| The split in the far-right vote 04:10 - Feb 18 with 11334 views | The_Romford_Blue |
Great to see. Albeit Lowe on Twitter is disturbing.
Anyone on here willing to admit they would vote Restore? Makes Farage and his lot look moderate in comparison some of that nazi sh** coming from Lowe. |  |
| |  |
| The split in the far-right vote on 13:41 - Feb 20 with 632 views | lowhouseblue |
| The split in the far-right vote on 13:29 - Feb 20 by StokieBlue |
"'fundamentally dishonest", "lies", "falsehoods" and "nonsense" in political discussion are all essentially subjective labels. they're just used to shut down discussion."
You repeatedly say this but it's not true. If you can't support your position with evidence then some of those tags are valid.
"but, equally, if people don't want to debate then don't debate with them. if they don't provide evidence then they you've shown that they don't have a convincing case."
This has worked brilliantly hasn't it, the world is currently a great place with regards to non-evidence based political debate.
You just seem to want to give people with views that are clear lies a free pass - I disagree and will continue to disagree because that attitude has a lot to do with where we are now.
SB |
where we are now is with incredibly divisive public debate, with political differences being aggressively policed, and people not engaging with different views or ideas, and demonising those who disagree with them. the dominant characteristics of current political debate online is the absolutist denial of the legitimacy of opposing views.
i do repeatedly object to that.
to lie is to knowingly state something you know to be false. it's not stating something that is wrong or something that other people may disagree with. if you think something is false then prove it is false, don't throw about the label 'lie'. but, other than very basic statements about material things, not a lot in politics is provable as true or false. politics is predominantly about priorities and choices between multiple conflicting objectives. very often those things can't be reduced to true or false - people just make different choices. surely that's not controversial. [Post edited 20 Feb 13:53]
|  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 13:42 - Feb 20 with 618 views | bartyg |
| The split in the far-right vote on 13:26 - Feb 20 by lowhouseblue |
don't know what the last line is meant to mean. i assume it's just an insult - so, well done you.
of course rights and conflicts between different rights are an entirely legitimate area for debate and disagreement. how could they not be - that's a large part of what all politics, law and legal theory are all about. i don't think you've thought that one through. |
I'm not talking about the minutiae of the intersections between various groups, I'm talking about the growing normalisation of ethnonationalism across the public sphere.
There is no "legitimate" debate to be had over topics such as mass repatriation as outlined by Restore UK. |  | | |
| The split in the far-right vote on 13:44 - Feb 20 with 588 views | bartyg |
| The split in the far-right vote on 13:33 - Feb 20 by NthQldITFC |
Am I an independent thinker? |
Did you run this post past the hivemind? It doesn't look like it | | | |
| The split in the far-right vote on 13:44 - Feb 20 with 592 views | eireblue |
| The split in the far-right vote on 12:49 - Feb 20 by chicoazul |
I guess your mate Dave down the pub who totally runs Border Force trust me bro knows better than this; https://www.gov.uk/government/
“Border Force … is effectively rescuing people and then escorting them into port…” |
10.1 Border Force maritime should not be providing an ongoing search and rescue function in the English Channel. Neither Border Force nor Royal Navy vessels are appropriate to this task.
Appropriate vessels and crews should be sought under contract to conduct this task
While any maritime asset should of course be made available for search and rescue when required, where it is predictable that search and rescue operations will be stood up on a semi-permanent basis, a more appropriate resource should be deployed to the task. Vessels that are better suited to the task should be contracted for and placed under the command and control of either the Coast Guard or Royal Navy so that Border Force are not used as the primary resource for such operations.
10.2 Turnaround tactics should be available to deter migrant crossings
Taking any given tactic off the table is unhelpful where one of the desired outcomes is a deterrent effect. All legal and operationally feasible options should be on the table. The government should maintain the option of turnaround tactics when it is safe and legal to do so.
Contracted vessels and specialist crews may be more effective in conducting these challenging operations.
“ Britain’s replacement Border Force fleet will not be ready until 2030 at the earliest and is set to cost six times more than its original budget after a Brexit blunder.
Plans to replace five cutters and six patrol boats used to protect UK borders and pick up migrants in the Channel are set to see costs balloon to £300million.
The error is an unintended consequence of post-Brexit trading rules that were designed to boost free trade when Britain withdrew from the EU.
Although the rules stipulate that Government contracts must be open to international competition, then-Trade Secretary Liz Truss failed to exclude the construction of civilian ships from the list of contracts.”
Sunny uplands and independent thinkers, where would we be without them. |  | | |
| The split in the far-right vote on 13:51 - Feb 20 with 549 views | lowhouseblue |
| The split in the far-right vote on 13:42 - Feb 20 by bartyg |
I'm not talking about the minutiae of the intersections between various groups, I'm talking about the growing normalisation of ethnonationalism across the public sphere.
There is no "legitimate" debate to be had over topics such as mass repatriation as outlined by Restore UK. |
the restore example - a policy of mass repatriation - couldn't possibly stand up to examination and challenge. so if you come across someone proposing that, challenge them and show their arguments up as worthless. a very easy thing to do.
how a country if defined, how it's borders are defined and policed, what shared cultural norms are held as central to its identity, what civic expectations are set about integration, are all the subject of entirely legitimate political debate and disagreement. there will be views you doubtless reject so challenge them, and others will challenge you. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 13:52 - Feb 20 with 544 views | Herbivore |
| The split in the far-right vote on 13:44 - Feb 20 by eireblue |
10.1 Border Force maritime should not be providing an ongoing search and rescue function in the English Channel. Neither Border Force nor Royal Navy vessels are appropriate to this task.
Appropriate vessels and crews should be sought under contract to conduct this task
While any maritime asset should of course be made available for search and rescue when required, where it is predictable that search and rescue operations will be stood up on a semi-permanent basis, a more appropriate resource should be deployed to the task. Vessels that are better suited to the task should be contracted for and placed under the command and control of either the Coast Guard or Royal Navy so that Border Force are not used as the primary resource for such operations.
10.2 Turnaround tactics should be available to deter migrant crossings
Taking any given tactic off the table is unhelpful where one of the desired outcomes is a deterrent effect. All legal and operationally feasible options should be on the table. The government should maintain the option of turnaround tactics when it is safe and legal to do so.
Contracted vessels and specialist crews may be more effective in conducting these challenging operations.
“ Britain’s replacement Border Force fleet will not be ready until 2030 at the earliest and is set to cost six times more than its original budget after a Brexit blunder.
Plans to replace five cutters and six patrol boats used to protect UK borders and pick up migrants in the Channel are set to see costs balloon to £300million.
The error is an unintended consequence of post-Brexit trading rules that were designed to boost free trade when Britain withdrew from the EU.
Although the rules stipulate that Government contracts must be open to international competition, then-Trade Secretary Liz Truss failed to exclude the construction of civilian ships from the list of contracts.”
Sunny uplands and independent thinkers, where would we be without them. |
The link he mentions also explicitly states that cutters aren't stable in rough seas and are unsuitable for search and rescue operations as it is difficult to safely remove people from other vessels on to them. Hence this only happening when there is a risk to life rather than it being something that is a practical and workable solution, which is what our resident independent thinker suggests he's offering. |  |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 13:52 - Feb 20 with 543 views | StokieBlue |
| The split in the far-right vote on 13:41 - Feb 20 by lowhouseblue |
where we are now is with incredibly divisive public debate, with political differences being aggressively policed, and people not engaging with different views or ideas, and demonising those who disagree with them. the dominant characteristics of current political debate online is the absolutist denial of the legitimacy of opposing views.
i do repeatedly object to that.
to lie is to knowingly state something you know to be false. it's not stating something that is wrong or something that other people may disagree with. if you think something is false then prove it is false, don't throw about the label 'lie'. but, other than very basic statements about material things, not a lot in politics is provable as true or false. politics is predominantly about priorities and choices between multiple conflicting objectives. very often those things can't be reduced to true or false - people just make different choices. surely that's not controversial. [Post edited 20 Feb 13:53]
|
I think you're living in a world that disappeared about 15 years ago.
It's not about choices and many things can be reduced to true and false. Trump, Farage etc lie on a daily basis I would say it's more controversial to conclude those things can't be reduced to true and false rather than saying they should provide evidence.
"if you thing something is false then prove it is false, don't throw about the label 'lie'"
If I say the sky is green knowing fully well it isn't then yes you can prove me wrong but it was still clearly a lie as I knew it when I said it. Once again many know they are lying when they make statements. Proving them wrong doesn't mean they weren't lying.
We will never agree on this, I find your "but both sides" stance hugely problematic and you feel my need to want people to back up statements with evidence intolerant.
SB |  | | |
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:04 - Feb 20 with 492 views | lowhouseblue |
| The split in the far-right vote on 13:52 - Feb 20 by StokieBlue |
I think you're living in a world that disappeared about 15 years ago.
It's not about choices and many things can be reduced to true and false. Trump, Farage etc lie on a daily basis I would say it's more controversial to conclude those things can't be reduced to true and false rather than saying they should provide evidence.
"if you thing something is false then prove it is false, don't throw about the label 'lie'"
If I say the sky is green knowing fully well it isn't then yes you can prove me wrong but it was still clearly a lie as I knew it when I said it. Once again many know they are lying when they make statements. Proving them wrong doesn't mean they weren't lying.
We will never agree on this, I find your "but both sides" stance hugely problematic and you feel my need to want people to back up statements with evidence intolerant.
SB |
most of politics is about choices, priorities and managing conflicts. very little in politics comes down to true or false. opposing views are legitimately held.
yes, trump lies. he provably says things he knows to be false. but there are lots of things he says that people label as a lie when they really mean that they disagree with or reject what he has said. knowing the difference is really important.
knowing someone else's intention is highly subjective - it primarily reflects our pre-existing opinion of that person.
your "but both sides" is a distortion of what i'm saying. i'm not saying that individually and collectively (as electors etc) we don't have to come down on one side or the other - just that even when we have rejected the other side it doesn't make it illegitimate.
i guess we won't ever agree on this. fine. but being aware of our own subjectivity and rejecting absolutist approaches to truth and knowledge is pretty fundamental to a civilised society. the lack of that, as much as anything else, is at the core of our current divisiveness. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:04 - Feb 20 with 491 views | chicoazul |
| The split in the far-right vote on 13:52 - Feb 20 by Herbivore |
The link he mentions also explicitly states that cutters aren't stable in rough seas and are unsuitable for search and rescue operations as it is difficult to safely remove people from other vessels on to them. Hence this only happening when there is a risk to life rather than it being something that is a practical and workable solution, which is what our resident independent thinker suggests he's offering. |
We’ve gone from Chico you idiot you don’t know what you’re talking about, to It only happens when there is a risk to life
From It is principally escorting, to It only happens when there is a risk to life
I predict more insults, as the seed blossoms |  |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:07 - Feb 20 with 475 views | Herbivore |
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:04 - Feb 20 by chicoazul |
We’ve gone from Chico you idiot you don’t know what you’re talking about, to It only happens when there is a risk to life
From It is principally escorting, to It only happens when there is a risk to life
I predict more insults, as the seed blossoms |
You seem to be arguing with yourself at this point. You've gone from disembark them all in the channel and return them to France to sometimes we do part of this already. The only evidence you've offered in support of your view doesn't confirm what you've said and directly contradicts the notion that your proposals are practical or workable. Absolute shit show. | |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:15 - Feb 20 with 440 views | JackNorthStand |
| The split in the far-right vote on 07:44 - Feb 20 by Herbivore |
The scheme Labour have agreed with France effectively does this, though not fully. We will take legitimate asylum applicants from France in return for them taking people who have crossed the channel in small boats.
As a general principle I think setting up an asylum processing centre in France would be a good idea. People could then claim in France for asylum in the UK without having to make a dangerous crossing in a small boat. Sadly, none of the major parties are willing to go down that route because too many people want us to take zero asylum seekers rather than making it safer for them to apply and come to the UK where they have a genuine claim. |
Agreed and I think that’s key, the part you mention about genuine claim. If this process was introduced it gives a better opportunity to decide if the claimants asylum claim is valid. Also preventing any need for the dangerous crossing and effectively ending illegal, organised smuggling rings. Two birds with one stone…
It goes without saying it’s not as straight forward as what we have just discussed and there are many moving parts to it, some of which you and I and others would disagree on no doubt but as a general broad idea it makes sense. [Post edited 20 Feb 14:17]
|  | | |
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:15 - Feb 20 with 435 views | NewcyBlue |
| The split in the far-right vote on 13:06 - Feb 20 by chicoazul |
Border force have 11 vessels, half of which are in dock almost all the time. |
So what percentage of crossings would be acceptable to intercept?
Yes, it does happen. With aircraft used as spotters. It’s how migrant boats off Africa heading into the Atlantic get picked up.
It’s very difficult to spot dinghies and small craft in a seaway.
You don’t need more patrol boats, it’s drones and aircraft that will find the small craft and then the patrol boats can get to them.
Yes, migrants are taken on board the patrol boats, usually overloaded small craft, unseaworthy, where it would be dangerous to carry on the voyage.
More patrol boats won’t help. And there are already helicopters and drones above the English Channel checking the sulphur emissions from ships to make sure compliant fuel is being used. |  |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:16 - Feb 20 with 429 views | GlasgowBlue |
Well at least we've had four more pages of healthy debate and disagreement without anyone threatening to kick another poster's head in. So progress. |  |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:27 - Feb 20 with 397 views | chicoazul |
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:07 - Feb 20 by Herbivore |
You seem to be arguing with yourself at this point. You've gone from disembark them all in the channel and return them to France to sometimes we do part of this already. The only evidence you've offered in support of your view doesn't confirm what you've said and directly contradicts the notion that your proposals are practical or workable. Absolute shit show. |
Chico - disembark then from sea
Babes - And how are you safely executing the transfer of people from overloaded dinghies on to a larger vessel out in the open sea?
Chico - they do that already here is evidence
Babes - you’re arguing with yourself at this point
You couldn’t make it up hohoho | |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:28 - Feb 20 with 397 views | Swansea_Blue |
| The split in the far-right vote on 12:49 - Feb 20 by chicoazul |
I guess your mate Dave down the pub who totally runs Border Force trust me bro knows better than this; https://www.gov.uk/government/
“Border Force … is effectively rescuing people and then escorting them into port…” |
I had a guy in my team who was ex-border force. He was great value on a night out after a few drinks. I wouldn’t want that job for all the money in the world. |  |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:31 - Feb 20 with 390 views | J2BLUE |
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:16 - Feb 20 by GlasgowBlue |
Well at least we've had four more pages of healthy debate and disagreement without anyone threatening to kick another poster's head in. So progress. |
Where was that? |  |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:56 - Feb 20 with 341 views | Herbivore |
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:27 - Feb 20 by chicoazul |
Chico - disembark then from sea
Babes - And how are you safely executing the transfer of people from overloaded dinghies on to a larger vessel out in the open sea?
Chico - they do that already here is evidence
Babes - you’re arguing with yourself at this point
You couldn’t make it up hohoho |
I mean, you just have made that up. You've omitted most of tbe key parts of the discussion that's been taking place because you've ended up tying yourself in knots as usual and are now acting like a 12 year old rather than acknowledging that what you proposed isn't a practical or workable solution. The one bit of actual evidence you've put forward in this thread says as much itself. | |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 15:05 - Feb 20 with 319 views | baxterbasics |
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:28 - Feb 20 by Swansea_Blue |
I had a guy in my team who was ex-border force. He was great value on a night out after a few drinks. I wouldn’t want that job for all the money in the world. |
When I worked at a customs broker in Felixstowe we had a presentation day from Border Force about the work they do and what we needed to be aware of.
A few of us came away thinking it would be an awesome job to work in - certainly more interesting than processing customs declarations all day.
But then this was Felixstowe, where the concern is more over drugs and other contraband rather than people smuggling and water bound rescues. |  |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 15:11 - Feb 20 with 294 views | eireblue |
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:27 - Feb 20 by chicoazul |
Chico - disembark then from sea
Babes - And how are you safely executing the transfer of people from overloaded dinghies on to a larger vessel out in the open sea?
Chico - they do that already here is evidence
Babes - you’re arguing with yourself at this point
You couldn’t make it up hohoho |
You can make it up.
You just did. | | | |
| The split in the far-right vote on 15:27 - Feb 20 with 270 views | vapour_trail |
| The split in the far-right vote on 12:49 - Feb 20 by chicoazul |
I guess your mate Dave down the pub who totally runs Border Force trust me bro knows better than this; https://www.gov.uk/government/
“Border Force … is effectively rescuing people and then escorting them into port…” |
Do you understand what escorting means? (In the border force sense, as opposed to royal family)
It doesn't mean disembarking the passengers as per your initial assertion. They will do the latter when other options are not available but make every effort to avoid it due to increased risk to human life.
I did ask Dave down the pub what he thinks of people who loudly declare themselves to the crowd as free thinkers. It was noisy though and I don’t think he caught the question properly as he started going on about throwing them overboard. |  |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 15:32 - Feb 20 with 252 views | vapour_trail |
| The split in the far-right vote on 13:33 - Feb 20 by NthQldITFC |
Am I an independent thinker? |
I’m afraid not. Us independent thinkers know we are and tend to broadcast this to the herd. | |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 15:52 - Feb 20 with 211 views | chicoazul |
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:56 - Feb 20 by Herbivore |
I mean, you just have made that up. You've omitted most of tbe key parts of the discussion that's been taking place because you've ended up tying yourself in knots as usual and are now acting like a 12 year old rather than acknowledging that what you proposed isn't a practical or workable solution. The one bit of actual evidence you've put forward in this thread says as much itself. |
It is practical, it is workable, it happens now despite you and Vapour saying I’m stupid for suggesting it, we have an agreement with France over returns thanks to you for that, we just need to do lots more of it and it would solve the boat problem such as it is quickly. That’s what you asked for, Chico provides. You’re so welcome. | |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 15:54 - Feb 20 with 207 views | chicoazul |
| The split in the far-right vote on 15:27 - Feb 20 by vapour_trail |
Do you understand what escorting means? (In the border force sense, as opposed to royal family)
It doesn't mean disembarking the passengers as per your initial assertion. They will do the latter when other options are not available but make every effort to avoid it due to increased risk to human life.
I did ask Dave down the pub what he thinks of people who loudly declare themselves to the crowd as free thinkers. It was noisy though and I don’t think he caught the question properly as he started going on about throwing them overboard. |
So they make every effort to avoid it but yes Chico you were right all along disembarking from vessel to vessel is possible and does happen and I’m sorry for calling you stupid. | |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 16:06 - Feb 20 with 173 views | Herbivore |
| The split in the far-right vote on 15:54 - Feb 20 by chicoazul |
So they make every effort to avoid it but yes Chico you were right all along disembarking from vessel to vessel is possible and does happen and I’m sorry for calling you stupid. |
Are you still trying to claim that something they avoid doing unless they absolutely have to, something which the one piece of evidence you've provided has said is unsafe and not something they should be doing, is in fact a practical and workable solution? Because if you are, that's not independent thinking, that's being a berk. | |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 16:11 - Feb 20 with 161 views | Swansea_Blue |
| The split in the far-right vote on 15:05 - Feb 20 by baxterbasics |
When I worked at a customs broker in Felixstowe we had a presentation day from Border Force about the work they do and what we needed to be aware of.
A few of us came away thinking it would be an awesome job to work in - certainly more interesting than processing customs declarations all day.
But then this was Felixstowe, where the concern is more over drugs and other contraband rather than people smuggling and water bound rescues. |
Drugs was the main thing for him too. It sounded like that was the real work rather than this performative stuff over migrants. Dealing with some of the more tooled-up drug running ops sounded a bit to dangerous for me! | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
