Piddington votes to leave the UK
Discussion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckz7zyn1lwypo
If you haven't seen the after election speech by the Chair of the Parish council Tim McNally, then seek it out.
If you haven't seen the after election speech by the Chair of the Parish council Tim McNally, then seek it out.
Chair of parish council has just ended BBC interview by saying that small boat migrants throw women and children out of the boats, which kind of says all you need to know about him.
I do have *some* sympathy with the villagers cause as it would triple the local population, so there is a proportionality issue, but that’s it.
I do have *some* sympathy with the villagers cause as it would triple the local population, so there is a proportionality issue, but that’s it.
STe_rsv4 said:
NIMBYS vote liberal. NIMBYS get some in their own backyard.
NIMBYS do NIMBY things and protest
I do think that the shires need to get a taste of what other areas have been suffering, it's amusing to see them go mental about it though rather than mutter a bit like all the towns and cities have when faced with it. NIMBYS do NIMBY things and protest
The majority of the country want this farce to stop yet the government continues its policy of gaslighting and performative gesture politics rather than actually stopping it, it will not end well.
Labour's policy of pretending to act, by stopping the use of hotels for housing and spreading the migrants out will act as a recruiting sergeant for Reform.
Edited by Wills2 on Wednesday 16th September 09:05
Being cynical Labour should acknowledge it as introduce tariffs and put toll booths in at every exit of the town, rail fares go through the roof and energy bills likewise because I am guessing they don't have any services within the town.
Obviously this won't happen and I'm with Piddington on this, but it will do absolutely nothing unfortunately. If the plan continues then Piddington will become a ghost town as residents leave in their droves assuming they can sell their properties.
Obviously this won't happen and I'm with Piddington on this, but it will do absolutely nothing unfortunately. If the plan continues then Piddington will become a ghost town as residents leave in their droves assuming they can sell their properties.
They think they'll have problems with 1200 asylum seekers locked in a former army base (I'm presuming they are being held there until they are processed and not just housed there to live for an extended period), I'd call their bluff and give them independence and see how long they last without moaning that their pensions have stopped, they need passports to exit the village and not a penny of UK money is spent on any of their public services or infrastructure and they have to set up their own tax raising and collection capabilities.
Ok, I know it's a headline grabbing unserious demand, but really, independence.
Use of a former army base seems entirely sensible to me. The alternative is public rents (no, didn't like that, too expensive); hotels (no, didn't like that, still too expensive); letting the asylum seekers sort themselves out until they are called in to be processed (don't be daft, as it that will work); squeezing who's coming in (which is being done with some effect albeit not as quickly as many would like, but the numbers are trending downward from the huge increases that happened under the last Government - which presumably leafy rural Oxfordshire voted for in droves).
Ok, I know it's a headline grabbing unserious demand, but really, independence.
Use of a former army base seems entirely sensible to me. The alternative is public rents (no, didn't like that, too expensive); hotels (no, didn't like that, still too expensive); letting the asylum seekers sort themselves out until they are called in to be processed (don't be daft, as it that will work); squeezing who's coming in (which is being done with some effect albeit not as quickly as many would like, but the numbers are trending downward from the huge increases that happened under the last Government - which presumably leafy rural Oxfordshire voted for in droves).
richhead said:
I do have some sympathy for them, % wise its a huge number.
I did hear that its an old army base that is going to be used, how many army people were there before?
Good point (and as said above, I do have *some* sympathy with them in proportionality terms), but what was the opinion when the base was occupied by military? Would they have done a similar symbolic referendum had the proposal been to convert the base into your standard kind of housing estate for a similar number of occupants? I would have had similar sympathy in proportionality terms, but not due to any other factors, which in this case seems to be due to paranoia fuelled by multiple media sources, political parties and social media.I did hear that its an old army base that is going to be used, how many army people were there before?
bigglesA110 said:
They think they'll have problems with 1200 asylum seekers locked in a former army base (I'm presuming they are being held there until they are processed and not just housed there to live for an extended period), I'd call their bluff and give them independence and see how long they last without moaning that their pensions have stopped, they need passports to exit the village and not a penny of UK money is spent on any of their public services or infrastructure and they have to set up their own tax raising and collection capabilities.
Ok, I know it's a headline grabbing unserious demand, but really, independence.
Use of a former army base seems entirely sensible to me. The alternative is public rents (no, didn't like that, too expensive); hotels (no, didn't like that, still too expensive); letting the asylum seekers sort themselves out until they are called in to be processed (don't be daft, as it that will work); squeezing who's coming in (which is being done with some effect albeit not as quickly as many would like, but the numbers are trending downward from the huge increases that happened under the last Government - which presumably leafy rural Oxfordshire voted for in droves).
If the former army base was in another country the boats would stop within a week....Ok, I know it's a headline grabbing unserious demand, but really, independence.
Use of a former army base seems entirely sensible to me. The alternative is public rents (no, didn't like that, too expensive); hotels (no, didn't like that, still too expensive); letting the asylum seekers sort themselves out until they are called in to be processed (don't be daft, as it that will work); squeezing who's coming in (which is being done with some effect albeit not as quickly as many would like, but the numbers are trending downward from the huge increases that happened under the last Government - which presumably leafy rural Oxfordshire voted for in droves).
bigglesA110 said:
They think they'll have problems with 1200 asylum seekers locked in a former army base (I'm presuming they are being held there until they are processed and not just housed there to live for an extended period), I'd call their bluff and give them independence and see how long they last without moaning that their pensions have stopped, they need passports to exit the village and not a penny of UK money is spent on any of their public services or infrastructure and they have to set up their own tax raising and collection capabilities.
Ok, I know it's a headline grabbing unserious demand, but really, independence.
Use of a former army base seems entirely sensible to me. The alternative is public rents (no, didn't like that, too expensive); hotels (no, didn't like that, still too expensive); letting the asylum seekers sort themselves out until they are called in to be processed (don't be daft, as it that will work); squeezing who's coming in (which is being done with some effect albeit not as quickly as many would like, but the numbers are trending downward from the huge increases that happened under the last Government - which presumably leafy rural Oxfordshire voted for in droves).
They're not locked in, they can come and go as they please.Ok, I know it's a headline grabbing unserious demand, but really, independence.
Use of a former army base seems entirely sensible to me. The alternative is public rents (no, didn't like that, too expensive); hotels (no, didn't like that, still too expensive); letting the asylum seekers sort themselves out until they are called in to be processed (don't be daft, as it that will work); squeezing who's coming in (which is being done with some effect albeit not as quickly as many would like, but the numbers are trending downward from the huge increases that happened under the last Government - which presumably leafy rural Oxfordshire voted for in droves).
A deserted island would be better imho. I understand that Gruinard Island is available.
TX.
ChevronB19 said:
richhead said:
I do have some sympathy for them, % wise its a huge number.
I did hear that its an old army base that is going to be used, how many army people were there before?
Good point (and as said above, I do have *some* sympathy with them in proportionality terms), but what was the opinion when the base was occupied by military? Would they have done a similar symbolic referendum had the proposal been to convert the base into your standard kind of housing estate for a similar number of occupants? I would have had similar sympathy in proportionality terms, but not due to any other factors, which in this case seems to be due to paranoia fuelled by multiple media sources, political parties and social media.I did hear that its an old army base that is going to be used, how many army people were there before?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff