Clapham Acid Attack

[E63eeeeee...]

swisstoni said:

As you ‘know a lot’ if you say so yourself, you’ll probably have seen this Sky News report then.

Other’s may find it interesting though;

https://youtu.be/IkxHRwJZflI?si=TFg3vp6hrvY24XLR

It was the basis of my comments.

Oddly enough I don't rely much on mainstream reporting to learn about the immigration system, so the chances of me wasting 25 minutes watching something from Sky is basically zero.

If it said something about requiring "qualifications" to be deported, it seems like you probably wasted your time too.

There are various reasons why people with no status don't get removed, quite a lot of them are about the system having been starved of resources over the last decade.

As for the point about asking people politely to leave, of course that's what happens. Given it's basically free, and sometimes it works, why wouldn't you start with that? "You're not entitled to be here any more, you've got 28 days to leave". If that doesn't work the system progresses through asking people a bit more forcefully, offering them money and other assistance to leave, up to physically putting them on a plane. This is all stuff that was working perfectly well from around the late noughties when we were removing significantly more people each year than were making asylum claims. The idea that you'd have tried to put them all on military flights instead is just another example of the same know-nothing mentality that has given us Rwanda.

[swisstoni]

E63eeeeee... said:

swisstoni said:

As you ‘know a lot’ if you say so yourself, you’ll probably have seen this Sky News report then.

Other’s may find it interesting though;

https://youtu.be/IkxHRwJZflI?si=TFg3vp6hrvY24XLR

It was the basis of my comments.

Oddly enough I don't rely much on mainstream reporting to learn about the immigration system, so the chances of me wasting 25 minutes watching something from Sky is basically zero.

If it said something about requiring "qualifications" to be deported, it seems like you probably wasted your time too.

There are various reasons why people with no status don't get removed, quite a lot of them are about the system having been starved of resources over the last decade.

As for the point about asking people politely to leave, of course that's what happens. Given it's basically free, and sometimes it works, why wouldn't you start with that? "You're not entitled to be here any more, you've got 28 days to leave". If that doesn't work the system progresses through asking people a bit more forcefully, offering them money and other assistance to leave, up to physically putting them on a plane. This is all stuff that was working perfectly well from around the late noughties when we were removing significantly more people each year than were making asylum claims. The idea that you'd have tried to put them all on military flights instead is just another example of the same know-nothing mentality that has given us Rwanda.

So you didn’t bother to watch the Sky News piece because you ‘don’t rely much on mainstream reporting’.

Oh well. Ignorance is bliss for some.

[E63eeeeee...]

swisstoni said:

E63eeeeee... said:

swisstoni said:

As you ‘know a lot’ if you say so yourself, you’ll probably have seen this Sky News report then.

Other’s may find it interesting though;

https://youtu.be/IkxHRwJZflI?si=TFg3vp6hrvY24XLR

It was the basis of my comments.

Oddly enough I don't rely much on mainstream reporting to learn about the immigration system, so the chances of me wasting 25 minutes watching something from Sky is basically zero.

If it said something about requiring "qualifications" to be deported, it seems like you probably wasted your time too.

There are various reasons why people with no status don't get removed, quite a lot of them are about the system having been starved of resources over the last decade.

As for the point about asking people politely to leave, of course that's what happens. Given it's basically free, and sometimes it works, why wouldn't you start with that? "You're not entitled to be here any more, you've got 28 days to leave". If that doesn't work the system progresses through asking people a bit more forcefully, offering them money and other assistance to leave, up to physically putting them on a plane. This is all stuff that was working perfectly well from around the late noughties when we were removing significantly more people each year than were making asylum claims. The idea that you'd have tried to put them all on military flights instead is just another example of the same know-nothing mentality that has given us Rwanda.

So you didn’t bother to watch the Sky News piece because you ‘don’t rely much on mainstream reporting’.

Oh well. Ignorance is bliss for some.

Because the only way to learn about things is to watch videos from Sky? Lol.

Is there something you actually know about? Have you ever read or watched mainstream media reporting on it? Any reason you think reporting on immigration is more accurate?

So given that's where your "knowledge" comes from, and the fact that you presumably know that you have no real expertise in immigration, why do you keep making definitive statements, and suggesting simplistic nonsense ideas as if they're solutions?

[andyA700]

E63eeeeee... said:

swisstoni said:

E63eeeeee... said:

swisstoni said:

As you ‘know a lot’ if you say so yourself, you’ll probably have seen this Sky News report then.

Other’s may find it interesting though;

https://youtu.be/IkxHRwJZflI?si=TFg3vp6hrvY24XLR

It was the basis of my comments.

Oddly enough I don't rely much on mainstream reporting to learn about the immigration system, so the chances of me wasting 25 minutes watching something from Sky is basically zero.

If it said something about requiring "qualifications" to be deported, it seems like you probably wasted your time too.

There are various reasons why people with no status don't get removed, quite a lot of them are about the system having been starved of resources over the last decade.

As for the point about asking people politely to leave, of course that's what happens. Given it's basically free, and sometimes it works, why wouldn't you start with that? "You're not entitled to be here any more, you've got 28 days to leave". If that doesn't work the system progresses through asking people a bit more forcefully, offering them money and other assistance to leave, up to physically putting them on a plane. This is all stuff that was working perfectly well from around the late noughties when we were removing significantly more people each year than were making asylum claims. The idea that you'd have tried to put them all on military flights instead is just another example of the same know-nothing mentality that has given us Rwanda.

So you didn’t bother to watch the Sky News piece because you ‘don’t rely much on mainstream reporting’.

Oh well. Ignorance is bliss for some.

Because the only way to learn about things is to watch videos from Sky? Lol.

Is there something you actually know about? Have you ever read or watched mainstream media reporting on it? Any reason you think reporting on immigration is more accurate?

So given that's where your "knowledge" comes from, and the fact that you presumably know that you have no real expertise in immigration, why do you keep making definitive statements, and suggesting simplistic nonsense ideas as if they're solutions?

So, would you like to enlighten us as to the wherabouts of the fountain of knowledge from where you drink is located?

[Talisker]

E63eeeeee... said:

swisstoni said:

As you ‘know a lot’ if you say so yourself, you’ll probably have seen this Sky News report then.

Other’s may find it interesting though;

https://youtu.be/IkxHRwJZflI?si=TFg3vp6hrvY24XLR

It was the basis of my comments.

Oddly enough I don't rely much on mainstream reporting to learn about the immigration system, so the chances of me wasting 25 minutes watching something from Sky is basically zero.

If it said something about requiring "qualifications" to be deported, it seems like you probably wasted your time too.

There are various reasons why people with no status don't get removed, quite a lot of them are about the system having been starved of resources over the last decade.

As for the point about asking people politely to leave, of course that's what happens. Given it's basically free, and sometimes it works, why wouldn't you start with that? "You're not entitled to be here any more, you've got 28 days to leave". If that doesn't work the system progresses through asking people a bit more forcefully, offering them money and other assistance to leave, up to physically putting them on a plane. This is all stuff that was working perfectly well from around the late noughties *when we were removing significantly more people each year than were making asylum claims. The idea that you'd have tried to put them all on military flights instead is just another example of the same know-nothing mentality that has given us Rwanda.

* How does that work?
you will have some figures to back up that claim from one of your non mainstream news sources of course

[E63eeeeee...]

Talisker said:

E63eeeeee... said:

swisstoni said:

As you ‘know a lot’ if you say so yourself, you’ll probably have seen this Sky News report then.

Other’s may find it interesting though;

https://youtu.be/IkxHRwJZflI?si=TFg3vp6hrvY24XLR

It was the basis of my comments.

Oddly enough I don't rely much on mainstream reporting to learn about the immigration system, so the chances of me wasting 25 minutes watching something from Sky is basically zero.

If it said something about requiring "qualifications" to be deported, it seems like you probably wasted your time too.

There are various reasons why people with no status don't get removed, quite a lot of them are about the system having been starved of resources over the last decade.

As for the point about asking people politely to leave, of course that's what happens. Given it's basically free, and sometimes it works, why wouldn't you start with that? "You're not entitled to be here any more, you've got 28 days to leave". If that doesn't work the system progresses through asking people a bit more forcefully, offering them money and other assistance to leave, up to physically putting them on a plane. This is all stuff that was working perfectly well from around the late noughties *when we were removing significantly more people each year than were making asylum claims. The idea that you'd have tried to put them all on military flights instead is just another example of the same know-nothing mentality that has given us Rwanda.

* How does that work?
you will have some figures to back up that claim from one of your non mainstream news sources of course

All this data is public domain, just look on gov.uk for immigration statistics. You can Google the asylum intake numbers yourself as I can't quickly find a chart, but in the late noughties you'll see they were around 25k, substantially less than the 40k or so you get if you add up the voluntary departures and the enforced removals.