Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

by McLaren Sat 20 Jun 2020, 1:31 pm

First topic message reminder :

Navy

And what super has also missed is that the statues and TV shows are not really the main focus of the protests. They are easy news bites to bring up but the meat of the protesters argument is about equality for black people.

I also don't think super is correct that just because you support BLM you don't also worry about atrocities committed in other spheres of life. It is just that currently the focus is on racism towards black people.

As much as he hates America, Super would really fit into their libertarian ways.

by super_realist Mon 10 Aug 2020, 9:50 am

beninho wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:The only option for some is to travel through Germany and France and then get on a dinghy and get across the channel?

I'm sure we pick up asylum seekers through other means, but I'm not sure what other means soneone would get to the uk if they wanted to come here.

You don't think there are official routes and procedures for asylum seeking?

I wasn't making a comparison to myself and people escaping "war torn countries" if they actually are and aren't just illegal economic migrants. I was saying that sailing over the Channel is not something which should be encouraged and rewarded by a four star hotel, money, free dental care etc. Tbey should be turned around to France until a formal application can be processed and a proper decision made.

by beninho Mon 10 Aug 2020, 9:55 am

Of course it shouldn't be encouraged, we shouldn't be encouraging people to risk life to get to the uk.

4 star hotels? Now, im not sure what dealings you've had with NASS accommodation but its very rarely 4 star hotels, though, im aware sone empty due to civid hotels have been used for the last few months.

Money, they mainly get vouchers i think or no more than £30pw whike claiming asylum - just check £37.

by super_realist Mon 10 Aug 2020, 10:14 am

The biggest problem is that even if you fail in your asylum application then you are rarely deported, so that is defacto encouragement.

by beninho Mon 10 Aug 2020, 10:16 am

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/09/if-i-die-that-is-ok-calais-refugees-nowhere-to-turn

Some reasons why people try and get to the uk.

by beninho Mon 10 Aug 2020, 10:21 am

super_realist wrote:The biggest problem is that even if you fail in your asylum application then you are rarely deported, so that is defacto encouragement.

I have dealt with plenty of people who had failed asylum claims, and were rough sleeping. They do just get left with the £35pw and unable to claim or get state assistance. Probably cheaper then deporting them though.

by McLaren Mon 10 Aug 2020, 10:25 am

super_realist wrote:

People don't hate asylum seekers. They just don't want to see people enter the country illegally and given indefinite leave to remain. I'd quite like to live in Australia for a while but guess what would happen if I tried sailing a boat there

If you adopt the position the asylum seekers shouldn't enter countries illegally you have to take the position the the system of seeking asylum is already fair and safe. I am sure most asylum seekers wouldn't use "illegal" means if the world actually provided a method of getting people out of dangerous that was humane.

I just don't get why people care about asylum seekers coming into the country. It doesn't impact us (especially the middle class golf types on here) in any way.

by McLaren Mon 10 Aug 2020, 10:27 am

super_realist wrote:The biggest problem is that even if you fail in your asylum application then you are rarely deported, so that is defacto encouragement.

What terrible outcome do you envisage if these people are immediately put on a plane? As ben has pointed out it is often catastrophic for people who fail to claim asylum, we need a safety net for these people.

by super_realist Mon 10 Aug 2020, 10:31 am

Mac, typical lack of comprehension again. Did I say out on a plane or did I say turned around to France until a proper asylum application can be made?

I've nothing against genuine asylum seekers but if we set out with the knowledge that even a failed asum seeker can be permitted to stay then what's the point?

Managed migration is absolutely fine, can't think of anyone who is actually against that, good for our gene pool if nothing else.

by super_realist Mon 10 Aug 2020, 10:35 am

McLaren wrote:
super_realist wrote:

People don't hate asylum seekers. They just don't want to see people enter the country illegally and given indefinite leave to remain. I'd quite like to live in Australia for a while but guess what would happen if I tried sailing a boat there

If you adopt the position the asylum seekers shouldn't enter countries illegally you have to take the position the the system of seeking asylum is already fair and safe. I am sure most asylum seekers wouldn't use "illegal" means if the world actually provided a method of getting people out of dangerous that was humane.

I just don't get why people care about asylum seekers coming into the country. It doesn't impact us (especially the middle class golf types on here) in any way.

And that is why people believe you have just hatched out of an egg.
If a properly managed application carried out then how do you what you are letting in?

by McLaren Mon 10 Aug 2020, 10:38 am

Super are you aware that not all language is literal? Honestly I doubt it.

But what is the horrific outcome you fear if some failed asylum seekers end up staying in the country?

by McLaren Mon 10 Aug 2020, 10:40 am

super_realist wrote:
If a properly managed application carried out then how do you what you are letting in?

Super, most of the scumbags in this country "are let in" out of English womans fannys. What do you propose we do about that?

by super_realist Mon 10 Aug 2020, 10:44 am

Unfortunately we can't do anything about that Mac, and it's certainly not restricted to England. I know you've never travelled Scotland much but having lived in all the cities in Scotland I can tell you there are scum everywhere and Scottish scum are some of the worst I have seen.

The point is why would you let people into a country without knowing whether they have a legitimate reason for being here? I'm simply asking that rather than roll out the red carpet we administer the process better and don't let them in until it can be proven they have good grounds to be here. Simply not fancying France, Germany or Belgium isnt really a reason.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 10 Aug 2020, 10:48 am

Well, maybe Belgium.

by super_realist Mon 10 Aug 2020, 10:48 am

McLaren wrote:Super are you aware that not all language is literal? Honestly I doubt it.

But what is the horrific outcome you fear if some failed asylum seekers end up staying in the country?

Eh, wouldn't terrorism be a good reason?
I don't see why you think confirming whether they have a legitimate claim of being a genuine asylum seeker is not a good idea.

I'm also fine if you are a migrant who can bring skills, experience or whatever (ie certain job roles) to a country, but it has to be on merit, you can't just let anybkdy in who manages to find there way here. What's wrong with that?

by McLaren Mon 10 Aug 2020, 10:50 am

Super

But what grounds do you use to judge?

And if you are going to have such strict rules about who can stay why not force those born here to meet the same standards? Should the bit of rock you were born on get you a veto on the super_realist worthiness test?

by beninho Mon 10 Aug 2020, 10:54 am

If they get here we have to process the application and the home office will make a decision whether they have valid claims or not. Obviously people may come here and not claim asylum, and are therefore illegal and cant claim anything. In my dealimgs the most likely to be illegal are people who have overstayed and initially came in legally on a visa.

The fact that they have been in other parts of Europe is generally irrelevant

by super_realist Mon 10 Aug 2020, 10:58 am

It's not at all, because once they get here they know that they are very rarely expelled from the UK even in the result of their asylum request being rejected. Better to sort this application out before they get here surely, and then if they fail then don't let them in.

by beninho Mon 10 Aug 2020, 11:00 am

They have rules for asylum seekers. Which is what they use to either grant or not grant the initial limited leave to remain.

by super_realist Mon 10 Aug 2020, 11:02 am

McLaren wrote:Super

But what grounds do you use to judge?

And if you are going to have such strict rules about who can stay why not force those born here to meet the same standards? Should the bit of rock you were born on get you a veto on the super_realist worthiness test?

Eh, Home Office Immigration processes and standards. How about that for being radical?

Why is that so hard? Being born here means you are entitled to be here. Doesn't mean we don't have our own scum, but wouldn't you rather have a process to mitigate against getting any more?

I'm sure you are in favour for there being standards to meet for gun ownership, well shouldn't an application to move somewhere also come with a set of requirement which the applicant has to meet? Chief in this case whether you have a valid claim for genuine asylum?

by beninho Mon 10 Aug 2020, 11:03 am

super_realist wrote:It's not at all, because once they get here they know that they are very rarely expelled from the UK even in the result of their asylum request being rejected. Better to sort this application out before they get here surely, and then if they fail then don't let them in.

Which is all well and good, but doesn't mean anything if they get over the channel or in the back of vans. Once they are here they are here.

by super_realist Mon 10 Aug 2020, 11:03 am

beninho wrote:They have rules for asylum seekers. Which is what they use to either grant or not grant the initial limited leave to remain.

Not working very well then are they? Wouldn't have all this modern slavery in Leicester, car washes, nail bars etc if higher standards for immigration were required rather than letting peoe sail over here and disappearing into the system.

by beninho Mon 10 Aug 2020, 11:04 am

super_realist wrote:
McLaren wrote:Super

But what grounds do you use to judge?

And if you are going to have such strict rules about who can stay why not force those born here to meet the same standards? Should the bit of rock you were born on get you a veto on the super_realist worthiness test?

Eh, Home Office Immigration processes and standards. How about that for being radical?

Why is that so hard? Being born here means you are entitled to be here. Doesn't mean we don't have our own scum, but wouldn't you rather have a process to mitigate against getting any more?

I'm sure you are in favour for there being standards to meet for gun ownership, well shouldn't an application to move somewhere also come with a set of requirement which the applicant has to meet? Chief in this case whether you have a valid claim for genuine asylum?

They do! And while doing the checks they provide accommodation and basic living costs. What are you arguing for?

by super_realist Mon 10 Aug 2020, 11:05 am

beninho wrote:
super_realist wrote:It's not at all, because once they get here they know that they are very rarely expelled from the UK even in the result of their asylum request being rejected. Better to sort this application out before they get here surely, and then if they fail then don't let them in.

Which is all well and good, but doesn't mean anything if they get over the channel or in the back of vans. Once they are here they are here.

Exaclty, so a more robust system is clearly required and permitting people to navigate the channel in a rubber ring isn't conjusive to a thorough investigation of their claim to be here.

by McLaren Mon 10 Aug 2020, 11:06 am

super_realist wrote:
beninho wrote:They have rules for asylum seekers. Which is what they use to either grant or not grant the initial limited leave to remain.

Not working very well then are they? Wouldn't have all this modern slavery in Leicester, car washes, nail bars etc if higher standards for immigration were required rather than letting peoe sail over here and disappearing into the system.

bullshite

You don't oppose unofficial migration because of the conditions those people face when here you just don't want them here at all.

by super_realist Mon 10 Aug 2020, 11:06 am

beninho wrote:
super_realist wrote:
McLaren wrote:Super

But what grounds do you use to judge?

And if you are going to have such strict rules about who can stay why not force those born here to meet the same standards? Should the bit of rock you were born on get you a veto on the super_realist worthiness test?

Eh, Home Office Immigration processes and standards. How about that for being radical?

Why is that so hard? Being born here means you are entitled to be here. Doesn't mean we don't have our own scum, but wouldn't you rather have a process to mitigate against getting any more?

I'm sure you are in favour for there being standards to meet for gun ownership, well shouldn't an application to move somewhere also come with a set of requirement which the applicant has to meet? Chief in this case whether you have a valid claim for genuine asylum?

They do! And while doing the checks they provide accommodation and basic living costs. What are you arguing for?

Jeeezus. I'm talking about sorting out their claim for asylum to be sorted PRIOR to their arrival as the home office is not deporting people who fail their application. Why would you want people here who have no grounds to be here?

by super_realist Mon 10 Aug 2020, 11:09 am

McLaren wrote:
super_realist wrote:
beninho wrote:They have rules for asylum seekers. Which is what they use to either grant or not grant the initial limited leave to remain.

Not working very well then are they? Wouldn't have all this modern slavery in Leicester, car washes, nail bars etc if higher standards for immigration were required rather than letting peoe sail over here and disappearing into the system.

bullPoopie

You don't oppose unofficial migration because of the conditions those people face when here you just don't want them here at all.

You're right, I don't, I was using it to question the point Beninho made about people failing asylum applications and being kicked out. This clearly isn't happening.

How did you ever do a literature review with your appalling comprehension levels?

by beninho Mon 10 Aug 2020, 11:21 am

super_realist wrote:
beninho wrote:
super_realist wrote:
McLaren wrote:Super

But what grounds do you use to judge?

And if you are going to have such strict rules about who can stay why not force those born here to meet the same standards? Should the bit of rock you were born on get you a veto on the super_realist worthiness test?

Eh, Home Office Immigration processes and standards. How about that for being radical?

Why is that so hard? Being born here means you are entitled to be here. Doesn't mean we don't have our own scum, but wouldn't you rather have a process to mitigate against getting any more?

I'm sure you are in favour for there being standards to meet for gun ownership, well shouldn't an application to move somewhere also come with a set of requirement which the applicant has to meet? Chief in this case whether you have a valid claim for genuine asylum?

They do! And while doing the checks they provide accommodation and basic living costs. What are you arguing for?

Jeeezus. I'm talking about sorting out their claim for asylum to be sorted PRIOR to their arrival as the home office is not deporting people who fail their application. Why would you want people here who have no grounds to be here?

Which I'm sure in some instances it happens. But, people are getting into the uk via different means, like in a canoe. That article said 4000 people this year. You cant deal with asylum claims before they get here if they claim asylum when hear. Also, some claims can take years to be processed or months. You have to provide accommodation and basic expenses during that process.

The other big issue is

by beninho Mon 10 Aug 2020, 11:36 am

Oh well, in a few months we won't even be able to send them back to France anyway.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 10 Aug 2020, 11:46 am

beninho wrote: YOu can claim asylum in any country of your choice. But if you have registered an asylum claim in any country you cannot claim in another country. Though this should be registered. Just being in a country isn't necessarily a claim for asylum.

That's not how it works within the EU. Once we're out, agree it's different. Not now and not for the recent past either.

by beninho Mon 10 Aug 2020, 12:06 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
beninho wrote: YOu can claim asylum in any country of your choice. But if you have registered an asylum claim in any country you cannot claim in another country. Though this should be registered. Just being in a country isn't necessarily a claim for asylum.
That's not how it works within the EU. Once we're out, agree it's different. Not now and not for the recent past either.

Not sure what bit you are disputing

https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 10 Aug 2020, 12:30 pm

beninho wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
beninho wrote: YOu can claim asylum in any country of your choice. But if you have registered an asylum claim in any country you cannot claim in another country. Though this should be registered. Just being in a country isn't necessarily a claim for asylum.
That's not how it works within the EU. Once we're out, agree it's different. Not now and not for the recent past either.

Not sure what bit you are disputing

https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/

Thanks. Interesting. Guess the BBC isn't the media organisation it once was.

I don't care that much tbh. In general, they can sod off. If one wants asylum that badly, I can't see any logic in traipsing all across dozens of European countries just to reach the UK. Nah.

I do think there should be good agreements re. helping the Mediterranean countries etc w/ the costs of asylum seeking and we should take our fair proportion, but I don't agree w/ this absurd situation as it now exists. Too much of this is economic - you don't (or shouldn't) get to use asylum claims for that, I'm afraid.

by beninho Mon 10 Aug 2020, 12:48 pm

I previously thought you needed some form of EU wide detention centres for all asylum seekers. At these they get processed and dispersed throughout Europe, though taking into account family etc. Its similar in the UK, very few london areas have NASS accommodation and its spread round England. Though doesn't stop them coming to London once leave is acquired.

No idea what will happen after Brexit, when we are out of all agreements.

by super_realist Mon 10 Aug 2020, 2:04 pm

Bet Dawn Butler thought it was Christmas at the weekend.

by pedro Tue 11 Aug 2020, 12:00 am

Not the right precedent to set to allow those paying traffickers thousands to get here to seek asylum, while those going through official channels basically get the middle finger.

by pedro Tue 11 Aug 2020, 12:02 am

beninho wrote:
I would probably also say, that most asylum seekers are not as well travelled as yourself, so not able to make the same decisions on what countries may be nicer.

This is BS. They know exactly where to go and where not to go before leaving home. It’s not like they decide half way or could have ended up in Hungary by coincidence.

by pedro Tue 11 Aug 2020, 12:11 am

The right way is to stop all migrants at EUs external borders and to have a European wide refugee quota system. Which then also means forcing the Eastern European countries to take their fair share.
If that is implemented I bet you the total number of asylum seekers will drop like a rock.
You could then establish EU run asylum centres near designated hot spots around N.Africa and the Middle East, for those in true need, while their application is being processed.

by super_realist Tue 18 Aug 2020, 11:20 am

Butterfingers Hart to Spurs seems to be a severe lack of ambition for Spurs doesn't it?

by **superflyweight** Tue 18 Aug 2020, 11:37 am

They need to increase the number of homegrown players they have in their squad and doing it by adding an experienced but cheap third choice goalkeeper is a fairly smart way of doing it.

by super_realist Tue 18 Aug 2020, 11:38 am

superflyweight wrote:They need to increase the number of homegrown players they have in their squad and doing it by adding an experienced but cheap third choice goalkeeper is a fairly smart way of doing it.

How smart is that when you'll be paying him a lot of money to do nothing and never play. They could bring in an 18 year old for virtually nothing.

by **superflyweight** Tue 18 Aug 2020, 11:51 am

They might need to rely on him at some point and he is experienced. Maybe he's also helping coaching/mentoring younger keepers. He's a free agent so no transfer fees and can't imagine he held much negotiating power when discussing wages.

Levy tends not to throw money around unnecessarily so it presumably makes sense for them.

by super_realist Tue 18 Aug 2020, 11:58 am

I basically just said something to get some conversation going on the board as its a bit quiet. I don't really care about Hart or Spurs, but it does seem an odd choice to bring in a keeper with one of the worst records in the Premier League for a team with the aspirations of Spurs. Seems a player more likely to go to Brighton, Palace, Villa, Fulham or some other yo yo club.

by **superflyweight** Tue 18 Aug 2020, 12:04 pm

I agree that it is a bit odd, but suspect he might only show up on the bench for Europa Leage group matches and domestic cup games.

by beninho Tue 18 Aug 2020, 3:28 pm

Hart has replaced Vorm. Probably similar wages and ups the quota. Not a silly signing.

Though in agreement, it is very quiet on here..

by **navyblueshorts** Tue 18 Aug 2020, 4:09 pm

Hart was once, pretty much universally, considered to be very good. Lost his way/confidence perhaps? Ability is presumably still there and I guess he isn't going to cost Spurs much in the scheme of player fees these days.

by McLaren Tue 18 Aug 2020, 6:36 pm

This place is RIP unless we can get kwini back.

by super_realist Tue 18 Aug 2020, 7:30 pm

beninho wrote:Hart has replaced Vorm. Probably similar wages and ups the quota. Not a silly signing.

Though in agreement, it is very quiet on here..

We need some controversy.

by McLaren Tue 18 Aug 2020, 7:53 pm

No doubt super thinks the exam results were handled superbly by the Tories?

by Davie Tue 18 Aug 2020, 7:55 pm

McLaren wrote:This place is RIP unless we can get kwini back.

I miss him too but there is more to life than kwini. Hope he comes back but stop ass licking - it won't do any good except make you look a d!ck

by McLaren Tue 18 Aug 2020, 8:33 pm

Davie. His weekly article drove most of the golf discussion. Without that we relay on super to go batshit on the off topic section.

by super_realist Tue 18 Aug 2020, 8:54 pm

McLaren wrote:No doubt super thinks the exam results were handled superbly by the Tories?

I couldn't care less, but an enforced year off might make certain students think twice about doing pointless courses like Art History, Performing Arts, Psychology or Music.

I'm actually sick of hearing about "how tough" things are for young people. They need to toughen up a bit. Far too flakey and eager to act persecuted.

by Sponsored content