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 been watching news about another boat full of people sunk in the channel in french waters rnli and french rescue while 2 french boats looking for missing now 22 on rnli boat while 36 on french back in Calais happy that rnli rescued them but why fetch them back here why not Calais like the rest suella not going to be happy is it another battle rnli going to have another forum suggesting they should be ashamed don't fund rnli.me rnli do a fantastic job there court between politics and humanity." Surely saving lives should be the priority here. If they RNLI did that, excellent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am absolutely happy that the RNLI came to help the French. However, for me, they were in French waters so take them to France. " yes might be protocol that says can't go to France would be nice to know was it the captain or above that made the decision was it the french might have been better to take back to France might make them think about trying again.but now what happens to them do we make sure there ok then send back or do we allow them to stay and start immigration me I'm ok with them being sent back once they have been checked out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The rlni are being pushed to breaking point, and these kind of tragedies will be common in the channel, not to worry we are de sensitized to this kind of stuff. "The RLNI should be publicly funded, and those putting their lives on the line should be paid. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The rlni are being pushed to breaking point, and these kind of tragedies will be common in the channel, not to worry we are de sensitized to this kind of stuff.
The RLNI should be publicly funded, and those putting their lives on the line should be paid. "This.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is no solution to this problem. Millions of people displaced globally through climate change, wars and poverty." Absolutely no one has been displaced through climate change. Equally, poverty doesn't remove anyone's home, they just leave to escape it. Wars I can agree with. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Absolutely no one has been displaced through climate change. " This is false There is a good article "Climate change and disaster displacement" on the UNHCR website. Which explains how climate change has lead to the displacement of people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is no solution to this problem. Millions of people displaced globally through climate change, wars and poverty." "Absolutely no one has been displaced through climate change. ..." "This is false There is a good article "Climate change and disaster displacement" on the UNHCR website. Which explains how climate change has lead to the displacement of people." In line with what the original poster said, I was talking about people crossing borders. The UNHCR article you reference talks solely about internal displacement, which is a different thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The rlni are being pushed to breaking point, and these kind of tragedies will be common in the channel, not to worry we are de sensitized to this kind of stuff.
The RLNI should be publicly funded, and those putting their lives on the line should be paid. "It should be but it's probably better off as it is. Look at the NHS ambulance service, GP service etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The conservatives don't want to solve this, they've had 13 years and haven't...they bang on about people traffickers but could stop this overnight by opening safe routes ..." When they talk about stopping the small boat crossings, they really mean 'stop the people coming in'. Opening safe routes wouldn't achieve what they want. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction." Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet." So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The conservatives don't want to solve this, they've had 13 years and haven't...they bang on about people traffickers but could stop this overnight by opening safe routes, they also bang on about hotels but have cut back on processing claims so there's need for them." I think you may just have it wrong. This hasn't necessarily been a big problem for 13 years. It's a fairly new phenomenon. 2018 - 299 2019 - 1,843 2020 - 8,466 2021 - 28,526 2022 - 45,755 2022 to 10 August - 18,641 2023 to date - 16,169 Clearly whatever has happened since 2022 seems to be having some sort of effect. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise." Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How does that make me wrong, it's got considerably worse under the Tories and they offer weaponise the issue. If anything you are backing up what I said, what happened between 2018 and now to make it worse?" You can't see that you just reverted to type with 'Tories have had 13 years', when actually it got significantly worse from 2019 and now appears to be getting better? That's only 4 years. Blame the Tories all you like, they are the party in power after all but you might wanna lose the 'soundbites'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How does that make me wrong, it's got considerably worse under the Tories and they offer weaponise the issue. If anything you are backing up what I said, what happened between 2018 and now to make it worse? You can't see that you just reverted to type with 'Tories have had 13 years', when actually it got significantly worse from 2019 and now appears to be getting better? That's only 4 years. Blame the Tories all you like, they are the party in power after all but you might wanna lose the 'soundbites'." If you look at the graph using your stats on the BBC article a day ago 2022 and 2023 are virtually the same all years rise more in the 2nd half, June 23 was also the highest recorded numbers for a June so I don't think things are getting much better. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How does that make me wrong, it's got considerably worse under the Tories and they offer weaponise the issue. If anything you are backing up what I said, what happened between 2018 and now to make it worse? You can't see that you just reverted to type with 'Tories have had 13 years', when actually it got significantly worse from 2019 and now appears to be getting better? That's only 4 years. Blame the Tories all you like, they are the party in power after all but you might wanna lose the 'soundbites'. If you look at the graph using your stats on the BBC article a day ago 2022 and 2023 are virtually the same all years rise more in the 2nd half, June 23 was also the highest recorded numbers for a June so I don't think things are getting much better." I'm aware crossings tend to increase in the second half of the year, that's why I provided data 'as to 10 August' so that a direct comparison could be made. Eveb with our highest June on record we're still circa 2k down on last year to this point. That seems like an improvement to me. It would appear that you either struggle with comprehension or hate the Tories so much you're now trying move goalposts and cherry pick very specific data to try prove your point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The conservatives don't want to solve this, they've had 13 years and haven't...they bang on about people traffickers but could stop this overnight by opening safe routes, they also bang on about hotels but have cut back on processing claims so there's need for them. I think you may just have it wrong. This hasn't necessarily been a big problem for 13 years. It's a fairly new phenomenon. 2018 - 299 2019 - 1,843 2020 - 8,466 2021 - 28,526 2022 - 45,755 2022 to 10 August - 18,641 2023 to date - 16,169 Clearly whatever has happened since 2022 seems to be having some sort of effect. " How far back is that data available for? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The conservatives don't want to solve this, they've had 13 years and haven't...they bang on about people traffickers but could stop this overnight by opening safe routes, they also bang on about hotels but have cut back on processing claims so there's need for them. I think you may just have it wrong. This hasn't necessarily been a big problem for 13 years. It's a fairly new phenomenon. 2018 - 299 2019 - 1,843 2020 - 8,466 2021 - 28,526 2022 - 45,755 2022 to 10 August - 18,641 2023 to date - 16,169 Clearly whatever has happened since 2022 seems to be having some sort of effect. How far back is that data available for?" I believe thats as far as it goes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How does that make me wrong, it's got considerably worse under the Tories and they offer weaponise the issue. If anything you are backing up what I said, what happened between 2018 and now to make it worse? You can't see that you just reverted to type with 'Tories have had 13 years', when actually it got significantly worse from 2019 and now appears to be getting better? That's only 4 years. Blame the Tories all you like, they are the party in power after all but you might wanna lose the 'soundbites'. If you look at the graph using your stats on the BBC article a day ago 2022 and 2023 are virtually the same all years rise more in the 2nd half, June 23 was also the highest recorded numbers for a June so I don't think things are getting much better. I'm aware crossings tend to increase in the second half of the year, that's why I provided data 'as to 10 August' so that a direct comparison could be made. Eveb with our highest June on record we're still circa 2k down on last year to this point. That seems like an improvement to me. It would appear that you either struggle with comprehension or hate the Tories so much you're now trying move goalposts and cherry pick very specific data to try prove your point. " Not at all, I was just pointing the drop will be nothing like those stats appear, do you think the conservatives have done a good job? Do you dislike sound bite? Because if you do I'm surprised you defend them "stop the boats" "over ready deal" "get Brexit done" "anti growth coalition" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The conservatives don't want to solve this, they've had 13 years and haven't...they bang on about people traffickers but could stop this overnight by opening safe routes, they also bang on about hotels but have cut back on processing claims so there's need for them. I think you may just have it wrong. This hasn't necessarily been a big problem for 13 years. It's a fairly new phenomenon. 2018 - 299 2019 - 1,843 2020 - 8,466 2021 - 28,526 2022 - 45,755 2022 to 10 August - 18,641 2023 to date - 16,169 Clearly whatever has happened since 2022 seems to be having some sort of effect. How far back is that data available for? I believe thats as far as it goes" When did the Dublin agreement end? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The conservatives don't want to solve this, they've had 13 years and haven't...they bang on about people traffickers but could stop this overnight by opening safe routes, they also bang on about hotels but have cut back on processing claims so there's need for them. I think you may just have it wrong. This hasn't necessarily been a big problem for 13 years. It's a fairly new phenomenon. 2018 - 299 2019 - 1,843 2020 - 8,466 2021 - 28,526 2022 - 45,755 2022 to 10 August - 18,641 2023 to date - 16,169 Clearly whatever has happened since 2022 seems to be having some sort of effect. How far back is that data available for? I believe thats as far as it goes" Between July 2014 and May 2016 Home Office data states that there were nine confirmed incidents of migrants reaching the UK having crossed the Channel in a small vessel. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The conservatives don't want to solve this, they've had 13 years and haven't...they bang on about people traffickers but could stop this overnight by opening safe routes, they also bang on about hotels but have cut back on processing claims so there's need for them. I think you may just have it wrong. This hasn't necessarily been a big problem for 13 years. It's a fairly new phenomenon. 2018 - 299 2019 - 1,843 2020 - 8,466 2021 - 28,526 2022 - 45,755 2022 to 10 August - 18,641 2023 to date - 16,169 Clearly whatever has happened since 2022 seems to be having some sort of effect. How far back is that data available for? I believe thats as far as it goes" That’s a shame. Keen to know what was happening under Labour then the Cameron govt. What happened to drive this exponential increase? Is there a correlation with nationality of the people crossing (once that can be established) that can then be examined re cause and effect? Not expecting you to know Feisty, more a general question. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How does that make me wrong, it's got considerably worse under the Tories and they offer weaponise the issue. If anything you are backing up what I said, what happened between 2018 and now to make it worse? You can't see that you just reverted to type with 'Tories have had 13 years', when actually it got significantly worse from 2019 and now appears to be getting better? That's only 4 years. Blame the Tories all you like, they are the party in power after all but you might wanna lose the 'soundbites'. If you look at the graph using your stats on the BBC article a day ago 2022 and 2023 are virtually the same all years rise more in the 2nd half, June 23 was also the highest recorded numbers for a June so I don't think things are getting much better. I'm aware crossings tend to increase in the second half of the year, that's why I provided data 'as to 10 August' so that a direct comparison could be made. Eveb with our highest June on record we're still circa 2k down on last year to this point. That seems like an improvement to me. It would appear that you either struggle with comprehension or hate the Tories so much you're now trying move goalposts and cherry pick very specific data to try prove your point. Not at all, I was just pointing the drop will be nothing like those stats appear, do you think the conservatives have done a good job? Do you dislike sound bite? Because if you do I'm surprised you defend them "stop the boats" "over ready deal" "get Brexit done" "anti growth coalition"" Of course the Tories haven't done a good job, not am I defending them. I think maybe my assertion that you struggle with comprehension. Just as I've never defended a soundbite. In response to your other question. The figures are for people arriving, the Dublin Agreement doesn't really matter in this instance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The conservatives don't want to solve this, they've had 13 years and haven't...they bang on about people traffickers but could stop this overnight by opening safe routes, they also bang on about hotels but have cut back on processing claims so there's need for them. I think you may just have it wrong. This hasn't necessarily been a big problem for 13 years. It's a fairly new phenomenon. 2018 - 299 2019 - 1,843 2020 - 8,466 2021 - 28,526 2022 - 45,755 2022 to 10 August - 18,641 2023 to date - 16,169 Clearly whatever has happened since 2022 seems to be having some sort of effect. How far back is that data available for? I believe thats as far as it goes That’s a shame. Keen to know what was happening under Labour then the Cameron govt. What happened to drive this exponential increase? Is there a correlation with nationality of the people crossing (once that can be established) that can then be examined re cause and effect? Not expecting you to know Feisty, more a general question." See my further response re. figures prior. I do believe that there is a correlation between Albanian nationals and the increase in figures, although others have obviously increased too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The conservatives don't want to solve this, they've had 13 years and haven't...they bang on about people traffickers but could stop this overnight by opening safe routes, they also bang on about hotels but have cut back on processing claims so there's need for them. I think you may just have it wrong. This hasn't necessarily been a big problem for 13 years. It's a fairly new phenomenon. 2018 - 299 2019 - 1,843 2020 - 8,466 2021 - 28,526 2022 - 45,755 2022 to 10 August - 18,641 2023 to date - 16,169 Clearly whatever has happened since 2022 seems to be having some sort of effect. How far back is that data available for? I believe thats as far as it goes That’s a shame. Keen to know what was happening under Labour then the Cameron govt. What happened to drive this exponential increase? Is there a correlation with nationality of the people crossing (once that can be established) that can then be examined re cause and effect? Not expecting you to know Feisty, more a general question. See my further response re. figures prior. I do believe that there is a correlation between Albanian nationals and the increase in figures, although others have obviously increased too. " Sorry spotted that after posted. That is a shocking exponential growth. Weird, it has been so high in our consciousness that it has felt like it has happened forever in far higher numbers. I wonder if we stripped out the Albanians (which feels like an outlier with other causes) and focused on other nationalities, one might be able to determine a pattern? Do we have data showing the breakdown on known/suspected nationalities? I wonder what Syrian or Somali asylum seekers did to be able to apply for asylum in the UK prior to 2021? Has the overall number of asylum seekers grown in the same period (regardless of method of entry?) Has that happened across Europe also? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How does that make me wrong, it's got considerably worse under the Tories and they offer weaponise the issue. If anything you are backing up what I said, what happened between 2018 and now to make it worse? You can't see that you just reverted to type with 'Tories have had 13 years', when actually it got significantly worse from 2019 and now appears to be getting better? That's only 4 years. Blame the Tories all you like, they are the party in power after all but you might wanna lose the 'soundbites'. If you look at the graph using your stats on the BBC article a day ago 2022 and 2023 are virtually the same all years rise more in the 2nd half, June 23 was also the highest recorded numbers for a June so I don't think things are getting much better. I'm aware crossings tend to increase in the second half of the year, that's why I provided data 'as to 10 August' so that a direct comparison could be made. Eveb with our highest June on record we're still circa 2k down on last year to this point. That seems like an improvement to me. It would appear that you either struggle with comprehension or hate the Tories so much you're now trying move goalposts and cherry pick very specific data to try prove your point. Not at all, I was just pointing the drop will be nothing like those stats appear, do you think the conservatives have done a good job? Do you dislike sound bite? Because if you do I'm surprised you defend them "stop the boats" "over ready deal" "get Brexit done" "anti growth coalition" Of course the Tories haven't done a good job, not am I defending them. I think maybe my assertion that you struggle with comprehension. Just as I've never defended a soundbite. In response to your other question. The figures are for people arriving, the Dublin Agreement doesn't really matter in this instance. " That's not answering the question! When did the Dublin agreement end? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The conservatives don't want to solve this, they've had 13 years and haven't...they bang on about people traffickers but could stop this overnight by opening safe routes, they also bang on about hotels but have cut back on processing claims so there's need for them. I think you may just have it wrong. This hasn't necessarily been a big problem for 13 years. It's a fairly new phenomenon. 2018 - 299 2019 - 1,843 2020 - 8,466 2021 - 28,526 2022 - 45,755 2022 to 10 August - 18,641 2023 to date - 16,169 Clearly whatever has happened since 2022 seems to be having some sort of effect. " bookmarked to talk stats* I suspect there is a general trend that has been exaggerated by a spike in Albanian boat crossings in q3 2022. However we continue to talk about albanians. I'm bumping between sources atm but I'm not sure of it's still the case. However it does look like boat pll are c40 PC of cases atm... So not even the majority. And albanians at their peak were about 40pc of this. So while a big factor, alabanians in boats is c 16pc of all cases. Decent enough to look at. But also nowhere close to being the full picture. And we talk disproportionately about them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats" Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. " What's your point here? Opening safe routes would put the smugglers out of business straight away, Asylum processing has gone down massively in recent years, it takes on average over 15.5 months for a case compared to 8.5 in France, 6.5 Months in Germany, and under 3 in Austria ECHR doesn't seem to hold them up as much? As for Albanians read the comments above, I've been accused of lacking comprehension wouldn't want anyone levelling that at you too! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. " Please can you explain how these asylum processing rules work in practice. How, for example would a girl in Afghanistan apply for asylum in the UK? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. Please can you explain how these asylum processing rules work in practice. How, for example would a girl in Afghanistan apply for asylum in the UK?" I can't explain, and that's exactly my point. It's been necessary to tighten asylum rules to the point where they are almost impossible to navigate. Why? Because of decades of abuse by economic migrants being exploited by criminal gangs hiding behind ECHR laws. Now we have a situation where genuine asylum seekers have no route to safety. It's the bogus asylum seekers that need to be stopped, and their criminal cronies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. Please can you explain how these asylum processing rules work in practice. How, for example would a girl in Afghanistan apply for asylum in the UK? I can't explain, and that's exactly my point. It's been necessary to tighten asylum rules to the point where they are almost impossible to navigate. Why? Because of decades of abuse by economic migrants being exploited by criminal gangs hiding behind ECHR laws. Now we have a situation where genuine asylum seekers have no route to safety. It's the bogus asylum seekers that need to be stopped, and their criminal cronies." And opening safe routes? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. Please can you explain how these asylum processing rules work in practice. How, for example would a girl in Afghanistan apply for asylum in the UK? I can't explain, and that's exactly my point. It's been necessary to tighten asylum rules to the point where they are almost impossible to navigate. Why? Because of decades of abuse by economic migrants being exploited by criminal gangs hiding behind ECHR laws. Now we have a situation where genuine asylum seekers have no route to safety. It's the bogus asylum seekers that need to be stopped, and their criminal cronies. And opening safe routes? " Provided they're not abused, but what's the difference from the previous asylum rules that had to be tightened? How are you going to stop the dinghies full of 'illegals'? Because they'll still come. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. " Recent revelations showed it is also corrupt lawyers that are abusing the system too. I think that there is now a deal to return failed claimants from Albania which has slightly helped the figures. Of course that does not help with the others though | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. Please can you explain how these asylum processing rules work in practice. How, for example would a girl in Afghanistan apply for asylum in the UK? I can't explain, and that's exactly my point. It's been necessary to tighten asylum rules to the point where they are almost impossible to navigate. Why? Because of decades of abuse by economic migrants being exploited by criminal gangs hiding behind ECHR laws. Now we have a situation where genuine asylum seekers have no route to safety. It's the bogus asylum seekers that need to be stopped, and their criminal cronies. And opening safe routes? Provided they're not abused, but what's the difference from the previous asylum rules that had to be tightened? How are you going to stop the dinghies full of 'illegals'? Because they'll still come." How, in the past, did those safe routes operate? How were those routes abused? For as long as I can remember we had stories of people hiding in or being smuggled in by truck (remember all those Vietnamese people who died inside the truck). Those were still illegal routes. How were the safe routes exploited? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. Please can you explain how these asylum processing rules work in practice. How, for example would a girl in Afghanistan apply for asylum in the UK? I can't explain, and that's exactly my point. It's been necessary to tighten asylum rules to the point where they are almost impossible to navigate. Why? Because of decades of abuse by economic migrants being exploited by criminal gangs hiding behind ECHR laws. Now we have a situation where genuine asylum seekers have no route to safety. It's the bogus asylum seekers that need to be stopped, and their criminal cronies. And opening safe routes? Provided they're not abused, but what's the difference from the previous asylum rules that had to be tightened? How are you going to stop the dinghies full of 'illegals'? Because they'll still come. How, in the past, did those safe routes operate? How were those routes abused? For as long as I can remember we had stories of people hiding in or being smuggled in by truck (remember all those Vietnamese people who died inside the truck). Those were still illegal routes. How were the safe routes exploited? " We all seem to forget the migrants in Calais climbing on lorries to get over the channel, it wasn't that long ago. They fined drivers, installed equipment to detect stowaways and worked with the French authorities to more or leas wipe it out, there was a huge dip in successful crossings. Gangs changed the tactics and here we are. Simply opening up the borders to allow any one who simply likes the idea of being in the UK is not the answer and is a sure fire way of building local resistance, however not singling out the people who are really in need of help is equally as bad. There is no viable answer on the table, because there are those who want a total open border policy and those that want totally closed border. There are solutions, such as, anyone arriving without a valid from of identity will not gain entry, nothing to process means not entry. This has merit and could make a difference, however the Rwanda implementation has been divisive to deal with those who fail to meet requirements. And here we are again, going nowhere fast and bending under the strain of criminal activity, whilst genuine people are stuck in limbo... The next government can make a noise of how things will be different, but I very much doubt they will without one side or the other being very angry. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just been watching news about another boat full of people sunk in the channel in french waters rnli and french rescue while 2 french boats looking for missing now 22 on rnli boat while 36 on french back in Calais happy that rnli rescued them but why fetch them back here why not Calais like the rest suella not going to be happy is it another battle rnli going to have another forum suggesting they should be ashamed don't fund rnli.me rnli do a fantastic job there court between politics and humanity." The rnli are bot there to enter French waters If they have done this it's a dereliction of duty to our own beaches. We pay France circa 130m a year to stop this. The French should be ashamed of the.selves unable to properly fund these rescues and find the boat suppliers. No reason the government boats or rnli should be entering French waters | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. Please can you explain how these asylum processing rules work in practice. How, for example would a girl in Afghanistan apply for asylum in the UK? I can't explain, and that's exactly my point. It's been necessary to tighten asylum rules to the point where they are almost impossible to navigate. Why? Because of decades of abuse by economic migrants being exploited by criminal gangs hiding behind ECHR laws. Now we have a situation where genuine asylum seekers have no route to safety. It's the bogus asylum seekers that need to be stopped, and their criminal cronies. And opening safe routes? Provided they're not abused, but what's the difference from the previous asylum rules that had to be tightened? How are you going to stop the dinghies full of 'illegals'? Because they'll still come. How, in the past, did those safe routes operate? How were those routes abused? For as long as I can remember we had stories of people hiding in or being smuggled in by truck (remember all those Vietnamese people who died inside the truck). Those were still illegal routes. How were the safe routes exploited? " Because the asylum system became overloaded when thousands of bogus applicants began arriving illegally, trafficked by criminal gangs. Even if you have 'safe routes' what's to stop the illegal migrants washing up on our beaches every day of the year? We are still faced with the problems of processing thousands of unvetted (mostly) males, and then what to do with failed applicants. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. Please can you explain how these asylum processing rules work in practice. How, for example would a girl in Afghanistan apply for asylum in the UK? I can't explain, and that's exactly my point. It's been necessary to tighten asylum rules to the point where they are almost impossible to navigate. Why? Because of decades of abuse by economic migrants being exploited by criminal gangs hiding behind ECHR laws. Now we have a situation where genuine asylum seekers have no route to safety. It's the bogus asylum seekers that need to be stopped, and their criminal cronies. And opening safe routes? Provided they're not abused, but what's the difference from the previous asylum rules that had to be tightened? How are you going to stop the dinghies full of 'illegals'? Because they'll still come." The Tories want to stop the small boats, if you had the choice between a ferry or paying someone several thousands of pounds to cross in a dingy what would you go for? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. Please can you explain how these asylum processing rules work in practice. How, for example would a girl in Afghanistan apply for asylum in the UK? I can't explain, and that's exactly my point. It's been necessary to tighten asylum rules to the point where they are almost impossible to navigate. Why? Because of decades of abuse by economic migrants being exploited by criminal gangs hiding behind ECHR laws. Now we have a situation where genuine asylum seekers have no route to safety. It's the bogus asylum seekers that need to be stopped, and their criminal cronies. And opening safe routes? Provided they're not abused, but what's the difference from the previous asylum rules that had to be tightened? How are you going to stop the dinghies full of 'illegals'? Because they'll still come. How, in the past, did those safe routes operate? How were those routes abused? For as long as I can remember we had stories of people hiding in or being smuggled in by truck (remember all those Vietnamese people who died inside the truck). Those were still illegal routes. How were the safe routes exploited? Because the asylum system became overloaded when thousands of bogus applicants began arriving illegally, trafficked by criminal gangs. Even if you have 'safe routes' what's to stop the illegal migrants washing up on our beaches every day of the year? We are still faced with the problems of processing thousands of unvetted (mostly) males, and then what to do with failed applicants." You got evidence for these bogus claims? 73 percent of applications were successful on the last count! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. Please can you explain how these asylum processing rules work in practice. How, for example would a girl in Afghanistan apply for asylum in the UK? I can't explain, and that's exactly my point. It's been necessary to tighten asylum rules to the point where they are almost impossible to navigate. Why? Because of decades of abuse by economic migrants being exploited by criminal gangs hiding behind ECHR laws. Now we have a situation where genuine asylum seekers have no route to safety. It's the bogus asylum seekers that need to be stopped, and their criminal cronies. And opening safe routes? Provided they're not abused, but what's the difference from the previous asylum rules that had to be tightened? How are you going to stop the dinghies full of 'illegals'? Because they'll still come. How, in the past, did those safe routes operate? How were those routes abused? For as long as I can remember we had stories of people hiding in or being smuggled in by truck (remember all those Vietnamese people who died inside the truck). Those were still illegal routes. How were the safe routes exploited? Because the asylum system became overloaded when thousands of bogus applicants began arriving illegally, trafficked by criminal gangs. Even if you have 'safe routes' what's to stop the illegal migrants washing up on our beaches every day of the year? We are still faced with the problems of processing thousands of unvetted (mostly) males, and then what to do with failed applicants. You got evidence for these bogus claims? 73 percent of applications were successful on the last count!" Mainly due to lack of documentation so not being able to prove and check back on their provided stories. As many as 98% arriving by small boat do not have ID, it is part of the process and training that is provided by the criminals to improve their chance of success when they pay several thousand pounds for a seat. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. Please can you explain how these asylum processing rules work in practice. How, for example would a girl in Afghanistan apply for asylum in the UK? I can't explain, and that's exactly my point. It's been necessary to tighten asylum rules to the point where they are almost impossible to navigate. Why? Because of decades of abuse by economic migrants being exploited by criminal gangs hiding behind ECHR laws. Now we have a situation where genuine asylum seekers have no route to safety. It's the bogus asylum seekers that need to be stopped, and their criminal cronies. And opening safe routes? Provided they're not abused, but what's the difference from the previous asylum rules that had to be tightened? How are you going to stop the dinghies full of 'illegals'? Because they'll still come. How, in the past, did those safe routes operate? How were those routes abused? For as long as I can remember we had stories of people hiding in or being smuggled in by truck (remember all those Vietnamese people who died inside the truck). Those were still illegal routes. How were the safe routes exploited? Because the asylum system became overloaded when thousands of bogus applicants began arriving illegally, trafficked by criminal gangs. Even if you have 'safe routes' what's to stop the illegal migrants washing up on our beaches every day of the year? We are still faced with the problems of processing thousands of unvetted (mostly) males, and then what to do with failed applicants. You got evidence for these bogus claims? 73 percent of applications were successful on the last count!" Two points 1) a large proportion just 'disappear' 2) asylum is granted because deporting is so difficult and temporary accommodation so expensive. It's all a farce. Around a quarter of migrants in 2022 were Albanians. So asylum from what exactly? Maybe they were being persecuted by the Albanian police for people trafficking and robberies? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. Please can you explain how these asylum processing rules work in practice. How, for example would a girl in Afghanistan apply for asylum in the UK? I can't explain, and that's exactly my point. It's been necessary to tighten asylum rules to the point where they are almost impossible to navigate. Why? Because of decades of abuse by economic migrants being exploited by criminal gangs hiding behind ECHR laws. Now we have a situation where genuine asylum seekers have no route to safety. It's the bogus asylum seekers that need to be stopped, and their criminal cronies. And opening safe routes? Provided they're not abused, but what's the difference from the previous asylum rules that had to be tightened? How are you going to stop the dinghies full of 'illegals'? Because they'll still come. The Tories want to stop the small boats, if you had the choice between a ferry or paying someone several thousands of pounds to cross in a dingy what would you go for?" I would definitely take up the offer of a free ferry ticket. I would imagine tens of thousands of others would similarly take up the offer to escape from France. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. Please can you explain how these asylum processing rules work in practice. How, for example would a girl in Afghanistan apply for asylum in the UK? I can't explain, and that's exactly my point. It's been necessary to tighten asylum rules to the point where they are almost impossible to navigate. Why? Because of decades of abuse by economic migrants being exploited by criminal gangs hiding behind ECHR laws. Now we have a situation where genuine asylum seekers have no route to safety. It's the bogus asylum seekers that need to be stopped, and their criminal cronies. And opening safe routes? Provided they're not abused, but what's the difference from the previous asylum rules that had to be tightened? How are you going to stop the dinghies full of 'illegals'? Because they'll still come. How, in the past, did those safe routes operate? How were those routes abused? For as long as I can remember we had stories of people hiding in or being smuggled in by truck (remember all those Vietnamese people who died inside the truck). Those were still illegal routes. How were the safe routes exploited? We all seem to forget the migrants in Calais climbing on lorries to get over the channel, it wasn't that long ago. They fined drivers, installed equipment to detect stowaways and worked with the French authorities to more or leas wipe it out, there was a huge dip in successful crossings. Gangs changed the tactics and here we are. Simply opening up the borders to allow any one who simply likes the idea of being in the UK is not the answer and is a sure fire way of building local resistance, however not singling out the people who are really in need of help is equally as bad. There is no viable answer on the table, because there are those who want a total open border policy and those that want totally closed border. There are solutions, such as, anyone arriving without a valid from of identity will not gain entry, nothing to process means not entry. This has merit and could make a difference, however the Rwanda implementation has been divisive to deal with those who fail to meet requirements. And here we are again, going nowhere fast and bending under the strain of criminal activity, whilst genuine people are stuck in limbo... The next government can make a noise of how things will be different, but I very much doubt they will without one side or the other being very angry. " We (not just you and I but the forum) have discussed this at length. I think there is great merit in the “if you have ID we will treat you fairly and be able to process you more quickly as we can establish legitimacy” but “if you have no ID we will have to assume you have no valid claim and we will treat you differently”. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I disappeared for a while. Its now much further along than when I left but if anyone wants to pick it up again feel free to direct your posts at me "You were about to pinpoint the time the Dublin agreement stopped applying to the UK I think | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. Please can you explain how these asylum processing rules work in practice. How, for example would a girl in Afghanistan apply for asylum in the UK? I can't explain, and that's exactly my point. It's been necessary to tighten asylum rules to the point where they are almost impossible to navigate. Why? Because of decades of abuse by economic migrants being exploited by criminal gangs hiding behind ECHR laws. Now we have a situation where genuine asylum seekers have no route to safety. It's the bogus asylum seekers that need to be stopped, and their criminal cronies. And opening safe routes? Provided they're not abused, but what's the difference from the previous asylum rules that had to be tightened? How are you going to stop the dinghies full of 'illegals'? Because they'll still come. How, in the past, did those safe routes operate? How were those routes abused? For as long as I can remember we had stories of people hiding in or being smuggled in by truck (remember all those Vietnamese people who died inside the truck). Those were still illegal routes. How were the safe routes exploited? Because the asylum system became overloaded when thousands of bogus applicants began arriving illegally, trafficked by criminal gangs. Even if you have 'safe routes' what's to stop the illegal migrants washing up on our beaches every day of the year? We are still faced with the problems of processing thousands of unvetted (mostly) males, and then what to do with failed applicants. You got evidence for these bogus claims? 73 percent of applications were successful on the last count! Two points 1) a large proportion just 'disappear' 2) asylum is granted because deporting is so difficult and temporary accommodation so expensive. It's all a farce. Around a quarter of migrants in 2022 were Albanians. So asylum from what exactly? Maybe they were being persecuted by the Albanian police for people trafficking and robberies?" So no actual evidence, thanks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I disappeared for a while. Its now much further along than when I left but if anyone wants to pick it up again feel free to direct your posts at me
You were about to pinpoint the time the Dublin agreement stopped applying to the UK I think"I defintely wasn't, I don't see how it comes into play. You'll argue that our withdrawal from the Dublin Agreement means we can't send people back. That actually says more about the people arriving than you think. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I disappeared for a while. Its now much further along than when I left but if anyone wants to pick it up again feel free to direct your posts at me
You were about to pinpoint the time the Dublin agreement stopped applying to the UK I think
I defintely wasn't, I don't see how it comes into play.
You'll argue that our withdrawal from the Dublin Agreement means we can't send people back. That actually says more about the people arriving than you think."Nobody reads my long posts 
Don’t blame them really 
Anyway here is something relevant again...
“The report explains: "The UK's lack of a returns policy is the most significant pull factor for small boat journeys. Leaving the EU without a returns arrangement has meant individuals can now travel to the UK with the knowledge it is much more difficult for them to be returned post-2020 – which has not been true when the UK was in the EU pre-2020. When coupled with slow processing times for asylum applications, the UK has become easier to remain inside if and when migrants are able to get to our shores." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. Please can you explain how these asylum processing rules work in practice. How, for example would a girl in Afghanistan apply for asylum in the UK? I can't explain, and that's exactly my point. It's been necessary to tighten asylum rules to the point where they are almost impossible to navigate. Why? Because of decades of abuse by economic migrants being exploited by criminal gangs hiding behind ECHR laws. Now we have a situation where genuine asylum seekers have no route to safety. It's the bogus asylum seekers that need to be stopped, and their criminal cronies. And opening safe routes? Provided they're not abused, but what's the difference from the previous asylum rules that had to be tightened? How are you going to stop the dinghies full of 'illegals'? Because they'll still come. How, in the past, did those safe routes operate? How were those routes abused? For as long as I can remember we had stories of people hiding in or being smuggled in by truck (remember all those Vietnamese people who died inside the truck). Those were still illegal routes. How were the safe routes exploited? Because the asylum system became overloaded when thousands of bogus applicants began arriving illegally, trafficked by criminal gangs. Even if you have 'safe routes' what's to stop the illegal migrants washing up on our beaches every day of the year? We are still faced with the problems of processing thousands of unvetted (mostly) males, and then what to do with failed applicants. You got evidence for these bogus claims? 73 percent of applications were successful on the last count!" Again with this stat. How do you deport some one to a countrynof origin you dont know? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I disappeared for a while. Its now much further along than when I left but if anyone wants to pick it up again feel free to direct your posts at me
You were about to pinpoint the time the Dublin agreement stopped applying to the UK I think
I defintely wasn't, I don't see how it comes into play.
You'll argue that our withdrawal from the Dublin Agreement means we can't send people back. That actually says more about the people arriving than you think.
Nobody reads my long posts
Don’t blame them really
Anyway here is something relevant again...
“The report explains: "The UK's lack of a returns policy is the most significant pull factor for small boat journeys. Leaving the EU without a returns arrangement has meant individuals can now travel to the UK with the knowledge it is much more difficult for them to be returned post-2020 – which has not been true when the UK was in the EU pre-2020. When coupled with slow processing times for asylum applications, the UK has become easier to remain inside if and when migrants are able to get to our shores.""Is that basically what I just said? Migrants are more than happy to get on a boat because they know we can't return them. I defintely think that says more about those migrants than it does anyone else. Tbf, I skipped a lot of posts, I did read then but there was so many since when I was last on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I disappeared for a while. Its now much further along than when I left but if anyone wants to pick it up again feel free to direct your posts at me
You were about to pinpoint the time the Dublin agreement stopped applying to the UK I think
I defintely wasn't, I don't see how it comes into play.
You'll argue that our withdrawal from the Dublin Agreement means we can't send people back. That actually says more about the people arriving than you think."This Dublin agreement came up before and I had a quick look at some articles on it. I stress it was a quick look but seems to indicate the following :It is not the silver bullet it's made out to be or the successive governments failed to use it correctly. One of the benefits for migrants under the Dublin agreement was that once a migrant was accepted by the authorities their families stood a much better chance to follow and be accepted increasing the flow of people. Also the deportation figures under the agreement were very low indeed and the agreement works both ways. In the last few years of operating, more people were deported to the UK than out of the UK under this Dublin agreement | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I disappeared for a while. Its now much further along than when I left but if anyone wants to pick it up again feel free to direct your posts at me
You were about to pinpoint the time the Dublin agreement stopped applying to the UK I think
I defintely wasn't, I don't see how it comes into play.
You'll argue that our withdrawal from the Dublin Agreement means we can't send people back. That actually says more about the people arriving than you think.
This Dublin agreement came up before and I had a quick look at some articles on it. I stress it was a quick look but seems to indicate the following :It is not the silver bullet it's made out to be or the successive governments failed to use it correctly. One of the benefits for migrants under the Dublin agreement was that once a migrant was accepted by the authorities their families stood a much better chance to follow and be accepted increasing the flow of people. Also the deportation figures under the agreement were very low indeed and the agreement works both ways. In the last few years of operating, more people were deported to the UK than out of the UK under this Dublin agreement"I've seen an argument that Dublin was a deterrent for even trying. I suspect many didn't know but the removal of Dublin is being used as part of any criminal gangs grooming/conning. Or it now makes the uk more attractive for the gangs. Who were previously targeting other countries. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. Please can you explain how these asylum processing rules work in practice. How, for example would a girl in Afghanistan apply for asylum in the UK? I can't explain, and that's exactly my point. It's been necessary to tighten asylum rules to the point where they are almost impossible to navigate. Why? Because of decades of abuse by economic migrants being exploited by criminal gangs hiding behind ECHR laws. Now we have a situation where genuine asylum seekers have no route to safety. It's the bogus asylum seekers that need to be stopped, and their criminal cronies. And opening safe routes? Provided they're not abused, but what's the difference from the previous asylum rules that had to be tightened? How are you going to stop the dinghies full of 'illegals'? Because they'll still come. How, in the past, did those safe routes operate? How were those routes abused? For as long as I can remember we had stories of people hiding in or being smuggled in by truck (remember all those Vietnamese people who died inside the truck). Those were still illegal routes. How were the safe routes exploited? Because the asylum system became overloaded when thousands of bogus applicants began arriving illegally, trafficked by criminal gangs. Even if you have 'safe routes' what's to stop the illegal migrants washing up on our beaches every day of the year? We are still faced with the problems of processing thousands of unvetted (mostly) males, and then what to do with failed applicants. You got evidence for these bogus claims? 73 percent of applications were successful on the last count! Again with this stat. How do you deport some one to a countrynof origin you dont know? " how do we know x per cent are Albanian etc? I'm cynical we don't know where people are from. It's like saying ten Chinese couldn't distinguish between the british and the French. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I disappeared for a while. Its now much further along than when I left but if anyone wants to pick it up again feel free to direct your posts at me
You were about to pinpoint the time the Dublin agreement stopped applying to the UK I think
I defintely wasn't, I don't see how it comes into play.
You'll argue that our withdrawal from the Dublin Agreement means we can't send people back. That actually says more about the people arriving than you think.
This Dublin agreement came up before and I had a quick look at some articles on it. I stress it was a quick look but seems to indicate the following :It is not the silver bullet it's made out to be or the successive governments failed to use it correctly. One of the benefits for migrants under the Dublin agreement was that once a migrant was accepted by the authorities their families stood a much better chance to follow and be accepted increasing the flow of people. Also the deportation figures under the agreement were very low indeed and the agreement works both ways. In the last few years of operating, more people were deported to the UK than out of the UK under this Dublin agreementI've seen an argument that Dublin was a deterrent for even trying. I suspect many didn't know but the removal of Dublin is being used as part of any criminal gangs grooming/conning.
Or it now makes the uk more attractive for the gangs. Who were previously targeting other countries. "It would not surprise me if criminal gangs used its ending to somehow persuade people they have a better chance of being accepted but that's just it, they are criminals and not interested in the actual truth or more to the point not telling the migrants the actual truth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I disappeared for a while. Its now much further along than when I left but if anyone wants to pick it up again feel free to direct your posts at me
You were about to pinpoint the time the Dublin agreement stopped applying to the UK I think
I defintely wasn't, I don't see how it comes into play.
You'll argue that our withdrawal from the Dublin Agreement means we can't send people back. That actually says more about the people arriving than you think."As you won't answer I ll put it in your time line. 2018 - 299 2019 - 1,843 2020 - 8,466 No longer subject to Dublin regs 2021 - 28,526 2022 - 45,755 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I disappeared for a while. Its now much further along than when I left but if anyone wants to pick it up again feel free to direct your posts at me
You were about to pinpoint the time the Dublin agreement stopped applying to the UK I think
I defintely wasn't, I don't see how it comes into play.
You'll argue that our withdrawal from the Dublin Agreement means we can't send people back. That actually says more about the people arriving than you think.
As you won't answer I ll put it in your time line.
2018 - 299
2019 - 1,843
2020 - 8,466
No longer subject to Dublin regs
2021 - 28,526
2022 - 45,755"I love how you demand an answer to your questions whilst choosing to ignore any points made. What does our withdrawal from the Dublin Agreement tell us? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. Please can you explain how these asylum processing rules work in practice. How, for example would a girl in Afghanistan apply for asylum in the UK? I can't explain, and that's exactly my point. It's been necessary to tighten asylum rules to the point where they are almost impossible to navigate. Why? Because of decades of abuse by economic migrants being exploited by criminal gangs hiding behind ECHR laws. Now we have a situation where genuine asylum seekers have no route to safety. It's the bogus asylum seekers that need to be stopped, and their criminal cronies. And opening safe routes? Provided they're not abused, but what's the difference from the previous asylum rules that had to be tightened? How are you going to stop the dinghies full of 'illegals'? Because they'll still come. How, in the past, did those safe routes operate? How were those routes abused? For as long as I can remember we had stories of people hiding in or being smuggled in by truck (remember all those Vietnamese people who died inside the truck). Those were still illegal routes. How were the safe routes exploited? We all seem to forget the migrants in Calais climbing on lorries to get over the channel, it wasn't that long ago. They fined drivers, installed equipment to detect stowaways and worked with the French authorities to more or leas wipe it out, there was a huge dip in successful crossings. Gangs changed the tactics and here we are. Simply opening up the borders to allow any one who simply likes the idea of being in the UK is not the answer and is a sure fire way of building local resistance, however not singling out the people who are really in need of help is equally as bad. There is no viable answer on the table, because there are those who want a total open border policy and those that want totally closed border. There are solutions, such as, anyone arriving without a valid from of identity will not gain entry, nothing to process means not entry. This has merit and could make a difference, however the Rwanda implementation has been divisive to deal with those who fail to meet requirements. And here we are again, going nowhere fast and bending under the strain of criminal activity, whilst genuine people are stuck in limbo... The next government can make a noise of how things will be different, but I very much doubt they will without one side or the other being very angry. We (not just you and I but the forum) have discussed this at length. I think there is great merit in the “if you have ID we will treat you fairly and be able to process you more quickly as we can establish legitimacy” but “if you have no ID we will have to assume you have no valid claim and we will treat you differently”. " That would be a reasonable requirement at the first point of contact. If we used 2022 figures approx 44000 would have failed and 1000 passed the first hurdle. That in itself is an interesting stat | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I disappeared for a while. Its now much further along than when I left but if anyone wants to pick it up again feel free to direct your posts at me
You were about to pinpoint the time the Dublin agreement stopped applying to the UK I think
I defintely wasn't, I don't see how it comes into play.
You'll argue that our withdrawal from the Dublin Agreement means we can't send people back. That actually says more about the people arriving than you think.
As you won't answer I ll put it in your time line.
2018 - 299
2019 - 1,843
2020 - 8,466
No longer subject to Dublin regs
2021 - 28,526
2022 - 45,755"Have considered lockdowns and people being held back in 2020 or does that not play into the picture you would like to paint? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I disappeared for a while. Its now much further along than when I left but if anyone wants to pick it up again feel free to direct your posts at me
You were about to pinpoint the time the Dublin agreement stopped applying to the UK I think
I defintely wasn't, I don't see how it comes into play.
You'll argue that our withdrawal from the Dublin Agreement means we can't send people back. That actually says more about the people arriving than you think.
As you won't answer I ll put it in your time line.
2018 - 299
2019 - 1,843
2020 - 8,466
No longer subject to Dublin regs
2021 - 28,526
2022 - 45,755
I love how you demand an answer to your questions whilst choosing to ignore any points made.
What does our withdrawal from the Dublin Agreement tell us?"We don't have to justify answers! you said the figures were going down so things are working earlier without citing what it is that's working | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I disappeared for a while. Its now much further along than when I left but if anyone wants to pick it up again feel free to direct your posts at me
You were about to pinpoint the time the Dublin agreement stopped applying to the UK I think
I defintely wasn't, I don't see how it comes into play.
You'll argue that our withdrawal from the Dublin Agreement means we can't send people back. That actually says more about the people arriving than you think.
As you won't answer I ll put it in your time line.
2018 - 299
2019 - 1,843
2020 - 8,466
No longer subject to Dublin regs
2021 - 28,526
2022 - 45,755
Have considered lockdowns and people being held back in 2020 or does that not play into the picture you would like to paint?"those famous 2018 and 19 lockdowns? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I disappeared for a while. Its now much further along than when I left but if anyone wants to pick it up again feel free to direct your posts at me
You were about to pinpoint the time the Dublin agreement stopped applying to the UK I think
I defintely wasn't, I don't see how it comes into play.
You'll argue that our withdrawal from the Dublin Agreement means we can't send people back. That actually says more about the people arriving than you think.
As you won't answer I ll put it in your time line.
2018 - 299
2019 - 1,843
2020 - 8,466
No longer subject to Dublin regs
2021 - 28,526
2022 - 45,755
Have considered lockdowns and people being held back in 2020 or does that not play into the picture you would like to paint? those famous 2018 and 19 lockdowns?"The probability of a steadily rising number of people illegally entering the country would be more likely had a world lockdown not interrupted the activity. Post lockdown, the need to earn and seek a better life was exponentially increased, as the figures you have provided prove. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I disappeared for a while. Its now much further along than when I left but if anyone wants to pick it up again feel free to direct your posts at me
You were about to pinpoint the time the Dublin agreement stopped applying to the UK I think
I defintely wasn't, I don't see how it comes into play.
You'll argue that our withdrawal from the Dublin Agreement means we can't send people back. That actually says more about the people arriving than you think.
As you won't answer I ll put it in your time line.
2018 - 299
2019 - 1,843
2020 - 8,466
No longer subject to Dublin regs
2021 - 28,526
2022 - 45,755
I love how you demand an answer to your questions whilst choosing to ignore any points made.
What does our withdrawal from the Dublin Agreement tell us?
We don't have to justify answers! you said the figures were going down so things are working earlier without citing what it is that's working "What is it that's working exactly? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). " Please, for the love of Christ, learn about the terms you use. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). Please, for the love of Christ, learn about the terms you use. " Oooh I do love it when a left winger try’s to educate on language and its nuances. Please do educate us about the term illegal migrant | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. Please can you explain how these asylum processing rules work in practice. How, for example would a girl in Afghanistan apply for asylum in the UK? I can't explain, and that's exactly my point. It's been necessary to tighten asylum rules to the point where they are almost impossible to navigate. Why? Because of decades of abuse by economic migrants being exploited by criminal gangs hiding behind ECHR laws. Now we have a situation where genuine asylum seekers have no route to safety. It's the bogus asylum seekers that need to be stopped, and their criminal cronies. And opening safe routes? Provided they're not abused, but what's the difference from the previous asylum rules that had to be tightened? How are you going to stop the dinghies full of 'illegals'? Because they'll still come. How, in the past, did those safe routes operate? How were those routes abused? For as long as I can remember we had stories of people hiding in or being smuggled in by truck (remember all those Vietnamese people who died inside the truck). Those were still illegal routes. How were the safe routes exploited? Because the asylum system became overloaded when thousands of bogus applicants began arriving illegally, trafficked by criminal gangs. Even if you have 'safe routes' what's to stop the illegal migrants washing up on our beaches every day of the year? We are still faced with the problems of processing thousands of unvetted (mostly) males, and then what to do with failed applicants. You got evidence for these bogus claims? 73 percent of applications were successful on the last count! Again with this stat. How do you deport some one to a countrynof origin you dont know? how do we know x per cent are Albanian etc? I'm cynical we don't know where people are from. It's like saying ten Chinese couldn't distinguish between the british and the French. " Many of the Albanians declared themselves as such. Because they thought they would be allowed Dinton the country as part of modern sl@very laws. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). Please, for the love of Christ, learn about the terms you use. " A rose would smell as sweet by any other name. You know perfectly well my meaning. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I disappeared for a while. Its now much further along than when I left but if anyone wants to pick it up again feel free to direct your posts at me
You were about to pinpoint the time the Dublin agreement stopped applying to the UK I think
I defintely wasn't, I don't see how it comes into play.
You'll argue that our withdrawal from the Dublin Agreement means we can't send people back. That actually says more about the people arriving than you think.
Nobody reads my long posts
Don’t blame them really
Anyway here is something relevant again...
“The report explains: "The UK's lack of a returns policy is the most significant pull factor for small boat journeys. Leaving the EU without a returns arrangement has meant individuals can now travel to the UK with the knowledge it is much more difficult for them to be returned post-2020 – which has not been true when the UK was in the EU pre-2020. When coupled with slow processing times for asylum applications, the UK has become easier to remain inside if and when migrants are able to get to our shores."
Is that basically what I just said?
Migrants are more than happy to get on a boat because they know we can't return them.
I defintely think that says more about those migrants than it does anyone else.
Tbf, I skipped a lot of posts, I did read then but there was so many since when I was last on."Yes it was some info to support your point  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I disappeared for a while. Its now much further along than when I left but if anyone wants to pick it up again feel free to direct your posts at me
You were about to pinpoint the time the Dublin agreement stopped applying to the UK I think
I defintely wasn't, I don't see how it comes into play.
You'll argue that our withdrawal from the Dublin Agreement means we can't send people back. That actually says more about the people arriving than you think.
As you won't answer I ll put it in your time line.
2018 - 299
2019 - 1,843
2020 - 8,466
No longer subject to Dublin regs
2021 - 28,526
2022 - 45,755
Have considered lockdowns and people being held back in 2020 or does that not play into the picture you would like to paint? those famous 2018 and 19 lockdowns?
The probability of a steadily rising number of people illegally entering the country would be more likely had a world lockdown not interrupted the activity. Post lockdown, the need to earn and seek a better life was exponentially increased, as the figures you have provided prove.
"As I put in another post 1 tries it and it works calls home. Give it a go all good. 10 try etc all get roof and food. Not saying thy should not but it will grow and grow. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). Please, for the love of Christ, learn about the terms you use. Oooh I do love it when a left winger try’s to educate on language and its nuances. Please do educate us about the term illegal migrant" I’ve explained this to you several times, but you still insist upon using incorrect terminology, so what’s the point? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). Please, for the love of Christ, learn about the terms you use. Oooh I do love it when a left winger try’s to educate on language and its nuances. Please do educate us about the term illegal migrant I’ve explained this to you several times, but you still insist upon using incorrect terminology, so what’s the point?" I do use correct terminology, unfortunately you don’t or can’t?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Oooh I do love it when a left winger try’s to educate on language and its nuances. Please do educate us about the term illegal migrant 'try’s to educate on language' ..Left wing spell check! " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Oooh I do love it when a left winger try’s to educate on language and its nuances. Please do educate us about the term illegal migrant 'try’s to educate on language' ..Left wing spell check! " Thank you, silly me! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. Please can you explain how these asylum processing rules work in practice. How, for example would a girl in Afghanistan apply for asylum in the UK? I can't explain, and that's exactly my point. It's been necessary to tighten asylum rules to the point where they are almost impossible to navigate. Why? Because of decades of abuse by economic migrants being exploited by criminal gangs hiding behind ECHR laws. Now we have a situation where genuine asylum seekers have no route to safety. It's the bogus asylum seekers that need to be stopped, and their criminal cronies. And opening safe routes? Provided they're not abused, but what's the difference from the previous asylum rules that had to be tightened? How are you going to stop the dinghies full of 'illegals'? Because they'll still come. How, in the past, did those safe routes operate? How were those routes abused? For as long as I can remember we had stories of people hiding in or being smuggled in by truck (remember all those Vietnamese people who died inside the truck). Those were still illegal routes. How were the safe routes exploited? Because the asylum system became overloaded when thousands of bogus applicants began arriving illegally, trafficked by criminal gangs. Even if you have 'safe routes' what's to stop the illegal migrants washing up on our beaches every day of the year? We are still faced with the problems of processing thousands of unvetted (mostly) males, and then what to do with failed applicants. You got evidence for these bogus claims? 73 percent of applications were successful on the last count! Again with this stat. How do you deport some one to a countrynof origin you dont know? how do we know x per cent are Albanian etc? I'm cynical we don't know where people are from. It's like saying ten Chinese couldn't distinguish between the british and the French. Many of the Albanians declared themselves as such. Because they thought they would be allowed Dinton the country as part of modern sl@very laws." albanians declared themselves as Albanian? So we do know their country of origin. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. Please can you explain how these asylum processing rules work in practice. How, for example would a girl in Afghanistan apply for asylum in the UK? I can't explain, and that's exactly my point. It's been necessary to tighten asylum rules to the point where they are almost impossible to navigate. Why? Because of decades of abuse by economic migrants being exploited by criminal gangs hiding behind ECHR laws. Now we have a situation where genuine asylum seekers have no route to safety. It's the bogus asylum seekers that need to be stopped, and their criminal cronies. And opening safe routes? Provided they're not abused, but what's the difference from the previous asylum rules that had to be tightened? How are you going to stop the dinghies full of 'illegals'? Because they'll still come. How, in the past, did those safe routes operate? How were those routes abused? For as long as I can remember we had stories of people hiding in or being smuggled in by truck (remember all those Vietnamese people who died inside the truck). Those were still illegal routes. How were the safe routes exploited? Because the asylum system became overloaded when thousands of bogus applicants began arriving illegally, trafficked by criminal gangs. Even if you have 'safe routes' what's to stop the illegal migrants washing up on our beaches every day of the year? We are still faced with the problems of processing thousands of unvetted (mostly) males, and then what to do with failed applicants. You got evidence for these bogus claims? 73 percent of applications were successful on the last count! Again with this stat. How do you deport some one to a countrynof origin you dont know? how do we know x per cent are Albanian etc? I'm cynical we don't know where people are from. It's like saying ten Chinese couldn't distinguish between the british and the French. Many of the Albanians declared themselves as such. Because they thought they would be allowed Dinton the country as part of modern sl@very laws.albanians declared themselves as Albanian? So we do know their country of origin. " Yes. They declared themselves as Albanian. This does not mean other declared themselves as afghan and were honest. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. Please can you explain how these asylum processing rules work in practice. How, for example would a girl in Afghanistan apply for asylum in the UK? I can't explain, and that's exactly my point. It's been necessary to tighten asylum rules to the point where they are almost impossible to navigate. Why? Because of decades of abuse by economic migrants being exploited by criminal gangs hiding behind ECHR laws. Now we have a situation where genuine asylum seekers have no route to safety. It's the bogus asylum seekers that need to be stopped, and their criminal cronies. And opening safe routes? Provided they're not abused, but what's the difference from the previous asylum rules that had to be tightened? How are you going to stop the dinghies full of 'illegals'? Because they'll still come. How, in the past, did those safe routes operate? How were those routes abused? For as long as I can remember we had stories of people hiding in or being smuggled in by truck (remember all those Vietnamese people who died inside the truck). Those were still illegal routes. How were the safe routes exploited? Because the asylum system became overloaded when thousands of bogus applicants began arriving illegally, trafficked by criminal gangs. Even if you have 'safe routes' what's to stop the illegal migrants washing up on our beaches every day of the year? We are still faced with the problems of processing thousands of unvetted (mostly) males, and then what to do with failed applicants. You got evidence for these bogus claims? 73 percent of applications were successful on the last count! Again with this stat. How do you deport some one to a countrynof origin you dont know? how do we know x per cent are Albanian etc? I'm cynical we don't know where people are from. It's like saying ten Chinese couldn't distinguish between the british and the French. Many of the Albanians declared themselves as such. Because they thought they would be allowed Dinton the country as part of modern sl@very laws.albanians declared themselves as Albanian? So we do know their country of origin. Yes. They declared themselves as Albanian. This does not mean other declared themselves as afghan and were honest." in which case I revert to "I'm cynical we don't know where people are from. It's like saying the Chinese couldn't distinguish between the british and the French." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. Please can you explain how these asylum processing rules work in practice. How, for example would a girl in Afghanistan apply for asylum in the UK? I can't explain, and that's exactly my point. It's been necessary to tighten asylum rules to the point where they are almost impossible to navigate. Why? Because of decades of abuse by economic migrants being exploited by criminal gangs hiding behind ECHR laws. Now we have a situation where genuine asylum seekers have no route to safety. It's the bogus asylum seekers that need to be stopped, and their criminal cronies. And opening safe routes? Provided they're not abused, but what's the difference from the previous asylum rules that had to be tightened? How are you going to stop the dinghies full of 'illegals'? Because they'll still come. How, in the past, did those safe routes operate? How were those routes abused? For as long as I can remember we had stories of people hiding in or being smuggled in by truck (remember all those Vietnamese people who died inside the truck). Those were still illegal routes. How were the safe routes exploited? Because the asylum system became overloaded when thousands of bogus applicants began arriving illegally, trafficked by criminal gangs. Even if you have 'safe routes' what's to stop the illegal migrants washing up on our beaches every day of the year? We are still faced with the problems of processing thousands of unvetted (mostly) males, and then what to do with failed applicants. You got evidence for these bogus claims? 73 percent of applications were successful on the last count! Again with this stat. How do you deport some one to a countrynof origin you dont know? how do we know x per cent are Albanian etc? I'm cynical we don't know where people are from. It's like saying ten Chinese couldn't distinguish between the british and the French. Many of the Albanians declared themselves as such. Because they thought they would be allowed Dinton the country as part of modern sl@very laws.albanians declared themselves as Albanian? So we do know their country of origin. Yes. They declared themselves as Albanian. This does not mean other declared themselves as afghan and were honest.in which case I revert to "I'm cynical we don't know where people are from. It's like saying the Chinese couldn't distinguish between the british and the French."" That is a rather a strange comparison! What are the distinguishing features of a French male and an English male? how do you tell them apart if the only answer given was Non, oui and Je ne comprends pas.. Or no, yes and I do not understand | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. Please can you explain how these asylum processing rules work in practice. How, for example would a girl in Afghanistan apply for asylum in the UK? I can't explain, and that's exactly my point. It's been necessary to tighten asylum rules to the point where they are almost impossible to navigate. Why? Because of decades of abuse by economic migrants being exploited by criminal gangs hiding behind ECHR laws. Now we have a situation where genuine asylum seekers have no route to safety. It's the bogus asylum seekers that need to be stopped, and their criminal cronies. And opening safe routes? Provided they're not abused, but what's the difference from the previous asylum rules that had to be tightened? How are you going to stop the dinghies full of 'illegals'? Because they'll still come. How, in the past, did those safe routes operate? How were those routes abused? For as long as I can remember we had stories of people hiding in or being smuggled in by truck (remember all those Vietnamese people who died inside the truck). Those were still illegal routes. How were the safe routes exploited? Because the asylum system became overloaded when thousands of bogus applicants began arriving illegally, trafficked by criminal gangs. Even if you have 'safe routes' what's to stop the illegal migrants washing up on our beaches every day of the year? We are still faced with the problems of processing thousands of unvetted (mostly) males, and then what to do with failed applicants. You got evidence for these bogus claims? 73 percent of applications were successful on the last count! Again with this stat. How do you deport some one to a countrynof origin you dont know? how do we know x per cent are Albanian etc? I'm cynical we don't know where people are from. It's like saying ten Chinese couldn't distinguish between the british and the French. Many of the Albanians declared themselves as such. Because they thought they would be allowed Dinton the country as part of modern sl@very laws.albanians declared themselves as Albanian? So we do know their country of origin. Yes. They declared themselves as Albanian. This does not mean other declared themselves as afghan and were honest.in which case I revert to "I'm cynical we don't know where people are from. It's like saying the Chinese couldn't distinguish between the british and the French." That is a rather a strange comparison! What are the distinguishing features of a French male and an English male? how do you tell them apart if the only answer given was Non, oui and Je ne comprends pas.. Or no, yes and I do not understand " "Pour quel motif demandez-vous l'asile" Its not a police interview. We take years to process a case (and one assumes they are pleasing a case to stay). If you can't work out the difference between nationalities in that time, you may need to revisit careers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"" It's like saying the Chinese couldn't distinguish between the british and the French." That is a rather a strange comparison! What are the distinguishing features of a French male and an English male? how do you tell them apart if the only answer given was Non, oui and Je ne comprends pas.. Or no, yes and I do not understand " A smart Chinese would know that unlike when an Englishman uses 'I' anywhere in a sentence, a Frenchman only capitalises 'je' at the beginning of one!" It would indeed be a very smart Chinese person to notice how a French male writes their words, from how they speak. I think you are trying to balance the score, trust me you wont wait long for that opportunity, so best not to be hungry ... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These are tragic events that should not be occurring. For me, the main culprits are the French who've allowed migrants to trek across their country and pitch-up at Calais waiting to be smuggled across the channel. They could, and should, have done far more to stem the flow. We've even had to resort to paying them to graciously police their borders. So much for EU co-operation! At least Braverman is trying to do something. But our government's hands are tied by ECHR laws and French inaction. Braverman is waisting time on things that will never work Rwanda hasn't worked and has cost 140m plus, these barges won't work, people aren't being processed and the barges will end up being a waste of time to. Blaming the French and ECHR is frankly idiotic and doesn't help as we have no realistic control of either unless you actually want to leave the ECHR because of this which is like burning down your house because you don't like a patch of carpet. So what will work then? We've been sitting around gormlessly for decades watching our borders being violated by illegal migrants (not asylum seekers). There comes a point when the talking has to stop and the doing has to start. The truth about the French, is that they turn a blind eye, and are happy to shunt migrants across the channel to become the UK's problem. It's naïve to think otherwise. Opening safe routes and actually processing applications if you are talking about the small boats Actually we have asylum processing rules. But they have been abused for decades - exploited by economic migrants and criminals who then hide behind the ECHR. Our asylum rules should be championing those poor girls in Afghanistan who are denied basic human rights. Instead we are getting hardened Albanian criminals roaming our streets. Please can you explain how these asylum processing rules work in practice. How, for example would a girl in Afghanistan apply for asylum in the UK? I can't explain, and that's exactly my point. It's been necessary to tighten asylum rules to the point where they are almost impossible to navigate. Why? Because of decades of abuse by economic migrants being exploited by criminal gangs hiding behind ECHR laws. Now we have a situation where genuine asylum seekers have no route to safety. It's the bogus asylum seekers that need to be stopped, and their criminal cronies. And opening safe routes? Provided they're not abused, but what's the difference from the previous asylum rules that had to be tightened? How are you going to stop the dinghies full of 'illegals'? Because they'll still come. How, in the past, did those safe routes operate? How were those routes abused? For as long as I can remember we had stories of people hiding in or being smuggled in by truck (remember all those Vietnamese people who died inside the truck). Those were still illegal routes. How were the safe routes exploited? Because the asylum system became overloaded when thousands of bogus applicants began arriving illegally, trafficked by criminal gangs. Even if you have 'safe routes' what's to stop the illegal migrants washing up on our beaches every day of the year? We are still faced with the problems of processing thousands of unvetted (mostly) males, and then what to do with failed applicants. You got evidence for these bogus claims? 73 percent of applications were successful on the last count! Again with this stat. How do you deport some one to a countrynof origin you dont know? how do we know x per cent are Albanian etc? I'm cynical we don't know where people are from. It's like saying ten Chinese couldn't distinguish between the british and the French. Many of the Albanians declared themselves as such. Because they thought they would be allowed Dinton the country as part of modern sl@very laws.albanians declared themselves as Albanian? So we do know their country of origin. Yes. They declared themselves as Albanian. This does not mean other declared themselves as afghan and were honest.in which case I revert to "I'm cynical we don't know where people are from. It's like saying the Chinese couldn't distinguish between the british and the French." That is a rather a strange comparison! What are the distinguishing features of a French male and an English male? how do you tell them apart if the only answer given was Non, oui and Je ne comprends pas.. Or no, yes and I do not understand "Pour quel motif demandez-vous l'asile" Its not a police interview. We take years to process a case (and one assumes they are pleasing a case to stay). If you can't work out the difference between nationalities in that time, you may need to revisit careers." I think you're applying a logic that is not apparent in the real world. The game is loaded in favour of those who are playing the system. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
