FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Small boat crossings hit 20,000 under Labour
Small boat crossings hit 20,000 under Labour
Jump to: Newest in thread
Over 20,000 people have crossed the English Channel in small boats since Labour entered office, latest official figures have confirmed.
The milestone has been reached in the five months since July's election, after a big uptick in crossings this October compared to last year.
What happened to Starmer’s pledge for a border command blitz on small boats |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *otMe66Man 1 week ago
Terra Firma |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
"
150K people entering by small boats since 2018 is no small number, especially when you consider the strain on housing and resources. Calling it a tiny percentage ignores the real impact of managing and accommodating these arrivals and the cost to the UK tax payer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
"
It's a small, not tiny, percentage because legal migration is so huge. Until the early 2000's net migration to UK rarely went much above 50,000 but now the illegal Channel crossing make up more than half that number, with many more arriving illegally by other means or illegally overstaying. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
"
Still, we should be in full panic mode at all times. Lest we forget these immigrants are foreigners. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AJMLKTV/TS 1 week ago
Burley |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
Still, we should be in full panic mode at all times. Lest we forget these immigrants are foreigners. "
This is about the fifth time I've seen you write something like this. Nobody is panicking mate, just discussing. Perhaps you could try contributing intelligently to the thread rather than coming out with the same old nonsense? There's a good socialist  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 1 week ago
Terra Firma |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
Still, we should be in full panic mode at all times. Lest we forget these immigrants are foreigners. "
Your dismissive tone does a disservice to the real impacts of illegal entry on the population. It’s not about being in ‘panic mode’ or xenophobia, it’s about recognising the strain on housing, resources, and public services, which taxpayers ultimately shoulder.
Ignoring this fuels frustration not just from the right wing but from communities directly affected which we witnessed in the summer.
Sweeping these issues under the carpet with contempt won’t solve anything, honest appraisal and practical solutions are needed not excuses.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
Still, we should be in full panic mode at all times. Lest we forget these immigrants are foreigners.
Your dismissive tone does a disservice to the real impacts of illegal entry on the population. It’s not about being in ‘panic mode’ or xenophobia, it’s about recognising the strain on housing, resources, and public services, which taxpayers ultimately shoulder.
Ignoring this fuels frustration not just from the right wing but from communities directly affected which we witnessed in the summer.
Sweeping these issues under the carpet with contempt won’t solve anything, honest appraisal and practical solutions are needed not excuses.
"
Not to mention the high levels of serious crime committed by the young men who make up most of the Channel crossings. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
Still, we should be in full panic mode at all times. Lest we forget these immigrants are foreigners.
This is about the fifth time I've seen you write something like this. Nobody is panicking mate, just discussing. Perhaps you could try contributing intelligently to the thread rather than coming out with the same old nonsense? There's a good socialist "
There's no way that's in anyway acceptable on here.
As you pointed out, anyone not in a blind panic about foreigners is labelled "socialist" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
Still, we should be in full panic mode at all times. Lest we forget these immigrants are foreigners.
Your dismissive tone does a disservice to the real impacts of illegal entry on the population. It’s not about being in ‘panic mode’ or xenophobia, it’s about recognising the strain on housing, resources, and public services, which taxpayers ultimately shoulder.
Ignoring this fuels frustration not just from the right wing but from communities directly affected which we witnessed in the summer.
Sweeping these issues under the carpet with contempt won’t solve anything, honest appraisal and practical solutions are needed not excuses.
"
"honest appraisal and practical solutions are needed not excuses."
The idea of this, in relation to immigration, on fab forums, is proper laugh out loud material. I enjoyed that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
Still, we should be in full panic mode at all times. Lest we forget these immigrants are foreigners.
This is about the fifth time I've seen you write something like this. Nobody is panicking mate, just discussing. Perhaps you could try contributing intelligently to the thread rather than coming out with the same old nonsense? There's a good socialist
There's no way that's in anyway acceptable on here.
As you pointed out, anyone not in a blind panic about foreigners is labelled "socialist""
But you do frequently use this 'panicking over foreigners' trope, but never support it. Who is panicking? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's obviously a result of the previous 14 years of mismanagement and lack of appropriate measures and investment. We've had a couple of effective months of the new lot and the budget was only in the last few weeks. It's not going to stop, this is now endemic in Europe. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
Still, we should be in full panic mode at all times. Lest we forget these immigrants are foreigners.
This is about the fifth time I've seen you write something like this. Nobody is panicking mate, just discussing. Perhaps you could try contributing intelligently to the thread rather than coming out with the same old nonsense? There's a good socialist
There's no way that's in anyway acceptable on here.
As you pointed out, anyone not in a blind panic about foreigners is labelled "socialist"
But you do frequently use this 'panicking over foreigners' trope, but never support it. Who is panicking? "
The vast majority of the people whom use this forum, who start thread after thread after thread massively overblowing the issue. As per the likes of (but not exclusively) GBNews, Daily Mail, Daily Express.
Without once asking why they're being constantly fed this kind of thing.
Specific example. One bloke who said he has spotted two non-white people in his town, who aren't welcome there. Who they all talk about in the pub.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
Still, we should be in full panic mode at all times. Lest we forget these immigrants are foreigners.
This is about the fifth time I've seen you write something like this. Nobody is panicking mate, just discussing. Perhaps you could try contributing intelligently to the thread rather than coming out with the same old nonsense? There's a good socialist
There's no way that's in anyway acceptable on here.
As you pointed out, anyone not in a blind panic about foreigners is labelled "socialist"
But you do frequently use this 'panicking over foreigners' trope, but never support it. Who is panicking?
The vast majority of the people whom use this forum, who start thread after thread after thread massively overblowing the issue. As per the likes of (but not exclusively) GBNews, Daily Mail, Daily Express.
Without once asking why they're being constantly fed this kind of thing.
Specific example. One bloke who said he has spotted two non-white people in his town, who aren't welcome there. Who they all talk about in the pub.
"
Do you think newspapers shouldn't report about things which are happening for real? Unless you think this is fake news, I don't see your point.
If this is not a topic you are interested in, you can ignore the thread and move on. If you are interested in this topic, you can make rational arguments which I have never seen you do. Instead making these meaningless lame remarks about daily mail readers is just a waste of time and rest of the people involved. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Labour's smash the gang plan was anyway a rip-off of what Priti Patel was saying/doing during her tenure. It doesn't work.
As always, European politicians are trying to pretend like they are solving the issue when the root cause is the age old refugee convention that's not fit for modern day. Until they throw it away or rewrite it, no one will be able to solve this problem. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
Still, we should be in full panic mode at all times. Lest we forget these immigrants are foreigners.
This is about the fifth time I've seen you write something like this. Nobody is panicking mate, just discussing. Perhaps you could try contributing intelligently to the thread rather than coming out with the same old nonsense? There's a good socialist
There's no way that's in anyway acceptable on here.
As you pointed out, anyone not in a blind panic about foreigners is labelled "socialist"
But you do frequently use this 'panicking over foreigners' trope, but never support it. Who is panicking?
The vast majority of the people whom use this forum, who start thread after thread after thread massively overblowing the issue. As per the likes of (but not exclusively) GBNews, Daily Mail, Daily Express.
Without once asking why they're being constantly fed this kind of thing.
Specific example. One bloke who said he has spotted two non-white people in his town, who aren't welcome there. Who they all talk about in the pub.
"
But have you considered that there may be a grain of truth (or more) in the stories and that people have genuine concerns? I doubt regulars on a specialist politics forum get taken in much by MSM hyperbole. We're all more cynical than that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
Still, we should be in full panic mode at all times. Lest we forget these immigrants are foreigners.
This is about the fifth time I've seen you write something like this. Nobody is panicking mate, just discussing. Perhaps you could try contributing intelligently to the thread rather than coming out with the same old nonsense? There's a good socialist
There's no way that's in anyway acceptable on here.
As you pointed out, anyone not in a blind panic about foreigners is labelled "socialist"
But you do frequently use this 'panicking over foreigners' trope, but never support it. Who is panicking?
The vast majority of the people whom use this forum, who start thread after thread after thread massively overblowing the issue. As per the likes of (but not exclusively) GBNews, Daily Mail, Daily Express.
Without once asking why they're being constantly fed this kind of thing.
Specific example. One bloke who said he has spotted two non-white people in his town, who aren't welcome there. Who they all talk about in the pub.
Do you think newspapers shouldn't report about things which are happening for real? Unless you think this is fake news, I don't see your point.
"
My point is clear. You're deliberately missing it.
"
If this is not a topic you are interested in, you can ignore the thread and move on. If you are interested in this topic, you can make rational arguments which I have never seen you do. Instead making these meaningless lame remarks about daily mail readers is just a waste of time and rest of the people involved. "
"Meaningless lame remarks" are in response to endless meaningless lame threads constantly moaning about immigrants. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
Still, we should be in full panic mode at all times. Lest we forget these immigrants are foreigners.
This is about the fifth time I've seen you write something like this. Nobody is panicking mate, just discussing. Perhaps you could try contributing intelligently to the thread rather than coming out with the same old nonsense? There's a good socialist
There's no way that's in anyway acceptable on here.
As you pointed out, anyone not in a blind panic about foreigners is labelled "socialist"
But you do frequently use this 'panicking over foreigners' trope, but never support it. Who is panicking?
The vast majority of the people whom use this forum, who start thread after thread after thread massively overblowing the issue. As per the likes of (but not exclusively) GBNews, Daily Mail, Daily Express.
Without once asking why they're being constantly fed this kind of thing.
Specific example. One bloke who said he has spotted two non-white people in his town, who aren't welcome there. Who they all talk about in the pub.
But have you considered that there may be a grain of truth (or more) in the stories and that people have genuine concerns? I doubt regulars on a specialist politics forum get taken in much by MSM hyperbole. We're all more cynical than that."
You nailed it. There is a grain of truth, which is exaggerated and overblown to such a ridiculous extent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
Still, we should be in full panic mode at all times. Lest we forget these immigrants are foreigners.
This is about the fifth time I've seen you write something like this. Nobody is panicking mate, just discussing. Perhaps you could try contributing intelligently to the thread rather than coming out with the same old nonsense? There's a good socialist
There's no way that's in anyway acceptable on here.
As you pointed out, anyone not in a blind panic about foreigners is labelled "socialist"
But you do frequently use this 'panicking over foreigners' trope, but never support it. Who is panicking?
The vast majority of the people whom use this forum, who start thread after thread after thread massively overblowing the issue. As per the likes of (but not exclusively) GBNews, Daily Mail, Daily Express.
Without once asking why they're being constantly fed this kind of thing.
Specific example. One bloke who said he has spotted two non-white people in his town, who aren't welcome there. Who they all talk about in the pub.
Do you think newspapers shouldn't report about things which are happening for real? Unless you think this is fake news, I don't see your point.
My point is clear. You're deliberately missing it.
If this is not a topic you are interested in, you can ignore the thread and move on. If you are interested in this topic, you can make rational arguments which I have never seen you do. Instead making these meaningless lame remarks about daily mail readers is just a waste of time and rest of the people involved.
"Meaningless lame remarks" are in response to endless meaningless lame threads constantly moaning about immigrants. "
If these are meaningless lame threads, you are free to ignore them. Or if you choose to get involved, then actually get involved in the topic.
Hard, I know, but to educate is never going to be easy.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
Still, we should be in full panic mode at all times. Lest we forget these immigrants are foreigners.
This is about the fifth time I've seen you write something like this. Nobody is panicking mate, just discussing. Perhaps you could try contributing intelligently to the thread rather than coming out with the same old nonsense? There's a good socialist
There's no way that's in anyway acceptable on here.
As you pointed out, anyone not in a blind panic about foreigners is labelled "socialist"
But you do frequently use this 'panicking over foreigners' trope, but never support it. Who is panicking?
The vast majority of the people whom use this forum, who start thread after thread after thread massively overblowing the issue. As per the likes of (but not exclusively) GBNews, Daily Mail, Daily Express.
Without once asking why they're being constantly fed this kind of thing.
Specific example. One bloke who said he has spotted two non-white people in his town, who aren't welcome there. Who they all talk about in the pub.
But have you considered that there may be a grain of truth (or more) in the stories and that people have genuine concerns? I doubt regulars on a specialist politics forum get taken in much by MSM hyperbole. We're all more cynical than that.
You nailed it. There is a grain of truth, which is exaggerated and overblown to such a ridiculous extent. "
Of course! It's called politics! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 1 week ago
Terra Firma |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
Still, we should be in full panic mode at all times. Lest we forget these immigrants are foreigners.
Your dismissive tone does a disservice to the real impacts of illegal entry on the population. It’s not about being in ‘panic mode’ or xenophobia, it’s about recognising the strain on housing, resources, and public services, which taxpayers ultimately shoulder.
Ignoring this fuels frustration not just from the right wing but from communities directly affected which we witnessed in the summer.
Sweeping these issues under the carpet with contempt won’t solve anything, honest appraisal and practical solutions are needed not excuses.
"honest appraisal and practical solutions are needed not excuses."
The idea of this, in relation to immigration, on fab forums, is proper laugh out loud material. I enjoyed that. "
Turn it around in here and provide your honest appraisal of the situation and suggested solutions.
It will move things in along and hopefully in the direction you approve |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
150K people entering by small boats since 2018 is no small number, especially when you consider the strain on housing and resources. Calling it a tiny percentage ignores the real impact of managing and accommodating these arrivals and the cost to the UK tax payer."
I would say that all immigration puts strain on the housing situation to a degree. After all everyone needs a place to live. Legal migrants often have a job to come to and are restricted from certain benefits and I think have to make a contribution towards their health care. Those arriving by small boat need everything provided for them at huge expense. Still far easier to just not report it and claim people are in panic for having concerns  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 1 week ago
Terra Firma |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
150K people entering by small boats since 2018 is no small number, especially when you consider the strain on housing and resources. Calling it a tiny percentage ignores the real impact of managing and accommodating these arrivals and the cost to the UK tax payer.
I would say that all immigration puts strain on the housing situation to a degree. After all everyone needs a place to live. Legal migrants often have a job to come to and are restricted from certain benefits and I think have to make a contribution towards their health care. Those arriving by small boat need everything provided for them at huge expense. Still far easier to just not report it and claim people are in panic for having concerns "
I can understand people who are left wing not grasping the economic burden and impact on society, what I don’t understand is why they think nobody else should either.
Reminds me a lot of the current governments policies and budget…. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
150K people entering by small boats since 2018 is no small number, especially when you consider the strain on housing and resources. Calling it a tiny percentage ignores the real impact of managing and accommodating these arrivals and the cost to the UK tax payer.
I would say that all immigration puts strain on the housing situation to a degree. After all everyone needs a place to live. Legal migrants often have a job to come to and are restricted from certain benefits and I think have to make a contribution towards their health care. Those arriving by small boat need everything provided for them at huge expense. Still far easier to just not report it and claim people are in panic for having concerns "
The social housing waiting list peaked at 1.6 million in 2010, the tories used the localism act to remove 137,000 from the lists in 2011 and prevent some people being added. Last time I looked it’s about 1.2 million on the waiting lists.
Add the people in hotels, barges, military camps, sofa surfers, those not on any official lists.
Last year there were 31,000 social homes built, after right to buy and demolitions a net loss of 9,000. (shelter figs). Housing completions are reported down 31%, starts are down 13.3% and planning applications down 9% (ons figs) so no silver bullets coming |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
150K people entering by small boats since 2018 is no small number, especially when you consider the strain on housing and resources. Calling it a tiny percentage ignores the real impact of managing and accommodating these arrivals and the cost to the UK tax payer.
I would say that all immigration puts strain on the housing situation to a degree. After all everyone needs a place to live. Legal migrants often have a job to come to and are restricted from certain benefits and I think have to make a contribution towards their health care. Those arriving by small boat need everything provided for them at huge expense. Still far easier to just not report it and claim people are in panic for having concerns
The social housing waiting list peaked at 1.6 million in 2010, the tories used the localism act to remove 137,000 from the lists in 2011 and prevent some people being added. Last time I looked it’s about 1.2 million on the waiting lists.
Add the people in hotels, barges, military camps, sofa surfers, those not on any official lists.
Last year there were 31,000 social homes built, after right to buy and demolitions a net loss of 9,000. (shelter figs). Housing completions are reported down 31%, starts are down 13.3% and planning applications down 9% (ons figs) so no silver bullets coming "
they will be plenty of do er uppers floating about as cheap buys after this cold winter without the heating allowance so at least that will free up some hotels |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
Still, we should be in full panic mode at all times. Lest we forget these immigrants are foreigners.
This is about the fifth time I've seen you write something like this. Nobody is panicking mate, just discussing. Perhaps you could try contributing intelligently to the thread rather than coming out with the same old nonsense? There's a good socialist
There's no way that's in anyway acceptable on here.
As you pointed out, anyone not in a blind panic about foreigners is labelled "socialist"
But you do frequently use this 'panicking over foreigners' trope, but never support it. Who is panicking?
The vast majority of the people whom use this forum, who start thread after thread after thread massively overblowing the issue. As per the likes of (but not exclusively) GBNews, Daily Mail, Daily Express.
Without once asking why they're being constantly fed this kind of thing.
Specific example. One bloke who said he has spotted two non-white people in his town, who aren't welcome there. Who they all talk about in the pub.
But have you considered that there may be a grain of truth (or more) in the stories and that people have genuine concerns? I doubt regulars on a specialist politics forum get taken in much by MSM hyperbole. We're all more cynical than that.
You nailed it. There is a grain of truth, which is exaggerated and overblown to such a ridiculous extent.
Of course! It's called politics!"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
Still, we should be in full panic mode at all times. Lest we forget these immigrants are foreigners.
Your dismissive tone does a disservice to the real impacts of illegal entry on the population. It’s not about being in ‘panic mode’ or xenophobia, it’s about recognising the strain on housing, resources, and public services, which taxpayers ultimately shoulder.
Ignoring this fuels frustration not just from the right wing but from communities directly affected which we witnessed in the summer.
Sweeping these issues under the carpet with contempt won’t solve anything, honest appraisal and practical solutions are needed not excuses.
"honest appraisal and practical solutions are needed not excuses."
The idea of this, in relation to immigration, on fab forums, is proper laugh out loud material. I enjoyed that.
Turn it around in here and provide your honest appraisal of the situation and suggested solutions.
It will move things in along and hopefully in the direction you approve"
The solution to people getting sucked into the anti-immigrant rhetoric? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
150K people entering by small boats since 2018 is no small number, especially when you consider the strain on housing and resources. Calling it a tiny percentage ignores the real impact of managing and accommodating these arrivals and the cost to the UK tax payer.
I would say that all immigration puts strain on the housing situation to a degree. After all everyone needs a place to live. Legal migrants often have a job to come to and are restricted from certain benefits and I think have to make a contribution towards their health care. Those arriving by small boat need everything provided for them at huge expense. Still far easier to just not report it and claim people are in panic for having concerns
I can understand people who are left wing not grasping the economic burden and impact on society, what I don’t understand is why they think nobody else should either.
Reminds me a lot of the current governments policies and budget…."
Immigrants have a net positive effect on the economy, not a burden. As you well know.
Implying that only left wingers know this is silly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Immigrants have a net positive effect on the economy, not a burden. As you well know.
Implying that only left wingers know this is silly."
Oh dear...lumping all immigrants together as an homogeneous group.
As even a few minutes research will tell you, some migrants benefit the economy and some are a drain on it, without even considering the impact on social cohesion and trust. Those arriving illegally across the channel overwhelmingly fit into the latter group. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Immigrants have a net positive effect on the economy, not a burden. As you well know.
Implying that only left wingers know this is silly.
Oh dear...lumping all immigrants together as an homogeneous group.
As even a few minutes research will tell you, some migrants benefit the economy and some are a drain on it, without even considering the impact on social cohesion and trust. Those arriving illegally across the channel overwhelmingly fit into the latter group."
Hence the word "net".
Again, people from across the political spectrum can look at what's going on. It's not only "left wingers". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The OBR recently found that low skill migrants will be an average net drain on the economy of £150,000 each by the age of 65, and much more if they start drawing a pension. And those figures were based on people having no children so did not include education and healthcare costs for their families. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 1 week ago
Terra Firma |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
150K people entering by small boats since 2018 is no small number, especially when you consider the strain on housing and resources. Calling it a tiny percentage ignores the real impact of managing and accommodating these arrivals and the cost to the UK tax payer.
I would say that all immigration puts strain on the housing situation to a degree. After all everyone needs a place to live. Legal migrants often have a job to come to and are restricted from certain benefits and I think have to make a contribution towards their health care. Those arriving by small boat need everything provided for them at huge expense. Still far easier to just not report it and claim people are in panic for having concerns
I can understand people who are left wing not grasping the economic burden and impact on society, what I don’t understand is why they think nobody else should either.
Reminds me a lot of the current governments policies and budget….
Immigrants have a net positive effect on the economy, not a burden. As you well know.
Implying that only left wingers know this is silly."
You have veered off into left wing semantics, as you well know, and was used by the right to influence Brexit is what I seem to recall from yourself.
Now shall we get back to the small boat crossings and their net gain on the economy? What is that as a number and how do we benefit as a society from their contributions? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
150K people entering by small boats since 2018 is no small number, especially when you consider the strain on housing and resources. Calling it a tiny percentage ignores the real impact of managing and accommodating these arrivals and the cost to the UK tax payer.
I would say that all immigration puts strain on the housing situation to a degree. After all everyone needs a place to live. Legal migrants often have a job to come to and are restricted from certain benefits and I think have to make a contribution towards their health care. Those arriving by small boat need everything provided for them at huge expense. Still far easier to just not report it and claim people are in panic for having concerns
I can understand people who are left wing not grasping the economic burden and impact on society, what I don’t understand is why they think nobody else should either.
Reminds me a lot of the current governments policies and budget….
Immigrants have a net positive effect on the economy, not a burden. As you well know.
Implying that only left wingers know this is silly.
You have veered off into left wing semantics, as you well know, and was used by the right to influence Brexit is what I seem to recall from yourself.
Now shall we get back to the small boat crossings and their net gain on the economy? What is that as a number and how do we benefit as a society from their contributions? "
No one said the small boat crossing were a net gain on the economy.
But yes we can get back to the same old same old point of endlessly complaining about immigrants. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
Still, we should be in full panic mode at all times. Lest we forget these immigrants are foreigners.
This is about the fifth time I've seen you write something like this. Nobody is panicking mate, just discussing. Perhaps you could try contributing intelligently to the thread rather than coming out with the same old nonsense? There's a good socialist
There's no way that's in anyway acceptable on here.
As you pointed out, anyone not in a blind panic about foreigners is labelled "socialist""
and anyone that wants illegal migration stopping is a racist to some on here |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Immigrants have a net positive effect on the economy, not a burden. As you well know.
Implying that only left wingers know this is silly.
Oh dear...lumping all immigrants together as an homogeneous group.
As even a few minutes research will tell you, some migrants benefit the economy and some are a drain on it, without even considering the impact on social cohesion and trust. Those arriving illegally across the channel overwhelmingly fit into the latter group.
Hence the word "net".
"
Then you meant to say 'immigration' has a net positive effect, not 'immigrants'. The former statement while making more sense, is of course widely disputed according to methodology used. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Immigrants have a net positive effect on the economy, not a burden. As you well know.
Implying that only left wingers know this is silly.
Oh dear...lumping all immigrants together as an homogeneous group.
As even a few minutes research will tell you, some migrants benefit the economy and some are a drain on it, without even considering the impact on social cohesion and trust. Those arriving illegally across the channel overwhelmingly fit into the latter group.
Hence the word "net".
Then you meant to say 'immigration' has a net positive effect, not 'immigrants'. The former statement while making more sense, is of course widely disputed according to methodology used."
What methodology?
Would someone be a part of immigration if they weren't an immigrant?
This is starting to get very woke. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Immigrants have a net positive effect on the economy, not a burden. As you well know.
Implying that only left wingers know this is silly.
Oh dear...lumping all immigrants together as an homogeneous group.
As even a few minutes research will tell you, some migrants benefit the economy and some are a drain on it, without even considering the impact on social cohesion and trust. Those arriving illegally across the channel overwhelmingly fit into the latter group."
It does seem that those that arrive by irregular means (the topic of this thread) are not a net benefit to the country on their own and given the amount of support they get are unlikely to ever be a benefit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A tiny percentage of the amount of immigrants entering the uk, most of whom are arriving for work or study).
150K people entering by small boats since 2018 is no small number, especially when you consider the strain on housing and resources. Calling it a tiny percentage ignores the real impact of managing and accommodating these arrivals and the cost to the UK tax payer.
I would say that all immigration puts strain on the housing situation to a degree. After all everyone needs a place to live. Legal migrants often have a job to come to and are restricted from certain benefits and I think have to make a contribution towards their health care. Those arriving by small boat need everything provided for them at huge expense. Still far easier to just not report it and claim people are in panic for having concerns
I can understand people who are left wing not grasping the economic burden and impact on society, what I don’t understand is why they think nobody else should either.
Reminds me a lot of the current governments policies and budget….
Immigrants have a net positive effect on the economy, not a burden. As you well know.
Implying that only left wingers know this is silly.
You have veered off into left wing semantics, as you well know, and was used by the right to influence Brexit is what I seem to recall from yourself.
Now shall we get back to the small boat crossings and their net gain on the economy? What is that as a number and how do we benefit as a society from their contributions?
No one said the small boat crossing were a net gain on the economy.
But yes we can get back to the same old same old point of endlessly complaining about immigrants. "
The thread is about small boat crossings so lumping all immigration into your figures is of course left wing semantics.
How about we get back to he topic? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AJMLKTV/TS 1 week ago
Burley |
Back on topic, how are these numbers NOT going to start to affect services like the NHS? Many of them are from countries with much poorer healthcare than the UK and need extra treatment to bring them in line with UK residents - vaccinations etc. They pay a lot of money to the people-smugglers, why can we not charge them an entry fee of sorts? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Back on topic, how are these numbers NOT going to start to affect services like the NHS? Many of them are from countries with much poorer healthcare than the UK and need extra treatment to bring them in line with UK residents - vaccinations etc. They pay a lot of money to the people-smugglers, why can we not charge them an entry fee of sorts?"
The channel crossings are not primarily a refugee crisis as those involved are leaving a safe country. They are largely a criminal enterprise with many of those crossing this way moving into the criminal economy asap on arrival. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Immigrants have a net positive effect on the economy, not a burden. As you well know.
Implying that only left wingers know this is silly.
Oh dear...lumping all immigrants together as an homogeneous group.
As even a few minutes research will tell you, some migrants benefit the economy and some are a drain on it, without even considering the impact on social cohesion and trust. Those arriving illegally across the channel overwhelmingly fit into the latter group.
It does seem that those that arrive by irregular means (the topic of this thread) are not a net benefit to the country on their own and given the amount of support they get are unlikely to ever be a benefit. "
So is this not the point "the amount of support they get"
Dose anyone know what they do get and why..
To me it's let them in if they want to come but give them nout nothing, let them support them self like a single UK male.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AJMLKTV/TS 1 week ago
Burley |
"Back on topic, how are these numbers NOT going to start to affect services like the NHS? Many of them are from countries with much poorer healthcare than the UK and need extra treatment to bring them in line with UK residents - vaccinations etc. They pay a lot of money to the people-smugglers, why can we not charge them an entry fee of sorts?
The channel crossings are not primarily a refugee crisis as those involved are leaving a safe country. They are largely a criminal enterprise with many of those crossing this way moving into the criminal economy asap on arrival."
Are there no detection methods available? Radar? Buoy-based CCTV? Drone sweeps? If caught, surely they can be incarcerated and dealt with accordingly if unable to pay an "entry charge"? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Back on topic, how are these numbers NOT going to start to affect services like the NHS? Many of them are from countries with much poorer healthcare than the UK and need extra treatment to bring them in line with UK residents - vaccinations etc. They pay a lot of money to the people-smugglers, why can we not charge them an entry fee of sorts?
The channel crossings are not primarily a refugee crisis as those involved are leaving a safe country. They are largely a criminal enterprise with many of those crossing this way moving into the criminal economy asap on arrival.
Are there no detection methods available? Radar? Buoy-based CCTV? Drone sweeps? If caught, surely they can be incarcerated and dealt with accordingly if unable to pay an "entry charge"?"
Where would you incarnate them everywhere is full, There is no room in the Inn even prisons are letting them out early to get new ones in. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ild_oatsMan 1 week ago
the land of saints & sinners |
Blaming the government for a particularly figure is a very simplistic and easy thing to do.
But also show a very ignorant view of the data behind the numbers.
There is a marker called “Red Days” This is when weather and tide conditions make crossings likely or very likely. A 31-day period in October and November had the highest ratio of these days – since records began in 2018.
Dara covering 11 October to 10 November, 26 of the 31 days were classified as “red”, compared with just three over the same dates in 2023.
To provide some context it took about eight and a half months for arrivals to pass 20,000 after Rishi Sunak became prime minister. His tenure began in the autumn, meaning his first few months in power coincided with winter weather conditions when typically fewer crossings take place.
By contrast, Starmer became PM in the middle of the summer period when crossings are usually at their most numerous amid spells of better weather. It has taken about five months for arrivals to pass 20,000 since he came to power.
Looking behind the headlines makes you better informed about the realities rather a knee jerk reaction.
Or maybe you want to blame the government for the weather and tides as well.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 1 week ago
Terra Firma |
"Blaming the government for a particularly figure is a very simplistic and easy thing to do.
But also show a very ignorant view of the data behind the numbers.
There is a marker called “Red Days” This is when weather and tide conditions make crossings likely or very likely. A 31-day period in October and November had the highest ratio of these days – since records began in 2018.
Dara covering 11 October to 10 November, 26 of the 31 days were classified as “red”, compared with just three over the same dates in 2023.
To provide some context it took about eight and a half months for arrivals to pass 20,000 after Rishi Sunak became prime minister. His tenure began in the autumn, meaning his first few months in power coincided with winter weather conditions when typically fewer crossings take place.
By contrast, Starmer became PM in the middle of the summer period when crossings are usually at their most numerous amid spells of better weather. It has taken about five months for arrivals to pass 20,000 since he came to power.
Looking behind the headlines makes you better informed about the realities rather a knee jerk reaction.
Or maybe you want to blame the government for the weather and tides as well.
"
Nobody is blaming the government for the weather or tides, by dismissing criticism as a knee jerk reaction totally ignores the real issues which are, mismanagement of illegal entry and its societal and financial costs. The government has a responsibility to manage borders effectively, regardless of seasonal variations. When housing costs alone reach £5 million a day, it’s not just about statistics, it’s about the strain on taxpayers and the communities bearing the brunt of these policies. Understanding Red Days doesn’t excuse a failure to address the larger systemic issues. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ild_oatsMan 1 week ago
the land of saints & sinners |
"Blaming the government for a particularly figure is a very simplistic and easy thing to do.
But also show a very ignorant view of the data behind the numbers.
There is a marker called “Red Days” This is when weather and tide conditions make crossings likely or very likely. A 31-day period in October and November had the highest ratio of these days – since records began in 2018.
Dara covering 11 October to 10 November, 26 of the 31 days were classified as “red”, compared with just three over the same dates in 2023.
To provide some context it took about eight and a half months for arrivals to pass 20,000 after Rishi Sunak became prime minister. His tenure began in the autumn, meaning his first few months in power coincided with winter weather conditions when typically fewer crossings take place.
By contrast, Starmer became PM in the middle of the summer period when crossings are usually at their most numerous amid spells of better weather. It has taken about five months for arrivals to pass 20,000 since he came to power.
Looking behind the headlines makes you better informed about the realities rather a knee jerk reaction.
Or maybe you want to blame the government for the weather and tides as well.
Nobody is blaming the government for the weather or tides, by dismissing criticism as a knee jerk reaction totally ignores the real issues which are, mismanagement of illegal entry and its societal and financial costs. The government has a responsibility to manage borders effectively, regardless of seasonal variations. When housing costs alone reach £5 million a day, it’s not just about statistics, it’s about the strain on taxpayers and the communities bearing the brunt of these policies. Understanding Red Days doesn’t excuse a failure to address the larger systemic issues."
The premise of the OP’s post was that the government had not kept it’s promise in this regard and was purely looking at the headline statistic without referencing the broader picture.
The whole immigration debate is much than simple statistics or even the costs involved at all levels It involves how we as a society react and treat people who travel to this country legal or otherwise.
Using headline figures without any form of context only causes attitudes and behaviour to become inflamed.
Fear leads to panic
Panic leads to pain
Pain leads to anger
Anger leads to hate
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Back on topic, how are these numbers NOT going to start to affect services like the NHS? Many of them are from countries with much poorer healthcare than the UK and need extra treatment to bring them in line with UK residents - vaccinations etc. They pay a lot of money to the people-smugglers, why can we not charge them an entry fee of sorts?
The channel crossings are not primarily a refugee crisis as those involved are leaving a safe country. They are largely a criminal enterprise with many of those crossing this way moving into the criminal economy asap on arrival."
hence why most of them are young men |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 1 week ago
Terra Firma |
"Blaming the government for a particularly figure is a very simplistic and easy thing to do.
But also show a very ignorant view of the data behind the numbers.
There is a marker called “Red Days” This is when weather and tide conditions make crossings likely or very likely. A 31-day period in October and November had the highest ratio of these days – since records began in 2018.
Dara covering 11 October to 10 November, 26 of the 31 days were classified as “red”, compared with just three over the same dates in 2023.
To provide some context it took about eight and a half months for arrivals to pass 20,000 after Rishi Sunak became prime minister. His tenure began in the autumn, meaning his first few months in power coincided with winter weather conditions when typically fewer crossings take place.
By contrast, Starmer became PM in the middle of the summer period when crossings are usually at their most numerous amid spells of better weather. It has taken about five months for arrivals to pass 20,000 since he came to power.
Looking behind the headlines makes you better informed about the realities rather a knee jerk reaction.
Or maybe you want to blame the government for the weather and tides as well.
Nobody is blaming the government for the weather or tides, by dismissing criticism as a knee jerk reaction totally ignores the real issues which are, mismanagement of illegal entry and its societal and financial costs. The government has a responsibility to manage borders effectively, regardless of seasonal variations. When housing costs alone reach £5 million a day, it’s not just about statistics, it’s about the strain on taxpayers and the communities bearing the brunt of these policies. Understanding Red Days doesn’t excuse a failure to address the larger systemic issues.
The premise of the OP’s post was that the government had not kept it’s promise in this regard and was purely looking at the headline statistic without referencing the broader picture.
The whole immigration debate is much than simple statistics or even the costs involved at all levels It involves how we as a society react and treat people who travel to this country legal or otherwise.
Using headline figures without any form of context only causes attitudes and behaviour to become inflamed.
Fear leads to panic
Panic leads to pain
Pain leads to anger
Anger leads to hate
"
The figure is the figure, regardless of any broader picture.
We cannot indefinitely absorb thousands upon thousands of people into our society without facing significant consequences, rising frictions, escalating costs, and stress on infrastructure and services. This is the reality, not just a statistic.
While every party claims to have a plan, no plan will be truly effective until we address the cause of the issue, the outdated Refugee Convention. It no longer reflects today’s challenges and is being exploited by criminal networks.
What we need is a new convention, one designed for modern realities that closes the loopholes and establishes a fair, enforceable system for genuine asylum seekers and UK citizens. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
So we already take fewer than out fair share of refugees.
There is almost no way to claim asylum in the UK unless you are from Ukraine or Hong Kong.
Not letting asylum seekers work is a political choice. Not having enough services is a political choice. Not employing enough people to process claims then making hay out of the cost of housing asylum seekers is a political choice. You can say 'sorry the GP is full we can't have any more asylum seekers' we need to predict how many we are taking (roughly) and provide services for them.
We wouldnt do that with schools and just leave kids uneducated. It's the same thing.
Banning something cos criminals will take advantage of it is bonkers. Criminals scam people out of their pensions and savings but we are not making the Prudential a prescribed group and chasing Howard from the Halifax ads in his underground enclave in the caves of afganistan.
Criminals will do what they will. If there were legal and safe routes and people were processed quickly we wouldn't have e this problem. But they are not and so we do.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 1 week ago
Terra Firma |
"So we already take fewer than out fair share of refugees.
There is almost no way to claim asylum in the UK unless you are from Ukraine or Hong Kong.
Not letting asylum seekers work is a political choice. Not having enough services is a political choice. Not employing enough people to process claims then making hay out of the cost of housing asylum seekers is a political choice. You can say 'sorry the GP is full we can't have any more asylum seekers' we need to predict how many we are taking (roughly) and provide services for them.
We wouldnt do that with schools and just leave kids uneducated. It's the same thing.
Banning something cos criminals will take advantage of it is bonkers. Criminals scam people out of their pensions and savings but we are not making the Prudential a prescribed group and chasing Howard from the Halifax ads in his underground enclave in the caves of afganistan.
Criminals will do what they will. If there were legal and safe routes and people were processed quickly we wouldn't have e this problem. But they are not and so we do.
"
Your post oversimplifies complex issues and unfairly shifts responsibility to the UK. Safe routes won’t stop illegal crossings, as many wouldn’t qualify for asylum.
Illegal migration is not predictable, making any type of planning impossible. Comparing migration to schools or financial crime is misleading, illegal crossings bypass regulation entirely.
The strain on services and the £5 million daily cost of housing illegal entrants is from the act of illegal entry itself, not government policy and blaming a lack of staff to assist them is baffling, why would you encourage more of the same?
We need stricter law enforcement, international cooperation, and solutions addressing root causes not reshaping our society to accommodate illegal entry. This is why it’s time to move away from the outdated refugee convention and rewrite a new one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So we already take fewer than out fair share of refugees.
There is almost no way to claim asylum in the UK unless you are from Ukraine or Hong Kong.
Not letting asylum seekers work is a political choice. Not having enough services is a political choice. Not employing enough people to process claims then making hay out of the cost of housing asylum seekers is a political choice. You can say 'sorry the GP is full we can't have any more asylum seekers' we need to predict how many we are taking (roughly) and provide services for them.
We wouldnt do that with schools and just leave kids uneducated. It's the same thing.
Banning something cos criminals will take advantage of it is bonkers. Criminals scam people out of their pensions and savings but we are not making the Prudential a prescribed group and chasing Howard from the Halifax ads in his underground enclave in the caves of afganistan.
Criminals will do what they will. If there were legal and safe routes and people were processed quickly we wouldn't have e this problem. But they are not and so we do.
Your post oversimplifies complex issues and unfairly shifts responsibility to the UK. Safe routes won’t stop illegal crossings, as many wouldn’t qualify for asylum.
Illegal migration is not predictable, making any type of planning impossible. Comparing migration to schools or financial crime is misleading, illegal crossings bypass regulation entirely.
The strain on services and the £5 million daily cost of housing illegal entrants is from the act of illegal entry itself, not government policy and blaming a lack of staff to assist them is baffling, why would you encourage more of the same?
We need stricter law enforcement, international cooperation, and solutions addressing root causes not reshaping our society to accommodate illegal entry. This is why it’s time to move away from the outdated refugee convention and rewrite a new one."
False on all points.
It is our responsibility, we are not taking as many as our compatriots are.
Safe routes will reduce the crossings as this didn't used to be an issue. If you can get here safely why would you take a boat? This makes it easier to identify who is here illegally as almost anyone taking a boat as opposed to the Eurostar is going to be not able to come here legally. It makes it easier to identify and deport people. Once this happens on the regular people won't do it.
It's only illegal as the government has a policy that it is and made a law.
Financial crime also bypasses regulation.
If you process people who are able to be here they can work, get their own house (out of a hotel) and pay taxes, if they should not be here they can be sent back and it will bring down the bill for housing them. You want that decision quicker? You need more people to deal with the backlog. If anything a quick turnaround and sent back will deter people rather than encourage it. Thanks is stricter enforcement.
As I said before we are not co-operating internationally as we don't take as many as other countries at the moment. Why anyone would listen to us about how we need to work together is baffling. Like the guy at the orgy who is getting his dick sucked by girl after girl moaning that no one is playing with that girl's boobs over there.
Addressing root causes means we need to stop all wars and halt climate change. If you have an idea for the former I am all ears.
No one is asking anyone to reshape the country so....
You say is outdated. By what metric?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 1 week ago
Terra Firma |
"So we already take fewer than out fair share of refugees.
There is almost no way to claim asylum in the UK unless you are from Ukraine or Hong Kong.
Not letting asylum seekers work is a political choice. Not having enough services is a political choice. Not employing enough people to process claims then making hay out of the cost of housing asylum seekers is a political choice. You can say 'sorry the GP is full we can't have any more asylum seekers' we need to predict how many we are taking (roughly) and provide services for them.
We wouldnt do that with schools and just leave kids uneducated. It's the same thing.
Banning something cos criminals will take advantage of it is bonkers. Criminals scam people out of their pensions and savings but we are not making the Prudential a prescribed group and chasing Howard from the Halifax ads in his underground enclave in the caves of afganistan.
Criminals will do what they will. If there were legal and safe routes and people were processed quickly we wouldn't have e this problem. But they are not and so we do.
Your post oversimplifies complex issues and unfairly shifts responsibility to the UK. Safe routes won’t stop illegal crossings, as many wouldn’t qualify for asylum.
Illegal migration is not predictable, making any type of planning impossible. Comparing migration to schools or financial crime is misleading, illegal crossings bypass regulation entirely.
The strain on services and the £5 million daily cost of housing illegal entrants is from the act of illegal entry itself, not government policy and blaming a lack of staff to assist them is baffling, why would you encourage more of the same?
We need stricter law enforcement, international cooperation, and solutions addressing root causes not reshaping our society to accommodate illegal entry. This is why it’s time to move away from the outdated refugee convention and rewrite a new one.
False on all points.
It is our responsibility, we are not taking as many as our compatriots are.
Safe routes will reduce the crossings as this didn't used to be an issue. If you can get here safely why would you take a boat? This makes it easier to identify who is here illegally as almost anyone taking a boat as opposed to the Eurostar is going to be not able to come here legally. It makes it easier to identify and deport people. Once this happens on the regular people won't do it.
It's only illegal as the government has a policy that it is and made a law.
Financial crime also bypasses regulation.
If you process people who are able to be here they can work, get their own house (out of a hotel) and pay taxes, if they should not be here they can be sent back and it will bring down the bill for housing them. You want that decision quicker? You need more people to deal with the backlog. If anything a quick turnaround and sent back will deter people rather than encourage it. Thanks is stricter enforcement.
As I said before we are not co-operating internationally as we don't take as many as other countries at the moment. Why anyone would listen to us about how we need to work together is baffling. Like the guy at the orgy who is getting his dick sucked by girl after girl moaning that no one is playing with that girl's boobs over there.
Addressing root causes means we need to stop all wars and halt climate change. If you have an idea for the former I am all ears.
No one is asking anyone to reshape the country so....
You say is outdated. By what metric?
"
Let’s address your first point: You claim the UK takes fewer than other countries. Have you considered the acceptance rates and how individuals bypass checks? If you understand this, you’re essentially suggesting we go to other countries and ask them to send us more of the people who opted to stay there instead of coming here. Yet, you argue it’s the UK’s responsibility, how does that work?
Second point: Safe routes won’t stop illegal crossings. Those without documentation or eligibility (see the first point about bypassing checks) will still cross in small boats. Safe routes don’t magically solve the problem they simply shift some arrivals into a different queue, while others will continue as they do now, creating the same system issues.
Surely, you can see how this system is being exploited and how continuing to accept thousands of people arriving unpredictably has severe negative impacts on the country. Without addressing these fundamental issues and leaving the outdated refugee convention that allows criminals to exploit our laws, we will continue to be overwhelmed.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
This is why nothing is ever going to happen.
Everyone is too busy making snide comments at each other about TV news outlets or what paper you read, throwing the xenophobia card every time someone voices genuine concerns.
We are allowed and it's our right to be concerned and worried about unregistered and undocumented foreign nationals entering the country illegally it's not xenophobic it's common bloody sense.
And if a silly swinger's forum can't agree what hope for politicians.
So I'm going to say this one last time as a country the ruling government has not approached the matter in a serious and responsible way other countries using greases and example have built purpose made facilities to house illegals whilst their claims are being processed purpose built facilities that are adequate and suitable for housing people treating them like human beings with medical educational facilities that is fit for purpose. Unfortunately the landed gentry won't allow these facilities to be built in the countryside and we do not have the room to build them in the cities every stage people block it. so they come up with hair brain ideas such as barges and using empty hotels or housing them in normal hotels, of course people are going to get upset when they see them out of money that's been shelled out to house people in hotels up and down the country. Tackle the problem head on don't try and hide them put them somewhere built for purpose where they can be monitored fed watered educated and cared for in the humane way and also it's easier to keep an eye on them.
Is it really that difficult yes we're a small country but there is enough empty land to be able to build at least two or three decent size facilities to house people and treat them like people facilities for children to play schooling medical dental in-house on site. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 1 week ago
Terra Firma |
"This is why nothing is ever going to happen.
Everyone is too busy making snide comments at each other about TV news outlets or what paper you read, throwing the xenophobia card every time someone voices genuine concerns.
We are allowed and it's our right to be concerned and worried about unregistered and undocumented foreign nationals entering the country illegally it's not xenophobic it's common bloody sense.
And if a silly swinger's forum can't agree what hope for politicians.
So I'm going to say this one last time as a country the ruling government has not approached the matter in a serious and responsible way other countries using greases and example have built purpose made facilities to house illegals whilst their claims are being processed purpose built facilities that are adequate and suitable for housing people treating them like human beings with medical educational facilities that is fit for purpose. Unfortunately the landed gentry won't allow these facilities to be built in the countryside and we do not have the room to build them in the cities every stage people block it. so they come up with hair brain ideas such as barges and using empty hotels or housing them in normal hotels, of course people are going to get upset when they see them out of money that's been shelled out to house people in hotels up and down the country. Tackle the problem head on don't try and hide them put them somewhere built for purpose where they can be monitored fed watered educated and cared for in the humane way and also it's easier to keep an eye on them.
Is it really that difficult yes we're a small country but there is enough empty land to be able to build at least two or three decent size facilities to house people and treat them like people facilities for children to play schooling medical dental in-house on site."
I’m in favour of purpose built facilities, but I have serious concerns about the time, quality, and management needed for such large numbers. To put this into perspective (from a quick google search), the largest prison in the UK holds 2,100 people, and the largest hotel has 1,600 rooms—imagine scaling that up for the 45,000 arrivals in 2022 and 34,000 so far this year. Is it workable at that scale?
I’ve said this so often I feel like a broken record: the refugee convention is outdated and exploited. It needs rewriting to prevent abuse and safeguard genuine refugees. Leaving the convention and introducing a modernised version would allow us to create safe, legal routes for everyone while having the tools to quickly remove those exploiting the system.
That is the outcome I’d prefer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is why nothing is ever going to happen.
Everyone is too busy making snide comments at each other about TV news outlets or what paper you read, throwing the xenophobia card every time someone voices genuine concerns.
We are allowed and it's our right to be concerned and worried about unregistered and undocumented foreign nationals entering the country illegally it's not xenophobic it's common bloody sense.
And if a silly swinger's forum can't agree what hope for politicians.
So I'm going to say this one last time as a country the ruling government has not approached the matter in a serious and responsible way other countries using greases and example have built purpose made facilities to house illegals whilst their claims are being processed purpose built facilities that are adequate and suitable for housing people treating them like human beings with medical educational facilities that is fit for purpose. Unfortunately the landed gentry won't allow these facilities to be built in the countryside and we do not have the room to build them in the cities every stage people block it. so they come up with hair brain ideas such as barges and using empty hotels or housing them in normal hotels, of course people are going to get upset when they see them out of money that's been shelled out to house people in hotels up and down the country. Tackle the problem head on don't try and hide them put them somewhere built for purpose where they can be monitored fed watered educated and cared for in the humane way and also it's easier to keep an eye on them.
Is it really that difficult yes we're a small country but there is enough empty land to be able to build at least two or three decent size facilities to house people and treat them like people facilities for children to play schooling medical dental in-house on site."
When you say "Decent size how big is that" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
