MOTD

[WTFH]

(although I don't recall seeing the 100 million figure anywhere; given there are only about 62m already here that destroys your credibility somewhat),

Destroys my credibility?

https://hansard.parliament.uk/common...lMigrationBill

there are 100 million people around the world who could qualify for protection under our current laws. Let us be clear: they are coming here.

It's not my credibility being destroyed, but the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Suella Braverman, on Tuesday 7th March.

[malvolio]

Destroys my credibility?

https://hansard.parliament.uk/common...lMigrationBill


It's not my credibility being destroyed, but the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Suella Braverman, on Tuesday 7th March.

And you think any modern politician will be making clear, accurate and meaningful statements? Or are they appealing to the Twitterati and the Dick Tok users who can't understand anything that isn't delivered with a baseball bat and who apparently lack any kind of rational critical thought? Very little that comes out of the HoC from any party makes any kind of rational sense, that's not its purpose. Those that take it as gospel are the ones who really don't understand.

[WTFH]

And you think any modern politician will be making clear, accurate and meaningful statements? Or are they appealing to the Twitterati and the Dick Tok users who can't understand anything that isn't delivered with a baseball bat and who apparently lack any kind of rational critical thought? Very little that comes out of the HoC from any party makes any kind of rational sense, that's not its purpose. Those that take it as gospel are the ones who really don't understand.

Hey, you're the one who said that it was MY credibility that was destroyed, and now you're resorting to pathetic name calling for anyone who dares comment, disagree or quote the government.
When government ministers spread lies, that you firstly disagree that they said, now say that it's irrelevant, then you choose to get more worked up about someone who suggests they are not good people, than the vile message that they put out.

That's your context.

[malvolio]

Hey, you're the one who said that it was MY credibility that was destroyed, and now you're resorting to pathetic name calling for anyone who dares comment, disagree or quote the government.
When government ministers spread lies, that you firstly disagree that they said, now say that it's irrelevant, then you choose to get more worked up about someone who suggests they are not good people, than the vile message that they put out.

That's your context.

And you can't distinguish between lies and propaganda. Is that my fault as well?

This is pointless. You can't argue coherently if one side starts from the assumption that the other is apparently incapable of independent thought and analysis. It's not me grabbing any useful soundbite to support a largely unsupportable argument, nor is it me refusing to understand what was actually said and ignoring the actual point.

Which is that I was talking about controlling our gateways. You seem to want to counter that by claiming HMG says there is an infinite number of people howling at those gateways to be let in. Which rather implies you think either we need a control on the gateways, or that those people don't actually exist. Can you see why I get confused?

[vetran]

Yes, that is the other side of the argument. I know that all perfectly well thanks.

If you apply it all migrant incomers then it is even fairly valid (although I don't recall seeing the 100 million figure anywhere; given there are only about 62m already here that destroys your credibility somewhat), However apply it to the people in the small boats coming here illegally through a highly dangerous route and ignoring the perfectly valid routes they could have taken and then HMG's position (supported by a huge proportion of the general public; those who don't live in Islington perhaps) are in favour of the proposed actions.

We have never been against immigration of people who want to join us or who are seeking genuine asylum for various reasons (ask all those Ugandan Asians), but that does not mean we mustn't have any kind of control over or vetting of people who do so.

We have only got 6 million from the EU and a few hundred thousand sea faring boys who are really men.
Of the 100 million who went west (I think its some 1930's talking organisation who mentioned it like the UN https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/06/1120542) the rest are on their way through Sweden & Germany.

How dare you be fussy? we can't refuse those that are obviously economic migrants with no intention to obey the law. Let them stay at Linaker & WTFH's places.

[WTFH]

And you can't distinguish between lies and propaganda. Is that my fault as well?

So, Tory lies and Tory propaganda is perfectly allowed, but calling them out for language that sounds like 1930s Germany is not allowed.

Just wanting to check how off-kilter your moral compass is.

[malvolio]

So, Tory lies and Tory propaganda is perfectly allowed, but calling them out for language that sounds like 1930s Germany is not allowed.

Just wanting to check how off-kilter your moral compass is.

Like I said: pointless.

[d000hg]

So, Tory lies and Tory propaganda is perfectly allowed, but calling them out for language that sounds like 1930s Germany is not allowed.

When you've agreed not to show bias, yes you should keep quiet unless you are prepared to lose your job on principle.
Aunty Beeb can't have its people spouting their views when it has a reputation for impartiality, high profile people like Gary have an impact on this.

Don't work with them if you aren't willing to do this or think this is immoral.

Maybe we shouldn't be taking our views on refugees and complex immigration issues from someone who left school with 4 GCSEs to get hit on the head with a football.

[vetran]

So, Tory lies and Tory propaganda is perfectly allowed, but calling them out for language that sounds like 1930s Germany is not allowed.

Just wanting to check how off-kilter your moral compass is.

Seems you may need a translation?

Well stop bumping Gums or blowing your wig. You Dames do get excited. Sounds like you have been on the giggle Juice.

or maybe this?

Abschaum saugende Moderatoren. Wer ein bisschen schmierige Prominenz mag,.

[SueEllen]

When you've agreed not to show bias, yes you should keep quiet unless you are prepared to lose your job on principle.
Aunty Beeb can't have its people spouting their views when it has a reputation for impartiality, high profile people like Gary have an impact on this.

He didn't agree not to show bias like Andrew Neil and other freelancers who work for the BBC.

Don't work with them if you aren't willing to do this or think this is immoral.

Their staff know that.

Maybe we shouldn't be taking our views on refugees and complex immigration issues from someone who left school with 4 GCSEs to get hit on the head with a football.

May be the Beeb should have ignored his tweet and not bowed to pressure from some Tory MPs.