[The Earl of Chesterfield]

s42blue, on 09 March 2024 - 08:53 AM, said:

Come on. Have a word with yourself. This a been a bit of light hearted relief from the constant sniping, pedantry and grandstanding.

It could have been darkly humorous if there wasn’t a background to it.

Tbh a quick genuine apology is required and move on.

Are we saying apology to 'CPS', the Muslim religion or the entire human race?

Perhaps all three...

[s42blue]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 09 March 2024 - 10:30 AM, said:

Are we saying apology to 'CPS', the Muslim religion or the entire human race?

Perhaps all three...

Small steps. CPS first

[Search & Destroy]

s42blue, on 09 March 2024 - 12:15 PM, said:

Small steps. CPS first

Hey, I did immediately post to tell CPS that I didn’t mean it

[s42blue]

Search & Destroy, on 09 March 2024 - 12:53 PM, said:

Hey, I did immediately post to tell CPS that I didn’t mean it

A very adult apology…

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

So let's get this straight: the government that's already flushed hundreds of millions down the Rwanda tubes now want to chuck thousands of pounds more at migrants to go there.

Which is supposed to act as a deterrent.

Is this what 'taking back control of our borders' looks like....?

[calvin plummers socks]

s42blue, on 09 March 2024 - 01:23 PM, said:

A very adult apology…

Lol
Indeed!

[turrhall]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 13 March 2024 - 08:10 AM, said:

So let's get this straight: the government that's already flushed hundreds of millions down the Rwanda tubes now want to chuck thousands of pounds more at migrants to go there.

Which is supposed to act as a deterrent.

Is this what 'taking back control of our borders' looks like....?

Once again this is putting the focus of the Rwanda debacle as being a bad financial decision, when the real issue is its immorality. Leaves the door open for the Labour Party to say 'oh we're going to do exactly the same thing, but for cheaper and more efficiently'.

This post has been edited by turrhall: 13 March 2024 - 10:04 AM

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

turrhall, on 13 March 2024 - 10:04 AM, said:

Once again this is putting the focus of the Rwanda debacle as being a bad financial decision, when the real issue is its immorality. Leaves the door open for the Labour Party to say 'oh we're going to do exactly the same thing, but for cheaper and more efficiently'.

Labour have said they'll scrap it...

[turrhall]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 13 March 2024 - 11:20 AM, said:

Labour have said they'll scrap it...

Scrap it completely? Or replace it with what?

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

turrhall, on 13 March 2024 - 11:32 AM, said:

Scrap it completely? Or replace it with what?

As far as I know SKS said they'll scrap it completely.

Recieving the usual smears from the usual suspects, of course...

[turrhall]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 13 March 2024 - 11:34 AM, said:

As far as I know SKS said they'll scrap it completely.

Recieving the usual smears from the usual suspects, of course...

Can't find anything news-wise on this.

Yeah mate, if one Labour leader is being given a hard time by the establishment, it's Keir blimey Stamer

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

turrhall, on 13 March 2024 - 01:16 PM, said:

Can't find anything news-wise on this.

Yeah mate, if one Labour leader is being given a hard time by the establishment, it's Keir blimey Stamer

https://www.huffingt...4b0a32c15bee9df

[turrhall]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 13 March 2024 - 04:30 PM, said:

https://www.huffingt...4b0a32c15bee9df

Haha, the below is from more recently than your article:

https://www.independ...r-b2469385.html

Some choice extracts:

"While explicit backing for an offshoring scheme would mark a significant shift for Labour, Sir Keir did signal earlier this month that he would not be opposed to considering such an approach."

"Labour has been contacted for comment about the report, which claims that the party has drawn up “three tests” for any such scheme – that it is cost-effective..."

So their plan (in December at least) is to do exactly the same thing! But more 'efficiently'! And as I said, the issue isn't the cost, it's the lack of morality!

This post has been edited by turrhall: 14 March 2024 - 09:08 AM

[s42blue]

turrhall, on 14 March 2024 - 09:08 AM, said:

Haha, the below is from more recently than your article:

https://www.independ...r-b2469385.html

Some choice extracts:

"While explicit backing for an offshoring scheme would mark a significant shift for Labour, Sir Keir did signal earlier this month that he would not be opposed to considering such an approach."

"Labour has been contacted for comment about the report, which claims that the party has drawn up “three tests” for any such scheme – that it is cost-effective..."

So their plan (in December at least) is to do exactly the same thing! But more 'efficiently'! And as I said, the issue isn't the cost, it's the lack of morality!

Agree. The problem is morality not the cost savings. What a mess both parties are. The less worst will win. Not the way to encourage the disenfranchised young and old voter back to the ballot box.

Now Abbott calling Labour racist too.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

turrhall, on 14 March 2024 - 09:08 AM, said:

Haha, the below is from more recently than your article:

https://www.independ...r-b2469385.html

Some choice extracts:

"While explicit backing for an offshoring scheme would mark a significant shift for Labour, Sir Keir did signal earlier this month that he would not be opposed to considering such an approach."

"Labour has been contacted for comment about the report, which claims that the party has drawn up “three tests” for any such scheme – that it is cost-effective..."

So their plan (in December at least) is to do exactly the same thing! But more 'efficiently'! And as I said, the issue isn't the cost, it's the lack of morality!

No, that's your highly subjective interpretation.

No party - unless you know different - is advocating entirely open borders. Everyone - unless you know different - agrees a percentage of arrivals don't qualify for asylum. Difference is Labour would process applications properly - as opposed to the callous chaos currently witnessed - then offer civilised options to those failing to meet criteria.

And for context here, who are you planning to vote for and what's their policy?

[s42blue]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 14 March 2024 - 09:42 AM, said:

No, that's your highly subjective interpretation.

No party - unless you know different - is advocating entirely open borders. Everyone - unless you know different - agrees a percentage of arrivals don't qualify for asylum. Difference is Labour would process applications properly - as opposed to the callous chaos currently witnessed - then offer civilised options to those failing to meet criteria.

And for context here, who are you planning to vote for and what's their policy?

Isn’t it subjective that “Labour would process applications properly “? We have no idea yet.

[turrhall]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 14 March 2024 - 09:42 AM, said:

No, that's your highly subjective interpretation.

No party - unless you know different - is advocating entirely open borders. Everyone - unless you know different - agrees a percentage of arrivals don't qualify for asylum. Difference is Labour would process applications properly - as opposed to the callous chaos currently witnessed - then offer civilised options to those failing to meet criteria.

And for context here, who are you planning to vote for and what's their policy?

I'm not advocacing for open borders currently, no need to make **** up.

The issue is holding asylum seekers in a third country, effectively treating them as criminals. I'm planning on spoiling, or voting Green. Their immigration policy is alot more humane than Labour's is shaping up to be.

And that's literally what they're planning - do the Rwanda thing somewhere else more 'cost effectively'

This post has been edited by turrhall: 14 March 2024 - 10:28 AM

[HistoricWarwick]

s42blue, on 14 March 2024 - 09:11 AM, said:

Agree. The problem is morality not the cost savings. What a mess both parties are. The less worst will win. Not the way to encourage the disenfranchised young and old voter back to the ballot box.

Now Abbott calling Labour racist too.

I hope she never makes it to a Black Abbots gig - that might tip her over the edge.

[s42blue]

HistoricWarwick, on 14 March 2024 - 10:46 AM, said:

I hope she never makes it to a Black Abbots gig - that might tip her over the edge.

Never heard of ‘em. Sounds like someone who’d share a bill with Keith Harris at Blackpool.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

turrhall, on 14 March 2024 - 10:27 AM, said:

I'm not advocacing for open borders currently, no need to make **** up.

The issue is holding asylum seekers in a third country, effectively treating them as criminals. I'm planning on spoiling, or voting Green. Their immigration policy is alot more humane than Labour's is shaping up to be.

And that's literally what they're planning - do the Rwanda thing somewhere else more 'cost effectively'

Well here's the Green Party policy on migration: https://policy.green...oals/migration/

And here's Labour's: https://www.theguard...migration-plans

After I've already posted other confirmation that Labour will scrap the Rwanda thing.

So who's "making sh*t up".

You also twisted SKS "considering" processing applicants abroad into "So the plan is to do exactly the same thing (as the tories)!". An allegation which, even according to your own link. simply isn't true. Because what's reportedly 'under consideration' by Labour processes all claims properly then offers successful applicants the opportunity of settling here.

As opposed to the tory fiasco which immediately rejects every 'illegal' arrival - deemed as such because they've shut down every 'legal' route - and sends them to a destination described as unsafe by UK judges without any consideration whatsoever.

Then from what I can discern of the Greens', well, let's call them vague aspirations, there's no mention of where migrants will be processed. Though it does state "no person will be held in detention because of their immigration status". Which kinda sounds like they'll be allowed straight into UK society regardless. How nice.

Oh, and for what it's worth I didn't accuse you or anyone else of 'advocating open borders'. In fact if you read my post properly I clearly said "No party is advocating entirely open borders". Though the Greens do begin their statement by saying they "want to see a world without borders".

So, again, who's 'making sh*t up'?

I get voting Green. Fair play for that. But if your hatred of the current Opposition (turning an observation of what you quite rightly dub an "immoral" tory policy into another anti Labour sneer-fest?) means you'd rather spoil your ballot, then I've no respect whatsoever.

Though it confirms what my decades of membership have taught me: some on the Left would rather see tories elected than Labour MP's who aren't Left enough for them...

This post has been edited by The Earl of Chesterfield: 14 March 2024 - 04:22 PM