Match of the Day without Presenter or Pundits

[Tree13]

indeed it is. and I'll see this new deal when it arrives, because at the minute it sounds like a lot of hot air.

How much impact are you expecting a joint initiative that was announced five days ago to have had by now?

 

[Rita_Poon]

And this answers my question how?

indeed it is. and I'll see this new deal when it arrives, because at the minute it sounds like a lot of hot air.

 

[Rita_Poon]

How much impact are you expecting a joint initiative that was announced five days ago to have had by now?

Well, very similar to all the rest previous. And this latest deal needs to sprout wings to have a chance, because there's quite a large majority against it this soon...

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

A bit like the deal announced late last week, following meetings held by Sunak and Braverman with French Government officials?

Yes. I agree. And that deal is a key part of making any attempt to deter the people traffickers. In fact, closer cooperation with the French on this topic was in fact suggested by Labour. But the resulting deal is largely ignored by the media in favour of a manufactured furore over Gary Lineker.

Yes the deal is a good thing, but it is undeniable there has been a terrible level of posturing and rhetoric coupled with bloody stupid policies preceding it (deportationsto Rwanda). Which goes to highlight the schisms in the Conservative Party. The nutters who think the thing to do is appeal to base instincts for votes (or worse, actually believe it. Fortunately the sensible strand of the party appear to be having some influence with this deal. But the flip side is the nutters also had to be appeased with the announcement re: boats.

Posturing. It all feeds into the 'manufactured' furore. The nutter strand if the Tory party wants this so called 'culture war'.

 

[Tree13]

Yes the deal is a good thing, but it is undeniable there has been a terrible level of posturing and rhetoric coupled with bloody stupid policies preceding it (deportationsto Rwanda). Which goes to highlight the schisms in the Conservative Party. The nutters who think the thing to do is appeal to base instincts for votes (or worse, actually believe it. Fortunately the sensible strand of the party appear to be having some influence with this deal. But the flip side is the nutters also had to be appeased with the announcement re: boats.

Posturing. It all feeds into the 'manufactured' furore. The nutter strand if the Tory party wants this so called 'culture war'.

Is any of that a sufficient reason to NOT try to do something to prevent further incredibly dangerous small boat crossings of the Channel?

Is any of that sufficient reason to allow more people to lose their lives during those crossings?

By all means criticise Tories for whatever you see fit. But at the point where objecting to Tory policies and actively trying to stop them actually risks people's lives, what's more important?

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

Is any of that a sufficient reason to NOT try to do something to prevent further incredibly dangerous small boat crossings of the Channel?

Is any of that sufficient reason to allow more people to lose their lives during those crossings?

By all means criticise Tories for whatever you see fit. But at the point where objecting to Tory policies and actively trying to stop them actually risks people's lives, what's more important?

Yes. Because they're ineffectual and not actually going to achieve anything other than whip up xenophobia.

That's the issue. By all means, attempt to stop people making the journeys. Its been discussed in the CA thread that the govt have been given alternative and more likely effective approaches but chose to ignore them.

The issue is not trying to prevent the horrors of such passage, just the approach and transparent alternative self-serving agenda.

 

[Rita_Poon]

Is any of that a sufficient reason to NOT try to do something to prevent further incredibly dangerous small boat crossings of the Channel?

Is any of that sufficient reason to allow more people to lose their lives during those crossings?

By all means criticise Tories for whatever you see fit. But at the point where objecting to Tory policies and actively trying to stop them actually risks people's lives, what's more important?

If loss of life and the dangers of crossings was paramount, there'd be a red carpet out across the channel to welcome all that desire british living.

Try that on for size.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Resent it all you like.

They are your words. Your message. Own it, just like you're demanding Braverman to do so.

Look, none of us want to see anyone drowning in the English Channel. We just differ on the possible ways of addressing the issue.

Where did I say I am happy to do nothing whilst people drown? I just think that probably the best way to handle this is to start by showing a bit empathy and not using divisive language.
If you’re ok voting for a party that has ran out of any integrity and has chosen this subject for some politely manoeuvring and to appeal to racists then that’s fair enough.
Think you’re having a bit of a mate here tbh.

 

[Tree13]

If loss of life and the dangers of crossings was paramount, there'd be a red carpet out across the channel to welcome all that desire british living.

Try that on for size.

Really?

Happy to remain blissfully unaware of why on Earth people are so desperate to flee France that they're prepared to risk death in the process? Bit weird.

You think absolutely unrestricted, unmanaged mass migration poses absolutely no difficulties for the country concerned?

Obviously the issues are far more nuanced than that. Come on.

 

[Tree13]

Where did I say I am happy to do nothing whilst people drown? I just think that probably the best way to handle this is to start by showing a bit empathy and not using divisive language.
If you’re ok voting for a party that has ran out of any integrity and has chosen this subject for some politely manoeuvring and to appeal to racists then that’s fair enough.
Think you’re having a bit of a mate here tbh.

You're the one using the divisive language here mate. You and the Home Secretary.

We've both been tagged in the arena. We can continue in there if you like, but let's stop clogging up this thread.

 

[Rita_Poon]

Really?

Happy to remain blissfully unaware of why on Earth people are so desperate to flee France that they're prepared to risk death in the process? Bit weird.

You think absolutely unrestricted, unmanaged mass migration poses absolutely no difficulties for the country concerned?

Obviously the issues are far more nuanced than that. Come on.

That appears to me to be moving the goal posts.

Dangerous crossings and deaths in the channel has morphed into the bit in bold.

Which is the priority?

 

[Tree13]

That appears to me to be moving the goal posts.

Dangerous crossings and deaths in the channel has morphed into the bit in bold.

Which is the priority?

Apologies if I wasn't clear. The bit you quoted in bold was my interpretation of your "red carpet" suggestion.

Let's switch to the arena / CA. No more in here - that ok with you?

 

[Rita_Poon]

Sound.

 

[Swartzy]

And that was our final weekly roundup of 'MOTD Without Presenters Or Pundits' See you same time next week...