Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just absurd to be paying France to police it's own borders. But on the other hand, whenever the government tries to stop illegal immigration they gat lambasted." Perhaps they get lambasted for food reason? After all they themselves have caused this very problem by closing down safe and legal routes for people to apply for asylum. If 80% or so (I don’t know exact figure - but thereabouts as I understand) of boat arrivals are granted asylum, it would appear that reinstalling the safe and legal routes might just stop the crossings because 80% wouldn’t need to and the other 20% would know that it would be a futile trip. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just absurd to be paying France to police it's own borders. But on the other hand, whenever the government tries to stop illegal immigration they gat lambasted. Perhaps they get lambasted for food reason? After all they themselves have caused this very problem by closing down safe and legal routes for people to apply for asylum. If 80% or so (I don’t know exact figure - but thereabouts as I understand) of boat arrivals are granted asylum, it would appear that reinstalling the safe and legal routes might just stop the crossings because 80% wouldn’t need to and the other 20% would know that it would be a futile trip." Perhaps they closed down legal asylum routes because those were being consistently abused by bogus claimants? As a sovereign nation we are entitled to have border rules and entitled to enforce them - like everybody else. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just absurd to be paying France to police it's own borders. But on the other hand, whenever the government tries to stop illegal immigration they gat lambasted. Perhaps they get lambasted for food reason? After all they themselves have caused this very problem by closing down safe and legal routes for people to apply for asylum. If 80% or so (I don’t know exact figure - but thereabouts as I understand) of boat arrivals are granted asylum, it would appear that reinstalling the safe and legal routes might just stop the crossings because 80% wouldn’t need to and the other 20% would know that it would be a futile trip. Perhaps they closed down legal asylum routes because those were being consistently abused by bogus claimants? As a sovereign nation we are entitled to have border rules and entitled to enforce them - like everybody else." Most rejections at the time of the safe route closures arrived by plane from India, Bangladesh and Pakistan so the boats were not irrelevant. The policy was in no way linked. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After all they themselves have caused this very problem by closing down safe and legal routes for people to apply for asylum." What were these safe and legal routes that got closed down? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No this will be a smoke screen when nothing changes they can blame the French, good political tactics." It works over and over again. If the Tories didn't do anything about this "problem" over the past 12 years, I better vote for them again as they are the only party who will do something. You have to hand it to their PR team, and the British press. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seems to me like one minute everyone is screaming something has to be done to stop the illegal immigrants coming. And when they try to do it everyone starts screaming it’s wrong " There was a system albeit not perfect before 2010 which dealt with more applications but this government scrapped the safe and legal route which has directly led to the massive increases we're seeing in small boats.. Plus they cut border force and the civil servants who dealt with the applications to the point where we are now processing about 10 % compared to France and Germany.. Yes it's an issue but it's entirely of this governments making which is why they seek to deflect.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seems to me like one minute everyone is screaming something has to be done to stop the illegal immigrants coming. And when they try to do it everyone starts screaming it’s wrong " That’s the lie that is being peddled . “everyone is screaming that they need stopping”. They are not. People want our government to organise safe formal routes to come to the U.K There would be no need to pay £500m or the billions in housing refugees if they were processed safely and quickly. The smugglers business model would disappear as they’d have less customers. Only hardcore traffickers would continue then. With safe routes border force would have freed up capacity and could concentrate on shutting the hardcore routes down with much cheaper help from the French. We could have an immigration office in France with five hundred staff and let’s be silly and say all being paid £100k a year each and the total cost would be £50m. Puts the £500m into perspective doesn’t it, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seems to me like one minute everyone is screaming something has to be done to stop the illegal immigrants coming. And when they try to do it everyone starts screaming it’s wrong That’s the lie that is being peddled . “everyone is screaming that they need stopping”. They are not. People want our government to organise safe formal routes to come to the U.K There would be no need to pay £500m or the billions in housing refugees if they were processed safely and quickly. The smugglers business model would disappear as they’d have less customers. Only hardcore traffickers would continue then. With safe routes border force would have freed up capacity and could concentrate on shutting the hardcore routes down with much cheaper help from the French. We could have an immigration office in France with five hundred staff and let’s be silly and say all being paid £100k a year each and the total cost would be £50m. Puts the £500m into perspective doesn’t it, " That said quite a lot of boarder force are about to go on strike | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just absurd to be paying France to police it's own borders. But on the other hand, whenever the government tries to stop illegal immigration they gat lambasted. Perhaps they get lambasted for food reason? After all they themselves have caused this very problem by closing down safe and legal routes for people to apply for asylum. If 80% or so (I don’t know exact figure - but thereabouts as I understand) of boat arrivals are granted asylum, it would appear that reinstalling the safe and legal routes might just stop the crossings because 80% wouldn’t need to and the other 20% would know that it would be a futile trip. Perhaps they closed down legal asylum routes because those were being consistently abused by bogus claimants? As a sovereign nation we are entitled to have border rules and entitled to enforce them - like everybody else." Apart from a nice sentence, what is a sovereign nation. For the record the UK is not a single country it is an amalgamation of separate countries that seek in our case, live in harmony and the greater good of all. A bit like the Common Market. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The high percentage of approved asylum cases is not a true reflection of the cases being 100% legitimate. It is a reflection on border control and the home office not being able to deal with such large numbers, and the main point not being able to prove 100% they're not asylum seekers. The system is known and exploited." I suspect the number will come down as we start to process the newer cases... But do you have any evidence to support this claim ? If it's down to lack of resource, then that feels like an easy win. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The high percentage of approved asylum cases is not a true reflection of the cases being 100% legitimate. It is a reflection on border control and the home office not being able to deal with such large numbers, and the main point not being able to prove 100% they're not asylum seekers. The system is known and exploited.I suspect the number will come down as we start to process the newer cases... But do you have any evidence to support this claim ? If it's down to lack of resource, then that feels like an easy win. " The governments inability to manage the numbers of people, is clear when you have processing centres full, as well as hotels up and down the country. There is no way to check an applicant is legitimate if they have no papers... It is embarrassing for this government, the smugglers know they can't manage, we know they can't manage. The % figures are a reflection of that inability to cope. To be clear I'm not saying how far out they are, I wouldn't know, but they are not correct. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seems to me like one minute everyone is screaming something has to be done to stop the illegal immigrants coming. And when they try to do it everyone starts screaming it’s wrong That’s the lie that is being peddled . “everyone is screaming that they need stopping”. They are not. People want our government to organise safe formal routes to come to the U.K There would be no need to pay £500m or the billions in housing refugees if they were processed safely and quickly. The smugglers business model would disappear as they’d have less customers. Only hardcore traffickers would continue then. With safe routes border force would have freed up capacity and could concentrate on shutting the hardcore routes down with much cheaper help from the French. We could have an immigration office in France with five hundred staff and let’s be silly and say all being paid £100k a year each and the total cost would be £50m. Puts the £500m into perspective doesn’t it, " I understand your point but just wondering how you find out a couple of the things you quote. First is about everyone is screaming that they need stopping- you say that they are not screaming for them to be stopped. Obviously technically it's not everyone but how many want it stopped and is that number increasing or decreasing? I suspect increasing but not sure hence why I'm asking how we know this. Then you say people want our government to organise safe legal routes. Again how do we know this is the case. I know some do (these threads show that) but is it the popular view in the country. Is it a view that's increasing. Again I am not disputing these quotes, just curious as to the origin | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The high percentage of approved asylum cases is not a true reflection of the cases being 100% legitimate. It is a reflection on border control and the home office not being able to deal with such large numbers, and the main point not being able to prove 100% they're not asylum seekers. The system is known and exploited.I suspect the number will come down as we start to process the newer cases... But do you have any evidence to support this claim ? If it's down to lack of resource, then that feels like an easy win. The governments inability to manage the numbers of people, is clear when you have processing centres full, as well as hotels up and down the country. There is no way to check an applicant is legitimate if they have no papers... It is embarrassing for this government, the smugglers know they can't manage, we know they can't manage. The % figures are a reflection of that inability to cope. To be clear I'm not saying how far out they are, I wouldn't know, but they are not correct. " I agree it's a terrible look. For me this issue is that, because we don't know (as you say) then we can't say that the numbers are high because of it. We are all guessing. It could be one person slips through the net. It could be they all do. If acceptance % have skyrocketed since the numbers started going up, that would provides some weak evidence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They should send in the army to end this madness .. " What would you want the army to do? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They should send in the army to end this madness .. What would you want the army to do?" They would sort this in a flash.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They should send in the army to end this madness .. What would you want the army to do? They would sort this in a flash...." How? What would you expect them to do? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They should send in the army to end this madness .. " Which army? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They should send in the army to end this madness .. " And how would they be able to perform miracles with the same rules of engagement that are applied now? If you are asking for a change of the rules of engagement, then why would the army fare any better than those currently tasked with enforcement? A common trope is that the officers dealing at the front line with this are underperforming. They are not underperforming given the rules of engagement that they have to work within. The problems with the system are more deeply rooted in policy the authorities are required to work within than the personnel who are required to carry out the prevailing policy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
