No, its not. As a GB news consumer i believe that the presenters generally make a big point of the difference between uncontrolled immigration and controlled immigration. It is how i became aware of the number of Hong Kong migrants that we've welcomed as well as the more widely reported Ukrainian refugees.
GB News
- Thread starter JP_
- Start date
But the immediate next question is: would you welcome more immigrants? Let's say another hundred thousand a year, as long as they have jobs lined up of course.
You might, but a decent fraction of the GB news fans seem to follow the 'Britain is full' line, which means additional immigration, controlled or not, is bad.
Hell, allowing a hundred thousand asylum seekers from Calais a year would be controlled. We can then plan to integrate them into their new country in a fair, non-disruptive manner. And we could screen out the small minority of people who aren't eligible before they try hopping in boats.
Yes it might be twice the number of asylum seekers we get now, but it's controlled.
Yes it might be twice the number of asylum seekers we get now, but it's controlled.
Do you mean legal and illegal immigration, rather than controlled and uncontrolled? I think uncontrolled immigration would mean anybody could legally come to the UK and we wouldn't have a visa system. Like how EU citizens could come here before Brexit.
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,562
- Reaction score
- 644
- Country
I suspect "uncontrolled" means anyone who can make it here, because by the time they've done that they've learned what lies to cough up to make them qualify as refugees.
I've heard arguments many times which claim that if they're accepted, then they must be legitimate refugees. Hogwash.
I've heard arguments many times which claim that if they're accepted, then they must be legitimate refugees. Hogwash.
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 10,707
- Reaction score
- 803
- Country
Just an observation.
But how often does gb news present people and arguments from the opposite side of any argument? You know, a balanced viewpoint.
1 sided views are always right to those that support them.
Most people prefer to hear both sides
But how often does gb news present people and arguments from the opposite side of any argument? You know, a balanced viewpoint.
1 sided views are always right to those that support them.
Most people prefer to hear both sides
You can't have watched it if your asking that question.
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,562
- Reaction score
- 644
- Country
Not very often very fairly, from what I've seen. They tend to do it in a minimal, out-of-context, incomplete, pis-taking way. Then Neil Oliver comes on and shows he doesn't understand even the highly selected bit he's on about.
Shock horror does that happen the msm takes sides.
Thought grown ups watched all angles to get a more rounded picture.
Thought grown ups watched all angles to get a more rounded picture.
Fox news for the UK gullible gammons. Utter garbage. Ideal for the gas/gant/Borisite liars of this world.
Couldn't you have got a poo in there.
No need.
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 2,936
- Reaction score
- 644
- Country
the trick is to watch a bit of BBC then a bit of GB- the truth will lie somewhere between these political extremes. may be a bit towards the beeb, 65% BBC 35% GB would probably be a good balance.
I quite like aljazeera at the moment, esp that Iranian presenter, maryam, shes gorgeous - anything she says is going to be spot on
Brexiters often used to say it wasn't about reducing immigration, it was about controlling our borders. I've been watching a few snippets of GB News where they discuss immigration. They don't seem happy that (legal) immigration levels are still about the same as before Brexit. I've only seen a few snippets on Twitter, so this may not be representative.
Think the amount of visas is another bone of contention and the removal of overstayers.