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 |
"French efforts were branded "dismal" and "disappointing" after it emerged less than half of Channel migrants have been intercepted so far this year despite a £480million deal with Britain to stop crossings. Official figures show that 13,759 migrants - or 45.2 per cent - have been stopped by the French since January. The total is down from 17,032 - 45.8 per cent - over the same period last year https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1803517/france-channel-migrants-small-boats" ‘Blame the French’ shout the tories. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"French efforts were branded "dismal" and "disappointing" after it emerged less than half of Channel migrants have been intercepted so far this year despite a £480million deal with Britain to stop crossings. Official figures show that 13,759 migrants - or 45.2 per cent - have been stopped by the French since January. The total is down from 17,032 - 45.8 per cent - over the same period last year https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1803517/france-channel-migrants-small-boats" "‘Blame the French’ shout the tories. " If we've paid the French some money and set targets, and the French have failed to meet those targets, then yes, blame the French. If, on the other hand, we forked over the money and didn't set any performance targets, there might be other people to blame. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"French efforts were branded "dismal" and "disappointing" after it emerged less than half of Channel migrants have been intercepted so far this year despite a £480million deal with Britain to stop crossings. Official figures show that 13,759 migrants - or 45.2 per cent - have been stopped by the French since January. The total is down from 17,032 - 45.8 per cent - over the same period last year https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1803517/france-channel-migrants-small-boats ‘Blame the French’ shout the tories. If we've paid the French some money and set targets, and the French have failed to meet those targets, then yes, blame the French. If, on the other hand, we forked over the money and didn't set any performance targets, there might be other people to blame." It's from the Daily Express, so zero responsibility lies with the Tories. 100% of the fault is with French/foreigners regardless of the reality of the situation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That sounds like a good investment, it could be better in terms of performance but overall it should be saving money?? " Spunking 100s of millions on a pointless scheme, "French", "immigrants". It's like an AI created the perfect Daily Express article. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"French efforts were branded "dismal" and "disappointing" after it emerged less than half of Channel migrants have been intercepted so far this year despite a £480million deal with Britain to stop crossings. Official figures show that 13,759 migrants - or 45.2 per cent - have been stopped by the French since January. The total is down from 17,032 - 45.8 per cent - over the same period last year https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1803517/france-channel-migrants-small-boats" It is a European problem not a French problem. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We could of course slash these numbers by opening safe routes and having an efficient asylum process. " all the European countries need asylum office's in Italy and Greece so they can procces the asylum claims quickly.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That sounds like a good investment, it could be better in terms of performance but overall it should be saving money?? " It does sound reasonable on the surface but if the percentage stopped has actually gone down from the same time last year after increasing funding then I'm not so sure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That sounds like a good investment, it could be better in terms of performance but overall it should be saving money?? " Over 100m a year should stop all boat crossings. They could ltierally post a look out every 100m on the beach to stab the dinghy so it can't be out to see and have changebleft over. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That sounds like a good investment, it could be better in terms of performance but overall it should be saving money?? Over 100m a year should stop all boat crossings. They could ltierally post a look out every 100m on the beach to stab the dinghy so it can't be out to see and have changebleft over." if I were the French if give us the powers to allow dinghy popping on their beaches. Would have to oat a decent amount to avoid the temptations of bribes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That sounds like a good investment, it could be better in terms of performance but overall it should be saving money?? Over 100m a year should stop all boat crossings. They could ltierally post a look out every 100m on the beach to stab the dinghy so it can't be out to see and have changebleft over.if I were the French if give us the powers to allow dinghy popping on their beaches. Would have to oat a decent amount to avoid the temptations of bribes. " Or we could help out fellow humans. Instead of paying money to fuck them over. Radical idea. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That sounds like a good investment, it could be better in terms of performance but overall it should be saving money?? Over 100m a year should stop all boat crossings. They could ltierally post a look out every 100m on the beach to stab the dinghy so it can't be out to see and have changebleft over.if I were the French if give us the powers to allow dinghy popping on their beaches. Would have to oat a decent amount to avoid the temptations of bribes. Or we could help out fellow humans. Instead of paying money to fuck them over. Radical idea. " ********************************** We're paying money to help to prevent these people from drowning, by stopping them launching in the first place. It seems to me the French police are "f*****g them over" by allowing this to happen every so often...... Let's be right, what....? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That sounds like a good investment, it could be better in terms of performance but overall it should be saving money?? Over 100m a year should stop all boat crossings. They could ltierally post a look out every 100m on the beach to stab the dinghy so it can't be out to see and have changebleft over.if I were the French if give us the powers to allow dinghy popping on their beaches. Would have to oat a decent amount to avoid the temptations of bribes. Or we could help out fellow humans. Instead of paying money to fuck them over. Radical idea. " Do you not consider stopping the illegal boat crossings as helping out all our fellow humans? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That sounds like a good investment, it could be better in terms of performance but overall it should be saving money?? Over 100m a year should stop all boat crossings. They could ltierally post a look out every 100m on the beach to stab the dinghy so it can't be out to see and have changebleft over.if I were the French if give us the powers to allow dinghy popping on their beaches. Would have to oat a decent amount to avoid the temptations of bribes. Or we could help out fellow humans. Instead of paying money to fuck them over. Radical idea. Do you not consider stopping the illegal boat crossings as helping out all our fellow humans?" *********************************** No, I think certain people will see it as another flimsy excuse to bash the government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That sounds like a good investment, it could be better in terms of performance but overall it should be saving money?? Over 100m a year should stop all boat crossings. They could ltierally post a look out every 100m on the beach to stab the dinghy so it can't be out to see and have changebleft over.if I were the French if give us the powers to allow dinghy popping on their beaches. Would have to oat a decent amount to avoid the temptations of bribes. Or we could help out fellow humans. Instead of paying money to fuck them over. Radical idea. Do you not consider stopping the illegal boat crossings as helping out all our fellow humans?" These people don't see it that way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Would it be silly of me to suggest targeting the gangs instead of humans afloat in unsuitable craft in one of the world's busiest shipping lanes? " This is far to radical. Let's just blame the people in the boats for everything. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Would it be silly of me to suggest targeting the gangs instead of humans afloat in unsuitable craft in one of the world's busiest shipping lanes? This is far to radical. Let's just blame the people in the boats for everything. "^********************************* See...? There you go again. Just who is "blaming the people in the boats for everything", and how are they being "blamed"...?? You really ought to stop and think before posting, that's a 'radical thought'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Would it be silly of me to suggest targeting the gangs instead of humans afloat in unsuitable craft in one of the world's busiest shipping lanes? This is far to radical. Let's just blame the people in the boats for everything.
^*********************************
See...? There you go again.
Just who is "blaming the people in the boats for everything", and how are they being "blamed"...??
You really ought to stop and think before posting, that's a 'radical thought'.""But as always we are the mugs paying £millions whilst our hospitals, schools, roads crumble." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That sounds like a good investment, it could be better in terms of performance but overall it should be saving money?? Over 100m a year should stop all boat crossings. They could ltierally post a look out every 100m on the beach to stab the dinghy so it can't be out to see and have changebleft over.if I were the French if give us the powers to allow dinghy popping on their beaches. Would have to oat a decent amount to avoid the temptations of bribes. Or we could help out fellow humans. Instead of paying money to fuck them over. Radical idea. " . We are simply trying to stop people entering the country illegally. No one should be turning a blind eye to those who break the law. Economic migrants are taking advantage of those in genuine need. In France only 25 % of asylum claims are accepted in the UK it ie 75 % What checks are done to ensure that those who are refused asylum are deported. The government and Sue Braverman are trying to create a fairer society for everyone and prevent economic migrants taking advantage of our generousity . 66 % of the population agree with her policy , those who disagree are in the minority. We need to do an investigation into what happens to those who are refused asylum. Do they simply dissappear ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Would it be silly of me to suggest targeting the gangs instead of humans afloat in unsuitable craft in one of the world's busiest shipping lanes? This is far to radical. Let's just blame the people in the boats for everything.
^*********************************
See...? There you go again.
Just who is "blaming the people in the boats for everything", and how are they being "blamed"...??
You really ought to stop and think before posting, that's a 'radical thought'.
"But as always we are the mugs paying £millions whilst our hospitals, schools, roads crumble.""*********************************** So, this is your answer to my question to you? Your 'arguments' are quite intolerable and completely puerile. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That sounds like a good investment, it could be better in terms of performance but overall it should be saving money?? Over 100m a year should stop all boat crossings. They could ltierally post a look out every 100m on the beach to stab the dinghy so it can't be out to see and have changebleft over.if I were the French if give us the powers to allow dinghy popping on their beaches. Would have to oat a decent amount to avoid the temptations of bribes. Or we could help out fellow humans. Instead of paying money to fuck them over. Radical idea. . We are simply trying to stop people entering the country illegally. No one should be turning a blind eye to those who break the law. Economic migrants are taking advantage of those in genuine need. In France only 25 % of asylum claims are accepted in the UK it ie 75 % What checks are done to ensure that those who are refused asylum are deported. The government and Sue Braverman are trying to create a fairer society for everyone and prevent economic migrants taking advantage of our generousity . 66 % of the population agree with her policy , those who disagree are in the minority. We need to do an investigation into what happens to those who are refused asylum. Do they simply dissappear ? " Brutal trolling.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Would it be silly of me to suggest targeting the gangs instead of humans afloat in unsuitable craft in one of the world's busiest shipping lanes? This is far to radical. Let's just blame the people in the boats for everything.
^*********************************
See...? There you go again.
Just who is "blaming the people in the boats for everything", and how are they being "blamed"...??
You really ought to stop and think before posting, that's a 'radical thought'.
"But as always we are the mugs paying £millions whilst our hospitals, schools, roads crumble.""That statement doesn't blame migrants for anything  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That sounds like a good investment, it could be better in terms of performance but overall it should be saving money?? Over 100m a year should stop all boat crossings. They could ltierally post a look out every 100m on the beach to stab the dinghy so it can't be out to see and have changebleft over.if I were the French if give us the powers to allow dinghy popping on their beaches. Would have to oat a decent amount to avoid the temptations of bribes. Or we could help out fellow humans. Instead of paying money to fuck them over. Radical idea. . We are simply trying to stop people entering the country illegally. No one should be turning a blind eye to those who break the law. Economic migrants are taking advantage of those in genuine need. In France only 25 % of asylum claims are accepted in the UK it ie 75 % What checks are done to ensure that those who are refused asylum are deported. The government and Sue Braverman are trying to create a fairer society for everyone and prevent economic migrants taking advantage of our generousity . 66 % of the population agree with her policy , those who disagree are in the minority. We need to do an investigation into what happens to those who are refused asylum. Do they simply dissappear ? " No they carry on in their journey to Blackpool to get people trafficked to the isle of man by a couple of grand dingie ride. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Would it be silly of me to suggest targeting the gangs instead of humans afloat in unsuitable craft in one of the world's busiest shipping lanes? This is far to radical. Let's just blame the people in the boats for everything.
^*********************************
See...? There you go again.
Just who is "blaming the people in the boats for everything", and how are they being "blamed"...??
You really ought to stop and think before posting, that's a 'radical thought'.
"But as always we are the mugs paying £millions whilst our hospitals, schools, roads crumble."
That statement doesn't blame migrants for anything "******************************** I agree. Quite obvious to a clear thinking person of any party. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was reading about the Mediterranean crossings, there have been some awful disasters recently. 2 items stood out in the report, the people crossing the Med were a mix of men, women and children and the country they were leaving from had changed from Libya to Tunisia. I was puzzled, by the broad mix of people making the journey, it is very rare to see women and children cross the Channel. It begs the question, why are women and children not crossing the Channel? The Med is a far more dangerous crossing. The move from Libya to Tunisia happened because of hostility and pressure that some think the EU are funding in Libya, along with Italy and Greece now physically blocking vessels or impounding vessels that attempt to pick up the migrants in the Med." about a quarter of the boat entries (since 2018) have been female or kids. That said, I suspect there are two reasons... 1) channel crosses include those groomed/conned/etc into thinking they will be able to claim asylum here. 2) those crossing the med are fleeing from immediate danger. They aren't just crossing because that's the only option they have to claim asylum in the country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That sounds like a good investment, it could be better in terms of performance but overall it should be saving money?? Over 100m a year should stop all boat crossings. They could ltierally post a look out every 100m on the beach to stab the dinghy so it can't be out to see and have changebleft over.if I were the French if give us the powers to allow dinghy popping on their beaches. Would have to oat a decent amount to avoid the temptations of bribes. Or we could help out fellow humans. Instead of paying money to fuck them over. Radical idea. Do you not consider stopping the illegal boat crossings as helping out all our fellow humans?" Safe routes would be a far more beneficial and reliable means of doing so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That sounds like a good investment, it could be better in terms of performance but overall it should be saving money?? Over 100m a year should stop all boat crossings. They could ltierally post a look out every 100m on the beach to stab the dinghy so it can't be out to see and have changebleft over.if I were the French if give us the powers to allow dinghy popping on their beaches. Would have to oat a decent amount to avoid the temptations of bribes. Or we could help out fellow humans. Instead of paying money to fuck them over. Radical idea. Do you not consider stopping the illegal boat crossings as helping out all our fellow humans? Safe routes would be a far more beneficial and reliable means of doing so. " How will it stop the illegal crossings? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That sounds like a good investment, it could be better in terms of performance but overall it should be saving money?? Over 100m a year should stop all boat crossings. They could ltierally post a look out every 100m on the beach to stab the dinghy so it can't be out to see and have changebleft over.if I were the French if give us the powers to allow dinghy popping on their beaches. Would have to oat a decent amount to avoid the temptations of bribes. Or we could help out fellow humans. Instead of paying money to fuck them over. Radical idea. Do you not consider stopping the illegal boat crossings as helping out all our fellow humans? Safe routes would be a far more beneficial and reliable means of doing so. How will it stop the illegal crossings?" It would dramatically reduce them, because those seeking asylum would have a legal and safe means of doing so rather than relying on dubious ones. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We could of course slash these numbers by opening safe routes and having an efficient asylum process. " Stop making sense, we need performative culture wars not worthwhile policies that might work | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That sounds like a good investment, it could be better in terms of performance but overall it should be saving money?? Over 100m a year should stop all boat crossings. They could ltierally post a look out every 100m on the beach to stab the dinghy so it can't be out to see and have changebleft over.if I were the French if give us the powers to allow dinghy popping on their beaches. Would have to oat a decent amount to avoid the temptations of bribes. Or we could help out fellow humans. Instead of paying money to fuck them over. Radical idea. Do you not consider stopping the illegal boat crossings as helping out all our fellow humans? Safe routes would be a far more beneficial and reliable means of doing so. How will it stop the illegal crossings? It would dramatically reduce them, because those seeking asylum would have a legal and safe means of doing so rather than relying on dubious ones." assumption or ill informed? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That sounds like a good investment, it could be better in terms of performance but overall it should be saving money?? Over 100m a year should stop all boat crossings. They could ltierally post a look out every 100m on the beach to stab the dinghy so it can't be out to see and have changebleft over.if I were the French if give us the powers to allow dinghy popping on their beaches. Would have to oat a decent amount to avoid the temptations of bribes. Or we could help out fellow humans. Instead of paying money to fuck them over. Radical idea. Do you not consider stopping the illegal boat crossings as helping out all our fellow humans? Safe routes would be a far more beneficial and reliable means of doing so. How will it stop the illegal crossings? It would dramatically reduce them, because those seeking asylum would have a legal and safe means of doing so rather than relying on dubious ones. assumption or ill informed?" Basic common sense. Though you could also check out amnesty or someone else who has done great work on the subject before dismissing it out of hand because you don’t understand. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Safe routes would be a far more beneficial and reliable means of doing so." "How will it stop the illegal crossings?" "It would dramatically reduce them, because those seeking asylum would have a legal and safe means of doing so rather than relying on dubious ones." "assumption or ill informed?" "Basic common sense. Though you could also check out amnesty or someone else who has done great work on the subject before dismissing it out of hand because you don’t understand." So do you expect these safe routes to just accept anyone that applies? If not, do you think those rejected will simply give up on their plan to get to the UK? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Safe routes would be a far more beneficial and reliable means of doing so. How will it stop the illegal crossings? It would dramatically reduce them, because those seeking asylum would have a legal and safe means of doing so rather than relying on dubious ones. assumption or ill informed? Basic common sense. Though you could also check out amnesty or someone else who has done great work on the subject before dismissing it out of hand because you don’t understand. So do you expect these safe routes to just accept anyone that applies? If not, do you think those rejected will simply give up on their plan to get to the UK?" Yes, safe routes would be available for anyone seeking to get to the U.K. - coupled with an effective asylum system, they would dramatically slash the small boat crossings. Safer for asylum seekers and damaging to people smugglers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So do you expect these safe routes to just accept anyone that applies? If not, do you think those rejected will simply give up on their plan to get to the UK?" "Yes, safe routes would be available for anyone seeking to get to the U.K. - coupled with an effective asylum system, they would dramatically slash the small boat crossings. Safer for asylum seekers and damaging to people smugglers. " I'm not talking about who the routes would be available to, I'm asking how many of the applicants would be accepted for asylum in the UK. Do you expect the safe route to accept all applications made to it, or do you think some will be rejected? If some are rejected, what do you think those people will then do? Will they give up on trying to reach the UK, or will they find another way to get here? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So do you expect these safe routes to just accept anyone that applies? If not, do you think those rejected will simply give up on their plan to get to the UK? Yes, safe routes would be available for anyone seeking to get to the U.K. - coupled with an effective asylum system, they would dramatically slash the small boat crossings. Safer for asylum seekers and damaging to people smugglers. I'm not talking about who the routes would be available to, I'm asking how many of the applicants would be accepted for asylum in the UK. Do you expect the safe route to accept all applications made to it, or do you think some will be rejected? If some are rejected, what do you think those people will then do? Will they give up on trying to reach the UK, or will they find another way to get here?" if we assume 80pc acceptance this approach has slashed crossings by 80pc. How many of the remaining 20pc will cross knowing any attempt to claim asylum will fail? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So do you expect these safe routes to just accept anyone that applies? If not, do you think those rejected will simply give up on their plan to get to the UK? Yes, safe routes would be available for anyone seeking to get to the U.K. - coupled with an effective asylum system, they would dramatically slash the small boat crossings. Safer for asylum seekers and damaging to people smugglers. I'm not talking about who the routes would be available to, I'm asking how many of the applicants would be accepted for asylum in the UK. Do you expect the safe route to accept all applications made to it, or do you think some will be rejected? If some are rejected, what do you think those people will then do? Will they give up on trying to reach the UK, or will they find another way to get here?" If they’re rejected then they wouldn’t be suitable for repeat attempts and would be deported. What they do then would depend upon them as individuals - would some attempt to get here illegally? Probably yes, but knowing that they have a failed asylum case in their name already would very likely act as an additional deterrent. The reality is that we’ll never stop the crossings entirely, but we could dramatically limit them and save lives with surprising ease if the govt. wanted to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So do you expect these safe routes to just accept anyone that applies? If not, do you think those rejected will simply give up on their plan to get to the UK? Yes, safe routes would be available for anyone seeking to get to the U.K. - coupled with an effective asylum system, they would dramatically slash the small boat crossings. Safer for asylum seekers and damaging to people smugglers. I'm not talking about who the routes would be available to, I'm asking how many of the applicants would be accepted for asylum in the UK. Do you expect the safe route to accept all applications made to it, or do you think some will be rejected? If some are rejected, what do you think those people will then do? Will they give up on trying to reach the UK, or will they find another way to get here? If they’re rejected then they wouldn’t be suitable for repeat attempts and would be deported. What they do then would depend upon them as individuals - would some attempt to get here illegally? Probably yes, but knowing that they have a failed asylum case in their name already would very likely act as an additional deterrent. The reality is that we’ll never stop the crossings entirely, but we could dramatically limit them and save lives with surprising ease if the govt. wanted to. " ********************************** "Save lives with surprising ease" Well, I never. I think you're on to something there, why not write to your local M.P. and suggest it....? Who knows, you may well be recognised for your inventiveness. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So do you expect these safe routes to just accept anyone that applies? If not, do you think those rejected will simply give up on their plan to get to the UK? Yes, safe routes would be available for anyone seeking to get to the U.K. - coupled with an effective asylum system, they would dramatically slash the small boat crossings. Safer for asylum seekers and damaging to people smugglers. I'm not talking about who the routes would be available to, I'm asking how many of the applicants would be accepted for asylum in the UK. Do you expect the safe route to accept all applications made to it, or do you think some will be rejected? If some are rejected, what do you think those people will then do? Will they give up on trying to reach the UK, or will they find another way to get here?if we assume 80pc acceptance this approach has slashed crossings by 80pc. How many of the remaining 20pc will cross knowing any attempt to claim asylum will fail? " 80% would be nowhere near the number of crossings slashed. If you want to make an assumption, base it on 98% of people arriving in small boats have no documents to prove who they are. The process is then delayed, not by the fault of the UK but by the time it takes to try and establish identities, after all we do expect some diligence to be applied. How many of those who ditch their documents would appear at a safe route for their ID to be taken, preventing them from entering via small boat if their request was rejected at the safe route? The idea safe routes are the answer to everything is a soundbite, as is the time it takes to process. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So do you expect these safe routes to just accept anyone that applies? If not, do you think those rejected will simply give up on their plan to get to the UK? Yes, safe routes would be available for anyone seeking to get to the U.K. - coupled with an effective asylum system, they would dramatically slash the small boat crossings. Safer for asylum seekers and damaging to people smugglers. I'm not talking about who the routes would be available to, I'm asking how many of the applicants would be accepted for asylum in the UK. Do you expect the safe route to accept all applications made to it, or do you think some will be rejected? If some are rejected, what do you think those people will then do? Will they give up on trying to reach the UK, or will they find another way to get here?if we assume 80pc acceptance this approach has slashed crossings by 80pc. How many of the remaining 20pc will cross knowing any attempt to claim asylum will fail? " Do you mean before being admitted to the safe route, their application would be processed in France and only when fully accepted they start the safe crossing to the UK? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If they’re rejected then they wouldn’t be suitable for repeat attempts and would be deported. What they do then would depend upon them as individuals - would some attempt to get here illegally? Probably yes, but knowing that they have a failed asylum case in their name already would very likely act as an additional deterrent." But where would these people stay while their applications are being considered? If we had an asylum centre in, say France, and it took 6 months to consider their case, then they wouldn't be eligible for asylum, having proven that they've spent the past 6 months in France and are therefore not coming from a dangerous country. "The reality is that we’ll never stop the crossings entirely, but we could dramatically limit them and save lives with surprising ease if the govt. wanted to. " Do you know what really could stop the crossings? The EU could accept that any small boat coming ashore in the UK must have set off from an EU country. If they simply agreed to take them all back, the crossings could be stopped almost overnight. Why do you think that the EU are not offering that sort of agreement? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So do you expect these safe routes to just accept anyone that applies? If not, do you think those rejected will simply give up on their plan to get to the UK? Yes, safe routes would be available for anyone seeking to get to the U.K. - coupled with an effective asylum system, they would dramatically slash the small boat crossings. Safer for asylum seekers and damaging to people smugglers. I'm not talking about who the routes would be available to, I'm asking how many of the applicants would be accepted for asylum in the UK. Do you expect the safe route to accept all applications made to it, or do you think some will be rejected? If some are rejected, what do you think those people will then do? Will they give up on trying to reach the UK, or will they find another way to get here?if we assume 80pc acceptance this approach has slashed crossings by 80pc. How many of the remaining 20pc will cross knowing any attempt to claim asylum will fail? 80% would be nowhere near the number of crossings slashed. If you want to make an assumption, base it on 98% of people arriving in small boats have no documents to prove who they are. The process is then delayed, not by the fault of the UK but by the time it takes to try and establish identities, after all we do expect some diligence to be applied. How many of those who ditch their documents would appear at a safe route for their ID to be taken, preventing them from entering via small boat if their request was rejected at the safe route? The idea safe routes are the answer to everything is a soundbite, as is the time it takes to process. " 80pc is about the success rate for asylum seekers. If processed via this new safe route we can get fingerprints etc so wed know they have made an attempt before. I'm assuming that's your ID point rather than just playing immigration bingo. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Do you know what really could stop the crossings? The EU could accept that any small boat coming ashore in the UK must have set off from an EU country. If they simply agreed to take them all back, the crossings could be stopped almost overnight. Why do you think that the EU are not offering that sort of agreement?" Maybe because we insisted upon cutting ties with them… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So do you expect these safe routes to just accept anyone that applies? If not, do you think those rejected will simply give up on their plan to get to the UK? Yes, safe routes would be available for anyone seeking to get to the U.K. - coupled with an effective asylum system, they would dramatically slash the small boat crossings. Safer for asylum seekers and damaging to people smugglers. I'm not talking about who the routes would be available to, I'm asking how many of the applicants would be accepted for asylum in the UK. Do you expect the safe route to accept all applications made to it, or do you think some will be rejected? If some are rejected, what do you think those people will then do? Will they give up on trying to reach the UK, or will they find another way to get here? If they’re rejected then they wouldn’t be suitable for repeat attempts and would be deported. What they do then would depend upon them as individuals - would some attempt to get here illegally? Probably yes, but knowing that they have a failed asylum case in their name already would very likely act as an additional deterrent. The reality is that we’ll never stop the crossings entirely, but we could dramatically limit them and save lives with surprising ease if the govt. wanted to. ********************************** "Save lives with surprising ease" Well, I never. I think you're on to something there, why not write to your local M.P. and suggest it....? Who knows, you may well be recognised for your inventiveness. " Because my MP is a useless waste of space who never bothered to engage on the several occasions when I wrote to him with my concerns about Brexit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If they’re rejected then they wouldn’t be suitable for repeat attempts and would be deported. What they do then would depend upon them as individuals - would some attempt to get here illegally? Probably yes, but knowing that they have a failed asylum case in their name already would very likely act as an additional deterrent. But where would these people stay while their applications are being considered? If we had an asylum centre in, say France, and it took 6 months to consider their case, then they wouldn't be eligible for asylum, having proven that they've spent the past 6 months in France and are therefore not coming from a dangerous country. The reality is that we’ll never stop the crossings entirely, but we could dramatically limit them and save lives with surprising ease if the govt. wanted to. Do you know what really could stop the crossings? The EU could accept that any small boat coming ashore in the UK must have set off from an EU country. If they simply agreed to take them all back, the crossings could be stopped almost overnight. Why do you think that the EU are not offering that sort of agreement?" So how would that work for a boat that lands between Hastings and Eastbourne and they all get out and just run for it and yes have seen it happen they where gone before any services where there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".Do you know what really could stop the crossings? The EU could accept that any small boat coming ashore in the UK must have set off from an EU country. If they simply agreed to take them all back, the crossings could be stopped almost overnight. Why do you think that the EU are not offering that sort of agreement?" "Maybe because we insisted upon cutting ties with them…" Really? People are dying in the channel, and the EU won't do anything to stop it because we're not friends any more? Do you think that they aren't helping just to spite us? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you know what really could stop the crossings? The EU could accept that any small boat coming ashore in the UK must have set off from an EU country. If they simply agreed to take them all back, the crossings could be stopped almost overnight." "So how would that work for a boat that lands between Hastings and Eastbourne and they all get out and just run for it and yes have seen it happen they where gone before any services where there." Obviously, if people aren't contained, they can't be deported. But if they came to the attention of the authorities at a later date, and couldn't account for how they got here, they could be shipped back to Europe. If we had such an agreement, we could be a lot more proactive about intercepting boats in the channel, and taking them directly back to France. That would save everyone a lot of risk, effort, and expense. It wouldn't be long before people realised that the crossing just wasn't worth it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".Do you know what really could stop the crossings? The EU could accept that any small boat coming ashore in the UK must have set off from an EU country. If they simply agreed to take them all back, the crossings could be stopped almost overnight. Why do you think that the EU are not offering that sort of agreement? Maybe because we insisted upon cutting ties with them… Really? People are dying in the channel, and the EU won't do anything to stop it because we're not friends any more? Do you think that they aren't helping just to spite us?" I don’t think ‘The EU’ are a single entity who decide what sovereign nation members do, as it happens. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".Do you know what really could stop the crossings? The EU could accept that any small boat coming ashore in the UK must have set off from an EU country. If they simply agreed to take them all back, the crossings could be stopped almost overnight. Why do you think that the EU are not offering that sort of agreement?" "Maybe because we insisted upon cutting ties with them…" "Really? People are dying in the channel, and the EU won't do anything to stop it because we're not friends any more? Do you think that they aren't helping just to spite us?" "I don’t think ‘The EU’ are a single entity who decide what sovereign nation members do, as it happens." You don't? Not heard of the 'Dublin' agreement' then? But let's assume that you're right. Why aren't France offering such an agreement to stop all the deaths in the channel? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".Do you know what really could stop the crossings? The EU could accept that any small boat coming ashore in the UK must have set off from an EU country. If they simply agreed to take them all back, the crossings could be stopped almost overnight. Why do you think that the EU are not offering that sort of agreement? Maybe because we insisted upon cutting ties with them… Really? People are dying in the channel, and the EU won't do anything to stop it because we're not friends any more? Do you think that they aren't helping just to spite us? I don’t think ‘The EU’ are a single entity who decide what sovereign nation members do, as it happens. You don't? Not heard of the 'Dublin' agreement' then? But let's assume that you're right. Why aren't France offering such an agreement to stop all the deaths in the channel?" Of course I’ve heard of the Dublin Agreement. That’s in part why we’re seeing such a large number of boat crossings since we left the EU. Another Brexit benefit. And in the second part of your list we’re back to ‘blame the French’ like a Daily Express subscriber, which is exactly where the thread started. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".Do you know what really could stop the crossings? The EU could accept that any small boat coming ashore in the UK must have set off from an EU country. If they simply agreed to take them all back, the crossings could be stopped almost overnight. Why do you think that the EU are not offering that sort of agreement? Maybe because we insisted upon cutting ties with them… Really? People are dying in the channel, and the EU won't do anything to stop it because we're not friends any more? Do you think that they aren't helping just to spite us? I don’t think ‘The EU’ are a single entity who decide what sovereign nation members do, as it happens. You don't? Not heard of the 'Dublin' agreement' then? But let's assume that you're right. Why aren't France offering such an agreement to stop all the deaths in the channel? Of course I’ve heard of the Dublin Agreement. That’s in part why we’re seeing such a large number of boat crossings since we left the EU. Another Brexit benefit. And in the second part of your list we’re back to ‘blame the French’ like a Daily Express subscriber, which is exactly where the thread started. " He didn't 'blame the French', that sounds more like your headline than his. He asked why wouldn't France (or the EU, dependant on which card you wanna play) offer such an agreement. Apparently, according to you its because we cut ties with them. That reads as, instead of caring about the welfare of humans, the French (or the EU) are more interested in 'taking their ball home'. It's a bizarre way to look at it, I genuinely don't believe you actually think that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".Do you know what really could stop the crossings? The EU could accept that any small boat coming ashore in the UK must have set off from an EU country. If they simply agreed to take them all back, the crossings could be stopped almost overnight. Why do you think that the EU are not offering that sort of agreement? Maybe because we insisted upon cutting ties with them… Really? People are dying in the channel, and the EU won't do anything to stop it because we're not friends any more? Do you think that they aren't helping just to spite us? I don’t think ‘The EU’ are a single entity who decide what sovereign nation members do, as it happens. You don't? Not heard of the 'Dublin' agreement' then? But let's assume that you're right. Why aren't France offering such an agreement to stop all the deaths in the channel?" I think there was a story not so long ago which said the the UK wanted to open talks with France to come to a deal on the return of asylum seekers like they recently done with Albania. France could not proceed with these proposed talks as it is an EU matter not a French matter. Did not see the whole article so may have been other mitigating factors | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".Do you know what really could stop the crossings? The EU could accept that any small boat coming ashore in the UK must have set off from an EU country. If they simply agreed to take them all back, the crossings could be stopped almost overnight. Why do you think that the EU are not offering that sort of agreement?" "Maybe because we insisted upon cutting ties with them…" "Really? People are dying in the channel, and the EU won't do anything to stop it because we're not friends any more? Do you think that they aren't helping just to spite us?" "I don’t think ‘The EU’ are a single entity who decide what sovereign nation members do, as it happens." "You don't? Not heard of the 'Dublin' agreement' then?" "Of course I’ve heard of the Dublin Agreement. That’s in part why we’re seeing such a large number of boat crossings since we left the EU. Another Brexit benefit." So you do agree then that the EU does actually set laws for its member countries, and that those laws cover immigration rules. Because that's what the Dublin agreement is, an EU ruling that member countries must abide by. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".Do you know what really could stop the crossings? The EU could accept that any small boat coming ashore in the UK must have set off from an EU country. If they simply agreed to take them all back, the crossings could be stopped almost overnight. Why do you think that the EU are not offering that sort of agreement? Maybe because we insisted upon cutting ties with them… Really? People are dying in the channel, and the EU won't do anything to stop it because we're not friends any more? Do you think that they aren't helping just to spite us? I don’t think ‘The EU’ are a single entity who decide what sovereign nation members do, as it happens. You don't? Not heard of the 'Dublin' agreement' then? Of course I’ve heard of the Dublin Agreement. That’s in part why we’re seeing such a large number of boat crossings since we left the EU. Another Brexit benefit. So you do agree then that the EU does actually set laws for its member countries, and that those laws cover immigration rules. Because that's what the Dublin agreement is, an EU ruling that member countries must abide by." The EU ‘is’ its member countries. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Assume we have a fair, transparent and rapid asylum/economic migration system. What would happen to those whose application is refused? They would stay in the country anyway. What do you do if someone is refused the right to stay, gets repatriated and returns to the country anyway? Let's suppose you open up safe routes and the numbers seeking asylum reaches, for arguments sake, 10 million a year. How could you manage those numbers in terms of housing, education, health care etc Let's suppose we open up centres in every country where you can mske your application before you enter the UK. Your application is refused. You pay the traffickers and enter the country anyway; what happens then? " if everyone stays today, why bother processing? Maybe we could send failed asylum seekers to Rwanda or the ascension isles. Anyone who returns will clearly be staying illegally. If you believe they are here for our benefits, they are fucked. And there's limited job opportunities for someone staying illegally. Making a better route won't increase the number of refugees in the world. But it may increase our share. I doubt it will 100x so that's just panicing for no reason. But some countries do have to cope with 3m. Is it right that we just turn a blind eye because we are fortunate to be surrounded by water and next to France? The refugee situation is a global situation. I'd like to think the British are more compassionate and brave enough to face into world issues head on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t think ‘The EU’ are a single entity who decide what sovereign nation members do, as it happens." "You don't? Not heard of the 'Dublin' agreement' then?" "Of course I’ve heard of the Dublin Agreement. That’s in part why we’re seeing such a large number of boat crossings since we left the EU. Another Brexit benefit." "So you do agree then that the EU does actually set laws for its member countries, and that those laws cover immigration rules. Because that's what the Dublin agreement is, an EU ruling that member countries must abide by." "The EU ‘is’ its member countries. " OK then, if you want to be picky. The EU has a parliament, which creates laws, and each sovereign member of the union is required to meet those laws. The EU parliament created laws around immigration, one of which was the Dublin agreement. So, we have an EU parliament which has created laws about immigration previously, and could create a law allowing direct return of illegal immigrants from the UK, which would prevent deaths in the channel. Why doesn't the EU parliament create such a law? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".Do you know what really could stop the crossings? The EU could accept that any small boat coming ashore in the UK must have set off from an EU country. If they simply agreed to take them all back, the crossings could be stopped almost overnight. Why do you think that the EU are not offering that sort of agreement? Maybe because we insisted upon cutting ties with them… Really? People are dying in the channel, and the EU won't do anything to stop it because we're not friends any more? Do you think that they aren't helping just to spite us? I don’t think ‘The EU’ are a single entity who decide what sovereign nation members do, as it happens. You don't? Not heard of the 'Dublin' agreement' then? But let's assume that you're right. Why aren't France offering such an agreement to stop all the deaths in the channel? Of course I’ve heard of the Dublin Agreement. That’s in part why we’re seeing such a large number of boat crossings since we left the EU. Another Brexit benefit. And in the second part of your list we’re back to ‘blame the French’ like a Daily Express subscriber, which is exactly where the thread started. " . The good news is that the Daily Express has a circulation of 550 000. A massive difference compared to ten or twenty members posting on a swingers forum. With an older and more responsible readership I think their news and ideas will take perfencence over those posted on this forum . The last general election was a reality check for many. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read an article on my news feed over the weekend. Belgium yes have a smaller coast line to cover. They have stopped crossing to UK. I think article said Uk pay them money to do so . Same as UK pays France. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23558134/belgians-stopped-illegal-migrants-small-boat-crossings/amp/ " Yeah, but, but.... The Belgians are racist, xenophobic or don't care about asylum seekers. Also, it's The Sun, can't believe a word printed, even though they have interviewed people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Up to 700 migrants have crossed the English Channel so far today, at the start of a week of ‘Red Days’ for Border Force, the internal Red Alert mechanism that predicts high numbers of small boat arrivals. By midday today, GB News' Kent producer reported that 13 small boats had made it to UK waters, and at least 700 migrants transferred to several Border Force vessels and lifeboats. Note made it to British Water. Not to the beach. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/border-force-set-for-surge-of-migrants" It is the brave rescuers that need commending risking their lives every day in the rescue of souls in overcrowded inflatables.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Up to 700 migrants have crossed the English Channel so far today, at the start of a week of ‘Red Days’ for Border Force, the internal Red Alert mechanism that predicts high numbers of small boat arrivals. By midday today, GB News' Kent producer reported that 13 small boats had made it to UK waters, and at least 700 migrants transferred to several Border Force vessels and lifeboats. Note made it to British Water. Not to the beach. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/border-force-set-for-surge-of-migrants It is the brave rescuers that need commending risking their lives every day in the rescue of souls in overcrowded inflatables. "Should they only rescue people in undercrowded non-inflatable boats? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Up to 700 migrants have crossed the English Channel so far today, at the start of a week of ‘Red Days’ for Border Force, the internal Red Alert mechanism that predicts high numbers of small boat arrivals. By midday today, GB News' Kent producer reported that 13 small boats had made it to UK waters, and at least 700 migrants transferred to several Border Force vessels and lifeboats. Note made it to British Water. Not to the beach. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/border-force-set-for-surge-of-migrants It is the brave rescuers that need commending risking their lives every day in the rescue of souls in overcrowded inflatables.
Should they only rescue people in undercrowded non-inflatable boats?"What kind of question is that, are you running a poll for yougov. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Up to 700 migrants have crossed the English Channel so far today, at the start of a week of ‘Red Days’ for Border Force, the internal Red Alert mechanism that predicts high numbers of small boat arrivals. By midday today, GB News' Kent producer reported that 13 small boats had made it to UK waters, and at least 700 migrants transferred to several Border Force vessels and lifeboats. Note made it to British Water. Not to the beach. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/border-force-set-for-surge-of-migrants It is the brave rescuers that need commending risking their lives every day in the rescue of souls in overcrowded inflatables. "So do you not find it strange it's dangerous when in British waters not 20 minits before when in French water. Would it not be better to take the Bibby Stockholm out to them and load it up then tow it to port. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Up to 700 migrants have crossed the English Channel so far today, at the start of a week of ‘Red Days’ for Border Force, the internal Red Alert mechanism that predicts high numbers of small boat arrivals. By midday today, GB News' Kent producer reported that 13 small boats had made it to UK waters, and at least 700 migrants transferred to several Border Force vessels and lifeboats. Note made it to British Water. Not to the beach. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/border-force-set-for-surge-of-migrants It is the brave rescuers that need commending risking their lives every day in the rescue of souls in overcrowded inflatables.
Should they only rescue people in undercrowded non-inflatable boats?
What kind of question is that, are you running a poll for yougov."I misread commending as condemning. As you were! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Up to 700 migrants have crossed the English Channel so far today, at the start of a week of ‘Red Days’ for Border Force, the internal Red Alert mechanism that predicts high numbers of small boat arrivals. By midday today, GB News' Kent producer reported that 13 small boats had made it to UK waters, and at least 700 migrants transferred to several Border Force vessels and lifeboats. Note made it to British Water. Not to the beach. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/border-force-set-for-surge-of-migrants It is the brave rescuers that need commending risking their lives every day in the rescue of souls in overcrowded inflatables.
Should they only rescue people in undercrowded non-inflatable boats?
What kind of question is that, are you running a poll for yougov.
I misread commending as condemning.
As you were!"You tie is gettng pulled when you spring of your stool to get to the keyboard it still needs straightening. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We could of course slash these numbers by opening safe routes and having an efficient asylum process. " This. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it strange that no-one wants to comment on this possible, proven solution " it looks like, once caught, Belgium say claim asylum their or be deported. It's not clear if this solves the issue or displaces it to france. Also, there's a big difference in coast line. I wonder if it scales. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it strange that no-one wants to comment on this possible, proven solution it looks like, once caught, Belgium say claim asylum their or be deported. It's not clear if this solves the issue or displaces it to france. Also, there's a big difference in coast line. I wonder if it scales. " As the French have stopped very few in the last number of days I don't know why we are still paying them for a service the can't provide. Send a boat to France once a week and get on if you want that stops the gangs making money then these people might get hear with cash in the pockets to start a new life. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it strange that no-one wants to comment on this possible, proven solution it looks like, once caught, Belgium say claim asylum their or be deported. It's not clear if this solves the issue or displaces it to france. Also, there's a big difference in coast line. I wonder if it scales. As the French have stopped very few in the last number of days I don't know why we are still paying them for a service the can't provide. Send a boat to France once a week and get on if you want that stops the gangs making money then these people might get hear with cash in the pockets to start a new life. " Maybe for each boat they fail to stop, a deduction is made from the money we pay them | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Belgian Goverment has now suspended providing food and shelter to single male migrants. They have decided that enough is enough, and that they will prioritise women and children migrants. How this sits in the home of the EU, remains to be seen. Maybe other Goverments will follow suit." Hold on,, so the Belgian government are not supporting or accommodating genuine asylum seekers how can that be if they have claimed asylum in Belgium. Unless they have not claimed asylum in which case then they are vagrants. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Belgian Goverment has now suspended providing food and shelter to single male migrants. They have decided that enough is enough, and that they will prioritise women and children migrants. How this sits in the home of the EU, remains to be seen. Maybe other Goverments will follow suit." Sounds like a plan to me | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it strange that no-one wants to comment on this possible, proven solution it looks like, once caught, Belgium say claim asylum their or be deported. It's not clear if this solves the issue or displaces it to france. Also, there's a big difference in coast line. I wonder if it scales. As the French have stopped very few in the last number of days I don't know why we are still paying them for a service the can't provide. Send a boat to France once a week and get on if you want that stops the gangs making money then these people might get hear with cash in the pockets to start a new life. Maybe for each boat they fail to stop, a deduction is made from the money we pay them" A better plan would be to simply not pay the French anything. The French would be happier, the British would be happier and the migrants would be able to leave France in better boats! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it strange that no-one wants to comment on this possible, proven solution it looks like, once caught, Belgium say claim asylum their or be deported. It's not clear if this solves the issue or displaces it to france. Also, there's a big difference in coast line. I wonder if it scales. As the French have stopped very few in the last number of days I don't know why we are still paying them for a service the can't provide. Send a boat to France once a week and get on if you want that stops the gangs making money then these people might get hear with cash in the pockets to start a new life. Maybe for each boat they fail to stop, a deduction is made from the money we pay them A better plan would be to simply not pay the French anything. The French would be happier, the British would be happier and the migrants would be able to leave France in better boats!" And as said to stop the gangs profiteering send a ship to get them. Then all happy but also stop housing after 4 weeks and benifits but give then an NI number so they can work and pay tax | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it strange that no-one wants to comment on this possible, proven solution it looks like, once caught, Belgium say claim asylum their or be deported. It's not clear if this solves the issue or displaces it to france. Also, there's a big difference in coast line. I wonder if it scales. As the French have stopped very few in the last number of days I don't know why we are still paying them for a service the can't provide. Send a boat to France once a week and get on if you want that stops the gangs making money then these people might get hear with cash in the pockets to start a new life. Maybe for each boat they fail to stop, a deduction is made from the money we pay them A better plan would be to simply not pay the French anything. The French would be happier, the British would be happier and the migrants would be able to leave France in better boats!" It would certainly be safer for them but if they don't have ID do they still get shipped over? Unless only those with ID are ferried over I think it will just make the backlog worse sadly | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it strange that no-one wants to comment on this possible, proven solution it looks like, once caught, Belgium say claim asylum their or be deported. It's not clear if this solves the issue or displaces it to france. Also, there's a big difference in coast line. I wonder if it scales. As the French have stopped very few in the last number of days I don't know why we are still paying them for a service the can't provide. Send a boat to France once a week and get on if you want that stops the gangs making money then these people might get hear with cash in the pockets to start a new life. Maybe for each boat they fail to stop, a deduction is made from the money we pay them A better plan would be to simply not pay the French anything. The French would be happier, the British would be happier and the migrants would be able to leave France in better boats! It would certainly be safer for them but if they don't have ID do they still get shipped over? Unless only those with ID are ferried over I think it will just make the backlog worse sadly" No back log give them I'd and an NI number so they can work. No housing no benifit | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it strange that no-one wants to comment on this possible, proven solution it looks like, once caught, Belgium say claim asylum their or be deported. It's not clear if this solves the issue or displaces it to france. Also, there's a big difference in coast line. I wonder if it scales. As the French have stopped very few in the last number of days I don't know why we are still paying them for a service the can't provide. Send a boat to France once a week and get on if you want that stops the gangs making money then these people might get hear with cash in the pockets to start a new life. Maybe for each boat they fail to stop, a deduction is made from the money we pay them A better plan would be to simply not pay the French anything. The French would be happier, the British would be happier and the migrants would be able to leave France in better boats! It would certainly be safer for them but if they don't have ID do they still get shipped over? Unless only those with ID are ferried over I think it will just make the backlog worse sadly No back log give them I'd and an NI number so they can work. No housing no benifit " So no checks on who they are? I support getting them into work if they are able. They might not be able to speak English or might not have any skills and just end up going into crime as some seem to. More to the point, if you go down the route of no checks, give them NI number ect, you could do that now without changes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it strange that no-one wants to comment on this possible, proven solution it looks like, once caught, Belgium say claim asylum their or be deported. It's not clear if this solves the issue or displaces it to france. Also, there's a big difference in coast line. I wonder if it scales. As the French have stopped very few in the last number of days I don't know why we are still paying them for a service the can't provide. Send a boat to France once a week and get on if you want that stops the gangs making money then these people might get hear with cash in the pockets to start a new life. Maybe for each boat they fail to stop, a deduction is made from the money we pay them A better plan would be to simply not pay the French anything. The French would be happier, the British would be happier and the migrants would be able to leave France in better boats! It would certainly be safer for them but if they don't have ID do they still get shipped over? Unless only those with ID are ferried over I think it will just make the backlog worse sadly No back log give them I'd and an NI number so they can work. No housing no benifit So no checks on who they are? I support getting them into work if they are able. They might not be able to speak English or might not have any skills and just end up going into crime as some seem to. More to the point, if you go down the route of no checks, give them NI number ect, you could do that now without changes" You say no checks might go in to crime do we check all school levers? Do sum British born go into crime. If they are going to come they will they see opertunity so will get hear one way or another. Stop giving money to the EU/France and reduced patrols save the cost of housing and feeding these pepole and spend it on British infrastructure to help everyone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it strange that no-one wants to comment on this possible, proven solution it looks like, once caught, Belgium say claim asylum their or be deported. It's not clear if this solves the issue or displaces it to france. Also, there's a big difference in coast line. I wonder if it scales. As the French have stopped very few in the last number of days I don't know why we are still paying them for a service the can't provide. Send a boat to France once a week and get on if you want that stops the gangs making money then these people might get hear with cash in the pockets to start a new life. Maybe for each boat they fail to stop, a deduction is made from the money we pay them A better plan would be to simply not pay the French anything. The French would be happier, the British would be happier and the migrants would be able to leave France in better boats! It would certainly be safer for them but if they don't have ID do they still get shipped over? Unless only those with ID are ferried over I think it will just make the backlog worse sadly No back log give them I'd and an NI number so they can work. No housing no benifit So no checks on who they are? I support getting them into work if they are able. They might not be able to speak English or might not have any skills and just end up going into crime as some seem to. More to the point, if you go down the route of no checks, give them NI number ect, you could do that now without changes You say no checks might go in to crime do we check all school levers? Do sum British born go into crime. If they are going to come they will they see opertunity so will get hear one way or another. Stop giving money to the EU/France and reduced patrols save the cost of housing and feeding these pepole and spend it on British infrastructure to help everyone." I sort of understand what your saying and yes some school leavers that are already here will go into crime but I don't see that as a good reason to import even more of them. Coupled with the terrorist problem I'm still not convinced. How does your proposals tie in with providing crossings on proper ships. Why can't the proposals being implemented without the safe crossing scheme | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it strange that no-one wants to comment on this possible, proven solution it looks like, once caught, Belgium say claim asylum their or be deported. It's not clear if this solves the issue or displaces it to france. Also, there's a big difference in coast line. I wonder if it scales. As the French have stopped very few in the last number of days I don't know why we are still paying them for a service the can't provide. Send a boat to France once a week and get on if you want that stops the gangs making money then these people might get hear with cash in the pockets to start a new life. Maybe for each boat they fail to stop, a deduction is made from the money we pay them A better plan would be to simply not pay the French anything. The French would be happier, the British would be happier and the migrants would be able to leave France in better boats! It would certainly be safer for them but if they don't have ID do they still get shipped over? Unless only those with ID are ferried over I think it will just make the backlog worse sadly No back log give them I'd and an NI number so they can work. No housing no benifit So no checks on who they are? I support getting them into work if they are able. They might not be able to speak English or might not have any skills and just end up going into crime as some seem to. More to the point, if you go down the route of no checks, give them NI number ect, you could do that now without changes You say no checks might go in to crime do we check all school levers? Do sum British born go into crime. If they are going to come they will they see opertunity so will get hear one way or another. Stop giving money to the EU/France and reduced patrols save the cost of housing and feeding these pepole and spend it on British infrastructure to help everyone. I sort of understand what your saying and yes some school leavers that are already here will go into crime but I don't see that as a good reason to import even more of them. Coupled with the terrorist problem I'm still not convinced. How does your proposals tie in with providing crossings on proper ships. Why can't the proposals being implemented without the safe crossing scheme" . It would not tie in with safe routs as I belive most is small boats are economic migrants sum saying there are under 16 to get more support. What I'm saying if you send a ship to France and load the people on yu instantly stop the small boats and the gangs charging for the small boats. On board you have machines like in the post office to do I'd cards and give them a NI number so they can work. Said boat could dock in a diferanf port each visit thus spreading the migrants round the UK. We sto payment to france and stop putting them up in hotels. They lad have a NI number to work and a all but homeless. There choice. Safe routes should stay and if you come via said safe routes you would get more support. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it strange that no-one wants to comment on this possible, proven solution it looks like, once caught, Belgium say claim asylum their or be deported. It's not clear if this solves the issue or displaces it to france. Also, there's a big difference in coast line. I wonder if it scales. As the French have stopped very few in the last number of days I don't know why we are still paying them for a service the can't provide. Send a boat to France once a week and get on if you want that stops the gangs making money then these people might get hear with cash in the pockets to start a new life. Maybe for each boat they fail to stop, a deduction is made from the money we pay them A better plan would be to simply not pay the French anything. The French would be happier, the British would be happier and the migrants would be able to leave France in better boats! It would certainly be safer for them but if they don't have ID do they still get shipped over? Unless only those with ID are ferried over I think it will just make the backlog worse sadly No back log give them I'd and an NI number so they can work. No housing no benifit So no checks on who they are? I support getting them into work if they are able. They might not be able to speak English or might not have any skills and just end up going into crime as some seem to. More to the point, if you go down the route of no checks, give them NI number ect, you could do that now without changes You say no checks might go in to crime do we check all school levers? Do sum British born go into crime. If they are going to come they will they see opertunity so will get hear one way or another. Stop giving money to the EU/France and reduced patrols save the cost of housing and feeding these pepole and spend it on British infrastructure to help everyone. I sort of understand what your saying and yes some school leavers that are already here will go into crime but I don't see that as a good reason to import even more of them. Coupled with the terrorist problem I'm still not convinced. How does your proposals tie in with providing crossings on proper ships. Why can't the proposals being implemented without the safe crossing scheme. It would not tie in with safe routs as I belive most is small boats are economic migrants sum saying there are under 16 to get more support. What I'm saying if you send a ship to France and load the people on yu instantly stop the small boats and the gangs charging for the small boats. On board you have machines like in the post office to do I'd cards and give them a NI number so they can work. Said boat could dock in a diferanf port each visit thus spreading the migrants round the UK. We sto payment to france and stop putting them up in hotels. They lad have a NI number to work and a all but homeless. There choice. Safe routes should stay and if you come via said safe routes you would get more support. " Ok I understand. I don't agree with all of it but do agree the general principal th st they should not get more help than those already here | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
