The People demand that the Boats are Stopped.

[noblegiraffe]

I keep reading about the Tory government working hard to deliver the people's priorities:

"Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Government are focused on five immediate priorities. We will halve inflation, grow the economy, reduce debt, cut NHS waiting lists and stop the boats."

Halve inflation (will happen anyway), grow the economy (vague), reduce debt (vague), cut NHS waiting lists (maybe by paying nurses and doctors more?), stop the boats (what?).

Maybe it's just where I live, but I'm not seeing this immediate urgent need to "stop the boats". It's certainly nowhere near my top 5 priorities for the government to be immediately tackling. If it was, I'd probably look at creating legal routes for genuine asylum seekers as a first step rather than shipping them to Rwanda.

Is it in your top 5 urgent government priorities? Are they speaking to the people and I've just completely missed it?

YABU: Stopping the boats is in my top 5 government priorities.
YANBU: I'm more concerned about something else and would bump Stop the Boats down the list.

It's only affordable if it's deliverable. And it's not deliverable.

Oh dear god, really? If you dare to criticise the government policy go and live somewhere else? Really?
This isn't North Korea. Despite what the Met seem to think.

To even 'think' (your first problem, you thought) I have a pissy UK citizenship or passport! Where does the UK even rate in top 10 countries? You can bet your last dollar I don't reside in an English as my first language racist country

@ThreeFeetTall my apologies, I am truly sorry that I took your comment not how you had intended.

It’s not what the Met think - they are following laws made by your elected MPs in your Houses of Parliament. Write to your MP.

Where do you live? Your post isn't making a great deal of sense.

I don't think they live in Britain. Which begs the question, why comment on a thread about an issue that doesn't affect them, in a country that they seem to despise?

@L1ttledrummergirl , you are misusing 'begs the question'

Very weird isn't it.

you are misusing 'begs the question'

I wouldn't worry about it - Guardian columnists do it all the time, you could apply for a job there.

It's not geographically full but infrastructure isn't handling our current population too well. NHS is struggling and anybody who regularly used the motorways knows how overcongested we are. M6 is a joke.

I frequently do the entire 45-60 minute journey from Telford to Oldbury without getting out of 3rd gear.

Asylum seekers are not entering the UK illegally.

And yes, the needs of people in fear of their lives do take priority.

The NHS would struggle a bit less if we had more immigrants to fill the existing job vacancies.

Not everyone entering the UK are genuine asylum seekers.

And genuine asylum seekers should be supported. But they don't take priority over the existing population.

Are you going to open up / give your house to those who you think should take priority over you?

Do you think there's an excess of professionally qualified people who are able to work in the NHS, entering the UK on the boats / backs of lorries? Or is it just the shit jobs that the existing population don't want to do?

Only if you are a condescendingly making reference to its use in classical rhetoric and logic, rather than its far more usual modern usage, where it is accepted to mean the same thing as raising, provoking or prompting a question that begs an answer.

@walkaround, it has a meaning and it doesn't mean raise the question.

There are countless threads on here about the misuse of 'of', but it won't be long before 'could of, should of, would of' will be acceptable.

I don't want to derail the thread so have started one for those who wish to debate the use of my language. Feel free to teach me as I'm happy to learn.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/pedants_corner/4804654-it-begs-the-question?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

L1ttledrummergirl Handled like a pro 😂

Yet again, someone trying to equate a wish to treat refugees fairly with a wish for open borders. Repeat it as much as you like, it doesn't make it true. But it does make you wonder why people are so desperate to twist the argument into something else rather than answer the argument that is actually being made. Could it be that you realise you don't have a rational or lawful argument?

Not every NHS job is professionally qualified or completely 'unskilled'. There are thousands of admin/support roles to be filled also. I work for the NHS myself and I am neither of those things.

Do you think the boat / back of lorry people will be able to step in fill these admin / support roles?

It's all starting to look a bit exploitative really. Lots of humans coming over the water that, seemingly, will be delighted to fill these jobs that the existing population don't want to do.

It simply isn't true that there are endless opportunities to appeal. The reason it can take years for anything to happen is that the system is run so inefficiently. Applications can take years to process, not because it's difficult to find the paperwork but because Home Office procedures are so poor. There are regular stories of them taking months even to acknowledge letters, let alone give a substantive reply, and they seem to lose their files with monotonous frequency. They are also not operating the appeal system efficiently; immigration appeal judges who are available to deal with appeals aren't being allocated sitting days despite the appeal backlog - almost certainly to save money on running the tribunal. If that's the way the government wants to use its money, fine, but it therefore shouldn't be moaning about the cost of hotels which could be slashed by making the system more efficient.

Free legal aid isn't all it's cracked up to be, either. Legal aid pay rates have no gone up for years and it is only viable for most firms by having unqualified paralegals doing the work. It also means that fewer and fewer solicitors' firms are willing to do legal aid work at all. Therefore it's very difficult to find a firm to take on a case in the first case, and if you do there is no guarantee about the quality of the work being done.