https://www.indy100.com/news/rnli-record-year-donations-nigel-farage-b1985559

<quotes>

After the Royal National Lifeboat Institution received an influx of attacks from people such as Nigel Farage for rescuing asylum seekers from drowning in the English Channel, the public support in response has meant the charity is on its way to raising its highest annual fundraising total ever in its 200 year history.

The former Brexit party leader attacked the charity during his show on GB News and compared them to a "taxi service for illegal trafficking gangs".

Within 24 hours of this high-profile attack, the RNLI revealed it had received more than £200,000 in donations from people in support of their humanitarian work - a two thousand per cent increase from the previous day.

The charity then received more money when Simon Harris created a GoFundMe page named "Buy A New RNLI Hovercraft - The Flying Farage" raised over £122,000 in total - but the stunt didn't impress Farage who had a good old moan about on GB News (again) which, surprise, surprise, only drew more attention to the fundraiser.

</quotes>

Karma's a bitch who wouldn't flinch at awarding Farage a knighthood for "services to asylum seeker rescue and their resettlement".

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> https://www.indy100.com/news/rnli-record-year-donations-nigel-farage-b1985559
>
> <quotes>
>
> After the Royal National Lifeboat Institution received an influx of attacks from people such as Nigel Farage for rescuing asylum seekers from drowning in the English Channel, the public support in response has meant the charity is on its way to raising its highest annual fundraising total ever in its 200 year history.
>
> The former Brexit party leader attacked the charity during his show on GB News and compared them to a "taxi service for illegal trafficking gangs".
>
> Within 24 hours of this high-profile attack, the RNLI revealed it had received more than £200,000 in donations from people in support of their humanitarian work - a two thousand per cent increase from the previous day.
>
> The charity then received more money when Simon Harris created a GoFundMe page named "Buy A New RNLI Hovercraft - The Flying Farage" raised over £122,000 in total - but the stunt didn't impress Farage who had a good old moan about on GB News (again) which, surprise, surprise, only drew more attention to the fundraiser.
>
> </quotes>
>
> Karma's a bitch who wouldn't flinch at awarding Farage a knighthood for "services to asylum seeker rescue and their resettlement".
>

Whats wrong, I thought you were in favor of tight border security, like
your wingnut idols in NZ ?
And here you are, mocking a man who has always been in favor of just
that, and seemingly cheering on with glee unwashed and unchecked 3rd
world trash washing up on your shores.

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 14:16:33 -0500
JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> Whats wrong, I thought you were in favor of tight border security,
> like your wingnut idols in NZ ?

No. Like New Zealand I am in favour of ensuring public health security at the border, which is quite different to your hateful, prejudiced desire to keep those you don't like out.

As long as people have proven clear of covid infections they are welcome to complete their crossing of our borders. That applies as much to Brits arriving home, American, European, Antipodean and other travellers, as well as migrants, refugees and asylum seekers.

Unlike you I don't discriminate on the basis of race, creed, colour or religion.

In fact I think we should be sending ferries over to France to pick-up asylum seekers and others, bring them into quarantine in Britain and then go about processing their arrival and claims for asylum.

That would be far less costly than ourselves and France paying to try and keep them out, merely stalling the inevitable.

I certainly would not want to drown them and their children at sea as our Home Secretary wants to do, wouldn't protect ships' captains and crews from breaking international law as she is proposing.

Of course, we can't have people traipsing across Europe to get to Calais. We will need to send charter flights into the Middle East to pick up the rest.

We have lost 180,000 due to covid so we could do with some fresh blood. The UK has plenty of space for migrants. The 3 million Hong Kongers we invited in don't seem to have turned-up so we can easily take 3 million other migrants instead.

It would certainly boost the economy as we build housing, schools, hospitals and other infrastructure, which we would have had to do for the Hong Kongers. Some businesses were banking on that so we have to find 3 million migrants from somewhere.

It wouldn't even be a sacrifice or incovenience when we were expecting 3 million arrivals anyway. And it would help compensate for the damage our wars of aggression have wrought on their homelands, the horror we inflicted upon their lives.

I am more than happy to see those who want to come here and contribute to the country do so. That's got to be better than having them plotting to murder and destroy us for what we have done.

On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 14:16:33 -0500
JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> Whats wrong, I thought you were in favor of tight border security,
> like your wingnut idols in NZ ?

Idols - Possibly. They are certainly worthy of such accolade.

Wingnuts - Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion.

Those 'wingnuts' have ensured New Zealand only suffered 50 covid deaths, unlocked their country and got their people back to normality 18 months ago. Aren't living under a permanent existential threat of death.

The UK and US have had 180,00 and 850,000 deaths respectively. We are nowhere near back to normal, can't even imagine when we will be, and we live in mortal fear of the next mutation killing us all.

I know who I would call the wingnuts.

But you believe 850,000 American deaths are better than a mere 50, want America to suffer many more deaths, so we never will see it the same way.

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 14:16:33 -0500
> JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:
>
>> Whats wrong, I thought you were in favor of tight border security,
>> like your wingnut idols in NZ ?
>
> No.

Yes.
Start out with a lie the very first word, THB - And I quote YOU [less
than 24 hours ago]:

"For New Zealand it means tight border controls" Fourth jab and beyond
7:46 AM

You've earned another moniker in addition to hippycrite - Flippy.

> Of course, we can't have people traipsing across Europe to get to Calais. We will need to send charter flights into the Middle East to pick up the rest.

Ah there you go, back on board with the Bolsheviks - You are fucking
insane, nearly a cheap parody of a complete idiot.

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 21:12:58 -0500
JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> The Happy Hippy wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 14:16:33 -0500
> > JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Whats wrong, I thought you were in favor of tight border security,
> >> like your wingnut idols in NZ ?
> >
> > No.
>
> Yes.
> Start out with a lie the very first word, THB - And I quote YOU [less
> than 24 hours ago]:
>
> "For New Zealand it means tight border controls" Fourth jab and
> beyond 7:46 AM

Correct. As you quote; I said "tight border controls". I did not say "tight border security".

You are simply twisting my words, pretending I was in favour of something I am not in favour of, never have been.

It is what PROPAGANDIST SCUM like yourself do.

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 21:12:58 -0500
> JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:
>
>> The Happy Hippy wrote:
>>> On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 14:16:33 -0500
>>> JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Whats wrong, I thought you were in favor of tight border security,
>>>> like your wingnut idols in NZ ?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> Yes.
>> Start out with a lie the very first word, THB - And I quote YOU [less
>> than 24 hours ago]:
>>
>> "For New Zealand it means tight border controls" Fourth jab and
>> beyond 7:46 AM
>
> Correct. As you quote; I said "tight border controls". I did not say "tight border security".
>
> You are simply twisting my words, pretending I was in favour of something I am not in favour of, never have been.
>
> It is what PROPAGANDIST SCUM like yourself do.
>

So you don't want tight border security but are in favor of tight border
controls to keep us safe ?
Sorry to break the news but there are no controls without security [as
the Bolsheviks have been proving for well nigh a year] And there simply
is no telling how many 10,000's of the 1,000,000's of invaders spread
their infection here - How many years in hell do politicians deserve for
inflicting this completely avoidable misery, sickness and death upon
their own nation ?

NZ & UK being backwater islands make border control/security a simple
task if the will exists, obviously a far greater task with a land border
but still simple if the will is present.

I am in favor of controls, I am in favor of security, why must you
argue, posture and prattle on even on those rare occasions we agree ?

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 10:29:13 -0500
JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> NZ & UK being backwater islands make border control/security a simple
> task if the will exists

Setting aside your gratuitous insults we have all come to expect from HATEFUL PROPAGANDIST SCUM like yourself, we are indeed both Islands and securing our countries should thus be easy.

"If the will exists" is key.

It did in New Zealand where Ardern decided no one was going to die on her watch if she could help it, and has achieved her goal.

But it's been a different story in the UK where Johnson decided he would not secure our borders against covid, would just let it run free, didn't care that science said millions would die, declared he would prefer to "let the bodies pile high" rather than lockdown. He also achieved his goal with 180,000 dead.

But we didn't do as badly as the US where Trump pretended to secure the borders but didn't, invited infection in from Europe which left 400,000 dead with an unstoppable wave of infections increasing that to 850,000 dead.

> I am in favor of controls, I am in favor of security, why must you
> argue, posture and prattle on even on those rare occasions we agree ?

Because we are not agreeing. You are simply trying to have me say I agree with you when I do not.

You are not very good at this game are you.

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 10:29:13 -0500
> JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:
>
>> NZ & UK being backwater islands make border control/security a simple
>> task if the will exists
>
> Setting aside your gratuitous insults we have all come to expect from HATEFUL PROPAGANDIST SCUM like yourself, we are indeed both Islands and securing our countries should thus be easy.
>
> "If the will exists" is key.
>
> It did in New Zealand where Ardern decided no one was going to die on her watch if she could help it, and has achieved her goal.
>
> But it's been a different story in the UK where Johnson decided he would not secure our borders against covid, would just let it run free, didn't care that science said millions would die, declared he would prefer to "let the bodies pile high" rather than lockdown. He also achieved his goal with 180,000 dead.
>
> But we didn't do as badly as the US where Trump pretended to secure the borders but didn't, invited infection in from Europe which left 400,000 dead with an unstoppable wave of infections increasing that to 850,000 dead.
>
>
>> I am in favor of controls, I am in favor of security, why must you
>> argue, posture and prattle on even on those rare occasions we agree ?
>
> Because we are not agreeing. You are simply trying to have me say I agree with you when I do not.
>
> You are not very good at this game are you.
>

No, I could not give a rats ass less if we ever agree, and I know that
you are not as stupid as you come across. No games here, you are the one
trying to play.

I am in favor of border control, you are in favor on border control - Is
that not agreeing ?
I am on record right here early on slamming not isolating NYC when it
was the germcell of infection and planeloads were seeding around the
country, so you see, it is not all about keeping out foreigners with me.

You could not point out anywhere at anytime me slamming people legally
coming here, and though true I may be more radical than the average
republican, that is the stance of the right.

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 13:47:18 -0500
JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> >> I am in favor of controls, I am in favor of security, why must you
> >> argue, posture and prattle on even on those rare occasions we
> >> agree ?
> >
> > Because we are not agreeing. You are simply trying to have me say I
> > agree with you when I do not.
> >
> > You are not very good at this game are you.
> >
>
> No

At least we can agree on that.

> I am in favor of border control, you are in favor on border control -
> Is that not agreeing ?

No, because we have completely different definitions of what "border control" means in the context of this discussion.

> You could not point out anywhere at anytime me slamming people
> legally coming here

LOL.