RugbyRebels

Galfon wrote:'sudden' and 'crisis' ? - bit dramatic that.
Home office figures show steady tick-over of channel crossings of c. 200/month for period jul 19 - mar 20., followed by increase to c. 650/month in apr, may & jun, and a further increase to 1100 in july, so yeah it's fake news, good seasonal fodder like giant shark-fins and aggressive sea-gulls.

I think that might kind of be the point. You may notice the word 'not', they have even capitalised it.

Don't let yourself be played.

read more about the good law project and think about where you could be directing your attention, rather than out to sea.

Agreed, this whole issue is pure distraction and reminder to the Brexit faithful of the whole purpose of this government.

A distraction from the Covid numbers and the upcoming (tomorrow, I think) confirmation that we're in recession and that our GDP has taken the biggest hit of the G7 (by a long way).

canta_brian wrote: read more about the good law project and think about where you could be directing your attention, rather than out to sea.

I was agreeing with the statement with numbers, we should be pleased we live in a society where the glp and similar can use muscle...can't say I know much about this field tbh, but looks laudable...Plenty of other fish to fry on terra firma unfortunately.

Digby wrote:If you're not willing to declare them combatants and sink/shoot them on entry to British waters what is there to be done? And if your plan is to drown/shoot children there are some flaws in your plan.

Muddle through and do what we can to ensure there are less places people want to leave is what there is

There are some who feel that is perfectly fine. Quite a few actually if you read the comments section of the Times. I daren't even look on the Telegraph or Mail.

canta_brian wrote:Here’s a solution. Allow them in and process their claims for asylum. The UK granted asylum to 18 and a half thousand people in the 12 months to June 2019. If a tiny % arrive in a rubber dinghy so what.

Let’s concentrate on the fact that yesterday the uk had more new covid cases than they have since mid June.

We need to de-criminalise this. I don't mean allowing those who land via boat to stay regardless, but I do mean making the application process more straightforward and humane. At the moment, the only people who like this are the smugglers who are making a fortune and risking the lives of many people.I'd like to see some cooperation with the French to identify smugglers and hammer them hard - they are exploiting human misery and deserve everything they get.

Working with the EU (I won't hold my breath) to identify which countries take on what quantity of migrants is a starter for ten. Identify those migrants who pose a risk (a very small number do) and help the genuine ones to find somewhere to settle. There is an impact on the departing country in that they are losing numbers of younger citizens, but when the house is burning you can't blame people for wanting to head for the fire exit.

Could just move the immigration infrastructure to French soil, assuming they agree.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:If you're not willing to declare them combatants and sink/shoot them on entry to British waters what is there to be done? And if your plan is to drown/shoot children there are some flaws in your plan.

Muddle through and do what we can to ensure there are less places people want to leave is what there is

There are some who feel that is perfectly fine. Quite a few actually if you read the comments section of the Times. I daren't even look on the Telegraph or Mail.

Seems almost 50/50 on whether we part Chris Grayling or Gavin Williamson in charge of shooting migrants, the Mail and its readers could have the policy they want and the migrants would be at no risk of being shot

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:If you're not willing to declare them combatants and sink/shoot them on entry to British waters what is there to be done? And if your plan is to drown/shoot children there are some flaws in your plan.

Muddle through and do what we can to ensure there are less places people want to leave is what there is

There are some who feel that is perfectly fine. Quite a few actually if you read the comments section of the Times. I daren't even look on the Telegraph or Mail.

Seems almost 50/50 on whether we part Chris Grayling or Gavin Williamson in charge of shooting migrants, the Mail and its readers could have the policy they want and the migrants would be at no risk of being shot

We could task them with carrying out the shooting. Chances are they’d kill each other. Two birds, one stone.

You'd have to think Williamson would win, Grayling just seems so likely to shoot himself in the feet.

And actually our governmental policy isn't much worse than if Grayling were in charge. We're not starting from a point of view of what do we want, what's legal, and what can we actually do, and at the same time we're making the process stupidly dangerous and expensive for so many people involved

Some of the pull factors discussed here.
It sounds like a living nightmare for some, but the apparent different approach between nation states only serves to destabilise things further.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... nce-racist

Sandydragon wrote:

canta_brian wrote:Here’s a solution. Allow them in and process their claims for asylum. The UK granted asylum to 18 and a half thousand people in the 12 months to June 2019. If a tiny % arrive in a rubber dinghy so what.

Let’s concentrate on the fact that yesterday the uk had more new covid cases than they have since mid June.

We need to de-criminalise this. I don't mean allowing those who land via boat to stay regardless, but I do mean making the application process more straightforward and humane. At the moment, the only people who like this are the smugglers who are making a fortune and risking the lives of many people.I'd like to see some cooperation with the French to identify smugglers and hammer them hard - they are exploiting human misery and deserve everything they get.

Working with the EU (I won't hold my breath) to identify which countries take on what quantity of migrants is a starter for ten. Identify those migrants who pose a risk (a very small number do) and help the genuine ones to find somewhere to settle. There is an impact on the departing country in that they are losing numbers of younger citizens, but when the house is burning you can't blame people for wanting to head for the fire exit.

It basically isn't illegal now. A genuine refugee has a defence to the immigration offences, at least in most circumstances

Mellsblue wrote:Could just move the immigration infrastructure to French soil, assuming they agree.

I sometimes can't quite work out if you're joking. We did indeed have such an agreement. We bitched and moaned and then brexited and the French basically said "well fuck off then"

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

canta_brian wrote:Here’s a solution. Allow them in and process their claims for asylum. The UK granted asylum to 18 and a half thousand people in the 12 months to June 2019. If a tiny % arrive in a rubber dinghy so what.

Let’s concentrate on the fact that yesterday the uk had more new covid cases than they have since mid June.

We need to de-criminalise this. I don't mean allowing those who land via boat to stay regardless, but I do mean making the application process more straightforward and humane. At the moment, the only people who like this are the smugglers who are making a fortune and risking the lives of many people.I'd like to see some cooperation with the French to identify smugglers and hammer them hard - they are exploiting human misery and deserve everything they get.

Working with the EU (I won't hold my breath) to identify which countries take on what quantity of migrants is a starter for ten. Identify those migrants who pose a risk (a very small number do) and help the genuine ones to find somewhere to settle. There is an impact on the departing country in that they are losing numbers of younger citizens, but when the house is burning you can't blame people for wanting to head for the fire exit.

It basically isn't illegal now. A genuine refugee has a defence to the immigration offences, at least in most circumstances

I was thinking more of economic refugees. Let them apply easier rather than try to chance their arm with smugglers. You won’t cut out all unlawful immigration but it would probably be a start.

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
We need to de-criminalise this. I don't mean allowing those who land via boat to stay regardless, but I do mean making the application process more straightforward and humane. At the moment, the only people who like this are the smugglers who are making a fortune and risking the lives of many people.I'd like to see some cooperation with the French to identify smugglers and hammer them hard - they are exploiting human misery and deserve everything they get.

Working with the EU (I won't hold my breath) to identify which countries take on what quantity of migrants is a starter for ten. Identify those migrants who pose a risk (a very small number do) and help the genuine ones to find somewhere to settle. There is an impact on the departing country in that they are losing numbers of younger citizens, but when the house is burning you can't blame people for wanting to head for the fire exit.

It basically isn't illegal now. A genuine refugee has a defence to the immigration offences, at least in most circumstances

I was thinking more of economic refugees. Let them apply easier rather than try to chance their arm with smugglers. You won’t cut out all unlawful immigration but it would probably be a start.

What is an "economic refugee"?? Economic migrants and refugees are completely different, surely.

Where there's a will there's a way .. increase in numbers this year, and new tactics such as surge approach, and travel-clsss system keeping business going.

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/channel-cro ... es-1081211

Work in Progress ..
"Law enforcement agencies are dismantling the people smuggling gangs. Joint work with the French has seen a doubling of police officers on French beaches."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-58100694

Can't see too much changing in the near future.

Pushing on the tide is a line of thinking

I think the problem of large refugee migration inflows should be shouldered more by the foreign office than it is currently. The home office can only do so much, the flows need to be stopped at the source.

Zhivago wrote:I think the problem of large refugee migration inflows should be shouldered more by the foreign office than it is currently. The home office can only do so much, the flows need to be stopped at the source.

Immigration is a home office issue and they should be processing applications more overseas.

But if you means the FCDO should be doing more to stop people wanting to leave their countries of origin then I’d agree in many cases you have a strong point. We should be helping countries to develop so their populations don’t want to leave.

Central America reserves judgement on any more "helping to develop" initiatives...

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:I think the problem of large refugee migration inflows should be shouldered more by the foreign office than it is currently. The home office can only do so much, the flows need to be stopped at the source.

Immigration is a home office issue and they should be processing applications more overseas.

But if you means the FCDO should be doing more to stop people wanting to leave their countries of origin then I’d agree in many cases you have a strong point. We should be helping countries to develop so their populations don’t want to leave.

We're clearly on the right track to do that with our recent cut to overseas aid. This fucking government.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:I think the problem of large refugee migration inflows should be shouldered more by the foreign office than it is currently. The home office can only do so much, the flows need to be stopped at the source.

Immigration is a home office issue and they should be processing applications more overseas.

But if you means the FCDO should be doing more to stop people wanting to leave their countries of origin then I’d agree in many cases you have a strong point. We should be helping countries to develop so their populations don’t want to leave.

We're clearly on the right track to do that with our recent cut to overseas aid. This fucking government.

Puja

having spent circa £400billion on Covid they've made this cut to overseas aid for a tiny sum (well £2-3 billion) just in time to undermine messages of support they want to deliver at the upcoming COP26 around support for developing nations who might progress reforms in the name of climate change. it's an utterly bizarre piece of negotiating for a headline in the Express, it'd have been better frankly to have doubled the budget, cheaper too in the round to have the developing nations trust they'd be backed

even if they'd done nothing they wouldn't have shot themselves in the foot, and yet doing nothing alluded them, which for someone as bone idle as Boris might be on some levels impressive, and yet...

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:I think the problem of large refugee migration inflows should be shouldered more by the foreign office than it is currently. The home office can only do so much, the flows need to be stopped at the source.

Immigration is a home office issue and they should be processing applications more overseas.

But if you means the FCDO should be doing more to stop people wanting to leave their countries of origin then I’d agree in many cases you have a strong point. We should be helping countries to develop so their populations don’t want to leave.

We're clearly on the right track to do that with our recent cut to overseas aid. This fucking government.

Puja

I agree. Total horse shit aimed at appeasing the Daily Telegraph readership.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:I think the problem of large refugee migration inflows should be shouldered more by the foreign office than it is currently. The home office can only do so much, the flows need to be stopped at the source.

Immigration is a home office issue and they should be processing applications more overseas.

But if you means the FCDO should be doing more to stop people wanting to leave their countries of origin then I’d agree in many cases you have a strong point. We should be helping countries to develop so their populations don’t want to leave.

We also need to be tougher with France. Sometimes they seem to act a bit like Erdogan with respect to migrants. Why these Calais camps are even allowed to exist is beyond me.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:I think the problem of large refugee migration inflows should be shouldered more by the foreign office than it is currently. The home office can only do so much, the flows need to be stopped at the source.

Immigration is a home office issue and they should be processing applications more overseas.

But if you means the FCDO should be doing more to stop people wanting to leave their countries of origin then I’d agree in many cases you have a strong point. We should be helping countries to develop so their populations don’t want to leave.

We also need to be tougher with France. Sometimes they seem to act a bit like Erdogan with respect to migrants. Why these Calais camps are even allowed to exist is beyond me.

We’ve set Pritti on them, come on have some mercy!

The chances of the French sound much for us are vanishingly slim at the moment.