Raynor's plan

[Raja Clavata]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Entering a country without using proper channels or documentation is illegal, even if they apply for asylum, until asylum is granted, they are an illegal immigrant.

We’ve done this before dude. I agree with the above. No need to repeat 👍

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

 

Didn’t answer the question directly.

[Rewulf]

14 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

We’ve done this before dude. I agree with the above. No need to repeat

No worries 

[janner]

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

 

"Section 3(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 states that, persons who are not British citizens shall not enter the UK unless given leave in accordance with provisions in the Immigration Act 1971 or made under that act.

Entry without leave is a breach of section 3(1)(a) and therefore constitutes illegal entry as defined by section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (as amended by the 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act)"

These are direct quote from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6650731b8f4cb8fef9f64fad/Irregular+or+unlawful+entry+and+arrival.pdf

Further "The Illegal Migration Act 2023 changes the law so that those who arrive in the UK illegally will not be able to stay here and will instead be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or a safe third country." Again, another direct quote, this time from https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/illegal-migration-bill

So, your own determined objection to the use of the word "illegal" is not actually reflective of the legislation.

Shall we call them "illegal entrants", "illegal immigrants" or "illegal migrants". You will however recognise the consistent and factual use of the word "illegal".

 

Really? It's not a term reflected in The Illegal Migration Act 2023.

Thats it exactly,

They are not illegals, they are migrants or refugees,

No human can be an illegal,

The only conclusion that the right use the word 'illegals' rather than the full phrase is to dehumanise and make their inhumane rhetoric more acceptable to the racist elements in society, its sole reason is to make refugees seem less of a person, an illegal person if you will, 

If the word illegal was dropped from the phrase illegal immigration/immigrant and just immigrant/ immigration was correctly used then it would not suit their inhumane agenda,

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, janner said:

They are not illegals, they are migrants or refugees,

1 minute ago, janner said:

If the word illegal was dropped from the phrase illegal immigration/immigrant and just immigrant/ immigration was correctly used then it would not suit their inhumane agenda,

By that you arent differentiating between say an EU citizen who came here for work, or someone from say, Africa who came here seeking asylum, but entered the country illegally ?
Theres nothing inhumane about it, we are just calling it out as it is.

What is inhumane, is the way they are treated in France, cattle shunted towards the Channel, given nothing, and reliant upon charities for food and basic medical needs, and France has been doing this for decades.
If the roles were reversed, do you think the UK would treat them like that ?

[JohnfromUK]

6 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

If the roles were reversed, do you think the UK would treat them like that ?

If the roles (i.e. geographical positions) were reversed they would not be wanting to move on from UK to France.  France deliberately makes things unpleasant for them to ensure they move on quickly.

[oowee]

2 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

If the roles (i.e. geographical positions) were reversed they would not be wanting to move on from UK to France.  France deliberately makes things unpleasant for them to ensure they move on quickly.

If the roles were reversed and we had a load of french speakers on our coast trying to get to France. What would we do? Probably ignore them and let charities take care of them. What else could we do? We cannot return Ilegal's  to France what hope would we have to return them to some French colony? 

France received 140000 asylum applications last year not bad for a country that makes things deliberately unpleasant. I imagine many in France wish they had not established so many french speaking colonies. 

[Rewulf]

28 minutes ago, oowee said:

France received 140000 asylum applications last year

Youve left out the important bit though havent you ?
Only 27% of them were approved.

UK approval rate is 70 %

Is it possible that being rejected by France, they then decide to have a go at the much more lenient UK system ?

[oowee]

8 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Youve left out the important bit though havent you ?
Only 27% of them were approved.

UK approval rate is 70 %

Is it possible that being rejected by France, they then decide to have a go at the much more lenient UK system ?

Is it possible this is a channel effect?

[JohnfromUK]

47 minutes ago, oowee said:

What would we do?

It's speculation of course, but I think we would be very much 'softer' than the French with their Calais Jungle shanty town and similar.

[Mungler]

1 hour ago, janner said:

Thats it exactly,

They are not illegals, they are migrants or refugees,

No human can be an illegal,

The only conclusion that the right use the word 'illegals' rather than the full phrase is to dehumanise and make their inhumane rhetoric more acceptable to the racist elements in society, its sole reason is to make refugees seem less of a person, an illegal person if you will, 

If the word illegal was dropped from the phrase illegal immigration/immigrant and just immigrant/ immigration was correctly used then it would not suit their inhumane agenda,

You are either thick, obtuse or a lot of both.

The clues are in the very acts of Parliament eg The Illegal Migration Act 2023.

Love the straight reach for the race card too. Brilliant.

.

 

Edited Thursday at 16:35 by Mungler

[Zoli 12 guage]

20 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Youve left out the important bit though havent you ?
Only 27% of them were approved.

UK approval rate is 70 %

Is it possible that being rejected by France, they then decide to have a go at the much more lenient UK system ?

AND the more important bit regarding population density and current population sizes.

have a look at the populations of France,which is 2.4 times the size of the UK and Germany which is 1.5 times the size

[Gordon R]

Quote

 

You are either thick, obtuse or a lot of both.

The clues are in the very acts of Parliament eg The Illegal Migration Act 2023.

Love the straight reach for the race card too. Brilliant.

 

Just about sums it up.

[Rewulf]

28 minutes ago, oowee said:

Is it possible this is a channel effect?

Its the effect of having a wishy washy civil service who are only too keen to let in as many as possible, for whatever reason, and thats the burning question, WHY ?

We can say that we NEED workers, but do they work?  All these doctors, dentists and engineers coming over on small boats ;Just looking for a better life' could easily apply for a visa and be granted a work placement based stay.
Strangely though , these highly trained university educated professionals seem to prefer washing cars, delivering junk food or spending their afternoons leering at women.

Its clear that  the  700,000 net immigration figures dont seem to faze you.
But where will they live, where will they work ?
Will they integrate, or just form ghettos ?

If the 'why' is to destroy British society, and replace it with some kind of ultra diverse melting pot of a country, we are certainly going about it the right way.
 

[old man]

On 23/07/2024 at 19:45, oowee said:

I think what would be interesting is if she had been guilty would she have survived the Starmer chop. She is in an interesting position given her union support.

Its a job that not many would do. Campaign for years to get to be chosen for a seat then try and win that uncertain seat. If you win you may be there for four years and have little sway in that decision. It's not a job many would want to apply for. 

The politicians I have worked for (both labour and conservative) have mostly need extremely hard working. 

Mm, not really seeing that situation. For instance there always seems a veil of secrecy used as a diversion?

Sadly I gave up looking for any progress relating to what they babble on about years ago. I know that we are in a truck with cattle as all I ever hear is that nothing can be done about anything for numerous reasons?

For instance the rubber boat situation, no politico has to the best of my knowledge openly given the reasons we can't stop them? If the law needs changing, do it!

The utter lunacy of zero emissions to the point of a bankrupt country? What possible difference other than trying to bull dung others can our little country have on the global output? None!

I just potter about using the one neuron of common sense I was informed of as a child.

[oowee]

57 minutes ago, Mungler said:

You are either thick, obtuse or a lot of both.

The clues are in the very acts of Parliament eg The Illegal Migration Act 2023.

Love the straight reach for the race card too. Brilliant.

.

 

Seeking asylum is not an illegal act. It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum. 🤔

[oowee]

32 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Its the effect of having a wishy washy civil service who are only too keen to let in as many as possible, for whatever reason, and thats the burning question, WHY ?

We can say that we NEED workers, but do they work?  All these doctors, dentists and engineers coming over on small boats ;Just looking for a better life' could easily apply for a visa and be granted a work placement based stay.
Strangely though , these highly trained university educated professionals seem to prefer washing cars, delivering junk food or spending their afternoons leering at women.

Its clear that  the  700,000 net immigration figures dont seem to faze you.
But where will they live, where will they work ?
Will they integrate, or just form ghettos ?

If the 'why' is to destroy British society, and replace it with some kind of ultra diverse melting pot of a country, we are certainly going about it the right way.
 

Channel effect seems far more plausible coupled with the lack of staff to process applications. Sounds to me like the perfect storm.  Unless you have some alternative data set. 

I would want to understand what that that net migration figure is composed of before getting even more annoyed with the Tory govt wasters than I am. You seem to imagine that civil service administrators are making policy. Its heart warming that you hold them in such high esteem but I suspect that they are doing the bidding of ministers. 

Before you can ask the question where will they live, work and integrate you need to explain who they are. You will recall we had a discussion about the need for long term EU residents in the UK to register. If this explains a percentage then you would expect that they are dispersed and living across the UK. 

You will recall that we opted for Brexit and as a result opened the country to potentially larger immigration numbers. Without the availability of skilled workers from the EU we are more likely to seek workers from the Asian sub continent with the associated larger families. These in turn are far less likely to want to return to their origins than a worker from the EU. 

25 minutes ago, old man said:

 

The utter lunacy of zero emissions to the point of a bankrupt country? What possible difference other than trying to bull dung others can our little country have on the global output? None!

I just potter about using the one neuron of common sense I was informed of as a child.

Lead by example. ? Or if we were part of a large trading block (🤣) start to raise carbon tax to encourage compliance.

[Mungler]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

Seeking asylum is not an illegal act. It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum. 🤔

Seriously? We’re back to fleeing war torn France again eh?

“An economic migrant is different from a refugee or asylum seeker – this is someone who leaves his or her country of origin purely for financial or economic reasons. Economic migrants choose to move in order to find a better life and they do not flee because of persecution”

[oowee]

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

Seriously? We’re back to fleeing war torn France again eh?

“An economic migrant is different from a refugee or asylum seeker – this is someone who leaves his or her country of origin purely for financial or economic reasons. Economic migrants choose to move in order to find a better life and they do not flee because of persecution”

And? 

[Zoli 12 guage]

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

Seriously? We’re back to fleeing war torn France again eh?

“An economic migrant is different from a refugee or asylum seeker – this is someone who leaves his or her country of origin purely for financial or economic reasons. Economic migrants choose to move in order to find a better life and they do not flee because of persecution”

SERIOUSLY,why do you bother🤔

there's a hard core of about 4 socialists on here that you'd have more chance of platting custard than getting any sense from them👍

12 minutes ago, oowee said:

And? 

that's supposed to be an answer 🙄

QED

[oowee]

11 minutes ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

SERIOUSLY,why do you bother🤔

there's a hard core of about 4 socialists on here that you'd have more chance of platting custard than getting any sense from them👍

that's supposed to be an answer 🙄

QED

Socialists 😁 is that anyone with a different view? 

[B686]

Most coming here are fighting age men  , where’s their families wife’s kids , surely if you were fleeing danger you would bring your loved ones . Most are coming here to have an easy life and sponge off our system. We should give them nothing at all and send them back end of . The people saying we shouldn’t call them illegals 😂 get your heads out your **** and see what’s happening to this country ***!
 

[armsid]

Bliar let all our industry go therefore losing skills that could have been passed on to future engineers doctors etc as recruitement was switched to Europe where they keep training for the future. Companies were forced to look abroad for skilled workers as the factories etc. that produced these skills were moved away from the UK leaving a void of potential apprentices no one to train them and no where to use their skills as this country was not allowed to challenge the might of Germany and France as the industrial kings of the EU. What we have been left with is vast numbers of low paid minimum wage workers but paying high living costs and a large number out of work due to the lack of production work we were once world renowned for

[Mungler]

1 hour ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

SERIOUSLY,why do you bother🤔

there's a hard core of about 4 socialists on here that you'd have more chance of platting custard than getting any sense from them👍

😆😆
It’s good sport and each of the threads are a journey.

On one we have Henry tying himself in knots and doing everything possible not to agree with any aspect of the attack on the serviceman (we’ve gone from ex lover to work colleague - anything but the bleedin obvious though). Oh and we had Raja come over the top with the Gary Lineker-esque ‘can’t we all just get along’ type comment that he won’t be sullying himself by joining in on any speculation as to attacker motivation because he is on the higher ground and with only pure concern for the victim.

On this thread we now arguing about the colour of orange juice as illegal immigrants are redefined as anything but illegal despite the logic and the terminology being defined by act of Parliament. My absolute favourite is ‘asylum’ seekers coming from France when they are not even at the first, second or third country of safe haven but are onward travelling by choice (not necessity) to the UK.

It is the wholesale avoidance of the obvious / the truth of it that gives the best results.

Edited Thursday at 21:21 by Mungler

[Raja Clavata]

17 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Oh and we had Raja come over the top with the Gary Lineker-esque ‘can’t we all just get along’ type comment that he won’t be sullying himself by joining in on any speculation as to attacker motivation because he is on the higher ground and with only pure concern for the victim.

Can you please clarify who we is? You are speaking for yourself, unless there’s a bunch of saddos colluding in the background.

I’m sure another “the rest of us” comment is just around the corner. 

It’s bad form Andrew and you know it.

[oowee]

18 minutes ago, Mungler said:

😆😆
It’s good sport and each of the threads are a journey.

 

😁

 

58 minutes ago, armsid said:

industry go therefore losing skills that could have been passed on to future engineers doctors etc as recruitement was switched to Europe where they keep training for the future. Companies were forced to look abroad for skilled workers as the factories etc. that produced these skills were moved away from the UK leaving a void of potential apprentices no one to train them and no where to use their skills as this country was not allowed to challenge the might of Germany and France as the industrial kings of the EU. What we have been left with is vast numbers of low paid minimum wage workers but paying high living costs and a large number out of work due to the lack of production work we were once world renowned for

👍 Blair could not stop global change. It started with the UK car industry being a UK car industry. Those that went global survived those that stayed local are gone. We completely lost and devalued training and excellence across the spectrum. We are very good at the elite end of education but for the masses it's completely failed. 

Blair in 2001 made the education education education speech for his second term but it needs to be a cross party mainstream ambition. Some would say its better to cut spending on health than to cut education.