Sentences too harsh!

[becky]

You also have to question the wisdom of having 4 children when you can’t afford to house them and look after them yourself and are not living in adequate accommodation at the time. Loads of people wouldn’t do that. Not that I think it is right she is where she is, but it’s another case of doing what you want while expecting the taxpayer to pay for you.

Not forgetting the fact that those 4 children didn't beget themselves..... and if she's been here 20 years then they were definitely begat here, meaning there must be a husband around somewhere, so actually a 2 income family who, like everyone else, could go and rent privately for something that better suits their needs.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

No we didn’t close!

We introduced restrictions, often quite severe restrictions, but we didn’t close. The hospitals still functioned. You could consult your doctor, often initially by phone or video link. Many people continued to work, often from home. Meetings still took place, but via Zoom rather than face to face. Food supplies continued, often via home delivery or click and collect.

We found new ways of doing things, and some non essential things stopped, but we didn’t close. We kept social distance from others, wore masks, washed our hands, didn’t mix or travel far. We did exercise and stay in contact.

Being “closed” is just how though those opposed to the strategy of caution, safety first and consequential restriction want to present it.

It is a lie.

You talk some absolute BS at times, ignoring what’s fact. Hospital appointments cancelled, doctors appointments cancelled. They were all empty of those outpatient appointments. Now the waiting list is so huge, it’s part of the problem of over 50’s not in work. THE WAITING LISTS. There, got it?

Millions on furlough because BUSINESSES WERE CLOSED. Understand?

You’ve got the food supplies bit right. That was whilst those in comfortable jobs took a sabbatical in the garden and made banana loaf while pretending to be morally superior.

We saved granny by crippling the government coffers for generations to the tune of hundreds of billions, yet labour wanted more of it. Now granny can die (well 4,000 of them according to Labour’s own study) for the sake of £1.4 billion while we spend £12 billion in Africa and loads more elsewhere.

All in the name of control and a better empathy and an austerity that isn’t named austerity but because of the former government. And these are supposed to be the adults in charge now. They chop and change, promise and lie, and can’t remember what they’ve said in the past and didn’t realise they may end up doing it themselves in power. ‘Vote for change’ 😄

 

[Rudi Hedman]

If you own property personally then you aren’t responsible for that which is a collective responsibility.

So yes it’s somebody else’s problem. It’s our problem, not mine.

If the council place an unvetted tenant into one of my flats then they take the responsibility for unpaid rent or damage. If I do it myself then they must be vetted because the risks then remain with me.

I expect so. Tent manufacturers could be quids in. Hotel owners certainly are. I saw a video about a 100 room hotel in Leicester.

£195 a might at least
100 rooms

£19,500 a night

£7.2 million a year

Houses can’t be and won’t be built quick enough. They will never get close to the 300,000 new homes each year, and that number doesn’t even house those in demand already.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

No we didn’t close!

We introduced restrictions, often quite severe restrictions, but we didn’t close. The hospitals still functioned. You could consult your doctor, often initially by phone or video link. Many people continued to work, often from home. Meetings still took place, but via Zoom rather than face to face. Food supplies continued, often via home delivery or click and collect.

We found new ways of doing things, and some non essential things stopped, but we didn’t close. We kept social distance from others, wore masks, washed our hands, didn’t mix or travel far. We did exercise and stay in contact.

Being “closed” is just how though those opposed to the strategy of caution, safety first and consequential restriction want to present it.

It is a lie.

A distinction without a difference.
Pre Covid the NHS waiting list was 4 m.
As of July this year the total was 6.39 m.
3.14 m had been waiting for more than 18 weeks.
290,300 had been waiting for more than a year.
The median waiting time was 14 weeks.
This after the UK spent between £300 & £400 bn supposedly to "protect" the NHS.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

No it isn’t! It is actually the perfect way of demonstrating what hypocrites there are attending these marches and who are advocating that refugees and immigrants are welcome. To then say, “Oh no but I wouldn’t” is just typical of these pathetic tosspots.

Remember when people were very willing to take in Ukrainian refugees? It’s racist to want this reduced but it’s fine to want, and a collective voice to accept Ukrainian refugees but not refugees from Africa and the Middle East. Got it. Maybe it’s because most of the Ukrainian refugees were/still are women and children whereas the African/Middle Eastern refugees are men. Am I being too generous or highlighting another fact and issue?

 

[Rudi Hedman]

She is one of the many struggling with finding suitable housing. What her background is and how she got into this situation isn’t known.

That the need to accommodate those arriving here illegally produces problems isn’t news.

Everyone accepts it’s a major problem without easy solutions. Protesting about it seems a complete waste of time and energy which helps no one and diverts resources. Especially when protests turn violent.

Maybe those with the time and energy to spare to protest could organise themselves into voluntary groups and offer their labour to charities devoted to helping the homeless?

The easy solution for the problem of accommodating those arriving here illegally is to put them off wanting to do it. The message being sent by mobile phones is that it is worth it and you’ll get this and that. That is why thousands continue to come. Another other option (in addition) is to pop the dinghies before they leave French shores.

Not protesting is to reluctantly accept it (which is what you want), although Germany are putting measures in place like closing the borders because of actual political opposition - the AFD.

You want ‘those with the time and energy to instead help the homeless.’ Oh great, what a solution. Too many people than the country can cope with coming in on top of the numbers in demand of housing already and you want everyone out there with a ladle dishing up soup and a roll.

 

[Phil’s Barber]

She has lived here for 20 years. She is probably now a British citizen. Her children are!

Why post a totally irrelevant response to my post?

I asked what my family would be given if we relocated to her country of origin?!

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I’ll repeat it for you. So you are 80 and your mrs is still working 60 hour weeks. Something not adding up !

I can assure you it does. Don't concern yourself.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Nothing is a big deal to you and your lot, is it? First of all it isn’t happening. Then when you and your lot find that it is, it isn’t a big deal anyway. Out of sight, out of mind, so I’m not surprised. Everyone else’s problem.

I don't have a "lot"! I say it as it is.

Individuals don't solve some problems. Some are our collective responsibility.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

That first bit is a laughable pipe dream. ‘She needs to be taken aside by her community leaders and taught lessons in diplomacy and tact.’ Are you for real?

The word is out that we are an easy ride and a soft touch. A bit of a joke really. How do you think people can go to pray 5-6 times a day? That reputation needs changing by our policies. Take away the demand for boat gangs by changing our soft touch reputation. Australia did. Taking away the supply of gangs won’t work because new gangs will emerge. But you’ll block that so we’ll just continue as we are, as per usual.

When I wrote that I fell into the original post's trap. Which was to encourage the assumption that this person is a newly arrived, probably illegal, immigrant. It turns out that isn't true.

Your response is directed at a false situation. One that exists, but not in this case. I don't think we have a soft-touch reputation. I doubt we have any kind of reputation with most of those involved other than the one sold to them by the traffickers. It's them who need to understand that we aren't a soft touch by us relentlessly pursuing them and ensuring severe punishments. That can only be achieved by coordinated, international collaboration. Discussing how Italy is dealing with things and learning from it is a good move. We aren't Australia or face an identical issue. New gangs will spring from the ashes of old ones but making sure that those involved get scared to try should gradually it down. There will always be criminals trying to find ways to get around restrictions and whilst a need for their services exists some will try to meet it. So this will be a war we cannot win. Only a series of battles that reduces the impacts.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

You also have to question the wisdom of having 4 children when you can’t afford to house them and look after them yourself and are not living in adequate accommodation at the time. Loads of people wouldn’t do that. Not that I think it is right she is where she is, but it’s another case of doing what you want while expecting the taxpayer to pay for you.

True, but one that regrettably applies to quite a few these days. None of whom I defend, whatever their origins.

This story though was intended to make the reader believe this was a recently arrived immigrant jumping the queue. It turns out that's not the case. She has lived and worked here for 20 years and her children were born here so are all British by birth. You can condemn her behaviour but not that of the children.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

I don't have a "lot"! I say it as it is.

Individuals don't solve some problems. Some are our collective responsibility.

What you want to do is add to problems rather than solve the ones we already have and then want everyone out there helping the increasing homeless serving up hot soup and a roll.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

No it isn’t! It is actually the perfect way of demonstrating what hypocrites there are attending these marches and who are advocating that refugees and immigrants are welcome. To then say, “Oh no but I wouldn’t” is just typical of these pathetic tosspots.

Total nonsense.

No individual can be expected to do what we as a society need to do. They can offer to help, with guarantees being given, but some things must be done collectively. Arguing that society needs to do more is perfectly reasonable. It doesn't imply that they ought to be willing to shoulder the burden on their own.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Not forgetting the fact that those 4 children didn't beget themselves..... and if she's been here 20 years then they were definitely begat here, meaning there must be a husband around somewhere, so actually a 2 income family who, like everyone else, could go and rent privately for something that better suits their needs.

Except there may well not be a husband. There could be a father, or up to 4 fathers involved. Who knows if any support is being provided?

That's an unfortunate reality these days but one which has nothing to do with ethnicity or immigration status. The latter being the inference we were intended to assume in the original post.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

When I wrote that I fell into the original post's trap. Which was to encourage the assumption that this person is a newly arrived, probably illegal, immigrant. It turns out that isn't true.

Your response is directed at a false situation. One that exists, but not in this case. I don't think we have a soft-touch reputation. I doubt we have any kind of reputation with most of those involved other than the one sold to them by the traffickers. It's them who need to understand that we aren't a soft touch by us relentlessly pursuing them and ensuring severe punishments. That can only be achieved by coordinated, international collaboration. Discussing how Italy is dealing with things and learning from it is a good move. We aren't Australia or face an identical issue. New gangs will spring from the ashes of old ones but making sure that those involved get scared to try should gradually it down. There will always be criminals trying to find ways to get around restrictions and whilst a need for their services exists some will try to meet it. So this will be a war we cannot win. Only a series of battles that reduces the impacts.

What are you going on about? The soft touch reputation does exist and it gets communicated around the world by mobile phones. The videos of the migrant hotels look very tempting. The boat gangs don’t mingle with these people where they live, do they? They’re obviously near the shores of Northern Africa, Morocco and northern France.

You almost got it there. New gangs replace old ones (or arrested ones). But not quite, because you seem to believe in your head it can be stopped ‘by making sure that those involved get scared to try’. The gangs will be too scared? I don’t think you understand criminality at all. Even the boarder commander says this is rubbish. You then go onto mention it will continue, (because your strategy is garbage), and because the demand is still there. Duh? You then concede (that your strategy) ‘is a war we can’t win’. At least you sort of understand your strategy is complete garbage in a way.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

When I wrote that I fell into the original post's trap. Which was to encourage the assumption that this person is a newly arrived, probably illegal, immigrant. It turns out that isn't true.

Your response is directed at a false situation. One that exists, but not in this case.

At least you admit that it exists.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

Total nonsense.

No individual can be expected to do what we as a society need to do. They can offer to help, with guarantees being given, but some things must be done collectively. Arguing that society needs to do more is perfectly reasonable. It doesn't imply that they ought to be willing to shoulder the burden on their own.

The only thing we can do is increase our taxes by so much that the party will get voted out anyway. All this shouldering the burden isn’t going to happen and wouldn’t achieve anything anyway. They wouldn’t get taken in ironically by the very people screaming racism to begin with.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

Except there may well not be a husband. There could be a father, or up to 4 fathers involved. Who knows if any support is being provided?

That's an unfortunate reality these days but one which has nothing to do with ethnicity or immigration status. The latter being the inference we were intended to assume in the original post.

Unlikely with a Muslim wife.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

You talk some absolute BS at times, ignoring what’s fact. Hospital appointments cancelled, doctors appointments cancelled. They were all empty of those outpatient appointments. Now the waiting list is so huge, it’s part of the problem of over 50’s not in work. THE WAITING LISTS. There, got it?

Millions on furlough because BUSINESSES WERE CLOSED. Understand?

You’ve got the food supplies bit right. That was whilst those in comfortable jobs took a sabbatical in the garden and made banana loaf while pretending to be morally superior.

We saved granny by crippling the government coffers for generations to the tune of hundreds of billions, yet labour wanted more of it. Now granny can die (well 4,000 of them according to Labour’s own study) for the sake of £1.4 billion while we spend £12 billion in Africa and loads more elsewhere.

All in the name of control and a better empathy and an austerity that isn’t named austerity but because of the former government. And these are supposed to be the adults in charge now. They chop and change, promise and lie, and can’t remember what they’ve said in the past and didn’t realise they may end up doing it themselves in power. ‘Vote for change’ 😄

You claimed that the country closed down. It didn't. That was a lie.

I acknowledged there were restrictions, often quite severe restrictions. Some businesses did close whilst others were helped to survive by the various schemes that were introduced.

All you are doing is going off on another anti-lockdown rant. Fine, it's boring and pointless but you are entitled to it.

What you aren't entitled to is lie. The country did not close. It continued to operate in a restricted, different way and it survived. There were some very bad consequences which continue to impact us. Those in the NHS being especially bad. Whatever we did was going to be bad but that was never in doubt. What was decided was what was the least bad route through a minefield where we had no experience. We could have got that decision wrong, but I personally don't think so.

Spending on helping African nations grow their economies is an investment in our future as well as their's. If they have prosperity at home there will be no more need to seek it elsewhere.

This wasn't done because of any desire for "control"! Gaining control and ensuring observance was essential if it was going to work. It was the means to achieve the end.

Neither the previous nor the present government were responsible for the pandemic. Both have had to deal with the consequences of it and get unfairly blamed for many things.

Keyboard warriors, and opposition parties who are nowhere near actual responsibility, like Reform, always think they have all the answers. Answers which are theoretical, untested and usually completely impractical.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Unlikely with a Muslim wife.

Assumption. You don't know if she is married or even if she is a Muslim.

Appearances can deceive.