Farage's humongous hypocrisy re economic migrants!

Cossy

Shinamae

“LizzieDrip
Yes *Shinamea, I do trust Keir Starmer.
Bless you 🥹”

Just a tad patronising!

I’m with LizzieDrip

I think a tad patronising is quite light to all the vitriol. I’ve been reading on here..

Oreo

MayBee70

‘Three weeks after Labour took power, on July 25, the Home Office announced that 46 migrants had been deported by plane to Timor-Leste and Vietnam. The flight to Vietnam was the first for deportations since 2022. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper crowed, “We have immediately replaced the flight planning for Rwanda with actual flights to return people who have no right to stay to their home countries instead.”

In August, Cooper promised to deport at least 14,385 “illegal migrants” by the end of the year, the highest rate since 2018. The government continually briefs the media on its anti-immigrant agenda to ensure front-page coverage and in the words of the Mirror, “it’s understood more flights are planned before the end of the year—to new countries the UK hasn’t previously charted flights to,” meaning Labour may well exceed its target.’
This has replaced the useless Rwanda plan and seems to be working well. But doesn’t seem to be mentioned in the news.

If it actually happens it’s excellent, but 46 only so far.Will have to look out for more news on this.
It’s not long to the ‘end of the year’ so over 14,000 to go.

‘The Labour government has returned 9,400 people with no right to be in the UK – including 2,590 enforced returns, an increase of 19% on the same period in 2023. This is a Government that takes illegal immigration seriously, if there is no right to be here, they will be deported’
Well, it’s moving in the right direction imo.

I find the Guardian a bit holier than thou and very biased. It was once a very good paper but not so much now. Mind you, by the time you get the newspapers they are out of date anyway. I read the Times and like their crosswords. Not saying they are not biased but they tend to have bias from both sides so it balances out more than the Guardian. Who do they think they are ‘guarding’,anyway?

I think they are guarding the right to information if you read the history of the paper - they want ordinary people to hear from all sides.

“Comment is free, but facts are sacred... The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard.” CP Scott

MayBee70

Oreo

MayBee70

‘Three weeks after Labour took power, on July 25, the Home Office announced that 46 migrants had been deported by plane to Timor-Leste and Vietnam. The flight to Vietnam was the first for deportations since 2022. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper crowed, “We have immediately replaced the flight planning for Rwanda with actual flights to return people who have no right to stay to their home countries instead.”

In August, Cooper promised to deport at least 14,385 “illegal migrants” by the end of the year, the highest rate since 2018. The government continually briefs the media on its anti-immigrant agenda to ensure front-page coverage and in the words of the Mirror, “it’s understood more flights are planned before the end of the year—to new countries the UK hasn’t previously charted flights to,” meaning Labour may well exceed its target.’
This has replaced the useless Rwanda plan and seems to be working well. But doesn’t seem to be mentioned in the news.

If it actually happens it’s excellent, but 46 only so far.Will have to look out for more news on this.
It’s not long to the ‘end of the year’ so over 14,000 to go.

‘The Labour government has returned 9,400 people with no right to be in the UK – including 2,590 enforced returns, an increase of 19% on the same period in 2023. This is a Government that takes illegal immigration seriously, if there is no right to be here, they will be deported’
Well, it’s moving in the right direction imo.

Moving in the right direction but nothing near what was promised yet.
Having looked up the figures, the previous government deported just over 7,000 in the year up to June this year, which was 48% better than the year preceding that.YvetteCooper wants to increase it by much the same percentage which would account for the aspirational figure of 14,000.Highly doubtful it will happen tho.

nanna8

I find the Guardian a bit holier than thou and very biased. It was once a very good paper but not so much now. Mind you, by the time you get the newspapers they are out of date anyway. I read the Times and like their crosswords. Not saying they are not biased but they tend to have bias from both sides so it balances out more than the Guardian. Who do they think they are ‘guarding’,anyway?

What? Other papers are not biased??

The Times has bias from both sides? How can that be?

Who are they guarding? The ones the right wing press aren't!

This must be one of the most bonkers posts ever.

keepingQuiet

You just made me spit out my tea 😂😂😂😂😂😂

NotSpaghetti

I think they are guarding the right to information if you read the history of the paper - they want ordinary people to hear from all sides.

“Comment is free, but facts are sacred... The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard.” CP Scott

👏👏👏👏

But it is not true is it. Their treatment of the gender critical debate shows that. They always shut down the comments. Female journalists have voiced concerns and some left. I was a guardian reader, but I rarely look at it now.

Galaxy I don't know what has been said re the gender critical debate in the Guardian - and don't know who the "they" are who shut down the comments because I don't read it all the time - it tends to be online - usually when something catches my eye or i want some info on a particular topic... I've subscribed to the long read for ages but don't always feel drawn to reading them.

I was only pointing out it's ideals.
I do, however, trust it more than most newspapers.

Here's the Scott Trust's aims:

The core purpose of The Scott Trust is:
to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity: as a quality international news organisation without party affiliation; remaining faithful to its liberal tradition; as a profit-seeking enterprise managed in an efficient and cost-effective manner
all other activities should be consistent with the central objective.

The Company which the Trust owns should:
be managed to ensure profits are available to further the central objective; not invest in activities which conflict with the values and principles of the Trust
the values and principles of the Trust should be upheld throughout the Group. The Trust declares a subsidiary interest in promoting the causes of freedom in the press and liberal journalism, both in Britain and elsewhere.

I suppose if freedom of speech has been compromised the journalists could go to the Trust with formal challenges?

I'm not doubting you really but haven't seen it myself.

To x plain for those challenged what ‘bias from both sides’ means. Extremely left biased views and also extremely right biased views by different journalists in the same paper. As opposed to all one way as in the Guardian. Or , I suspect , The Daily Wail. Haven’t actually read the Wail but judging by comments here, which may or may not be accurate, I assume it is a dreadful right wing rag. On second thoughts, probably just normal.

nanna8

To x plain for those challenged what ‘bias from both sides’ means. Extremely left biased views and also extremely right biased views by different journalists in the same paper. As opposed to all one way as in the Guardian. Or , I suspect , The Daily Wail. Haven’t actually read the Wail but judging by comments here, which may or may not be accurate, I assume it is a dreadful right wing rag. On second thoughts, probably just normal.

So no bias then- just balanced reporting from a paper owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Maybe it is more balanced than some newspapers, I don't know as I don't read them, not even the Guardian.

I sometimes buy the Independent, but like you that's mostly for the puzzles!

However, I do know that most mainstream media is right-wing. The Guardian remains one of the few that presents the alternative to 'normality' and that can only be a good thing?

Galaxy is right in saying there was a really bitter debate at times on the Guardian especially back in 2020-2022 on trans matters that reflected the bitter debates in society at large. (done a lot of checking up on those times) However, in the end, it did balance its articles - here is a recent one:

web.archive.org/web/20240609125144/https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/09/the-law-on-single-sex-spaces-is-a-mess-it-needs-fixing-not-political-point-scoring

nanna you are wrong in thinking generally that the Guardian doesn't offer different opinions on current political issues. It can be extremely critical of the government, and because it's free and not behind a paywall regular check ins show this you can actually see for yourself, and references to it given on GN mean people can make their own minds up.

Because most of the media online is behind a paywall we dont have the freedom to do this, except to catch the headlines, and we sometimes have people quoting those newspapers when we have no access to the full article.

I’ve read the guardian throughout my adult life. I stopped buying it regularly because of its trans nonsense, keeping and promoting Owen Jones and losing good female journalists. I’d hate to see it go - the Manchester Guardian had such a good history

The Manchester Guardian was my dad's paper of choice Iam.

It would be good if it went back to basics. I used to read the Manchester Guardian 50 odd years ago when I lived in the UK. It was an excellent paper then, the best.