Anti -Vaxxer Named Health Secretary
News3 mins ago
Absolutely No Need For This Sort Of Thing.
236 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by douglas9401. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You’re wrong, PP. Had our grandparents not fought the last war we would have been invaded by immigrants … from Germany. If our forebears could see what is happening to this country they would, indeed, be spinning in their graves.
Zacs. In answer to your question, one of the eds - I think Spare - not that it’s something I can or would agree to.
Zacs. In answer to your question, one of the eds - I think Spare - not that it’s something I can or would agree to.
‘Try not to digress further’
You’d be hard-pressed, Ab Editor to find a thread which has ever stayed entirely on topic. Is this the future of AB…..keep strictly to the OP theme or have your answers removed?
Anyway, thank you for the reinstatement. I hope there have been ‘lessons learned’ for the particular Mod who removed them.
You’d be hard-pressed, Ab Editor to find a thread which has ever stayed entirely on topic. Is this the future of AB…..keep strictly to the OP theme or have your answers removed?
Anyway, thank you for the reinstatement. I hope there have been ‘lessons learned’ for the particular Mod who removed them.
" I hope there have been ‘lessons learned’ for the particular Mod who removed them."
Apologies, I did miss this. There are no lessons to be learned.
The issue is, The AnswerBank is at a pivotal point. We're trying to make the site a place where the community is free to discuss, but there does need to be a line. For example, if someone joined the thread to talk to their AnswerBank friend about a pet, or their dinner, you wouldn't be happy. The off topic rule is a fail-safe for that situation.
Historically, off topic answers were removed as they were seen to violate Site Rules. The Site Rules don't state that members can't go off topic, it mentions that we reserve "the right to remove any post that does not relate to the topic being discussed". Only today have I made this more clear for our moderators. The AnswerBank is evolving.
Please see the further notes for our moderators.
Apologies, I did miss this. There are no lessons to be learned.
The issue is, The AnswerBank is at a pivotal point. We're trying to make the site a place where the community is free to discuss, but there does need to be a line. For example, if someone joined the thread to talk to their AnswerBank friend about a pet, or their dinner, you wouldn't be happy. The off topic rule is a fail-safe for that situation.
Historically, off topic answers were removed as they were seen to violate Site Rules. The Site Rules don't state that members can't go off topic, it mentions that we reserve "the right to remove any post that does not relate to the topic being discussed". Only today have I made this more clear for our moderators. The AnswerBank is evolving.
Please see the further notes for our moderators.
‘ For example, if someone joined the thread to talk to their AnswerBank friend about a pet, or their dinner, you wouldn't be happy’
No I dare say I wouldn’t but the posts removed, although tangential the the OP, we’re not of a ‘chatting nature so I don’t see how your example relates.
A Mod removed them and as they’ve now been reinstated I would hope I’m correct in thinking that a mistake had been made. I would therefore hope that the Mod concerned has learnt that such threads should not be removed. If this is not the case, could you please explain the thinking behind the deletions and their subsequent reinstatement? Some much needed transparency is required if members are to ‘buy-into’ this new AB era.
No I dare say I wouldn’t but the posts removed, although tangential the the OP, we’re not of a ‘chatting nature so I don’t see how your example relates.
A Mod removed them and as they’ve now been reinstated I would hope I’m correct in thinking that a mistake had been made. I would therefore hope that the Mod concerned has learnt that such threads should not be removed. If this is not the case, could you please explain the thinking behind the deletions and their subsequent reinstatement? Some much needed transparency is required if members are to ‘buy-into’ this new AB era.
Ok. I don’t actually understand what that means in practise, Ab Editor but I suppose we’ll see.
// principal strategy is to allow asylum applications to be made from abroad. This is not particularly helpful //
Yet this could prove to be a very effective means in deterring small boat crossings and those would be migrants who seek to exploit UK immigration policy.
Were applications to be made outside of the UK, those seeking asylum would be required to provide both recent photographs and fingerprints. Anyone landing on UK shores could then be legitimately 'checked out' and swiftly turned around if their status did not meet the criteria for a visa/asylum.
The other benefit of this measure would be to avoid the current overcrowding that exists in is the system.
Yet this could prove to be a very effective means in deterring small boat crossings and those would be migrants who seek to exploit UK immigration policy.
Were applications to be made outside of the UK, those seeking asylum would be required to provide both recent photographs and fingerprints. Anyone landing on UK shores could then be legitimately 'checked out' and swiftly turned around if their status did not meet the criteria for a visa/asylum.
The other benefit of this measure would be to avoid the current overcrowding that exists in is the system.
// Can someone please tell me why they want these 12000 Albanians here? I have asked several times. //
There is no benefit to the UK if 12,000 Albanian men are seeking to gain asylum, with the sole intention to engage in illicit activities. Not to mention the extra strain it puts on our public services.
However it is unreasonable not to believe that a proportion of those male migrants, no matter how small (%), do not have genuine claim for protection under the auspices of the UK. In fact, as borne out by the statistics, some have already been successful!
There is no benefit to the UK if 12,000 Albanian men are seeking to gain asylum, with the sole intention to engage in illicit activities. Not to mention the extra strain it puts on our public services.
However it is unreasonable not to believe that a proportion of those male migrants, no matter how small (%), do not have genuine claim for protection under the auspices of the UK. In fact, as borne out by the statistics, some have already been successful!
It is not only possible, but is eternally true, that around a dinner table or in a bar, bus stop, doctor's waiting room or any location you can name where people interact, that a conversation may begin discussing say, Manchester United & 30 minutes later be discussing the Dalai Lama!
How dare an AB moderator who may or may not have followed the thread of that conversation, deem that because in their limited opinion it has 'deviated' from the initial topic, close down individual contributions ?
I'm off!
How dare an AB moderator who may or may not have followed the thread of that conversation, deem that because in their limited opinion it has 'deviated' from the initial topic, close down individual contributions ?
I'm off!
//Anyone landing on UK shores could then be legitimately 'checked out' and swiftly turned around if their status did not meet the criteria for a visa/asylum.//
They can be swiftly turned round now if the UK authorities put their minds to it. The simple fact is that they are not. Once here, the risk of expulsion is extremely low. So it would be with those who were refused asylum from an application made abroad but who then embarked on a rubber boat.
//However it is unreasonable not to believe that a proportion of those male migrants, no matter how small (%), do not have genuine claim for protection under the auspices of the UK.//
It is not unreasonable to believe that a small proportion may be eligible for asylum, though considering Albanian citizens living in Albania, it stretches credibility to the limit. As I said, you might as well entertain asylum applications from French citizens living in France. In fact there are people living in the UK who are suffering from problems which, if they lived elsewhere, would probably meet the criteria for being granted asylum here! What is unreasonable is to expect the UK authorities to examine, individually, those claims when it is blatantly obvious that the vast majority of them are without merit. It is causing enormous problems in all sorts of areas and the country should not be expected to fund a system that can cope with such great numbers.
Just to make it a little simpler, why do believe that people living in France should be able to claim asylum in the UK? I’ve asked before, but do you consider them to be in peril in France (which is surely the principal reason for seeking asylum)? Or do you believe they should be able to choose their destination of choice? I think it would be easier for me to understand your viewpoint if you were to answer those two questions.
They can be swiftly turned round now if the UK authorities put their minds to it. The simple fact is that they are not. Once here, the risk of expulsion is extremely low. So it would be with those who were refused asylum from an application made abroad but who then embarked on a rubber boat.
//However it is unreasonable not to believe that a proportion of those male migrants, no matter how small (%), do not have genuine claim for protection under the auspices of the UK.//
It is not unreasonable to believe that a small proportion may be eligible for asylum, though considering Albanian citizens living in Albania, it stretches credibility to the limit. As I said, you might as well entertain asylum applications from French citizens living in France. In fact there are people living in the UK who are suffering from problems which, if they lived elsewhere, would probably meet the criteria for being granted asylum here! What is unreasonable is to expect the UK authorities to examine, individually, those claims when it is blatantly obvious that the vast majority of them are without merit. It is causing enormous problems in all sorts of areas and the country should not be expected to fund a system that can cope with such great numbers.
Just to make it a little simpler, why do believe that people living in France should be able to claim asylum in the UK? I’ve asked before, but do you consider them to be in peril in France (which is surely the principal reason for seeking asylum)? Or do you believe they should be able to choose their destination of choice? I think it would be easier for me to understand your viewpoint if you were to answer those two questions.
Latest Posts
Jobs & Education7 mins ago
TV10 mins ago
Is Biden Trying Wreck The Shop Before He...
News10 mins ago
News22 mins ago
