Delayed

34 minutes ago, FIRETHORN1 said:

  Those of us who followed these rules are just gormless sheep and we are now paying the price of our gullibility.

 

  

 

Speak for yourself. I’ve followed the rules, had my vaccines and paid no price and enjoying life as Covid is no longer an issue. 

36 minutes ago, despritdan said:

Exactly, our prisons must be full of violent Jamaican criminals so why not get enough to fill a military plane, sedate and manacle them then get them on board and send them back. Keep doing it until there are none left. That silly woman can go with them if she's so fond of them.

The home office do have chartered flights but they are very expensive and don't always guarantee full planes because of timings, last minute legal challenges, injunctions, doo gooders, lefty lawyers etc. 

So sometimes where only individuals are concerned then routine flights are used. 

At the end of the day it's all down to costs 

26 minutes ago, Prettytom said:

Maybe they should tag Morgan and send him to Hannah’s house for the rest of his sentence.

She and every other passenger that stood up should be made aware of his crimes and pay for the costs of the aborted flight with a travel ban. 

18 minutes ago, Al Bundy said:

It's not a prison.

 

I am surprised at you as I thought you were a reasonable poster on this subject without an agenda.

 

Obviously not.

Perhaps I'm being flippant. I know it's not a prison in the exact sense but when it's deliberately intended to be a persons only source of shelter then psychologically it's a prison. 

1 minute ago, Jim Hardie said:

Of course it’s happening.

 

https://www.serco.com/uk/sites/serco-aasc/landlords

 

All utility bills paid. No need to turn down that thermostat.

That doesn't specify new builds though. That's just a call to existing landlords 

9 minutes ago, Al Bundy said:

A prison?

 

Can they not leave the barge?

They can but it's basically an open prison 

7 minutes ago, Jack Grey said:

I'm sure you'll say this is lies because of the news source 

 

 

 

 

Doesn't appear to be lies but after the first few seconds the video is about the Home Office NOT housing migrants in new builds as they've not gone ahead with it. 

So it's not happening as I've said 

12 minutes ago, Jack Grey said:

They love EU law because it suits their narrative if allowing illegal migrants to move into new build homes that cost the taxpayer £1400 a month 

Where's that cone from?

Small boat arrivals are being housed in council housing,. hotels or a floating prison. The government can't house them in private build new housing. 

3 hours ago, Jack Grey said:

It's because of attitudes like yours that we cannot have a constructive adult debate about it.

 

You guys on the left are just happy to scream racism and other stupid terms without actually contributing to the issues at hand

 

We have to build over 500,000 council homes a year to deal with the current level of migration

 

Last year we built 182,000

 

What's your solution?

Cut migration or make sure immigrants are earning enough to afford private housing.

It doesn't mean we should stop migration altogether 

2 hours ago, altus said:

It can be more stupid than that - British-born man who has never left UK faces deportation.

I think that article is misleading. The government know they cannot deport a Brit Cit. That article says that the person is born in the UK and applied for a British passport.

Being born in the UK does not automatically mean you are British. And if he's applied for a passport and not got one yet then he is eligible to be deported. 

15 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

 

Personally I would put my money on trolling.

 

I'm not blindly agreeing with you so yeah....you will be assuming that I'm trolling.

Just now, Al Bundy said:

Fair enough.

 

But what's your answer to my question?

 

 

I'm not answering 'What if' loaded questions. You don't like arguing so don't try and create an argument 

Just now, The_DADDY said:

That's where we differ.

She was very drunk, he seemed sober, the staff were busy working, the customers were there for food. Who else should have controlled the situation and the gobby one? 

She certainly had no intention of controlling herself.

I've already said....

The staff/owners and if she became that disruptive then the police.

Just now, Al Bundy said:

Ah right.

 

If two women were scrapping after a few too many Bacardi and cokes and their boyfriends tried to calm them down and drag them off each other..... would that constitute " trying to control them"?

 7minutes ago, Al Bundy said:

I do believe they are arguing for arguments sake.

2 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

Yup. They certainly are.

They don't seem too keen to criticise the women though eh?

Funny that. 

Nothing funny about it. 

The woman's behaviour is deplorable and should be setting a better example.

I just don't agree with it being the partners responsibility 

1 minute ago, The_DADDY said:

Only if said reader has an agenda. 

To anyone normal it doesn't mean that at all.

Apologies that must be why you're got so many people agreeing with you on this thread 

Just now, Al Bundy said:

What if the police are men, would that be sexist if they try to control her?

No because they would be doing their job. But of course the woman can request female officers as you well know. Nice try

2 minutes ago, Al Bundy said:

And what if she doesn't?

Then if the behaviour is disruptive enough the police need to get involved or the owners ban her from the takeaway. Which was already suggested 

1 minute ago, The_DADDY said:

His sense. 

His wife.

His friend.

His woman.

 

You really aren't making much sense. 

He is Her man.

Her partner.

Her husband.

Her friend. 

 

See? That's equality 👍

You're missing the point...

You're upset that this man didn't control his woman (in your words)

Which gives the reader the impression that you believe women need to be controlled by men. 

4 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

My bold. 

Well then it's a good job I didn't suggest this man owned this woman then isn't it.

"Control Your Woman?"

"He should have controlled his woman."

Yeah good job 👏

1 minute ago, The_DADDY said:

I think you'll find I suggested This particular man should have controlled this particular woman.

Which is reasonable. 

Unless you feel it was ok for someone to cause a fuss, swear, shout, bang doors and intimidate other customers because she is a women?

That sounds rather sexist to me. 

Not at all. But rather than suggesting this particular Man should CONTROL this particular woman as though he owns her IS sexist.

My take on it would be that it's her responsibility to changer her behaviour 

And before Daddy asks me where he has said that....

"He should have controlled his woman"

22 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

Still waiting to hear what these 'vile opinions' are.

Are you going to say? 

Not speaking for Tom but perhaps it's to do with your post suggesting that women should be controlled by men...

Just a thought 

8 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

>>Covid disproportionately affects older people<<

 

It's a bit more than "disproportionately affects". People under 30 were at no significant risk at all, and healthy people under about 45 were at more risk of dying in a car accident than from Covid.

Funny that, bearing in mind the government told us that Covid was indiscriminate.....

 

 

Are you serious ?
We are still suffering now from the consequences of the biggest over reaction in the history of the world.

But its' even worse than that, it will all happen again, I am sure of it, because we live in a pathetic virtue signalling world (which also has an appalling appreciation of risk probability).

I'll start to worry about the next pandemic when we start to get warnings from experts as opposed to some old bloke ranting on a forum about how he can't adjust to modern life. 

Anyone know what they are still arguing for/against? It's been 3 years so it's ok if you've forgotten 

6 hours ago, Irene Swaine said:

He died of a heart attack. Ofcourse, the media will spin it to make it sounds like he died of the non-existent "COVID". And what brought on the heart attack I wonder, could it be a certain injection that they started rolling out in 2021? Hmmm.

No it couldn't.

Go back to investigating 9/11