11 hours ago, James105 said:

 

Open borders and a functioning welfare state are indeed mutually exclusive. 

No they are not and it is completely irrational to suggest that they are.

'Mutually exclusive' means that two things cannot exist at the same time. The fact that welfare states exist and function in 27 EU states where open borders exist proves that they can co-exist. QED.

11 hours ago, James105 said:

 

Denmark published the figures that the UK are too afraid to admit.  You could probably get away with an open border policy that allowed westerners from western nations to freely move between countries, but that is not what is happening is it?  

 

So you now agree that an open borders policy and a welfare state can co-exist. 

You're correct: The UK does not have an 'Open Borders' policy. 

I'm pleased that you now agree with my original points.

12 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Let's look at your points in a little more detail

 

 

Whether they operate an " Open Borders Immigration Policy " is neither here nor there.

 

The facts speak for themselves.

 

Legal migration. See graph above.

 

Illegal migration. 20,000 this year already, 50,000 since Labour came to power.

 

Whatever way you want to look at, this is not a " Controlled Border Policy "

The existing UK immigration policies may not be working, but whatever way you look at it the UK does NOT operate an 'Open Borders' policy.

You can argue until the cows come home but that is a FACT.

12 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

We do not have a " Functioning " welfare system. To try and pretend otherwise, is deluded in the extreme.

 

1 million foreigners, claiming £7.5 Billion a year in benefits, tells me that there is something very wrong with both the Immigration Policy and the Welfare Policy.

The UK welfare state - while far from perfect - has not collapsed. It functions.

12 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

To put that into a bit of perspective.

 

No idea if Thailand has the equivalent of DWP Offices. But I can just imagine the reaction I would get if I rocked up at one and said give me benefits.

 

It would be ID  and deported.

Neither here nor there. Completely irrelevant.

20 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Who with governmental power? Name names and events.

Look no further than Thailand

12 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Have they really ?
 

Rwanda might have work on the deterrent factor, if Lawfare and Labour hadn't stopped it.

 

Labours, Smash the Gangs, is an abject failure.

 

 

How can a legal immigration system be working. When 1 million foreigners are paid £7.5 Billion a year in welfare benefits ?
 

These figures do not include Illegal Immigrants.

 

Neither legal migration Policy or the Welfare State Policy is worth the paper that they are written on.

 

Not much in the UK at Government level is worth the paper it is written on, hence the reason the UK is clinging on at the S bend and in danger of flushing down it completely.

You are obviously perfectly entitled to your opinion, but it has absolutely nothing to do with my points which are: 1) the UK does not operate an 'Open Borders' immigration policy and 2) that there is evidence to suggest that operating an 'Open Borders' policy and a functioning Welfare State are mutually exclusive.

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

Exactly. But to some folks, Freedom of Speech only applies to those words approved by the Socialists.

And equally there are those on the right who feel that only their voice should be heard.

5 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

50,000 Dinghy Divers in the last year say otherwise.

 

It might not be " Official Policy "  but it is an open border nonetheless.

Governments - both Tory and Labour - have tried to stop illegal immigration.

I am talking about legal immigration: A (limited) 'Open Borders' policy and a functioning Welfare State are not mutually exclusive situations.

3 hours ago, BLMFem said:

Is Trump dismantling the British Impirial System?

 

Is the US of A finally going metric? Welcome to the 21st century, guys and gals!

Come on! What could be simpler than calculating links from inches (7.92) or fathoms from yards 2.0266 (reoccurring).

I blame the metric system for declining mental arithmetic skills😉

1 minute ago, The Cyclist said:

 

 

This says different

 

 

 

the numbers reduced significantly in  2024 due to the Tories cutting family / spouse Visas.

"An open border is a border that enables free movement of people and often of goods between jurisdictions with no restrictions on movement and is lacking a border control" (Wikipedia)

By definition, the UK does NOT now have an 'Open Borders policy' as immigration from all countries is subject to conditions being met.

As I implied, the UK did have an 'Open Borders policy' (with 27 other nations) when we were a member of the EU, and that at least partially explains the overall increase in immigration numbers between 1990 and 2020. However, as we are obviously no longer an EU member, the increase in numbers since 2020 cannot be attributed to an 'Open Borders' policy.

8 hours ago, Harrisfan said:

How do men live without sex for 50 years? 

Why ask a priest?😉

5 hours ago, James105 said:

Well at least it seems that Labour are coming to terms with the fact that you cannot have open borders and a functioning welfare state - you can only have one or the other.

If that were the case then the welfare state would have ceased to function while we were a member of the EU.

It didn't. 

5 hours ago, James105 said:

 

   It's a shame that they have decided to continue the open borders policy and do not want to make the savings by deporting foreign nationals who claim benefits and/or defending the borders rather than supporting the British nationals that need welfare, but it is what it is.   

There is no 'open borders policy'; in fact (almost) the exact opposite. Immigration to the UK is more tightly controlled now than at any time since the early '90s as a result of Brexit and the loss of freedom of movement.

7 hours ago, NoshowJones said:

I understand Old King Charlie can force a general election if Reform keep outvoting both Labour and The Tories  and the whole UK population are protesting all over the country.

Technically, the monarch has the power to dissolve parliament at any time. In practice, he would only do so when it is requested by the PM. 

The chances of the King dissolving parliament without the PM requesting it simply because Reform are ahead in the polls is zero; if he were to do so there would be a constitutional crisis. If widespread protests looked like turning to civil war then I suppose it's possible but we are not remotely close to that point, although as England hasn't had a civil war for close on 400 years, it might be thought that we are due one😊

3 hours ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

Looks like DEI.

Does it? In what way? Do you have any evidence to support that view?

3 hours ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

 Smells like DEI.

Does it? In what way? Do you have any evidence to support that view?

3 hours ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

Walks like DEI.

Does it? In what way? Do you have any evidence to support that view?

(Getting a bit repetitive this)

3 hours ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

It could be DEI.

Not based on the evidence presented by you it couldn't 

3 hours ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

 But give her a chance to FUBAR

Of course, all the evidence presented by you points to FUBAR

3 hours ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

How much field experience does she have?  Real field experience.  Not an appointed Department Head.

From the Daily Telegraph (well known bastion of DEI wokish opinion):

"(In 2021) Ms Metreweli had already spent two decades in MI6, working in operational roles in Europe and crucially the Middle East. It’s safe to assume she worked in Iraq, stationed with MI6’s smallish team on the ground in Basra, as hostile an environment as there could be in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion".

3 hours ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

Rank and File approval or gossiping behind closed doors saying WTF?

Do you have any evidence to support ... or never mind .....

12 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

"The all-female shortlist was designed to level the playing field, given that women made up only 37% of MI6 staff in 2016, with even lower representation in senior roles. By 2025, MI6 aimed for 47% female staff quota, showing a structural effort to create equitable pathways." 

Putting people in jobs to fill quotas, instead of merit, is DEI, in a nutshell.!

Another red flag..."The all-female shortlist was designed to level the playing field, given that women made up only 37% of MI6 staff in 2016, with even lower representation in senior roles"

If it read to put the best person in with the ability to do the job, OK fair enough, but clearly this is not what is said.

But the shortlist for this post was not all-female. It comprised of 3 women and 1 man (Source: The Times). The Times also stated that, "Metreweli has been the internal frontrunner for several years and has been groomed for the top job."

Now no doubt some will see this as confirmation of DEI at work, discounting the possibility that the selection panel simply considered these four individuals to be the best suited for the job, and that by identifying Metreweli at a relatively early stage in proceedings might be viewed as good succession planning.

8 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

Where did I state she is unsuitable for the role?

You implied that those taking umbrage at Metreweli's appointment were 'realists' and, by extension, I assumed that you supported that view?

Given the likelihood that this time last week, 99.9% of people - myself included - had never heard of Ms. Metreweli's existence, I struggle to believe that those criticising her appointment have the slightest idea about her abilities and suitability for the role.

Therefore, I can't think of any other reason apart from misogyny - or perhaps, homophobia; someone has suggested she is a lesbian - for those posting here to object to her appointment.

8 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

MI6’s leadership, under Sir Richard Moore, explicitly aimed to diversify its senior ranks. The agency’s male-only leadership history (116 years without a female chief) prompted Moore’s 2023 pledge to avoid all-male shortlists. This aligns with DEI principles, which prioritize representation of underrepresented groups, in this case, women in high-level intelligence roles.

The all-female shortlist was designed to level the playing field, given that women made up only 37% of MI6 staff in 2016, with even lower representation in senior roles. By 2025, MI6 aimed for 47% female staff quota, showing a structural effort to create equitable pathways. 

So you can see that MI6 was aiming for a 47% female staff QUOTA? So all this is evidence it was potentially  a DEI appointment!

That is no more evidence of bias i.e. that Metreweli was potentially a DEI appointment, than saying that the appointment of a male to a job was potentially an example of the glass ceiling and anti-female bias. 

A lot more convincing evidence is needed.

8 hours ago, thaibreaker said:

A couple of countries still do in relatively big quantities. Those who oppose (and try to block) any EU sanctions against Russia, and of course oppose and block help and aid to Ukraine. That is Hungary (Orban), and Slovakia (Fico), Putin's (and Trump's...) friends.

 

The shame of European countries. They should have been thrown out of the European Union.

 

So highly Trump has spoken about Orban (and Fico), makes me sick to my stomach.

I'm sure that the overwhelming majority of EU member states would love to be rid of Orban's Hungary but, unfortunately, no mechanism exists to throw them out.

Hungary would need to leave of its' own accord, like the UK; something it will never do while it is a net beneficiary of EU funds.

8 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Took a while but I reckon this was Putin's retaliation for the "operation spiderweb" drone attack. Meanwhile on the battlefield Russian troops are making large (in the context of the ground war) advances. Note: No cheering for Putin going on with my comment. 

Unfortunately, You are almost certainly correct. 

You aren't cheering for Putin and/or celebrating the deaths of ordinary Ukrainian civilians but that is more than can be said for certain other posters.

13 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

You have been told this many, many times.  Australia did it.   The UK can do it.  The reason is the UK is an island.   The UK has a Navy.   Navy boats are bigger than rubber dinghies.  One week of escorting them straight back to France and there will be no more small boat crossings as the illegals will not pay the smugglers if there is no chance of making it across if the Navy prevents the crossing.  

 

It's quite frankly an invasion at this point and has to be stopped as the numbers that have come in over the last 3 years  (120,000) is larger than the number of personnel in the UK army (108,000).   Illegal immigrants have also apparently been linked to the raping of underage girls in the (to be released) Casey report which means that UK taxpayers are literally paying for illegals to come to the UK to rape their daughters.    If that is true then the powder keg that is the UK right now may very well explode soon.   

For now I'll point out just one potential problem with your solution: What happens if France refuses to allow the RN to escort the dinghies back into French waters? Do we declare war on France?

54 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Touchy touchy

 

I never said you stated or suggested anything.

 

I said you agree that they are illegal when they arrive in Europe, and re illegal when they arrive in the UK.

 

There are plenty, from the UK Government, working downwards, , who refuse to accept that they are illegals.

 

It will take time, but eventually we will get there, to start calling a spade a spade.

Yeah, strangely enough I am bit 'touchy' about people posting lies - either directly or inferred - about me. I doubt that I'm alone in that regard.

The final paragraph of your original post infers that I have changed my mind which is not the case.

"You agree then

They arrive illegally in Europe, and are also illegal when they they land in the UK.

Took a while, but we got there in the end."

1 minute ago, The Cyclist said:

 

You agree then

 

They arrive illegally in Europe, and are also illegal when they they land in the UK.

 

Took a while, but we got there in the end.

What took a while? Agree with what?

Where have I stated or suggested that there are no illegal immigrants arriving either in mainland Europe or the UK?

Maybe you should make sure that you are addressing your replies to the correct poster before hitting the 'Send' button in future.

On 6/15/2025 at 8:58 AM, JonnyF said:

It's easy to stop them.

 

This is a lack of will. Just pretend to try to stop them while allowing them to flood in. 

 

Part of the globalist agenda. 

 

Let's stop pretending.  Anyone who cannot see it is either stupid or supportive of that agenda. 

So what is this easy solution to stop the boats? 

What is this globalist agenda and how does illegal mitigation fit into it?