belongs to them, not Labour in this instance.

Two years in and they’ll have to keep smashing the gangs. They might get through this if they do. Only squashing objections won’t fix the problem.

Plus asking people to wait doesn’t actually help anyone in Piddington.

Would you be ok with 1000 plus men waiting for asylum in mass accommodation nearby to you?

Well it’s not fine, it’s against our own laws. And personally I don’t want to see men women and children housed in damp and mouldy buildings because they arrived via one route or another.

But you said you wanted to see them full of soldiers. So what I guess you meant is you want to see them modernised and made safe and fit for purpose so that they can be full of soldiers.

I don’t think it’s immediately obvious that one results from the other unless you assume that trafficking gangs can be ‘smashed’ overnight. Surely people understood that pledge to mean ‘we’re going after the bad guys’. Which they have. By mid-2026, Home Office data shows

74% year-on-year increase in organized immigration crime arrests

Workplace raids up by 77% compared to previous administration.

Since July 2024 17,000 local arrests for illegal working

46% increase in Organised Immigration Crime disruptions and seizure of more than 500 pieces of small boat equipment.

Asylum applications in 2026 are the lowest for four years

They kind of are smashing the gangs? The boat arrivals went down by 43%
https://theworlddata.com/small-boat-crossing-statistics-in-the-uk/

The headline year-to-date fall of 43% compared with 2025 is the single most politically significant number in the entire dataset, and it reflects a genuine change in the operating environment for people-smuggling networks along the French coast, driven by expanded French beach patrols, a new UK-France funding deal, and the disruptive effect of the one-in-one-out returns pilot

In fact, Labour is getting all immigration under control as net migration went down by 48%
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c70989jrdweo

Unfit for soldiers serving their country. Not unfit for people being held as they have broken in to a country. Basic standard is fine.

Yes look at the words ‘which meant’ it’s obviously what they sold to people. So barracks are not going to be a win.

Perhaps you meant to say that but what you actually said was:

Labour ran on ‘smash the gangs’ so that. They set up a pledge which meant no barracks.

Presumably not in the ones that were closed as unfit for purpose. Some were also for storage. It’s not automatically terrifying that they’re empty. Better that they were stacked up with drones than people.

I said they pledged to smash the gangs.

If they do as some believed they would they wouldn’t need barracks or HMOs.

Labour didn’t pledge not to use barracks.

I think we need soldiers in those barracks rather than men of fighting age from enemy countries. Its terrifying that barracks are empty.

I see you have edited your message. Yes not free to leave.

Yes thats the interesting question isn't it....a whistle blower has said that 1% only are genuine. One might suspect that the government are letting in fake asylum seekers just to get the perception of the numbers down......

So would a barracks be acceptable to you if people were detained and not free to leave?

How do you figure 1% of asylum claims are genuine when 70%+ are accepted?

They didn’t what?

You think you saying it is enough? Ok. Well, they didn’t.

You don't understand what communism is, do you?

I think there should be purpose built holding centres. Like the Nightingale hospitals as they were built quickly and cheaply. And people should be kept there while their claims are reviewed and not allowed to wander around. Like most other countries. We worry far too much about the well being of foreign individuals (remember only 1% of asylum claims are genuine) at the expense of the national interest.

I just did.

People closing down the discussion has led to why we’re here. There are policies used well in other countries but the determination to be shut off to the problem has meant it’s kept mounting.

Most don’t want 1000 plus barracks nearby, they’ll say no.