RayC
-
Posts
4,903 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Forums
Downloads
Quizzes
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by RayC
-
-
1 hour ago, JackGats said:
No more asylum, period!
After the war started in Ukraine, I wondered why I couldn't get a hotel any more in Germany for reasonable prices. Until I found out many hotels had been commandeered to host Ukrainian refugees.
Your objection to asylum is because it costs you more to get a hotel room?
1 hour ago, JackGats said:People should fight it out in their own country, or beat up their mother for bringing them into this world, not fall back on strangers who live thousand of miles away.
Would you have refused asylum to Jews fleeing Nazi persecution in the 1930s?
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:
I think he gets convicted on the "transportation to engage in prostitution" charges and walks on racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking.
I don't understand the US legal system so would be grateful for some clarification.
What's the difference between "transportation to engage in prostitution" and sex trafficking? (My interpretation would be that the former is contained within the latter) Also how is it racketeering? Wouldn't that mean that Combs would have to have benefitted financially (directly or indirectly)?
-
44 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:
Because the land of milk and honey is on the other side of the Channel.
Of course it is. The UK is a 'soft touch' when it comes to refugees unlike those on mainland Europe which is why they 'all' want to come here .... Oh, hold on ... here's a thought if that's the case why don't we just copy the French policies. That should do the trick🤦😂
44 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:That inhospitable environment that you keep waffling about, needs to be on the UK side of the Channel.
Maybe it does but you have offered nothing to support the idea that your overly simplistic 'solutions' will cut boat crossings by anything like 95%
44 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:How is it that you, and all the other " Refugees welcome " Brigade, fail to grasp that a great big deterrent is needed to stop them crossing the Channel ?
I haven't failed to grasp that at all. What I dispute is that your solutions will make much difference
44 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:Actually, you didn't. Because neither of them have any radical policies, or any clues on how to fix the problems that they have created.
More of the same and a tinkering at the edges, doesn't cut the mustard as radical policies.
Actually I did but you refuse to admit it, unless you define anything but a change to a command economy as 'tinkering at the edges'.
Corbyn and McDonnell's manifesto was radical. It would also have probably proved disastrous for the country.
Trusses' budget was radical and did prove disastrous for the country.
44 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:I never asked the Spectator, I asked you. Not really interested in what the media have to say, I could provide articles backing Reforms plans, but that would be counter productive, it's lazy and for the hard of thinking.
Lazy. Guilty.
Hard of thinking: Maybe but then imo that is preferable to putting overly simplistic solutions in print and being thought of as ... well ... simplistic.
As I admit to being lazy, I am not going to bother to go to the trouble of rephrasing an argument when a journalist has articulated my position perfectly adequately: So if you want to engage in a discussion about Reform's economic policies, read the article, post your objections to the points raised in it and then I'll reply to them (assuming that I think them worthy of a reply).
-
2 hours ago, NoshowJones said:
OK I can respect your views on Reform, but not if you agreed that the boat people should be kept in the UK at the taxpayers expense.
I can only answer that by differentiating between the type of 'boat person'.
Imo illegal economic migrants should be returned to their country of origin and should not be kept in the UK at the taxpayer's expense.
On the other hand, refugees - those seeking asylum e.g. those fleeing from persécution, war, etc - should be given a safe haven in the UK and the opportunity to build a life here. The UK has a long tradition of giving sanctuary to the persecuted and imo it is something to be proud of.
2 hours ago, NoshowJones said:The way I see it any PM is better than what there has been all through my adult life time. Both Labour and the Tories, have all betrayed the working class though Margaret Thatcher to a lesser extent, but Labour are supposed to be the party of the working class and I have never seen any sign of that.
I mentioned Margaret Thatcher, but that is only because her policies allowed the working class to buy their homes, and without that I would not have been living in Thailand today.
I'm not so sure.
Until now, each generation has been better off based on almost any criterion than the previous one. It's anecdotal but our flat growing up was better than my parents'; my access to education and health services was better than theirs; my job opportunities were better than theirs, etc. Why was that? A combination of factors of course: Parental encouragement, my ability, luck, etc. However, the point that I am labouring to make is that I doubt that any of that would have been possible if successive governments had 'betrayed' the working class.
Wrt council house sales. Like you, I benefitted personally from it as I inherited my parents ex-council flat. However, overall I think that the policy did more harm than good.
A link to an interesting, non-partisan article from an estate agent about council housing and the 'Right-to-buy' policy is below
https://nexaproperties.com/huge-drop-in-council-houses-in-the-last-40-years/
-
5 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:
Explain your working ?
1. The Army can rig up a tented, razor wire camp in a week.
2. The 1st inmates will be all over social media, with a don't come here messages.
The Jungle as you call it. was a staging post for the UK, you are trying to compare apples with elephants.
Whether it was a staging post is irrelevant. It was an inhospitable environment and yet the number of inhabitants continued to grow.
In any event, these internées will still have the right to apply for asylum, so I'd imagine that they will wait things out while they are processed (or are you going to withdraw the prospect of someone fleeing persecution, war, etc being granted asylum in the UK completely?)
5 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:Who mentioned different labels ?
Certainly not me. I gave you 30 years of cumulative Tory and Labour failure as a reason why they are not the people to sort out the problems that they created.
And I gave you examples of how different individuals within both the Labour and Conservative parties had radically different policies for solving the country's problems. To that extent, 'Labour' and 'Conservative' are merely labels and simply changing that label to 'Reform' isn't a panacea for the country's problems.
5 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:Perhaps stop listening to the MSM and screeching Politicians who know they are picking up a P45 at the next GE.
And perhaps you should stop suggesting overly simplistic solutions to complex problems
5 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:And come back with something tangible that can be debated as to whether it is " Voodoo Economics "
Read the second 'Spectator' link which I previously posted, and come back with a refutation(s) of the points made.
-
2 hours ago, The Cyclist said:
No, your objections are not practical
Quite easy to stop 95% of it. I detailed how to do it 5 posts up.
Sticking your head in the sand, and ignoring it is not an option.
And your solution would be neither practical nor successful; it almost certainly wouldn't stop 95% of crossings as you claim: Why? Look no further than 'The Jungle' at Calais. That was no more hospitable an environment that what you are suggesting but it didn't stop the flow of people arriving there
I agree that sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the problem is not an option but, imo, the solution is to stop the flow of migrants at source i.e. smash the gangs. How do you do that? No idea. But to have any chance of success it will need coordinated multi-national European action.
2 hours ago, The Cyclist said:30 years of the UK being damaged by both Tories and Labour, why vote any of them in again ? Einstein's definition of madness, writ large.
Labour' and 'Conservative' are labels which mask a multitude of different opinions. On the Labour side, to suggest that the economic policies of Blair and Brown were no different to those of Corbyn and McDonnell is ridiculous. Likewise, contrast the policies of Truss and Sunak for the Tories.
2 hours ago, The Cyclist said:The UK, to have any chance of getting back on track, needs radical policies backed up by people with a spine to see them through.
Whether the policies have to be radical is a moot point, but I agree that a (mid-term) government shouldn't simply change direction simply to improve its' popularity. If it believes in its' policies then, as you say, it should have the spine to see them through.
2 hours ago, The Cyclist said:Sticking your head in the sand, expecting the very parties who have caused the problem, to actually rectify them, is madness, writ large.
See my first paragraph.
Moreover, electing someone else simply because they are wearing a different label seems foolhardy.
2 hours ago, The Cyclist said:Are Reform the answer ? No idea, but I can tell you who is not the answer, and that is Labour or Tories.
I agree that there doesn't appear to be anyone or anything much originating from Labour or the Tories to inspire confidence but, unfortunately, I don't think that the 'voodoo' economics of Reform are the answer either.
-
13 minutes ago, DezLez said:
I can read and post the links!!
See above!
I have tried again after making the above post and it is working.
What link?
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, frank83628 said:
Cant posts links to RT here, AN is anti Russian news
That's unfortunate, but as I said the onus is on you to supply a link not me to find it. Try another source?
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, NoshowJones said:
You with the thumbs down moji, are you really serious????
That'll be me😁 (I wish that AN would remove the anonymity from the emojis)
Yes, I'm serious about not wanting Reform to be the next government and my objections are practical.
Firstly, imo the idea that Reform are going to somehow magically stop illegal immigration at the drop of a hat, when all governments in Europe for the past 10 years have consistently failed to do so, is fanciful.
Secondly, any damage that Labour's economic policies may have done to the UK economy would pale into insignificance if Reform were to enact some of theirs.
A couple of links from 'The Spectator', hardly a far-left journal, outlines the problems with Reform's policies
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/is-reform-serious-about-stopping-the-boats/
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/reforms-risky-economic-experiment/
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, frank83628 said:
Apologies, It was supposed to say, 'you are not that stupid'
Putins 'special operations' are totally justified.
Thanks for the apology.
Shame that you had to spoil things with your other comment.
-
2 hours ago, frank83628 said:
You will be able to see it on RT, they will show it in full context.
Then you can cross reference with the version in the OP
The onus is on you to post the link not on me to go looking for it.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, frank83628 said:
Why not listen to the whole thing to get proper context.
You remember 'fine people' and how that was edited for the masses
If you supply a link (in English) then I will, however, it's quite difficult to believe that the quotes in question could be taken out of context.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Hanaguma said:
You folks need someone to do MEGA- Make England Great Again.
The Northern Irish, Scots and Welsh might feel a bit left out by that
-
9 minutes ago, Schoggibueb said:
No way.
Moldova has russian speaking people too, it has to be protected by the Kremlln.
And Estonia.
And Latvia.
And Lithuania.
After that he has to protect these countries against the western influence too with a so called "buffer zone".
It goes on with....
etc.pp.
I fear that you might be right.
-
10 minutes ago, frank83628 said:
Yes Ray, we can both pull out articles to support our side, that is from the European Union... as if its going to support Putin over zelensky, you are you that stupid, why post as such
Something wrong, Frank? You haven't mentioned MSM lies yet.
Wrt to public support of Putin's invasion of Ukraine, the floor's yours: Post a link which shows public support in Western Europe for it. (I'd advise anyone reading this post to avoid holding their breathe in anticipation of such a link unless you have a desire to suffocate yourself).
Perhaps I am stupid, Frank, but the word has not yet been coined to describe your lack of intelligence if you still cling to the belief - especially in the light of Putin's recent speech - that Russia's invasion can in any way be justified.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 6/23/2025 at 5:14 AM, frank83628 said:
Politicians maybe, not the people
Rubbish as usual
-
“I have said many times that I consider the Russian and Ukrainian people to be one nation. In this sense, all of Ukraine is ours.”
"There is an old rule,” he added. “‘Where a Russian soldier sets foot, that is ours’.”
So there it is. Straight from the horse's mouth. All pretence gone. An admission that the invasion was a defensive measure against Western expansionism admitted by Russia's president to be nonsense and that the exact opposite is the case: This is Russian expansionism in operation.
The question is, 'Will it stop at Ukraine'?
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:
Spain is the new Pattaya.
😂 Although I think that it was more a case of Pattaya being the new Costa Brava a few decades ago
-
1
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, candide said:
It's about importing young people in order to compensate for the low birth rate, and thus balance the age pyramid.
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/esp/spain/birth-rate
Having said that, it's not without problems as the successive governments did not manage immigration and it's consequences.
Indeed.
Like immigration to any country there are pros and cons.
-
2 hours ago, Magictoad said:
Spain! Gimme a break. They have over 5 million illegal immigrants from Africa & Arabia plus stateless gypsies. They are NOT letting in anymore immigrants; they are too busy shipping them back to Morocco & Tunisia & countless other places.
So the data detailing that 2m (legal) immigrants arrived in Spain in 2022/23 from non-EU countries is a lie? And you know that how?
2 hours ago, Magictoad said:Just cos it's been writ; don't mean it's true. Spain is overflowing with illegal migrants from Arabia, Africa and stateless gypsies. About 5 million or more- picking up benefits and housing.
I love Spain and Portugal but mass immigration has ruined them; same as Britain. Easier to live here.
They are +/-7m foreign-born nationals in Spain and you think 5m or more are on benefits. Any evidence to support that claim?
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, JonnyF said:
Ray Ray Ray.
How many times do I have to tell you. We're not racists anymore. Anyone who disagrees with the obviously flawed left wing policies destroying the country is now a right wing extremist terrorist. 😄 Do try to keep up.
Just as anyone who wanted an inquiry into the predominantly Pakistani rape gangs was a right wing opportunist (until Starmer himself agreed to it of course). 😆
What a clown show. All you guys have left is your tired old cliches about anyone who disagrees with you.
Use of the royal 'We'; illusions of grandeur, Jonny? Oh, that's right! You are the self-appointed spokesman for all indigenous, white, working-class, male Brits.
To listen to you, anyone would think that crime, homelessness, etc didn't exist in the UK before the recent surge in immigration.
A tired, old cliché to label that message as racist/ xenophobic? Maybe, but to use a tired, old idiom: If the shoe fits, wear it.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:
Are you calling a Labour Cabinet Minister a liar ?
No.
I have not denied that the Welfare State is under pressure, but to repeat for the umpteenth time, my points are 1) a (limited) open borders policy and provision of a welfare state are not mutually exclusive and 2) the UK does not operate an open border policy.
These are facts. I am claiming no more or less than that. In that regard, the links which you provide are at best tangential.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, The Cyclist said:
Sure
Would you like me to post links to the gangs that have been jailed for fraud ? Not even in the UK to commit the fraud.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c844g4kpjxdo
It is close to collapse, and it does not function in the manner intended.
Is 2000 dinghy divers in the last week, a sign of robust borders ?
Is "Smashing the Gangs " working ?
Not sure what you call it. But I call 2000 uninvited guests in a week an open border.
You can write " FACT " in capital letters all you want. It does not change reality.
Welfare State: A system whereby the state undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits.
This is what exists in the UK today. QED.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, DezLez said:
Just like your whole post!
Thank you for that incisive comment.
-
1
-
Asylum Appeals Surge Leaves Thousands of Migrants in Hotels for Years
in World News
Posted
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.