Match of the day.. No more Lineker*

[duke63 541]

4 minutes ago, DraytonBoy said:

But it can't just be ignored surely?

 

Nobody is suggesting it should be ignored. 
 

But just making the punishment bigger wont solve the problem,  when the refugees are prepared to ignore the simpler laws already. 

[The Real Buh 3,423]

FREEEEEEE

GARY LIN-E-KAR

[DraytonBoy 142]

5 minutes ago, duke63 said:

Nobody is suggesting it should be ignored. 
 

But just making the punishment bigger wont solve the problem,  when the refugees are prepared to ignore the simpler laws already. 

The idea is morally wrong as is the bonkers 'send them to Rwanda' fiasco that's cost the country millions. A proper asylum processing system is urgently required including setting up a processing centre in France which would stop 0000's even trying to cross the Channel. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

1 minute ago, DraytonBoy said:

The idea is morally wrong as is the bonkers 'send them to Rwanda' fiasco that's cost the country millions. A proper asylum processing system is urgently required including setting up a processing centre in France which would stop 0000's even trying to cross the Channel. 

The combination of the ECHR and UN convention on refugees makes it effectively impossible to remove bogus asylum seekers.

Rwanda is not so bonkers if you'd like to avoid withdrawing from the ECHR or UN convention on refugees but do want to have a workable mechanism for removing claimants that don't make their case adequately.

The absurdity is that international law is such that a scheme like Rwanda is necessary to legally remove people who don't have a right to stay in the UK.

 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

16 minutes ago, DraytonBoy said:

The idea is morally wrong as is the bonkers 'send them to Rwanda' fiasco that's cost the country millions. A proper asylum processing system is urgently required including setting up a processing centre in France which would stop 0000's even trying to cross the Channel. 

Many of those crossing the channel do not want refugee status or to apply for asylum, they want to land on the beach and avoid being apprehended. They won't be checking into an asylum processing centre.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

3 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Many of those crossing the channel do not want refugee status or to apply for asylum, they want to land on the beach and avoid being apprehended. They won't be checking into an asylum processing centre.

This is true, but if they're caught then the worst case scenario is going into the system that makes it effectively impossible to remove them anyway.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

33 minutes ago, duke63 said:

Nobody is suggesting it should be ignored. 
 

But just making the punishment bigger wont solve the problem,  when the refugees are prepared to ignore the simpler laws already. 

It's not punishment; it's finding any way of removing people who don't have a right to be in the UK as a means of deterring people from attempting to enter over the channel in the first place.

[dylanisabaddog 4,868]

5 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

This is true, but if they're caught then the worst case scenario is going into the system that makes it effectively impossible to remove them anyway.

In the year to March 2022 there were over 3000 forced returns and more than 8000 voluntary returns. Have you contacted the Home Office to congratulate them on achieving the impossible? 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

In the year to March 2022 there were over 3000 forced returns and more than 8000 voluntary returns. Have you contacted the Home Office to congratulate them on achieving the impossible? 

I don't know your source for that information, but I know that you can't be referring to forced and voluntary returns exclusively from failed asylum applications because those numbers are vastly inferior to the numbers you quote there.

[TheBaldOne66 681]

On 11/03/2023 at 13:53, Branston Pickle said:

Fwiw I haven’t watched motd for several years - find it a bit boring to watch all the “analysis”. If it is shown tonight  I do wonder if there will be a spike in viewing, people might actually like the lack of endless chat between games.

But that’s not to say Lineker isn’t a decent presenter and this mess is ridiculous.

 

There was indeed a spike in viewing allegedly 1/2 million more watched than usual, which says a lot to me 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

21 minutes ago, TheBaldOne66 said:

There was indeed a spike in viewing allegedly 1/2 million more watched than usual, which says a lot to me 

Yeah I watched it as the punditry bores me senseless. If it were half an hour of highlights each Saturday I'd watch it more often.

[chicken 2,604]

3 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Many of those crossing the channel do not want refugee status or to apply for asylum, they want to land on the beach and avoid being apprehended. They won't be checking into an asylum processing centre.

Pretty sure that there are no statistics to support this. 

[chicken 2,604]

I'm just going to say it as it is... I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone watches match of the day if they don't like the analysis and punditry. If that's the case, why don't you watch highlights that are available through other sources long before 10:20 on a Saturday night?

Really baffles me. 

[chicken 2,604]

4 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The combination of the ECHR and UN convention on refugees makes it effectively impossible to remove bogus asylum seekers.

Rwanda is not so bonkers if you'd like to avoid withdrawing from the ECHR or UN convention on refugees but do want to have a workable mechanism for removing claimants that don't make their case adequately.

The absurdity is that international law is such that a scheme like Rwanda is necessary to legally remove people who don't have a right to stay in the UK.

 

This is simply not true.

As with a lot of other things, we are slow. Our processes are slow. The processing of asylum seekers is too slow. Plenty are turned away and sent back... or those reality TV shows based on people coming to the UK via airports etc wouldn't have much to film... yet they do.

There are proper processes to follow - so why not ask why other countries are doing better at it?

The "scheme" like Rwanda, was found to be against international law - it's not necessary. It's just another cheap attempt to appease the fears that the same people have stoked up about immigration.

Edited March 12, 2023 by chicken

[chicken 2,604]

4 hours ago, duke63 said:

Nobody is suggesting it should be ignored. 
 

But just making the punishment bigger wont solve the problem,  when the refugees are prepared to ignore the simpler laws already. 

Reminds me of giving underage drivers or drivers without licenses points... Sure, it means when they go for a license they get put on it... but it's hardly a deterrent is it? 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

15 minutes ago, chicken said:

Pretty sure that there are no statistics to support this. 

We know how many Albanians are apprehended each month, and that two thirds of the Albanians moved to accommodation to await the outcome of asylum claims subsequently cut their tags off and dissappear. So yes, there is. I'm pretty sure you haven't even bothered to look for any statistics. 

Edited March 12, 2023 by TeemuVanBasten

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

16 minutes ago, chicken said:

This is simply not true.

As with a lot of other things, we are slow. Our processes are slow. The processing of asylum seekers is too slow. Plenty are turned away and sent back... or those reality TV shows based on people coming to the UK via airports etc wouldn't have much to film... yet they do.

There are proper processes to follow - so why not ask why other countries are doing better at it?

The "scheme" like Rwanda, was found to be against international law - it's not necessary. It's just another cheap attempt to appease the fears that the same people have stoked up about immigration.

It's true. https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/echr-confirms-order-stop-deportation-migrant-uk-rwanda-2022-06-14/ Similarly, it's the ECHR preventing returns to point of origin that has spurred the attempts to create other solutions like Rwanda.

The processing backlog you mention is a separate and additional issue that has nothing to do with the question of removing failed applicants.

Edited March 12, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[chicken 2,604]

6 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

We know how many Albanians are apprehended each month, and that two thirds of the Albanians moved to accommodation to await the outcome of asylum claims subsequently cut their tags off and dissappear. So yes, there is. I'm pretty sure you haven't even bothered to look for any statistics. 

Share your sources then - oh, and re Albanians, until Sept last year, they were not the larges group to be coming across - government statistics.

What about the others?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

2 minutes ago, chicken said:

Share your sources then - oh, and re Albanians, until Sept last year, they were not the larges group to be coming across - government statistics.

What about the others?

If you're going to start demanding people share sources on the basis of being argumentative rather than for information, start providing sources to support your own assertions.

Edited March 12, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[chicken 2,604]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's true. https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/echr-confirms-order-stop-deportation-migrant-uk-rwanda-2022-06-14/

I don't think it says what you want it to say.

Quote

The court had decided "that the applicant should not be removed until the expiry of a period of three weeks following the delivery of the final domestic decision in the ongoing judicial review proceedings", its ruling said.

In other words, the home office wanted to send them to Rwanda before court proceedings had ended. Doesn't sound unreasonable does it? 

[chicken 2,604]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

If you're going to start demanding people share sources on the basis of being argumentative rather than for information, start providing sources to support your own assertions.

I have, and I do. As in above posts.

Though I suggest you actually read your sources properly before thinking they back up your own assertions, which they don't.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

Deleted

Edited March 12, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie
Deleted. Irrelevant due to missed post.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

16 minutes ago, chicken said:

I don't think it says what you want it to say.

In other words, the home office wanted to send them to Rwanda before court proceedings had ended. Doesn't sound unreasonable does it? 

It is unreasonable, for the simple fact that it's three weeks after a final decision by the domestic courts. It's all about giving lawyers yet more chance to come up with vexatious arguments to stop deportations at more legal expense for the taxpayer.

Edited March 12, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

I have, and I do. As in above posts.

Though I suggest you actually read your sources properly before thinking they back up your own assertions, which they don't.

They do.

In 2022 12,301 Albanians apprehended crossing English Channel.

The majority of Albanians tagged between June 2022 and the end of 2022 for immigration bail have cut their tags off so they can't be tracked and deported, 65%. Official government data.

That's the numbers. Sorry if they don't fit your agenda.

They Albanian men are coming here because the Hellbanianz control the cocaine supply in the UK. They see the money they are making and want a bit of it.

The Hellbanianz even have their own social media pages. This video on the Hellbanianz youtube channel has 20 million views in 1 year, you will note filmed in London and Tirana. This is what is coming over. Perhaps Gary Lineker should let a few of them live in his house. Perhaps you should let a few of them live in your house, that would be a good idea, why don't you offer?

 

Edited March 12, 2023 by TeemuVanBasten

[BigFish 1,986]

15 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/mzz3ysnb7s/YouGov - Illegal Channel Crossing Results.pdf

73%, weighted sample.

And that was when the illegal crossings were a fraction of the recent number.

69% considered the use of RAF planes to help prevent crossings to be acceptable.

Imagine rubbishing a polling company and accusing me of living in an echo chamber without bothering to ask who I was referencing first, that bodes so well for a constructive debate.

A 6 month old spot poll, leading questions & no commentary. I wasn't rubbishing YouGov, I was rubbishing a dumb tweet from you. I am sure that for YouGov this was a bit of fun rather than a serious poll, that you couldn't tell the difference speaks volumes. A more serious poll for you below.......it seems that those who were vexed about immigration amount to a mere 12% (and falling).

 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

25 minutes ago, BigFish said:

A 6 month old spot poll, leading questions & no commentary. I wasn't rubbishing YouGov, I was rubbishing a dumb tweet from you. 

I neither have twitter nor have posted copies of anybodies tweets, you have the wrong guy.

Edited March 12, 2023 by TeemuVanBasten

[chicken 2,604]

2 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

They do.

In 2022 12,301 Albanians apprehended crossing English Channel.

The majority of Albanians tagged between June 2022 and the end of 2022 for immigration bail have cut their tags off so they can't be tracked and deported, 65%. Official government data.

That's the numbers. Sorry if they don't fit your agenda.

They Albanian men are coming here because the Hellbanianz control the cocaine supply in the UK. They see the money they are making and want a bit of it.

The Hellbanianz even have their own social media pages. This video on the Hellbanianz youtube channel has 20 million views in 1 year, you will note filmed in London and Tirana. This is what is coming over. Perhaps Gary Lineker should let a few of them live in his house. Perhaps you should let a few of them live in your house, that would be a good idea, why don't you offer?

 

The problem is, you are making this all about Albanians, which for the first half of last year barely made up 18% of people crossing in the boats.

So you are slanting this deliberately, when it isn't about just the Albanians. Again, not all of the Albanians coming over are part of organised criminal gangs. Should the government be doing better - you bet. Should they be resorting to threatening to bin human rights over it? Most certainly not. 

[chicken 2,604]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It is unreasonable, for the simple fact that it's three weeks after a final decision by the domestic courts. It's all about giving lawyers yet more chance to come up with vexatious arguments to stop deportations at more legal expense for the taxpayer.

Wrong. People have the right to appeal.

The expense to the taxpayer was through not researching this properly in the first place. If you go back further, it is not planning for this eventuality after we left the EU. Especially as it has been on the agenda for near on a decade if not longer.

I think we at a very worrying point when people are advocating human rights laws should be thrown out of the window because of "fears" that have been instilled politically. 

[Capt. Pants 4,195]

Can't believe some of you lot continue to post on this during our match.

[City 2nd 191]

1 minute ago, Capt. Pants said:

Can't believe some of you lot continue to post on this during our match.

Here here. Methinks Norwich City have a lot lot more to think about.