Channel Migrants

[12gauge82]

Just now, Rewulf said:

For those that believe there is any possibility of ever sending any boat people back to France, you need to forget it.
The Italians are in legal trouble for simply not letting them get off a ship in Sicily.
A ship run by NGO s linked to globalist 'benefactors' like soros, who wait off the coast of Libya and Turkey, and are in direct contact with migrant traffickers, the Italians are wise to this , so do their utmost to prevent them landing.
But there seems there is little they can do to stop them.
Ultimately , many of these people will end up in dinghies crossing the channel, my only surprise is that we have had no ship loads pulling up yet.
Give it time.

 

Surely they can just change the law making sending them back legal 

 

[Newbie to this]

3 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

the Italians are wise to this , so do their utmost to prevent them landing.
But there seems there is little they can do to stop them.

Sounds like a job for their special forces, board the ship, conviscate it for their part in aiding illegal people trafficking, then straight into dry dock for decommissioning.

[Rewulf]

21 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Surely they can just change the law making sending them back legal 

 

17 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Sounds like a job for their special forces, board the ship, conviscate it for their part in aiding illegal people trafficking, then straight into dry dock for decommissioning.

Wishful thinking Im afraid.

What is always interesting to me , is the choice of country where these ships try to dock to unload their human cargos.
They never seem to land in any other N African country, or any of the Balkans, they only choose Malta , Spain or Cyprus as a last resort, not be long before one of them tries to dock at Portsmouth or Tilbury.
Cut the middlemen out.

[Dave-G]

Perhaps if those global benefactor billionaires like Soros paid our government's bills for providing the 'rescue', housing, food and legal costs ETC we might become more accommodating.

[Rewulf]

25 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

Perhaps if those global benefactor billionaires like Soros paid our government's bills for providing the 'rescue', housing, food and legal costs ETC we might become more accommodating.

It would certainly be an interesting figure, and Im sure someone , somewhere in the civil service has done a calculation on the average costs.
The chances of it being made public are remote though.

Factor in accommodation , legal and security fees, interpreters, and medical care, I would be surprised if the figure for a couple of months initially, wouldnt be less than £100,000 per man ?
For an ordinary prisoner in a UK jail, the first induction runs into tens of thousands, with an annual average cost of some £50,000 per prisoner, if they have special needs or interpreters then obviously more , and this does not include legal assistance.

Even if you picked a ridiculous low figure for induction , say £10,000 a man, if a 1000 a day come in , thats £10 million per DAY , but I suspect the real figure is far higher .
Then we go onto a monthly rate , per person for upkeep.

Never mind those who say 'Wheres the extra 350 million a week from Brexit ?' We are spending a lot of it on illegal migrants.

Edited November 11, 2022 by Rewulf

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Wishful thinking Im afraid.

What is always interesting to me , is the choice of country where these ships try to dock to unload their human cargos.
They never seem to land in any other N African country, or any of the Balkans, they only choose Malta , Spain or Cyprus as a last resort, not be long before one of them tries to dock at Portsmouth or Tilbury.
Cut the middlemen out.

I agree its wishful thinking. But that's only because we keep voting either Labour or the Conservatives in and then curse them when they go and do, or do not do, exactly what we all know they will. We need to vote someone else in if we want change. 

[Rewulf]

16 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I agree its wishful thinking. But that's only because we keep voting either Labour or the Conservatives in and then curse them when they go and do, or do not do, exactly what we all know they will. We need to vote someone else in if we want change. 

Without the media behind them , outside political groups dont stand a chance, as much as I like the idea of Reform ect , the only people likely to vote for them is disgruntled tories, and that just splits the vote and lets labour in to more seats , and possible power, even Reform understand this , and tend not to field candidates where splitting the vote could let labour win a seat.
My pessimistic side tells me this battle (uncontrolled immigration) was lost decades ago.

[JohnfromUK]

29 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

We need to vote someone else in if we want change. 

Nigel Farage was (and largely remains) popular, a charismatic speaker good in interviews, debates, TV appearances, and yet never managed to win a seat in Westminster.  If he couldn't win one seat, who on earth would win a majority (minimum 326 seats) in the HOC? 

[12gauge82]

55 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Without the media behind them , outside political groups dont stand a chance, as much as I like the idea of Reform ect , the only people likely to vote for them is disgruntled tories, and that just splits the vote and lets labour in to more seats , and possible power, even Reform understand this , and tend not to field candidates where splitting the vote could let labour win a seat.
My pessimistic side tells me this battle (uncontrolled immigration) was lost decades ago.

And therein lies the problem, because everyone thinks like that, both Labour and Conservatives pay lip service to manifesto pledges or don't even both making them knowing its a two hours race and neither will offer the voter what they want. The way I see it, what's the point in betting on a horse when you know for a fact neither will win the race. 

45 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Nigel Farage was (and largely remains) popular, a charismatic speaker good in interviews, debates, TV appearances, and yet never managed to win a seat in Westminster.  If he couldn't win one seat, who on earth would win a majority (minimum 326 seats) in the HOC? 

Ukip won 4 million votes nation wide but only secured 1 seat, snp on the other hand...... 

Anyone who actually wants to see change needs to start voting differently, I'm prepared to risk Labour getting in, it wouldn't need to happen more than once for the tories to realise they need to give the voter an alternative instead of paying lip service to what the voters want. 

[JohnfromUK]

28 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'm prepared to risk Labour getting in, it wouldn't need to happen more than once for the tories to realise they need to give the voter an alternative instead of paying lip service to what the voters want.

And there we differ.  Although current opinion polls predict Labour will get in ....... I would do anything I could to try and keep them out.  I do not believe either that "it wouldn't need to happen more than once".  There have been alternatives 'on offer' before, UKIP, SDP to name two- and of course there has always been the Liberals/Liberal Democrats.  I cannot see an end to the two party system.  Clegg (2011) had a referendum held (when in coalition) about proportional representation and it was resoundingly rejected.

[12gauge82]

7 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

And there we differ.  Although current opinion polls predict Labour will get in ....... I would do anything I could to try and keep them out.  I do not believe either that "it wouldn't need to happen more than once".  There have been alternatives 'on offer' before, UKIP, SDP to name two- and of course there has always been the Liberals/Liberal Democrats.  I cannot see an end to the two party system.  Clegg (2011) had a referendum held (when in coalition) about proportional representation and it was resoundingly rejected.

To get change you need to change something, what's the point in voting for more of the same. 

[Rewulf]

6 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

And there we differ.  Although current opinion polls predict Labour will get in ....... I would do anything I could to try and keep them out.  I do not believe either that "it wouldn't need to happen more than once".  There have been alternatives 'on offer' before, UKIP, SDP to name two- and of course there has always been the Liberals/Liberal Democrats.  I cannot see an end to the two party system.  Clegg (2011) had a referendum held (when in coalition) about proportional representation and it was resoundingly rejected.

Got to agree, the two party system , just like the GOP / Dems in the States, gives this illusory idea of democracy, where they virtually take it in turns to eat from the trough , make a complete mess of the country , which allows the other side in for a bit, then rinse and repeat....

Dont you find it odd how in both here and the US , its never a forgone conclusion whos  going to end up in power ?
The parity between blue and red is more than just a coincidence IMHO.

2 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

To get change you need to change something, what's the point in voting for more of the same. 

When politicians tell you what you want to hear , they get those who believe , and those that disbelieve.
Look at labour , if they could really do what they promise , they would landslide in , but no one believes their BS , and their track record is abysmal , the tories are just slightly better.
We could put reform into power, and they could be worse than both, what would we be left with then ?

Im happy to vote for them , but unless they put 30 + MPs into the house , they are a non entity like the libs.
We are over a barrel , and they know it.

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, 12gauge82 said:

To get change you need to change something

That part is true, but I do not believe there is actually (at present anyway) an acceptable alternative who actually have a chance of getting a majority.  On that basis - voting for more of the same is more about keeping the worst of the alternatives 'out'.

I will admit that Starmer & Co are 'less bad' than Corbyn & Co, but that might change IF they got a majority and faces/personnel change.  Sunak & Co remain (for me) the least bad of the 'credibly electable' bunch and is considerably (in my view) 'less bad' than Starmer & Co.

Reform or Farage & are not credibly electable.

[ditchman]

i agree will 12 gauge and johnfromuk

 

talk about sitting on the fence.................is it possible the SNP will become king makers....is that why sunak is courting sturgeon.........these "out of wedlockers"  will do anythingto retain power

[12gauge82]

5 minutes ago, ditchman said:

i agree will 12 gauge and johnfromuk

 

talk about sitting on the fence.................is it possible the SNP will become king makers....is that why sunak is courting sturgeon.........these "out of wedlockers"  will do anythingto retain power

That's OK, I think your post actually makes the most sense, there really is no straight forwards answer, all I know is, I'm tired of the same old, same old with politics and I'm that unhappy with it, I don't care if it temporarily makes things worse as long as it stops them being able to lie to our face while continuing to do what they want. 

[old man]

21 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

And therein lies the problem, because everyone thinks like that, both Labour and Conservatives pay lip service to manifesto pledges or don't even both making them knowing its a two hours race and neither will offer the voter what they want. The way I see it, what's the point in betting on a horse when you know for a fact neither will win the race. 

Ukip won 4 million votes nation wide but only secured 1 seat, snp on the other hand...... 

Anyone who actually wants to see change needs to start voting differently, I'm prepared to risk Labour getting in, it wouldn't need to happen more than once for the tories to realise they need to give the voter an alternative instead of paying lip service to what the voters want. 

All parties have a hand up their backs reaching their collars?

None will be allowed to do what their masters don't want?

Try as I might, personally I can't see a way out as all are ensconced and virtually untouchable, all by their devious design over the years of manipulation in secret by lobbyists?

It's all a waste of of a vote now, the only thing to do is vote for who you think at the time will do you personally less harm?

 

Edited November 12, 2022 by old man

[Vince Green]

On 11/11/2022 at 13:59, Rewulf said:

Wishful thinking Im afraid.

What is always interesting to me , is the choice of country where these ships try to dock to unload their human cargos.
They never seem to land in any other N African country, or any of the Balkans, they only choose Malta , Spain or Cyprus as a last resort, not be long before one of them tries to dock at Portsmouth or Tilbury.
Cut the middlemen out.

They have to land them in a 'safe' country. So the rescuers always have that excuse to fall back on

The rescuers are hardly impartial about this. Clearly they are pursuing their own agendas. The fact that they are even there in the first place says something, and do we know who is funding them? It's not cheap to buy and run a boat like that

Edited November 12, 2022 by Vince Green

[henry d]

12 hours ago, Vince Green said:

The rescuers are hardly impartial about this. Clearly they are pursuing their own agendas.

Yes, they rescue anyone!

[oowee]

On 11/11/2022 at 18:02, 12gauge82 said:

To get change you need to change something, what's the point in voting for more of the same. 

This ^^^^ we don't need more of the same. Vote reform or whatever and you may let Labour or Tories in, but that's just more of the same. We have to change system fundamentaly. 

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, oowee said:

This ^^^^ we don't need more of the same. Vote reform or whatever and you may let Labour or Tories in, but that's just more of the same. We have to change system fundamentaly. 

Can't argue with that. 

[dead eye alan]

3 hours ago, oowee said:

This ^^^^ we don't need more of the same. Vote reform or whatever and you may let Labour or Tories in, but that's just more of the same. We have to change system fundamentally. 

I agree with you on that at least, I cannot vote for a/ a sir and b/ a multimillionaire. So reform for me.

[Rewulf]

4 hours ago, oowee said:

This ^^^^ we don't need more of the same. Vote reform or whatever and you may let Labour or Tories in, but that's just more of the same. We have to change system fundamentaly. 

Are you talking about the proportional representational system? 

Because I really don't see how that is going to help. 

[12gauge82]

Apparently roughly 6000 migrants are currently waiting to imminently cross from France, this need tackling asap. 

[Ratlegs]

On 11/11/2022 at 14:38, Dave-G said:

Perhaps if those global benefactor billionaires like Soros paid our government's bills for providing the 'rescue', housing, food and legal costs ETC we might become more accommodating.

All twaddle if folks hadn't believed johnsons and farages lies we wouldn't be in this sh???t they've shoved two fingers up at France so don't expect any help from them

what did the last three home secretaries do???

[scutt]

31 minutes ago, Ratlegs said:

All twaddle if folks hadn't believed johnsons and farages lies we wouldn't be in this sh???t they've shoved two fingers up at France so don't expect any help from them

what did the last three home secretaries do???

Are you kidding you think France is the injured party in all this