Do you want to discuss boring politics? (34 Viewers)

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
Surely stationary traffic is less likely to cause accidents than the quality of driving you normally see on the m25
To borrow a phrase from Boicey, that’s laughable halfwittery.
If one of them had fallen on someone, they would have caused some damage,
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
It is a thing that hasn’t really been done until the last 12 months or so
Like most of these things it’s not as easy as saying you’re going home goodbye
Not helped when on the odd occasions when it’s tried, other passengers prevent the flight taking off.
Plus human rights lawyers.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Presumably helped by not having the civil service ”blob” acting against them.

If your political wing has to resort to calling everyone else NPCs and the blob, maybe they’re just not very good at working with others?
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
No it isn’t. The disruption they caused and the money they cost - if someone had stolen that much money they would have expected jail time. Hopefully it will act as a deterrent unlike the tea and biscuits they usually get from law enforcement.
Michelle Mone says hi.
 

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member
Not helped when on the odd occasions when it’s tried, other passengers prevent the flight taking off.
Plus human rights lawyers.

It's embarrasing. Remember Elin Errson in Sweden? Refused to let the plane take off with someone being deported. Turned out he had kicked the shit out of his wife. Clueless fucking idiot.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
No it isn’t. The disruption they caused and the money they cost - if someone had stolen that much money they would have expected jail time. Hopefully it will act as a deterrent unlike the tea and biscuits they usually get from law enforcement.

What disruption did they cause?
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
If your political wing has to resort to calling everyone else NPCs and the blob, maybe they’re just not very good at working with others?
I thought the civil service were supposed to enact the decisions of parliament, not choose whether they wanted to work with the government or not.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
I thought the civil service were supposed to enact the decisions of parliament, not choose whether they wanted to work with the government or not.

They’re still human and need working with. If everyone you meet is a dickhead, you’re the dickhead.
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
How’s that?
FFS, being stuck in a traffic jam on the M25, or anywhere else the JSO scum and cunts have been active, preventing people getting to hospital appointments, to work, holding up ambulances etc.

You cannot seriously not accept that the disruption they caused stopped people going about their lawful business.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2283.jpeg
    IMG_2283.jpeg
    1.1 MB · Views: 1
Last edited:

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
You were seemingly OK with the Rwanda scheme.
The two schemes are completely different. i don’t think £28 million a year spread across Africa and the Middle East will make a blind bit of difference.
 
Last edited:

PVA

Well-Known Member
The two schemes are completely different. i don’t think £28 million a year spread across Africa and teh Middle East will make a blind bit of difference.

I find it strange you bemoan £84m as a laughable waste of money when at the very least that will improve some people's lives, but have no issue with spending £250m on literally fuck all.
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
I find it strange you bemoan £84m as a laughable waste of money when at the very least that will improve some people's lives, but have no issue with spending £250m on literally fuck all.
But will the £84m significantly reduce the number of people crossing the channel?
It’s Labour cancelling the Rwanda project that has meant that £250m has been spent on literally fuck all.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
The two schemes are completely different. i don’t think £28 million a year spread across Africa and the Middle East will make a blind bit of difference.
The Rwanda scheme never made a blind bit of difference. Cost us £280M for nothing. The numbers arriving by boats actually went up. If £28M a year has any effect at all it will be money far wiser spent than the Rwanda scheme.
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
But will the £84m significantly reduce the number of people crossing the channel?
It’s Labour cancelling the Rwanda project that has meant that £250m has been spent on literally fuck all.


If it was their flagship immigration policy you might have a point. But it's not. It's a small part of a wider programme to tackle immigration.

The Tories put all their eggs in one Rwandan basket and it was a total and utter abject failure. Labour are going about it much more sensibly and without the needless culture war and division.

It's just funny seeing people lose their shit over actual adults doing some actual governing.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top