FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Small boat pilot
Small boat pilot
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's more shocking? That this is the first time or that 2 jurors found him not guilty?" That is a head scratcher! Unanimous verdict for facilitating entry and 10-2 on him being responsible for the manslaughter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's more shocking? That this is the first time or that 2 jurors found him not guilty? That is a head scratcher! Unanimous verdict for facilitating entry and 10-2 on him being responsible for the manslaughter. " This is trial no.2. The last jury couldn't reach a verdict. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's more shocking? That this is the first time or that 2 jurors found him not guilty? That is a head scratcher! Unanimous verdict for facilitating entry and 10-2 on him being responsible for the manslaughter. This is trial no.2. The last jury couldn't reach a verdict. " I didn't know that, it is done now subject I guess to the few hundred lawyers that will no doubt offer their services free for the appeal. It will also be interesting to see what happens once he has completed his sentence, sent back home or allowed to stay? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet he's submitted an asylum application! Surely the crime itself should negate this? " It almost certainly will, but that doesn’t mean he’s not allowed to claim asylum and enter the process. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet he's submitted an asylum application! Surely the crime itself should negate this? " He was always coming to claim asylum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's more shocking? That this is the first time or that 2 jurors found him not guilty? That is a head scratcher! Unanimous verdict for facilitating entry and 10-2 on him being responsible for the manslaughter. This is trial no.2. The last jury couldn't reach a verdict. I didn't know that, it is done now subject I guess to the few hundred lawyers that will no doubt offer their services free for the appeal. It will also be interesting to see what happens once he has completed his sentence, sent back home or allowed to stay?" Probably depends on how valid his claim is or how well he plays the system, but starting with a manslaughter charge is not a good start. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is Fab bingo full house. Immigrants. Drowned immigrants. An immigrant on trial. Asylum seeking. Small boat. Illegal entry. Assuming guilt. " Found guilty....although my thoughts are with those who perished. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Is this enough to deter others?" No. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The criminal gangs commit their crimes in France." Not entirely....there are groups in the UK, conspiring to facilitate. If they are 'caught red handed' in France, they are dealt with there....and it isn't reported as widely here as it should be. Those facilitators who operate from here at the higher level of the gangs are committing offences here and arrested from time to time, often in conjunction with the 'hands on' gang members in France. It's more complex. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet he's submitted an asylum application! Surely the crime itself should negate this? It almost certainly will, but that doesn’t mean he’s not allowed to claim asylum and enter the process." It should | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is Fab bingo full house. Immigrants. Drowned immigrants. An immigrant on trial. Asylum seeking. Small boat. Illegal entry. Assuming guilt. Found guilty....although my thoughts are with those who perished." My bad. Not quite a full Fab bingo. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet he's submitted an asylum application! Surely the crime itself should negate this? It almost certainly will, but that doesn’t mean he’s not allowed to claim asylum and enter the process. It should " Then you need to rewrite the whole asylum system and remain with international law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is Fab bingo full house. Immigrants. Drowned immigrants. An immigrant on trial. Asylum seeking. Small boat. Illegal entry. Assuming guilt. Found guilty....although my thoughts are with those who perished. My bad. Not quite a full Fab bingo." But a week ago it would have been close.....better still if you had managed to squeeze Brexit into your list  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet he's submitted an asylum application! Surely the crime itself should negate this? It almost certainly will, but that doesn’t mean he’s not allowed to claim asylum and enter the process. It should Then you need to rewrite the whole asylum system and remain with international law." The UK Borders Act 2007 (s32) allows for the automatic deportation of ‘foreign criminals’. https://unlock.org.uk/advice/deportation-due-to-a-criminal-record/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet he's submitted an asylum application! Surely the crime itself should negate this? It almost certainly will, but that doesn’t mean he’s not allowed to claim asylum and enter the process. It should Then you need to rewrite the whole asylum system and remain with international law. The UK Borders Act 2007 (s32) allows for the automatic deportation of ‘foreign criminals’. https://unlock.org.uk/advice/deportation-due-to-a-criminal-record/" And I suspect that’s exactly what will happen once the asylum process is complete - i suspect it’s a grey area whereby because an individual hasn’t been ‘processed’ (horrible word), they don’t yet have an official place of residence, and as such can’t be deported from said place. (If that makes sense) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet he's submitted an asylum application! Surely the crime itself should negate this? It almost certainly will, but that doesn’t mean he’s not allowed to claim asylum and enter the process. It should Then you need to rewrite the whole asylum system and remain with international law. The UK Borders Act 2007 (s32) allows for the automatic deportation of ‘foreign criminals’. https://unlock.org.uk/advice/deportation-due-to-a-criminal-record/ And I suspect that’s exactly what will happen once the asylum process is complete - i suspect it’s a grey area whereby because an individual hasn’t been ‘processed’ (horrible word), they don’t yet have an official place of residence, and as such can’t be deported from said place. (If that makes sense)" One for the lawyers... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet he's submitted an asylum application! Surely the crime itself should negate this? It almost certainly will, but that doesn’t mean he’s not allowed to claim asylum and enter the process. It should Then you need to rewrite the whole asylum system and remain with international law. The UK Borders Act 2007 (s32) allows for the automatic deportation of ‘foreign criminals’. https://unlock.org.uk/advice/deportation-due-to-a-criminal-record/ And I suspect that’s exactly what will happen once the asylum process is complete - i suspect it’s a grey area whereby because an individual hasn’t been ‘processed’ (horrible word), they don’t yet have an official place of residence, and as such can’t be deported from said place. (If that makes sense) One for the lawyers..." As always | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is Fab bingo full house. Immigrants. Drowned immigrants. An immigrant on trial. Asylum seeking. Small boat. Illegal entry. Assuming guilt. Found guilty....although my thoughts are with those who perished. My bad. Not quite a full Fab bingo." Do you have an individual thought on the subject or are you trolling, again? Before you ask, this is not a random question, it is based on you attacking the posts not discussing the subject, again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Easy target isn't it. Rather than go for the criminal gangs who are actually in control of the whole thing, pick an easy target with an ALMOST guarantee of a conviction to be shown to be doing something yet turning a blind eye to those really responsible." Do you believe this person should not have been charged with manslaughter and assisting illegal entrance to the uK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is Fab bingo full house. Immigrants. Drowned immigrants. An immigrant on trial. Asylum seeking. Small boat. Illegal entry. Assuming guilt. Found guilty....although my thoughts are with those who perished. My bad. Not quite a full Fab bingo. Do you have an individual thought on the subject or are you trolling, again? Before you ask, this is not a random question, it is based on you attacking the posts not discussing the subject, again." Did you mean to reply to me? I think you have me confused with someone else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI and Border Force crews who land migrants in the UK should be charged with the same offence." What’s the role of the RNLI? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on..." People rarely get charged for buying drugs from a dealer these days, mainly because the police know that people punishing an addict for their addiction does no one any good. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet he's submitted an asylum application! Surely the crime itself should negate this? It almost certainly will, but that doesn’t mean he’s not allowed to claim asylum and enter the process. It should Then you need to rewrite the whole asylum system and remain with international law. The UK Borders Act 2007 (s32) allows for the automatic deportation of ‘foreign criminals’. https://unlock.org.uk/advice/deportation-due-to-a-criminal-record/ And I suspect that’s exactly what will happen once the asylum process is complete - i suspect it’s a grey area whereby because an individual hasn’t been ‘processed’ (horrible word), they don’t yet have an official place of residence, and as such can’t be deported from said place. (If that makes sense)" Which is the exact reason we need any migrants landing on our shores to produce ID. I'm gonna imagine that this person will get a lawyer (on legal aid) to fight his deportation, so even if he is deported (eventually) would've cost the taxpayer a fuck ton of cash with zero return. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI and Border Force crews who land migrants in the UK should be charged with the same offence." Should the RNLI just let people drown? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI and Border Force crews who land migrants in the UK should be charged with the same offence. What’s the role of the RNLI? " Step 1. Identify boats in trouble. Step 2. Check identification of drowning persons. Step 3. If British, save them, if foreigners push the men, women and children to their deaths. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI and Border Force crews who land migrants in the UK should be charged with the same offence. Should the RNLI just let people drown?" No, but there needs to be a consequence if the RNLI are needed to go out to a small boat and rescue it. A fine and criminal record that would prevent application for asylum. The RNLI should not be seen as a safety net if we get into trouble.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI and Border Force crews who land migrants in the UK should be charged with the same offence. Should the RNLI just let people drown? No, but there needs to be a consequence if the RNLI are needed to go out to a small boat and rescue it. A fine and criminal record that would prevent application for asylum. The RNLI should not be seen as a safety net if we get into trouble.. " But we’re all agreed that the RNLI shouldn’t face punishment for rescuing boats (as per the post above)? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI and Border Force crews who land migrants in the UK should be charged with the same offence. Should the RNLI just let people drown? No, but there needs to be a consequence if the RNLI are needed to go out to a small boat and rescue it. A fine and criminal record that would prevent application for asylum. The RNLI should not be seen as a safety net if we get into trouble.. " A safety net if we get into trouble is exactly what the RNLI is, it’s the very definition of what they do. I proudly donate to them and fully support what they do because I don’t see the value of human life as dependent on what country a person was born is. Do you think someone’s life is worth less because they weren’t born in the UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI and Border Force crews who land migrants in the UK should be charged with the same offence. Should the RNLI just let people drown?" Do you think smugglers are fully aware that the RNLI will come to the rescue if a boat gets into trouble and use it as 'their' safety net? It's not as simple as saying NO. Of course the answer is no, they shouldn't just let them drown. What needs to be discussed is what happens with anyone rescued. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI and Border Force crews who land migrants in the UK should be charged with the same offence. Should the RNLI just let people drown? No, but there needs to be a consequence if the RNLI are needed to go out to a small boat and rescue it. A fine and criminal record that would prevent application for asylum. The RNLI should not be seen as a safety net if we get into trouble.. A safety net if we get into trouble is exactly what the RNLI is, it’s the very definition of what they do. I proudly donate to them and fully support what they do because I don’t see the value of human life as dependent on what country a person was born is. Do you think someone’s life is worth less because they weren’t born in the UK?" When I say they should not be seen as a safety net, I mean the thought of don't worry let's cross because we will be picked up. You paying some money into the RNLI does not give you the right to expect the people manning those boats, for no payment, should put their own lives at risk! These people are playing the system and putting their own lives at risk by setting off across a dangerous stretch of water. Your view is the very thing that creates such a thriving market place for the criminal gangs, but that is okay because you are paying in... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You paying some money into the RNLI does not give you the right to expect the people manning those boats, for no payment, should put their own lives at risk! " I don’t think anyone pays the RNLI in return for a service. It’s about supporting brave men and women doing an absolutely necessary job that should be funded as an emergency service but isn’t. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI and Border Force crews who land migrants in the UK should be charged with the same offence. Should the RNLI just let people drown? No, but there needs to be a consequence if the RNLI are needed to go out to a small boat and rescue it. A fine and criminal record that would prevent application for asylum. The RNLI should not be seen as a safety net if we get into trouble.. A safety net if we get into trouble is exactly what the RNLI is, it’s the very definition of what they do. I proudly donate to them and fully support what they do because I don’t see the value of human life as dependent on what country a person was born is. Do you think someone’s life is worth less because they weren’t born in the UK? When I say they should not be seen as a safety net, I mean the thought of don't worry let's cross because we will be picked up. You paying some money into the RNLI does not give you the right to expect the people manning those boats, for no payment, should put their own lives at risk! These people are playing the system and putting their own lives at risk by setting off across a dangerous stretch of water. Your view is the very thing that creates such a thriving market place for the criminal gangs, but that is okay because you are paying in..." The people who man the RNLI lifeboats do so voluntarily, they do it because they are committed to saving lives. They don’t allow politics to enter into what they are doing. They treat the refugees the same as they treat any person who puts their life at risk by going to sea. If you think the people we betrayed in Afghanistan, who have travelled thousands of miles to get to the UK because they think will be safe, get into dinghies thinking oh yes, this will be fine, the RNLI will save us, then you have no idea of how vast the channel is, especially at night. And the same applies for refugees from any other country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You paying some money into the RNLI does not give you the right to expect the people manning those boats, for no payment, should put their own lives at risk! I don’t think anyone pays the RNLI in return for a service. It’s about supporting brave men and women doing an absolutely necessary job that should be funded as an emergency service but isn’t. " The poster said: "I proudly donate to them and fully support what they do because I don’t see the value of human life as dependent on what country a person was born is" When I said people crossing the channel on small boats should face consequences if the RNLI is called to save them. That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. The RNLI volunteers are risking their lives as selfish people take unnecessary risks and those taking the risks should face consequences, regardless what someone donating a few £'s a month thinks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI and Border Force crews who land migrants in the UK should be charged with the same offence. Should the RNLI just let people drown? No, but there needs to be a consequence if the RNLI are needed to go out to a small boat and rescue it. A fine and criminal record that would prevent application for asylum. The RNLI should not be seen as a safety net if we get into trouble.. A safety net if we get into trouble is exactly what the RNLI is, it’s the very definition of what they do. I proudly donate to them and fully support what they do because I don’t see the value of human life as dependent on what country a person was born is. Do you think someone’s life is worth less because they weren’t born in the UK? When I say they should not be seen as a safety net, I mean the thought of don't worry let's cross because we will be picked up. You paying some money into the RNLI does not give you the right to expect the people manning those boats, for no payment, should put their own lives at risk! These people are playing the system and putting their own lives at risk by setting off across a dangerous stretch of water. Your view is the very thing that creates such a thriving market place for the criminal gangs, but that is okay because you are paying in... The people who man the RNLI lifeboats do so voluntarily, they do it because they are committed to saving lives. They don’t allow politics to enter into what they are doing. They treat the refugees the same as they treat any person who puts their life at risk by going to sea. If you think the people we betrayed in Afghanistan, who have travelled thousands of miles to get to the UK because they think will be safe, get into dinghies thinking oh yes, this will be fine, the RNLI will save us, then you have no idea of how vast the channel is, especially at night. And the same applies for refugees from any other country." You are making things up! Not every person crossing is someone the UK let down, can you see that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. " They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. " If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You paying some money into the RNLI does not give you the right to expect the people manning those boats, for no payment, should put their own lives at risk! I don’t think anyone pays the RNLI in return for a service. It’s about supporting brave men and women doing an absolutely necessary job that should be funded as an emergency service but isn’t. The poster said: "I proudly donate to them and fully support what they do because I don’t see the value of human life as dependent on what country a person was born is" When I said people crossing the channel on small boats should face consequences if the RNLI is called to save them. That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. The RNLI volunteers are risking their lives as selfish people take unnecessary risks and those taking the risks should face consequences, regardless what someone donating a few £'s a month thinks. " No, I donate because they don’t allow politics to influence their decision to save human lives. I don’t want any influence over what they do, and I don’t think I have the right to. I’m confused as to how you decided that, unless of course it’s because it’s what you would want? If the RNLI ever allow politics to influence who they save then I will stop supporting them. Until such time they can do what the fuck they want with my money. Do you see human lives that began outside of the UK as being less valuable than those that began in the UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. " Let's start at a basic level: 40+ people get on a dark beach enter the channel on a homemade raft, not suitable for the sea, or the numbers. They hope to be picked up on the English side of the channel and will continue to travel regardless of dangers and circumstance, even if that means some on board will drown. The hope is they will be picked up. That happened and is why this thread was started, they prosecuted the pilot of the small boat, they got picked up, 4 people drown and this needs to stop. Having the attitude that the RNLI are there to pick these people out of the water because they have purposefully put themselves at risk is worrying, it needs to be stopped and consequences need occur if someone crosses the channel and needs to be rescued because of their actions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel?" Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI and Border Force crews who land migrants in the UK should be charged with the same offence. Should the RNLI just let people drown? No, but there needs to be a consequence if the RNLI are needed to go out to a small boat and rescue it. A fine and criminal record that would prevent application for asylum. The RNLI should not be seen as a safety net if we get into trouble.. A safety net if we get into trouble is exactly what the RNLI is, it’s the very definition of what they do. I proudly donate to them and fully support what they do because I don’t see the value of human life as dependent on what country a person was born is. Do you think someone’s life is worth less because they weren’t born in the UK? When I say they should not be seen as a safety net, I mean the thought of don't worry let's cross because we will be picked up. You paying some money into the RNLI does not give you the right to expect the people manning those boats, for no payment, should put their own lives at risk! These people are playing the system and putting their own lives at risk by setting off across a dangerous stretch of water. Your view is the very thing that creates such a thriving market place for the criminal gangs, but that is okay because you are paying in... The people who man the RNLI lifeboats do so voluntarily, they do it because they are committed to saving lives. They don’t allow politics to enter into what they are doing. They treat the refugees the same as they treat any person who puts their life at risk by going to sea. If you think the people we betrayed in Afghanistan, who have travelled thousands of miles to get to the UK because they think will be safe, get into dinghies thinking oh yes, this will be fine, the RNLI will save us, then you have no idea of how vast the channel is, especially at night. And the same applies for refugees from any other country. You are making things up! Not every person crossing is someone the UK let down, can you see that? " I’m not saying they are, I’m giving an example of one set of people who attempt to see refuge in the UK. Frankly I don’t care where a drowning person comes from, I’d still want them to be saved. What about you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. Let's start at a basic level: 40+ people get on a dark beach enter the channel on a homemade raft, not suitable for the sea, or the numbers. They hope to be picked up on the English side of the channel and will continue to travel regardless of dangers and circumstance, even if that means some on board will drown. The hope is they will be picked up. That happened and is why this thread was started, they prosecuted the pilot of the small boat, they got picked up, 4 people drown and this needs to stop. Having the attitude that the RNLI are there to pick these people out of the water because they have purposefully put themselves at risk is worrying, it needs to be stopped and consequences need occur if someone crosses the channel and needs to be rescued because of their actions. " You’re right, it does need to stop. I’ve provided a solution which I suspect would work. It also (as feisty said) acts as a deterrent against those who still want to fork by boat because they’ll immediately be refused entry due to the illegal nature of their arrival when legal means had already been provided. Any disagreement? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. " Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You paying some money into the RNLI does not give you the right to expect the people manning those boats, for no payment, should put their own lives at risk! I don’t think anyone pays the RNLI in return for a service. It’s about supporting brave men and women doing an absolutely necessary job that should be funded as an emergency service but isn’t. The poster said: "I proudly donate to them and fully support what they do because I don’t see the value of human life as dependent on what country a person was born is" When I said people crossing the channel on small boats should face consequences if the RNLI is called to save them. That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. The RNLI volunteers are risking their lives as selfish people take unnecessary risks and those taking the risks should face consequences, regardless what someone donating a few £'s a month thinks. No, I donate because they don’t allow politics to influence their decision to save human lives. I don’t want any influence over what they do, and I don’t think I have the right to. I’m confused as to how you decided that, unless of course it’s because it’s what you would want? If the RNLI ever allow politics to influence who they save then I will stop supporting them. Until such time they can do what the fuck they want with my money. Do you see human lives that began outside of the UK as being less valuable than those that began in the UK? " If you cannot see the basic argument here is not to let them drown we will get nowhere, open your eyes! I'm saying that anyone taking that journey in a craft not fit for numbers or crossings, who need rescuing should face consequences of their actions, they put themselves and the RNLI's lives at risk for selfish reasons. I will leave the donation side of things out of the rest of it, you were clear in how you thought.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. Let's start at a basic level: 40+ people get on a dark beach enter the channel on a homemade raft, not suitable for the sea, or the numbers. They hope to be picked up on the English side of the channel and will continue to travel regardless of dangers and circumstance, even if that means some on board will drown. The hope is they will be picked up. That happened and is why this thread was started, they prosecuted the pilot of the small boat, they got picked up, 4 people drown and this needs to stop. Having the attitude that the RNLI are there to pick these people out of the water because they have purposefully put themselves at risk is worrying, it needs to be stopped and consequences need occur if someone crosses the channel and needs to be rescued because of their actions. " Let’s start on a basic level, how desperate would you have to be in order to board a homemade raft to cross the busiest shipping lanes in the world, with no guarantee that if the raft disintegrates you would be rescued? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat." And require documentation, and due to our insistence that visas can’t be applied for whilst abroad, are therefore not available for the majority of these folks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You paying some money into the RNLI does not give you the right to expect the people manning those boats, for no payment, should put their own lives at risk! I don’t think anyone pays the RNLI in return for a service. It’s about supporting brave men and women doing an absolutely necessary job that should be funded as an emergency service but isn’t. The poster said: "I proudly donate to them and fully support what they do because I don’t see the value of human life as dependent on what country a person was born is" When I said people crossing the channel on small boats should face consequences if the RNLI is called to save them. That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. The RNLI volunteers are risking their lives as selfish people take unnecessary risks and those taking the risks should face consequences, regardless what someone donating a few £'s a month thinks. No, I donate because they don’t allow politics to influence their decision to save human lives. I don’t want any influence over what they do, and I don’t think I have the right to. I’m confused as to how you decided that, unless of course it’s because it’s what you would want? If the RNLI ever allow politics to influence who they save then I will stop supporting them. Until such time they can do what the fuck they want with my money. Do you see human lives that began outside of the UK as being less valuable than those that began in the UK? If you cannot see the basic argument here is not to let them drown we will get nowhere, open your eyes! I'm saying that anyone taking that journey in a craft not fit for numbers or crossings, who need rescuing should face consequences of their actions, they put themselves and the RNLI's lives at risk for selfish reasons. I will leave the donation side of things out of the rest of it, you were clear in how you thought...." Should we punish drug takers harsher than drug dealers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat." They won’t be allowed to board a ferry or plane unless they have the correct visas. There are no safe routes into the UK for refugees, apart from a couple of very specific routes from countries we have selected. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. And require documentation, and due to our insistence that visas can’t be applied for whilst abroad, are therefore not available for the majority of these folks. " You can't apply for a travel visa if you're outside of the UK? You better start telling everyone because I would imagine most people think differently. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. They won’t be allowed to board a ferry or plane unless they have the correct visas. There are no safe routes into the UK for refugees, apart from a couple of very specific routes from countries we have selected." This has been pointed out ad-infinitum on here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. They won’t be allowed to board a ferry or plane unless they have the correct visas. There are no safe routes into the UK for refugees, apart from a couple of very specific routes from countries we have selected." Anyone can apply for a holiday visa. There's a common argument that a lot of asylum seekers head to the UK because they have family here. Should be easy for those folk to lie and get a holiday visa. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. And require documentation, and due to our insistence that visas can’t be applied for whilst abroad, are therefore not available for the majority of these folks. You can't apply for a travel visa if you're outside of the UK? You better start telling everyone because I would imagine most people think differently. " Did I specify travel visa? You know full well that asylum seekers can’t apply from abroad (a few exceptions apart). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. They won’t be allowed to board a ferry or plane unless they have the correct visas. There are no safe routes into the UK for refugees, apart from a couple of very specific routes from countries we have selected. Anyone can apply for a holiday visa. There's a common argument that a lot of asylum seekers head to the UK because they have family here. Should be easy for those folk to lie and get a holiday visa. " And what happens when border force do the correct checks on the applicants? They’d be returned, correct? As would anyone lying about their visa. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. Let's start at a basic level: 40+ people get on a dark beach enter the channel on a homemade raft, not suitable for the sea, or the numbers. They hope to be picked up on the English side of the channel and will continue to travel regardless of dangers and circumstance, even if that means some on board will drown. The hope is they will be picked up. That happened and is why this thread was started, they prosecuted the pilot of the small boat, they got picked up, 4 people drown and this needs to stop. Having the attitude that the RNLI are there to pick these people out of the water because they have purposefully put themselves at risk is worrying, it needs to be stopped and consequences need occur if someone crosses the channel and needs to be rescued because of their actions. Let’s start on a basic level, how desperate would you have to be in order to board a homemade raft to cross the busiest shipping lanes in the world, with no guarantee that if the raft disintegrates you would be rescued?" Wake up... The RNLI are being used to sell the trip, you will be rescued and picked up if you get into trouble... It is a big sell and you are not helping with anything that can discourage that sell. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. And require documentation, and due to our insistence that visas can’t be applied for whilst abroad, are therefore not available for the majority of these folks. You can't apply for a travel visa if you're outside of the UK? You better start telling everyone because I would imagine most people think differently. Did I specify travel visa? You know full well that asylum seekers can’t apply from abroad (a few exceptions apart)." You said 'visas', you didn't specify any type. There is no such thing as an 'asylum visa'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. They won’t be allowed to board a ferry or plane unless they have the correct visas. There are no safe routes into the UK for refugees, apart from a couple of very specific routes from countries we have selected. Anyone can apply for a holiday visa. There's a common argument that a lot of asylum seekers head to the UK because they have family here. Should be easy for those folk to lie and get a holiday visa. And what happens when border force do the correct checks on the applicants? They’d be returned, correct? As would anyone lying about their visa." You've lost me. Anyone can apply for asylum as soon as on UK soil. Travel visa gets them to UK soil. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. And require documentation, and due to our insistence that visas can’t be applied for whilst abroad, are therefore not available for the majority of these folks. You can't apply for a travel visa if you're outside of the UK? You better start telling everyone because I would imagine most people think differently. Did I specify travel visa? You know full well that asylum seekers can’t apply from abroad (a few exceptions apart). You said 'visas', you didn't specify any type. There is no such thing as an 'asylum visa'." Can anyone apply for asylum from abroad? (It’s a simple yes or no question) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. They won’t be allowed to board a ferry or plane unless they have the correct visas. There are no safe routes into the UK for refugees, apart from a couple of very specific routes from countries we have selected. Anyone can apply for a holiday visa. There's a common argument that a lot of asylum seekers head to the UK because they have family here. Should be easy for those folk to lie and get a holiday visa. And what happens when border force do the correct checks on the applicants? They’d be returned, correct? As would anyone lying about their visa. You've lost me. Anyone can apply for asylum as soon as on UK soil. Travel visa gets them to UK soil. " So you’re saying that they apply for a travel visa, tell the airline/customs that they’re taking a holiday, and then apply for asylum once here? That’s lying about your reason for travel - which is an offence (you know that). What’s the outcome? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. They won’t be allowed to board a ferry or plane unless they have the correct visas. There are no safe routes into the UK for refugees, apart from a couple of very specific routes from countries we have selected. Anyone can apply for a holiday visa. There's a common argument that a lot of asylum seekers head to the UK because they have family here. Should be easy for those folk to lie and get a holiday visa. And what happens when border force do the correct checks on the applicants? They’d be returned, correct? As would anyone lying about their visa. You've lost me. Anyone can apply for asylum as soon as on UK soil. Travel visa gets them to UK soil. So you’re saying that they apply for a travel visa, tell the airline/customs that they’re taking a holiday, and then apply for asylum once here? That’s lying about your reason for travel - which is an offence (you know that). What’s the outcome? " Lying 
Fuck me, that made me laugh | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. They won’t be allowed to board a ferry or plane unless they have the correct visas. There are no safe routes into the UK for refugees, apart from a couple of very specific routes from countries we have selected. Anyone can apply for a holiday visa. There's a common argument that a lot of asylum seekers head to the UK because they have family here. Should be easy for those folk to lie and get a holiday visa. And what happens when border force do the correct checks on the applicants? They’d be returned, correct? As would anyone lying about their visa. You've lost me. Anyone can apply for asylum as soon as on UK soil. Travel visa gets them to UK soil. So you’re saying that they apply for a travel visa, tell the airline/customs that they’re taking a holiday, and then apply for asylum once here? That’s lying about your reason for travel - which is an offence (you know that). What’s the outcome? Lying
Fuck me, that made me laugh"I’m sure it did, because you’ll do anything to avoid the actual problem here, which is that the failings of the U.K. asylum system actually creates the small boat problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. They won’t be allowed to board a ferry or plane unless they have the correct visas. There are no safe routes into the UK for refugees, apart from a couple of very specific routes from countries we have selected. Anyone can apply for a holiday visa. There's a common argument that a lot of asylum seekers head to the UK because they have family here. Should be easy for those folk to lie and get a holiday visa. And what happens when border force do the correct checks on the applicants? They’d be returned, correct? As would anyone lying about their visa. You've lost me. Anyone can apply for asylum as soon as on UK soil. Travel visa gets them to UK soil. So you’re saying that they apply for a travel visa, tell the airline/customs that they’re taking a holiday, and then apply for asylum once here? That’s lying about your reason for travel - which is an offence (you know that). What’s the outcome? " You must be really fucking naive if you don't think that already happens. Look at asylum numbers and look and small boat numbers, they don't match  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. They won’t be allowed to board a ferry or plane unless they have the correct visas. There are no safe routes into the UK for refugees, apart from a couple of very specific routes from countries we have selected. Anyone can apply for a holiday visa. There's a common argument that a lot of asylum seekers head to the UK because they have family here. Should be easy for those folk to lie and get a holiday visa. And what happens when border force do the correct checks on the applicants? They’d be returned, correct? As would anyone lying about their visa. You've lost me. Anyone can apply for asylum as soon as on UK soil. Travel visa gets them to UK soil. So you’re saying that they apply for a travel visa, tell the airline/customs that they’re taking a holiday, and then apply for asylum once here? That’s lying about your reason for travel - which is an offence (you know that). What’s the outcome? You must be really fucking naive if you don't think that already happens. Look at asylum numbers and look and small boat numbers, they don't match "I’m certain it does happen. Whose responsibility is it to check the validity of people arriving in the U.K? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. And require documentation, and due to our insistence that visas can’t be applied for whilst abroad, are therefore not available for the majority of these folks. You can't apply for a travel visa if you're outside of the UK? You better start telling everyone because I would imagine most people think differently. Did I specify travel visa? You know full well that asylum seekers can’t apply from abroad (a few exceptions apart). You said 'visas', you didn't specify any type. There is no such thing as an 'asylum visa'. Can anyone apply for asylum from abroad? (It’s a simple yes or no question)" You trying to apply an argument I havent made. You said it would require visas, of course it would require a visa, a travel visa, I've already stated this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. They won’t be allowed to board a ferry or plane unless they have the correct visas. There are no safe routes into the UK for refugees, apart from a couple of very specific routes from countries we have selected. Anyone can apply for a holiday visa. There's a common argument that a lot of asylum seekers head to the UK because they have family here. Should be easy for those folk to lie and get a holiday visa. And what happens when border force do the correct checks on the applicants? They’d be returned, correct? As would anyone lying about their visa. You've lost me. Anyone can apply for asylum as soon as on UK soil. Travel visa gets them to UK soil. So you’re saying that they apply for a travel visa, tell the airline/customs that they’re taking a holiday, and then apply for asylum once here? That’s lying about your reason for travel - which is an offence (you know that). What’s the outcome? You must be really fucking naive if you don't think that already happens. Look at asylum numbers and look and small boat numbers, they don't match
I’m certain it does happen. Whose responsibility is it to check the validity of people arriving in the U.K?"What the fuck are you arguing about then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. And require documentation, and due to our insistence that visas can’t be applied for whilst abroad, are therefore not available for the majority of these folks. You can't apply for a travel visa if you're outside of the UK? You better start telling everyone because I would imagine most people think differently. Did I specify travel visa? You know full well that asylum seekers can’t apply from abroad (a few exceptions apart). You said 'visas', you didn't specify any type. There is no such thing as an 'asylum visa'. Can anyone apply for asylum from abroad? (It’s a simple yes or no question) You trying to apply an argument I havent made. You said it would require visas, of course it would require a visa, a travel visa, I've already stated this. " A simple travel visa isn’t suitable for asylum purposes. You know this already. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. They won’t be allowed to board a ferry or plane unless they have the correct visas. There are no safe routes into the UK for refugees, apart from a couple of very specific routes from countries we have selected. Anyone can apply for a holiday visa. There's a common argument that a lot of asylum seekers head to the UK because they have family here. Should be easy for those folk to lie and get a holiday visa. And what happens when border force do the correct checks on the applicants? They’d be returned, correct? As would anyone lying about their visa. You've lost me. Anyone can apply for asylum as soon as on UK soil. Travel visa gets them to UK soil. So you’re saying that they apply for a travel visa, tell the airline/customs that they’re taking a holiday, and then apply for asylum once here? That’s lying about your reason for travel - which is an offence (you know that). What’s the outcome? You must be really fucking naive if you don't think that already happens. Look at asylum numbers and look and small boat numbers, they don't match
I’m certain it does happen. Whose responsibility is it to check the validity of people arriving in the U.K?
What the fuck are you arguing about then?"That our asylum system isn’t fit for purpose and actually increases these dangerous boat crossings. The solution is remarkably simple, but U.K govt lacks the willpower to solve it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. And require documentation, and due to our insistence that visas can’t be applied for whilst abroad, are therefore not available for the majority of these folks. You can't apply for a travel visa if you're outside of the UK? You better start telling everyone because I would imagine most people think differently. Did I specify travel visa? You know full well that asylum seekers can’t apply from abroad (a few exceptions apart). You said 'visas', you didn't specify any type. There is no such thing as an 'asylum visa'. Can anyone apply for asylum from abroad? (It’s a simple yes or no question) You trying to apply an argument I havent made. You said it would require visas, of course it would require a visa, a travel visa, I've already stated this. A simple travel visa isn’t suitable for asylum purposes. You know this already. " Are you struggling to read this morning? I haven't said it is. I've said obtaining a si.ple travel visa opens a safe route, one that is actually cheaper than what these people pay atm. Cheaper and safer? What's not to like.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. They won’t be allowed to board a ferry or plane unless they have the correct visas. There are no safe routes into the UK for refugees, apart from a couple of very specific routes from countries we have selected. Anyone can apply for a holiday visa. There's a common argument that a lot of asylum seekers head to the UK because they have family here. Should be easy for those folk to lie and get a holiday visa. And what happens when border force do the correct checks on the applicants? They’d be returned, correct? As would anyone lying about their visa. You've lost me. Anyone can apply for asylum as soon as on UK soil. Travel visa gets them to UK soil. So you’re saying that they apply for a travel visa, tell the airline/customs that they’re taking a holiday, and then apply for asylum once here? That’s lying about your reason for travel - which is an offence (you know that). What’s the outcome? You must be really fucking naive if you don't think that already happens. Look at asylum numbers and look and small boat numbers, they don't match
I’m certain it does happen. Whose responsibility is it to check the validity of people arriving in the U.K?
What the fuck are you arguing about then?
That our asylum system isn’t fit for purpose and actually increases these dangerous boat crossings.
The solution is remarkably simple, but U.K govt lacks the willpower to solve it. "I agree with you on that. It's almost as if you just wanna argue about something, so.ething which I haven't said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. They won’t be allowed to board a ferry or plane unless they have the correct visas. There are no safe routes into the UK for refugees, apart from a couple of very specific routes from countries we have selected. Anyone can apply for a holiday visa. There's a common argument that a lot of asylum seekers head to the UK because they have family here. Should be easy for those folk to lie and get a holiday visa. And what happens when border force do the correct checks on the applicants? They’d be returned, correct? As would anyone lying about their visa. You've lost me. Anyone can apply for asylum as soon as on UK soil. Travel visa gets them to UK soil. So you’re saying that they apply for a travel visa, tell the airline/customs that they’re taking a holiday, and then apply for asylum once here? That’s lying about your reason for travel - which is an offence (you know that). What’s the outcome? Lying
Fuck me, that made me laugh
I’m sure it did, because you’ll do anything to avoid the actual problem here, which is that the failings of the U.K. asylum system actually creates the small boat problem. "You are not looking for any alternative to a plan you believe to be the perfect answer. We are not near any type of deterrent at them moment and it is the avoidance of truth and the flimsy convention that allows people too literally walk through the door unchallenged, ditching phones and paperwork to aid that deception. So when an alternative suggestion is put in front of you, you try to dismiss it because they would need to lie, surely you can see why that is such a ridiculous thing to say..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. They won’t be allowed to board a ferry or plane unless they have the correct visas. There are no safe routes into the UK for refugees, apart from a couple of very specific routes from countries we have selected. Anyone can apply for a holiday visa. There's a common argument that a lot of asylum seekers head to the UK because they have family here. Should be easy for those folk to lie and get a holiday visa. And what happens when border force do the correct checks on the applicants? They’d be returned, correct? As would anyone lying about their visa. You've lost me. Anyone can apply for asylum as soon as on UK soil. Travel visa gets them to UK soil. So you’re saying that they apply for a travel visa, tell the airline/customs that they’re taking a holiday, and then apply for asylum once here? That’s lying about your reason for travel - which is an offence (you know that). What’s the outcome? Lying
Fuck me, that made me laugh
I’m sure it did, because you’ll do anything to avoid the actual problem here, which is that the failings of the U.K. asylum system actually creates the small boat problem.
You are not looking for any alternative to a plan you believe to be the perfect answer.
We are not near any type of deterrent at them moment and it is the avoidance of truth and the flimsy convention that allows people too literally walk through the door unchallenged, ditching phones and paperwork to aid that deception.
So when an alternative suggestion is put in front of you, you try to dismiss it because they would need to lie, surely you can see why that is such a ridiculous thing to say....."You haven’t suggested an alternative solution beyond ‘punish the people in the boats’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. They won’t be allowed to board a ferry or plane unless they have the correct visas. There are no safe routes into the UK for refugees, apart from a couple of very specific routes from countries we have selected. Anyone can apply for a holiday visa. There's a common argument that a lot of asylum seekers head to the UK because they have family here. Should be easy for those folk to lie and get a holiday visa. And what happens when border force do the correct checks on the applicants? They’d be returned, correct? As would anyone lying about their visa. You've lost me. Anyone can apply for asylum as soon as on UK soil. Travel visa gets them to UK soil. So you’re saying that they apply for a travel visa, tell the airline/customs that they’re taking a holiday, and then apply for asylum once here? That’s lying about your reason for travel - which is an offence (you know that). What’s the outcome? Lying
Fuck me, that made me laugh
I’m sure it did, because you’ll do anything to avoid the actual problem here, which is that the failings of the U.K. asylum system actually creates the small boat problem.
You are not looking for any alternative to a plan you believe to be the perfect answer.
We are not near any type of deterrent at them moment and it is the avoidance of truth and the flimsy convention that allows people too literally walk through the door unchallenged, ditching phones and paperwork to aid that deception.
So when an alternative suggestion is put in front of you, you try to dismiss it because they would need to lie, surely you can see why that is such a ridiculous thing to say.....
You haven’t suggested an alternative solution beyond ‘punish the people in the boats’"You were replying to Feisty on the lying front, keep up. And consequences, they should face consequences for their actions is what I'm saying... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. They won’t be allowed to board a ferry or plane unless they have the correct visas. There are no safe routes into the UK for refugees, apart from a couple of very specific routes from countries we have selected. Anyone can apply for a holiday visa. There's a common argument that a lot of asylum seekers head to the UK because they have family here. Should be easy for those folk to lie and get a holiday visa. And what happens when border force do the correct checks on the applicants? They’d be returned, correct? As would anyone lying about their visa. You've lost me. Anyone can apply for asylum as soon as on UK soil. Travel visa gets them to UK soil. So you’re saying that they apply for a travel visa, tell the airline/customs that they’re taking a holiday, and then apply for asylum once here? That’s lying about your reason for travel - which is an offence (you know that). What’s the outcome? Lying
Fuck me, that made me laugh
I’m sure it did, because you’ll do anything to avoid the actual problem here, which is that the failings of the U.K. asylum system actually creates the small boat problem.
You are not looking for any alternative to a plan you believe to be the perfect answer.
We are not near any type of deterrent at them moment and it is the avoidance of truth and the flimsy convention that allows people too literally walk through the door unchallenged, ditching phones and paperwork to aid that deception.
So when an alternative suggestion is put in front of you, you try to dismiss it because they would need to lie, surely you can see why that is such a ridiculous thing to say.....
You haven’t suggested an alternative solution beyond ‘punish the people in the boats’
You were replying to Feisty on the lying front, keep up.
And consequences, they should face consequences for their actions is what I'm saying..."What consequences should they face, exactly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. And require documentation, and due to our insistence that visas can’t be applied for whilst abroad, are therefore not available for the majority of these folks. You can't apply for a travel visa if you're outside of the UK? You better start telling everyone because I would imagine most people think differently. " Imagine you are a person in Syria who fears for their life because the Government is persecuting your family and wants to apply for a visa to travel to the UK. Do you think the government that is persecuting you is going to sit idly by while you go through the visa application process at the British embassy in… oh, the embassy in Syria has been closed as we have cut off diplomatic relations with Syria. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. Let's start at a basic level: 40+ people get on a dark beach enter the channel on a homemade raft, not suitable for the sea, or the numbers. They hope to be picked up on the English side of the channel and will continue to travel regardless of dangers and circumstance, even if that means some on board will drown. The hope is they will be picked up. That happened and is why this thread was started, they prosecuted the pilot of the small boat, they got picked up, 4 people drown and this needs to stop. Having the attitude that the RNLI are there to pick these people out of the water because they have purposefully put themselves at risk is worrying, it needs to be stopped and consequences need occur if someone crosses the channel and needs to be rescued because of their actions. Let’s start on a basic level, how desperate would you have to be in order to board a homemade raft to cross the busiest shipping lanes in the world, with no guarantee that if the raft disintegrates you would be rescued? Wake up... The RNLI are being used to sell the trip, you will be rescued and picked up if you get into trouble... It is a big sell and you are not helping with anything that can discourage that sell. " You seem very familiar with the marketing methods of people traffickers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. They won’t be allowed to board a ferry or plane unless they have the correct visas. There are no safe routes into the UK for refugees, apart from a couple of very specific routes from countries we have selected. Anyone can apply for a holiday visa. There's a common argument that a lot of asylum seekers head to the UK because they have family here. Should be easy for those folk to lie and get a holiday visa. And what happens when border force do the correct checks on the applicants? They’d be returned, correct? As would anyone lying about their visa. You've lost me. Anyone can apply for asylum as soon as on UK soil. Travel visa gets them to UK soil. So you’re saying that they apply for a travel visa, tell the airline/customs that they’re taking a holiday, and then apply for asylum once here? That’s lying about your reason for travel - which is an offence (you know that). What’s the outcome? Lying
Fuck me, that made me laugh
I’m sure it did, because you’ll do anything to avoid the actual problem here, which is that the failings of the U.K. asylum system actually creates the small boat problem.
You are not looking for any alternative to a plan you believe to be the perfect answer.
We are not near any type of deterrent at them moment and it is the avoidance of truth and the flimsy convention that allows people too literally walk through the door unchallenged, ditching phones and paperwork to aid that deception.
So when an alternative suggestion is put in front of you, you try to dismiss it because they would need to lie, surely you can see why that is such a ridiculous thing to say.....
You haven’t suggested an alternative solution beyond ‘punish the people in the boats’
You were replying to Feisty on the lying front, keep up.
And consequences, they should face consequences for their actions is what I'm saying...
What consequences should they face, exactly? "Fine, criminal record something that could actually prevent them from claiming asylum, if that was in place and the prospect of making the journey would not be so compelling. Maybe it would drive down the numbers of drownings and prevent people from taking risks off the back of gangs promises. You know a deterrent? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. They won’t be allowed to board a ferry or plane unless they have the correct visas. There are no safe routes into the UK for refugees, apart from a couple of very specific routes from countries we have selected. Anyone can apply for a holiday visa. There's a common argument that a lot of asylum seekers head to the UK because they have family here. Should be easy for those folk to lie and get a holiday visa. And what happens when border force do the correct checks on the applicants? They’d be returned, correct? As would anyone lying about their visa. You've lost me. Anyone can apply for asylum as soon as on UK soil. Travel visa gets them to UK soil. So you’re saying that they apply for a travel visa, tell the airline/customs that they’re taking a holiday, and then apply for asylum once here? That’s lying about your reason for travel - which is an offence (you know that). What’s the outcome? Lying
Fuck me, that made me laugh
I’m sure it did, because you’ll do anything to avoid the actual problem here, which is that the failings of the U.K. asylum system actually creates the small boat problem.
You are not looking for any alternative to a plan you believe to be the perfect answer.
We are not near any type of deterrent at them moment and it is the avoidance of truth and the flimsy convention that allows people too literally walk through the door unchallenged, ditching phones and paperwork to aid that deception.
So when an alternative suggestion is put in front of you, you try to dismiss it because they would need to lie, surely you can see why that is such a ridiculous thing to say.....
You haven’t suggested an alternative solution beyond ‘punish the people in the boats’
You were replying to Feisty on the lying front, keep up.
And consequences, they should face consequences for their actions is what I'm saying...
What consequences should they face, exactly?
Fine, criminal record something that could actually prevent them from claiming asylum, if that was in place and the prospect of making the journey would not be so compelling.
Maybe it would drive down the numbers of drownings and prevent people from taking risks off the back of gangs promises.
You know a deterrent? "Ok, so you want to give them a criminal record that prevents them from claiming asylum. And we also don’t allow people to claim asylum from abroad, and we also don’t provide safe legal routes for the majority of asylum seekers. So you’re essentially saying ‘not our problem, guv’ Have I got that right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. Let's start at a basic level: 40+ people get on a dark beach enter the channel on a homemade raft, not suitable for the sea, or the numbers. They hope to be picked up on the English side of the channel and will continue to travel regardless of dangers and circumstance, even if that means some on board will drown. The hope is they will be picked up. That happened and is why this thread was started, they prosecuted the pilot of the small boat, they got picked up, 4 people drown and this needs to stop. Having the attitude that the RNLI are there to pick these people out of the water because they have purposefully put themselves at risk is worrying, it needs to be stopped and consequences need occur if someone crosses the channel and needs to be rescued because of their actions. Let’s start on a basic level, how desperate would you have to be in order to board a homemade raft to cross the busiest shipping lanes in the world, with no guarantee that if the raft disintegrates you would be rescued? Wake up... The RNLI are being used to sell the trip, you will be rescued and picked up if you get into trouble... It is a big sell and you are not helping with anything that can discourage that sell. You seem very familiar with the marketing methods of people traffickers." What is that supposed to mean? Are you unaware of the methods they use? It wouldn't surprise me if you didn't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. They won’t be allowed to board a ferry or plane unless they have the correct visas. There are no safe routes into the UK for refugees, apart from a couple of very specific routes from countries we have selected. Anyone can apply for a holiday visa. There's a common argument that a lot of asylum seekers head to the UK because they have family here. Should be easy for those folk to lie and get a holiday visa. And what happens when border force do the correct checks on the applicants? They’d be returned, correct? As would anyone lying about their visa. You've lost me. Anyone can apply for asylum as soon as on UK soil. Travel visa gets them to UK soil. So you’re saying that they apply for a travel visa, tell the airline/customs that they’re taking a holiday, and then apply for asylum once here? That’s lying about your reason for travel - which is an offence (you know that). What’s the outcome? Lying
Fuck me, that made me laugh
I’m sure it did, because you’ll do anything to avoid the actual problem here, which is that the failings of the U.K. asylum system actually creates the small boat problem.
You are not looking for any alternative to a plan you believe to be the perfect answer.
We are not near any type of deterrent at them moment and it is the avoidance of truth and the flimsy convention that allows people too literally walk through the door unchallenged, ditching phones and paperwork to aid that deception.
So when an alternative suggestion is put in front of you, you try to dismiss it because they would need to lie, surely you can see why that is such a ridiculous thing to say.....
You haven’t suggested an alternative solution beyond ‘punish the people in the boats’
You were replying to Feisty on the lying front, keep up.
And consequences, they should face consequences for their actions is what I'm saying...
What consequences should they face, exactly?
Fine, criminal record something that could actually prevent them from claiming asylum, if that was in place and the prospect of making the journey would not be so compelling.
Maybe it would drive down the numbers of drownings and prevent people from taking risks off the back of gangs promises.
You know a deterrent?
Ok, so you want to give them a criminal record that prevents them from claiming asylum. And we also don’t allow people to claim asylum from abroad, and we also don’t provide safe legal routes for the majority of asylum seekers.
So you’re essentially saying ‘not our problem, guv’
Have I got that right? "Do you know what a deterrent is? Work from that angle first. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. And require documentation, and due to our insistence that visas can’t be applied for whilst abroad, are therefore not available for the majority of these folks. You can't apply for a travel visa if you're outside of the UK? You better start telling everyone because I would imagine most people think differently. Imagine you are a person in Syria who fears for their life because the Government is persecuting your family and wants to apply for a visa to travel to the UK. Do you think the government that is persecuting you is going to sit idly by while you go through the visa application process at the British embassy in… oh, the embassy in Syria has been closed as we have cut off diplomatic relations with Syria." You need to go to an embassy to apply for a visa? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. They won’t be allowed to board a ferry or plane unless they have the correct visas. There are no safe routes into the UK for refugees, apart from a couple of very specific routes from countries we have selected. Anyone can apply for a holiday visa. There's a common argument that a lot of asylum seekers head to the UK because they have family here. Should be easy for those folk to lie and get a holiday visa. And what happens when border force do the correct checks on the applicants? They’d be returned, correct? As would anyone lying about their visa. You've lost me. Anyone can apply for asylum as soon as on UK soil. Travel visa gets them to UK soil. So you’re saying that they apply for a travel visa, tell the airline/customs that they’re taking a holiday, and then apply for asylum once here? That’s lying about your reason for travel - which is an offence (you know that). What’s the outcome? Lying
Fuck me, that made me laugh
I’m sure it did, because you’ll do anything to avoid the actual problem here, which is that the failings of the U.K. asylum system actually creates the small boat problem.
You are not looking for any alternative to a plan you believe to be the perfect answer.
We are not near any type of deterrent at them moment and it is the avoidance of truth and the flimsy convention that allows people too literally walk through the door unchallenged, ditching phones and paperwork to aid that deception.
So when an alternative suggestion is put in front of you, you try to dismiss it because they would need to lie, surely you can see why that is such a ridiculous thing to say.....
You haven’t suggested an alternative solution beyond ‘punish the people in the boats’
You were replying to Feisty on the lying front, keep up.
And consequences, they should face consequences for their actions is what I'm saying...
What consequences should they face, exactly?
Fine, criminal record something that could actually prevent them from claiming asylum, if that was in place and the prospect of making the journey would not be so compelling.
Maybe it would drive down the numbers of drownings and prevent people from taking risks off the back of gangs promises.
You know a deterrent?
Ok, so you want to give them a criminal record that prevents them from claiming asylum. And we also don’t allow people to claim asylum from abroad, and we also don’t provide safe legal routes for the majority of asylum seekers.
So you’re essentially saying ‘not our problem, guv’
Have I got that right?
Do you know what a deterrent is? Work from that angle first."No, I want to clarify that you said what I thought you said. You want to criminalise the people in the boats - I understand that much. Would you make any other changes to the asylum system as well in response? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. They won’t be allowed to board a ferry or plane unless they have the correct visas. There are no safe routes into the UK for refugees, apart from a couple of very specific routes from countries we have selected. Anyone can apply for a holiday visa. There's a common argument that a lot of asylum seekers head to the UK because they have family here. Should be easy for those folk to lie and get a holiday visa. And what happens when border force do the correct checks on the applicants? They’d be returned, correct? As would anyone lying about their visa. You've lost me. Anyone can apply for asylum as soon as on UK soil. Travel visa gets them to UK soil. So you’re saying that they apply for a travel visa, tell the airline/customs that they’re taking a holiday, and then apply for asylum once here? That’s lying about your reason for travel - which is an offence (you know that). What’s the outcome? Lying
Fuck me, that made me laugh
I’m sure it did, because you’ll do anything to avoid the actual problem here, which is that the failings of the U.K. asylum system actually creates the small boat problem.
You are not looking for any alternative to a plan you believe to be the perfect answer.
We are not near any type of deterrent at them moment and it is the avoidance of truth and the flimsy convention that allows people too literally walk through the door unchallenged, ditching phones and paperwork to aid that deception.
So when an alternative suggestion is put in front of you, you try to dismiss it because they would need to lie, surely you can see why that is such a ridiculous thing to say.....
You haven’t suggested an alternative solution beyond ‘punish the people in the boats’
You were replying to Feisty on the lying front, keep up.
And consequences, they should face consequences for their actions is what I'm saying...
What consequences should they face, exactly?
Fine, criminal record something that could actually prevent them from claiming asylum, if that was in place and the prospect of making the journey would not be so compelling.
Maybe it would drive down the numbers of drownings and prevent people from taking risks off the back of gangs promises.
You know a deterrent?
Ok, so you want to give them a criminal record that prevents them from claiming asylum. And we also don’t allow people to claim asylum from abroad, and we also don’t provide safe legal routes for the majority of asylum seekers.
So you’re essentially saying ‘not our problem, guv’
Have I got that right?
Do you know what a deterrent is? Work from that angle first.
No, I want to clarify that you said what I thought you said. You want to criminalise the people in the boats - I understand that much.
Would you make any other changes to the asylum system as well in response?"Start with the problem and then we can see what needs to happen. One step at a time, because you should know by now, trying to put something in place whilst we still have a backdoor to walk through will not work... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. They won’t be allowed to board a ferry or plane unless they have the correct visas. There are no safe routes into the UK for refugees, apart from a couple of very specific routes from countries we have selected. Anyone can apply for a holiday visa. There's a common argument that a lot of asylum seekers head to the UK because they have family here. Should be easy for those folk to lie and get a holiday visa. And what happens when border force do the correct checks on the applicants? They’d be returned, correct? As would anyone lying about their visa. You've lost me. Anyone can apply for asylum as soon as on UK soil. Travel visa gets them to UK soil. So you’re saying that they apply for a travel visa, tell the airline/customs that they’re taking a holiday, and then apply for asylum once here? That’s lying about your reason for travel - which is an offence (you know that). What’s the outcome? Lying
Fuck me, that made me laugh
I’m sure it did, because you’ll do anything to avoid the actual problem here, which is that the failings of the U.K. asylum system actually creates the small boat problem.
You are not looking for any alternative to a plan you believe to be the perfect answer.
We are not near any type of deterrent at them moment and it is the avoidance of truth and the flimsy convention that allows people too literally walk through the door unchallenged, ditching phones and paperwork to aid that deception.
So when an alternative suggestion is put in front of you, you try to dismiss it because they would need to lie, surely you can see why that is such a ridiculous thing to say.....
You haven’t suggested an alternative solution beyond ‘punish the people in the boats’
You were replying to Feisty on the lying front, keep up.
And consequences, they should face consequences for their actions is what I'm saying...
What consequences should they face, exactly?
Fine, criminal record something that could actually prevent them from claiming asylum, if that was in place and the prospect of making the journey would not be so compelling.
Maybe it would drive down the numbers of drownings and prevent people from taking risks off the back of gangs promises.
You know a deterrent?
Ok, so you want to give them a criminal record that prevents them from claiming asylum. And we also don’t allow people to claim asylum from abroad, and we also don’t provide safe legal routes for the majority of asylum seekers.
So you’re essentially saying ‘not our problem, guv’
Have I got that right?
Do you know what a deterrent is? Work from that angle first.
No, I want to clarify that you said what I thought you said. You want to criminalise the people in the boats - I understand that much.
Would you make any other changes to the asylum system as well in response?
Start with the problem and then we can see what needs to happen. One step at a time, because you should know by now, trying to put something in place whilst we still have a backdoor to walk through will not work..."No, I’m asking you what you’d do - you’ve made a start. You’re going to criminalise the boat people. What else? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. Let's start at a basic level: 40+ people get on a dark beach enter the channel on a homemade raft, not suitable for the sea, or the numbers. They hope to be picked up on the English side of the channel and will continue to travel regardless of dangers and circumstance, even if that means some on board will drown. The hope is they will be picked up. That happened and is why this thread was started, they prosecuted the pilot of the small boat, they got picked up, 4 people drown and this needs to stop. Having the attitude that the RNLI are there to pick these people out of the water because they have purposefully put themselves at risk is worrying, it needs to be stopped and consequences need occur if someone crosses the channel and needs to be rescued because of their actions. Let’s start on a basic level, how desperate would you have to be in order to board a homemade raft to cross the busiest shipping lanes in the world, with no guarantee that if the raft disintegrates you would be rescued? Wake up... The RNLI are being used to sell the trip, you will be rescued and picked up if you get into trouble... It is a big sell and you are not helping with anything that can discourage that sell. You seem very familiar with the marketing methods of people traffickers. What is that supposed to mean? Are you unaware of the methods they use? It wouldn't surprise me if you didn't." I’m unaware that they assure people they will be saved by the RNLI, is this something you know or is it an assumption? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. And require documentation, and due to our insistence that visas can’t be applied for whilst abroad, are therefore not available for the majority of these folks. You can't apply for a travel visa if you're outside of the UK? You better start telling everyone because I would imagine most people think differently. Imagine you are a person in Syria who fears for their life because the Government is persecuting your family and wants to apply for a visa to travel to the UK. Do you think the government that is persecuting you is going to sit idly by while you go through the visa application process at the British embassy in… oh, the embassy in Syria has been closed as we have cut off diplomatic relations with Syria. You need to go to an embassy to apply for a visa?" I’m not sure if you realise that dictatorships who murder their own populations exercise a little more control over the lives of their people. If you’re a dissident in somewhere like Syria it’s not simply a case of logging on to Expedia. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. And require documentation, and due to our insistence that visas can’t be applied for whilst abroad, are therefore not available for the majority of these folks. You can't apply for a travel visa if you're outside of the UK? You better start telling everyone because I would imagine most people think differently. Imagine you are a person in Syria who fears for their life because the Government is persecuting your family and wants to apply for a visa to travel to the UK. Do you think the government that is persecuting you is going to sit idly by while you go through the visa application process at the British embassy in… oh, the embassy in Syria has been closed as we have cut off diplomatic relations with Syria. You need to go to an embassy to apply for a visa? I’m not sure if you realise that dictatorships who murder their own populations exercise a little more control over the lives of their people. If you’re a dissident in somewhere like Syria it’s not simply a case of logging on to Expedia." So what you're telling me is its impossoble for Syrians to holiday? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. And require documentation, and due to our insistence that visas can’t be applied for whilst abroad, are therefore not available for the majority of these folks. You can't apply for a travel visa if you're outside of the UK? You better start telling everyone because I would imagine most people think differently. Imagine you are a person in Syria who fears for their life because the Government is persecuting your family and wants to apply for a visa to travel to the UK. Do you think the government that is persecuting you is going to sit idly by while you go through the visa application process at the British embassy in… oh, the embassy in Syria has been closed as we have cut off diplomatic relations with Syria. You need to go to an embassy to apply for a visa? I’m not sure if you realise that dictatorships who murder their own populations exercise a little more control over the lives of their people. If you’re a dissident in somewhere like Syria it’s not simply a case of logging on to Expedia. So what you're telling me is its impossoble for Syrians to holiday?" No, Syrians can travel to 9 countries without requiring a visa. The people who are being persecuted by the government and in fear of their lives don’t exactly have freedom of movement. Hence they have to use less conventional routes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI and Border Force crews who land migrants in the UK should be charged with the same offence. Should the RNLI just let people drown?" Yes. I have said before that the illegal migrants should have to make their own way to land. At the moment they only have to make it half way then they get a taxi service. Double the distance, double the risk, double the deterrent. Once they land, they should be arrested for illegal entry to the country. Held in secure processing centres (not allowed to leave) and any asylum claims should be dealt with quickly. It would be valid to use them as chain gang labour in payment for their accommodation. Ephemeral and unimportant reasons for asylum (such as religion or sexuality) should not be valid. Nor should things like conscription etc. Most of the migrants are economic. Their "family" have often also been asylum seekers so if that is a valid reason then the problem escalates so it should be barred as well. Going further, anyone who works for or helps the so called charities feeding the migrants in northern France should be tried for treason. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI and Border Force crews who land migrants in the UK should be charged with the same offence. Should the RNLI just let people drown? Yes. I have said before that the illegal migrants should have to make their own way to land. At the moment they only have to make it half way then they get a taxi service. Double the distance, double the risk, double the deterrent. Once they land, they should be arrested for illegal entry to the country. Held in secure processing centres (not allowed to leave) and any asylum claims should be dealt with quickly. It would be valid to use them as chain gang labour in payment for their accommodation. Ephemeral and unimportant reasons for asylum (such as religion or sexuality) should not be valid. Nor should things like conscription etc. Most of the migrants are economic. Their "family" have often also been asylum seekers so if that is a valid reason then the problem escalates so it should be barred as well. Going further, anyone who works for or helps the so called charities feeding the migrants in northern France should be tried for treason." Ah I see. Now I just need to ascertain whether you’re a troll, or whether you don’t understand intentional law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. Let's start at a basic level: 40+ people get on a dark beach enter the channel on a homemade raft, not suitable for the sea, or the numbers. They hope to be picked up on the English side of the channel and will continue to travel regardless of dangers and circumstance, even if that means some on board will drown. The hope is they will be picked up. That happened and is why this thread was started, they prosecuted the pilot of the small boat, they got picked up, 4 people drown and this needs to stop. Having the attitude that the RNLI are there to pick these people out of the water because they have purposefully put themselves at risk is worrying, it needs to be stopped and consequences need occur if someone crosses the channel and needs to be rescued because of their actions. Let’s start on a basic level, how desperate would you have to be in order to board a homemade raft to cross the busiest shipping lanes in the world, with no guarantee that if the raft disintegrates you would be rescued? Wake up... The RNLI are being used to sell the trip, you will be rescued and picked up if you get into trouble... It is a big sell and you are not helping with anything that can discourage that sell. You seem very familiar with the marketing methods of people traffickers. What is that supposed to mean? Are you unaware of the methods they use? It wouldn't surprise me if you didn't. I’m unaware that they assure people they will be saved by the RNLI, is this something you know or is it an assumption?" It is widely known, the BBC ran a number of documentaries speaking to people who had made the crossing or were going to make the crossing. The idea of being picked up is not just on UK waters, it was in Greek and Italian waters too, although both of those countries became more hostile towards the crossings, this pushed the migrants further down the med coastline. Going back to the RNLI and the need for them to go rescue people at sea, I don't think you or bassplayer fully appreciate what this means. These are volunteers, they are not sitting in a hut waiting for a call, they are going about their business, working, family time, shopping etc and they are being pulled away from what they are doing more and more frequently to rescue people who have taken high risks, they did not need to take. Employers are taking the hit, family taking the hit and why? Because they left the safety of France to risk their lives crossing a rough sea. And here we are, people saying they are fleeing a war, poverty and x y z, they were leaving France. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. And require documentation, and due to our insistence that visas can’t be applied for whilst abroad, are therefore not available for the majority of these folks. You can't apply for a travel visa if you're outside of the UK? You better start telling everyone because I would imagine most people think differently. Imagine you are a person in Syria who fears for their life because the Government is persecuting your family and wants to apply for a visa to travel to the UK. Do you think the government that is persecuting you is going to sit idly by while you go through the visa application process at the British embassy in… oh, the embassy in Syria has been closed as we have cut off diplomatic relations with Syria. You need to go to an embassy to apply for a visa? I’m not sure if you realise that dictatorships who murder their own populations exercise a little more control over the lives of their people. If you’re a dissident in somewhere like Syria it’s not simply a case of logging on to Expedia. So what you're telling me is its impossoble for Syrians to holiday? No, Syrians can travel to 9 countries without requiring a visa. The people who are being persecuted by the government and in fear of their lives don’t exactly have freedom of movement. Hence they have to use less conventional routes." And you know this for sure? It's actually documented.. Or are you making this up because it suits your argument? Do you know how many Syrians visit other countries each year? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI and Border Force crews who land migrants in the UK should be charged with the same offence. Should the RNLI just let people drown? Yes. I have said before that the illegal migrants should have to make their own way to land. At the moment they only have to make it half way then they get a taxi service. Double the distance, double the risk, double the deterrent. Once they land, they should be arrested for illegal entry to the country. Held in secure processing centres (not allowed to leave) and any asylum claims should be dealt with quickly. It would be valid to use them as chain gang labour in payment for their accommodation. Ephemeral and unimportant reasons for asylum (such as religion or sexuality) should not be valid. Nor should things like conscription etc. Most of the migrants are economic. Their "family" have often also been asylum seekers so if that is a valid reason then the problem escalates so it should be barred as well. Going further, anyone who works for or helps the so called charities feeding the migrants in northern France should be tried for treason." Maybe the police could start shooting anyone with an accent? We could execute anyone who supports businesses owned my immigrants? Get a haircut in a Turkish barber. Stoned at the stake? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. Let's start at a basic level: 40+ people get on a dark beach enter the channel on a homemade raft, not suitable for the sea, or the numbers. They hope to be picked up on the English side of the channel and will continue to travel regardless of dangers and circumstance, even if that means some on board will drown. The hope is they will be picked up. That happened and is why this thread was started, they prosecuted the pilot of the small boat, they got picked up, 4 people drown and this needs to stop. Having the attitude that the RNLI are there to pick these people out of the water because they have purposefully put themselves at risk is worrying, it needs to be stopped and consequences need occur if someone crosses the channel and needs to be rescued because of their actions. Let’s start on a basic level, how desperate would you have to be in order to board a homemade raft to cross the busiest shipping lanes in the world, with no guarantee that if the raft disintegrates you would be rescued? Wake up... The RNLI are being used to sell the trip, you will be rescued and picked up if you get into trouble... It is a big sell and you are not helping with anything that can discourage that sell. You seem very familiar with the marketing methods of people traffickers. What is that supposed to mean? Are you unaware of the methods they use? It wouldn't surprise me if you didn't. I’m unaware that they assure people they will be saved by the RNLI, is this something you know or is it an assumption? It is widely known, the BBC ran a number of documentaries speaking to people who had made the crossing or were going to make the crossing. The idea of being picked up is not just on UK waters, it was in Greek and Italian waters too, although both of those countries became more hostile towards the crossings, this pushed the migrants further down the med coastline. Going back to the RNLI and the need for them to go rescue people at sea, I don't think you or bassplayer fully appreciate what this means. These are volunteers, they are not sitting in a hut waiting for a call, they are going about their business, working, family time, shopping etc and they are being pulled away from what they are doing more and more frequently to rescue people who have taken high risks, they did not need to take. Employers are taking the hit, family taking the hit and why? Because they left the safety of France to risk their lives crossing a rough sea. And here we are, people saying they are fleeing a war, poverty and x y z, they were leaving France. " So surely we should set up some sort of asylum process in France and provide safe routes across the channel, yes? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. Let's start at a basic level: 40+ people get on a dark beach enter the channel on a homemade raft, not suitable for the sea, or the numbers. They hope to be picked up on the English side of the channel and will continue to travel regardless of dangers and circumstance, even if that means some on board will drown. The hope is they will be picked up. That happened and is why this thread was started, they prosecuted the pilot of the small boat, they got picked up, 4 people drown and this needs to stop. Having the attitude that the RNLI are there to pick these people out of the water because they have purposefully put themselves at risk is worrying, it needs to be stopped and consequences need occur if someone crosses the channel and needs to be rescued because of their actions. Let’s start on a basic level, how desperate would you have to be in order to board a homemade raft to cross the busiest shipping lanes in the world, with no guarantee that if the raft disintegrates you would be rescued? Wake up... The RNLI are being used to sell the trip, you will be rescued and picked up if you get into trouble... It is a big sell and you are not helping with anything that can discourage that sell. You seem very familiar with the marketing methods of people traffickers. What is that supposed to mean? Are you unaware of the methods they use? It wouldn't surprise me if you didn't. I’m unaware that they assure people they will be saved by the RNLI, is this something you know or is it an assumption? It is widely known, the BBC ran a number of documentaries speaking to people who had made the crossing or were going to make the crossing. The idea of being picked up is not just on UK waters, it was in Greek and Italian waters too, although both of those countries became more hostile towards the crossings, this pushed the migrants further down the med coastline. Going back to the RNLI and the need for them to go rescue people at sea, I don't think you or bassplayer fully appreciate what this means. These are volunteers, they are not sitting in a hut waiting for a call, they are going about their business, working, family time, shopping etc and they are being pulled away from what they are doing more and more frequently to rescue people who have taken high risks, they did not need to take. Employers are taking the hit, family taking the hit and why? Because they left the safety of France to risk their lives crossing a rough sea. And here we are, people saying they are fleeing a war, poverty and x y z, they were leaving France. So surely we should set up some sort of asylum process in France and provide safe routes across the channel, yes? " not until we can stop the boat crossings, they will be continue to be used for those who do not qualify for asylum through safe routes, by the lack of power we have to stop them right now. The door needs to be closed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. And require documentation, and due to our insistence that visas can’t be applied for whilst abroad, are therefore not available for the majority of these folks. You can't apply for a travel visa if you're outside of the UK? You better start telling everyone because I would imagine most people think differently. Imagine you are a person in Syria who fears for their life because the Government is persecuting your family and wants to apply for a visa to travel to the UK. Do you think the government that is persecuting you is going to sit idly by while you go through the visa application process at the British embassy in… oh, the embassy in Syria has been closed as we have cut off diplomatic relations with Syria. You need to go to an embassy to apply for a visa? I’m not sure if you realise that dictatorships who murder their own populations exercise a little more control over the lives of their people. If you’re a dissident in somewhere like Syria it’s not simply a case of logging on to Expedia. So what you're telling me is its impossoble for Syrians to holiday? No, Syrians can travel to 9 countries without requiring a visa. The people who are being persecuted by the government and in fear of their lives don’t exactly have freedom of movement. Hence they have to use less conventional routes. And you know this for sure? It's actually documented.. Or are you making this up because it suits your argument? Do you know how many Syrians visit other countries each year?" Yes, I know that Syrians can only travel to 9 countries without a visa, it’s one of the most restrictive countries in the world in that respect. As for the persecution and monitoring there are a number of reports from organisations like Amnesty International that document it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI and Border Force crews who land migrants in the UK should be charged with the same offence. Should the RNLI just let people drown? Yes. I have said before that the illegal migrants should have to make their own way to land. At the moment they only have to make it half way then they get a taxi service. Double the distance, double the risk, double the deterrent. Once they land, they should be arrested for illegal entry to the country. Held in secure processing centres (not allowed to leave) and any asylum claims should be dealt with quickly. It would be valid to use them as chain gang labour in payment for their accommodation. Ephemeral and unimportant reasons for asylum (such as religion or sexuality) should not be valid. Nor should things like conscription etc. Most of the migrants are economic. Their "family" have often also been asylum seekers so if that is a valid reason then the problem escalates so it should be barred as well. Going further, anyone who works for or helps the so called charities feeding the migrants in northern France should be tried for treason. Maybe the police could start shooting anyone with an accent? We could execute anyone who supports businesses owned my immigrants? Get a haircut in a Turkish barber. Stoned at the stake?" Maybe we could get foreigners to wear some sort of symbol on their clothing, so they can be easily distinguished from British people? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. Let's start at a basic level: 40+ people get on a dark beach enter the channel on a homemade raft, not suitable for the sea, or the numbers. They hope to be picked up on the English side of the channel and will continue to travel regardless of dangers and circumstance, even if that means some on board will drown. The hope is they will be picked up. That happened and is why this thread was started, they prosecuted the pilot of the small boat, they got picked up, 4 people drown and this needs to stop. Having the attitude that the RNLI are there to pick these people out of the water because they have purposefully put themselves at risk is worrying, it needs to be stopped and consequences need occur if someone crosses the channel and needs to be rescued because of their actions. Let’s start on a basic level, how desperate would you have to be in order to board a homemade raft to cross the busiest shipping lanes in the world, with no guarantee that if the raft disintegrates you would be rescued? Wake up... The RNLI are being used to sell the trip, you will be rescued and picked up if you get into trouble... It is a big sell and you are not helping with anything that can discourage that sell. You seem very familiar with the marketing methods of people traffickers. What is that supposed to mean? Are you unaware of the methods they use? It wouldn't surprise me if you didn't. I’m unaware that they assure people they will be saved by the RNLI, is this something you know or is it an assumption? It is widely known, the BBC ran a number of documentaries speaking to people who had made the crossing or were going to make the crossing. The idea of being picked up is not just on UK waters, it was in Greek and Italian waters too, although both of those countries became more hostile towards the crossings, this pushed the migrants further down the med coastline. Going back to the RNLI and the need for them to go rescue people at sea, I don't think you or bassplayer fully appreciate what this means. These are volunteers, they are not sitting in a hut waiting for a call, they are going about their business, working, family time, shopping etc and they are being pulled away from what they are doing more and more frequently to rescue people who have taken high risks, they did not need to take. Employers are taking the hit, family taking the hit and why? Because they left the safety of France to risk their lives crossing a rough sea. And here we are, people saying they are fleeing a war, poverty and x y z, they were leaving France. So surely we should set up some sort of asylum process in France and provide safe routes across the channel, yes? not until we can stop the boat crossings, they will be continue to be used for those who do not qualify for asylum through safe routes, by the lack of power we have to stop them right now. The door needs to be closed." And those who don’t qualify for safe routes but still make the journey can be properly dealt with - because safe legal routes will have been provided. You’ve got it arse about face. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. And require documentation, and due to our insistence that visas can’t be applied for whilst abroad, are therefore not available for the majority of these folks. You can't apply for a travel visa if you're outside of the UK? You better start telling everyone because I would imagine most people think differently. Imagine you are a person in Syria who fears for their life because the Government is persecuting your family and wants to apply for a visa to travel to the UK. Do you think the government that is persecuting you is going to sit idly by while you go through the visa application process at the British embassy in… oh, the embassy in Syria has been closed as we have cut off diplomatic relations with Syria. You need to go to an embassy to apply for a visa? I’m not sure if you realise that dictatorships who murder their own populations exercise a little more control over the lives of their people. If you’re a dissident in somewhere like Syria it’s not simply a case of logging on to Expedia. So what you're telling me is its impossoble for Syrians to holiday? No, Syrians can travel to 9 countries without requiring a visa. The people who are being persecuted by the government and in fear of their lives don’t exactly have freedom of movement. Hence they have to use less conventional routes. And you know this for sure? It's actually documented.. Or are you making this up because it suits your argument? Do you know how many Syrians visit other countries each year? Yes, I know that Syrians can only travel to 9 countries without a visa, it’s one of the most restrictive countries in the world in that respect. As for the persecution and monitoring there are a number of reports from organisations like Amnesty International that document it." I wasn't talking about visa free travel, its irrelevant seeing as we're talking about visas. You're telling me that Amnesty Int et al, all know these people, know what they face, yet cannot help in any way? What's the point of those organisations? I've already said I support 'offshore applications', what I don't support is the view that they're aren't safer routes than small boats. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI and Border Force crews who land migrants in the UK should be charged with the same offence. Should the RNLI just let people drown? Yes. I have said before that the illegal migrants should have to make their own way to land. At the moment they only have to make it half way then they get a taxi service. Double the distance, double the risk, double the deterrent. Once they land, they should be arrested for illegal entry to the country. Held in secure processing centres (not allowed to leave) and any asylum claims should be dealt with quickly. It would be valid to use them as chain gang labour in payment for their accommodation. Ephemeral and unimportant reasons for asylum (such as religion or sexuality) should not be valid. Nor should things like conscription etc. Most of the migrants are economic. Their "family" have often also been asylum seekers so if that is a valid reason then the problem escalates so it should be barred as well. Going further, anyone who works for or helps the so called charities feeding the migrants in northern France should be tried for treason. Maybe the police could start shooting anyone with an accent? We could execute anyone who supports businesses owned my immigrants? Get a haircut in a Turkish barber. Stoned at the stake?" No, there has always been migration, and if properly controlled it can be of benefit. However, we are seen as a soft touch by the millions of people who would like to have an easier life. Uncontrolled migration (legal or illegal) is not sustainable. Legal migration routes need better control. Illegal ones need to be stopped. This includes the bogus asylum industry. If people want to live here they should need to prove they are an asset to the country, that they won't be a drain on the state and they will respect our culture and laws. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI and Border Force crews who land migrants in the UK should be charged with the same offence. Should the RNLI just let people drown? Yes. I have said before that the illegal migrants should have to make their own way to land. At the moment they only have to make it half way then they get a taxi service. Double the distance, double the risk, double the deterrent. Once they land, they should be arrested for illegal entry to the country. Held in secure processing centres (not allowed to leave) and any asylum claims should be dealt with quickly. It would be valid to use them as chain gang labour in payment for their accommodation. Ephemeral and unimportant reasons for asylum (such as religion or sexuality) should not be valid. Nor should things like conscription etc. Most of the migrants are economic. Their "family" have often also been asylum seekers so if that is a valid reason then the problem escalates so it should be barred as well. Going further, anyone who works for or helps the so called charities feeding the migrants in northern France should be tried for treason. Maybe the police could start shooting anyone with an accent? We could execute anyone who supports businesses owned my immigrants? Get a haircut in a Turkish barber. Stoned at the stake? No, there has always been migration, and if properly controlled it can be of benefit. However, we are seen as a soft touch by the millions of people who would like to have an easier life. Uncontrolled migration (legal or illegal) is not sustainable. Legal migration routes need better control. Illegal ones need to be stopped. This includes the bogus asylum industry. If people want to live here they should need to prove they are an asset to the country, that they won't be a drain on the state and they will respect our culture and laws." Asylum and immigration are two different things . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. And require documentation, and due to our insistence that visas can’t be applied for whilst abroad, are therefore not available for the majority of these folks. You can't apply for a travel visa if you're outside of the UK? You better start telling everyone because I would imagine most people think differently. Imagine you are a person in Syria who fears for their life because the Government is persecuting your family and wants to apply for a visa to travel to the UK. Do you think the government that is persecuting you is going to sit idly by while you go through the visa application process at the British embassy in… oh, the embassy in Syria has been closed as we have cut off diplomatic relations with Syria. You need to go to an embassy to apply for a visa? I’m not sure if you realise that dictatorships who murder their own populations exercise a little more control over the lives of their people. If you’re a dissident in somewhere like Syria it’s not simply a case of logging on to Expedia. So what you're telling me is its impossoble for Syrians to holiday? No, Syrians can travel to 9 countries without requiring a visa. The people who are being persecuted by the government and in fear of their lives don’t exactly have freedom of movement. Hence they have to use less conventional routes. And you know this for sure? It's actually documented.. Or are you making this up because it suits your argument? Do you know how many Syrians visit other countries each year? Yes, I know that Syrians can only travel to 9 countries without a visa, it’s one of the most restrictive countries in the world in that respect. As for the persecution and monitoring there are a number of reports from organisations like Amnesty International that document it. I wasn't talking about visa free travel, its irrelevant seeing as we're talking about visas. You're telling me that Amnesty Int et al, all know these people, know what they face, yet cannot help in any way? What's the point of those organisations? I've already said I support 'offshore applications', what I don't support is the view that they're aren't safer routes than small boats. " The Syrian government is a murderous regime that has killed over 20,000 of their own people a year for the last decade or so. What do you think the charity, Amnesty International, could do to help? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. And require documentation, and due to our insistence that visas can’t be applied for whilst abroad, are therefore not available for the majority of these folks. You can't apply for a travel visa if you're outside of the UK? You better start telling everyone because I would imagine most people think differently. Imagine you are a person in Syria who fears for their life because the Government is persecuting your family and wants to apply for a visa to travel to the UK. Do you think the government that is persecuting you is going to sit idly by while you go through the visa application process at the British embassy in… oh, the embassy in Syria has been closed as we have cut off diplomatic relations with Syria. You need to go to an embassy to apply for a visa? I’m not sure if you realise that dictatorships who murder their own populations exercise a little more control over the lives of their people. If you’re a dissident in somewhere like Syria it’s not simply a case of logging on to Expedia. So what you're telling me is its impossoble for Syrians to holiday? No, Syrians can travel to 9 countries without requiring a visa. The people who are being persecuted by the government and in fear of their lives don’t exactly have freedom of movement. Hence they have to use less conventional routes. And you know this for sure? It's actually documented.. Or are you making this up because it suits your argument? Do you know how many Syrians visit other countries each year? Yes, I know that Syrians can only travel to 9 countries without a visa, it’s one of the most restrictive countries in the world in that respect. As for the persecution and monitoring there are a number of reports from organisations like Amnesty International that document it. I wasn't talking about visa free travel, its irrelevant seeing as we're talking about visas. You're telling me that Amnesty Int et al, all know these people, know what they face, yet cannot help in any way? What's the point of those organisations? I've already said I support 'offshore applications', what I don't support is the view that they're aren't safer routes than small boats. " Then could you explain what the safe routes to claim asylum in the UK are? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RNLI and Border Force crews who land migrants in the UK should be charged with the same offence. Should the RNLI just let people drown? Yes. I have said before that the illegal migrants should have to make their own way to land. At the moment they only have to make it half way then they get a taxi service. Double the distance, double the risk, double the deterrent. Once they land, they should be arrested for illegal entry to the country. Held in secure processing centres (not allowed to leave) and any asylum claims should be dealt with quickly. It would be valid to use them as chain gang labour in payment for their accommodation. Ephemeral and unimportant reasons for asylum (such as religion or sexuality) should not be valid. Nor should things like conscription etc. Most of the migrants are economic. Their "family" have often also been asylum seekers so if that is a valid reason then the problem escalates so it should be barred as well. Going further, anyone who works for or helps the so called charities feeding the migrants in northern France should be tried for treason. Maybe the police could start shooting anyone with an accent? We could execute anyone who supports businesses owned my immigrants? Get a haircut in a Turkish barber. Stoned at the stake? No, there has always been migration, and if properly controlled it can be of benefit. However, we are seen as a soft touch by the millions of people who would like to have an easier life. Uncontrolled migration (legal or illegal) is not sustainable. Legal migration routes need better control. Illegal ones need to be stopped. This includes the bogus asylum industry. If people want to live here they should need to prove they are an asset to the country, that they won't be a drain on the state and they will respect our culture and laws." A 36b drain according to the latest 'research'. Although, we can't believe it because the report cam from Tufton St. regardless of the source of data | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. And require documentation, and due to our insistence that visas can’t be applied for whilst abroad, are therefore not available for the majority of these folks. You can't apply for a travel visa if you're outside of the UK? You better start telling everyone because I would imagine most people think differently. Imagine you are a person in Syria who fears for their life because the Government is persecuting your family and wants to apply for a visa to travel to the UK. Do you think the government that is persecuting you is going to sit idly by while you go through the visa application process at the British embassy in… oh, the embassy in Syria has been closed as we have cut off diplomatic relations with Syria. You need to go to an embassy to apply for a visa? I’m not sure if you realise that dictatorships who murder their own populations exercise a little more control over the lives of their people. If you’re a dissident in somewhere like Syria it’s not simply a case of logging on to Expedia. So what you're telling me is its impossoble for Syrians to holiday? No, Syrians can travel to 9 countries without requiring a visa. The people who are being persecuted by the government and in fear of their lives don’t exactly have freedom of movement. Hence they have to use less conventional routes. And you know this for sure? It's actually documented.. Or are you making this up because it suits your argument? Do you know how many Syrians visit other countries each year? Yes, I know that Syrians can only travel to 9 countries without a visa, it’s one of the most restrictive countries in the world in that respect. As for the persecution and monitoring there are a number of reports from organisations like Amnesty International that document it. I wasn't talking about visa free travel, its irrelevant seeing as we're talking about visas. You're telling me that Amnesty Int et al, all know these people, know what they face, yet cannot help in any way? What's the point of those organisations? I've already said I support 'offshore applications', what I don't support is the view that they're aren't safer routes than small boats. Then could you explain what the safe routes to claim asylum in the UK are?" Any chance you could keep your replies to one post? How many times do I have to say that planes and ferries are safer than small boats. It seems you're also trying to make an argument against somethings I haven't said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. Let's start at a basic level: 40+ people get on a dark beach enter the channel on a homemade raft, not suitable for the sea, or the numbers. They hope to be picked up on the English side of the channel and will continue to travel regardless of dangers and circumstance, even if that means some on board will drown. The hope is they will be picked up. That happened and is why this thread was started, they prosecuted the pilot of the small boat, they got picked up, 4 people drown and this needs to stop. Having the attitude that the RNLI are there to pick these people out of the water because they have purposefully put themselves at risk is worrying, it needs to be stopped and consequences need occur if someone crosses the channel and needs to be rescued because of their actions. Let’s start on a basic level, how desperate would you have to be in order to board a homemade raft to cross the busiest shipping lanes in the world, with no guarantee that if the raft disintegrates you would be rescued? Wake up... The RNLI are being used to sell the trip, you will be rescued and picked up if you get into trouble... It is a big sell and you are not helping with anything that can discourage that sell. You seem very familiar with the marketing methods of people traffickers. What is that supposed to mean? Are you unaware of the methods they use? It wouldn't surprise me if you didn't. I’m unaware that they assure people they will be saved by the RNLI, is this something you know or is it an assumption? It is widely known, the BBC ran a number of documentaries speaking to people who had made the crossing or were going to make the crossing. The idea of being picked up is not just on UK waters, it was in Greek and Italian waters too, although both of those countries became more hostile towards the crossings, this pushed the migrants further down the med coastline. Going back to the RNLI and the need for them to go rescue people at sea, I don't think you or bassplayer fully appreciate what this means. These are volunteers, they are not sitting in a hut waiting for a call, they are going about their business, working, family time, shopping etc and they are being pulled away from what they are doing more and more frequently to rescue people who have taken high risks, they did not need to take. Employers are taking the hit, family taking the hit and why? Because they left the safety of France to risk their lives crossing a rough sea. And here we are, people saying they are fleeing a war, poverty and x y z, they were leaving France. So surely we should set up some sort of asylum process in France and provide safe routes across the channel, yes? not until we can stop the boat crossings, they will be continue to be used for those who do not qualify for asylum through safe routes, by the lack of power we have to stop them right now. The door needs to be closed. And those who don’t qualify for safe routes but still make the journey can be properly dealt with - because safe legal routes will have been provided. You’ve got it arse about face. " no I haven't, you simply can't see a problem needs to be fixed before we can get anything else in place. You and the other poster only look at surface level issues including the RNLI and being of the opinion everyone is fleeing countries because we got involved in wars, when they are clearly not and are no longer fleeing when they are in the safety of the EU. But don't let facts get in the way of emotional grandstanding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. And require documentation, and due to our insistence that visas can’t be applied for whilst abroad, are therefore not available for the majority of these folks. You can't apply for a travel visa if you're outside of the UK? You better start telling everyone because I would imagine most people think differently. Imagine you are a person in Syria who fears for their life because the Government is persecuting your family and wants to apply for a visa to travel to the UK. Do you think the government that is persecuting you is going to sit idly by while you go through the visa application process at the British embassy in… oh, the embassy in Syria has been closed as we have cut off diplomatic relations with Syria. You need to go to an embassy to apply for a visa? I’m not sure if you realise that dictatorships who murder their own populations exercise a little more control over the lives of their people. If you’re a dissident in somewhere like Syria it’s not simply a case of logging on to Expedia. So what you're telling me is its impossoble for Syrians to holiday? No, Syrians can travel to 9 countries without requiring a visa. The people who are being persecuted by the government and in fear of their lives don’t exactly have freedom of movement. Hence they have to use less conventional routes. And you know this for sure? It's actually documented.. Or are you making this up because it suits your argument? Do you know how many Syrians visit other countries each year? Yes, I know that Syrians can only travel to 9 countries without a visa, it’s one of the most restrictive countries in the world in that respect. As for the persecution and monitoring there are a number of reports from organisations like Amnesty International that document it. I wasn't talking about visa free travel, its irrelevant seeing as we're talking about visas. You're telling me that Amnesty Int et al, all know these people, know what they face, yet cannot help in any way? What's the point of those organisations? I've already said I support 'offshore applications', what I don't support is the view that they're aren't safer routes than small boats. Then could you explain what the safe routes to claim asylum in the UK are? Any chance you could keep your replies to one post? How many times do I have to say that planes and ferries are safer than small boats. It seems you're also trying to make an argument against somethings I haven't said. " Could you explain how a Syrian who is under surveillance by their government could take a plane or ferry to the UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. And require documentation, and due to our insistence that visas can’t be applied for whilst abroad, are therefore not available for the majority of these folks. You can't apply for a travel visa if you're outside of the UK? You better start telling everyone because I would imagine most people think differently. Imagine you are a person in Syria who fears for their life because the Government is persecuting your family and wants to apply for a visa to travel to the UK. Do you think the government that is persecuting you is going to sit idly by while you go through the visa application process at the British embassy in… oh, the embassy in Syria has been closed as we have cut off diplomatic relations with Syria. You need to go to an embassy to apply for a visa? I’m not sure if you realise that dictatorships who murder their own populations exercise a little more control over the lives of their people. If you’re a dissident in somewhere like Syria it’s not simply a case of logging on to Expedia. So what you're telling me is its impossoble for Syrians to holiday? No, Syrians can travel to 9 countries without requiring a visa. The people who are being persecuted by the government and in fear of their lives don’t exactly have freedom of movement. Hence they have to use less conventional routes. And you know this for sure? It's actually documented.. Or are you making this up because it suits your argument? Do you know how many Syrians visit other countries each year? Yes, I know that Syrians can only travel to 9 countries without a visa, it’s one of the most restrictive countries in the world in that respect. As for the persecution and monitoring there are a number of reports from organisations like Amnesty International that document it. I wasn't talking about visa free travel, its irrelevant seeing as we're talking about visas. You're telling me that Amnesty Int et al, all know these people, know what they face, yet cannot help in any way? What's the point of those organisations? I've already said I support 'offshore applications', what I don't support is the view that they're aren't safer routes than small boats. Then could you explain what the safe routes to claim asylum in the UK are? Any chance you could keep your replies to one post? How many times do I have to say that planes and ferries are safer than small boats. It seems you're also trying to make an argument against somethings I haven't said. Could you explain how a Syrian who is under surveillance by their government could take a plane or ferry to the UK?" How did they get to France? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. And require documentation, and due to our insistence that visas can’t be applied for whilst abroad, are therefore not available for the majority of these folks. You can't apply for a travel visa if you're outside of the UK? You better start telling everyone because I would imagine most people think differently. Imagine you are a person in Syria who fears for their life because the Government is persecuting your family and wants to apply for a visa to travel to the UK. Do you think the government that is persecuting you is going to sit idly by while you go through the visa application process at the British embassy in… oh, the embassy in Syria has been closed as we have cut off diplomatic relations with Syria. You need to go to an embassy to apply for a visa? I’m not sure if you realise that dictatorships who murder their own populations exercise a little more control over the lives of their people. If you’re a dissident in somewhere like Syria it’s not simply a case of logging on to Expedia. So what you're telling me is its impossoble for Syrians to holiday? No, Syrians can travel to 9 countries without requiring a visa. The people who are being persecuted by the government and in fear of their lives don’t exactly have freedom of movement. Hence they have to use less conventional routes. And you know this for sure? It's actually documented.. Or are you making this up because it suits your argument? Do you know how many Syrians visit other countries each year? Yes, I know that Syrians can only travel to 9 countries without a visa, it’s one of the most restrictive countries in the world in that respect. As for the persecution and monitoring there are a number of reports from organisations like Amnesty International that document it. I wasn't talking about visa free travel, its irrelevant seeing as we're talking about visas. You're telling me that Amnesty Int et al, all know these people, know what they face, yet cannot help in any way? What's the point of those organisations? I've already said I support 'offshore applications', what I don't support is the view that they're aren't safer routes than small boats. Then could you explain what the safe routes to claim asylum in the UK are? Any chance you could keep your replies to one post? How many times do I have to say that planes and ferries are safer than small boats. It seems you're also trying to make an argument against somethings I haven't said. Could you explain how a Syrian who is under surveillance by their government could take a plane or ferry to the UK?" If they were under the level of surveillance you seem to think they are, they wouldn't be able to cross a border into Turkey. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. They are providing a service. A life saving service - You seem to think you’re providing a taxi service. The solution to this is not, and never has been to punish the people on the boats. The solution is better processing, including sites on the continent, allowing people to apply for visas from abroad, and safe routes. In conjunction with the above, take firm action on the criminal gangs who prey upon desperate people and offer them passage on these boats. If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. Great. There are already safe routes though, they're called Ferries and Planes. Not official routes but a damn sight safer than a small boat. And require documentation, and due to our insistence that visas can’t be applied for whilst abroad, are therefore not available for the majority of these folks. You can't apply for a travel visa if you're outside of the UK? You better start telling everyone because I would imagine most people think differently. Imagine you are a person in Syria who fears for their life because the Government is persecuting your family and wants to apply for a visa to travel to the UK. Do you think the government that is persecuting you is going to sit idly by while you go through the visa application process at the British embassy in… oh, the embassy in Syria has been closed as we have cut off diplomatic relations with Syria. You need to go to an embassy to apply for a visa? I’m not sure if you realise that dictatorships who murder their own populations exercise a little more control over the lives of their people. If you’re a dissident in somewhere like Syria it’s not simply a case of logging on to Expedia. So what you're telling me is its impossoble for Syrians to holiday? No, Syrians can travel to 9 countries without requiring a visa. The people who are being persecuted by the government and in fear of their lives don’t exactly have freedom of movement. Hence they have to use less conventional routes. And you know this for sure? It's actually documented.. Or are you making this up because it suits your argument? Do you know how many Syrians visit other countries each year? Yes, I know that Syrians can only travel to 9 countries without a visa, it’s one of the most restrictive countries in the world in that respect. As for the persecution and monitoring there are a number of reports from organisations like Amnesty International that document it. I wasn't talking about visa free travel, its irrelevant seeing as we're talking about visas. You're telling me that Amnesty Int et al, all know these people, know what they face, yet cannot help in any way? What's the point of those organisations? I've already said I support 'offshore applications', what I don't support is the view that they're aren't safer routes than small boats. Then could you explain what the safe routes to claim asylum in the UK are? Any chance you could keep your replies to one post? How many times do I have to say that planes and ferries are safer than small boats. It seems you're also trying to make an argument against somethings I haven't said. Could you explain how a Syrian who is under surveillance by their government could take a plane or ferry to the UK? If they were under the level of surveillance you seem to think they are, they wouldn't be able to cross a border into Turkey. " There’s a difference between disappearing in the middle of the night, paying people traffickers to get you out of the country, and popping onto the easyJet website and booking plane tickets to the UK. You cannot apply for a tourist visa to the UK from Turkey, and without the appropriate visa you would not be allowed to board a plane to the UK. Why do you think people give all their money to people traffickers rather than pay a few hundred quid for a plane ticket? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*If you are a Syrian you cannot apply for a tourist visa to the UK from Turkey." You can from the EU | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*If you are a Syrian you cannot apply for a tourist visa to the UK from Turkey. You can from the EU" You should submit the following documents to apply for a UK visa: UK visa application form. According to the UK visa type you are applying for, you may have to complete the manual application form. Two photographs. These photos should be taken within the past six months and in color. Your Valid Passport. It must be valid for three more months beyond the date you plan to leave the UK after your trip. It must also have at least one blank page for the visa. If your passport has expired, you might not be able to travel. Proof you have the financial means to cover the living costs while in the UK. This may be your bank statements for the last six months, or pay slips for the same period. Proof of accommodation. You will need to present a document that shows where you will be accommodated while in the UK. Note that you do not have to fully pay a hotel/hostel in UK before getting the visa, just to get such a document. Detailed travel itinerary. Submit a travel plan that gives all the information regarding how and what you are planning to do in the UK. Include the travel dates, places you will visit, meeting agenda, booked tour, festival agenda, etc. Tuberculosis Test Results. Nationals of several world countries will need to submit the requests of a Tuberculosis Test in order to be eligible for a UK Visa. Biometric information. If you are applying for a visa that lets you stay in UK for more than 6 months, you will need to submit your biometric information. This includes giving your fingerprints and a digital photograph taken at the appropriate application center. UK visa invitation letter. (If applicable). If you will be staying over at a friend or a family member, then you should submit a letter of invitation. Your host must be a UK national or a legal resident. UK cover letter. (If applicable). Personalized letter that accompanies the visa application, providing a detailed explanation of the purpose of the visit and the applicant’s background. It serves as an essential supporting document to convey the applicant’s genuine intentions and enhance their chances of obtaining the desired visa. Paid UK visa fees. You should submit the receipt that confirms you have paid the visa fee as required. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*If you are a Syrian you cannot apply for a tourist visa to the UK from Turkey." This really is harder than it needs to be  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*If you are a Syrian you cannot apply for a tourist visa to the UK from Turkey. You can from the EU You should submit the following documents to apply for a UK visa: UK visa application form. According to the UK visa type you are applying for, you may have to complete the manual application form. Two photographs. These photos should be taken within the past six months and in color. Your Valid Passport. It must be valid for three more months beyond the date you plan to leave the UK after your trip. It must also have at least one blank page for the visa. If your passport has expired, you might not be able to travel. Proof you have the financial means to cover the living costs while in the UK. This may be your bank statements for the last six months, or pay slips for the same period. Proof of accommodation. You will need to present a document that shows where you will be accommodated while in the UK. Note that you do not have to fully pay a hotel/hostel in UK before getting the visa, just to get such a document. Detailed travel itinerary. Submit a travel plan that gives all the information regarding how and what you are planning to do in the UK. Include the travel dates, places you will visit, meeting agenda, booked tour, festival agenda, etc. Tuberculosis Test Results. Nationals of several world countries will need to submit the requests of a Tuberculosis Test in order to be eligible for a UK Visa. Biometric information. If you are applying for a visa that lets you stay in UK for more than 6 months, you will need to submit your biometric information. This includes giving your fingerprints and a digital photograph taken at the appropriate application center. UK visa invitation letter. (If applicable). If you will be staying over at a friend or a family member, then you should submit a letter of invitation. Your host must be a UK national or a legal resident. UK cover letter. (If applicable). Personalized letter that accompanies the visa application, providing a detailed explanation of the purpose of the visit and the applicant’s background. It serves as an essential supporting document to convey the applicant’s genuine intentions and enhance their chances of obtaining the desired visa. Paid UK visa fees. You should submit the receipt that confirms you have paid the visa fee as required." You have gone down a proper rabbit hole here haven't you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*If you are a Syrian you cannot apply for a tourist visa to the UK from Turkey. You can from the EU You should submit the following documents to apply for a UK visa: UK visa application form. According to the UK visa type you are applying for, you may have to complete the manual application form. Two photographs. These photos should be taken within the past six months and in color. Your Valid Passport. It must be valid for three more months beyond the date you plan to leave the UK after your trip. It must also have at least one blank page for the visa. If your passport has expired, you might not be able to travel. Proof you have the financial means to cover the living costs while in the UK. This may be your bank statements for the last six months, or pay slips for the same period. Proof of accommodation. You will need to present a document that shows where you will be accommodated while in the UK. Note that you do not have to fully pay a hotel/hostel in UK before getting the visa, just to get such a document. Detailed travel itinerary. Submit a travel plan that gives all the information regarding how and what you are planning to do in the UK. Include the travel dates, places you will visit, meeting agenda, booked tour, festival agenda, etc. Tuberculosis Test Results. Nationals of several world countries will need to submit the requests of a Tuberculosis Test in order to be eligible for a UK Visa. Biometric information. If you are applying for a visa that lets you stay in UK for more than 6 months, you will need to submit your biometric information. This includes giving your fingerprints and a digital photograph taken at the appropriate application center. UK visa invitation letter. (If applicable). If you will be staying over at a friend or a family member, then you should submit a letter of invitation. Your host must be a UK national or a legal resident. UK cover letter. (If applicable). Personalized letter that accompanies the visa application, providing a detailed explanation of the purpose of the visit and the applicant’s background. It serves as an essential supporting document to convey the applicant’s genuine intentions and enhance their chances of obtaining the desired visa. Paid UK visa fees. You should submit the receipt that confirms you have paid the visa fee as required. You have gone down a proper rabbit hole here haven't you "No, just showing that it’s basically impossible for an asylum seeker to enter the UK legally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*If you are a Syrian you cannot apply for a tourist visa to the UK from Turkey. You can from the EU You should submit the following documents to apply for a UK visa: UK visa application form. According to the UK visa type you are applying for, you may have to complete the manual application form. Two photographs. These photos should be taken within the past six months and in color. Your Valid Passport. It must be valid for three more months beyond the date you plan to leave the UK after your trip. It must also have at least one blank page for the visa. If your passport has expired, you might not be able to travel. Proof you have the financial means to cover the living costs while in the UK. This may be your bank statements for the last six months, or pay slips for the same period. Proof of accommodation. You will need to present a document that shows where you will be accommodated while in the UK. Note that you do not have to fully pay a hotel/hostel in UK before getting the visa, just to get such a document. Detailed travel itinerary. Submit a travel plan that gives all the information regarding how and what you are planning to do in the UK. Include the travel dates, places you will visit, meeting agenda, booked tour, festival agenda, etc. Tuberculosis Test Results. Nationals of several world countries will need to submit the requests of a Tuberculosis Test in order to be eligible for a UK Visa. Biometric information. If you are applying for a visa that lets you stay in UK for more than 6 months, you will need to submit your biometric information. This includes giving your fingerprints and a digital photograph taken at the appropriate application center. UK visa invitation letter. (If applicable). If you will be staying over at a friend or a family member, then you should submit a letter of invitation. Your host must be a UK national or a legal resident. UK cover letter. (If applicable). Personalized letter that accompanies the visa application, providing a detailed explanation of the purpose of the visit and the applicant’s background. It serves as an essential supporting document to convey the applicant’s genuine intentions and enhance their chances of obtaining the desired visa. Paid UK visa fees. You should submit the receipt that confirms you have paid the visa fee as required. You have gone down a proper rabbit hole here haven't you
No, just showing that it’s basically impossible for an asylum seeker to enter the UK legally." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*If you are a Syrian you cannot apply for a tourist visa to the UK from Turkey. You can from the EU You should submit the following documents to apply for a UK visa: UK visa application form. According to the UK visa type you are applying for, you may have to complete the manual application form. Two photographs. These photos should be taken within the past six months and in color. Your Valid Passport. It must be valid for three more months beyond the date you plan to leave the UK after your trip. It must also have at least one blank page for the visa. If your passport has expired, you might not be able to travel. Proof you have the financial means to cover the living costs while in the UK. This may be your bank statements for the last six months, or pay slips for the same period. Proof of accommodation. You will need to present a document that shows where you will be accommodated while in the UK. Note that you do not have to fully pay a hotel/hostel in UK before getting the visa, just to get such a document. Detailed travel itinerary. Submit a travel plan that gives all the information regarding how and what you are planning to do in the UK. Include the travel dates, places you will visit, meeting agenda, booked tour, festival agenda, etc. Tuberculosis Test Results. Nationals of several world countries will need to submit the requests of a Tuberculosis Test in order to be eligible for a UK Visa. Biometric information. If you are applying for a visa that lets you stay in UK for more than 6 months, you will need to submit your biometric information. This includes giving your fingerprints and a digital photograph taken at the appropriate application center. UK visa invitation letter. (If applicable). If you will be staying over at a friend or a family member, then you should submit a letter of invitation. Your host must be a UK national or a legal resident. UK cover letter. (If applicable). Personalized letter that accompanies the visa application, providing a detailed explanation of the purpose of the visit and the applicant’s background. It serves as an essential supporting document to convey the applicant’s genuine intentions and enhance their chances of obtaining the desired visa. Paid UK visa fees. You should submit the receipt that confirms you have paid the visa fee as required. You have gone down a proper rabbit hole here haven't you
No, just showing that it’s basically impossible for an asylum seeker to enter the UK legally."You are looking at things in the most complicated of ways. Example: Why not seek asylum in an EU country, once accepted they will have documentation that will allow them to travel to the UK very easily and have numerous countries to explore under the right to roam. Your first reaction to this will be one of many angry thoughts. They should be allowed to seek asylum wherever they want, it is the law... They might have family here and on it will go all the time ignoring the problem right in front of your nose. They are crossing the channel putting their life and others in danger to enter the country illegally. so many options other than making that journey and we need to make that journey as unattractive as possible, hence facing consequences for their actions and removing the apologists from the loop as they are encouraging this dangerous activity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*If you are a Syrian you cannot apply for a tourist visa to the UK from Turkey. You can from the EU You should submit the following documents to apply for a UK visa: UK visa application form. According to the UK visa type you are applying for, you may have to complete the manual application form. Two photographs. These photos should be taken within the past six months and in color. Your Valid Passport. It must be valid for three more months beyond the date you plan to leave the UK after your trip. It must also have at least one blank page for the visa. If your passport has expired, you might not be able to travel. Proof you have the financial means to cover the living costs while in the UK. This may be your bank statements for the last six months, or pay slips for the same period. Proof of accommodation. You will need to present a document that shows where you will be accommodated while in the UK. Note that you do not have to fully pay a hotel/hostel in UK before getting the visa, just to get such a document. Detailed travel itinerary. Submit a travel plan that gives all the information regarding how and what you are planning to do in the UK. Include the travel dates, places you will visit, meeting agenda, booked tour, festival agenda, etc. Tuberculosis Test Results. Nationals of several world countries will need to submit the requests of a Tuberculosis Test in order to be eligible for a UK Visa. Biometric information. If you are applying for a visa that lets you stay in UK for more than 6 months, you will need to submit your biometric information. This includes giving your fingerprints and a digital photograph taken at the appropriate application center. UK visa invitation letter. (If applicable). If you will be staying over at a friend or a family member, then you should submit a letter of invitation. Your host must be a UK national or a legal resident. UK cover letter. (If applicable). Personalized letter that accompanies the visa application, providing a detailed explanation of the purpose of the visit and the applicant’s background. It serves as an essential supporting document to convey the applicant’s genuine intentions and enhance their chances of obtaining the desired visa. Paid UK visa fees. You should submit the receipt that confirms you have paid the visa fee as required. You have gone down a proper rabbit hole here haven't you
No, just showing that it’s basically impossible for an asylum seeker to enter the UK legally.
"This point was proved at a select committee hearing meeting in Parliament when a Tory MP asked the Tory Home Secretary how an asylum seeker could enter the Uk other than illegally and she didn't know | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*If you are a Syrian you cannot apply for a tourist visa to the UK from Turkey. You can from the EU You should submit the following documents to apply for a UK visa: UK visa application form. According to the UK visa type you are applying for, you may have to complete the manual application form. Two photographs. These photos should be taken within the past six months and in color. Your Valid Passport. It must be valid for three more months beyond the date you plan to leave the UK after your trip. It must also have at least one blank page for the visa. If your passport has expired, you might not be able to travel. Proof you have the financial means to cover the living costs while in the UK. This may be your bank statements for the last six months, or pay slips for the same period. Proof of accommodation. You will need to present a document that shows where you will be accommodated while in the UK. Note that you do not have to fully pay a hotel/hostel in UK before getting the visa, just to get such a document. Detailed travel itinerary. Submit a travel plan that gives all the information regarding how and what you are planning to do in the UK. Include the travel dates, places you will visit, meeting agenda, booked tour, festival agenda, etc. Tuberculosis Test Results. Nationals of several world countries will need to submit the requests of a Tuberculosis Test in order to be eligible for a UK Visa. Biometric information. If you are applying for a visa that lets you stay in UK for more than 6 months, you will need to submit your biometric information. This includes giving your fingerprints and a digital photograph taken at the appropriate application center. UK visa invitation letter. (If applicable). If you will be staying over at a friend or a family member, then you should submit a letter of invitation. Your host must be a UK national or a legal resident. UK cover letter. (If applicable). Personalized letter that accompanies the visa application, providing a detailed explanation of the purpose of the visit and the applicant’s background. It serves as an essential supporting document to convey the applicant’s genuine intentions and enhance their chances of obtaining the desired visa. Paid UK visa fees. You should submit the receipt that confirms you have paid the visa fee as required. You have gone down a proper rabbit hole here haven't you
No, just showing that it’s basically impossible for an asylum seeker to enter the UK legally.
You are looking at things in the most complicated of ways.
Example: Why not seek asylum in an EU country, once accepted they will have documentation that will allow them to travel to the UK very easily and have numerous countries to explore under the right to roam.
Your first reaction to this will be one of many angry thoughts. They should be allowed to seek asylum wherever they want, it is the law... They might have family here and on it will go all the time ignoring the problem right in front of your nose.
They are crossing the channel putting their life and others in danger to enter the country illegally.
so many options other than making that journey and we need to make that journey as unattractive as possible, hence facing consequences for their actions and removing the apologists from the loop as they are encouraging this dangerous activity."Do we have freedom of movement with the EU then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*If you are a Syrian you cannot apply for a tourist visa to the UK from Turkey. You can from the EU You should submit the following documents to apply for a UK visa: UK visa application form. According to the UK visa type you are applying for, you may have to complete the manual application form. Two photographs. These photos should be taken within the past six months and in color. Your Valid Passport. It must be valid for three more months beyond the date you plan to leave the UK after your trip. It must also have at least one blank page for the visa. If your passport has expired, you might not be able to travel. Proof you have the financial means to cover the living costs while in the UK. This may be your bank statements for the last six months, or pay slips for the same period. Proof of accommodation. You will need to present a document that shows where you will be accommodated while in the UK. Note that you do not have to fully pay a hotel/hostel in UK before getting the visa, just to get such a document. Detailed travel itinerary. Submit a travel plan that gives all the information regarding how and what you are planning to do in the UK. Include the travel dates, places you will visit, meeting agenda, booked tour, festival agenda, etc. Tuberculosis Test Results. Nationals of several world countries will need to submit the requests of a Tuberculosis Test in order to be eligible for a UK Visa. Biometric information. If you are applying for a visa that lets you stay in UK for more than 6 months, you will need to submit your biometric information. This includes giving your fingerprints and a digital photograph taken at the appropriate application center. UK visa invitation letter. (If applicable). If you will be staying over at a friend or a family member, then you should submit a letter of invitation. Your host must be a UK national or a legal resident. UK cover letter. (If applicable). Personalized letter that accompanies the visa application, providing a detailed explanation of the purpose of the visit and the applicant’s background. It serves as an essential supporting document to convey the applicant’s genuine intentions and enhance their chances of obtaining the desired visa. Paid UK visa fees. You should submit the receipt that confirms you have paid the visa fee as required. You have gone down a proper rabbit hole here haven't you
No, just showing that it’s basically impossible for an asylum seeker to enter the UK legally.
You are looking at things in the most complicated of ways.
Example: Why not seek asylum in an EU country, once accepted they will have documentation that will allow them to travel to the UK very easily and have numerous countries to explore under the right to roam.
Your first reaction to this will be one of many angry thoughts. They should be allowed to seek asylum wherever they want, it is the law... They might have family here and on it will go all the time ignoring the problem right in front of your nose.
They are crossing the channel putting their life and others in danger to enter the country illegally.
so many options other than making that journey and we need to make that journey as unattractive as possible, hence facing consequences for their actions and removing the apologists from the loop as they are encouraging this dangerous activity.
Do we have freedom of movement with the EU then? "Reading will help you... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*If you are a Syrian you cannot apply for a tourist visa to the UK from Turkey. You can from the EU You should submit the following documents to apply for a UK visa: UK visa application form. According to the UK visa type you are applying for, you may have to complete the manual application form. Two photographs. These photos should be taken within the past six months and in color. Your Valid Passport. It must be valid for three more months beyond the date you plan to leave the UK after your trip. It must also have at least one blank page for the visa. If your passport has expired, you might not be able to travel. Proof you have the financial means to cover the living costs while in the UK. This may be your bank statements for the last six months, or pay slips for the same period. Proof of accommodation. You will need to present a document that shows where you will be accommodated while in the UK. Note that you do not have to fully pay a hotel/hostel in UK before getting the visa, just to get such a document. Detailed travel itinerary. Submit a travel plan that gives all the information regarding how and what you are planning to do in the UK. Include the travel dates, places you will visit, meeting agenda, booked tour, festival agenda, etc. Tuberculosis Test Results. Nationals of several world countries will need to submit the requests of a Tuberculosis Test in order to be eligible for a UK Visa. Biometric information. If you are applying for a visa that lets you stay in UK for more than 6 months, you will need to submit your biometric information. This includes giving your fingerprints and a digital photograph taken at the appropriate application center. UK visa invitation letter. (If applicable). If you will be staying over at a friend or a family member, then you should submit a letter of invitation. Your host must be a UK national or a legal resident. UK cover letter. (If applicable). Personalized letter that accompanies the visa application, providing a detailed explanation of the purpose of the visit and the applicant’s background. It serves as an essential supporting document to convey the applicant’s genuine intentions and enhance their chances of obtaining the desired visa. Paid UK visa fees. You should submit the receipt that confirms you have paid the visa fee as required. You have gone down a proper rabbit hole here haven't you
No, just showing that it’s basically impossible for an asylum seeker to enter the UK legally.
You are looking at things in the most complicated of ways.
Example: Why not seek asylum in an EU country, once accepted they will have documentation that will allow them to travel to the UK very easily and have numerous countries to explore under the right to roam.
Your first reaction to this will be one of many angry thoughts. They should be allowed to seek asylum wherever they want, it is the law... They might have family here and on it will go all the time ignoring the problem right in front of your nose.
They are crossing the channel putting their life and others in danger to enter the country illegally.
so many options other than making that journey and we need to make that journey as unattractive as possible, hence facing consequences for their actions and removing the apologists from the loop as they are encouraging this dangerous activity."Ah , you mean like what could happen while we were a EU Member ,, sorry for the pun ,, but that boat has sailed ( and it wasn't my fault ,, I voted remain ) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*If you are a Syrian you cannot apply for a tourist visa to the UK from Turkey. You can from the EU You should submit the following documents to apply for a UK visa: UK visa application form. According to the UK visa type you are applying for, you may have to complete the manual application form. Two photographs. These photos should be taken within the past six months and in color. Your Valid Passport. It must be valid for three more months beyond the date you plan to leave the UK after your trip. It must also have at least one blank page for the visa. If your passport has expired, you might not be able to travel. Proof you have the financial means to cover the living costs while in the UK. This may be your bank statements for the last six months, or pay slips for the same period. Proof of accommodation. You will need to present a document that shows where you will be accommodated while in the UK. Note that you do not have to fully pay a hotel/hostel in UK before getting the visa, just to get such a document. Detailed travel itinerary. Submit a travel plan that gives all the information regarding how and what you are planning to do in the UK. Include the travel dates, places you will visit, meeting agenda, booked tour, festival agenda, etc. Tuberculosis Test Results. Nationals of several world countries will need to submit the requests of a Tuberculosis Test in order to be eligible for a UK Visa. Biometric information. If you are applying for a visa that lets you stay in UK for more than 6 months, you will need to submit your biometric information. This includes giving your fingerprints and a digital photograph taken at the appropriate application center. UK visa invitation letter. (If applicable). If you will be staying over at a friend or a family member, then you should submit a letter of invitation. Your host must be a UK national or a legal resident. UK cover letter. (If applicable). Personalized letter that accompanies the visa application, providing a detailed explanation of the purpose of the visit and the applicant’s background. It serves as an essential supporting document to convey the applicant’s genuine intentions and enhance their chances of obtaining the desired visa. Paid UK visa fees. You should submit the receipt that confirms you have paid the visa fee as required. You have gone down a proper rabbit hole here haven't you
No, just showing that it’s basically impossible for an asylum seeker to enter the UK legally.
You are looking at things in the most complicated of ways.
Example: Why not seek asylum in an EU country, once accepted they will have documentation that will allow them to travel to the UK very easily and have numerous countries to explore under the right to roam.
Your first reaction to this will be one of many angry thoughts. They should be allowed to seek asylum wherever they want, it is the law... They might have family here and on it will go all the time ignoring the problem right in front of your nose.
They are crossing the channel putting their life and others in danger to enter the country illegally.
so many options other than making that journey and we need to make that journey as unattractive as possible, hence facing consequences for their actions and removing the apologists from the loop as they are encouraging this dangerous activity.
Do we have freedom of movement with the EU then?
Reading will help you..."So you’re happy for them to travel to the U.K, just not to claim asylum here? Just trying to work out your point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*If you are a Syrian you cannot apply for a tourist visa to the UK from Turkey. You can from the EU You should submit the following documents to apply for a UK visa: UK visa application form. According to the UK visa type you are applying for, you may have to complete the manual application form. Two photographs. These photos should be taken within the past six months and in color. Your Valid Passport. It must be valid for three more months beyond the date you plan to leave the UK after your trip. It must also have at least one blank page for the visa. If your passport has expired, you might not be able to travel. Proof you have the financial means to cover the living costs while in the UK. This may be your bank statements for the last six months, or pay slips for the same period. Proof of accommodation. You will need to present a document that shows where you will be accommodated while in the UK. Note that you do not have to fully pay a hotel/hostel in UK before getting the visa, just to get such a document. Detailed travel itinerary. Submit a travel plan that gives all the information regarding how and what you are planning to do in the UK. Include the travel dates, places you will visit, meeting agenda, booked tour, festival agenda, etc. Tuberculosis Test Results. Nationals of several world countries will need to submit the requests of a Tuberculosis Test in order to be eligible for a UK Visa. Biometric information. If you are applying for a visa that lets you stay in UK for more than 6 months, you will need to submit your biometric information. This includes giving your fingerprints and a digital photograph taken at the appropriate application center. UK visa invitation letter. (If applicable). If you will be staying over at a friend or a family member, then you should submit a letter of invitation. Your host must be a UK national or a legal resident. UK cover letter. (If applicable). Personalized letter that accompanies the visa application, providing a detailed explanation of the purpose of the visit and the applicant’s background. It serves as an essential supporting document to convey the applicant’s genuine intentions and enhance their chances of obtaining the desired visa. Paid UK visa fees. You should submit the receipt that confirms you have paid the visa fee as required. You have gone down a proper rabbit hole here haven't you
No, just showing that it’s basically impossible for an asylum seeker to enter the UK legally.
You are looking at things in the most complicated of ways.
Example: Why not seek asylum in an EU country, once accepted they will have documentation that will allow them to travel to the UK very easily and have numerous countries to explore under the right to roam.
Your first reaction to this will be one of many angry thoughts. They should be allowed to seek asylum wherever they want, it is the law... They might have family here and on it will go all the time ignoring the problem right in front of your nose.
They are crossing the channel putting their life and others in danger to enter the country illegally.
so many options other than making that journey and we need to make that journey as unattractive as possible, hence facing consequences for their actions and removing the apologists from the loop as they are encouraging this dangerous activity.
Do we have freedom of movement with the EU then?
Reading will help you...
So you’re happy for them to travel to the U.K, just not to claim asylum here? Just trying to work out your point. "I'm saying they could if they so wished claim asylum in the EU, they would have freedoms to roam and all the documentation they need to travel here safely. what they do from that point is up to them, apply for a job here, apply to live here who knows. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*If you are a Syrian you cannot apply for a tourist visa to the UK from Turkey. You can from the EU You should submit the following documents to apply for a UK visa: UK visa application form. According to the UK visa type you are applying for, you may have to complete the manual application form. Two photographs. These photos should be taken within the past six months and in color. Your Valid Passport. It must be valid for three more months beyond the date you plan to leave the UK after your trip. It must also have at least one blank page for the visa. If your passport has expired, you might not be able to travel. Proof you have the financial means to cover the living costs while in the UK. This may be your bank statements for the last six months, or pay slips for the same period. Proof of accommodation. You will need to present a document that shows where you will be accommodated while in the UK. Note that you do not have to fully pay a hotel/hostel in UK before getting the visa, just to get such a document. Detailed travel itinerary. Submit a travel plan that gives all the information regarding how and what you are planning to do in the UK. Include the travel dates, places you will visit, meeting agenda, booked tour, festival agenda, etc. Tuberculosis Test Results. Nationals of several world countries will need to submit the requests of a Tuberculosis Test in order to be eligible for a UK Visa. Biometric information. If you are applying for a visa that lets you stay in UK for more than 6 months, you will need to submit your biometric information. This includes giving your fingerprints and a digital photograph taken at the appropriate application center. UK visa invitation letter. (If applicable). If you will be staying over at a friend or a family member, then you should submit a letter of invitation. Your host must be a UK national or a legal resident. UK cover letter. (If applicable). Personalized letter that accompanies the visa application, providing a detailed explanation of the purpose of the visit and the applicant’s background. It serves as an essential supporting document to convey the applicant’s genuine intentions and enhance their chances of obtaining the desired visa. Paid UK visa fees. You should submit the receipt that confirms you have paid the visa fee as required. You have gone down a proper rabbit hole here haven't you
No, just showing that it’s basically impossible for an asylum seeker to enter the UK legally.
You are looking at things in the most complicated of ways.
Example: Why not seek asylum in an EU country, once accepted they will have documentation that will allow them to travel to the UK very easily and have numerous countries to explore under the right to roam.
Your first reaction to this will be one of many angry thoughts. They should be allowed to seek asylum wherever they want, it is the law... They might have family here and on it will go all the time ignoring the problem right in front of your nose.
They are crossing the channel putting their life and others in danger to enter the country illegally.
so many options other than making that journey and we need to make that journey as unattractive as possible, hence facing consequences for their actions and removing the apologists from the loop as they are encouraging this dangerous activity.
Ah , you mean like what could happen while we were a EU Member ,, sorry for the pun ,, but that boat has sailed ( and it wasn't my fault ,, I voted remain ) "Yes so many moaning how great it is / was why not wish the best for asylum seekers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*If you are a Syrian you cannot apply for a tourist visa to the UK from Turkey. You can from the EU You should submit the following documents to apply for a UK visa: UK visa application form. According to the UK visa type you are applying for, you may have to complete the manual application form. Two photographs. These photos should be taken within the past six months and in color. Your Valid Passport. It must be valid for three more months beyond the date you plan to leave the UK after your trip. It must also have at least one blank page for the visa. If your passport has expired, you might not be able to travel. Proof you have the financial means to cover the living costs while in the UK. This may be your bank statements for the last six months, or pay slips for the same period. Proof of accommodation. You will need to present a document that shows where you will be accommodated while in the UK. Note that you do not have to fully pay a hotel/hostel in UK before getting the visa, just to get such a document. Detailed travel itinerary. Submit a travel plan that gives all the information regarding how and what you are planning to do in the UK. Include the travel dates, places you will visit, meeting agenda, booked tour, festival agenda, etc. Tuberculosis Test Results. Nationals of several world countries will need to submit the requests of a Tuberculosis Test in order to be eligible for a UK Visa. Biometric information. If you are applying for a visa that lets you stay in UK for more than 6 months, you will need to submit your biometric information. This includes giving your fingerprints and a digital photograph taken at the appropriate application center. UK visa invitation letter. (If applicable). If you will be staying over at a friend or a family member, then you should submit a letter of invitation. Your host must be a UK national or a legal resident. UK cover letter. (If applicable). Personalized letter that accompanies the visa application, providing a detailed explanation of the purpose of the visit and the applicant’s background. It serves as an essential supporting document to convey the applicant’s genuine intentions and enhance their chances of obtaining the desired visa. Paid UK visa fees. You should submit the receipt that confirms you have paid the visa fee as required. You have gone down a proper rabbit hole here haven't you
No, just showing that it’s basically impossible for an asylum seeker to enter the UK legally.
You are looking at things in the most complicated of ways.
Example: Why not seek asylum in an EU country, once accepted they will have documentation that will allow them to travel to the UK very easily and have numerous countries to explore under the right to roam.
Your first reaction to this will be one of many angry thoughts. They should be allowed to seek asylum wherever they want, it is the law... They might have family here and on it will go all the time ignoring the problem right in front of your nose.
They are crossing the channel putting their life and others in danger to enter the country illegally.
so many options other than making that journey and we need to make that journey as unattractive as possible, hence facing consequences for their actions and removing the apologists from the loop as they are encouraging this dangerous activity.
Ah , you mean like what could happen while we were a EU Member ,, sorry for the pun ,, but that boat has sailed ( and it wasn't my fault ,, I voted remain )
Yes so many moaning how great it is / was why not wish the best for asylum seekers?"Well the numbers have certainly grown considerably since we left the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*If you are a Syrian you cannot apply for a tourist visa to the UK from Turkey. You can from the EU You should submit the following documents to apply for a UK visa: UK visa application form. According to the UK visa type you are applying for, you may have to complete the manual application form. Two photographs. These photos should be taken within the past six months and in color. Your Valid Passport. It must be valid for three more months beyond the date you plan to leave the UK after your trip. It must also have at least one blank page for the visa. If your passport has expired, you might not be able to travel. Proof you have the financial means to cover the living costs while in the UK. This may be your bank statements for the last six months, or pay slips for the same period. Proof of accommodation. You will need to present a document that shows where you will be accommodated while in the UK. Note that you do not have to fully pay a hotel/hostel in UK before getting the visa, just to get such a document. Detailed travel itinerary. Submit a travel plan that gives all the information regarding how and what you are planning to do in the UK. Include the travel dates, places you will visit, meeting agenda, booked tour, festival agenda, etc. Tuberculosis Test Results. Nationals of several world countries will need to submit the requests of a Tuberculosis Test in order to be eligible for a UK Visa. Biometric information. If you are applying for a visa that lets you stay in UK for more than 6 months, you will need to submit your biometric information. This includes giving your fingerprints and a digital photograph taken at the appropriate application center. UK visa invitation letter. (If applicable). If you will be staying over at a friend or a family member, then you should submit a letter of invitation. Your host must be a UK national or a legal resident. UK cover letter. (If applicable). Personalized letter that accompanies the visa application, providing a detailed explanation of the purpose of the visit and the applicant’s background. It serves as an essential supporting document to convey the applicant’s genuine intentions and enhance their chances of obtaining the desired visa. Paid UK visa fees. You should submit the receipt that confirms you have paid the visa fee as required. You have gone down a proper rabbit hole here haven't you
No, just showing that it’s basically impossible for an asylum seeker to enter the UK legally.
You are looking at things in the most complicated of ways.
Example: Why not seek asylum in an EU country, once accepted they will have documentation that will allow them to travel to the UK very easily and have numerous countries to explore under the right to roam.
Your first reaction to this will be one of many angry thoughts. They should be allowed to seek asylum wherever they want, it is the law... They might have family here and on it will go all the time ignoring the problem right in front of your nose.
They are crossing the channel putting their life and others in danger to enter the country illegally.
so many options other than making that journey and we need to make that journey as unattractive as possible, hence facing consequences for their actions and removing the apologists from the loop as they are encouraging this dangerous activity.
Ah , you mean like what could happen while we were a EU Member ,, sorry for the pun ,, but that boat has sailed ( and it wasn't my fault ,, I voted remain )
Yes so many moaning how great it is / was why not wish the best for asylum seekers?"Well , it was better , | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You paying some money into the RNLI does not give you the right to expect the people manning those boats, for no payment, should put their own lives at risk! I don’t think anyone pays the RNLI in return for a service. It’s about supporting brave men and women doing an absolutely necessary job that should be funded as an emergency service but isn’t. The poster said: "I proudly donate to them and fully support what they do because I don’t see the value of human life as dependent on what country a person was born is" When I said people crossing the channel on small boats should face consequences if the RNLI is called to save them. That is definitely someone who by paying in thinks they are paying for them to provide a service. The RNLI volunteers are risking their lives as selfish people take unnecessary risks and those taking the risks should face consequences, regardless what someone donating a few £'s a month thinks. No, I donate because they don’t allow politics to influence their decision to save human lives. I don’t want any influence over what they do, and I don’t think I have the right to. I’m confused as to how you decided that, unless of course it’s because it’s what you would want? If the RNLI ever allow politics to influence who they save then I will stop supporting them. Until such time they can do what the fuck they want with my money. Do you see human lives that began outside of the UK as being less valuable than those that began in the UK? If you cannot see the basic argument here is not to let them drown we will get nowhere, open your eyes! I'm saying that anyone taking that journey in a craft not fit for numbers or crossings, who need rescuing should face consequences of their actions, they put themselves and the RNLI's lives at risk for selfish reasons. I will leave the donation side of things out of the rest of it, you were clear in how you thought.... Should we punish drug takers harsher than drug dealers? " I refer you to my much earlier post that hasn't received any comments | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on..." This one | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one " I would be surprised if you ever get a reasonable response to a direct question. Any post that provides a legitimate argument to the progressive liberal view seems to not get traction as they run out of emotional response’s rather quickly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one " What do you suggest they do? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? " Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please." No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? " If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. " I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here." I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this?" Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. " You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers" Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads)" Again you offer nothing other than open doors, I can’t take you seriously if you have no idea of the problem. Goodnight and I hope the volunteers of the RNLI are not put in unnecessary danger by people setting off from safe lands to reach our shore illegally tonight. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads) Again you offer nothing other than open doors, I can’t take you seriously if you have no idea of the problem. Goodnight and I hope the volunteers of the RNLI are not put in unnecessary danger by people setting off from safe lands to reach our shore illegally tonight." ‘Open doors’? Inventing things yet again. Tell you what, let’s have a bet. If I suggested open doors anywhere on this thread, I’ll give the RNLI £100. If I didn’t, you do the same. Fair? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*If you are a Syrian you cannot apply for a tourist visa to the UK from Turkey. You can from the EU You should submit the following documents to apply for a UK visa: UK visa application form. According to the UK visa type you are applying for, you may have to complete the manual application form. Two photographs. These photos should be taken within the past six months and in color. Your Valid Passport. It must be valid for three more months beyond the date you plan to leave the UK after your trip. It must also have at least one blank page for the visa. If your passport has expired, you might not be able to travel. Proof you have the financial means to cover the living costs while in the UK. This may be your bank statements for the last six months, or pay slips for the same period. Proof of accommodation. You will need to present a document that shows where you will be accommodated while in the UK. Note that you do not have to fully pay a hotel/hostel in UK before getting the visa, just to get such a document. Detailed travel itinerary. Submit a travel plan that gives all the information regarding how and what you are planning to do in the UK. Include the travel dates, places you will visit, meeting agenda, booked tour, festival agenda, etc. Tuberculosis Test Results. Nationals of several world countries will need to submit the requests of a Tuberculosis Test in order to be eligible for a UK Visa. Biometric information. If you are applying for a visa that lets you stay in UK for more than 6 months, you will need to submit your biometric information. This includes giving your fingerprints and a digital photograph taken at the appropriate application center. UK visa invitation letter. (If applicable). If you will be staying over at a friend or a family member, then you should submit a letter of invitation. Your host must be a UK national or a legal resident. UK cover letter. (If applicable). Personalized letter that accompanies the visa application, providing a detailed explanation of the purpose of the visit and the applicant’s background. It serves as an essential supporting document to convey the applicant’s genuine intentions and enhance their chances of obtaining the desired visa. Paid UK visa fees. You should submit the receipt that confirms you have paid the visa fee as required. You have gone down a proper rabbit hole here haven't you
No, just showing that it’s basically impossible for an asylum seeker to enter the UK legally.
You are looking at things in the most complicated of ways.
Example: Why not seek asylum in an EU country, once accepted they will have documentation that will allow them to travel to the UK very easily and have numerous countries to explore under the right to roam.
Your first reaction to this will be one of many angry thoughts. They should be allowed to seek asylum wherever they want, it is the law... They might have family here and on it will go all the time ignoring the problem right in front of your nose.
They are crossing the channel putting their life and others in danger to enter the country illegally.
so many options other than making that journey and we need to make that journey as unattractive as possible, hence facing consequences for their actions and removing the apologists from the loop as they are encouraging this dangerous activity.
Ah , you mean like what could happen while we were a EU Member ,, sorry for the pun ,, but that boat has sailed ( and it wasn't my fault ,, I voted remain )
Yes so many moaning how great it is / was why not wish the best for asylum seekers?"Surely the best for asylum seekers would be for them to claim without having to pay criminals to cross the busy shipping lane between France (EU) and UK | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads)" I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads) I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused." That was certainly mooted last year. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads) I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused." Do you have a link for this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads) I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused. Do you have a link for this?" This was in the Boris Johnson era. There are reports on France 24 that you can Google on the story. More recently (this time last year) - Sunak agreed to fund a detention centre in Calais which in the long term the French want Britain to use as a processing centre. It all makes sense, but for now it has to be just called a detention centre. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads) I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused. Do you have a link for this? This was in the Boris Johnson era. There are reports on France 24 that you can Google on the story. More recently (this time last year) - Sunak agreed to fund a detention centre in Calais which in the long term the French want Britain to use as a processing centre. It all makes sense, but for now it has to be just called a detention centre." One French minister said something about the UK processing offshore, there wasn't any offer as far as I'm aware. I'm aware of the 500m to France, which some will go to the detention centre, France already had that detention centre, its not for the UK. Do you have any evidence to suggest 'France want Britain to use it as a processing centre'? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads) I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused. Do you have a link for this?" There’s a line or two hidden in here: https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/07/what-does-the-uks-small-boats-plan-mean-for-relations-with-france | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads) I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused. Do you have a link for this? There’s a line or two hidden in here: https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/07/what-does-the-uks-small-boats-plan-mean-for-relations-with-france" What's 'hidden' exactly? There's a paragraph that says 'There are no official calls to tear up the treaty. But French officials have suggested Britain should set up an asylum processing centre in northern France so claims could be processed there, allowing people to travel legally to the UK if accepted.' That's not the same as 'I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused.' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Surely the best for asylum seekers would be for them to claim without having to pay criminals to cross the busy shipping lane between France (EU) and UK " Perhaps you could explain how this is done, bearing in mind that several Ministers have been asked the same question and couldn’t answer with any details other than: “Yes there are safe and legal routes - look what we did for Ukrainians.” The exact same system of “homes for Syrians/Afghans/Ethiopians” etc is simply not available and even if it were there is nowhere that people could apply. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads) I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused. Do you have a link for this? There’s a line or two hidden in here: https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/07/what-does-the-uks-small-boats-plan-mean-for-relations-with-france What's 'hidden' exactly? There's a paragraph that says 'There are no official calls to tear up the treaty. But French officials have suggested Britain should set up an asylum processing centre in northern France so claims could be processed there, allowing people to travel legally to the UK if accepted.' That's not the same as 'I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused.'" It’s hidden in that you have to read through blurb to find it. I’m not aware of us refusing anything (in fact I believe that Sunak was in talks about the boat crossings recently), but the offer of a processing centre in France is certainly there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads) I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused. Do you have a link for this? There’s a line or two hidden in here: https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/07/what-does-the-uks-small-boats-plan-mean-for-relations-with-france What's 'hidden' exactly? There's a paragraph that says 'There are no official calls to tear up the treaty. But French officials have suggested Britain should set up an asylum processing centre in northern France so claims could be processed there, allowing people to travel legally to the UK if accepted.' That's not the same as 'I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused.' It’s hidden in that you have to read through blurb to find it. I’m not aware of us refusing anything (in fact I believe that Sunak was in talks about the boat crossings recently), but the offer of a processing centre in France is certainly there. " if we did setup a centre in France what would prevent those that failed, from simply going down to the beach and pay their €’s to cross on a small boat? The arrival by small boat needs to be made illegal with no chance of asylum, or it will not go away. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads) I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused. Do you have a link for this? There’s a line or two hidden in here: https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/07/what-does-the-uks-small-boats-plan-mean-for-relations-with-france What's 'hidden' exactly? There's a paragraph that says 'There are no official calls to tear up the treaty. But French officials have suggested Britain should set up an asylum processing centre in northern France so claims could be processed there, allowing people to travel legally to the UK if accepted.' That's not the same as 'I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused.' It’s hidden in that you have to read through blurb to find it. I’m not aware of us refusing anything (in fact I believe that Sunak was in talks about the boat crossings recently), but the offer of a processing centre in France is certainly there. " I've asked you what's hidden. Any chance you can show us? You're not aware of us refusing anything, great, we've sorted that one. Where is the offer of a processing centre? An official offer, not just one ministers words. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads) I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused. Do you have a link for this? There’s a line or two hidden in here: https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/07/what-does-the-uks-small-boats-plan-mean-for-relations-with-france What's 'hidden' exactly? There's a paragraph that says 'There are no official calls to tear up the treaty. But French officials have suggested Britain should set up an asylum processing centre in northern France so claims could be processed there, allowing people to travel legally to the UK if accepted.' That's not the same as 'I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused.' It’s hidden in that you have to read through blurb to find it. I’m not aware of us refusing anything (in fact I believe that Sunak was in talks about the boat crossings recently), but the offer of a processing centre in France is certainly there. if we did setup a centre in France what would prevent those that failed, from simply going down to the beach and pay their €’s to cross on a small boat? The arrival by small boat needs to be made illegal with no chance of asylum, or it will not go away." Finally it seems like you’re getting it. Yes. If we had processing centres on the continent, and safe routes for those cleared for asylum, then those others arriving in small boats could be immediately turned around (or arrested upon arrival with no chance of asylum). This is literally what I’ve suggested ad infinitum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads) I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused. Do you have a link for this? There’s a line or two hidden in here: https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/07/what-does-the-uks-small-boats-plan-mean-for-relations-with-france What's 'hidden' exactly? There's a paragraph that says 'There are no official calls to tear up the treaty. But French officials have suggested Britain should set up an asylum processing centre in northern France so claims could be processed there, allowing people to travel legally to the UK if accepted.' That's not the same as 'I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused.' It’s hidden in that you have to read through blurb to find it. I’m not aware of us refusing anything (in fact I believe that Sunak was in talks about the boat crossings recently), but the offer of a processing centre in France is certainly there. I've asked you what's hidden. Any chance you can show us? You're not aware of us refusing anything, great, we've sorted that one. Where is the offer of a processing centre? An official offer, not just one ministers words. " *sigh* I’ve explained what I meant by hidden. It’s not in enormous headline letters at the top of the page, and you have to read through some blurb to find it. Apologies, I should have been clearer and given an exact paragraph number and page location. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads) I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused. Do you have a link for this? There’s a line or two hidden in here: https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/07/what-does-the-uks-small-boats-plan-mean-for-relations-with-france What's 'hidden' exactly? There's a paragraph that says 'There are no official calls to tear up the treaty. But French officials have suggested Britain should set up an asylum processing centre in northern France so claims could be processed there, allowing people to travel legally to the UK if accepted.' That's not the same as 'I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused.'" In fact this story completely refutes the assertion that it was the U.K. Government that refused to have an application centre in Calais https://www.ft.com/content/e79f74a3-be2b-432d-b6c9-adfd65299a26 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads) I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused. Do you have a link for this? There’s a line or two hidden in here: https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/07/what-does-the-uks-small-boats-plan-mean-for-relations-with-france What's 'hidden' exactly? There's a paragraph that says 'There are no official calls to tear up the treaty. But French officials have suggested Britain should set up an asylum processing centre in northern France so claims could be processed there, allowing people to travel legally to the UK if accepted.' That's not the same as 'I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused.' It’s hidden in that you have to read through blurb to find it. I’m not aware of us refusing anything (in fact I believe that Sunak was in talks about the boat crossings recently), but the offer of a processing centre in France is certainly there. I've asked you what's hidden. Any chance you can show us? You're not aware of us refusing anything, great, we've sorted that one. Where is the offer of a processing centre? An official offer, not just one ministers words. *sigh* I’ve explained what I meant by hidden. It’s not in enormous headline letters at the top of the page, and you have to read through some blurb to find it. Apologies, I should have been clearer and given an exact paragraph number and page location." I've read through the 'blurb'. I can't see anything. Are you saying it's there because you say it's there, or it is actually there, written down? Where is the offer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads) I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused. Do you have a link for this? There’s a line or two hidden in here: https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/07/what-does-the-uks-small-boats-plan-mean-for-relations-with-france What's 'hidden' exactly? There's a paragraph that says 'There are no official calls to tear up the treaty. But French officials have suggested Britain should set up an asylum processing centre in northern France so claims could be processed there, allowing people to travel legally to the UK if accepted.' That's not the same as 'I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused.' It’s hidden in that you have to read through blurb to find it. I’m not aware of us refusing anything (in fact I believe that Sunak was in talks about the boat crossings recently), but the offer of a processing centre in France is certainly there. if we did setup a centre in France what would prevent those that failed, from simply going down to the beach and pay their €’s to cross on a small boat? The arrival by small boat needs to be made illegal with no chance of asylum, or it will not go away. Finally it seems like you’re getting it. Yes. If we had processing centres on the continent, and safe routes for those cleared for asylum, then those others arriving in small boats could be immediately turned around (or arrested upon arrival with no chance of asylum). This is literally what I’ve suggested ad infinitum." No you haven’t, you’ve mentioned a safe route and a centre but you have never said every boat there after would be deemed illegal and sent straight back | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads) I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused. Do you have a link for this? There’s a line or two hidden in here: https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/07/what-does-the-uks-small-boats-plan-mean-for-relations-with-france What's 'hidden' exactly? There's a paragraph that says 'There are no official calls to tear up the treaty. But French officials have suggested Britain should set up an asylum processing centre in northern France so claims could be processed there, allowing people to travel legally to the UK if accepted.' That's not the same as 'I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused.' It’s hidden in that you have to read through blurb to find it. I’m not aware of us refusing anything (in fact I believe that Sunak was in talks about the boat crossings recently), but the offer of a processing centre in France is certainly there. I've asked you what's hidden. Any chance you can show us? You're not aware of us refusing anything, great, we've sorted that one. Where is the offer of a processing centre? An official offer, not just one ministers words. *sigh* I’ve explained what I meant by hidden. It’s not in enormous headline letters at the top of the page, and you have to read through some blurb to find it. Apologies, I should have been clearer and given an exact paragraph number and page location. I've read through the 'blurb'. I can't see anything. Are you saying it's there because you say it's there, or it is actually there, written down? Where is the offer?" The offer is that French officials have suggested it. Are you saying that they’d suggest a UK processing location in France and later say ‘Sorry, you can’t do that’? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads) I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused. Do you have a link for this? There’s a line or two hidden in here: https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/07/what-does-the-uks-small-boats-plan-mean-for-relations-with-france What's 'hidden' exactly? There's a paragraph that says 'There are no official calls to tear up the treaty. But French officials have suggested Britain should set up an asylum processing centre in northern France so claims could be processed there, allowing people to travel legally to the UK if accepted.' That's not the same as 'I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused.' It’s hidden in that you have to read through blurb to find it. I’m not aware of us refusing anything (in fact I believe that Sunak was in talks about the boat crossings recently), but the offer of a processing centre in France is certainly there. if we did setup a centre in France what would prevent those that failed, from simply going down to the beach and pay their €’s to cross on a small boat? The arrival by small boat needs to be made illegal with no chance of asylum, or it will not go away. Finally it seems like you’re getting it. Yes. If we had processing centres on the continent, and safe routes for those cleared for asylum, then those others arriving in small boats could be immediately turned around (or arrested upon arrival with no chance of asylum). This is literally what I’ve suggested ad infinitum. No you haven’t, you’ve mentioned a safe route and a centre but you have never said every boat there after would be deemed illegal and sent straight back" Oh look what I wrote last night: “So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier” What did you think I meant? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads) I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused. Do you have a link for this? There’s a line or two hidden in here: https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/07/what-does-the-uks-small-boats-plan-mean-for-relations-with-france What's 'hidden' exactly? There's a paragraph that says 'There are no official calls to tear up the treaty. But French officials have suggested Britain should set up an asylum processing centre in northern France so claims could be processed there, allowing people to travel legally to the UK if accepted.' That's not the same as 'I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused.' It’s hidden in that you have to read through blurb to find it. I’m not aware of us refusing anything (in fact I believe that Sunak was in talks about the boat crossings recently), but the offer of a processing centre in France is certainly there. I've asked you what's hidden. Any chance you can show us? You're not aware of us refusing anything, great, we've sorted that one. Where is the offer of a processing centre? An official offer, not just one ministers words. *sigh* I’ve explained what I meant by hidden. It’s not in enormous headline letters at the top of the page, and you have to read through some blurb to find it. Apologies, I should have been clearer and given an exact paragraph number and page location. I've read through the 'blurb'. I can't see anything. Are you saying it's there because you say it's there, or it is actually there, written down? Where is the offer? The offer is that French officials have suggested it. Are you saying that they’d suggest a UK processing location in France and later say ‘Sorry, you can’t do that’? " Who has suggested it? I find the Guardian saying so but no one quoted. This is what I want, a fact that someone said it rather than 'were telling you they said it' I also want proof that the UK have turned it down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads) I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused. Do you have a link for this? There’s a line or two hidden in here: https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/07/what-does-the-uks-small-boats-plan-mean-for-relations-with-france What's 'hidden' exactly? There's a paragraph that says 'There are no official calls to tear up the treaty. But French officials have suggested Britain should set up an asylum processing centre in northern France so claims could be processed there, allowing people to travel legally to the UK if accepted.' That's not the same as 'I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused.' It’s hidden in that you have to read through blurb to find it. I’m not aware of us refusing anything (in fact I believe that Sunak was in talks about the boat crossings recently), but the offer of a processing centre in France is certainly there. if we did setup a centre in France what would prevent those that failed, from simply going down to the beach and pay their €’s to cross on a small boat? The arrival by small boat needs to be made illegal with no chance of asylum, or it will not go away. Finally it seems like you’re getting it. Yes. If we had processing centres on the continent, and safe routes for those cleared for asylum, then those others arriving in small boats could be immediately turned around (or arrested upon arrival with no chance of asylum). This is literally what I’ve suggested ad infinitum. No you haven’t, you’ve mentioned a safe route and a centre but you have never said every boat there after would be deemed illegal and sent straight back" Look what else happened yesterday: [Feisty] If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? [Me] Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads) I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused. Do you have a link for this? There’s a line or two hidden in here: https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/07/what-does-the-uks-small-boats-plan-mean-for-relations-with-france What's 'hidden' exactly? There's a paragraph that says 'There are no official calls to tear up the treaty. But French officials have suggested Britain should set up an asylum processing centre in northern France so claims could be processed there, allowing people to travel legally to the UK if accepted.' That's not the same as 'I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused.' It’s hidden in that you have to read through blurb to find it. I’m not aware of us refusing anything (in fact I believe that Sunak was in talks about the boat crossings recently), but the offer of a processing centre in France is certainly there. if we did setup a centre in France what would prevent those that failed, from simply going down to the beach and pay their €’s to cross on a small boat? The arrival by small boat needs to be made illegal with no chance of asylum, or it will not go away. Finally it seems like you’re getting it. Yes. If we had processing centres on the continent, and safe routes for those cleared for asylum, then those others arriving in small boats could be immediately turned around (or arrested upon arrival with no chance of asylum). This is literally what I’ve suggested ad infinitum. No you haven’t, you’ve mentioned a safe route and a centre but you have never said every boat there after would be deemed illegal and sent straight back Look what else happened yesterday: [Feisty] If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? [Me] Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available." I'll vouch for you on this  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads) I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused. Do you have a link for this? There’s a line or two hidden in here: https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/07/what-does-the-uks-small-boats-plan-mean-for-relations-with-france What's 'hidden' exactly? There's a paragraph that says 'There are no official calls to tear up the treaty. But French officials have suggested Britain should set up an asylum processing centre in northern France so claims could be processed there, allowing people to travel legally to the UK if accepted.' That's not the same as 'I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused.' It’s hidden in that you have to read through blurb to find it. I’m not aware of us refusing anything (in fact I believe that Sunak was in talks about the boat crossings recently), but the offer of a processing centre in France is certainly there. if we did setup a centre in France what would prevent those that failed, from simply going down to the beach and pay their €’s to cross on a small boat? The arrival by small boat needs to be made illegal with no chance of asylum, or it will not go away. Finally it seems like you’re getting it. Yes. If we had processing centres on the continent, and safe routes for those cleared for asylum, then those others arriving in small boats could be immediately turned around (or arrested upon arrival with no chance of asylum). This is literally what I’ve suggested ad infinitum. No you haven’t, you’ve mentioned a safe route and a centre but you have never said every boat there after would be deemed illegal and sent straight back Oh look what I wrote last night: “So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier” What did you think I meant?" That is not saying send everyone back as illegal, if it was meant to say that you should have been explicit. If I take you at your normal liberal outlook, that could mean anything from getting them quickly into a 5 star hotel to putting them up in a recently acquired compulsory purchased house. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads) I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused. Do you have a link for this? There’s a line or two hidden in here: https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/07/what-does-the-uks-small-boats-plan-mean-for-relations-with-france What's 'hidden' exactly? There's a paragraph that says 'There are no official calls to tear up the treaty. But French officials have suggested Britain should set up an asylum processing centre in northern France so claims could be processed there, allowing people to travel legally to the UK if accepted.' That's not the same as 'I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused.' It’s hidden in that you have to read through blurb to find it. I’m not aware of us refusing anything (in fact I believe that Sunak was in talks about the boat crossings recently), but the offer of a processing centre in France is certainly there. if we did setup a centre in France what would prevent those that failed, from simply going down to the beach and pay their €’s to cross on a small boat? The arrival by small boat needs to be made illegal with no chance of asylum, or it will not go away. Finally it seems like you’re getting it. Yes. If we had processing centres on the continent, and safe routes for those cleared for asylum, then those others arriving in small boats could be immediately turned around (or arrested upon arrival with no chance of asylum). This is literally what I’ve suggested ad infinitum. No you haven’t, you’ve mentioned a safe route and a centre but you have never said every boat there after would be deemed illegal and sent straight back Look what else happened yesterday: [Feisty] If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? [Me] Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. I'll vouch for you on this "It happens | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If an individual buys drugs from a dealer and all are caught in the act I assume they are all charged? Why is an illegal immigrant with £8k on the hip buying illegal entry to the UK any different? Yes, I know they claim asylum but come on... This one What do you suggest they do? Are you jumping into another thread with the same attitude as the last 4 relentless threads you’ve been playing in? Address the question please. No, a drug dealer and a drug user are not treated the same, and nor should they be. Now what is the 8k comment about? If you need to ask it shows me that you along with another poster today in this thread that you haven’t got an idea of the facts. I won’t idle on that point though, 8k is the average crossing fee paid…. I’m aware of the cost, but what’s the relevance? Their choice is pay it or what? There’s no alternate method of getting here. I can pay 8k to have a crime committed or take part in a crime, why should I be punished if you are allowing some crimes to go unpunished? The poster’s argument is simple, can’t you see this? Someone is simplifying things here, definitely. The person paying to make the journey is not the same calibre of criminal as the gang charging them. We could of course prevent this transaction by means described in this thread, but you are adamant that we can’t do it. You have nothing to offer that prevents the actual issue of small boat crossings and ultimately the money being paid to criminals and the risk to life. Your virtue signalling carries no meaningful answers Why would a genuine asylum seeker choose the boat over a legal safe route? (ideally combined with asylum processing carried out on the continent) So assuming that the genuine asylum seekers choose the safe routes, that leaves the remaining chancers with the boat people. Makes sorting them out upon arrival a darn sight easier. It’s not virtue signalling to suggest that we need a suitable asylum system in place (and you’ve never suggested one, except for shouting ‘stop the boats’ on every one of these threads) I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused. Do you have a link for this? There’s a line or two hidden in here: https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/07/what-does-the-uks-small-boats-plan-mean-for-relations-with-france What's 'hidden' exactly? There's a paragraph that says 'There are no official calls to tear up the treaty. But French officials have suggested Britain should set up an asylum processing centre in northern France so claims could be processed there, allowing people to travel legally to the UK if accepted.' That's not the same as 'I’m pretty sure the French have even offered to let us set up a refugee centre to process asylum claims in France, but for some reason the government refused.' It’s hidden in that you have to read through blurb to find it. I’m not aware of us refusing anything (in fact I believe that Sunak was in talks about the boat crossings recently), but the offer of a processing centre in France is certainly there. if we did setup a centre in France what would prevent those that failed, from simply going down to the beach and pay their €’s to cross on a small boat? The arrival by small boat needs to be made illegal with no chance of asylum, or it will not go away. Finally it seems like you’re getting it. Yes. If we had processing centres on the continent, and safe routes for those cleared for asylum, then those others arriving in small boats could be immediately turned around (or arrested upon arrival with no chance of asylum). This is literally what I’ve suggested ad infinitum. No you haven’t, you’ve mentioned a safe route and a centre but you have never said every boat there after would be deemed illegal and sent straight back Look what else happened yesterday: [Feisty] If we have as you've suggested (I'm in agreement) would it then be OK to punish the people who do not use those routes and decide to cross the channel? [Me] Exactly. They’ll have travelled by illegal means when adequate safe passage had been available. I'll vouch for you on this
It happens "You have not said explicitly to send any arriving by boat back as illegal. You can pretend all day long that is what you meant, but until I see you say it clearly I will put your reputation first and assume you are not committing to anything that would stop someone arriving here that wanted to be here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
