Ok, but I didnt mention any accountability, or legislative process.
It was stated as a signification, a sign, of an intention that is coming at us.
Which now I have seen/heard in many other places, from Starmer, Von der Leyen, Schwabb, Charlie boy. I expect there is a settled intention to force Dig ID on us as a front for safety, when it is fiscal, and in readiness for a switch to Dig currencies, otherwise, increased tax revenue.
So in totality, I think several public figures are trying to let us know what they think is coming. Softening us up to accept it.
Its not my responsibility to make your argument for you - unemployment statistic of one group says nothing about how that group fares compared to a different group.
Although I am pretty confident you didnât intend it, I liked your Pun. âUsing a fish emoji gets me off the hookâ, maybe you do have a sense of humour.
I couldnât care less about how you view our relationship. We donât have a relationship, so donât try and put a level/boundaries on our interaction.
If I wanted to insult you I would be quite open about it. I have no intention of insulting you, you have a view different to mine thatâs life. I respect that and I have on a number of times expressed my respect for you posting your views, even though we donât always agree.
The thing is you are so easily offended, so intent on being right and as a result fail to reflect on your own posting style.
For example, you have on a number of occasions excused yourself from responding to points I have directed at you, excusing yourself from the fairness of debate by suggesting and trying to paint a picture of me posting in bad faith, other posters being frustrated with my posting style and Yet you fail to see that in the last week or so, there have been a number of posters expressing their concern over your posting style and you just dismiss it.
The problem is and it is evident across a number of threads is that you are always right and anything that is wrong in the world is down to the Rich or RW media.
You are always right, always taking the morale high ground, always comfortable in ridiculing people on the basics without knowing their lived experience.
And this is where I refuse to tolerate your hypocrisy. You calling out other people from your chair of privilege. By your own words (with a bit of elaboration on my part), you live in a village which has one of the lowest crime rates nationwide. At your monthly Council meeting, you have the luxury of Police representation and the luxury to state that the main concern of the old is youths on Scooters.
Fair play to you for being successful in life and being able to afford to live with this grace. But do not use your situation as a bench mark for everyone else. I keep referring to lived experience and until you start respecting other peopleâs views - I am not asking you to agree - then I am sorry but you are just as ignorant as the RW people you criticise. You proclaim to despise hate and yet you display it everyday, purely on the basis of political views.
I am not trying to insult you here and if I have offended you in any way then I apologise. I genuinely donât have any issue with you, I just think it is fair to be honest with you.
I have no issue with people being critical of Israelâs actions and do not view any criticism of their acts of Genocide as Anti-Semitic.
I just donât understand the need to judge a candidate in a preferable manner because they are pro- Palestine. If that is the criteria, roll out Corbyn againâŚmaybe you should judge a candidate on being more pro- Ukraine than the current Government.
Either way, your Government will still accept Russian oil and sell Arms to Israel.
Maybe, the main criteria should be running the Country and focusing on its people.
Erm, I am not making an argument. I provided a link to an article that supported and raised valid questions to the debate you were having. It is a complex subject with no straight answer.
You then made a point, questioning me on something I hadnât contested.
It sounds like you are actually doing the opposite and making it your responsibility to tell me what I should be arguing about.
I agree it is a tiny proportion of immigration but it is a large proportion of illegal immigration. Which rightly or wrongly is becoming a massive factor in the publics voting.
In your reply to @Road-Runner who was discussing illegal immigration you stated that the numbers were falling under this GovernmentâŚ
Both Left and Right are guilty of lumping them together.
Do you have figures to support your statement that it is only a small cost in the overall budget?
The Government made some deal with France about deporting Illegal immigrants and guess what a couple came back. It is illegal for people to arrive in the UK by boat and yet going by the article I linked they are more likely to have their application approved. The problem is we are relying on papers usually verified by the first country. I am sure there have been a number of cases, like the one where Labour paid a convicted sex offender money to leave the country, where the age stated and listed on his documentation was wrong.
Statistics for boat crossings only started being recorded in 2018. Factoring in COVID, it would be expected to rise significantly in 20/21 as would be regular immigration.
The point is that illegal immigration by boat arrival is a major issue on the voting platform. If it wasnât then various Governments wouldnât be looking at deterrents, paying France monies to help control it. Why is it then that the people arriving by boats illegally, paying criminal gangs a lot of money for âsafe passageâ are having a more successful application approval rate than regular immigrants?
If a person pays someone for illegally obtained goods they are complicit. So paying someone for illegal transport should be viewed in the same manner.
Anyhow to reiterate my stance, I am not against immigration. I am against it being weaponised and also against it being dismissed.
We already pay a lot of money to people both British and foreign, who contribute nothing to the economy. We do not need anymore.
No, I never made an argument. I provided a link which I felt supported and contested both of your views. Please quote me where I said I argued against point.
The only point I intended to make was to provide a trusted source which both supported and contested your points almost equally.
Now if you stated in your original response to me that you didnât feel the link was relatable to your discussion I would have said fair enough, held my hands up and apologised. However, you chose to question me and follow up with the suggestion I made a point or an argument. Which to me suggests there was something in the article that challenged your point of view.
Anyhow, as I said I agree with some of your points. I think we should leave it there
I am glad you liked some of my new material that I am trying out.
When you come to see my full routine, you will find I cover a lot of funny subjects. Like The UK not being able to agree a trade deal with the Trump/US unless we sacrificed the NHS and the rise of 1930s Germany in modern day Britain.
But they do it with such conviction and from a pedestal they havenât earned.
I always find it amusing when they refer to anyone with a view different to theirs as being ignorant. I mean there is nothing more ignorant than labelling someone else as being ignorant on the basis that they donât want to listen/understand/fall in line with a view that canât be questioned because what they are being told is right.
I mean the RW press brainwashed us into voting in a Labour Government, forced Labour to make numerous U-Turns, sack/discipline MPs for the same scandals they promised to change. It was the RW media that employed Mandelson, and it is definitely the RW media who are trying to cause trouble in the Labour camp by making Streeting/Phillips resign and a MP step down to allow Burnham to challenge for the leadership.
This is just a fairy tale. The RW press did not want a labour government. That was obvious. They got the next best thing. A RW labour government that was utterly useless at keeping its nose clean and communicating. Theyâve literally given them all the ammunition they need to finish them off.
Regarding your earlier funny points on the rise of RW parties across the world. Why do you think that is? Do you think that the world suddenly woke up and decided that neoliberalism was the way forward? Seriously? Maybe, just maybe itâs because of years of living in a system that filtered wealth upward which has recently ramped up to new levels. They were sold a dream of house with a pretty little garden provided they worked hard. Except, everyone is broke, possibly in debt, paying out large amounts of tax into a system where everything is broken or its in a state of disrepair. Along comes a pied piper promising a return of the dream house and little garden, no potholes and a job down a mine (because that built communities) except we need to get rid of all the people sucking up our money, those pesky people on benefits and immigrants.
Itâs the same cycle all over. 1930âs Germany, 2008 too, where the US essentially said the bankers were doing a fine sterling job, despite doing stuff that was highly illegal, amounting to fraud. It was actually the fault of the poor people getting mortgages way above their ability to pay with zero checks by the banks on their financial status or even their existence.
If you want to know where the problem lies, follow the money they say. Well follow the trail that tells you who owns our property, our mortgages, our retail outlets and so on. Youâll find surprisingly few corporations. What do you think these corporations would do to maintain their growth? How far would they go? For context, I used to work for a large engineering consultancy. They were US based where their core business was petrochemicals but they diversified. They bought their way into the UK market. Now they got so big in the UK alone, that winning major contracts was their bread and butter but offered zero growth. To achieve that, they would buy another engineering consultant. Not a small one either, one with millions of pounds in turnover.
That is literally what my response to you said. But this is now 3 comments and you havent actually said anything about what you think it supposedly adds to the discussion.
True. Some people donât want to hear or see such obvious truths. Itâs much easier for them to believe some shit they read in the paper, or heard down the pub.
