General News

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

And a quick reminder about the person that Farage et al carry water for:

 

 

Vietnam?

 

Korea?

 

Very much the Spurs of international warfare.

 

Besides, being good at war isn't something to be proud of. (That'll raise a few hackles!)

Edited 2 May 2025 by Trav Le Bleu

[purpleronnie]

1 hour ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Can we hear them?

Well it depends on what they say as the reason, here are some examples.

 

I don't want all those illegal immigrants coming over here in boats.  To which I respond that most are asylum seekers not illegal immigrants.

 

We're a soft touch they all come here for benefits.  To which I respond that we take far less than many other suropean countries, and the asylum seekers can get more 'benefits' in other countries.

 

We put them up in 5 star hotels.  To which I respond as soon as hotels are used to house asylum seekers they stop being a 5 star hotel.

 

I would say they are the ones I here the most.  I usually end up not pushing it and trying to change the subject.

[NorthernFox]

Anyone know who designed this footer that has an updated one?

 

[leicsmac]

33 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Vietnam?

 

Korea?

 

Very much the Spurs of international warfare.

 

Besides, being good at war isn't something to be proud of. (That'll raise a few hackles!)

You'd be amazed at the amount of people (most of whom haven't been within a thousand miles of a war) who think that it is.

[The Year Of The Fox]

43 minutes ago, purpleronnie said:

Well it depends on what they say as the reason, here are some examples.

 

I don't want all those illegal immigrants coming over here in boats.  To which I respond that most are asylum seekers not illegal immigrants.

 

We're a soft touch they all come here for benefits.  To which I respond that we take far less than many other suropean countries, and the asylum seekers can get more 'benefits' in other countries.

 

We put them up in 5 star hotels.  To which I respond as soon as hotels are used to house asylum seekers they stop being a 5 star hotel.

 

I would say they are the ones I here the most.  I usually end up not pushing it and trying to change the subject.

Quite wishy washy counter arguments then really, mainly based on semantics. 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Quite wishy washy counter arguments then really, mainly based on semantics. 

...and what of the argument that the foreign policy of Reform would not even come close to addressing the origin of these "small boat" attempts in the first place?

 

Or is the cause immaterial and only the solution matters?

[The Year Of The Fox]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...and what of the argument that the foreign policy of Reform would not even come close to addressing the origin of these "small boat" attempts in the first place?

 

Or is the cause immaterial and only the solution matters?

I don’t think you can prevent the cause (as Starmer is currently proving) but a harsher solution may deter them from crossing.

[davieG]

The newly elected Reform Councillor for NW Leicestershire seems to think it was the young voters that got him elected.

 

Mind there were some old uns in Derby who voted  Reform because they were different one couldn't name any of their policy and could only come up with Farage.

[Dahnsouff]

Reform is a protest vote, just for different reasons based on the demographic voting.

[Sampson]

7 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

I don’t think you can prevent the cause (as Starmer is currently proving) but a harsher solution may deter them from crossing.

Quite a wishy washy response yourself there tbf. What do you mean exactly by a harsher solution?

[samlcfc]

14 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

I don’t think you can prevent the cause (as Starmer is currently proving) but a harsher solution may deter them from crossing.

I can't recall them detailing a particularly harsh solution to the issue.

 

I appreciate they're not in government yet, but they seem to have their sights on becoming more significant.

 

They've said they'll immediately deport migrants, without suggesting where or how. They've also raised offshore processing, without suggesting where or how.

 

I note that they've advised they'd leave the ECHR to facilitate the above, but considering the history of their prominent members, it seems that move is more likely to be used against people in the UK in way that's unrelated to the migrant issue.

Edited 2 May 2025 by samlcfc

[The Year Of The Fox]

6 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Quite a wishy washy response yourself there tbf. What do you mean exactly by a harsher solution?

I’m not in any form of power mate, I’m merely just a punter. 
 

I’d be happy for them to be deterred by any means possible. The who, where and why isn’t for me to come up with, any more than it is down to you to want RvN out but don’t have to personally select the next manager.

[Sampson]

10 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

I’m not in any form of power mate, I’m merely just a punter. 
 

I’d be happy for them to be deterred by any means possible. The who, where and why isn’t for me to come up with, any more than it is down to you to want RvN out but don’t have to personally select the next manager.

But that is absolutely up to you because there’s clear moral limits and red lines we all have that we wouldn’t be prepared for the government to have. For example you say “deterred by any means possible” but I’m sure you don’t genuinely mean “any means possible” - we all have limits of where that line of acceptability is - I’m sure none of us would want the government to break international law or the Geneva convention, nor would we want the government to appoint people to kill or avoid rescuing drowning people trying to cross for example, especially when so many are children. I’m sure we all agree that no one deserves to die for trying to move country without going through the proper legal process:

 

That’s why you have to know where your own limits are or aren’t, because you could end up electing a government who enacts mass murder if you genuinely dont care *how* a government does things. 

Edited 2 May 2025 by Sampson

[samlcfc]

5 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

I’m not in any form of power mate, I’m merely just a punter. 
 

I’d be happy for them to be deterred by any means possible. The who, where and why isn’t for me to come up with, any more than it is down to you to want RvN out but don’t have to personally select the next manager.

I'm not sure that's comparable. Football fans don't have the slightest say in how their club is ran.

 

This is why they'll grow in popularity. 

 

They're just a bunch of chancers that have recognised a capacity to manipulate the latest wave of disenfranchised voters.

 

I use the word manipulation, because you can see the process play out elsewhere. Just offer unworkable solutions to current issues, then lay the blame elsewhere whilst refusing to engage in good faith conversation with any of your critics.

 

I saw earlier, that their latest big name in North Lincolnshire has decided that's the way to go with the media.

[leicsmac]

32 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

I don’t think you can prevent the cause (as Starmer is currently proving) but a harsher solution may deter them from crossing.

Fair enough.

 

As @Sampson above then says, when you go down that road, you likely end up abandoning a great many human beings to their fate simply because they weren't lucky enough to be born in the right place.

 

How well that sits is clearly up to the beholder.

[Lionator]

2 hours ago, the fox said:

Which was the point of the second part of my post. When you push 18 year olds out to fend for themselves they will scamper to find any job they can which will lead to a surplus of supply hence a lower wage for everyone and the inability to start a family at a young age do to a wage barley fit to support 1 person let alone a family.

 

 

Yep but these are problems that Reform are going to make worse not better because they’re for low tax, low wages.

[Parafox]

6 hours ago, LcFc_Smiv said:

My unpopular opinion that I previously refrained from posting is that one of the biggest threats we face is an over increasing elderly population, how you fund and support them, when their a demographic that will provide very little in return in that stage of their life. Don't get me wrong, it sounds cruel and it's not nice, but how do you account for supporting an ever growing demographic that will put very little back into the economy. I know it goes deeper than that, but as others state, it is a challenge we are not prepared for.

 

Is "threat" the term you actually meant?

 

Surely you meant "societal problem" or "political/economic issue". I hope so.

 

I account for it by suggesting that, as a 1st world society, we're pretty much bound by decency to look after the ever growing elderly population. 

 

The irony is, that as an advanced society, we have been able to develop diagnostics, treatments, highly advanced interventions and operations, medicines that keep people living longer. Many of us will have the experience of seeing someone so frail that they are all but deceased but physically still alive due to the clinical/medical science. Nursing homes are full of them. 

 

The things that would have killed us as little as 60 years ago are now things of the past as we advance our knowledge and understanding.  There's no way back and surely it's a good thing to advance.

 

I would take issue with the phrase "put very little back into the economy". What would you like them to do? Many, if not most of the very elderly people now would have worked, paid taxes, and contributed to the economy in far greater terms in the past than those on the benefits system today.

 

What would be your view on the state paying for the care of the many currently able bodied claimants when they become frail and decrepit in the years to come as they have paid nothing into to the economy?  Just say no?

 

Of course not.

 

I get the fact that the longer people live the more interventions they need and there's a cost involved.

 

How that is addressed is for the future decision makers in Governments across the developed world.

Edited 2 May 2025 by Parafox

[The Year Of The Fox]

2 minutes ago, Sampson said:

But that is absolutely up to you because there’s clear moral limits and red lines we all have that we wouldn’t be prepared for the government to have. For example you say “deterred by any means possible” but I’m sure you don’t genuinely mean “any means possible” - we all have limits of where that line of acceptability is - I’m sure none of us would want the government to break international law or the Geneva convention, nor would we want the government to appoint people to kill or avoid rescuing drowning people trying to cross for example. I’m sure we all agree that no one deserves to die for trying to move country without going through the proper legal process:

 

That’s why you have to know where your own limits are or aren’t, because you could end up electing a government who enacts mass murder if you genuinely dont care *how* a government does things. 

I think voters of any party are automatically assuming international law shan’t be broken, by way as leaving people to drown as per your example. 
 

Locking illegal immigrants up rather than housing them in any form of hotel or place of comfort should absolutely be standard whilst processing takes place. 
 

Any form of benefit should cease immediately until said people have put back into the economy for a set period. Yes, I’m talking access to healthcare, access to food banks etc. 

 

I’m not a fan of the right of access to state education either.

 

Once asylum has been granted, they by and largely deserve nothing more than the very basic level of support, particularly if showing a complete unwillingness to put back into society, or an unwillingness to learn the ways of their new countries life. 
 

It’s all fairly harsh stuff I know, but it’s what’s clearly required at this stage I think. 

 

 

[Sampson]

8 minutes ago, Parafox said:

 

I account for it by suggesting that, as a 1st world society, we're pretty much bound by decency to look after the ever growing elderly population. 

 

The irony is, that as an advanced society, we have been able to develop diagnostics, treatments, highly advanced interventions and operations, medicines that keep people living longer. Many of us will have the experience of seeing someone so frail that they are all but deceased but physically still alive due to the clinical/medical science. Nursing homes are full of them. 

 

The things that would have killed us as little as 60 years ago are now things of the past as we advance our knowledge and understanding.

 

I would take issue with the phrase "put very little back into the economy". What would you like them to do? Many, if not most of the very elderly people now would have worked, paid taxes, and contributed to the economy in far greater terms in the past than those on the benefits system today.

 

What would be your view on the state paying for the care of the many currently able bodied claimants when they become frail and decrepit in the years to come as they have paid nothing into to the economy?  Just say no?

 

Of course not.

 

There's no way back and surely it's a good thing to advance.

 

I get the fact that the longer people live the more interventions they need and there's a cost involved.

 

How that is addressed is for the future decision makers in Governments across the developed world.

The issue here isn’t people growing older per se, it’s the fact that for decades people in the west suddenly started having way less children and so there is not enough workers to support them, general rule of thumb is you need around 3 workers per retired person for the pension and healthcare systems to function - and in most western countries we’re on course to reach the point where it’s like 1.5 workers for every retired person (or even 1:1 in some places). For years it was assumed we’d solve this problem by just importing workers, but the western world has obviously taken a sharp turn against this and being pro-immigration is becoming a more and more politically unelectable position.

Edited 2 May 2025 by Sampson

[Zear0]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

And a quick reminder about the person that Farage et al carry water for:

 

 

The 1941-45 war was a nasty bit of business tbf. 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

I think voters of any party are automatically assuming international law shan’t be broken, by way as leaving people to drown as per your example. 
 

Locking illegal immigrants up rather than housing them in any form of hotel or place of comfort should absolutely be standard whilst processing takes place. 
 

Any form of benefit should cease immediately until said people have put back into the economy for a set period. Yes, I’m talking access to healthcare, access to food banks etc. 

 

I’m not a fan of the right of access to state education either.

 

Once asylum has been granted, they by and largely deserve nothing more than the very basic level of support, particularly if showing a complete unwillingness to put back into society, or an unwillingness to learn the ways of their new countries life. 
 

It’s all fairly harsh stuff I know, but it’s what’s clearly required at this stage I think. 

 

 

I'm not sure that assumption can be made across the board any more tbh.

 

Or if it can now, it may not soon.

[purpleronnie]

1 hour ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Quite wishy washy counter arguments then really, mainly based on semantics. 

Yeah legal..illegal...same difference.

[Lionator]

8 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

I think voters of any party are automatically assuming international law shan’t be broken, by way as leaving people to drown as per your example. 
 

Locking illegal immigrants up rather than housing them in any form of hotel or place of comfort should absolutely be standard whilst processing takes place. 
 

Any form of benefit should cease immediately until said people have put back into the economy for a set period. Yes, I’m talking access to healthcare, access to food banks etc. 

 

I’m not a fan of the right of access to state education either.

 

Once asylum has been granted, they by and largely deserve nothing more than the very basic level of support, particularly if showing a complete unwillingness to put back into society, or an unwillingness to learn the ways of their new countries life. 
 

It’s all fairly harsh stuff I know, but it’s what’s clearly required at this stage I think. 

 

 

Where are you going to lock them up?

 

Prisons are full and we can’t build anything. 

Edited 2 May 2025 by Lionator

[purpleronnie]

51 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

I don’t think you can prevent the cause (as Starmer is currently proving) but a harsher solution may deter them from crossing.

Open safe routes that we closed down?  Allow the french to process them like they offered?

Edited 2 May 2025 by purpleronnie

[bovril]

I have to say as a Europhile who was living in Sofia during the panic over hordes of Bulgarians and Romanians and as someone with family and friends from Eastern Europe, it is very, very funny that the English continue to be so discombobulated by rising numbers of immigrants that they are threatening to vote for the far right and wreck the country economically and socially even more than it has been wrecked already. That's after we heard for years "if we don't get hard Brexit it risks the far right getting into power".

 

'Global Britain' not going down that well it seems