Fury grows over Tory visa rules where ‘only the rich’ dare fall in love

[RayC]

45 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

 No  that wasn't what I meant 

 I do think that he was referring to the constant accusations of racism and he didn't literally mean screaming . 

   You avoided the racism accusation and concentrated on the screaming bit 

 

The easiest way to refute an accusation of racism is to tackle it head on. 

 

So when I suggest that a statement has racist undertones, show me where I am wrong and/or how the statement might be interpreted differently. Pointing out that tourists in Thailand are st to discriminatory pricing does not do that.

[Liverpool Lou]

On 12/11/2023 at 11:38 AM, TigerandDog said:

So 2  brits can marry each other and live in the UK, even if they earn less than 38.7k quid, BUT a brit can't marry a foreigner and bring her to the UK if they earn less than that. Absolute hypocrisy & racism at it's best.

Absolute garbage at its best.  Britons can marry even if they have zero income or rely solely on state benefits.   This has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage, per se, or who can marry whom, it is only about allowing foreigners into Britain.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

Your first response was " In other words, you've got nothing.". Not an analysis.

 

You subsequent response to me was an opinion. 

 

 

I got news for you. Opinions don't have to be empty. They can be supported by reasoning. As in this case:

"I didn't have to. JonnyF showed he had nothing by refusing to engage with the points that RayC raised. Given his inclination to make persona comments, it was especially amusing to see him claim that his reason for retiring from the field was that he took offense."

[youreavinalaff]

26 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I got news for you. Opinions don't have to be empty. They can be supported by reasoning.

You've now changed what you wrote so much, I agree with you.

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

 No  that wasn't what I meant 

 I do think that he was referring to the constant accusations of racism and he didn't literally mean screaming . 

   You avoided the racism accusation and concentrated on the screaming bit 

" Now it's essentially a handful of prolific posters screaming racist at everyone they disagree with and liking each others posts."

Maybe this strikes you as being thoughtful and cogent. Me, not so much.

[Nick Carter icp]

16 minutes ago, placeholder said:

" Now it's essentially a handful of prolific posters screaming racist at everyone they disagree with and liking each others posts."

Maybe this strikes you as being thoughtful and cogent. Me, not so much.

 

   I haven't yet stated that how strikes me , we weren't talking how stuck I was .

Its clear to me though that the emphasis was in the racist accusations 

 

[FruitPudding]

4 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Also, it's asylum seekers not illegals.

 

Most of them can't prove that

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   I haven't yet stated that how strikes me , we weren't talking how stuck I was .

Its clear to me though that the emphasis was in the racist accusations 

 

Do I really have to point out how nonsensical his claim is? He claims that no matter what the disagreement is about,  a handful of posters scream racist. This is just plain over-the-top nuts. It's certainly not the kind of language that reflects rational thinking.

[youreavinalaff]

2 hours ago, FruitPudding said:

 

Most of them can't prove that

Can't prove what?

 

They are asylum seekers. They can certainly prove they've made a claim 

[FruitPudding]

6 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Can't prove what?

 

They are asylum seekers. They can certainly prove they've made a claim 

 

Prove they are a genuine asylum seeker.

[proton]

3 hours ago, FruitPudding said:

 

Prove they are a genuine asylum seeker.

 

My friend in the UK used to process asylum claims, herself a one time illegal immigrant who knew all the stories, loopholes and lies. According to her 95% of asylum claims are fake.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, proton said:

 

My friend in the UK used to process asylum claims, herself a one time illegal immigrant who knew all the stories, loopholes and lies. According to her 95% of asylum claims are fake.

 

That'll be why 75% of asylum applications are approved at the initial stage🙄

[youreavinalaff]

7 hours ago, FruitPudding said:

 

Prove they are a genuine asylum seeker.

That is why they apply.

[youreavinalaff]

4 hours ago, proton said:

 

My friend in the UK used to process asylum claims, herself a one time illegal immigrant who knew all the stories, loopholes and lies. According to her 95% of asylum claims are fake.

 

One person who " used to process asylum claims". She must have worked very hard to have checked all of them.

[FruitPudding]

40 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

That is why they apply.

 

Or lie.

[youreavinalaff]

21 minutes ago, FruitPudding said:

 

Or lie.

24% of applications rejected last year.

 

UK government intelligence is going to be more than a match for migrants arriving as most of them do.

 

24% is not " most".

[FruitPudding]

5 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

UK government intelligence is going to be more than a match for migrants arriving as most of them do

 

Arriving as most of them do: you mean on a boat after throwing away their passport and other identification?

 

 

[youreavinalaff]

8 minutes ago, FruitPudding said:

 

Arriving as most of them do: you mean on a boat after throwing away their passport and other identification?

 

 

No, I don't.

 

Nice, selective quoting, BTW.

[FruitPudding]

17 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

Nice, selective quoting, BTW.

 

The other parts weren't relevant to my response, FYI.

[youreavinalaff]

1 minute ago, FruitPudding said:

 

The other parts weren't relevant to my response, FYI.

24% was in response you your "most". Perfectly relevant.

[FruitPudding]

5 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

24% was in response you your "most". Perfectly relevant.

 

You seem to have trouble with reading.

 

I said the other parts weren't relevant to MY response; I wasn't responding to your 24% data, so I didn't quote it.

 

I wasn't referring to YOUR response to my previous post, lol

 

 

[youreavinalaff]

5 minutes ago, FruitPudding said:

 

You seem to have trouble with reading.

 

I said the other parts weren't relevant to MY response; I wasn't responding to your 24% data, so I didn't quote it.

 

I wasn't referring to YOUR response to my previous post, lol

 

 

It's called conversation. You'll get it one day, but probably not if the conversation goes against your, incorrect, beliefs.

[FruitPudding]

2 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

It's called conversation. You'll get it one day, but probably not if the conversation goes against your, incorrect, beliefs.

 

How can beliefs be incorrect? 

 

This is persecution. Perhaps, I'll claim asylum.

 

[youreavinalaff]

2 minutes ago, FruitPudding said:

 

How can beliefs be incorrect? 

 

This is persecution. Perhaps, I'll claim asylum.

 

I'll explain once more.

 

24% is not "most". That is incorrect. It is one of your beliefs.

[FruitPudding]

1 minute ago, youreavinalaff said:

I'll explain once more.

 

24% is not "most". That is incorrect. It is one of your beliefs.

 

Off you trot and show some data to back this up.

 

By the way, Albanians are now number 1 for asylum in the UK. What would Albanians need to seek asylum from?

[stevenl]

11 minutes ago, FruitPudding said:

 

Off you trot and show some data to back this up.

 

By the way, Albanians are now number 1 for asylum in the UK. What would Albanians need to seek asylum from?

You have no data to backup your claim but expect others to back theirs up 

May happen after you have backed up yours.

[FruitPudding]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

You have no data to backup your claim but expect others to back theirs up 

May happen after you have backed up yours.

 

I am stating opinions, not facts. I don't have to back up my opinions.

[youreavinalaff]

18 minutes ago, FruitPudding said:

 

I am stating opinions, not facts. I don't have to back up my opinions.

You are correct. You don't have to back up opinions.

 

However, you made an incorrect statement. I just trotted off to do as you asked. Here you go.

 

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/

[FruitPudding]

I did find this interesting:

 

- 98% of asylum seekers don't carry identification documents.

 

You'd think they'd want to make their asylum claim easier with some form of ID, rather than making it difficult to identify them.

 

- 90% are male. Why is that? Lol

 

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/668

 

Emphasis on the heading: Nearly 90% of those crossing in boats from safe countries are male

 

Why are they coming to the UK from safe countries to claim asylum? Lol

 

[stevenl]

19 hours ago, FruitPudding said:

 

Most of them can't prove that

 

52 minutes ago, FruitPudding said:

 

I am stating opinions, not facts. I don't have to back up my opinions.

You were stating facts.