General News Thread

[Trav Le Bleu]

On 26/06/2026 at 13:06, lcfcell said:

Stop the incentive for them coming here for one 

The incentive, much like the cake, is a lie.

It's a lie fueled by people traffickers for their benefit, "streets paved with gold", etc. I doubt many would make the risky journey for the actual truth.

 

It's so simple. Take out the traffickers, whom I suspect might be backed by bad actors. No need to waste your own troops when you can said waves of foreigners instead. Then install your puppet and stoke the fires of division. 

 

Job practically done.

[Parafox]

10 hours ago, Free Falling Foxes said:

Fairy Liquid to the rescue

Nice story. 

Can't wait for it to be excruciatingly woven into there future adverts.

[Robo61]

13 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

The incentive, much like the cake, is a lie.

It's a lie fueled by people traffickers for their benefit, "streets paved with gold", etc. I doubt many would make the risky journey for the actual truth.

 

It's so simple. Take out the traffickers, whom I suspect might be backed by bad actors. No need to waste your own troops when you can said waves of foreigners instead. Then install your puppet and stoke the fires of division. 

 

Job practically done.

Simply saying take out the traffickers, is no different to saying stop them getting in the boat.  A solution has to involve steps to achieve the aim. This is exactly what Starmer said he would do, but he found it to be not as simple as that. 

[welck12]

1 hour ago, Robo61 said:

Simply saying take out the traffickers, is no different to saying stop them getting in the boat.  A solution has to involve steps to achieve the aim. This is exactly what Starmer said he would do, but he found it to be not as simple as that. 

Open up ways for people to come here easily to claim asylum. Set up processing centres and process them quickly. It creates vast amount of jobs for people to process them, let's people with legitimate claims get processed and into the country so they can settle and contribute quicker, allows us to remove people who shouldn't be here quickly. That's the easiest way to stop the gangs. You need to eradicate their business model, no need for boats if they can come here freely off their own accord. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

9 hours ago, Robo61 said:

Simply saying take out the traffickers, is no different to saying stop them getting in the boat.  A solution has to involve steps to achieve the aim. This is exactly what Starmer said he would do, but he found it to be not as simple as that. 

It's the crux, the kingpin, the keystone. You remove it, it all falls apart. Of course it isn't easy, especially if, as I suspect they're supported by foreign governments.

 

Maybe that's the answer. Counter-traffickers, sponsored by our government, infiltrating the gangs, misdirecting and frustrating them. Modern day privateers.

[Robo61]

32 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

It's the crux, the kingpin, the keystone. You remove it, it all falls apart. Of course it isn't easy, especially if, as I suspect they're supported by foreign governments.

 

Maybe that's the answer. Counter-traffickers, sponsored by our government, infiltrating the gangs, misdirecting and frustrating them. Modern day privateers.

As far as I can see welck12 has the solution, but I am guessing that would not go down well with those the government is trying to appease.

[Trav Le Bleu]

31 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

As far as I can see welck12 has the solution, but I am guessing that would not go down well with those the government is trying to appease.

I agree.

 

But you couldn't make a Hollywood blockbuster out of his solution.

[leicsmac]

Carney annoying the more hard-line Israelis, then. 

 

Good. They deserve to be annoyed consistently. 

[Salisbury Fox]

18 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

As far as I can see welck12 has the solution, but I am guessing that would not go down well with those the government is trying to appease.

I don’t think the solution is as simple as suggested for a number of reasons, including:

• If the UK made itself significantly easier to access, it could become a more attractive destination than many others increasing volume.
• Those who are ineligible or fail the process could continue to use traffickers. Of course those that fail should be subject to removal for but that is still not an easy process. 
• Processing centres may not be able to handle the volume meaning backlogs appear.
• There is also the practical question of housing, public services and employment. Any expansion would need to consider whether there is enough capacity, particularly given existing pressures such as housing shortages, youth unemployment and the impact of automation/AI on future jobs.

[nnfox]

3 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

It's the crux, the kingpin, the keystone. You remove it, it all falls apart. Of course it isn't easy, especially if, as I suspect they're supported by foreign governments.

 

Maybe that's the answer. Counter-traffickers, sponsored by our government, infiltrating the gangs, misdirecting and frustrating them. Modern day privateers.

Of course though, it's not that easy.  It's a lucrative business and not dissimilar to the international drugs trade industry.  You take the guy at the top out and guess what? You still have a drugs problem.

 

Either someone a bit further down the command chain steps up and continues the operation, or a rival gang moves into the space and carries on the operation.

 

I don't know what the answer is.  Make it easier for people to come here in the first place? How exactly? Grant "Asylum Visas" and allow them to board a plane straight into Heathrow?  What then?  Form an orderly queue to be told yes or no? What do you do with those that you refuse entry, assuming we couldn't send them back to the persecution they're fleeing? How many do you say "Yes" to? 10,000 per year? 20,000? 100,000? 10million? What happens to the person in the queue who breaches the quota?

 

It's such a multi-layered, complex issue, there just isn't one magic bullet that will sort it out.  All measures can have some level of success, but nothing seems to have worked.

[leicsmac]

Posted this about a year ago, pretty sure it's still true:

 

Any argument about immigration control that doesn't include a workable plan to address the root causes of why it occurs now (and why there may well be much, much more in the future) is either well-meaning but ultimately massively ineffective, or flat-out accepting the death and suffering of a very large amount of human beings so long as the arguers "tribe" can go on living life in the comfort they now inhabit. 

[Lionator]

If only everyone else on the left was this good. Shame he can’t run in 2028, he’d change the world. 
 

[Salisbury Fox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Posted this about a year ago, pretty sure it's still true:

 

Any argument about immigration control that doesn't include a workable plan to address the root causes of why it occurs now (and why there may well be much, much more in the future) is either well-meaning but ultimately massively ineffective, or flat-out accepting the death and suffering of a very large amount of human beings so long as the arguers "tribe" can go on living life in the comfort they now inhabit. 

I think you’re presenting a false choice, supporting firm immigration controls on the basis of sustainability doesn’t mean accepting human suffering. 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

I think you’re presenting a false choice, supporting firm immigration controls on the basis of sustainability doesn’t mean accepting human suffering. 

How does it not, exactly?

 

It may not be acceptance of the "yeah, we're OK with that" type, but it could still be the "well, there doesn't look to be much choice, so it's going to happen..." type. 

 

Some honesty regarding actual consequences is rather lacking when this debate comes round, I often find. 

[Salisbury Fox]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

How does it not, exactly?

 

It may not be acceptance of the "yeah, we're OK with that" type, but it could still be the "well, there doesn't look to be much choice, so it's going to happen..." type. 

 

Some honesty regarding actual consequences is rather lacking when this debate comes round, I often find. 

I don’t disagree that we should do more to address the root causes, although I am sceptical that anything other than global action would work. I just don’t think that supporting effective border control means accepting human suffering. A government can, and arguably should, do both.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

I don’t disagree that we should do more to address the root causes, although I am sceptical that anything other than global action would work. I just don’t think that supporting effective border control means accepting human suffering. A government can, and arguably should, do both.

Global action is absolutely required, anything else would mean such a plan wouldn't be workable. 

 

I guess it comes down to how someone views the "algebra of necessity" and the moral debate around decision making that will cause harm to other people, in order to ensure less harm to ones "closer" to the decision maker, when there are no other better options to be had. Some people may view that as "acceptance", others may think that because they don't apparently have a choice, it shouldn't be framed in a way that implies responsibility on their part.

 

It might also be argued that such a thing isn't a zero-sum game, and yes, it really doesn't have to be...but without addressing the root causes as per above, it is and always will be. 

Edited Sunday at 21:14 by leicsmac

[Salisbury Fox]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Global action is absolutely required, anything else would mean such a plan wouldn't be workable. 

 

I guess it comes down to how someone views the "algebra of necessity" and the moral debate around decision making that will cause harm to other people, in order to ensure less harm to ones "closer" to the decision maker, when there are no other better options to be had. 

 

It might also be argued that such a thing isn't a zero-sum game, and yes, it really doesn't have to be...but without addressing the root causes as per above, it is and always will be. 

As I said, I agree that tackling the root causes is essential. However, the fact that the long term solution is global doesn’t mean countries shouldn’t make difficult decisions about what they can sustainably accommodate today.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

As I said, I agree that tackling the root causes is essential. However, the fact that the long term solution is global doesn’t mean countries shouldn’t make difficult decisions about what they can sustainably accommodate today.

And accept that those decisions come with negative consequences, yes. 

[Zear0]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And accept that those decisions come with negative consequences, yes. 

Does that include the negative consequences of opening our borders to the world and bankrupting nations preventing them from finding solutions to the problem you raised?

[Salisbury Fox]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And accept that those decisions come with negative consequences, yes. 

My point is simply that every option has negative consequences. It’s about trade offs to try and ensure a sustainable and humane approach, not whether one sides cares and the other doesn’t. 

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, Zear0 said:

Does that include the negative consequences of opening our borders to the world and bankrupting nations preventing them from finding solutions to the problem you raised?

It does indeed.

 

There is absolutely going to be blood on the floor no matter which option is taken, even in the time it would take to work the "correct" solution. 

 

As per my original post, I take issue with viewpoints that either overlook that blood being spilled because it's not "our" blood, or deny any agency in the matter because there was always going to be blood. 

 

7 hours ago, Salisbury Fox said:

My point is simply that every option has negative consequences. It’s about trade offs to try and ensure a sustainable and humane approach, not whether one sides cares and the other doesn’t. 

You're right about the inevitability of negative consequences, but as per above it would be nice to have viewpoints on this issue that are actually honest with acceptance of that loss of life rather than skating over it dishonestly as often happens.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Would it be cheaper for developed countries to aid developing countries, so that people didn't want to leave their homeland, than spending all the money on immigrants?

 

And I don't mean send money. Money has a way of going missing. I mean send aid. Build stuff for them, send educators and health workers (the latter is ironic I know, given how many of our health workers are immigrants).

 

Having said that, can we be sure individuals in our own government wouldn't skim the cream with who they gave contracts to, etc?

[Innovindil]

43 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It does indeed.

 

There is absolutely going to be blood on the floor no matter which option is taken, even in the time it would take to work the "correct" solution. 

 

As per my original post, I take issue with viewpoints that either overlook that blood being spilled because it's not "our" blood, or deny any agency in the matter because there was always going to be blood. 

 

You're right about the inevitability of negative consequences, but as per above it would be nice to have viewpoints on this issue that are actually honest with acceptance of that loss of life rather than skating over it dishonestly as often happens.

Tbh I think you lose a lot of people when you go hard on such things as this. Right now, we accept loss of life all over the planet. 

 

Off the top of my head right now we've got Russia v Ukraine, which we are admittedly giving a shit about. Beyond that we've got Myanmars civil war... Somalia civil war... Sudanese civil war... Still a mess in Haiti as far as I'm aware, Mexicans vs drug barons popped up earlier this year. 

 

Sure I'm missing more than a few. 

 

Asking anyone, government or random football forum member, to care about all of it is far too much. 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Tbh I think you lose a lot of people when you go hard on such things as this. Right now, we accept loss of life all over the planet. 

 

Off the top of my head right now we've got Russia v Ukraine, which we are admittedly giving a shit about. Beyond that we've got Myanmars civil war... Somalia civil war... Sudanese civil war... Still a mess in Haiti as far as I'm aware, Mexicans vs drug barons popped up earlier this year. 

 

Sure I'm missing more than a few. 

 

Asking anyone, government or random football forum member, to care about all of it is far too much. 

You know something mate, I'm glad you've brought this up because it's something I've been wrestling with myself, and I think you're probably right. 

 

I guess it's mostly the frustration talking on my own part - like, how can a supposedly intelligent and (relatively) powerful species exist on a planet along with all this, this...thisness?

 

Pardon my "going hard", as you put it, the state of us sometimes does piss me off, and I think it always will. And I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing - again, borrowing from one of my favourite authors, Pratchett had a lot to say on the topic of anger being channeled positively (but you have to be careful there).

[Innovindil]

37 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

You know something mate, I'm glad you've brought this up because it's something I've been wrestling with myself, and I think you're probably right. 

 

I guess it's mostly the frustration talking on my own part - like, how can a supposedly intelligent and (relatively) powerful species exist on a planet along with all this, this...thisness?

 

Pardon my "going hard", as you put it, the state of us sometimes does piss me off, and I think it always will. And I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing - again, borrowing from one of my favourite authors, Pratchett had a lot to say on the topic of anger being channeled positively (but you have to be careful there).

Just the other day I watched a fully qualified mechanical engineer machine a set of perfectly square, parallel and ground up vice jaws, took him over a week to get them perfect. He destroyed them in 3 days. 

 

People are dumb. You'll be happier when you embrace it.