Nowt to be done to change the rules ?? To the this human rights caper
They said it would take 2 years !!!!!! To change the rules
2 years of armies of over paid pencil pushers and paper shufflers to apply common sense
Jeez us wept
Democracy under threat
- Thread starter transam
- Start date
Nowt to be done to change the rules ?? To the this human rights caper
They said it would take 2 years !!!!!! To change the rules
2 years of armies of over paid pencil pushers and paper shufflers to apply common sense
Jeez us wept
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2025
- Messages
- 3,002
- Reaction score
- 159
- Country
No I don't that;'s why I asked?
That's what your version of English looks like to an English speaker.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2025
- Messages
- 3,002
- Reaction score
- 159
- Country
Do tell us, transam, how would you organise a re-think of the laws of the ECHR that have protected 745 million people (not including all migrants to all European countries) for the last 75 years?
Multiple things can be true at once.
Was watching a tv/radio presenter on Insta this morning. She was saying she didn't get why folk would want to take part in the march yesterday (the one arranged by Stephen Yaxley-Lennon). She has been to some of the migrant camps in other countries and these people have nothing, they are fleeing war-torn countries. They are seeking refuge. 'And remember' she added 'it could be us, we are only safe due to an accident of where we were born, think on that'.
Now, you can assert some or indeed all of what she said is true. However ...
What is the answer? People like her will say the UK should be creating more safe (legal) routes for these people into the UK. Ok, let's say we do that. What numbers are we then expected to accept? That aspect doesn't seem to get discussed much. For those who think we should be accepting more of these people into the country, what would a reasonable annual intake look like quantity wise?
Imagine if the UK was near utopia. Imagine if we had excellent local and national services, an NHS with low waiting lists, great education, excellent public transport, no shortage of social housing at low prices, no pot holes, plentiful GP appointments at short notice, reasonable tax levels, very low unemployment, plentiful jobs etc.
I suspect, in that scenario, the British people would be less concerned about people coming into the country.
However, that's not the situation, is it? The country isn't near utopia. All the things I listed above aren't in good shape, many of them are is sh1t shape. People, British born people, are struggling. They see others being prioritised over them whether directly or otherwise. So you can see the logic in British people not wanting the number of migrants coming in to increase.
Surely this, in part, is why these people were marching, no?
And who would blame them.
Was watching a tv/radio presenter on Insta this morning. She was saying she didn't get why folk would want to take part in the march yesterday (the one arranged by Stephen Yaxley-Lennon). She has been to some of the migrant camps in other countries and these people have nothing, they are fleeing war-torn countries. They are seeking refuge. 'And remember' she added 'it could be us, we are only safe due to an accident of where we were born, think on that'.
Now, you can assert some or indeed all of what she said is true. However ...
What is the answer? People like her will say the UK should be creating more safe (legal) routes for these people into the UK. Ok, let's say we do that. What numbers are we then expected to accept? That aspect doesn't seem to get discussed much. For those who think we should be accepting more of these people into the country, what would a reasonable annual intake look like quantity wise?
Imagine if the UK was near utopia. Imagine if we had excellent local and national services, an NHS with low waiting lists, great education, excellent public transport, no shortage of social housing at low prices, no pot holes, plentiful GP appointments at short notice, reasonable tax levels, very low unemployment, plentiful jobs etc.
I suspect, in that scenario, the British people would be less concerned about people coming into the country.
However, that's not the situation, is it? The country isn't near utopia. All the things I listed above aren't in good shape, many of them are is sh1t shape. People, British born people, are struggling. They see others being prioritised over them whether directly or otherwise. So you can see the logic in British people not wanting the number of migrants coming in to increase.
Surely this, in part, is why these people were marching, no?
And who would blame them.
- Joined
- 11 Dec 2012
- Messages
- 5,387
- Reaction score
- 2,832
- Country
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2025
- Messages
- 3,002
- Reaction score
- 159
- Country
Did she say that?
If not why do you think you are qualified to add to what she said?
Do you always add your thoughts to other's comments, and claim it was they that said it?
Are you suggesting we keep the status quo so that refugees must be prepared to risk their lives in order to seek asylum?
That's very considerate of you.
Your comment is based on your assumption that the numbers would rise. It's not a foregone conclusion, it's your assumption.
Because its' your hypothetical assumption.
We're not in the habit of discussing your hypothetical assumptions.
We're not in the habit of discussing your hypothetical assumptions.
We're not in the habit of discussing your hypothetical assumptions.
So how is that the fault of the immigrants?
Should we blame all our problems on the immigrants? You seem ready and willing to do so.
No, they not only want zero immigration, they want to repatriate all existing immigrants, and their descendants.
They want Britain to be Great Britain again, with all of its colonies intact.
Because it's not realistic, and it's not what Britain is really about.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2025
- Messages
- 3,002
- Reaction score
- 159
- Country
No.
Surely you know by now that I never give out personal information because the likes of you, Mottie, aveatry, et all will weaponise it.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2025
- Messages
- 3,002
- Reaction score
- 159
- Country
Being an asylum seeker is not illegal.
lol, multi split quote response.Did she say that?
If not why do you think you are qualified to add to what she said?
Do you always add your thoughts to other's comments, and claim it was they that said it?
Are you suggesting we keep the status quo so that refugees must be prepared to risk their lives in order to seek asylum?
That's very considerate of you.
Your comment is based on your assumption that the numbers would rise. It's not a foregone conclusion, it's your assumption.
Because its' your hypothetical assumption.
We're not in the habit of discussing your hypothetical assumptions.
We're not in the habit of discussing your hypothetical assumptions.
We're not in the habit of discussing your hypothetical assumptions.
So how is that the fault of the immigrants?
Should we blame all our problems on the immigrants? You seem ready and willing to do so.
No, they not only want zero immigration, they want to repatriate all existing immigrants, and their descendants.
They want Britain to be Great Britain again, with all of its colonies intact.
Because it's not realistic, and it's not what Britain is really about.
Not read
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2025
- Messages
- 3,002
- Reaction score
- 159
- Country
That's OK, if you prefer to make comments without being willing to discuss them.lol, multi split quote response.
Not read
More proof he lives in France.
Similar threads
- cumbriahandyman
- General Discussion
