No robin, please tell me

Hector

All those failings of government you listed, these are systemic issues going back forever, cutting the aid budget and kicking out legitimate asylum seekers is not going to be the panacea you seem to think it is.



Hi hector I have not suggested I wish to kick out legitimate asylum seekers.

What I have said is the UK cannot be the worlds trauma center when it has huge suffering of its own people and a system which cannot build a city the size of Birmingham every ten years if the rate of uncontrolled immigration continues at the rate it is.

Hector what do you want to do about the failed state of our services & institutions?

Keep piling it on ?

Tell that to a single mother with two kids who is never going to get off the housing list whilst she is bringing up her children.

Following on since 2018 3% of asylum seekers have been returned home.

That strikes me as a huge act of compassion, but now we are at a point where we need to put our own citizens first , no matter what ethnicity, religion or persuasion.

Imo, our countries infrastructure cannot cope.

"What I have said is the UK cannot be the worlds trauma center"

It isn't. Have a look at numbers taken in by other nations around the world.

Robin what is your issue with putting our own population first ?

Do you feel that our services & institutions are fit for purpose.

Do you feel that the food banks that are supporting many impoverished families are acceptable ?

Do you feel our health services are fit for purpose when we have waiting lists in the millions?

Do you feel that a 2/3 million housing shortfall is acceptable ?

Do you feel a justice system that is not for purpose is acceptable?

I could go on.

My belief is that we need to put our own backyard right first and be as generous & compassionate with what we can afford .

What do you think in relation to these and many more similar issues facing our struggling society?

Fields , I dont need to look at the numbers.

I experience life in the UK on a daily basis.

& exactly what numbers are they & what relevance do they have to our economy?

Fields ?

What do feel about the state of our public services & broken institutions ?

comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 5 minutes ago
Fields , I dont need to look at the numbers.

I experience life in the UK on a daily basis.

& exactly what numbers are they & what relevance do they have to our economy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cool, ignore objective fact then

I'll leave you to your attention seeking 4/5 paragraphs of repetitive word salad then, good luck!

Fields, this is what you do, you will throw platitudes around & refuse to state your personal views or respond to questions regarding your stance ?

I have put my opinion outhere as best I can.

objective fact??

Have a look at the numbers??

Seriously any one who has had even the briefest access to an academic education knows that statistics & numbers are only relative to the context that they were collated in.

They do not tell the whole story they tell a selective story.

Im simply asking you to explain to me what you feel about the state of our broken system and the effect it has on our population on a daily basis, something i assume you aware of objectively & your asking mo to look at the numbers ??

Are you suggesting the UK is not a broken society ??

‘Good faith’

When the European Court of Human Rights finishes deciding a case, it issues a judgment. If it rules that someone’s rights were violated, it instructs the country at fault to do two things: compensate the individual who won the case, and implement any changes necessary at a national level to avoid repeat violations.

But the court doesn’t tell the country how to fix the problem; just that it needs to do so. It can issue recommendations, but it’s ultimately up to the country to decide what needs to be done.

The most sophisticated system in the world for defending human rights is facing a test. So far, it’s failing.

Nearly 10,000 judgments of the European Court of Human Rights have not been put into effect by national governments. Some of those cases were ruled on as far back as 1992, and they cover all but one of the 47 member countries of the Strasbourg-based Council of Europe, the court’s parent body and the Continent’s leading human rights organization.

The failure to implement these judgments — detailed in a Council of Europe database — means that practices have continued across Europe, in many cases for years, after being ruled violations of human rights. These range from segregating HIV-positive prisoners in Greece, to police brutality in Bulgaria, to not properly investigating deaths of prisoners in Romania.

This is the reality regarding the ECHR rulings, they are advisory, all European countries use there discretion when considering what is best for their countries.

Currently a left judiciary wing & left wing H/R lawyers aligned with this government are supporting contentious immigration case applications.

Rewrite*

Currently a left wing judiciary & left wing H/R lawyers aligned with this government are supporting contentious immigration case applications.

Good morning.

So heres a question

What are our priorities?

1: Our Nett zero policy?

2: Our Foreign Aid commitment?

3: Our defence?

4: Rebuilding our unfit for purpose services & Broken institutions?

5: Solving the UKs cost of living crisis.

6: Provide uncontrolled access for immigration.

We cant have it all, as our economy and tax take doesnt permit that.

At least one or more of these key priorities will have to be down graded or put on hold or at the very least to provide the funds to enable improvement of the others.

Please if you care to list your priorities in order and if you fancy provide some form of context as to your order by way of supporting explanation

I will kick off with:

First:

5, 4, 3, 2 , 1.

6: In my opinion is a none starter, as of course we do need immigration, but it needs to be targeted & controlled. We clearly do not have the funds or capacity to continue to be an open door.

Imo we should first take care of the whole UK population by improving growth & our the state of our failing institutions, along with this rebuild our defence capability, so that it fit for purpose enabling us to a strong allay to Nato & Europe.

Next we should provide a limited foreign aid budget ( with what we can afford) solely for the most important global causes.

After that finally, gradually over decades fund a transition to a Nett zero agenda.

comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 34 minutes ago
Good morning.

So heres a question

What are our priorities?

1: Our Nett zero policy?

2: Our Foreign Aid commitment?

3: Our defence?

4: Rebuilding our unfit for purpose services & Broken institutions?

5: Solving the UKs cost of living crisis.

6: Provide uncontrolled access for immigration.

We cant have it all, as our economy and tax take doesnt permit that.

At least one or more of these key priorities will have to be down graded or put on hold or at the very least to provide the funds to enable improvement of the others.

Please if you care to list your priorities in order and if you fancy provide some form of context as to your order by way of supporting explanation

I will kick off with:

First:

5, 4, 3, 2 , 1.

6: In my opinion is a none starter, as of course we do need immigration, but it needs to be targeted & controlled. We clearly do not have the funds or capacity to continue to be an open door.

Imo we should first take care of the whole UK population by improving growth & our the state of our failing institutions, along with this rebuild our defence capability, so that it fit for purpose enabling us to a strong allay to Nato & Europe.

Next we should provide a limited foreign aid budget ( with what we can afford) solely for the most important global causes.

After that finally, gradually over decades fund a transition to a Nett zero agenda.




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Zero is another one of Labour’s pre election lies! When you see the Chancellor giving support to the 3rd runway!

3rd runway at Heathrow, 2nd runway at Gatwick but no plans to improve rail services in the North.

Rachel Reeves is more Tory than Rees Mogg.

comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 15 hours, 45 minutes ago
‘Good faith’

When the European Court of Human Rights finishes deciding a case, it issues a judgment. If it rules that someone’s rights were violated, it instructs the country at fault to do two things: compensate the individual who won the case, and implement any changes necessary at a national level to avoid repeat violations.

But the court doesn’t tell the country how to fix the problem; just that it needs to do so. It can issue recommendations, but it’s ultimately up to the country to decide what needs to be done.

The most sophisticated system in the world for defending human rights is facing a test. So far, it’s failing.

Nearly 10,000 judgments of the European Court of Human Rights have not been put into effect by national governments. Some of those cases were ruled on as far back as 1992, and they cover all but one of the 47 member countries of the Strasbourg-based Council of Europe, the court’s parent body and the Continent’s leading human rights organization.

The failure to implement these judgments — detailed in a Council of Europe database — means that practices have continued across Europe, in many cases for years, after being ruled violations of human rights. These range from segregating HIV-positive prisoners in Greece, to police brutality in Bulgaria, to not properly investigating deaths of prisoners in Romania.

This is the reality regarding the ECHR rulings, they are advisory, all European countries use there discretion when considering what is best for their countries.

Currently a left judiciary wing & left wing H/R lawyers aligned with this government are supporting contentious immigration case applications.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like we need to strengthen the ECHR.

It needs a reset.

Too many people hiding behind the current version to make it a serious body.

Red

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Zero is another one of Labour’s pre election lies! When you see the Chancellor giving support to the 3rd runway!



I doubt very much if the Labour party election manifesto commitment to Net zero is based upon lies, i think that now the labour party in Government is now faced with reality.

How will they grow an economy that they have sent into a downward spiral with their ideologically based financial planning?

I suppose giving the green light to Airport expansion is a starter, although the benefits may well be sometime in coming.

Boris,

3rd runway at Heathrow, 2nd runway at Gatwick but no plans to improve rail services in the North.

Rachel Reeves is more Tory than Rees Mogg.



I would suggest the issue with the inability to improve much needed Northern rail services is based upon, that this would cost state , government finance.

Which is not available as policies such as an open ended uncontrolled immigration & Nett zero is currently taking huge amounts of money out of the available government finances without any hope a tangible return in the next 2/3 decades.

The airports expansion plans are largely private investment based funding. The Government will contribute but the amount will be overall terms insignificant by comparison.

Another once your in charge reality check!

ruben,

Good faith’

When the European Court of Human Rights finishes deciding a case, it issues a judgment. If it rules that someone’s rights were violated, it instructs the country at fault to do two things: compensate the individual who won the case, and implement any changes necessary at a national level to avoid repeat violations.

But the court doesn’t tell the country how to fix the problem; just that it needs to do so. It can issue recommendations, but it’s ultimately up to the country to decide what needs to be done.

The most sophisticated system in the world for defending human rights is facing a test. So far, it’s failing.

Nearly 10,000 judgments of the European Court of Human Rights have not been put into effect by national governments. Some of those cases were ruled on as far back as 1992, and they cover all but one of the 47 member countries of the Strasbourg-based Council of Europe, the court’s parent body and the Continent’s leading human rights organization.

The failure to implement these judgments — detailed in a Council of Europe database — means that practices have continued across Europe, in many cases for years, after being ruled violations of human rights. These range from segregating HIV-positive prisoners in Greece, to police brutality in Bulgaria, to not properly investigating deaths of prisoners in Romania.

This is the reality regarding the ECHR rulings, they are advisory, all European countries use there discretion when considering what is best for their countries.

Currently a left judiciary wing & left wing H/R lawyers aligned with this government are supporting contentious immigration case applications.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like we need to strengthen the ECHR.

Exactly who are we ?

If the rest of Europe are happy to exercise discretion why would you want to strengthen something which may not always be in your country's interest.

FYI, we are not part of the EU, we are a sovereign state

I would suggest the issue with the inability to improve much needed Northern rail services is based upon, that this would cost state , government finance.
------------------------------------------------------------

Was the Elizabeth Line self financing, is the London to Birmingham HS line reliant on taxpayer money?

These are the questions people up here are asking and why Reform are going to hammer Labour at the next GE in the North

comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 47 seconds ago
ruben,

Good faith’

When the European Court of Human Rights finishes deciding a case, it issues a judgment. If it rules that someone’s rights were violated, it instructs the country at fault to do two things: compensate the individual who won the case, and implement any changes necessary at a national level to avoid repeat violations.

But the court doesn’t tell the country how to fix the problem; just that it needs to do so. It can issue recommendations, but it’s ultimately up to the country to decide what needs to be done.

The most sophisticated system in the world for defending human rights is facing a test. So far, it’s failing.

Nearly 10,000 judgments of the European Court of Human Rights have not been put into effect by national governments. Some of those cases were ruled on as far back as 1992, and they cover all but one of the 47 member countries of the Strasbourg-based Council of Europe, the court’s parent body and the Continent’s leading human rights organization.

The failure to implement these judgments — detailed in a Council of Europe database — means that practices have continued across Europe, in many cases for years, after being ruled violations of human rights. These range from segregating HIV-positive prisoners in Greece, to police brutality in Bulgaria, to not properly investigating deaths of prisoners in Romania.

This is the reality regarding the ECHR rulings, they are advisory, all European countries use there discretion when considering what is best for their countries.

Currently a left judiciary wing & left wing H/R lawyers aligned with this government are supporting contentious immigration case applications.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like we need to strengthen the ECHR.

Exactly who are we ?

If the rest of Europe are happy to exercise discretion why would you want to strengthen something which may not always be in your country's interest.

FYI, we are not part of the EU, we are a sovereign state
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't make this argument because my comment is a reply to what you said.

i personally would prefer to remain in the ECHR, but until our judiciary & our government begin to use its right to permissible discretion and continue to support contentious right to stay applications , im firmly behind we must exit as we are in the midst of a uncontrolled, unsustainable immigration influx that is part of the reason our state is failing unfortunately.

Ruben,

Im sure what your point?

But tbf I can respond when and how I wish, much the same as you.

The difference is my case i am prepared to state my reasoning

Ruben,

* Im sure what your point is ?

It's cases like this that are turning people against the whole idea of HR appeals

Weed out the frivilous appeals and concentrate on the serious ones and we may get somewhere..

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/rochdale-grooming-gang-members-deported-to-pakistan-after-legal-battle/