The proportion is not relevant to what I’m talking about......the fact that 35,566 people in 2019, and of course that doesn’t include illegal migrants who didn’t apply for asylum and live here illegally, chose to leave the safety of France or Belgium and risk their lives to get here....surely tells you they are coming here for some reason. Yes I did read the article....none of the myths applied to what I’m saying.
As I said, the numbers risking their lives to get here are a small fraction of the total. Of the 35k applications in 2019 only 2k had crossed the channel in small boats.
You'd have to ask Farage about that. He's in charge of patrolling the coast since Brexit. Rees-Mogg looks after the fishes.
I guess it is, by its nature. I'd suggest that counties in mainland Europe are likely to have far greater numbers of illegal immigrants than we do, though.
be nice if someone would patrol the coast send the people in dingies back to france its where they came from let them apply for immigration properly
Give over. We've done that one to death. Still you should be safe from being suspended or banned. This isn't the House of Commons.
they still made 15 million will the cma be giving the 100 million to the nhs please log in to view this image Kelvin MacKenzie @kelvmackenzie Congrats to the Times for exposing the sharks at Advanz Pharma who cost the NHS £115million by increasing the price of their thyroid drug from 16p a tablet to £9.22 over 9 years. The CMA have now fined them and their shareholders (who were in on the racket) £100million.
They have a far bigger landmass. We are one of the most densely populated countries in the world. That's highly relevant.
I know it’s something we would like to forget about, but an interview with General Sir Nick Carter chief of the Defence Staff (Britain’s top military man?), on Afghanistan left me slack jawed with amazement. I am pretty ignorant in military matters, so there might be some with more experience on here who can put me right, but it sounded like pure propaganda to me. The rapid surrender of much of the Afghan countryside to the Taliban ‘doesn’t matter’ because not many people live there, and is part of the Afghan military strategy to ‘protect the urban areas’. Didn’t the US military say something similar about the Vietcong? And it’s not working as there is now fighting in several provincial capitals and bombing with impunity (including of the minister of defence’s house) in Kabul. US air strikes seem to be the main means of defence, with entire cities being evacuated to allow bombing of the Taliban, supplemented, apparently by lots of Al Qaeda terrorists. Sir Nick said that the ‘international community’ need to call out the behaviour of the Taliban in areas that it controls, and in the same breathe says we should have been in dialogue with them for the last 20 years. Still, he thinks the Afghan government is winning, and will continue to when western support is withdrawn entirely, because ‘the Afghan army can be reasonably confident that it is fighting back’ and I sincerely hope he is right.
What makes the Taliban in Afghanistan any worse than, for example, the rulers of Saudi Arabia ? On another note my mate who served out in Afghanistan was gutted that he could never watch Eastenders when he was there……said it was because of The Teleban. I’ll get my coat
From a purely selfish, little Englander perspective, the Taliban are active supporters of terrorist groups which target this country. I’m pretty sure the Saudi’s sponsor international terrorism too, but probably on a more local basis to them, of less direct threat to us. And of course, the worse things get In Afghanistan the more of these pesky refugees will hit the road. I am aware that this differs from the official WPB position.
I think you maybe a little naive to think the Saudis aren’t a direct danger to the west (but of course they also spend lots of money on our bombs and planes to kill Yemenis, so that’s ok). 15 out of the 19 9/11 hi-jackers were from Saudi Arabia, a fact that is often overlooked. What is the official WPB position that you refer to ? Are you a secret member ?
Fair enough, beyond being ‘anti imperialist’ and supporting China, Cuba, Venezuela and holding up the Soviet Union as the role model country (bit obsessed with the reputation of this failed state) the WPB website is a bit vague on foreign policy. I was going on the Dear Leader’s previous comments pro Taliban and anti Saudi. I assume that the party will fall in line behind George when required. It’s his toy, after all.
If you've got the time, listen to the "Conflicted" podcast - it's on Spotify and other platforms. Recommended by @Quite Possibly Raving on our podcast thread, it really opened my eyes as to what is going on in the Middle East, including a fascinating episode about Yemen. I can't guarantee that it'll change your opinion on Saudi, but it'll give you a different perspective....
Just turned on to GB news to see how’s it going and definitely looking a lot more professional than at the beginning. Going more for an ITV breakfast magazine type style rather than Sky/BBC rolling news thing. I won’t be watching all day but not bad to have on in the background
