Cruel Sports

BrianH

BrianH

At the Start
Joined
May 3, 2003
Messages
6,108
Location
Banstead, Surrey
Jeremy Paxman is conducting a half-hour interview with each of the three main party leaders this week. (7.30 BBC1 - Kennedy Monday, Blair Wednesday, Howard Friday).

Last night he nearly had poor old Charles Kennedy in tears - I can't wait for the next two.
 
Oh, I thought this was about cockroach chariot racing. The injury rate has been going up, since the CCR Club granted charioteer licences to wasps.
 
I was gutted to have missed the one where he grilled Bliar....I got a text from PDJ telling me it was compulsive viewing - I was at work though & all our decoders were tied up so I couldn't get BBC - gutted, I was!!
 
You're all blooming lucky . Although I'm a UK citizen I can't vote labour/ tory / george galloway :lol: I'm stuck with Ian Paisley DUP / Mark Durcan SDLP / David Trimble UUP / Gerry Adams Sinn Fein . Even then ,whoever you do vote for will not be in power but they are still getting paid their full salaries . Our assembly is suspended . Politicians are growing fat off the back of the impass and for many of them it's in their interest to keep the gravy train going . How's that for a nonsence election ?
 
I enjoyed the bit when Howard wriggled on asylum . Paxo pointed out that if we leave the Un convention on refugees that will put us in a select band with Saudi Arabia, North Korea and Libya - nice. He also exposed his quota system as preposterous .

Depressing though this week - we have had a man not capable of mastering his brief , a slippery untrustworthy man , and a deeply nasty panderer to racists - what a choice .
 
Meanwhile, Labour proposes a free-for-all 'let 'em all in' policy, but will, it says (eventually, if it finds them again) send back (that's Nicespeak for 'deport') those who they get round to figuring out shouldn't have come in in the first place. For which read: We haven't a feckin clue who should be in the country, but given enough time and lots and lots of money, we might eventually find a couple who shouldn't be here. But heaven forfend we should look like nasty people and make the checks FIRST.

The Lib-Dems propose yet another unaccountable 'independent agency' to oversee things. Yeah, that'll work. Think of any government-inspired 'agency' and try to couple it with the word 'competent' or even 'effective'. No... me neither. :brows:
 
Jon - that is absolute rubbish . Ask anyone who works in asylum and immigration law things are much much tougher for asylum seekers than they were in 1997. We don't know how many overstayers for example there are as we do not have had and have never had embarkation controls .

The reason immigration (as distinct from asylum seekers - the latter have fallen by 61% in the last two years ) has gone up since 1997 is due to the strength of our economy . Indeed without many of those migrant workers our public services would be buckling under the strain if not falling apart . Morally, the difficult question is should we be depriving the developing world of their doctors and nurses etc.

Furthermore , migrant workers are doing the jobs that the UK population do not want to do at low rates of pay .
 
It is NOT rubbish, Ardross. You should pay more attention to what these two parties have announced as their Cunning Plan to oversee asylum seeking.

Unlike your opinion of me, and, had you ever paid to any attention to past postings other than your own, I do know the difference between

ASYLUM SEEKING

IMMIGRATION

MIGRANT WORK

since, if you recall, a number of us jumped on Merlin for mixing up these issues not that long ago. I am absolutely aware of migrant workers (who couldn't be - and not just because of the plight of the Chinese cockle-pickers), since they're litterpicking at racecourses every meeting, earning around the same in one week as they'd get 'back home' in one month. They're here for periods of time that they want, rather like students used to come to the UK to work for a spell, and will return home with a quicker intake of cash than they'd get staying at home.

I'm also perfectly aware that immigration is frequently based upon the would-be immigrant wanting to join well-founded families in the UK, many of whom are, or have become, British nationals.

If a doctor or nurse from a developing country wants to work in the UK - in the same way that 'migrant workers' do, and for the self-same reason - much as we deplore their denuding their home country of their skills, that is surely part and parcel of free will and free enterprise? What are you implying? That because their country needs their skills, they shouldn't come here?

I do wish you'd stop your blind Tory-bashing and rather more objectively examine what's being proposed by the three main parties. I am not the person promoting these mad schemes - if you'd like to pay more attention to the stalls set out by the main three parties, you'd realize that there is not much between them.

Labour says it will 'send back' (what is 'send back' - it's deport, but dressed up to sound nicer) the people it gets round to deciding shouldn't be here - but only after they've arrived. You think THAT'S humane? The Lib Dems propose that checks are made first to filter out the unwanted - but where? Hardly in the country they're trying to escape from.
 
The UN has called Howard's proposals unworkable.

The CBI, hardly a left-wing organisation, has said that Tory policy is wrong.

The UN High Commissioner for refugees says that a country such as Britain withdrawing from the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees, as Howard proposes, would not only put lives at risk but could also precipitate the collapse of the entire refugee system.

Do you not think that each of these may have a point?

I would also be very interested in where he proposes to site his "refugee holding station". All he says so far is "in a country outside the EU". Yes, they'll be falling over themselves to take it, whoever they are, won't they?
 
Are you talking to me?

Do you see me as an apologist for the Tories? Did I say they had a whizzbang idea to cut down on phony seekers? I've heard the arguments for and against them, too, Brian. The three main parties all propose nonsenses.

What is Labour going to do with an 'open door' policy? It has failed to keep track of so-called asylum seekers, many of whom - it's true, so don't accuse me of propagandizing, since I've no axe to grind - have slid into this country in order to set up money-laundering schemes, forced prostitution, racketeering, human trafficking and many, many, individual crimes including murder and rape. Super! What we need is more police time and money consumed by this sort of crap. In the meantime, genuine cases get their houses daubed or their children bullied because irresponsible newspapers have tarred everyone with the same brush. Thanks to Labour's crappy policy.

The Tories are proposing something that is too draconian. Labour's policy is really to have virtually no policy at all - just chuck 'em all in, and we'll sort them out later. Or maybe we'll miss a few thousand, and we'll sort 'em out when they commit a crime and we have to notice them. Lib Dems - oh, I give up.

And this notion of 'somewhere' to sort them out? Uh-oh - remember Sangatte?
 
Your description of Labour's policy is at odds with the facts . Open door ! As if . Labour's treatment of asylum seekers has been an absolute disgrace . The only thing it has going for it is that it not as bad as Howard's disgusting racist policy .
 
Ardross.
"Depressing though this week - we have had a man not capable of mastering his brief , a slippery untrustworthy man , and a deeply nasty panderer to racists"

I admire your guts in posting your very accurate CV up for us all to see.


Must say that i cannot add to it.



:D :D :D
 
Lie detectors should be used to make quick decisions on asylum seekers rather than have many of them effectively jailed in an environment (where many of them are abused) for an interim period. Please don't say lie detectors aren't foolproof as they'd surely get it right more often than the current decision making bodies. They might even deter a lot of timewasters from coming and would allow the deserving cases easier entry.
 
:lol: That will be down to the French Brian (maybe, if they see sense up here, to the Scots as well).
 
Tom

I am not going to repeat our arguments about lie detectors . In this context it is difficult to imagine anything more inhumane that attaching people who may have been tortured to an electrical device especially those who have been tortured that way . Let alone how suffering from post traumatic stress disorder might have an the "reliability" of such a device
 
Oh Dear. So you'd rather lock them up for 6 months (and we both know there's a possibility they'll be treated inhumanely by the staff) than give them a bit of reassurance about the test and a swift and (if they're genuine) pleasing decision.
 
HT - you will know very well that I do approve of the current asylum system at all . That ought to be very clear to you from what I have posted above . I am surprised that you consider the potential psychological effects of your proposal as being of such little import.


Sorry Miss X - I know you have these burn marks on your back , you have, evidently from gynaecological examination ,been raped but the lie detector says you haven't - now get back to where you came from . The idea is abhorrent .
 
Originally posted by Derek.Burgess@Apr 23 2005, 08:17 AM
Ardross.
"Depressing though this week - we have had a man not capable of mastering his brief , a slippery untrustworthy man , and a deeply nasty panderer to racists"

I admire your guts in posting your very accurate CV up for us all to see.


Must say that i cannot add to it.



:D :D :D
Click to expand...
I can
have a week off for that
 
Back
Top