27 people confirmed to have died after boat sinks in the channel

[Kipungu]

Originally Posted by strawberry mivi

What's the thinking behind that?

The smugglers aren't going to be on the boats. They need to instill fear to get random innocents to get on that boat, someone to steer it, without getting on themselves.

The money is linked in with the service they provide, so there are repurcussions if the boats don't go out with people

If people are too scared to go on the boats, the money will dry up. People don't pay for mode of transport, they pay for the journey, whatever form it takes.

So when people end up on a French beach, on a bad day, start having second thoughts, the gun will force their hand.

From a maritime law perspective, the more people on the boat, the more risk to the lives on it, the less interference is permitted for authorities to attempt to save or deter people.

Obviously, there are still those that will do it out of desperation.

The boats are causing more chaos to the system than lorries ever did. Without Dublin to fall back on, it's even worse as there's no Eurodac database access.

[smileysmith]

Originally Posted by Braders

You have zero empathy. Proven it by using the death of 27 people to have a kick around politically. You are not morally superior, so don't pretend to be. You couldn't give a toss about those people who have died, just about scoring a point politically.

From the guy trying to use the threads about a George Floyd RIP and someone being stabbed in Reading to make political points. (Hint, you don't have to mention a political party to be making a political (or in your case bigoted) point.)

And how about this classic from the thread about the explosion at the MEN:

Originally Posted by Braders

There's too many just like the **** who sympathise and/or have links to Islamic State. The do-gooders in this Country wouldn't allow a round up of them and that's why the next attack is pretty much a matter of time.

We need strong leadership

There's quite a few from you about "illegal immigrants" too, but probably no need to repeat that stuff here.

Seems to me you prove my point.

Oh, nearly forgot, since we're all so grown up, we have to add these at the end ...

[Spiderman]

Originally Posted by 0.bj

You’re in a facility you cannot use; your movements are regulated and your hours set to the authorities schedule. But it’s not a prison.

What do you think the rooms are like? Why do you think it is called a ‘detention centre’?

Your figures are bollox - 58% of those in detention centres in 2019 were awaiting a decision on their claim, so the “vast majority” are not awaiting removal.

Don’t deliberately muddy your point by conflating the equally squalid detention and removal centres. The words alone are dehumanising.

Where have I conflated anything. I am fully aware what the detention centres/ removal centres are like, I worked in one! Harmondsworth is/was always an awful facility that should have been closed years ago. The ones at Gatwick, where I worked are far from ideal but probably better facilities than in a prison.

[cockneyrebel]

Originally Posted by Ogilvy

I think you have totally missed my point which is:

Feeding the smugglers greed is not good for genuine refugees who can’t afford the price of an unsafe vessel. Taking our fair quota to help build a better world. It’s like a shit lottery at the moment, the more money you have the more chance of winning, how is that fair?

Given we only take a tiny percentage of refugees that feeds the smugglers as there are so few legal routes. It’s hardly a shock that if you cut off most avenues for desperate people then this will happen.

And as for money the rich go where they like.

[cockneyrebel]

Originally Posted by 0.bj

You’re in a facility you cannot use; your movements are regulated and your hours set to the authorities schedule. But it’s not a prison.

What do you think the rooms are like? Why do you think it is called a ‘detention centre’?

Your figures are bollox - 58% of those in detention centres in 2019 were awaiting a decision on their claim, so the “vast majority” are not awaiting removal.

Don’t deliberately muddy your point by conflating the equally squalid detention and removal centres. The words alone are dehumanising.

Spot on. Of course they are prisons and many countries don’t use this inhuman method of processing. Blair expanded it massively.

[hong_kong_hg]

Originally Posted by GreatGonzo

So it is illegal to enter the UK for the purpose of Asylum from France.

Thank you Julia Hartley-Gonzo for that disinfo political broadcast on behalf of the Tory party.

[Hedgehog]

Hard to figure out what the attraction is of getting to the UK? And I appreciate that is a rhetorical question.

Maybe they should all be made to read this BBS for a day before committing to the journey, they may have second thoughts.

[hong_kong_hg]

Originally Posted by Fen Eagle

Whilst sad (genuinely) to get to Britain they have already been through at least 4 safe countries to claim asylum. It’s the benefits we hand out that make them risk there lives. We are the most easiest form of a free ride they will get. For every thousand that make it here if one is a terrorist waiting to make a bomb. Then sorry no close the borders.

Nick Griffin, meet Nigel Farage.

[Smithers-Jones]

Originally Posted by 0.bj

We’re much more likely to find out true identities if we process closer to the places we have bombed, before they’ve handed all their documents to the smugglers/slave traders (assuming their documents survived our high explosives).



We can’t moan about the very effect we voted for. We!=me, I didn’t vote to treat humans like vermin.

We have bombed......good to see someone mention it.

I wonder how much of this can be traced back to that illegal war (that France opposed).

[redandblue]

Originally Posted by smileysmith

Well, of course not. You couldn't vote that way if you had any empathy.

How did anyone who voted labour know that the Iraq war was going to start and Blair would act as he did ? How can you be responsible if you don’t know what is going to happen ?

[redandblue]

I have nearly finished the bee keeper of Aleppo and in that (I don’t know how accurate it was) it was €3000 to Denmark €4000 to Germany or $7500 to U.K. for a couple. People want to come to U.K. as we are have a better multicultural society and generally treat people better. It’s worth noting that the people arriving on the small boats have the highest percentage of successful application for refugee status of any way they enter the U.K. this is not because of the route they select but because there are more genuine cases.
Whilst the boats are still 90% single males there are some families which were very rare in the back of the lorry and route.



We take less people in than Germany and less than France people do want to come here as we treat people far better than many other countries. France treats them terribly and they could solve the problem very easily, in France people have to carry identification so when these people have no ID or they show ID that has not been recorded with them entering Schegen legally they could process them. Instead of they catch them they just take them a few miles in land and kick them out sometimes giving them a whack. The French don’t want them and many of the refugees do not want to be in France because of the way they are treated.

As for anyone who thinks they should seek asylum in the first safe country this can’t work. The first country can not be expected to take in all refugees just because of where there border is. The people need to be spread across a number of countries it’s the only way it can work. The problem we have though is it will get to a point where Europe does not have the resources for all these additional people then we need a new solution.

I think that applications should be able to be made outside of the U.K. but not near the channel. The reason for this is, what happens to the unsuccessful applications ? They are not just going to home and will most likely try the dingy route. Would those who know they have weak asylum case will still try the dingy route.

I live seven minutes walk from one of the beaches that they often end up on and most wait for Border force and the long processing starts then, most just wait for the Border Force they are always polite and thankful. There is one nationality that does not and they run and cause border force and the police a merry dance they are putting themselves at risk as if they are not processed they will end up on the black economy and end up being exploited.

This is the problem a massive problem that has cost lives and will continue to unless this process is changed.

I don’t think anyone regardless of their opinion on asylum or economic migration can not support a process of stopping people making this dangerous journey.

[Philipw]

Originally Posted by Wolfnipplechips

It shouldn’t be political. It should simply be about humanity.

I deliberately started the thread outside the politics forum. This is a matter for us all whatever our political beliefs. Humanity and human lives are at stake.

Seems to have gone political despite your best efforts….

[dogstar721]

Originally Posted by Spiderman

The problem with your first paragraph is, if, they are deemed not genuine, what happens to them. Also most, if not all, have no form of identification and it is therefore all but impossible to determine their true identity

Remember kids, pack at least three forms of ID, a proof of address and three months of bank statements before abandoning everything and fleeing for your life in the middle of the night, from the murder militias....

I used to know a couple of solicitors who worked asylum cases. Stories they told of their clients experience were worse than I came across prepping sex crime casseroles for court.

The UK goes out of its way to make claiming asylum as difficult a possible.

[dogstar721]

Originally Posted by Philipw

Seems to have gone political despite your best efforts….

I'm all honesty, if 27 people drowning in the sea due to your countries attempts to avoid helping desperate people who given up everything to have a pretty shit life in the UK isn't a political issue, I'm not sure what is.

[Wolfnipplechips]

Originally Posted by dogstar721

I'm all honesty, if 27 people drowning in the sea due to your countries attempts to avoid helping desperate people who given up everything to have a pretty shit life in the UK isn't a political issue, I'm not sure what is.

It is political.

But it’s too big an issue to be confined to the politics section.

[redandblue]

Originally Posted by Wolfnipplechips

It is political.

But it’s too big an issue to be confined to the politics section.

If it is political it should be in that section, it is not for you to decide whether a political subject is too big or not for that section.

[Hpalace]

Originally Posted by redandblue

If it is political it should be in that section, it is not for you to decide whether a political subject is too big or not for that section.

It’s also not just political though. As we have seen here there is some policies but on balance other subjects are being discussed.

[Wolfnipplechips]

Originally Posted by redandblue

If it is political it should be in that section, it is not for you to decide whether a political subject is too big or not for that section.

I think you’ll find it is… because that’s where I posted it.

Unless of course it makes you uncomfortable and you want it moved?

[PeterH]

Originally Posted by greybot

you're* Their*

It's more sad that state education has failed you and I'm not just talking about your poor spelling and punctuation sadly

Maybe an immigrant's child took his place in a good school.

[PeterH]

Originally Posted by Fen Eagle

Instead of name calling explain to me where I’m going wrong ?

You are correct.

The error was made the night your mother decided she didn't have a headache, and lay there and let your father get on with his puffing and gurning.