The Only Way To Stop The Boats

[debtlessmanc]

24 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

ou stated 300k 'illegal asylum seekers' which was you being a BS merch

Now your bullshitting

i said record numbers of illegal entries to the EU which is entering the eu without a visa. You can call it “irregular” but that is a change in terminology, for most of my life such people were referred to by everyone as “illegals”. I don’t think there has been an edict issued by the pope to change this usage. It is part of a political movements

consider this The EUs own figures for “irregular” entries

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/migration-flows-to-europe/

it shows c 50k irregular entries to the eastern Mediterranean routes in 2023 

but Greece alone is reporting 40k, Italy 130k have landed in its shore, Cyprus 8k this year in small boats etc? Are this irregular or if they claim asylum are they not counted. They  certainly are not family reunion visas

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1095009/number-of-immigrants-arrived-by-sea-and-by-land-in-europe-by-country-of-arrival/

Edited December 9, 2023 by debtlessmanc

[14stFlyer]

9 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

The country must be a safe country with non-refoulement policy.

Of course.  I was pointing out that the articles and tenets of the ECHR are not the issue here. 

I was not supporting the specifics of the Rwanda policy
 

[Staffsknot]

18 minutes ago, 14stFlyer said:

Of course.  I was pointing out that the articles and tenets of the ECHR are not the issue here. 

I was not supporting the specifics of the Rwanda policy
 

Ah sorry point taken I thought you were joining in the 'its the EU's fault' daftness.

My bad

[Staffsknot]

On 12/8/2023 at 5:51 PM, debtlessmanc said:

Germany has received 300k this year illegally - can we take that ?

Your exact words yet again you utter bullshitter. Germany has not taken 300k illegally as the DW article you even posted shows. Stop lying you utter muppet. We can all read your words.

It states 112k irregular route asylum seekers.

We have covered this you utter ******** merchant.

Germany had around 300k total asylum seekers. They were not all illegal or irregular as those simple stats show - pushing deflective crap about other EU countries shows you are scrabbling as usual. You did not mention EU you specifically said Germany.

Its basic maths... 300k total asylum seekers applied to Germany - from your articles and you even stated this in your attempt to say I was prevaricating as you wriggled trying to extract yourself from your lies.

300k total asylum seekers - 112k figure being supplied as those illegally or irregularly entering Germany to claim asyum means the rest went via the regular safe and legal channels.

Just like you lied blatantly when claiming the article said Germany's cities had suffered a spike in immigrant crimes as the police had moved to the border, none of that appears in the DW article. You quietly ran away from this as you know it was a lie but hope nobody else reads the article and you can bluff away.

Your words are all there. 

You cannot be this stupid and be an academic so that leaves us with the conclusion you lied and are desperately trying to bluff your way out of your hole.

You are not going to be able to bluff your way out of this hole.

As you a habitual liar I'd think you'd have gotten at least above the level of a 4 year old at it but evidently not

Edited December 9, 2023 by Staffsknot
Mention of DW crime spike lie

[debtlessmanc]

37 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

s basic maths... 300k total asylum seekers applied to Germany - from your articles and you even stated this in your attempt to say I was prevaricating as you wriggled trying to extract yourself from your lies

You - yes you put it down to Germany have legal routes - I said so that means legal routes will attract that level of applications - were is the fault in that argument?

niw answer the freaking question would that number be sustainable for the U.K. since you adivocate safe routes.

you are not hear for any kind if logical debate - it is puritianical point scouring over perceived reactionary thinkig

what a waste of space you are - a total

loser.

 

 

 

 

 

[Staffsknot]

8 hours ago, debtlessmanc said:

You - yes you put it down to Germany have legal routes - I said so that means legal routes will attract that level of applications - were is the fault in that argument?

niw answer the freaking question would that number be sustainable for the U.K. since you adivocate safe routes.

you are not hear for any kind if logical debate - it is puritianical point scouring over perceived reactionary thinkig

what a waste of space you are - a total

loser.

 

 

 

 

 

No you are a habitual liar who makes up things and screams when caught out yet again.

You have dived into insults again to try and cover your tracks, its not points scoring its facts vs your made up shite.

By your relationship with the truth your username means you are an indebted cockney.

Answer this question which you are avoiding like the plague;

If Germany has had 300k of asylum claims and only 112k of them by their stats were by asylum seekers taking irregular routes how many came in a regular route?

You can't because that would involve logic a 4 year old can do not lying that it equals 300k illegals.

I'll make it easy for you and dumb down the maths - if 1/3 of a pie is eaten then how much of the pie is left? If the pie is total asylum claims and the eaten pie is irregular route asylum claims how many are left as regular asylum claims.

Just like your assertion we would get more asylum seekers than Germany if we provided safe and legal routes is more of your make believe BS. You have zero to base this on. You have nothing... but then you culd just make up that a paper said something again and hope nobody checked.

For starters the migration would be limited to how many people could be processed annually using safe and legal routes. That is based on staffing and could be limited to whatever number we saw fit based on need and circumstances. 

Now given Germany has more than double our irregular / illgal migration and currently its 2/3 legal and 1/3 illegal its pretty easy to guestimate a figure using same ratios. So 50k illegal infers 100k via safe routes on a similar ratio and that would be if we aplied the same funding and effort Germany applies to safe routes.

As you now have a safe route the need to try a boat crossing doesn't exist for those with genuine cases, which the vast majority of asylum seekers are granted asylum so are. Now you don't have folks just turning up without any processing done aiding the backlog, they aren't just hitting coastal towns maning needing expensive South coast hotels on standby and you can bring folks in spread throughout the year with resources in place first.

Only those with failed or unlikely claims would try the people smugglers and as you provide safe and legal routes then your right to return thoe to the country they last passed through is much greater - like the Germans are.

But this is far too sensible for you as it doesn't involve lying or inventing quotes.

[debtlessmanc]

and there you are folks - what happens when you ask one of those afflicted by the woke mental illness to answer a simple numerical question 

 

page upon not picking nonsence and no answer.  But he does agree that Germany had received 300k asylum claims this year - but won’t answer if the U.K. could do the same - as simple a question as there is but it ties his poor brain in knots

gos help us all

[Bruce Banner]

1 hour ago, debtlessmanc said:

god help us all

Amen

[burk]

1 hour ago, debtlessmanc said:

and there you are folks - what happens when you ask one of those afflicted by the woke mental illness to answer a simple numerical question 

 

page upon not picking nonsence and no answer.  But he does agree that Germany had received 300k asylum claims this year - but won’t answer if the U.K. could do the same - as simple a question as there is but it ties his poor brain in knots

gos help us all

It's quite a skill old Sir flounce-alot (staffsknot) has; to write pages of it and still never answer the question.

#abigfatnothingburger

[14stFlyer]

20 minutes ago, burk said:

It's quite a skill old Sir flounce-alot (staffsknot) has; to write pages of it and still never answer the question.

Sir?

Congrats on the promotion Staff!

Since you want numbers, here are what I think are optimal values for the U.K.  

Inward and outward migration in the region of 1 million people per year. This gives our young people the opportunity to travel the world, enriches our society, and avoids any enhancement of the “us and them” that I often see from people on this site. 

Net migration outflow = net inward migration such that Net migration into the U.K. is at, or close to, Zero.  This is to limit the ever increasing pressures on our housing, hospitals, schools, roads, sewerage, green belt etc. it also allows us to fully integrate the large numbers of net inward migration we have had over the last 20 years into our wonderful and inclusive British culture.  

Always taking our share of genuine asylum seekers on fair, proabablly per square km, basis (but not more). In preference this will be done through a UN sanctioned and possibly even UN run programme. I recognise that this is not an absolute number, but it would mean 10,000 or so per year on current volumes.  I do not think it should be capped as this is not being done for Britain and thus controlled by what is best for Britain, it is being done for the innocent populations of war-torn and natural disaster-ravaged nations and thus depends on global events. 

[Bruce Banner]

It's not what they say it's the way they say it, and say it, and say it, and say it.....

 

 

Edited December 10, 2023 by Bruce Banner

[Insane]

3 hours ago, debtlessmanc said:

and there you are folks - what happens when you ask one of those afflicted by the woke mental illness to answer a simple numerical question 

 

page upon not picking nonsence and no answer.  But he does agree that Germany had received 300k asylum claims this year - but won’t answer if the U.K. could do the same - as simple a question as there is but it ties his poor brain in knots

gos help us all

Well there it is in a nutshell. When you ask these people for anything regarding numbers they never reply with a number. If they did it destroys their narrative. 

Would not surprise me if they tried to get Maths banned in schools as we move forward as numbers does not fit with their agenda. 

[burk]

1 hour ago, 14stFlyer said:

Sir?

Congrats on the promotion Staff!

Since you want numbers, here are what I think are optimal values for the U.K.  

Inward and outward migration in the region of 1 million people per year. This gives our young people the opportunity to travel the world, enriches our society, and avoids any enhancement of the “us and them” that I often see from people on this site. 

Net migration outflow = net inward migration such that Net migration into the U.K. is at, or close to, Zero.  This is to limit the ever increasing pressures on our housing, hospitals, schools, roads, sewerage, green belt etc. it also allows us to fully integrate the large numbers of net inward migration we have had over the last 20 years into our wonderful and inclusive British culture.  

Always taking our share of genuine asylum seekers on fair, proabablly per square km, basis (but not more). In preference this will be done through a UN sanctioned and possibly even UN run programme. I recognise that this is not an absolute number, but it would mean 10,000 or so per year on current volumes.  I do not think it should be capped as this is not being done for Britain and thus controlled by what is best for Britain, it is being done for the innocent populations of war-torn and natural disaster-ravaged nations and thus depends on global events. 

The only case for migration to the uk at present are:

Women and kids from Ukraine.

Allied collaborators from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Qualified Doctors & surgeons.

That would number in the 10,000's.

Everything else is virtue signalling.

[msi]

On 09/12/2023 at 11:40, burk said:

It's rather quaint you think you have any human rights in light of lockdowns? As I said:

#lessdramamorereading

bait n switch again

#TiredOfYourGaslighting

[burk]

24 minutes ago, msi said:

bait n switch again

#TiredOfYourGaslighting

ExpLAiN yOurSeLf?

As I don't think you understand the meaning of the term

Bait and switch: (in politics)

In lawmaking, "caption bills" that propose minor changes in law with simplistic titles (the bait) are introduced to the legislature with the ultimate objective of substantially changing the wording (the switch) at a later date in order to try to smooth the passage of a controversial or major amendment. Rule changes are also proposed (the bait) to meet legal requirements for public notice and mandated public hearings, then different rules are proposed at a final meeting (the switch), thus bypassing the objective of public notice and public discussion on the actual rules voted upon.

Bait and switch: (in retail sales)

is a form of fraud used in retail sales but also employed in other contexts. First, customers are "baited" by merchants' advertising products or services at a low price, but then, when they visit the store, those customers discover that the advertised goods are not available and are pressured by salespeople to purchase similar but higher-priced ones ("switching").

Bait-and-switch techniques have a long and widespread history as a part of commercial culture. Many variations on the bait-and-switch appear, for example, in China's earliest book of stories about fraud, Zhang Yingyu's The Book of Swindles (c. 1617).

I await your reply.........................

Edited December 10, 2023 by burk

[msi]

40 minutes ago, burk said:

ExpLAiN yOurSeLf?

As I don't think you understand the meaning of the term

Bait and switch: (in politics)

In lawmaking, "caption bills" that propose minor changes in law with simplistic titles (the bait) are introduced to the legislature with the ultimate objective of substantially changing the wording (the switch) at a later date in order to try to smooth the passage of a controversial or major amendment. Rule changes are also proposed (the bait) to meet legal requirements for public notice and mandated public hearings, then different rules are proposed at a final meeting (the switch), thus bypassing the objective of public notice and public discussion on the actual rules voted upon.

Bait and switch: (in retail sales)

is a form of fraud used in retail sales but also employed in other contexts. First, customers are "baited" by merchants' advertising products or services at a low price, but then, when they visit the store, those customers discover that the advertised goods are not available and are pressured by salespeople to purchase similar but higher-priced ones ("switching").

Bait-and-switch techniques have a long and widespread history as a part of commercial culture. Many variations on the bait-and-switch appear, for example, in China's earliest book of stories about fraud, Zhang Yingyu's The Book of Swindles (c. 1617).

I await your reply.........................

 

Well done you can cut and paste.

I'm still awaiting the 'proof' of your previous points.....

[burk]

9 minutes ago, msi said:

Well done you can cut and paste.

I'm still awaiting the 'proof' of your previous points.....

Tell me which ones then?

[msi]

5 hours ago, burk said:

Tell me which ones then?

You want me to tell you to prove the points you made?

 

[debtlessmanc]

54 minutes ago, msi said:

You want me to tell you to prove the points you made?

 

Possibly you did not Understand them- he wants clarity as to what you Think he said probably.

if you Have the remotest interest in a genuine argument that is not unreasonable.

[burk]

58 minutes ago, msi said:

You want me to tell you to prove the points you made?

 

Yes, I've made about a dozen on this thread, which ones are getting your panties in a bunch?

It's more to save time on your endless strawman-ing that you're are known for instead of just answering a question, like the post 4 posts up from this one.

It's text book MSI, I explain you don't understand what the term 'bait and switch' means which you clearly don't from the context you are using the term.

But instead of answering that you want me to give you proof of something I never posed, you're deliberately misrepresenting hence, you're strawman-ing.

#lessstrawmanmorepointsyouwantmetoanswer

 

[msi]

15 minutes ago, burk said:

Yes, I've made about a dozen on this thread, which ones are getting your panties in a bunch?

It's more to save time on your endless strawman-ing that you're are known for instead of just answering a question, like the post 4 posts up from this one.

It's text book MSI, I explain you don't understand what the term 'bait and switch' means which you clearly don't from the context you are using the term.

But instead of answering that you want me to give you proof of something I never posed, you're deliberately misrepresenting hence, you're strawman-ing.

#lessstrawmanmorepointsyouwantmetoanswer

 

I wonder how many of my 10K posts I waste on useless nicks likes yours?

[msi]

26 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:

Possibly you did not Understand them- he wants clarity as to what you Think he said probably.

if you Have the remotest interest in a genuine argument that is not unreasonable.

Ah did you sleep with him too and want to  help out. Splendid. 

 

Teach him how to read his previous posts and how to prove them. Academic rigour and all that.

[burk]

3 minutes ago, msi said:

Ah did you sleep with him too and want to  help out. Splendid. 

 

Teach him how to read his previous posts and how to prove them. Academic rigour and all that.

Still not answering me though are you?

Is it the human rights / lockdown list you want me to address?

You lived through lockdown didn't you?

Articles, 2,3,5,8,9,10,11&14 all went out the window with lockdown.

Remember your rights are inalienable until the govt says otherwise...............

 

[burk]

For MSI, you're welcome btw.

The echr was written in a time when there was no mass movement of people as there some 2.5bn people in the world. Where the echr is failing, like many institutions relating to Europe is it's over reach.

The original intention was a loose framework of human rights to affect a lasting in peace in Europe, a united states of Europe as Churchill called it. All well and good.

However now it's swamped legislating on social issues, like trans rights, gay rights, i.d issues as well as migration. It's critics as I previously mentioned draw attention to the 'living instrument' part of the convention which it's initial intention was to keep the convention relevant to today's world.

Now though many see it for what it is, an institution highjacked by special interests and political activists. Many would say this convention is now compromised by essentially socially engineering the region through case law and policy.

And like so many EU institutions, important country-changing decisions are getting made behind closed doors by a handful of judges who neither have to live with the consequences of these decisions nor be accountable to them.

The echr is why you have Hamas higher-ups living in the UK on the tax payers dime and why it has frustrated every Home Sec since Blunketts time.

It's why we can't deport anyone without spending, in some cases years dealing with unfathomable layers of bureaucracy and that includes hate preachers, murderers and rapists back to their country of origin, see article 3, the goto for every 3rd world scum bag.

#agreattimetobealawyer

 

Edited December 10, 2023 by burk

[shlomo]

10 hours ago, burk said:

The only case for migration to the uk at present are:

Women and kids from Ukraine.

Allied collaborators from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Qualified Doctors & surgeons.

That would number in the 10,000's.

Everything else is virtue signalling.

We need workers for the NHS and carers 

We do not need colaborators, people who betray their own people for money cannot really be trusted