Off Topic The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Should the UK remain a part of the EU or leave?

  • Stay in

    Votes: 56 47.9%

  • Get out

    Votes: 61 52.1%
  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
Stroller said:
You said, So tell me Strolls, why do you think this country is seen as a good place to come over say, France or Belgium..

If three and a half times as many choose France over the UK, it doesn't seem to me that coming here is seen as that attractive a prospect. The numbers risking their lives in the Channel are a tiny proportion of the total.

Did you read the article? I think it gives the answers.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Staines R's said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
they still made 15 million
will the cma be giving the 100 million to the nhs


You must log in or register to see images


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.
 
Stroller said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD
sb_73 said:
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, and I sincerely hope he is right.
Click to expand...

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
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steelmonkey and bobmid
Staines R's said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
sb_73 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobmid
Staines R's said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
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. :emoticon-0103-cool:
 
sb_73 said:
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. :emoticon-0103-cool:
Click to expand...

So you agree that you are being rather naive ?
Didn’t take long
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiwiqpr
Staines R's said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

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....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quite Possibly Raving, rangercol and Staines R's
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back