Sabitlenmiş Tweet
•𝖕𝖆𝖕•
17.2K posts
•𝖕𝖆𝖕•
@PappeP
Civil discourse is the bridge that has the ability to span great divides. #spaceshost 𝕏
Katılım Ocak 2012
9.7K Takip Edilen9.1K Takipçiler
I think further to that the concern of the governments focus is acutely on the restless citizens and any opportunity to use emergency powers keenly considered to avoid an election, or implementation of curfews to facilitate their agendas without observation or oversight in any capacity
English
@SaarNil72 I think the detrimental consequences of operation scatter are of no concern to the government, no matter how restless the citizens become. The restless citizens are without recourse.
English
English
•𝖕𝖆𝖕• retweetledi
@SaarNil72 I think the rapes, violence, and abuse we are experiencing are reflective of the status of women in our country. The threat imposed by violent immigrants to women is of no concern to the government because they consider they are only women.
English
How do you propose it to not be considerate of logistical efficiency? Restores proposal on behalf of Rupert via his Twitter profile claim to want to remove 33,333.333 people every month from the first to the sixtieth (2Million) and out of Rupert’s mouth respecting the rule of law this would involve court hearings and appeals - surely logistically being able to tap into courts across the nation is better than attempting to process this number from isolated or restricted court locations in order to achieve this volume of individuals
Surely deportation centres across the nation logistically makes sense and would be efficient as it opens up more ports of access to deport from ?
English
The problem with the policy is, Ben, that it now looks like the deportation policy is designed not for logistical efficiency, but to spite and punish a portion of the electorate.
Not only does it increase the likelihood of local protest movements gathering at the bases, disrupting deportations. It means that, should security fail, Reform then have to own the inevitable sex crimes committed by the men they've chosen to detain in Green constituencies. (Including Lewisham and other London boroughs, according to Richard Tice.)
Most of the electorate aren't voting to punish the other side. Most Reform voters aren't voting to *own* the Greens. They just want the foreign rapists out if their country. Whereas Reform, knowing these men are a risk, imposes them as a punishment on their political opponents.
Less morally and politically complicated to knock up Nightingale detention centres on Brownfield sites, keep them in military barracks with runways for charter deportation flights, and threaten them with life on Pitcairn or Ascension instead.
English
Reform's detention centre policy has lifted the veil on their critics.
The open-borders brigade Left finally admit living next to migrants is punishment and unwanted.
And Restore are conjuring faux outrage that DETAINED migrants are somehow unsafe for communities (wtf?) - with the alternative being the status quo where illegal migrants are free to roam the streets of Britain. Mental gymnastics at its best.
Interesting
English
Can you name a solution being touted that doesn’t affect constituents that ‘didn’t vote green’ in any capacity
With operation scatter to the point it is now across the countries of the UK, and the spread of these individuals do you believe it better to house/detain in multiple sites of smaller numbers with access to multiple courts to expedite deportation hearings or in detention centre on steroids housing many thousands of migrants in one location and the associated legislative court pressures for deportation hearings,
and lastly would that locations constituency electorate be right to feel hard done by if either option or implied policy was to be enacted and become a reality
English
Yes, I know that they will be “detained.”
That still doesn’t answer my first question.
If they will be detained then why do Reform constituencies have a problem with having them in their constituencies? Of course it’s an increased risk to the community.
English
I vehemently dislike Reform’s new policy on locating detainment centres in non-Reform voting constituencies.
1) in most Green-voting constituencies there will be thousands of people living there who did NOT vote Green. Why should they be punished?
2) Increasing someone’s likelihood of being a victim of crime simply because they didn’t vote for you is dictator-y. Collective punishment is for socialists.
We need a solution but this is NOT it. I hope they rethink.
English
How scattered will these migrants be by then? You want to wait until three weeks out from an election so no one fully comprehends what they’re voting for or how measured or considered their policies are?
I’m not content nor see the benefit with reactionary tweeting with access to and on behalf of an elected MP to punch down a party and perceived political rival that does see the sense in working on and announcing policies three years out, I believe we as the disenfranchised electorate deserve better than settling come election time, choosing least worst, or not having a better option (all contribute more to apathy than votes on election day) and allowing just anyone into number ten that hasn’t spent years refining policies and debating their merits openly and honestly with opposition and the constituents across the nations of the UK
English
English
Within this post is a line ‘This takes proper thought, and proper planning’, and I wish whomever was granted access to post on @RupertLowe10 behalf would have applied that same thought and planning to this contradiction riddled tweet.
This country is in a dire situation and because of its current state and direction of travel politically, we need way more than sound bites from what is presenting themselves to be the solution we need, we need an entire government in waiting with a tangible fully costed and cohesive plan, being pushed by hundreds of representatives of the party in the form of candidates of which well over 400 of which need to resonate most in their constituencies at the next election
When you strip from this post the ‘party punching’ responsible for generating this post (off @ZiaYusufUK announcement/post yesterday) This tweet raises more questions than it answers:-
Number one objective stated is to remove illegal migrant population, as opposed to:-
-Passing legislation with all relevant ascensions to seamlessly allow for ‘the number one objective’ including assessing ECHR framework that Blair enshrined into the constitution for example
-getting the civil servants (home office etc) sorted as they’d be the ones expected to implement this
-hiring training/reallocating staff or establishing relevant agencies working towards the rounding up, assessing & processing, transporting to both the existing detention centres wanting to be used but also the as yet built ones, being referenced as well
-respecting the rule of law (as quoted by Rupert in a rare but recent interview) and allowing for relevant legal challenges
Given the time required for the above short yet not comprehensive list to take, politically juvenile suggestions of 2+ Million illegal migrants must go by repurposing an airport to facilitate this effort, whilst sounding logical as a sound bite, doesn’t quite fall into the ‘proper thought, and proper planning’ metric
On this, does the repurposing of airports include repurposing private corporations assets like aircraft’s?
Is the expectation to use existing staff at this location’
Do we have our own assets to operate in place of, and if this will involve military, to what capability can they operate with historic levels of underfunding and current personnel staffing levels.
Will this affect our national security or focus and what might the public response/reaction be to a visible military presence on the streets
What is the economic/tourist impact to the economy to do this?
Is this plan presented in this tweet fully costed as a party
2 million divided by 60 months (5 years of an election cycle) = 33,333.333 people to remove EVERY month from month one of being successfully elected and without the Nostradamus infused expectation that the party is guaranteed an automatic second term, and all whilst maintaining a hold on every other facet of the nation from employment, to the economy, national,food and energy security etc etc, and posts like this put out by selected aides of Rupert only serve to provide an unrealistic timeframe projection and thus serving as potential future discontent fuel from those that already support him
This serves as one major reason to be able to identify and differentiate between what is said by Rupert, and what is posted on his behalf
Rupert Lowe MP@RupertLowe10
Where should illegal migrant detention centres should be located? Reform want to vindictively target Brits in potential Green constituencies to make a point and house illegals next to them - that is their choice. But I don't believe that we have time for this petty nonsense. A Restore Britain Government will not abandon residents of those constituencies who have a Green MP elected on 25% of the vote. That is not fair, and more importantly - it is not efficient. Restore Britain will focus on solving the problem, in the most ruthlessly efficient manner possible. Objective number one is quite clear - remove the illegal migrant population. That is not going to be completed through vengeful gimmicks. We won’t punish hardworking British men and women because their neighbours voted Green. We need a serious, systematic approach utilising the current state apparatus at first in order to rapidly scale our removal capabilities - our deportation paper goes into great detail about how to achieve this. This an incredibly complicated task. Removing two million plus illegal migrants will not be done overnight. It will not be done through deliberately choosing less efficient options to take revenge on constituencies who did not vote for us. We don’t have time for this petty nonsense. It is a mammoth challenge - it would be one of the biggest state policy implementations ever. We would construct detention facilities where they are most efficient, most secure, and most practical to operate - not based on shitty political point-scoring, but on what actually works and on what actually will remove these illegals on a timescale the British people expect. Because the aim is clear. To detain, process and remove those who have entered this country illegally, and to do so at scale. Millions will go. That requires infrastructure that is fit for purpose. Proper capacity. Proper security. Proper coordination with removals. Repurposed airports, ports, existing detention facilities - all of that can be deployed rapidly, wherever it is currently located. This takes proper thought, and proper planning. I am entirely uninterested in which constituency illegals are detained and removed. I don’t care about using taxpayer money to make political points that will inevitably slow down the removal process. I simply want them all deported in the most efficient timetable the British state can possibly achieve. Millions will go. That is what Restore Britain will do.
English
Sure on the point of immaturity (not he’s right) but with that vague statement and an understanding of gillick competence/consent, by your own interpretation here some under the age of sixteen are mature enough/do understand consequences - by no means does that mean in my view that it should be a consideration or contemplation and so one’s answer around the topic of the age of consent should be robust and not left to interpretation/extrapolation
English
@ReformChecked @Sargon_of_Akkad Some 16yr olds are simply too immature to understand the consequences, he is rigth!
English
Terrible, vindictive, ideological politics. Not a responsible steward of the land, but instead a partisan attack on political opponents because a percentage of the constitutency voted the wrong way. Atrocious.
Nigel Farage MP@Nigel_Farage
If you vote Reform you will not have an illegal migrant deportation facility in your area. We will hold migrants awaiting deportation in constituencies that vote Green instead. You get what you vote for.
English
@RupertLowe10 So is putting out reactionary and self contradicting tweets to the announcing of a policy of another party on behalf of Rupert
•𝖕𝖆𝖕•@PappeP
Within this post is a line ‘This takes proper thought, and proper planning’, and I wish whomever was granted access to post on @RupertLowe10 behalf would have applied that same thought and planning to this contradiction riddled tweet. This country is in a dire situation and because of its current state and direction of travel politically, we need way more than sound bites from what is presenting themselves to be the solution we need, we need an entire government in waiting with a tangible fully costed and cohesive plan, being pushed by hundreds of representatives of the party in the form of candidates of which well over 400 of which need to resonate most in their constituencies at the next election When you strip from this post the ‘party punching’ responsible for generating this post (off @ZiaYusufUK announcement/post yesterday) This tweet raises more questions than it answers:- Number one objective stated is to remove illegal migrant population, as opposed to:- -Passing legislation with all relevant ascensions to seamlessly allow for ‘the number one objective’ including assessing ECHR framework that Blair enshrined into the constitution for example -getting the civil servants (home office etc) sorted as they’d be the ones expected to implement this -hiring training/reallocating staff or establishing relevant agencies working towards the rounding up, assessing & processing, transporting to both the existing detention centres wanting to be used but also the as yet built ones, being referenced as well -respecting the rule of law (as quoted by Rupert in a rare but recent interview) and allowing for relevant legal challenges Given the time required for the above short yet not comprehensive list to take, politically juvenile suggestions of 2+ Million illegal migrants must go by repurposing an airport to facilitate this effort, whilst sounding logical as a sound bite, doesn’t quite fall into the ‘proper thought, and proper planning’ metric On this, does the repurposing of airports include repurposing private corporations assets like aircraft’s? Is the expectation to use existing staff at this location’ Do we have our own assets to operate in place of, and if this will involve military, to what capability can they operate with historic levels of underfunding and current personnel staffing levels. Will this affect our national security or focus and what might the public response/reaction be to a visible military presence on the streets What is the economic/tourist impact to the economy to do this? Is this plan presented in this tweet fully costed as a party 2 million divided by 60 months (5 years of an election cycle) = 33,333.333 people to remove EVERY month from month one of being successfully elected and without the Nostradamus infused expectation that the party is guaranteed an automatic second term, and all whilst maintaining a hold on every other facet of the nation from employment, to the economy, national,food and energy security etc etc, and posts like this put out by selected aides of Rupert only serve to provide an unrealistic timeframe projection and thus serving as potential future discontent fuel from those that already support him This serves as one major reason to be able to identify and differentiate between what is said by Rupert, and what is posted on his behalf
English
Putting British women at risk to make a vindictive political point is abhorrent.
English
There’s no contradiction in being speedy and well thought out but that post was far from well thought out in its presentation, my personal metric of measure in the absence of ‘full policy brief’ is whether is answers or raises more questions, with the tweet in question performing to the latter
In terms of sites based on need - with operation scatter in place, and a nationwide issue to contend with, one could say with certain confidence that sites up and down the country (detention sites if not deportation sites) may well be required to effectively identify, source, locate and process prior to considerations of relocation
English
@Gracie_Blue89 @PappeP @RupertLowe10 How is it contradictory? Can something not be speedy and well thought out? Yes, that's how successful people work.
This is twitter, not a full on policy brief. Take this from the post... Centres must be sited based upon need and not political revenge. That's it.
English
-Which constituency/constituencies are you referring to as being housed far away from everyone?
-Limiting deportation centres to singular airports restricts options of departure and allows the focus of these lefty protests to disrupt busier elements of society as has previously been seen with attempted deportations
-The US relocated migrants to democratically run areas and the discontent for ‘illegals’ increased, do you believe this wouldn’t have a similar effect given the recent green councillor crying out when it affected her area?
-if they’re in deportation centres regardless of location is that better or worse than current operation scatter?
-are you asking for more meat on the bone around @ZiaYusufUK policy announcement here or merely trying to negate it outright?
•𝖕𝖆𝖕•@PappeP
Within this post is a line ‘This takes proper thought, and proper planning’, and I wish whomever was granted access to post on @RupertLowe10 behalf would have applied that same thought and planning to this contradiction riddled tweet. This country is in a dire situation and because of its current state and direction of travel politically, we need way more than sound bites from what is presenting themselves to be the solution we need, we need an entire government in waiting with a tangible fully costed and cohesive plan, being pushed by hundreds of representatives of the party in the form of candidates of which well over 400 of which need to resonate most in their constituencies at the next election When you strip from this post the ‘party punching’ responsible for generating this post (off @ZiaYusufUK announcement/post yesterday) This tweet raises more questions than it answers:- Number one objective stated is to remove illegal migrant population, as opposed to:- -Passing legislation with all relevant ascensions to seamlessly allow for ‘the number one objective’ including assessing ECHR framework that Blair enshrined into the constitution for example -getting the civil servants (home office etc) sorted as they’d be the ones expected to implement this -hiring training/reallocating staff or establishing relevant agencies working towards the rounding up, assessing & processing, transporting to both the existing detention centres wanting to be used but also the as yet built ones, being referenced as well -respecting the rule of law (as quoted by Rupert in a rare but recent interview) and allowing for relevant legal challenges Given the time required for the above short yet not comprehensive list to take, politically juvenile suggestions of 2+ Million illegal migrants must go by repurposing an airport to facilitate this effort, whilst sounding logical as a sound bite, doesn’t quite fall into the ‘proper thought, and proper planning’ metric On this, does the repurposing of airports include repurposing private corporations assets like aircraft’s? Is the expectation to use existing staff at this location’ Do we have our own assets to operate in place of, and if this will involve military, to what capability can they operate with historic levels of underfunding and current personnel staffing levels. Will this affect our national security or focus and what might the public response/reaction be to a visible military presence on the streets What is the economic/tourist impact to the economy to do this? Is this plan presented in this tweet fully costed as a party 2 million divided by 60 months (5 years of an election cycle) = 33,333.333 people to remove EVERY month from month one of being successfully elected and without the Nostradamus infused expectation that the party is guaranteed an automatic second term, and all whilst maintaining a hold on every other facet of the nation from employment, to the economy, national,food and energy security etc etc, and posts like this put out by selected aides of Rupert only serve to provide an unrealistic timeframe projection and thus serving as potential future discontent fuel from those that already support him This serves as one major reason to be able to identify and differentiate between what is said by Rupert, and what is posted on his behalf
English
Previously we’ve heard what I’ve referred to as sound bites such as ‘fully planned, fully costed’ etc and that hasn’t worked out to be a net positive towards confidence in voters. With your reference to Starmer - all the more reason for us to raise the bar of expectation and press for better from those claiming to be our political solution as we cannot afford for elected representatives to differ from what they claim to want prior to an election
English
@PappeP @RupertLowe10 How much should be revealed? Confidence of the voters needs to be considered both for its humanitarian considerations and effectiveness. I can see why Starmer never disclosed he’s intentions.
English
Happy Star Wars Day! 💫
May the 4th be with you!
Meanwhile...in a galaxy far, far away 👀
IYKYK 😂
English
@Christinehp01 @RupertLowe10 One doesn’t beat a not though out policy with another not though out policy hence why I believe this shouldn’t be set to one side and we should expect more from what present themselves as the political solution we need in this country
English
@PappeP @RupertLowe10 This aside, Zia's policy is not a great idea.
It's wrong on many levels. No thought behind it.
English
•𝖕𝖆𝖕• retweetledi
I like Rupert, I like the message of Restore
But Rupert needs to have a word with Alastair or whoever wrote this post.
It's not thought-out, there's contradicting statements on each paragraph
Once again, posts not matching words spoken from the man himself
It looks like whoever wrote this is applying 'sh*tty political point scoring' themselves by hate-typing a post off the back of seeing a Reform plan being well received.
We all want the best for this country, we've had enough of these games with politicians
You can praise someone else's idea whilst elaborating how your party would make it better.
Lets get the adults back in the room for the sake of the UK🙏🏼
English
🇬🇧 MODERATOR POST 🇬🇧
🇬🇧 It's Monday which means that it's time for the weekly thread where you can CONNECT & GROW together
🇬🇧 Please comment below, say hello to people and grow your following with like-minded individuals
🇬🇧 Scoll the comments and remember to bookmark the post, so you can come back to it and say hello to people that you haven't spoken to before
🇬🇧 Please play fair, and remember that some accounts may take longer to follow back due to follow limits
🇬🇧 Any account can comment on the post but Community members will have 'member' next to their handle. So don't forget to check for members badge
🇬🇧 Please do not doxx yourself, but perhaps tell us a little bit about who you are or where abouts you're from (GIFS & Memes always welcomed!)
🇬🇧 Have Fun and Happy Bank Holiday Monday!!
Gracie 🩷
English