Pickwick

The reason the riots started is because ill-informed thugs reacted with criminal violence to misinformation peddled by other ill-informed thugs. It was clearly communicated that anyone who chose to set fire to hotels with people inside them etc. would be fast-tracked through the court system - that was communicated before much of the subsequent rioting. This is exactly what happened in 2011 after the London riots. 27 people have been arrested in connection with the Leeds riot. Police did not fast track anyone in the subsequent riots because there were none. There will be no bite. Grown thugs are crying in courts and the majority are reclaiming the streets and their communities.

The shortage of appropriate accommodation in the UK is a real problem (not just for this topic of course). The cuts in funding to the immigration services in the last ten years has also created a backlog in the asylum process; if this backlog were tackled fewer people would need to be placed into hotels etc. I hope the new government will deal with this better but I will believe it when I see it. There is no doubt a radical revamp of the whole process would be welcome. For perspective though, the UK spends 0.15% of its GNI on processing asylum seekers - that includes the costs of hotels. I have no problem with people who believe that's 0.15% too much, but it clearly is not the main cause of any perceived financial ills within the UK. Personally, I feel that many politicians have supported the focus on immigration to deflect from the the bigger issues. That has evidently been successful.

You wrote in a previous post that you were well acquainted with Islam - yet you make no distinction between Islamic and Islamist, extremist and moderate, or majority and minority. You also omit determiners like 'a few' or 'some' when talking about Muslims, which implies - either by accident or by design - that all followers of Islam are supportive of what you write above. There were over 32,000 cases of child abuse in the UK in the last year of available data (2022-23). The previous Tory government (in 2020) released a 2 year report into child grooming gangs that concluded 'group based exploiters of children are most commonly white' and 'there was no credible evidence to suggest one ethnic group was over-represented in the sexual exploitation of children'. In 2022 the Independent Enquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, emphasised failures of the police similar to those failings in the cases of Jimmy Saville and others (primarily that victims were not listened to). The victims in Rochdale were written off by the police as 'lacking in credibility' and 'making life choices'. Horrendous, but not the political correctness gone mad so often repeated by those with an agenda. Sharia Councils in the UK have no legal powers - zero, so they clearly do not 'act with impunity'. They work in the same way as Catholic tribunals and mainly deal with matters like divorce etc. Muslims can voluntarily accept their decisions or not. Cuts in legal aid have made divorce more expensive - especially for non-working females such as housewives - and have seen an increase in Muslim women seeking help from such councils. Forced marriage is another repugnant problem, found in several different religions and ethnic groups around the world. It is illegal in the UK and further laws have been passed also making it illegal to cause a child under 18 to marry, even without coercion. That a small minority of men try to circumvent this (normally to facilitate a visa for the UK) does not make all of Islam complicit and is a world away from 'forcing prepubescent (ages 9-12) schoolgirls to marry (in the UK)'. 92% of Islamic fundamentalist terror attacks are against other Muslims. Do you think Muslims fear Islam? Or do you think they fear radical fundamentalism? I cannot agree that what you write is based on sound logic. You take the actions of an extremist minority and paint the majority with the same brush - yet do not apply this to other groups. You then compound this by using highly emotive language and hyperbole.

It wasn't a 'very small percentage'. There is an undoubted problem with radical Islam - it accounts for 39% of all terror related deaths in the world. That more than 91% of those murders are against Muslims suggests it is not an 'us vs them' problem. Naturally, we also have the other 61% of terror deaths that are not related to Islam - which might be pertinent to the actual topic of this thread. It is tiresome when people try to close down discussion by insult and condescension and then complain that they are the victims of such behaviour. When you use words like 'squeal', 'indoctrinated' and 'left-wing propaganda' against people who hold a different view from you it appears a little biased. I think most objective people would wholly blame the rioters for that. When a hotel is set on fire with people inside, it tends to dominate the news, whoever lit the flames.

I agree and appreciate your reasoned response. The issue of genetic advantage in sport is both complex and fraught with danger. I have read that people born at high altitudes have an advantage at running, due to increased haemoglobin (something that cannot be fully replicated by high-altitude training). And some genetic females (without chromosome mutations) have higher levels of testosterone than others, for example. That gives them a disproportionate advantage in a sport such as boxing. Of course, it is natural to want to reduce complex scenarios into simple binary ones, but it is not always possible. Add in an emotive topic such as transgender athletes - which is not actually what we are talking about - and it is very difficult just to have a reasoned discussion - which is why I appreciate your response.

I think my original post is not difficult to understand.

All of my blather doesn't make a woman into a trans either.

Basic, in the sense of not being accurate, yes. It is the SRY gene (normally attached to the Y chromosome) which dictates sexual development. Sometimes this gene mutates, and sometimes can even be found attached to the X chromosome (see Swyer syndrome below). You do not need to read advanced biology books to discover this - the 'basic science' can be found even on superficial sites such as Wikipedia - 'In some instances, a seemingly normal female with a vagina, cervix, and ovaries has XY chromosomes, but the SRY gene has been shut down'. I appreciate you may have been taught the basic science of XX and XY chromosome at school, but it is an oversimplification. There are many variations, including XX Male (de la Chapelle syndrome); XXY (Klinefelter syndrome); XXX Trisomy and XY female (Swyer syndrome). In the latter case, Swyer syndrome, the phenotype is completely female, with existing tubes, vagina, and various grades of uterus hypoplasia ranging from severe to mild underdevelopment. Pregnancy and successful birth have been recorded, albeit rarely as an egg donation is required (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5885995/). Furthermore, women who have Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia or Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (as examples) can have very high levels of testosterone. See above. See above. It's not how it has always been. This is ignorance being parroted as scientific fact. That being said, in a sport as aggressive as boxing, there has to be a better duty of care. If there is a wild difference in testosterone levels then the mismatch is akin to a lightweight fighting a heavyweight.

The horrific murders of young girls in Southport have moved the entire nation. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. Muslim Council of Britain, 30 July.

I take co-codamol occasionally in the UK but for some reason always thought it was banned/not available here in Thailand. Can you remember the strength? I find it far more effective than the Ultracet (which does not contain codeine, but paracetamol/acetaminophen and tramadol).

I do have to say that when Donald Trump landed on the moon it was the best moon landing ever, really the greatest ever moon landing, and also the best moonwalk, the greatest moonwalk in fact, without Donald Michael Jackson would have just walked.

I've read the entire thread, so I apologise for the question as I think I may have missed something but can't see anything where. Did you show proof of the 500,000 in an offshore account and not a Thai bank? (I appreciate we are not discussing tax, but if the 500,000 does not need to be remitted to Thailand, that could be a selling point for me with this visa.)

Fairly play and I both appreciate and respect you saying so. I get the point, but I was not the first to mention the navy - I was merely reporting the reality of what they said. I do not know enough to judge if the Royal Navy is efficient and effective or not. I would trust their opinion on the matter more than my own though. I will genuinely take your word for it. I was only six years old at the time so have no idea. It is the first I have heard of it though, which makes it surprising (but does not mean it is not true of course). Again, I appreciate your first comment. Cheers.

It's meaningless when you start labelling all who disagree with you as woke. I am not in the demographic you are talking about, yet your reaction(s) to my posts seem to imply you think I am. That I am trying to dig deeper than the spin is met with disdain here, only because people assumed I was in that demographic. You can see my posts on other AN threads about my dislike of the current left/right polarisation. It was not me who suggested using the Royal Navy. Why did you not LOL at the person who did? I have never heard of this before. I'm not really sure why it is directed at me when all I did was report what the Royal Navy had stated. Maybe it was just bluff, I don't know. Why don't you ask them, and while your at it make sure to LOL in their woke faces. I am not 'on the left'. All I have done and tried to do is point out the hysterical and erroneous overreaction to the OP; the myriad problems with the Rwanda plan; and the complexity of the decades old problem at hand. All I have been met with is a barrage of entrenched bias against a political demographic I do not even belong to. Which sums up the current self-defeating political divide perfectly (imho).

This is getting tiresome. I am not just parroting my opinion, I am reporting what the Royal Navy stated. If you know better than them, please feel free to tell them so. They have started work on it. That you expect a decades long problem to be solved in less than two weeks sums up your position succinctly. 4 people died off the coast of France in French waters. I suppose we can blame Lammy because he's the foreign secretary. Now we are just going round in circles. I appreciate your time but I'll just agree to disagree and move on to other threads.

I am not jumping up and down. The only people jumping up and down are those who throw low-level and meaningless terms like 'woke' around. They normally also throw words like snowflake around, only to then exhibit enough snowflakery to freeze the tits of a penguin. The people at the start of this thread hysterically overreacting to a misrepresentation of the OP used words like 'woke'. I'm not sure I follow - who blamed you for the previous government? Unless you are British and voted for them. However, another characteristic of people with entrenched political bias is they rarely take any accountability for their actions; it is always someone else's fault. So even if you did vote for them, I'm sure it wouldn't be your fault. We at least agree on something. As already posted previously, the Royal Navy itself said this was not feasible but I suppose you know better than them. Please note I am not the Royal Navy and it was not my statement. Given that we are talking about the previous government - a right-wing Tory government - now I am not even sure who you are describing as woke? Simply anyone who disagrees with you? Sad days, indeed.

Exactly - though you don't have to go to India or China or even a shop. Anyone with basic software and a printer can produce pretty much any 'document'.

I have given you a thank you emoji for this - because I welcome your opinion and it's as valid and as valuable as any other.

I didn't miss any point. I have supplied direct sources - including a document directly from the Home Office, the government department responsible for immigration - when it was under Conservative control - that casts doubt on the plan being a deterrent. Furthermore, at a huge cost for at least several years there is going to be a removal rate of barely 0.4% of asylum seekers - backed up with quotes from the then Deputy Prime Minister; more official government documents and even the right wing press. I believe I have made a strong argument that the Rwanda plan is not and never was an effective one, backed up by direct sources. I haven't heard anything to convince me otherwise. What *you think* - especially when you ignore the actual data - is not fact. Where is the data that confirms this? I cannot find it. This thread began with anger caused by an erroneous assumption that the Labour Government would let in 100,000 asylum seekers. Did you read my links about Australia that I provided? If so, you will have noted that Australia, with more processing capacity than Rwanda and with half the numbers of boats, has a backlog higher than the UK - 130,000. How is it cheaper in the long run? They have had 11 years. You have not read any of the data or direct sources I have supplied, as such your arguments are based on supposition and you sound like a politician repeating a soundbite. I agree with this, which was the actual point of this thread - a new government, only days old, being blamed for the incompetence of the previous one.

I'll take your word for it, but given your obvious bias I am far from convinced. I stated no such thing, I said it is 'important' - which is why it was implemented in the first place, as a further separation of parliament. You are misrepresenting what I wrote. You are also ignoring the Court of Appeal, which I mentioned. Cherry-picking does not do your argument any favours. You are changing the argument. People dying was not the main thrust of this thread - it was the number of asylum seekers 'getting hotel rooms, free healthcare, mobile phones etc'. You're right overstayers in Australia do not get accommodation, but nor do they pay tax when they take the jobs of Australian citizens. The 27,000 people applying for protection visas get accommodation though. Right there is a betrayal of your own personal agenda. Personal bias against the newly elected government was the main topic of this thread at the start and why I responded in the first place. There was a ridiculous misrepresentation of the OP and anunbelievable display of prejudice and individual bias against a government that was only days old. I haven't agreed that, if you read what I have written (try it) instead of trying to score childish points you would have known that. In reference to the UK, it would most likely not stop the boats. I have written that three times and backed it up with links all through this thread. I have also written extensively about how Australia is not the UK and the Timor Sea is not the English channel - which you have disingenuously ignored.

I am not sure if you are serious here. The Supreme Court was created to afford even greater separation between parliament and the courts. Are you implying the Supreme Court in 2023 was controlled by the Labour Party? Even if you believed such a thing, the Court of Appeal ruled it unlawful before it went to the Supreme Court. Are you implying that the judiciary and courts of law in the UK were controlled by the Labour opposition in 2023? I wrote at length about Australia after you claimed this before - and you failed to reply. Now you are just repeating the same claim again. Have you read the Impact Assessment by the Home Office (under the former Conservative government?) I am doubtful because it also specifically mentions Australia. It states that stopping the boats has been successful on the surface but has come at great cost. It has also not stopped the migrants - the criminal gangs have found other ways of getting people in, including providing fraudulent documents and providing employment for those to overstay. So the boats have stopped, the people are still coming. You can ignore that too if you want to. In 2018 (the last I can find data and some six years after 'stopping the boats') Australia had 62,000 illegal overstayers and a separate 27,000 claims in country for protection visas. You will recall they also 'let in' much of the backlog they had when implementing their policy change (bigger than the UK) - given the title and topic of this thread - would you be happy for the Labour government to do the same? The Home Office was the Conservative government's department that directly deals with immigration. Governments also have short-term thinking and try and sell things to the electorate just for their votes. There was no certainty. I have given you links directly from the Home Office; I have given you quotes from high-ranking government officials including the Deputy Prime Minister; I have included in my links media from the right - including the Daily Telegraph. I appreciate some things seem obvious to you but that does not make them fact. I am happy to look at any new evidence as you present it and I appreciate the diverse opinions. As of yet, however, you have failed to convince me, so I am happy just to agree to disagree.

I don't live in a parallel universe and the Supreme Court which ruled the government's plans unlawful is an important part of a functioning democracy. Unless your democracy does not include the rule of law. That it would serve as a deterrent is speculation and to be perfectly honest there's little evidence based support. The Home Office itself (under the former Conservative Government) wrote in their 'Impact Assessment of the Illegal Migration Bill, 2023 (linked to previously): 'the consensus is that there is little to no evidence that changes to a country's policies have an impact on deterring people without valid permission' to travel. I can quite understand the theory of the Rwanda plan and why it looks attractive to some on the surface. But ignoring the real issues, you then have to resort to writing about speculation and parallel universes.

Indeed. Although it's unsurprisingly difficult to get long term robust data, all of the evidence - including direct quotes from high-level Government ministers - suggests a starting number of 200 each year over a 5 year period, often reported as 1000 over 5 years. The only confirmed target number as per contracts signed is for 2.200 detention places over an unspecified number of years (it's worded as a target, not a certainty). Given that both the Conservative Home Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister confirmed by direct quote that the numbers would be 'in the hundreds' and 'start very slow,' there is no timescale placed on that target. Whether this would be over 10-11 years, or whether it would speed up after year 5 is unclear. What is very clear is that the number of 200 per year initially seems to correlate entirely with the quotes from the Home Office/Conservative government; whereas any talk of 'uncapped' is based on nothing but conjecture. I have provided ample sources and links in this thread to back that up. Of course, the elephant in the room that some seem intent on avoiding is the cost. According to the Home Office, in writing, the cost of sending persons to Rwanda is more per person than the currently unacceptable situation of keeping them in hotels. It would seem apart from the logistical problems, we could not send higher (or unlimited numbers) due to the increased financial burden on the already strained finances.

This is a report from James Cleverly, who I quoted above as admitting the numbers in reality 'would be very small'. In your link the only confirmation is a target of 2,200 detention places. I will not go round in circles with you. I am quite confident that most can see through you. You have consistently failed to read your own links, most certainly have never read mine, and are wilfully ignoring all of the evidence, whilst parroting the same line based on one sentence of conjecture (attributed to no-one). I have tried to have a sensible discussion and I am confident most will be able to see that effort, whether they agree with my point of view or not. I understand you will need to have the last word, possibly with some kind of provocative remark, but I won't respond. Take care and have a nice day.

You keep repeating this one vague sentence from one website - against a mountain of contradictory evidence. The website reports what the government said (without any evidence - as compared to the court evidence on the same page). But you read 'the government says' as being the same as 'independent experts agree with what the government says'. That is absolutely not true. It is not the same thing at all. That you cannot see the difference is not my problem. Your last post denied the Conservative government had a majority at the previous election - I cannot fathom why you would write such a thing. Maybe you are just being obstinate; maybe you just want a fight; maybe you are a Russian stooge displaying a reasonable argument against democracy; maybe you are just bored - I really don't know. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to think you want a serious discussion.