RayC

An internet search will reveal an almost complete lack of data suggesting that Brexit has had a positive effect. On the other hand, there is a seemingly endless number of articles, reports, etc detailing the negative effects of Brexit. Given that, I don't see how it is possible to come to any other rational conclusion apart from the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that Brexit has had a negative effect.

The overwhelming body of evidence suggests that Brexit has had a negative impact on the UK. Whether it constitutes a disaster is a subjective judgement.

As I inferred at the outset, illegal migration is a Europe-wide problem and imo it therefore needs Europe-wide cooperation to find a lasting and sustainable solution(s). The FACT remains that there is no "rule" (EU or UK) that refugees must be returned to the first safe country they entered and simply doing so will not solve the problem. All it will do is sour relations between ourselves and our European neighbours.

Not the case. Ukrainians and HK BNO passports holders were settled in the UK under the provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act. The figure of 66% which I quoted, referred to those individuals seeking asylum in under the provisions of the Refugee Convention. The link which I previously posted highlights these differences. I don't know but I'd hazard a guess that the majority are those who overstay their visa. Refugee status is not just granted to those fleeing war zones, it also applies to those fleeing other forms of persecution e.g. because of their political views, sexual orientation, etc. In which case, they would have their application for refugee status rejected. The fact that 66% of applications for refugee status are granted goes a long way to refuting your contention. Do criminal gangs traffick people? Of course. However, where is the evidence to support your claim that those arriving in boats are opportunists and not genuine refugees? Government data (see previously posted link) suggests otherwise. Again, where is the evidence to support your contention? Personally, I find it hard to believe that a refugee has an in-depth understanding of immigration law before they decide to head to the UK.

66% of applications for asylum in the UK in 2022/23 were granted which suggests that the majority of refugees were genuine. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-june-2023/how-many-people-do-we-grant-protection-to#:~:text=As at the end of,a grant rate of 63%.

Your original claim was regarding " .. the fascist in D.C....". not the "American left". Unless they are one and the same i.e. no fascists or "left" outside of the capital, you have moved the goalposts. In my experience, this often happens when attempting to debate with blinkered ideologues, who seldom let rationality interfere with their thought processes. In a similar vein, I did not accuse you of stating or implying that the Russian election was free and fair, I merely asked you to avoid suggesting it. You managed to avoid doing so; well done. Unfortunately, I'd suggest that this was more due to luck than judgement. I would never claim to have a particularly deep understanding of the US or its' politics and it appears that I am not alone in that regard.

You were warned not to go cheap. Your crystal ball is faulty.

Agreed. Which is all the more reason why an effective Europe-wide solution is necessary.

The EU has deals with Libya and Turkiye to try and stem the flow of illegal migrants. How successful these initiatives have been - and whether they represent 'value for money' - is debatable Unfortunately, there do not appear to be any easy solutions.

Is France happy to be rid of illegal migrants? Possibly but it appears that the same charge could be levied against the UK. In any event, France isn't usually the first 'safe' European country where illegal migrants land. More often than not, it is either Greece or Italy. There are effectively two choices: 1) The rest of Europe turns it back and says to Greece and Italy, "your problem". In such a case, I would suggest that a likely natural response from the Italian and Greek authorities would be to let those illegal migrants who were simply transiting though their countries en route to somewhere else, to do so unopposed 2) Europe accepts that it is a continent-wide problem and attempts to find a cooperative solution to the problem.

Map location https://maps.app.goo.gl/8jhpz1Um1NP6btr98

If you are in the Banglampoo/ Pra Nakorn area, there is a photo shop on Thanon Samsen (between Soi 4 and 6). I've had photos done there for no end of visas for various countries and for a UK passport without any problems.

Yousaf wasn't dealt a great hand but he has played it very poorly. Seems to be a common trait amongst UK leaders recently.

Replace 'women' with 'men' and what do you get? A second pointless comment. Therefore, what? Weinstein must be innocent?

I don't consider the current US Administration to be fascist but even if it is, the American electorate can rid themselves of it in November. The same cannot be said for the Russian electorate. Please don't suggest that there was the opportunity to do so in the recent Russian election. It was neither free nor fair.

A completely different issue which has little to do with your original implied contention that Ukrainians were questioning their commitment to what you refer to as .. : "vile, corrupt politicians and oligarchs?". I pointed out that the same charge could be levied against Russians.

Bottom line is if you try to claim that you are living in the UK when, in fact, you are living in a country where pensions are frozen, you are commenting fraud. What penalty is levied seems to depend on the whim of the DWP (and the courts).

That seems to contradict the text in the link. Maybe the law re benefit fraud has changed since he was caught out of perhaps, he was just unlucky?🤷

Good. Pleased that we cleared that up!

It is clearly fraudulent. What is unclear is what the repercussions might be Whilst the link makes plain that an individual's pension cannot be stopped or reduced, It is also clear from the first section that they have committed fraud if they did not report that they have moved to a country where the pension is frozen. Given that, I would imagine that the DWP would freeze the pension at its' existing rate. The DWP may also decide to prosecute the individual concerned although, in the circumstances, I'd suggest that there is the strong possibility that the DWP might think it is more trouble than it is worth.

How am I playing whataboutery? I was clear: I'll shed no tears for Alid - or anyone else who practises violence in the name of their God - whatever fate befalls them. However, take a look at the posts in this thread and others. Many posters tar everyone with the same brush with the implicit message, 'If you are Muslim you are an extremist'. I'm merely pointing out that is not the case and things are a bit more nuanced.

I know little about theology - and have little desire to deepen my knowledge - but is it really the case that the old rules (Old Testament?) are utterly irrelevant to Christians? A cursory Google search threw up the following extract penned by an American evangelist: "Both the Old and New Testaments make up the Word of God. The New Testament was never given to replace the Old Testament but rather to complete its story." You might counter that this by suggesting this is a minority view? However, the point is that there are different interpretations of what it means to be a Christian. Why can't the same logic be applied to Muslims (and the Koran) rather than paint the totality of the religion - and all those who follow it - as evil? I've never met a rabbi but I've had friends and acquaintances of various faiths (Buddhists, Christians, Judaism, Muslims). Some I thought clever and decent; others less so. No idea what that proves if anything.

"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people." From the Bible and the Torah (Deuterocanonical 13) To be clear, I am not acting as an apologist for Ahmed Alid: I won't shed any tears if he had an unfortunate accident whilst in custody. I am simply pointing that Islam doesn't have a monopoly on violence in the name of religion.

Absolutely tangential tosh. From the NATO website: "NATO's purpose is to guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means". It's pretty obvious that a conflict taking place on the borders of some of its member states' is very much a legitimate cause for NATO concern, especially when the main antagonist is the very same expansionist State which NATO was set up to counter.

Russia - despite your ceaseless attempts to suggest otherwise - had no legitimate reason to invade Ukraine. I'm sure that Poland and the Baltic States are reassured by the security that being NATO members brings, but who can blame them being worried by Russia's illegal actions in Ukraine? It's not just this invasion, it's also the illegal annexation of Crimea and support of terrorists in the Donbass. Let's also not forget that Russia does have 'form' when it comes to occupying Poland and the Baltic States.