Grendel
Well-Known Member
Probably should be on the COVID thread but I thought you might be posting this
Do you want to discuss boring politics? (19 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
Probably should be on the COVID thread but I thought you might be posting this
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I think there’s going to be more revelations about burying research that showed mask wearing was also more about fear and control than actual protection
Masks make 'little to no difference' to Covid infections or deaths
The study, in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, found that wearing mask in the community 'probably makes little or difference' to whether you catch Covid or flu-like illnesses.
www.dailymail.co.uk
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
that study seems to miss the point, it was known at the time masks didn't offer high levels of protection to the wearer and the idea was to stop the production of aerosols by the wearer.I think there’s going to be more revelations about burying research that showed mask wearing was also more about fear and control than actual protection
Masks make 'little to no difference' to Covid infections or deaths
The study, in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, found that wearing mask in the community 'probably makes little or difference' to whether you catch Covid or flu-like illnesses.www.dailymail.co.uk
likely misreporting by the mail
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Or helping people feel more safeI think there’s going to be more revelations about burying research that showed mask wearing was also more about fear and control than actual protection
Masks make 'little to no difference' to Covid infections or deaths
The study, in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, found that wearing mask in the community 'probably makes little or difference' to whether you catch Covid or flu-like illnesses.www.dailymail.co.uk
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Firing anti aircraft weapons was known to be ineffective in the Blitz, we did it anyway to reassure people. As for masks, the surgical grade ones do work-the rest including snot stained bandanas not quite.
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
but face coverings do reduce the amount of aerosols created by a person
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Some face coverings were clearly shown to be more effective than others. The blast shields some people insisted on wearing were pretty much totally ineffective
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
that was shit from braverman
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
it's the same unworkable nonsense
If they’re really going ahead with this (can’t see it being signed off by the Lords let alone the courts though), it needs to be done in conjunction with setting up offshore/external asylum processing centres, ideally near likely main claimant countries, to give opportunity to genuine asylum seekers. Also, and I appreciate this might not be well received but they’ve got to put a monthly or quarterly cap* both to give centres the chance to process claims and properly manage inflow as dumping people in hotels/centres for months on end is just wrong
*this can be tweaked depending on processing capacity and/or world events
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I heard the other day that this is the 3rd time the Tories are changing the law claiming that it will take back control of our borders. Is that right?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Been saying this/or similar for a while Steve. We have a consulate in Calais, let’s use it. Have them apply in France, take their DNA, fingerprints etc, have their teeth checked to confirm their age etc. They’re in a safe country while they’re being processed. If they’re successful give them safe passage to the UK and instead of being put up in hotels costing the taxpayer a fortune they can start work on arrival filling some of these jobs that can’t get filled contributing to society rather than being a drain on it. If you’re processing them in France and then giving them safe passage across the channel supply and demand will dry up for the people smugglers and who knows the small boats might stop. And if they don’t you can legitimately state that the people arriving by them are illegal immigrants as there is a genuine safe route to the UK if you qualify.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Oddly this is not the policy of the Labour Party either....
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
You can't put a cap on asylum seekers.
You either fund the capacity to discern who is and who isn't worthy of asylum (and, given the numbers, it really wouldn't be that much of our GDP as a %age), or you accept that you let a lot of random people in to the country because you don't want to spend the money. I'd suggest they very possibly want the latter, dead cat syndrome.
What you can't do is stop people who need help, from seeking help. I'll repeat, there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker. All you can do is make the process better, what you can't do is stop people in need from seeking help.
It's our responsibility, and we should always thank God that we're not the ones who need to seek asylum.
Oh and for the avoidance of doubt, I have no problem with deporting people who are found not to be asylum seekers - the current problem is our system of doing that is not fit for purpose.
What it certainly isn't, is the fault of those pesky lefty lawyers who keep using the system to allow genuine asylum seekers to, well... successfully claim asylum.
Last edited by a moderator:
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Bit surprising really. On the face of it at least, managing to come up with a deal that isn't a total shitshow puts him above the previous two incumbents in competence, so you'd think not being them would be enough for a bit of a shift, whether you give a shit about NI or not.
Id never want to turn away genuine asylum seekers, people who are escaping war or persecution, but there also needs to be some disincentives to put off non genuine asylum seekers. As soon as you set up centres elsewhere claimants will no doubt increase significantly. I agree that a straight cut off cap probably isn’t the right/most human way of dealing with the situation but maybe that could only be applied to certain countries/situations
I don’t profess to know the answer but all I do know is the situation as it stands is far from humane, many genuine claimants being delayed in the system by people who aren’t and kept in pretty horrific conditions. Even once processed we haven’t got adequate housing to deal with it. It’s a mess
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Again, actually fund the system isntead of (deliberately?) running it down, and the problems lessen drastically. You don't actually need a cap. I'd also argue that even if you're not a genuine asylum seeker, there's little that will disincentivise you if you're happy to get on a rickity boat, cling to the wheels of a jet aircraft, or hole up in a refrigerated truck for hours on end.... and why do you want to cap people who are genuinely desperate - for they'll get caught up in it, whatever you do. We're a civilised country, lucky enough to be a free and liberal country (although current rhetoric and desired policy is a worryng lurch towards a totalitarian regime, of course!) and we need to appreciate that a little more, rather than wanting what others flee to avoid.
I don't know what the current situation is, but a few years ago because of the lack of staff, if you failed your asylum claim you were given a slip, and told to report to a deportation centre in a fortnight. Can't imagine what happened to those people(!) so if there's a problem, look at that rather than the desperate people! That's your best way to disincentivise those who aren't genuine, make sure *they're* dealt with properly, rather than allowed to melt away into the underworld (what better way to encourage people to come than a system that guarantees you stay if you want to, because government is so inept it can't run a proper system) - and it's such trivial numbers compared to the big tasks of government, that it could be mitigated far more easily than other issues if government really *wanted* to sort a system out.
Just do it properly, treat people as people - don't start these ludicrous attempts to demonise desperate people, don't start talking about how you want to toughen the definition of what asylum is, that's nonsense to play to a racist minority... and hope the rest catches a majority up in an exaggerated (by government, to their shame) fear of the unknown.
And accept there will always be people less lucky than ourselves. We can't help everybody, hence it's not automatically guaranteed you get asylum(!) but we can protect those who need it most - it's only humane to do so.
Last edited by a moderator:
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I see now the UN are expressing concern at our plans. Tories continuing to drag the country’s reputation through the gutter in the name of far right lunacy
In theory I agree with pretty much everything you say and certainly appreciate how lucky we are in this country (many don’t) but I think in reality it’s not so straightforward. There will continue to be increasing numbers fleeing countries for a variety of reasons and however much I would want to help everyone, I just don’t think it will be possible
I don’t think the governments proposals are the answer as I indicated earlier and certainly have no time for Bravermann but I also don’t see many/any other workable solutions being proposed either
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
You're not helping everyone if you actually deal with asylum seekers properly, that's the point.
Northants Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
They do not want to fix this problem.
They need a bogeyman to position themselves against.
They're banking that fear alone wins elections so we've got another 18 months of this rubbish
They need a bogeyman to position themselves against.
They're banking that fear alone wins elections so we've got another 18 months of this rubbish
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
Seems that the public is just sick and tired of the tories
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The rhetoric is ridiculous too. Suella Braverman recons there’s 100million people in the world who currently qualify to claim asylum in the UK and they all want to come here. Just to put that into some kind of context firstly, no they don’t all want to come here by any stretch of the imagination. Secondly, even if they did at current levels they’ll all be here in 2000 years. Or about the same time we’ll see the Brexit benefits
. Being serious for a second though this is all the Brexit bollocks again about eleventy billion Turks coming here once Turkey joins the EU. Which of course they never were going to. Clearly they think that the electorate was stupid enough to buy it once they can sell them the same shit again. Make no mistake, the Conservative election campaign has started and this is all they’ve got.
. Being serious for a second though this is all the Brexit bollocks again about eleventy billion Turks coming here once Turkey joins the EU. Which of course they never were going to. Clearly they think that the electorate was stupid enough to buy it once they can sell them the same shit again. Make no mistake, the Conservative election campaign has started and this is all they’ve got.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The UN are also saying it’s a clear breach of the UN refugee convention that we’re signed up to.
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
It's not meant to actually happen, it's performative politics from a dying government
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Is it even a problem in the grand scheme of things?
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
No, it's but the tories want it to end in court so they can have one last try at the culture war vote. If they were serious about this they wouldn't release a bill before it has been checked for legality
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Red meat for the gammons and Karen’s. Not sure how they think this is going to win them a GE election though. The only electorate interested in this kind of nonsense has the reform party and they aren’t exactly awash in the polls with the numbers needed by the Tories to turn the tide against Labour.
They're absolutely gagging to blame the 'lefty lawyers' again
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Wonder how much we’ve now paid Rwanda
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
They have nothing left, 2019 robbed them of any real talent and anyone who could stop them and say "People care about being able to afford to eat, heat there houses and have enough left over to pay the leccy bills".
As James Carville sais while helping Clinton to unseat Bush in 92 "It's the economy, Stupid"