[Politics] Are Labour going to turn this country around?

[BLOCK F]

View attachment 201965

Prison release plans endanger public, say Conservatives - BBC News

Ministers say new detention limits for recalled prisoners are required to ease an overcrowding crisis.

www.bbc.co.uk

Under Blair’s Government 28,000 new prison places were created between 1997 to 2010.

Under the Tories, 500 new prison places were created.

BTW, personally I don’t think just banging up more and more people is the answer, but, like successive governments I have no idea what is.

The Tories are so hypocritical about this whole problem, they were the first to introduce early release to ease pressure on the woefully underfunded Prison Service.

In an ideal world, there would be more rehab facilities for those with drug and and alcohol addictions, whose crimes are related to their addictions. Just banging these individuals up doesn’t help them. If there were more being treated and fewer being locked up, this would free up quite a few prison places.

 

[lawros left foot]

In an ideal world, there would be more rehab facilities with those with drug and and alcohol addictions, whose crimes are related to their addictions. Just banging these individuals up doesn’t help them. If their were more being treated and fewer being locked up, this would free up quite a few prison places.

Totally agree.

Addiction should be treated as a medical problem, not a law and order problem.

Portugal has now adopted this approach and the reduction in heroin addiction is incredible.
The ‘War on Drugs’ that we copied from America in the early 60s has totally failed, and cost billions.

 

[Bodian]

Can't imagine this would have happened under the Tories. They would have gladly given large amounts of public money to well paid folk to get bigger bonuses.

Ministers to block Thames Water paying bosses bonuses out of emergency loan

Exclusive: Firm close to insolvency says using £3bn loan to pay ‘substantial’ bonuses is vital to retain senior managers

www.theguardian.com

 

[SouthSaxon]

Can't imagine this would have happened under the Tories. They would have gladly given large amounts of public money to well paid folk to get bigger bonuses.

Ministers to block Thames Water paying bosses bonuses out of emergency loan

Exclusive: Firm close to insolvency says using £3bn loan to pay ‘substantial’ bonuses is vital to retain senior managers

www.theguardian.com

Sack the board. A basket case of a company.

 

[Weststander]

Can't imagine this would have happened under the Tories. They would have gladly given large amounts of public money to well paid folk to get bigger bonuses.

Ministers to block Thames Water paying bosses bonuses out of emergency loan

Exclusive: Firm close to insolvency says using £3bn loan to pay ‘substantial’ bonuses is vital to retain senior managers

www.theguardian.com

Thames’s chair, Sir Adrian Montague, told MPs on the environment, food and rural affairs (Efra) committee on Tuesday that the first of these bonuses would be up to 50% of their salary, arguing senior managers are its “most precious resource”.

I’d put H2O and hard working staff in the field ahead of them.

 

[Bodian]

Thames’s chair, Sir Adrian Montague, told MPs on the environment, food and rural affairs (Efra) committee on Tuesday that the first of these bonuses would be up to 50% of their salary, arguing senior managers are its “most precious resource”.

I’d put H2O and hard working staff in the field ahead of them.

Whenever Private Eye refer to water board bosses, they say something like 'Sir Adrian Montague (pictured below) said.....'

 

[SouthSaxon]

From the shit stirring Guardian!

Something else I noticed on the Graun today was a substantial edit of this article about Starmer’s visit to Albania and the refugee return hubs idea:

Starmer reveals plans to send refused asylum seekers to overseas ‘return hubs’

PM proposes use of third countries during visit to Albania, which rules out role in any such UK scheme

www.theguardian.com

When I first saw this earlier today, it made out that Starmer had been thoroughly humiliated by the Albanian PM, which didn’t really fit with the accompanying quote.

I wonder if a quiet word was had.

Starmer trip labelled an ‘embarassment’ as Albania rules out asylum seeker deal

Tories question point of PM’s visit to Albania as his counterpart rejects establishment of ‘return hubs’

web.archive.org

 

[Weststander]

Something else I noticed on the Graun today was a substantial edit of this article about Starmer’s visit to Albania and the refugee return hubs idea:

Starmer reveals plans to send refused asylum seekers to overseas ‘return hubs’

PM proposes use of third countries during visit to Albania, which rules out role in any such UK scheme

www.theguardian.com

When I first saw this earlier today, it made out that Starmer had been thoroughly humiliated by the Albanian PM, which didn’t really fit with the accompanying quote.

I wonder if a quiet word was had.

Starmer trip labelled an ‘embarassment’ as Albania rules out asylum seeker deal

Tories question point of PM’s visit to Albania as his counterpart rejects establishment of ‘return hubs’

web.archive.org

Is Owen Jones now Editor In Chief? Getting desperate now in using a shadow minister comment as their eye catching headline.

I know some background to that subject from some objective analysis on a radio prog. Albania strictly only allow the unlimited return of nationals from Italy due a “long standing special relationship”. But they work in an amenable way with Germany, UK, etc on other solutions and collaborations.

 

[drew]

Totally agree.

Addiction should be treated as a medical problem, not a law and order problem.

Portugal has now adopted this approach and the reduction in heroin addiction is incredible.
The ‘War on Drugs’ that we copied from America in the early 60s has totally failed, and cost billions.

Why is that people always like to use the phrase 'the war on drugs has failed'? You might as well say the war on burglary has failed because people still do it, or the war on domestic violence or rape or a host of other 'crimes'.

Where I agree is that the end user has to be treated as a medical problem but that the supply chain should still be a criminal offence.

 

[The Clamp]

Starmer is traditionally painted as a calm, reflective character who prioritises due diligence and takes a methodical approach to politics.

I’ve long thought that’s all bullshit. As false a character as Farage’s “Everyman” cos-play.

Starmer’s panicked and frankly pathetic response to the recent Reform wins, is him showing his true colours.

He’s a lickspittle. Which is odd for the most powerful politician in the UK. He actually fawns over people below him in status.

He’s been too afraid to go after the wealthy.

He’s attacked the old, the poor, and now asylum seekers in need of our help.

I wanted the Tory’s out and wasn’t expecting much from a first term government. I just wanted the damage to stop.

Not only are Labour still causing damage, they are failing to stop others doing us damage.

Too cowardly to go after those with the most to give.

Too weak to stand up to Farage.

Too spineless to put Trump straight.

Pathetic, pathetic excuse for a PM.

 

[Beach Hut]

He’s been too afraid to go after the wealthy.

You really excel in attacking the people who are successful and subsequently created jobs for others.

 

[armchairclubber]

It seems our Prime Minister is quite literally on fire ( well two of his properties are)

Police probe fires at two properties linked to Starmer https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9wgrngplnro

A 21 year old Ukranian is being investigated and charged for the 'attack on democracy'.
Starmer may yet wish to review his immigration policies some more.

Sir Keir Starmer says suspected arson attacks on properties linked to him are 'attack on democracy'

Counter-terrorism police are investigating three fires, started at two properties and a car linked to the prime minister.

news.sky.com

 

[The Clamp]

You really excel in attacking the people who are successful and subsequently created jobs for others.

You make a fair point.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Best prime minister in a life-time. Possibly the best of all time.

Please, please, electorate, can we keep him for another term

Hang on. He’s been in the job how long? Best of all time? Go have a lay down.

 

[BadFish]

More good news from this Labour Government who really are starting to impress me and maybe at last a party i can feel a connection too, the PM is exploring sending failed asylum seekers abroad to return zones…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8re55z8kv7o

Makes you wonder why the previous government didn’t think of this!

Why are they not sent back to their country of origin. Surely this is just adding complications and expense to a fairly simple process?

 

[bWize]

Why are they not sent back to their country of origin. Surely this is just adding complications and expense to a fairly simple process?

I think it really depends on the country of origin and circumstance. If they are genuine immigrants legitimately fearing for their lives whilst fleeing a war torn country where they face death or persecution upon return deserve some form of help and protection, rather than just being sent back. (especially as the west has been behind a lot of the displacement) . On the other hand immigrants coming in from safe countries such as Albania and Romania and largely using the UK to set up organised crime syndicates are not in the same bracket. They are the ones who should be sent straight back.

 

[BadFish]

I think it really depends on the country of origin and circumstance. If they are genuine immigrants legitimately fearing for their lives whilst fleeing a war torn country where they face death or persecution upon return deserve some form of help and protection, rather than just being sent back. (especially as the west has been behind a lot of the displacement) . On the other hand immigrants coming in from safe countries such as Albania and Romania and largely using the UK to set up organised crime syndicates are not in the same bracket. They are the ones who should be sent straight back.

The article is specifically about asylum seekers who have had their applications rejected. This means they are not given refugee status and allowed to stay in the UK. Under the 1951 Refugee Convention those not granted refugee status should be returned to their country of origin.

I am unsure why these return zones are necessary? Just send them back to their country of origin as the process dictates.

Is there a problem with the return process or is this more bullshit politicing to pander to the Reform lot?

 

[darkwolf666]

The article is specifically about asylum seekers who have had their applications rejected. This means they are not given refugee status and allowed to stay in the UK. Under the 1951 Refugee Convention those not granted refugee status should be returned to their country of origin.

I am unsure why these return zones are necessary? Just send them back to their country of origin as he process dictates.

Is there a problem with the return process or is this more bullshit politicing to pander to the Reform lot?

With regards your last paragraph, it's a bit of both. Labour have to be seen to be doing something to take the wind out of Reform's sails, while at the same time improving the returns process, with off-shoring failed applicants.

This is different to the Conservatives Rwanda scheme, where they were simply going to send all asylum seekers, without assessing them - a bit like Monopoly and Go To Jail, Do Not Pass Go, etc...

This is an interesting read, from those that know a bit about asylum seekers and refugees!

https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/stay-informed/explainers/the-truth-about-asylum/#:~:text=A%20person%20whose%20asylum%20application,conditions%20in%20their%20country%20change.

 

[SouthSaxon]

Why are they not sent back to their country of origin. Surely this is just adding complications and expense to a fairly simple process?

Based on a quote from Starmer’s spokesman, some failed claimants find ways to delay their return.

The EU has also approved this type of scheme, so it seems it’s not a uniquely British problem.

He said the aim was to focus on asylum seekers whose legal routes had ended but were using “stalling tactics”, which he said included saying they had lost their documentation, or who were starting a family.

Removing people to their home countries was difficult under such circumstances, the spokesperson said, but there were fewer legal obstacles to taking them to a third country where the processing could continue.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...sment-as-albania-rules-out-asylum-seeker-deal

 

[Hugo Rune]

With regards your last paragraph, it's a bit of both. Labour have to be seen to be doing something to take the wind out of Reform's sails, while at the same time improving the returns process, with off-shoring failed applicants.

This is different to the Conservatives Rwanda scheme, where they were simply going to send all asylum seekers, without assessing them - a bit like Monopoly and Go To Jail, Do Not Pass Go, etc...

Return hubs seem to be very different to the Rwanda scheme which I assume, the Tories are still backing because they wasted so much tax payers money on it. It'll now be the job of the right-wing press, Refrom and the Tories to try and convince the public they are the same thing.

"The UN refugee agency has also endorsed the idea of return hubs, which is significant given that the UN intervened against the Conservative government’s Rwanda scheme, which led to it being ruled unlawful." Guardian