Do you want to discuss boring politics? (16 Viewers)

Earlsdon_Skyblue1 · 2025-06-19T18:57:07+0100

mmttww said:
No, we're not gonna get on fine. Stuff you've said is beyond sh*t. I don't have to justify myself to you or anyone but I thought you might knock it off if I set my position out. You haven't. Justice isn't screaming at a father of two on the internet, inferring he's a sex offender and labelling him an apologist for horrific crimes. FFS just leave it now.

It isn't beyond shit. You've really let yourself down with a lot of defence towards these criminals. Like I said, that is on you, not anyone else. You need to take some self-reflection on this.

If you are a father of two then I would like to think you were stronger against this sort of thing, not doing what you have been doing, which is behaving like an apologist to their shit. Again - that's on you.

If you want me to leave it then you need to demonstrate some sort of emotion towards what has happened. So far you've been nothing other than angry towards those raising the issues, and apathetic towards those who have commited these crimes. You made one post when forced about the perpetrators, and several dozen about those upset about it. You must realise that it makes you look slightly questionable.

Once again, if you're going to continue to do that, then I'm going to call you out.

mmttww · 2025-06-19T19:11:36+0100

Earlsdon_Skyblue1 said:
then I'm going to call you out.

Fill your boots!

Typing things you made up in your head doesn't change reality. Even if you type them really loud.

Sky Blue Pete · 2025-06-19T19:20:42+0100

shmmeee said:
For no reason? Or because we change the rules? I’d be surprised. Is there precedent for it anywhere?

Sorry criminals

Earlsdon_Skyblue1 · 2025-06-19T19:25:11+0100

mmttww said:
View attachment 43757

Fill your boots!

Typing things you made up in your head doesn't change reality. Even if you type them really loud.

Doesn't matter if it is upper case, or lower case. You've demonstrated yourself as a grooming gang apologist - as alluded to in previous posts. You might like to play it down by saying someone is imagining it, but it isn't going to work. You've consistently attacked those raising the issues, and consistently turned a blind eye when it comes to discussing the perpetrators.

One half-arsed post isn't going to change that, no matter how much you thought it would. Which is now evidently transparent.

Do a better job of calling this shit out, otherwise you go on the same pile of many of these apologists. You won't walk away easy from it, and every post myself and others will tespond to will be on you, despite how much you scream for the admins to save your arse.

Parent of two? You should be ashamed.

mmttww · 2025-06-19T19:29:31+0100

Earlsdon_Skyblue1 said:
You won't walk away easy from it...

and you don't get to try and intimidate people like a cosplay Judge Dredd, so let's see how it goes.

Mucca Mad Boys · 2025-06-19T20:07:01+0100

shmmeee said:
OK just to give the most common devils advocate: refugee arrives aged 6, commits a crime at 19, doesn’t know anyone in their “home” country or speak the language. Still deport?

You can’t retrospectively change laws no, you can change the rules for when ILR or citizenship is possible but you can’t remove right to remain or citizenship from those that have it without a huge legal battle.

With the specific example you’ve raised, just reform the system so that refugee and asylum is granted temporarily with the expectation the claimants can return when safe to do so. Right now, the refugee and asylum systems are pathways to gain residency and this is not what was intended (at least on this scale) when these rules were written up.

Just to clarify the remaining points:

1) You can retrospectively change indefinite leave to remain/citizenship laws and there’s a good argument to extend the period before indefinite leave to remain can be granted

2) Citizenship of naturalised citizens can also be revoked.

If a guest to our country commits a crime, particularly a violent crime, we should have a zero tolerance policy and deport them.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · 2025-06-19T20:07:09+0100

Earlsdon_Skyblue1 said:
I agree with this.

The issue is Brighton, the UK does not pay good wages. It's absolutely shite. Across so many fields. You would think someone looking after the elderly should be paid a respectable wage, but they aren't. Not the same, but it is similair principle for emergency workers, teachers, and other important roles.

It's a universal problem. I'm in the Czech Republic a lot. Many of the low income workers here are Ukranian. For them, the money is good. In the UK, the money is good for Polish people, or those from south Asia.

The UK needs to make wages for these jobs attractive enough, because at the moment the idea of doing a tough job for next to fuck all is not appealing for many. Especially when the benifit system is handing out money too easily, in my opinion.

I agree with you on this, but the argument the right always gives is we can't increase wages because it'll drive inflation and/or push taxes/borrowing up.

Mucca Mad Boys · 2025-06-19T20:21:05+0100

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
I agree with you on this, but the argument the right always gives is we can't increase wages because it'll drive inflation and/or push taxes/borrowing up.

The NHS staff pay rises has certainly lead to borrowing increasing and almost definitely taxes in the autumn budget… but that’s another conversation to have later on in the year.

On this topic, successive governments have chosen to be reliant on migrants to fill NHS roles. It’s systematically cut trainee roles and places at universities so we’re not training enough healthcare professionals to keep up with population growth.

Pause for a moment and imagine the government does this with other public services such as teaching and policing?

When the left argues ‘we need migrants for the NHS’, they’re not wrong per se. However, it is driving a cycle where more migration begets more migration.

With how the immigration and residency rules work as things stand, a new arrival could trade 5 years of low-paid work for decades on welfare payments once they gain indefinite leave to remain.

It’s also v apparent the liberalisation of the health and social care visa route has had unintended impacts. We grant visas to people who never work in healthcare professions and we also allow their dependents to come too which is almost definitely going to be a net-drain on the exchequer.

tisza · 2025-06-19T20:56:02+0100

shmmeee said:
OK just to give the most common devils advocate: refugee arrives aged 6, commits a crime at 19, doesn’t know anyone in their “home” country or speak the language. Still deport?

You can’t retrospectively change laws no, you can change the rules for when ILR or citizenship is possible but you can’t remove right to remain or citizenship from those that have it without a huge legal battle.

Shades of the shamina begum case except she was UK born.

shmmeee · 2025-06-19T22:13:51+0100

Mucca Mad Boys said:
With the specific example you’ve raised, just reform the system so that refugee and asylum is granted temporarily with the expectation the claimants can return when safe to do so. Right now, the refugee and asylum systems are pathways to gain residency and this is not what was intended (at least on this scale) when these rules were written up.

Just to clarify the remaining points:

1) You can retrospectively change indefinite leave to remain/citizenship laws and there’s a good argument to extend the period before indefinite leave to remain can be granted

2) Citizenship of naturalised citizens can also be revoked.

If a guest to our country commits a crime, particularly a violent crime, we should have a zero tolerance policy and deport them.

I’m not talking about deporting if they’ve committed a crime but changing the rules and removing people who have already been granted right to remain. Say deciding tomorrow all EU settled status people have to apply for a visa. We could do it, we’re a sovereign country we can do what we want, but the political and legal battle would put off any government.

chiefdave · 2025-06-19T23:00:26+0100

fatso said:
There's also a lot of able bodied British people who won't work as they can claim money from the state instead.
I personally know of a number of such cases, with some even getting new cars!

When people thrown stuff like this out I'm always intrigued as to how the people they know doing this are getting so much money.

There was a point when I thought I might lose my job post-covid. I looked into how much I would receive in benefits and it was basically fuck all, nowhere near enough to live on. I reckon 2 months tops before I'd have been in huge trouble financially.

Really baffles me that there's apparently a good chunk of people living a life of luxury while refusing to even consider working.

chiefdave · 2025-06-19T23:06:36+0100

Mucca Mad Boys said:
When the left argues ‘we need migrants for the NHS’, they’re not wrong per se. However, it is driving a cycle where more migration begets more migration.

It’s also v apparent the liberalisation of the health and social care visa route has had unintended impacts. We grant visas to people who never work in healthcare professions and we also allow their dependents to come too which is almost definitely going to be a net-drain on the exchequer.

The problem here is that we're now so fucked there's not a short term fix. If the government came out tomorrow and said we've put the funding in place for the required number of police, teachers, doctors etc to be trained you've still got to both find people who want to go through that training and then spend years training them. At this point there's not a quick fix.

Not sure people coming in on social care visas can just hop to another career path. There's people working at my Dads care home who are qualified engineers for example, they can't just go and get a job at JLR, it would invalidate their visa. They also aren't allowed to bring their dependents with them, that's been the case since last March.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · 2025-06-19T23:18:06+0100

Mucca Mad Boys said:
The NHS staff pay rises has certainly lead to borrowing increasing and almost definitely taxes in the autumn budget… but that’s another conversation to have later on in the year.

On this topic, successive governments have chosen to be reliant on migrants to fill NHS roles. It’s systematically cut trainee roles and places at universities so we’re not training enough healthcare professionals to keep up with population growth.

Pause for a moment and imagine the government does this with other public services such as teaching and policing?

When the left argues ‘we need migrants for the NHS’, they’re not wrong per se. However, it is driving a cycle where more migration begets more migration.

With how the immigration and residency rules work as things stand, a new arrival could trade 5 years of low-paid work for decades on welfare payments once they gain indefinite leave to remain.

It’s also v apparent the liberalisation of the health and social care visa route has had unintended impacts. We grant visas to people who never work in healthcare professions and we also allow their dependents to come too which is almost definitely going to be a net-drain on the exchequer.

On the first point it's amazing how often paying people on lower wages more drives inflation but paying massive pay rises to execs and dividends to shareholders doesn't... Almost like it's an argument made by those people....

As for the second, we're currently needing more migration because of a native population getting older and needing more health and social care. In future it's highly possible the current migrants will be a more significant part of demand for those services. But when we teach our own kids to covet money and higher positions it's hardly surprising we don't have many wanting to take on a menial role with shit pay. if you want them to consider the job you're going to have to pay a lot more. That's not going to happen so migrants are the only answer. Or do you think we should change how we bring up kids and get them to be less 'aspirational'?

tisza · 2025-06-20T00:50:39+0100

So Gove confirms Cummings's narrative that there were people in Whitehall (as well as Rotherham council) that wanted to try and block Andrew Norfolk's story.

Do you want to discuss boring politics? (16 Viewers)

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member

mmttww

Well-Known Member

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member

mmttww

Well-Known Member

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member

tisza

Well-Known Member

shmmeee

Well-Known Member

chiefdave

Well-Known Member

chiefdave

Well-Known Member

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member

tisza

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Do you want to discuss boring politics? (16 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency