Immigrants drowned crossing the channel

[OldBob]

21 minutes ago, Tony_C said:

Nothing for you to apologise about Nigel…… Suggest a few of the usual keyboard warriors might want to first think about it and have a good look in the mirror 

 

Tony

Perhaps its the ones who don't show their real name that are the keyboard warriors ?  Just asking.

Bob (Robert really)

[Z320]

Very sad report yesterday on TV….

We have 1,000,000 homeless people here at Germany.

[Z320]

On 11/30/2021 at 7:58 PM, PodOne said:

As said elsewhere if they land on the beach put them back in the boat ant take them back to France.

Andy

You mean "send them back to continental Europe,

it’s only their matter, we are an poor island fare away out in the sea"?

Edited December 2, 2021 by Z320

[Andy Moltu]

Is not the real problem the utterly pathetic lack of ability to deport failed asylum seekers?  The courts have rendered it virtually impossible to deal with those unskilled economic migrants and foreign criminals who misuse the asylum platform to gain access to the UK.

This effectively means that the only way to deal with the problem is to prevent entry in the first place.

Why should we expect the French to do this for us?

What is required is a law change to prevent the courts from overruling the basic (and fair) decision on eligibility for asylum making by using legal challenge after legal challenge. One appeal. If that fails deportation in 7 days to country of origin or other that is willing to accept them.  By definition you can’t seek asylum from a safe country.  If you lie about your country of origin or other deliberate misinformation it would be deemed to render any application void, as would failure to declare yourself as an asylum seeker on arrival.  Knowing that once you have gained entry effectively guarantees a life entry makes the crazy risks worthwhile.  Knowing you will be repatriated will make many think twice about even trying to come here.  People from half way round the world have no idea how dangerous the Channel is and allowing people to be smuggled and drown is unacceptable. 

 

Simple, swift and fair.  Stop blaming others for our own over complicated legal system. 

[Bleednipple]

37 minutes ago, Andy Moltu said:

What is required is a law change to prevent the courts from overruling the basic (and fair) decision on eligibility for asylum making by using legal challenge after legal challenge.

One way to improve things would be to ensure that the initial decision to grant (or not) asylum is taken objectively and fairly. But currently it's taken by the Home Office, who are driven by politically imposed mandate - whether expressed or implied - to refuse as many asylum claims as they can. That's why so many refused initial claims - nearly three quarters of them - are then overturned on appeal, when the get before an immigration judge who is not biased but hears evidence properly and fairly.

If initial asylum claims were put before a properly-constituted tribunal in the first place, and then only subject to a single appeal, to right to which would not be unfettered but would be permitted where deemed judicially to be appropriate, that might get us to somewhere better.

Nigel

[Tony_C]

14 hours ago, OldBob said:

Perhaps its the ones who don't show their real name that are the keyboard warriors ?  Just asking.

Bob (Robert really)

Nah Bob, I’m not sure about that generalisation….. 

Only my Granny (and Mum when I was in real trouble) called me Anthony 

 

Two of the ‘better’ contributors on here, ‘Crawfie’ and ‘Bleednipple’, for example, have very good reasons to keep a degree of privacy……. and ‘Deggers’ also comes to mind- However, perhaps it is just because he is cool with him?

 

Interesting topic in its own right though…… Does anyone else see the irony when someone calls them self, say, ‘HAWK’ and then always signs off with a "Keep it real" footnote?……… REALLY!!?? 

[john.r.davies]

There was a recent letter in the Guardian (OK, OK, I know, I'm a bearded, sandal-wearing, muesli eater, but it has kept me, in my view, politically honest for fifty years) pointing out that homelessness and street living was unknown, until legislation cracked down on 'squatting', living in unused houses and other accomodation.     I think the correlation is true but of course does not prove causation.

A well known grocery chain opened a mini-market in my town, and ever since, homeless peole have camped outside the door.      I feel they are there to beg , as there is not even a doorway to shelter in, and anyway, there's no one there at night.   And it is 'they' as the pitch is occupied in shifts by different people.   In the face of such organised 'homelessness' I fear my wokeness goes limp and uncontributory.

JOhn

PS TonyC, as the name above is indeed my name, don't I get a name check for being honest?      The truth is, imagination failed when I first registered!

Edited December 2, 2021 by john.r.davies

[SuzanneH]

47 minutes ago, john.r.davies said:

 

A well known grocery chain opened a mini-market in my town, and ever since, homeless peole have camped outside the door.      I feel they are there to beg , as there is not even a doorway to shelter in, and anyway, there's no one there at night.   And it is 'they' as the pitch is occupied in shifts by different people.   In the face of such organised 'homelessness' I fear my wokeness goes limp and uncontributory.

JOhn

 

Well spotted, I remember saying on this forum many many years ago to watch out as what was happening here will eventually affect you all, seems it’s happening now and you and others are at last seeing the light.

[Chris Glasbey]

ROGER ......if you are reading this ...PLEASE COME BACK ......we all need your words of wisdom !

I have nothing against France or their leader .....and some may say our country is lead my a baffoon .......I couldn't possibly comment.

John....please can you persuade Roger to come back ?!

Roast beef rules OK,

Chris

[stillp]

4 hours ago, john.r.davies said:

There was a recent letter in the Guardian (OK, OK, I know, I'm a bearded, sandal-wearing, muesli eater, but it has kept me, in my view, politically honest for fifty years) pointing out that homelessness and street living was unknown, until legislation cracked down on 'squatting', living in unused houses and other accomodation. 

 

There was certainly plenty of homelessness and street living when I was a teenager 60+ years ago.

Pete

[PodOne]

Always will be a degree for homeless through choice for some. Sad but true.

As the last EU link France has a duty to stop the traffic and the EU has its own right to stop migrants at their boarders as we are not in the EU which they are only too keen to point out of late. So why are they so upset when we ask them to deliver on the 54 million we have paid for them to do just that ? They should respect that we want to defend ours the same as us respecting the Poles/EU against Belorussia or North Africa.

8 hours ago, Andy Moltu said:

Is not the real problem the utterly pathetic lack of ability to deport failed asylum seekers?  The courts have rendered it virtually impossible to deal with those unskilled economic migrants and foreign criminals who misuse the asylum platform to gain access to the UK.

This effectively means that the only way to deal with the problem is to prevent entry in the first place.

Why should we expect the French to do this for us?

What is required is a law change to prevent the courts from overruling the basic (and fair) decision on eligibility for asylum making by using legal challenge after legal challenge. One appeal. If that fails deportation in 7 days to country of origin or other that is willing to accept them.  By definition you can’t seek asylum from a safe country.  If you lie about your country of origin or other deliberate misinformation it would be deemed to render any application void, as would failure to declare yourself as an asylum seeker on arrival.  Knowing that once you have gained entry effectively guarantees a life entry makes the crazy risks worthwhile.  Knowing you will be repatriated will make many think twice about even trying to come here.  People from half way round the world have no idea how dangerous the Channel is and allowing people to be smuggled and drown is unacceptable. 

 

Simple, swift and fair.  Stop blaming others for our own over complicated legal system. 

Agree Andy

The courts are abysmal. The law seems to allow multiple appeals lasting years while some resort to crime and get access to public services while waiting for the usual amnesty to be granted as a way of freeing up a broken system. These claims should be settled within 3 months in purpose built courts sitting 7 days/week from 8am -10pm with no right of appeal. Problem is then often the countries of origin don't want them back or the migrants have destroyed all their identification or claim to be children! We seem even to be able to deport criminals serving long sentences and instead end up paying their boarding fees at her majesties pleasure.

Question is why aren't our elected politicians changing the system and law? What are they afraid of? They need to grow s--e!

Andy 

[Crawfie]

The Human Rights  Act has a lot to do with slowing the deportation system .

Turned into a right little earner for the likes of Mrs Blair and co .

who remembers the commotion on a flight a few years ago  when the passengers demanded the “deportees “ be taken off the plane ?? They were serious offenders who deserved to go . 
 

 

[barkerwilliams]

Crawfie

+1

Alan

[Bleednipple]

15 hours ago, Crawfie said:

who remembers the commotion on a flight a few years ago  when the passengers demanded the “deportees “ be taken off the plane ?? They were serious offenders who deserved to go . 

I don't recall that specific one but it doesn't especially surprise me. Few people (well, not me anyway) are going to object to non-UK citizens who have committed serious enough offences to merit deportation then being removed appropriately and expeditiously. But at the same time in the past few years there's been a marked shift among a large proportion of the public in attitudes about about immigration generally and refugees/irregular migrants in particular. Multiple opinion polls have demonstrated that shift well.

While a decade ago there was widespread public support for 'tough' approaches to removing people, that's now much more a minority view (although it is still a large minority). I'm sure a big part of that has been negative publicity around the "hostile environment" strategy of the Home Office, exemplified by the "Go Home" poster vans a few years ago. Many of the public are now more disinclined to believe that the government is going to deal fairly with refugees/migrants, so when they see deportees being loaded onto planes many will jump to their own conclusions.

Unfortunately to my view, the current government is now so scared of being seen as soft on any of this, for fear of giving ground to another challenger party from the right, that it lurches around trying to find ways to show how tough it's being against a problem that isn't actually conducive to simple solutions. The mantra that "it's all about going after the criminal people smugglers" (or sometimes "blame the French" ) is probably thought by Central Office as a way to sidestep accusations of being anti-refugee and politically that probably makes sense at least in the short term but I'm not a political strategist.

Nigel

[john.r.davies]

This from the House of Commons Library:

It may also be worth noting that in the 1930s about 300,000 Jews left Germany, and about 120,000 left Austria.   Of those, about 80,000 came to the UK.

In the last 12 months, less than 38,000 have asked for asylum in the UK.

John

[Motorsport Mickey]

1 hour ago, john.r.davies said:

This from the House of Commons Library:

It may also be worth noting that in the 1930s about 300,000 Jews left Germany, and about 120,000 left Austria.   Of those, about 80,000 came to the UK.

In the last 12 months, less than 38,000 have asked for asylum in the UK.

John

Yep, and we can GUARANTEE that ALL those 80,000 immigrants back in the 1930s came into Britain because they suffered Religious and racial persecution.

Care to put any numbers for Religious and racial persecution on the previous 6 million immigrant numbers that are now acknowledged as being the hidden immigrant numbers prior to these last 2 years. Maybe you could have a shot at C and R persecution numbers on the 26,000 of asylum seekers who braved the channel this year without bothering to apply for asylum ?

Eligibility

To stay in the UK as a refugee you must be unable to live safely in any part of your own country because you fear persecution there.

If you’re stateless, your own country is the country you usually live in.

This persecution must be because of:

your race

your religion

your nationality

your political opinion

anything else that puts you at risk because of the social, cultural, religious or political situation in your country, for example, your gender, gender identity or sexual orientation

You must have failed to get protection from authorities in your own country.

 

When your claim might not be considered

Your claim might not be considered if you:

are from an EU country

travelled to the UK through a ‘safe third country’

have a connection to a safe third country where you could claim asylum

Generally, a safe third country is one that:

you’re not a citizen of

you would not be harmed in

would not send you on to another country where you would be harmed

 

This is what bugs most Britons, if we have an asylum application system such as the above why won't the asylum seekers just apply. ? Although we know they would not receive it because travelling from a third neutral country alone would disqualify them, never mind the other 2 circumstances that they don't comply with either. 

Mick Richards   

[Harbottle]

2 hours ago, Motorsport Mickey said:

Yep, and we can GUARANTEE that ALL those 80,000 immigrants back in the 1930s came into Britain because they suffered Religious and racial persecution.

Care to put any numbers for Religious and racial persecution on the previous 6 million immigrant numbers that are now acknowledged as being the hidden immigrant numbers prior to these last 2 years. Maybe you could have a shot at C and R persecution numbers on the 26,000 of asylum seekers who braved the channel this year without bothering to apply for asylum ?

Eligibility

To stay in the UK as a refugee you must be unable to live safely in any part of your own country because you fear persecution there.

If you’re stateless, your own country is the country you usually live in.

This persecution must be because of:

your race

your religion

your nationality

your political opinion

anything else that puts you at risk because of the social, cultural, religious or political situation in your country, for example, your gender, gender identity or sexual orientation

You must have failed to get protection from authorities in your own country.

 

When your claim might not be considered

Your claim might not be considered if you:

are from an EU country

travelled to the UK through a ‘safe third country’

have a connection to a safe third country where you could claim asylum

Generally, a safe third country is one that:

you’re not a citizen of

you would not be harmed in

would not send you on to another country where you would be harmed

 

This is what bugs most Britons, if we have an asylum application system such as the above why won't the asylum seekers just apply. ? Although we know they would not receive it because travelling from a third neutral country alone would disqualify them, never mind the other 2 circumstances that they don't comply with either. 

Mick Richards   

+1

[cvtrian]

14 hours ago, Motorsport Mickey said:

Yep, and we can GUARANTEE that ALL those 80,000 immigrants back in the 1930s came into Britain because they suffered Religious and racial persecution.

Care to put any numbers for Religious and racial persecution on the previous 6 million immigrant numbers that are now acknowledged as being the hidden immigrant numbers prior to these last 2 years. Maybe you could have a shot at C and R persecution numbers on the 26,000 of asylum seekers who braved the channel this year without bothering to apply for asylum ?

Eligibility

To stay in the UK as a refugee you must be unable to live safely in any part of your own country because you fear persecution there.

If you’re stateless, your own country is the country you usually live in.

This persecution must be because of:

your race

your religion

your nationality

your political opinion

anything else that puts you at risk because of the social, cultural, religious or political situation in your country, for example, your gender, gender identity or sexual orientation

You must have failed to get protection from authorities in your own country.

 

When your claim might not be considered

Your claim might not be considered if you:

are from an EU country

travelled to the UK through a ‘safe third country’

have a connection to a safe third country where you could claim asylum

Generally, a safe third country is one that:

you’re not a citizen of

you would not be harmed in

would not send you on to another country where you would be harmed

 

This is what bugs most Britons, if we have an asylum application system such as the above why won't the asylum seekers just apply. ? Although we know they would not receive it because travelling from a third neutral country alone would disqualify them, never mind the other 2 circumstances that they don't comply with either. 

Mick Richards   

+2

[Bleednipple]

15 hours ago, Motorsport Mickey said:

This is what bugs most Britons, if we have an asylum application system such as the above why won't the asylum seekers just apply. ? Although we know they would not receive it because travelling from a third neutral country alone would disqualify them, never mind the other 2 circumstances that they don't comply with either. 

I'm not sure what you're saying here Mick? It's not possible to apply for asylum until you have physically managed to get yourself into the territory of the country in which you are applying for it (the Refugee Convention doesn't say it couldn't be granted offshore, but in practically no countries actually allow it).

As a separate point: legally, having travelled through an intermediate country does not give any grounds for disqualifying an asylum claim (I realise some might think that it should, and the Government likes to suggest that it might, but under the law it doesn't).

Nigel

Edited December 4, 2021 by Bleednipple

[Motorsport Mickey]

1 hour ago, Bleednipple said:

I'm not sure what you're saying here Mick? It's not possible to apply for asylum until you have physically managed to get yourself into the territory of the country in which you are applying for it (the Refugee Convention doesn't say it couldn't be granted offshore, but in practically no countries actually allow it).

As a separate point: legally, having travelled through an intermediate country does not give any grounds for disqualifying an asylum claim (I realise some might think that it should, and the Government likes to suggest that it might, but under the law it doesn't).

Nigel

"I'm not sure what you're saying here Mick"

Given that the reports of how much these illegal immigrants are paying to get across the channel (reported between £2500 and £7k each). In a leaky boat with about 50% chance of success, I would think that visiting an airline (visa not required, or even if trying to comply, why not try a vacation visa... freely given) and then visiting the immigration counter in the airport and making your asylum claim from there having had a nice flight and even a cup of coffee (not Ryanair then) included. Would show a more cost effective and comfortable way to enter the UK.

Of course the many reports from border forces and police of the illegal immigrants (because that's what they are) destroying their documentation before submitting themselves to interrogation, to make their story confirmation as difficult as possible, tends to make reasonable people think something is amiss. These same illegal immigrants are the grit in the system, which now blocks me for 3 weeks from getting a doctors on line pre diagnosis and further wait for an in person appointment for health matters.

Many on here will have even worse circumstances, and others better (lucky them), but there will not be many who try (and are able ) to convince me that unfettered immigration is a sensible way to prevent channel deaths, whilst still allowing the population to access housing/medical care/benefits etc etc of the indigent population.

As regards there being no laws against an asylum claim because of 3rd country transit...there doesn't have to be. It's system based, just as in many other countries where jumping through particular hoops is the system. Our system declares what we want and 3rd country transit is one of our bars. If these illegal immigrants thought asylum is so easy to achieve there would be long queues at immigration. It isn't and there aren't, so part of the circle is squared. 

Now if we take back the £54 million from France and invest in a small fleet of boats and drones with personnel (there will be a fair number for that money) channel patrolling, we may well stand a better chance of turning these illegal boats away.

Mick Richards      

[john.r.davies]

8 minutes ago, Motorsport Mickey said:

a better chance of turning these illegal boats away

Mickey, spotting them may be possible, in good weather, what means would you suggest for 'turning them away'?

John

[Peter Cobbold]

1 hour ago, john.r.davies said:

Mickey, spotting them may be possible, in good weather, what means would you suggest for 'turning them away'?

John

Bribe them to return to  France with 10 kg cocaine each. Turn the problem into Macron's.

[stuart]

16 minutes ago, Peter Cobbold said:

Bribe them to return to  France with 10 kg cocaine each. Turn the problem into Macron's.

Well Northamptonshire Police have a good stock of it now after a huge bust this week so theres plenty available!

Stuart.

[james christie]

Don’t give them ideas!

Some years ago I heard a good story in Buenos Aires where some guy reported to the police that his beloved Merco had been stolen. Some weeks later he received a call from them to say that his car had been found - somewhere in Paraguay - and that he could go and collect it, which he did.

Returning home, after a few days he reported it stolen again. The Argentina police duly found it but with every panel and tyre opened like as with a can opener. 
Unwittingly, he had transported quite a few kilos of snort accross the border at his risk and peril…..

james

[john.r.davies]

5 hours ago, Peter Cobbold said:

Bribe them to return to  France with 10 kg cocaine each. Turn the problem into Macron's.

Peter, is the mode of business of our present government getting to you, or are you being ironic?