RayC

38 minutes ago, DezLez said:

Not when the Romanovs were in charge!!

It might have been for the Romanovs, but it wasn't for the vast majority of ordinary Russians.

4 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

"Not an inch to the East."

 

Trust us.

If James Baker did utter those words then it was not reflective of the US (and European) strategy at the time

https://on.ft.com/3ZgBehl

4 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

You are beginning to stutter.

 

You might want to take a deep breath and step away from your keyboard.

 

And accept that someone with over 2 decades of experience - It might be fair to say that my big toe has forgotten more than you will ever learn from google.

Over two decades experience of what? Getting angry when someone has the nerve to disagree with one of your pronouncements? Misplaced, self-important arrogance doesn't cut it with me.

Maybe you should take your own advice re deep breaths and posting.

3 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Just a mentalist then.

Not not that either. And you?

20 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Are you bi-polar ?

No. Are you?

12 minutes ago, annotator said:

This is what Chatgpt says. It's good enough for me:

Blaming Ukraine: In February and April 2025, Trump referred to the war as “Ukraine’s war” or even “Biden’s war,” claiming Ukraine started the conflict or that Ukraine “should have never started it” and should have made a deal instead 
.

Bravo for Putin: He described Putin’s invasion as “very smart” or “genius,” going so far as to say Putin “played Biden like a drum” and that the annexation was done for “$2 worth of sanctions” – comments widely interpreted as praise 
washingtonpost.com
.

Kremlin Echoes: His narrative closely mirrors Russian propaganda, e.g. claiming the war was provoked by NATO expansion or Ukrainian actions—positions echoed without challenge, and sometimes repeated by Trump officials .

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. Imo Trump is ill-advised and/or ill-informed on this matter.

2 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

I never retired with a big fat, gold plated, index linked Government pension, because I worked in the DWP or similar.

Where did that one come from? And what has it got to do with anything?

I've never mentioned anything about the sources of your income.

2 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

There is a world of difference between a legal challenge and a Judicial Review.

Semantics.

2 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

A Judicial review will always side with the Government when it comes to matters of National Security.

Once again, you cannot possibly know that for a fact.

2 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

How is that for speculation ?

It's good. You're right. It's speculation.

Just now, The Cyclist said:

 

Are you struggling ?
 

No but you appear to be.

Just now, The Cyclist said:

You intimated that I suggested setting up camps on the South Coast

 

 

You invented an issue that did not exist.

As I explained the location is irrelevant to my questions.

Just now, The Cyclist said:

Just like you invent excuses as to why something cannot, or will not work.

No. I invented questions, not excuses, which you are unable and/or unwilling to answer.

Just now, The Cyclist said:

 

No, it's not a hypothetical, its a very simple solution, by invoking the National Security Act and drafting in the Military under Military Aid to the ( failing ) Civil Authorities.

It is hypothetical by definition. Your proposed solution is not currently operational.

Meanwhile, my questions about your proposed solution go unanswered.

Just now, The Cyclist said:

Because you are not familiar with what can be done, does not make it untrue.

Because you wish something to be true does not make it true.

5 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Check it out for yourself then.

 

You know, sometimes people actually know what they are talking about.

 

Amazing eh

Are you are a lawyer specialising in constitutional or 'security' law? If so, then your replies might carry a bit more weight than the opinions of a layman like myself.

However, even if that is the case, you cannot possibly know that any legal challenge is doomed to fail. As I said, it is pure speculation.

4 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

I see your issue. I never mentioned the South Coast.

 

I specifically said set up camps on military Training Areas. There is 1000's of acres to choose from.

The location of the camps is totally irrelevant to my questions

4 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

I don't answer questions on your hypothetheticals.

 

I asked you to answer a factual question.

Your solution is a hypothetical so, of course, my questions about it are hypothetical.

15 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Have no doubt the money will be spent. It's more a question of what on. A pay rise for the big wigs might very well be the first point of order. NATO is no where as strong militarily as it could be and a big part of this is decades of US reliance. This is what Trump has been going on about for quite some time. Will the extra money result in an increase in lethality where NATO could protect itself without the US? I doubt it but Trump wanted them to pay a bigger portion of the pie and this would appear to have been achieved.

I have no doubt that some more money will be spent but I very much doubt whether that will equate to 5% of GDP for each and every NATO member, although I suppose an accounting sleight of hand might make it appear so.

5 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Nope

 

It may be subjected to a Judicial Review, which would most likely side with the Government.

 

No vexatious lawfare allowed.

That is pure speculation. You cannot possibly know for a fact.

1 minute ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Then do not try and criticize what is a simple solution, and whining that it is unworkable.

Even if the National Security Act were to be invoked that does not solve the problem. My issues are with your solution concerning the setting up of camps on the south coast. 

I have posed questions to you about this potential solution throughout this thread and they remain unanswered.

1 minute ago, The Cyclist said:

How about answering why arrivals are up 50% since Starmer killed the Rwanda Act, which became British Law on the 25 April 2024 ?

How about addressing my unanswered questions contained throughout this thread before I address any more of yours?

5 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

You can point out flaws in my solution, when you have read and understood the UK's National Security Act.

 

You might also want read into Military Aid to the Civil Authorities and when it can be invoked

 

If someone had a spine and a set of hairy swingers, the solution is easy.

 

Which is an abject failure

 

Need a bit more reading, you missed this

 

Arguably, all 3 are under attack. Except if your name is Starmer and those like him.

I have neither the time nor inclination to read the National Security Act in its' original form but working on the assumption that AI has produced a good summation of it, I remain unconvinced that it would be the correct mechanism to enact your solution. At the very least, I'd imagine that its' use in this context  would be the subject of a legal challenge.

I didn't miss that statement i.e. "To protect the UK's democracy, economy, and values from foreign interference", I think that using this clause in the context of 'stopping the boats' would also be subject to a legal challenge.

I assume that my other questions posted throughout this thread will remain unanswered?

8 hours ago, transam said:

Perhaps they were taking a leaf out of Trumps book, BS and fibs..................

I think that you might be right, Trans. 'Committing to spending' and actually spending are two different things.

Nevertheless, I don't see how this commitment can't be seen as a triumph for Trump.

3 hours ago, annotator said:

No. My point was that President Trump doesn't care if Europe gets invaded or not. That's their problem. So why should he care how much the Europeans spend on defense? Not our problem.

If the US wants to disengage itself from Europe it is, of course, perfectly entitled to do so.

However, it will not be without consequence in the medium/ long term. Europe's ties with China are strained at the moment, if the US is not longer interested in being our BFF maybe China will be. Not good news for US exporters.

Incidentally, where and when did Trump say that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was justified?

3 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

 

Right, so instead of looking in a mirror, try answering the question.

 

 

Try explaining why what I have suggested, will ot act as a deterrent?

Look back at our exchange throughout this thread and it is clear that I have answered your questions directly, something that you have completely failed to do with mine.

3 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Do I really ?
 

Yes you do have a choice. You can either keep things civil or be aggressive. Seems like you have made your choice.

Here's one fact for you. If you reply aggressively, condescendingly or rudely I will reply in kind.

3 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

For someone who just admitted that you have no answers. You certainly have a lot to say for yourself.

So just because I don't offer an easy solution to a complex problem, I'm not entitled to point out what I perceive as flaws in other solutions? Right.

3 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

I gave you one.

 

Which involved invoking the National Security Act.

 

You try explaining why it would not work. Instead of getting bombastic and offering nothing

See my previous posts for some of my questions about the use of camps on the south coast as a form of deterrent. (I have others but why don't you address the outstanding unanswered ones firstly).

Wrt to the use of the National Security Act as an enabler for your solution, there might be a legal problem in doing so. My interpretation of the AI generated text below is that it could only be used if individuals were known to be involved in acts which could threaten the UK. Given that there are no passenger lists for those arriving illegally by boat - i.e. their identities are unknown - from my layman's point of view, it's difficult to see how the National Security Act could be invoked in these circumstances.

_-----+++++++++++++

"While the National Security Act could be used in specific cases, it's not typically the primary mechanism for addressing illegal immigration. The UK has specific immigration laws and a Border Security, Asylum, and Immigration Bill focused on controlling and managing borders. The National Security Act primarily deals with threats to national security, such as terrorism, espionage, and serious organized crime, and could be invoked against individuals involved in such activities, regardless of their immigration status".

5 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Why are numbers up by 50% since Starmer cancelled the Rwanda Act, given Royal Assent on 25 April 2024 ?
 

Because it was a deterrent.

 

And as anyone, with more than a single brain cell knows, any form of deterrent actually works.

 

As you can only produce excuses as to why something will not work. I can only assume that for reason known only to yourself, and all the other " Refugees Welcome " bampots, that you are all happy with the current influx of mostly fighting age males, and what some, myself included, would describe as economic warfare, being used against the UK.

 

 

Typical of you.

When challenged about potential flaws in one of your 'cure all' solutions for the problems faced by the UK, you do not address the points raised - presumably because you have no explanations - but instead launch into a personal attack and then top it off with some empty, bombastic rhetoric.

No, I don't have a solution to the illegal migration problem. I've said that all along. To admit that, "is allowed, you know" as Nigel Farage might reply.

You now have a choice: You can either 1) end this exchange 2) engage in polite discussion. It's possible; see my exchange with Noshowjones or 3) continue exchanging insults. Up to you. I'll go along with what you decide.

3 hours ago, StandardIssue said:

Hmm, I guess that leave's ole' Blighty off the list of vacation spots for awhile. 

I understand why you might think that having read some of the posts on AN, but the UK is not too bad really and probably no more dangerous than Gaza, Kyiv or Tehran on a bad day. Some visitors even occasionally make it back home in one piece.

I'm based in London; pop round for tea but make sure you leave under coverage of darkness. You'll never make it during daylight hours.

Anyway, bon vacation et bon voyage. See you soon 😉

3 hours ago, NoshowJones said:

Your link does not work. Your posts in this debate do make some sense, but I still say it is wrong to give all these hotel rooms and expenses paid for by the UK taxpayer to these immigrants whether they are asylum seekers or not, there are far too many people living in the UK streets which includes some ex service men.

The UK is far too small a country to keep allowing all these boat people just to keep rocking up to fill hotel rooms.

If Reform are really going to stop all this nonsense when previous governments have just turned a blind eye, then the sooner they get in to government the better.

Sorry that the link didn't work for you. I just copied and posted the address in my browser and it worked ok so I'm not sure what is the problem.

According to government figures, +/-4,000 people were sleeping rough on the streets of the UK in Autumn 2023, although Shelter puts the figure at 12,000. I found both figures surprisingly low, but then my observation is based on London where most are congregated. Given the relative low figures, imo it should be possible to offer shelter to these individuals if they want it.

As I stated in one of my earlier posts, I don't think that there is an easy answer to the illegal migrant problem and I don't think Reform have the answers to the country's problems either. Guess that we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.

4 hours ago, JackGats said:

Indeed someone said that, as a debate goes on, the probability of Hitler being mentioned always approaches unity.

 

Maybe so but that doesn't answer my question.

4 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Incomparable situations .

The boat people arriving in the UK are fleeing from France .

Are you comparing France 2025 to Nazi Germany ?

No the same situation.

Just like those arriving in the UK now, the Jews who fled Germany in the '30s would have passed through France en route to the UK. France would have been considered a safe country before May 1940, so it's perfectly reasonable to ask whether those against giving asylum to any of the 'boat people' feel the same way about any Jews who arrived illegally in the UK in the '30s.

No, I am not comparing France 2025 to Nazi Germany in the 1930s. I have no idea why you would think that.