Not what I asked though is it I Said regardless of their eligibility to seek legal asylum in the UK, I have no issue contributing to a fellow human being that needs assistance in being safe from persecution and violence in their own country once they have been correctly investigated and it's been verified they are a genuine asylum seekers/ refugee
So I will ask again do you think it is in anyway acceptable or correct that someone who is not a genuine asylum seeker and has not left their country under the required and accepted reasons to gain sanctuary and safety but have done so due to economic or other reasons that do not and are not accepted in any eu country as a valid reason to enter another country and as a consequence have broken the law and are an illegal immigrant with no legal rights to be in this or any other country and have only gained entry via illegal and deceitful means
I think that is clear enough and not framed in any way so that you can provide a yes or no answer and to then explain your reason why, it's a debate not a trick or trip hazard, and I also would love to know your view on how such a legislation could be passed and nor be in any political manifesto of the labour government provided to the people they represent
I used the term 'asylum seekers'. Some will turn out to be genuine and some will not. Whilst their status is being established we have a responsibility to provide them with subsistence. I don't know what the the regulations are in the circumstances where the asylum seeker is deemed not to be genuine. Not sure why you think I have not answered your question. I can't be more clear. Yes, I think we should pay asylum seekers subsistence.
Why do you think they want to come to the UK rather than stay in France.
Not what I asked though is it I Said regardless of their eligibility to seek legal asylum in the UK, I have no issue contributing to a fellow human being that needs assistance in being safe from persecution and violence in their own country once they have been correctly investigated and it's been verified they are a genuine asylum seekers/ refugee
So I will ask again do you think it is in anyway acceptable or correct that someone who is not a genuine asylum seeker and has not left their country under the required and accepted reasons to gain sanctuary and safety but have done so due to economic or other reasons that do not and are not accepted in any eu country as a valid reason to enter another country and as a consequence have broken the law and are an illegal immigrant with no legal rights to be in this or any other country and have only gained entry via illegal and deceitful means
I think that is clear enough and not framed in any way so that you can provide a yes or no answer and to then explain your reason why, it's a debate not a trick or trip hazard, and I also would love to know your view on how such a legislation could be passed and nor be in any political manifesto of the labour government provided to the people they represent
I used the term 'asylum seekers'. Some will turn out to be genuine and some will not. Whilst their status is being established we have a responsibility to provide them with subsistence. I don't know what the the regulations are in the circumstances where the asylum seeker is deemed not to be genuine. Not sure why you think I have not answered your question. I can't be more clear. Yes, I think we should pay asylum seekers subsistence.
Why do you think they want to come to the UK rather than stay in France.
We had this question about 15 pages ago I think.
Firstly, it is not the case that all the asylum seekers that get into Europe want to come to the UK. Most end up in other European countries.
I read somewhere that one of the reasons for those wanting to come to the UK is the language.
Because if they were asylum seekers they would have followed the correct protocol once arriving in the first safe country they got to, they also would not be trying to hurt or cause large scale disruption to honest decent folk, these people who jump on lorries and continue travelling across countries that are recognised as safe and a place where they can legitimately seek asylum and then be placed into the country that has not reached its quota, that could well be the UK,
I also asked your opinion on a government passing such a disgusting piece of legislation without informing people like me who voted labour at that time that they intended to allow those who do not follow the correct protocol when seeking asylum such luxurious benefits that could be spent on the NHS, our elderly and education needs, come on you are the first to highlight the devastating cuts that were banded around on the general election thread, it also could have saved one of the osterity cuts that people marched for, it's a blatant attempt to mislead and can only have been done as part of the secret plan people like brown were trying to bring in where these people would then be able to vote also on matters that concern British people and no one else
It's the icing on the labour cake and it's scandalous that those who bang on about equality and justice are happy that it's own tax paying nation can be screwed just so someone's dirty campaign cam be achieved,
And I was told the conservatives were a party of lying low life lack of morales and lack of care for anyone not rich or from Eton
So does that mean that the labour party actually didn't give a fuck about anyone who could possibly vote against them and was not entitled to these sort of bribes and backhanded benefits, I was right all along the labour party is only good for the work shy feckless and those who take more than they should and cry when they can't be given the same. Or that there's people actually having to do a days work where in the past under labour we put three in a position that one could and should do
I know a few coppers and the general analogy goes something like this
I arrested a (insert foreign country here) bloke the other day and had to wait with him for xx amount of hours to get a (insert foreign language here) translator to take a statement from/interview him.
Now its hard to do this without sounding like Richard Littlejohn here but. It's the same with a lot of traffic wardens. If you try and converse with them and ask a question or two its all 'I don't understand, my English is not good' but when you start to lose your shit with them all of a sudden they understand and speak the Queens English pretty well.
I've got a good inside track on what goes on in the real world and in communities that house loads of the types currently laying siege to Calais and motorists running the gauntlet during a strike. As much as politicians would love us to believe all migrants are coming here to prop up the NHS and clean toilets I can vouch that a hell of a lot of them ain't interested in working full stop. Let alone for what peanuts the NHS will pay them and having to walk on their own two feet when they can be housed, fed, watered and clothed (the whole family im talking about here) and be given cash to live on whilst having the time left in the working day to rob documents from rubbish bins and recycling, run child sex rackets, steal all things made of metal amd generally be a royal pain in the bollocks.
This sounds familiar because we already have millions of natives who are pretty good at this. We don't need more
I dont think so I think it's about time people were honest about the things that really matter to this country and not some idealistic Bullshit that makes those saying it feel in some ways a better more compassionate person than others, and fail to be accepting that there was a whole load of dirty deception that would normally be attributed by the same people not willing to see the truth to a party that for many years was seen as the enemy to working people, when the reality is the labour party is for those who don't really give their labour for anything other than jeremy kyle and cash in the attic when they pause their sky boxes and jog on to collect not benefits any more the money they call wages,
I dont think so I think it's about time people were honest about the things that really matter to this country and not some idealistic Bullshit that makes those saying it feel in some ways a better more compassionate person than others, and fail to be accepting that there was a whole load of dirty deception that would normally be attributed by the same people not willing to see the truth to a party that for many years was seen as the enemy to working people, when the reality is the labour party is for those who don't really give their labour for anything other than jeremy kyle and cash in the attic when they pause their sky boxes and jog on to collect not benefits any more the money they call wages,
Not what I asked though is it I Said regardless of their eligibility to seek legal asylum in the UK, I have no issue contributing to a fellow human being that needs assistance in being safe from persecution and violence in their own country once they have been correctly investigated and it's been verified they are a genuine asylum seekers/ refugee
So I will ask again do you think it is in anyway acceptable or correct that someone who is not a genuine asylum seeker and has not left their country under the required and accepted reasons to gain sanctuary and safety but have done so due to economic or other reasons that do not and are not accepted in any eu country as a valid reason to enter another country and as a consequence have broken the law and are an illegal immigrant with no legal rights to be in this or any other country and have only gained entry via illegal and deceitful means
I think that is clear enough and not framed in any way so that you can provide a yes or no answer and to then explain your reason why, it's a debate not a trick or trip hazard, and I also would love to know your view on how such a legislation could be passed and nor be in any political manifesto of the labour government provided to the people they represent
I used the term 'asylum seekers'. Some will turn out to be genuine and some will not. Whilst their status is being established we have a responsibility to provide them with subsistence. I don't know what the the regulations are in the circumstances where the asylum seeker is deemed not to be genuine. Not sure why you think I have not answered your question. I can't be more clear. Yes, I think we should pay asylum seekers subsistence.
Why do you think they want to come to the UK rather than stay in France.
We had this question about 15 pages ago I think.
Firstly, it is not the case that all the asylum seekers that get into Europe want to come to the UK. Most end up in other European countries.
I read somewhere that one of the reasons for those wanting to come to the UK is the fact that we take it up the Gary for them
Because if they were asylum seekers they would have followed the correct protocol once arriving in the first safe country they got to, they also would not be trying to hurt or cause large scale disruption to honest decent folk, these people who jump on lorries and continue travelling across countries that are recognised as safe and a place where they can legitimately seek asylum and then be placed into the country that has not reached its quota, that could well be the UK,
I also asked your opinion on a government passing such a disgusting piece of legislation without informing people like me who voted labour at that time that they intended to allow those who do not follow the correct protocol when seeking asylum such luxurious benefits that could be spent on the NHS, our elderly and education needs, come on you are the first to highlight the devastating cuts that were banded around on the general election thread, it also could have saved one of the osterity cuts that people marched for, it's a blatant attempt to mislead and can only have been done as part of the secret plan people like brown were trying to bring in where these people would then be able to vote also on matters that concern British people and no one else
It's the icing on the labour cake and it's scandalous that those who bang on about equality and justice are happy that it's own tax paying nation can be screwed just so someone's dirty campaign cam be achieved,
And I was told the conservatives were a party of lying low life lack of morales and lack of care for anyone not rich or from Eton
So does that mean that the labour party actually didn't give a fuck about anyone who could possibly vote against them and was not entitled to these sort of bribes and backhanded benefits, I was right all along the labour party is only good for the work shy feckless and those who take more than they should and cry when they can't be given the same. Or that there's people actually having to do a days work where in the past under labour we put three in a position that one could and should do
They've left such a bad taste in people's mouths from the early 2000s for numerous reasons which is why I think people have turned against them, especially people that voted for them previously. To think that they came into power on such a wave of euphoria in 97 when people were probably as angry and frustrated with the Major Tory government, to compare to when they left office, amazing really.
I know this started as a debate about traffic and Op Stack, but it is amazing how we've come back to wider political debates and arguments.
I really don't think we can pigeonhole one another anymore. For me there is no loony socialist left or heartless conservative right wing. I am left leaning and a socialist at heart, I believe in helping your fellow man and don't have much love for what the Tories stand for. However, I don't like/want or have much time for the plight of SOME of these immigrants based on first hand reports from Nth London Addick.
I was one of those fed up and frustrated voters who believed we had finally seen sense and had a party for the good of the nation, how completely duped we were once the crest of the wave had crashed onto our fine shores
I don't think I lean any where any more not left or right but the biggest shame is there is no middle
On this one even though links can be drawn to party politics surely the debate is about what is going to be done about it. When a traffic accident happens, you tend to the injured first, and sort out blame and insurance details second. ANY politician who puts themselves forward as somebody who can be in charge would be equally criticised on this one. We are here, we are now, and whoever is holding the power at this moment has to sort it out effectively. The Calais/Sangatte/Jungle type issue has been around for ages, and the can has been kicked down the road too often by all politicians. I am afraid the present government must act now, not to win votes, not to look good, but because the roof is clearly leaking and the rain is getting in.
Red these are old arguments, find some solutions. You make yourself too easy to dig out. There's a problem, who's fault is subjective, any practical solutions?
Wasn't making an argument. I was trying to provide perspective.
Your problem is that the perspective is completely irrelevant (for example one could counter that the cost to support one migrant family is a fraction of the hundreds of millions of public money trade unions get from the the taxpayer but it would be equally irrelevant).
Your £850bn figure is also hilariously inaccurate and I doubt you even understand what it actually means. £850bn was the figure that was made available by the Government to provide short-term support to the banking system in terms of emergency liquidity - in fact only £76bn of that was used to purchase shares in failing banks, with any other money being used to pay for auditors, consultants, financial experts etc. to assess the situation, the total cost of which only ran into the tens of millions.
So no, the bank bailout did not cost the taxpayer £850bn. The RBS shares are being sold at a loss but the Government is hoping to make up the loss by selling the recovering Lloyds shares at a profit, so in the end the net cost to the taxpayer will likely only be millions, perhaps a billion or two if things go a bit Pete Tong. This is compared to perhaps over a trillion that could have been lost if the banking system had been allowed to fail.
How's that for perspective?
It's getting like Question Time on here when they allow the audience to have a comment on the question and Dimbleby seems to always be able to find the tinfoil hat loony who, not matter what the question is (fox hunting, prescription charges, lifeboats) will always pipe up "Yeah but it's the Tory Eton Bankers who are the real problem! Let's get rid of them before we sort out any other issues!".
Another typically pompous and arrogant post from CL's self appointed 'expert' on all matters political. I could google 'cost to UK tax payer of bank bail out' and find links to many articles by eminent and respected economic observers which would suggest you are completely wrong. But, you could do the same and find articles that suggest I am wrong. We both choose to believe what we want so there is no point starting a pointless debate about it. However, I note even this morning Osbourne is defending the loss of £1 billion to the Uk tax payer on the latest sale of RBS assets.
But, this thread is about the issues caused by the mass migration from failed states surrounding Europe. It is a EU problem even though some in the EU would say 70%-80% of the migration is the direct result of the UK's (and it's ally the US) failed military policies in some of those countries. More specifically, this thread is about the immense problems being endured by people in Kent and by the owners and employees (and their families) of the businesses in Kent and the small haulage and logistic businesses that rely on efficient transport links across the channel. Given that they are not responsible for these problems (unlike the Bankers) I think it is entirely appropriate that all these businesses should be 'bailed out' by the UK tax payer immediately. Do you not agree with that single point?
Actually the thread is about traffic chaos in Kent which is, in part, due to industrial action by French transport employees working in Calais.
Not what I asked though is it I Said regardless of their eligibility to seek legal asylum in the UK, I have no issue contributing to a fellow human being that needs assistance in being safe from persecution and violence in their own country once they have been correctly investigated and it's been verified they are a genuine asylum seekers/ refugee
So I will ask again do you think it is in anyway acceptable or correct that someone who is not a genuine asylum seeker and has not left their country under the required and accepted reasons to gain sanctuary and safety but have done so due to economic or other reasons that do not and are not accepted in any eu country as a valid reason to enter another country and as a consequence have broken the law and are an illegal immigrant with no legal rights to be in this or any other country and have only gained entry via illegal and deceitful means
I think that is clear enough and not framed in any way so that you can provide a yes or no answer and to then explain your reason why, it's a debate not a trick or trip hazard, and I also would love to know your view on how such a legislation could be passed and nor be in any political manifesto of the labour government provided to the people they represent
I used the term 'asylum seekers'. Some will turn out to be genuine and some will not. Whilst their status is being established we have a responsibility to provide them with subsistence. I don't know what the the regulations are in the circumstances where the asylum seeker is deemed not to be genuine. Not sure why you think I have not answered your question. I can't be more clear. Yes, I think we should pay asylum seekers subsistence.
Why do you think they want to come to the UK rather than stay in France.
We had this question about 15 pages ago I think.
Firstly, it is not the case that all the asylum seekers that get into Europe want to come to the UK. Most end up in other European countries.
I read somewhere that one of the reasons for those wanting to come to the UK is the language.
Not what I asked though is it I Said regardless of their eligibility to seek legal asylum in the UK, I have no issue contributing to a fellow human being that needs assistance in being safe from persecution and violence in their own country once they have been correctly investigated and it's been verified they are a genuine asylum seekers/ refugee
So I will ask again do you think it is in anyway acceptable or correct that someone who is not a genuine asylum seeker and has not left their country under the required and accepted reasons to gain sanctuary and safety but have done so due to economic or other reasons that do not and are not accepted in any eu country as a valid reason to enter another country and as a consequence have broken the law and are an illegal immigrant with no legal rights to be in this or any other country and have only gained entry via illegal and deceitful means
I think that is clear enough and not framed in any way so that you can provide a yes or no answer and to then explain your reason why, it's a debate not a trick or trip hazard, and I also would love to know your view on how such a legislation could be passed and nor be in any political manifesto of the labour government provided to the people they represent
I used the term 'asylum seekers'. Some will turn out to be genuine and some will not. Whilst their status is being established we have a responsibility to provide them with subsistence. I don't know what the the regulations are in the circumstances where the asylum seeker is deemed not to be genuine. Not sure why you think I have not answered your question. I can't be more clear. Yes, I think we should pay asylum seekers subsistence.
Why do you think they want to come to the UK rather than stay in France.
We had this question about 15 pages ago I think.
Firstly, it is not the case that all the asylum seekers that get into Europe want to come to the UK. Most end up in other European countries.
I read somewhere that one of the reasons for those wanting to come to the UK is the language.
Red these are old arguments, find some solutions. You make yourself too easy to dig out. There's a problem, who's fault is subjective, any practical solutions?
Wasn't making an argument. I was trying to provide perspective.
Your problem is that the perspective is completely irrelevant (for example one could counter that the cost to support one migrant family is a fraction of the hundreds of millions of public money trade unions get from the the taxpayer but it would be equally irrelevant).
Your £850bn figure is also hilariously inaccurate and I doubt you even understand what it actually means. £850bn was the figure that was made available by the Government to provide short-term support to the banking system in terms of emergency liquidity - in fact only £76bn of that was used to purchase shares in failing banks, with any other money being used to pay for auditors, consultants, financial experts etc. to assess the situation, the total cost of which only ran into the tens of millions.
So no, the bank bailout did not cost the taxpayer £850bn. The RBS shares are being sold at a loss but the Government is hoping to make up the loss by selling the recovering Lloyds shares at a profit, so in the end the net cost to the taxpayer will likely only be millions, perhaps a billion or two if things go a bit Pete Tong. This is compared to perhaps over a trillion that could have been lost if the banking system had been allowed to fail.
How's that for perspective?
It's getting like Question Time on here when they allow the audience to have a comment on the question and Dimbleby seems to always be able to find the tinfoil hat loony who, not matter what the question is (fox hunting, prescription charges, lifeboats) will always pipe up "Yeah but it's the Tory Eton Bankers who are the real problem! Let's get rid of them before we sort out any other issues!".
Another typically pompous and arrogant post from CL's self appointed 'expert' on all matters political. I could google 'cost to UK tax payer of bank bail out' and find links to many articles by eminent and respected economic observers which would suggest you are completely wrong. But, you could do the same and find articles that suggest I am wrong. We both choose to believe what we want so there is no point starting a pointless debate about it. However, I note even this morning Osbourne is defending the loss of £1 billion to the Uk tax payer on the latest sale of RBS assets.
But, this thread is about the issues caused by the mass migration from failed states surrounding Europe. It is a EU problem even though some in the EU would say 70%-80% of the migration is the direct result of the UK's (and it's ally the US) failed military policies in some of those countries. More specifically, this thread is about the immense problems being endured by people in Kent and by the owners and employees (and their families) of the businesses in Kent and the small haulage and logistic businesses that rely on efficient transport links across the channel. Given that they are not responsible for these problems (unlike the Bankers) I think it is entirely appropriate that all these businesses should be 'bailed out' by the UK tax payer immediately. Do you not agree with that single point?
Actually the thread is about traffic chaos in Kent which is, in part, due to industrial action by French transport employees working in Calais.
Nonsense. Try actually reading the thread. Not just the title.
Red these are old arguments, find some solutions. You make yourself too easy to dig out. There's a problem, who's fault is subjective, any practical solutions?
Wasn't making an argument. I was trying to provide perspective.
Your problem is that the perspective is completely irrelevant (for example one could counter that the cost to support one migrant family is a fraction of the hundreds of millions of public money trade unions get from the the taxpayer but it would be equally irrelevant).
Your £850bn figure is also hilariously inaccurate and I doubt you even understand what it actually means. £850bn was the figure that was made available by the Government to provide short-term support to the banking system in terms of emergency liquidity - in fact only £76bn of that was used to purchase shares in failing banks, with any other money being used to pay for auditors, consultants, financial experts etc. to assess the situation, the total cost of which only ran into the tens of millions.
So no, the bank bailout did not cost the taxpayer £850bn. The RBS shares are being sold at a loss but the Government is hoping to make up the loss by selling the recovering Lloyds shares at a profit, so in the end the net cost to the taxpayer will likely only be millions, perhaps a billion or two if things go a bit Pete Tong. This is compared to perhaps over a trillion that could have been lost if the banking system had been allowed to fail.
How's that for perspective?
It's getting like Question Time on here when they allow the audience to have a comment on the question and Dimbleby seems to always be able to find the tinfoil hat loony who, not matter what the question is (fox hunting, prescription charges, lifeboats) will always pipe up "Yeah but it's the Tory Eton Bankers who are the real problem! Let's get rid of them before we sort out any other issues!".
Another typically pompous and arrogant post from CL's self appointed 'expert' on all matters political. I could google 'cost to UK tax payer of bank bail out' and find links to many articles by eminent and respected economic observers which would suggest you are completely wrong. But, you could do the same and find articles that suggest I am wrong. We both choose to believe what we want so there is no point starting a pointless debate about it. However, I note even this morning Osbourne is defending the loss of £1 billion to the Uk tax payer on the latest sale of RBS assets.
But, this thread is about the issues caused by the mass migration from failed states surrounding Europe. It is a EU problem even though some in the EU would say 70%-80% of the migration is the direct result of the UK's (and it's ally the US) failed military policies in some of those countries. More specifically, this thread is about the immense problems being endured by people in Kent and by the owners and employees (and their families) of the businesses in Kent and the small haulage and logistic businesses that rely on efficient transport links across the channel. Given that they are not responsible for these problems (unlike the Bankers) I think it is entirely appropriate that all these businesses should be 'bailed out' by the UK tax payer immediately. Do you not agree with that single point?
Actually the thread is about traffic chaos in Kent which is, in part, due to industrial action by French transport employees working in Calais.
Nonsense. Try actually reading the thread. Not just the title.
All hail the thread changer, for he is the master. None shall question him.
Not what I asked though is it I Said regardless of their eligibility to seek legal asylum in the UK, I have no issue contributing to a fellow human being that needs assistance in being safe from persecution and violence in their own country once they have been correctly investigated and it's been verified they are a genuine asylum seekers/ refugee
So I will ask again do you think it is in anyway acceptable or correct that someone who is not a genuine asylum seeker and has not left their country under the required and accepted reasons to gain sanctuary and safety but have done so due to economic or other reasons that do not and are not accepted in any eu country as a valid reason to enter another country and as a consequence have broken the law and are an illegal immigrant with no legal rights to be in this or any other country and have only gained entry via illegal and deceitful means
I think that is clear enough and not framed in any way so that you can provide a yes or no answer and to then explain your reason why, it's a debate not a trick or trip hazard, and I also would love to know your view on how such a legislation could be passed and nor be in any political manifesto of the labour government provided to the people they represent
I used the term 'asylum seekers'. Some will turn out to be genuine and some will not. Whilst their status is being established we have a responsibility to provide them with subsistence. I don't know what the the regulations are in the circumstances where the asylum seeker is deemed not to be genuine. Not sure why you think I have not answered your question. I can't be more clear. Yes, I think we should pay asylum seekers subsistence.
Why do you think they want to come to the UK rather than stay in France.
We had this question about 15 pages ago I think.
Firstly, it is not the case that all the asylum seekers that get into Europe want to come to the UK. Most end up in other European countries.
I read somewhere that one of the reasons for those wanting to come to the UK is the language.
Red these are old arguments, find some solutions. You make yourself too easy to dig out. There's a problem, who's fault is subjective, any practical solutions?
Wasn't making an argument. I was trying to provide perspective.
Your problem is that the perspective is completely irrelevant (for example one could counter that the cost to support one migrant family is a fraction of the hundreds of millions of public money trade unions get from the the taxpayer but it would be equally irrelevant).
Your £850bn figure is also hilariously inaccurate and I doubt you even understand what it actually means. £850bn was the figure that was made available by the Government to provide short-term support to the banking system in terms of emergency liquidity - in fact only £76bn of that was used to purchase shares in failing banks, with any other money being used to pay for auditors, consultants, financial experts etc. to assess the situation, the total cost of which only ran into the tens of millions.
So no, the bank bailout did not cost the taxpayer £850bn. The RBS shares are being sold at a loss but the Government is hoping to make up the loss by selling the recovering Lloyds shares at a profit, so in the end the net cost to the taxpayer will likely only be millions, perhaps a billion or two if things go a bit Pete Tong. This is compared to perhaps over a trillion that could have been lost if the banking system had been allowed to fail.
How's that for perspective?
It's getting like Question Time on here when they allow the audience to have a comment on the question and Dimbleby seems to always be able to find the tinfoil hat loony who, not matter what the question is (fox hunting, prescription charges, lifeboats) will always pipe up "Yeah but it's the Tory Eton Bankers who are the real problem! Let's get rid of them before we sort out any other issues!".
Another typically pompous and arrogant post from CL's self appointed 'expert' on all matters political. I could google 'cost to UK tax payer of bank bail out' and find links to many articles by eminent and respected economic observers which would suggest you are completely wrong. But, you could do the same and find articles that suggest I am wrong. We both choose to believe what we want so there is no point starting a pointless debate about it. However, I note even this morning Osbourne is defending the loss of £1 billion to the Uk tax payer on the latest sale of RBS assets.
But, this thread is about the issues caused by the mass migration from failed states surrounding Europe. It is a EU problem even though some in the EU would say 70%-80% of the migration is the direct result of the UK's (and it's ally the US) failed military policies in some of those countries. More specifically, this thread is about the immense problems being endured by people in Kent and by the owners and employees (and their families) of the businesses in Kent and the small haulage and logistic businesses that rely on efficient transport links across the channel. Given that they are not responsible for these problems (unlike the Bankers) I think it is entirely appropriate that all these businesses should be 'bailed out' by the UK tax payer immediately. Do you not agree with that single point?
Actually the thread is about traffic chaos in Kent which is, in part, due to industrial action by French transport employees working in Calais.
Nonsense. Try actually reading the thread. Not just the title.
All hail the thread changer, for he is the master. None shall question him.
The thread morphed into a debate about asylum seekers and immigration on page 2. I made my first post in this thread on page 9.
Red these are old arguments, find some solutions. You make yourself too easy to dig out. There's a problem, who's fault is subjective, any practical solutions?
Wasn't making an argument. I was trying to provide perspective.
Your problem is that the perspective is completely irrelevant (for example one could counter that the cost to support one migrant family is a fraction of the hundreds of millions of public money trade unions get from the the taxpayer but it would be equally irrelevant).
Your £850bn figure is also hilariously inaccurate and I doubt you even understand what it actually means. £850bn was the figure that was made available by the Government to provide short-term support to the banking system in terms of emergency liquidity - in fact only £76bn of that was used to purchase shares in failing banks, with any other money being used to pay for auditors, consultants, financial experts etc. to assess the situation, the total cost of which only ran into the tens of millions.
So no, the bank bailout did not cost the taxpayer £850bn. The RBS shares are being sold at a loss but the Government is hoping to make up the loss by selling the recovering Lloyds shares at a profit, so in the end the net cost to the taxpayer will likely only be millions, perhaps a billion or two if things go a bit Pete Tong. This is compared to perhaps over a trillion that could have been lost if the banking system had been allowed to fail.
How's that for perspective?
It's getting like Question Time on here when they allow the audience to have a comment on the question and Dimbleby seems to always be able to find the tinfoil hat loony who, not matter what the question is (fox hunting, prescription charges, lifeboats) will always pipe up "Yeah but it's the Tory Eton Bankers who are the real problem! Let's get rid of them before we sort out any other issues!".
Another typically pompous and arrogant post from CL's self appointed 'expert' on all matters political. I could google 'cost to UK tax payer of bank bail out' and find links to many articles by eminent and respected economic observers which would suggest you are completely wrong. But, you could do the same and find articles that suggest I am wrong. We both choose to believe what we want so there is no point starting a pointless debate about it. However, I note even this morning Osbourne is defending the loss of £1 billion to the Uk tax payer on the latest sale of RBS assets.
But, this thread is about the issues caused by the mass migration from failed states surrounding Europe. It is a EU problem even though some in the EU would say 70%-80% of the migration is the direct result of the UK's (and it's ally the US) failed military policies in some of those countries. More specifically, this thread is about the immense problems being endured by people in Kent and by the owners and employees (and their families) of the businesses in Kent and the small haulage and logistic businesses that rely on efficient transport links across the channel. Given that they are not responsible for these problems (unlike the Bankers) I think it is entirely appropriate that all these businesses should be 'bailed out' by the UK tax payer immediately. Do you not agree with that single point?
Actually the thread is about traffic chaos in Kent which is, in part, due to industrial action by French transport employees working in Calais.
Nonsense. Try actually reading the thread. Not just the title.
All hail the thread changer, for he is the master. None shall question him, Coz he basis his opinion on what he reads on the BBC website!
Red these are old arguments, find some solutions. You make yourself too easy to dig out. There's a problem, who's fault is subjective, any practical solutions?
Wasn't making an argument. I was trying to provide perspective.
Your problem is that the perspective is completely irrelevant (for example one could counter that the cost to support one migrant family is a fraction of the hundreds of millions of public money trade unions get from the the taxpayer but it would be equally irrelevant).
Your £850bn figure is also hilariously inaccurate and I doubt you even understand what it actually means. £850bn was the figure that was made available by the Government to provide short-term support to the banking system in terms of emergency liquidity - in fact only £76bn of that was used to purchase shares in failing banks, with any other money being used to pay for auditors, consultants, financial experts etc. to assess the situation, the total cost of which only ran into the tens of millions.
So no, the bank bailout did not cost the taxpayer £850bn. The RBS shares are being sold at a loss but the Government is hoping to make up the loss by selling the recovering Lloyds shares at a profit, so in the end the net cost to the taxpayer will likely only be millions, perhaps a billion or two if things go a bit Pete Tong. This is compared to perhaps over a trillion that could have been lost if the banking system had been allowed to fail.
How's that for perspective?
It's getting like Question Time on here when they allow the audience to have a comment on the question and Dimbleby seems to always be able to find the tinfoil hat loony who, not matter what the question is (fox hunting, prescription charges, lifeboats) will always pipe up "Yeah but it's the Tory Eton Bankers who are the real problem! Let's get rid of them before we sort out any other issues!".
Another typically pompous and arrogant post from CL's self appointed 'expert' on all matters political. I could google 'cost to UK tax payer of bank bail out' and find links to many articles by eminent and respected economic observers which would suggest you are completely wrong. But, you could do the same and find articles that suggest I am wrong. We both choose to believe what we want so there is no point starting a pointless debate about it. However, I note even this morning Osbourne is defending the loss of £1 billion to the Uk tax payer on the latest sale of RBS assets.
But, this thread is about the issues caused by the mass migration from failed states surrounding Europe. It is a EU problem even though some in the EU would say 70%-80% of the migration is the direct result of the UK's (and it's ally the US) failed military policies in some of those countries. More specifically, this thread is about the immense problems being endured by people in Kent and by the owners and employees (and their families) of the businesses in Kent and the small haulage and logistic businesses that rely on efficient transport links across the channel. Given that they are not responsible for these problems (unlike the Bankers) I think it is entirely appropriate that all these businesses should be 'bailed out' by the UK tax payer immediately. Do you not agree with that single point?
Actually the thread is about traffic chaos in Kent which is, in part, due to industrial action by French transport employees working in Calais.
Nonsense. Try actually reading the thread. Not just the title.
So it's ok for you to change the subject away from the threat title but if someone else does they, jolly well, have to stop it and go back to what you want to talk about?
Red these are old arguments, find some solutions. You make yourself too easy to dig out. There's a problem, who's fault is subjective, any practical solutions?
Wasn't making an argument. I was trying to provide perspective.
Your problem is that the perspective is completely irrelevant (for example one could counter that the cost to support one migrant family is a fraction of the hundreds of millions of public money trade unions get from the the taxpayer but it would be equally irrelevant).
Your £850bn figure is also hilariously inaccurate and I doubt you even understand what it actually means. £850bn was the figure that was made available by the Government to provide short-term support to the banking system in terms of emergency liquidity - in fact only £76bn of that was used to purchase shares in failing banks, with any other money being used to pay for auditors, consultants, financial experts etc. to assess the situation, the total cost of which only ran into the tens of millions.
So no, the bank bailout did not cost the taxpayer £850bn. The RBS shares are being sold at a loss but the Government is hoping to make up the loss by selling the recovering Lloyds shares at a profit, so in the end the net cost to the taxpayer will likely only be millions, perhaps a billion or two if things go a bit Pete Tong. This is compared to perhaps over a trillion that could have been lost if the banking system had been allowed to fail.
How's that for perspective?
It's getting like Question Time on here when they allow the audience to have a comment on the question and Dimbleby seems to always be able to find the tinfoil hat loony who, not matter what the question is (fox hunting, prescription charges, lifeboats) will always pipe up "Yeah but it's the Tory Eton Bankers who are the real problem! Let's get rid of them before we sort out any other issues!".
Another typically pompous and arrogant post from CL's self appointed 'expert' on all matters political. I could google 'cost to UK tax payer of bank bail out' and find links to many articles by eminent and respected economic observers which would suggest you are completely wrong. But, you could do the same and find articles that suggest I am wrong. We both choose to believe what we want so there is no point starting a pointless debate about it. However, I note even this morning Osbourne is defending the loss of £1 billion to the Uk tax payer on the latest sale of RBS assets.
But, this thread is about the issues caused by the mass migration from failed states surrounding Europe. It is a EU problem even though some in the EU would say 70%-80% of the migration is the direct result of the UK's (and it's ally the US) failed military policies in some of those countries. More specifically, this thread is about the immense problems being endured by people in Kent and by the owners and employees (and their families) of the businesses in Kent and the small haulage and logistic businesses that rely on efficient transport links across the channel. Given that they are not responsible for these problems (unlike the Bankers) I think it is entirely appropriate that all these businesses should be 'bailed out' by the UK tax payer immediately. Do you not agree with that single point?
Actually the thread is about traffic chaos in Kent which is, in part, due to industrial action by French transport employees working in Calais.
Nonsense. Try actually reading the thread. Not just the title.
So it's ok for you to change the subject away from the threat title but if someone else does they, jolly well, have to stop it and go back to what you want to talk about?
WTF you on about?
People started talking about asylum seekers on page 2. You got involved in the discussion about asylum seekers on page 6. I made my first post on page 9.
Red these are old arguments, find some solutions. You make yourself too easy to dig out. There's a problem, who's fault is subjective, any practical solutions?
Wasn't making an argument. I was trying to provide perspective.
Your problem is that the perspective is completely irrelevant (for example one could counter that the cost to support one migrant family is a fraction of the hundreds of millions of public money trade unions get from the the taxpayer but it would be equally irrelevant).
Your £850bn figure is also hilariously inaccurate and I doubt you even understand what it actually means. £850bn was the figure that was made available by the Government to provide short-term support to the banking system in terms of emergency liquidity - in fact only £76bn of that was used to purchase shares in failing banks, with any other money being used to pay for auditors, consultants, financial experts etc. to assess the situation, the total cost of which only ran into the tens of millions.
So no, the bank bailout did not cost the taxpayer £850bn. The RBS shares are being sold at a loss but the Government is hoping to make up the loss by selling the recovering Lloyds shares at a profit, so in the end the net cost to the taxpayer will likely only be millions, perhaps a billion or two if things go a bit Pete Tong. This is compared to perhaps over a trillion that could have been lost if the banking system had been allowed to fail.
How's that for perspective?
It's getting like Question Time on here when they allow the audience to have a comment on the question and Dimbleby seems to always be able to find the tinfoil hat loony who, not matter what the question is (fox hunting, prescription charges, lifeboats) will always pipe up "Yeah but it's the Tory Eton Bankers who are the real problem! Let's get rid of them before we sort out any other issues!".
Another typically pompous and arrogant post from CL's self appointed 'expert' on all matters political. I could google 'cost to UK tax payer of bank bail out' and find links to many articles by eminent and respected economic observers which would suggest you are completely wrong. But, you could do the same and find articles that suggest I am wrong. We both choose to believe what we want so there is no point starting a pointless debate about it. However, I note even this morning Osbourne is defending the loss of £1 billion to the Uk tax payer on the latest sale of RBS assets.
But, this thread is about the issues caused by the mass migration from failed states surrounding Europe. It is a EU problem even though some in the EU would say 70%-80% of the migration is the direct result of the UK's (and it's ally the US) failed military policies in some of those countries. More specifically, this thread is about the immense problems being endured by people in Kent and by the owners and employees (and their families) of the businesses in Kent and the small haulage and logistic businesses that rely on efficient transport links across the channel. Given that they are not responsible for these problems (unlike the Bankers) I think it is entirely appropriate that all these businesses should be 'bailed out' by the UK tax payer immediately. Do you not agree with that single point?
Actually the thread is about traffic chaos in Kent which is, in part, due to industrial action by French transport employees working in Calais.
Nonsense. Try actually reading the thread. Not just the title.
So it's ok for you to change the subject away from the threat title but if someone else does they, jolly well, have to stop it and go back to what you want to talk about?
WTF you on about?
People started talking about asylum seekers on page 2. You got involved in the discussion about asylum seekers on page 6. I made my first post on page 9.
Red these are old arguments, find some solutions. You make yourself too easy to dig out. There's a problem, who's fault is subjective, any practical solutions?
Wasn't making an argument. I was trying to provide perspective.
Your problem is that the perspective is completely irrelevant (for example one could counter that the cost to support one migrant family is a fraction of the hundreds of millions of public money trade unions get from the the taxpayer but it would be equally irrelevant).
Your £850bn figure is also hilariously inaccurate and I doubt you even understand what it actually means. £850bn was the figure that was made available by the Government to provide short-term support to the banking system in terms of emergency liquidity - in fact only £76bn of that was used to purchase shares in failing banks, with any other money being used to pay for auditors, consultants, financial experts etc. to assess the situation, the total cost of which only ran into the tens of millions.
So no, the bank bailout did not cost the taxpayer £850bn. The RBS shares are being sold at a loss but the Government is hoping to make up the loss by selling the recovering Lloyds shares at a profit, so in the end the net cost to the taxpayer will likely only be millions, perhaps a billion or two if things go a bit Pete Tong. This is compared to perhaps over a trillion that could have been lost if the banking system had been allowed to fail.
How's that for perspective?
It's getting like Question Time on here when they allow the audience to have a comment on the question and Dimbleby seems to always be able to find the tinfoil hat loony who, not matter what the question is (fox hunting, prescription charges, lifeboats) will always pipe up "Yeah but it's the Tory Eton Bankers who are the real problem! Let's get rid of them before we sort out any other issues!".
Another typically pompous and arrogant post from CL's self appointed 'expert' on all matters political. I could google 'cost to UK tax payer of bank bail out' and find links to many articles by eminent and respected economic observers which would suggest you are completely wrong. But, you could do the same and find articles that suggest I am wrong. We both choose to believe what we want so there is no point starting a pointless debate about it. However, I note even this morning Osbourne is defending the loss of £1 billion to the Uk tax payer on the latest sale of RBS assets.
But, this thread is about the issues caused by the mass migration from failed states surrounding Europe. It is a EU problem even though some in the EU would say 70%-80% of the migration is the direct result of the UK's (and it's ally the US) failed military policies in some of those countries. More specifically, this thread is about the immense problems being endured by people in Kent and by the owners and employees (and their families) of the businesses in Kent and the small haulage and logistic businesses that rely on efficient transport links across the channel. Given that they are not responsible for these problems (unlike the Bankers) I think it is entirely appropriate that all these businesses should be 'bailed out' by the UK tax payer immediately. Do you not agree with that single point?
Actually the thread is about traffic chaos in Kent which is, in part, due to industrial action by French transport employees working in Calais.
Nonsense. Try actually reading the thread. Not just the title.
So it's ok for you to change the subject away from the threat title but if someone else does they, jolly well, have to stop it and go back to what you want to talk about?
WTF you on about?
People started talking about asylum seekers on page 2. You got involved in the discussion about asylum seekers on page 6. I made my first post on page 9.
Pompous twat.
You started your frothing mouthed anti-asylum seeking, anti-French ranting on page 4 of this thread! You ignorant piece of shit.
Comments
We had this question about 15 pages ago I think.
I read somewhere that one of the reasons for those wanting to come to the UK is the language.
So not the climate, average baguette length, Lakeside shopping centre, benefits system, 24 hour tube network, healthcare or freedom of the press?
I also asked your opinion on a government passing such a disgusting piece of legislation without informing people like me who voted labour at that time that they intended to allow those who do not follow the correct protocol when seeking asylum such luxurious benefits that could be spent on the NHS, our elderly and education needs, come on you are the first to highlight the devastating cuts that were banded around on the general election thread, it also could have saved one of the osterity cuts that people marched for, it's a blatant attempt to mislead and can only have been done as part of the secret plan people like brown were trying to bring in where these people would then be able to vote also on matters that concern British people and no one else
It's the icing on the labour cake and it's scandalous that those who bang on about equality and justice are happy that it's own tax paying nation can be screwed just so someone's dirty campaign cam be achieved,
And I was told the conservatives were a party of lying low life lack of morales and lack of care for anyone not rich or from Eton
So does that mean that the labour party actually didn't give a fuck about anyone who could possibly vote against them and was not entitled to these sort of bribes and backhanded benefits, I was right all along the labour party is only good for the work shy feckless and those who take more than they should and cry when they can't be given the same. Or that there's people actually having to do a days work where in the past under labour we put three in a position that one could and should do
I know a few coppers and the general analogy goes something like this
I arrested a (insert foreign country here) bloke the other day and had to wait with him for xx amount of hours to get a (insert foreign language here) translator to take a statement from/interview him.
Now its hard to do this without sounding like Richard Littlejohn here but. It's the same with a lot of traffic wardens. If you try and converse with them and ask a question or two its all 'I don't understand, my English is not good' but when you start to lose your shit with them all of a sudden they understand and speak the Queens English pretty well.
I've got a good inside track on what goes on in the real world and in communities that house loads of the types currently laying siege to Calais and motorists running the gauntlet during a strike. As much as politicians would love us to believe all migrants are coming here to prop up the NHS and clean toilets I can vouch that a hell of a lot of them ain't interested in working full stop. Let alone for what peanuts the NHS will pay them and having to walk on their own two feet when they can be housed, fed, watered and clothed (the whole family im talking about here) and be given cash to live on whilst having the time left in the working day to rob documents from rubbish bins and recycling, run child sex rackets, steal all things made of metal amd generally be a royal pain in the bollocks.
This sounds familiar because we already have millions of natives who are pretty good at this. We don't need more
I know this started as a debate about traffic and Op Stack, but it is amazing how we've come back to wider political debates and arguments.
I really don't think we can pigeonhole one another anymore. For me there is no loony socialist left or heartless conservative right wing. I am left leaning and a socialist at heart, I believe in helping your fellow man and don't have much love for what the Tories stand for. However, I don't like/want or have much time for the plight of SOME of these immigrants based on first hand reports from Nth London Addick.
I don't think I lean any where any more not left or right but the biggest shame is there is no middle
ANY politician who puts themselves forward as somebody who can be in charge would be equally criticised on this one. We are here, we are now, and whoever is holding the power at this moment has to sort it out effectively. The Calais/Sangatte/Jungle type issue has been around for ages, and the can has been kicked down the road too often by all politicians.
I am afraid the present government must act now, not to win votes, not to look good, but because the roof is clearly leaking and the rain is getting in.
The Mirror? Or Morning Star?
None shall question him.
People started talking about asylum seekers on page 2. You got involved in the discussion about asylum seekers on page 6. I made my first post on page 9.