So you lose your right to a personal political opinion? We’ll get rid of two members of the BBC board with him then
If anyone believes a football pundit's view on immigration are automatically the biased views of the BBC ... ... they should be put on a plane to Rwanda and have their passports confiscated.
If anyone believes the Rwanda policy is a good idea they should be put on a plane and their passports confiscated
If they spent the money they have spent / committed to spend on Rwanda on resources to assess the asylum claims there wouldn't be a problem because there wouldn't be a backlog of asylum seekers, legal or illegal, to house because that resource would be more than enough to clear the backlog but that doesn't get a set of scapegoats which they reckon will get them votes.
You do realise that was a DeSantis PR stunt? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/02/us/migrants-marthas-vineyard-desantis-texas.html
I bet every time you see Vorderman you say ‘but Starmer’ like a Rwandan parrot. Do you add up wrong to get back at her?
he doesn’t call you moronic. He said your post was moronic, which is different. I would agree. I’m not sure how that makes him a leftie? I’m not. Out of interest, how many people do you know of that have decided to become homeless as a lifestyle choice…Or are you basing this on well established facts/research we can all read up on? . “we’re all naive “ in this matter, according to you, so please enlighten me.
Of course I know it was a stunt. He openly said so. The point was the reaction of the ever so right on residents of Martha's Vineyard. " We don't have the facilities" . Nor do other places, short of commandeered hotels and quick fix jobs. As I say, they were gone from there in no time at all, just as they would be gone from St John's Wood or anywhere similar. It's a problem for the little people to tolerate, not them.
It's a question that's hard to answer though. How many would you know who are not homeless by choice? I don't know a single homeless person? It's a more nuanced subject. What we do know, is that homelessness has a thousand reasons. And one is its incentivisation. Look at San Francisco for evidence of that.
He can have all the personal opinions he wants. I can't imagine any sentient individual taking any notice of his sentence long posturing anyway. But working for the BBC in such a position is meant to restrain political positioning, though that long went by the wayside if the evidence of Redhead, Sissons, Humphreys, Garvey, Marr, Paxman and others is to be believed. Let it fund itself, and the boil is lanced.
@rowley answered it way better than I ever could. It's my opinion though that SOME people CHOOSE to live homeless. I don't have to enlighten you about anything so stop the patronising.
Well I've just mentioned those people, who all put in writing about their own experiences. They worked there. Marr, a profoundly left wing man among them. And let's face it, I read the Guardian quite a lot, and it is way to the left of where it once was. It will find an angle, as will the self styled airhead. But again, just let it fund itself. All discussion over then.
And I disagree with you, they make the decision based on unfortunate circumstances beyond their control.
Why let it fund itself, I'd prefer the bbc to be available at a fee for it's impartiality... gb news being the epitome of everything that is wrong in our society.
Maybe some runaway from family feuds for instance? Depression? I honestly don't know mate. I just believe that some choose that path. But I also think that a big majority of homeless people don't choose to be homeless.
