DRONES IN THE CHANNEL

[Penelope]

2 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

The fact that leaving the EU actually weakened our ability to deal with the issue should not be lost on anybody, and particularly those who voted for Brexit on the basis of immigration in the first place

Different gravy, surely? Those that voted for Brexit on an immigration basis, was about those from within the EU, the vast majority from Eastern European countries.

What we get now are plainly not from Eastern Europe.

[yickdaz]

2 hours ago, Vince Green said:

Most of the dinghies get 'rescued' in the channel.  If they could be then taken directly back to France they would very quickly get the message and stop trying to come. 

Also they would abandon the camps in Calais and the French would be rid of them as well

So simple, so obvious

Australia did it sent them to papa new guinea  poland did it  by sending back across the Belarus border whilst we send messages to France saying ok send them over  when your ready 

[Raja Clavata]

29 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Different gravy, surely? Those that voted for Brexit on an immigration basis, was about those from within the EU, the vast majority from Eastern European countries.

What we get now are plainly not from Eastern Europe.

Not sure it’s different gravy but I get your point.

So effectively what we’re agreeing is that being in the EU reduced the Islamification of the UK compared to leaving it?

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, Raja Clavata said:

So effectively what we’re agreeing is that being in the EU reduced the Islamification of the UK compared to leaving it?

EU freedom of movement would negate that surely ?

 

[Yellow Bear]

2 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

So effectively what we’re agreeing is that being in the EU reduced the Islamification of the UK compared to leaving it?

Large assumption and not correct, as the illegals were coming in even then

[Raja Clavata]

4 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

Large assumption and not correct, as the illegals were coming in even then

But it’s not just about illegal immigration, is it.

I believe my original statement is correct and for more reasons than we have thus far discussed here.

Edited August 7 by Raja Clavata

[Raja Clavata]

8 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

EU freedom of movement would negate that surely ?

 

You think pre Brexit EU migrant religious mix is close to the post Brexit legal migration religious mix?

[Rewulf]

18 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

You think pre Brexit EU migrant religious mix is close to the post Brexit legal migration religious mix?

Personally I think religion has little to do with it, its about culture.
Many EU migrants come from the poorer parts of Europe, the Roma just for example are a culture that isnt best liked in the countries they were born in, so its not about professional EU citizens coming here for better wages ect, free movement meant ANYONE could come here and use our benefits system.
The Polish, for the other aspect, have a strong work culture, I would rather have 5 million Poles than 1 million Roma, because they would contribute more to the workings of British society, it would be a net benefit.
As far as Islamification goes, we already have a grass roots Muslim population, which is rapidly growing, as that is their culture. Many Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims in this country do not want 3rd world economic migrants from Africa and the middle east either, despite the fact they share religion, their cultures 'clash'

The problem remains, if we are going to sustain  3/4 of a million new people every year, perhaps even more under labour, we need to make sure that the vast majority of them are net contributors to society, because thats the only way we can literally afford to provide the housing and services necessary to make life bearable, not just for us , but for them too.
OR , we can find some way of limiting migration ?
The riots and protests are just a symptom of the impending cardiac arrest of the patient.

We cant just keep bringing in a large city worth of people into the country every year, its not economically or socially sustainable.

https://www.mattgoodwin.org/p/why-labours-extreme-immigration-plan?fbclid=IwY2xjawEgQOFleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHSAUB09ErpWT46S09Yc2UNVj2jpcb2o8MMeAC1VM4G7QcWWrZgdDQqNdfw_aem_FadBTJVH5HdyNq1fK6SY_A&triedRedirect=true

[Raja Clavata]

47 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Personally I think religion has little to do with it, its about culture.
Many EU migrants come from the poorer parts of Europe, the Roma just for example are a culture that isnt best liked in the countries they were born in, so its not about professional EU citizens coming here for better wages ect, free movement meant ANYONE could come here and use our benefits system.
The Polish, for the other aspect, have a strong work culture, I would rather have 5 million Poles than 1 million Roma, because they would contribute more to the workings of British society, it would be a net benefit.
As far as Islamification goes, we already have a grass roots Muslim population, which is rapidly growing, as that is their culture. Many Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims in this country do not want 3rd world economic migrants from Africa and the middle east either, despite the fact they share religion, their cultures 'clash'

The problem remains, if we are going to sustain  3/4 of a million new people every year, perhaps even more under labour, we need to make sure that the vast majority of them are net contributors to society, because thats the only way we can literally afford to provide the housing and services necessary to make life bearable, not just for us , but for them too.
OR , we can find some way of limiting migration ?
The riots and protests are just a symptom of the impending cardiac arrest of the patient.

We cant just keep bringing in a large city worth of people into the country every year, its not economically or socially sustainable.

https://www.mattgoodwin.org/p/why-labours-extreme-immigration-plan?fbclid=IwY2xjawEgQOFleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHSAUB09ErpWT46S09Yc2UNVj2jpcb2o8MMeAC1VM4G7QcWWrZgdDQqNdfw_aem_FadBTJVH5HdyNq1fK6SY_A&triedRedirect=true

Appreciate the lengthy reply, which I mostly agree with, but you didn’t answer my simple question 😉

I disagree with your notion of religion having little to do with it and it being more about culture. I do agree it’s not purely religious but I believe it’s generally a significant factor and that in the main religion and culture tend to be coupled, particularly deep religious beliefs.

Appreciate the Goodwin link, much more palatable than “Robinson” et al. 👍

[Rewulf]

35 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I disagree with your notion of religion having little to do with it and it being more about culture.

Its easy to digest actually, what if I were a non practicing Muslim, as many are, and I dont agree with uncontrolled immigration, even if they are 'fellow' Muslims ?
Or what if I am a non practicing Christian, who feels like there is no issue with Sharia law being perfectly compatible with British law (which is based on Christianity) ?

'Belief' in your chosen deity has many degrees of conviction, your culture is your culture, you may be born into a religion, but your choices in later life may go against that faith, but culture is something that will endure with you for life, as its extremely difficult to change the environment in which you live.

Ive lived within both Christian and Muslim cultures, Im neither Christian or Muslim though, the two cultures are only compatible up to an extent, the two religions share many similarities, and many clerics of both faiths can easily discuss them peacefully.

What Im saying is that religion can find more common ground than culture, if that makes sense ?

[Raja Clavata]

3 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Its easy to digest actually, what if I were a non practicing Muslim, as many are, and I dont agree with uncontrolled immigration, even if they are 'fellow' Muslims ?
Or what if I am a non practicing Christian, who feels like there is no issue with Sharia law being perfectly compatible with British law (which is based on Christianity) ?

'Belief' in your chosen deity has many degrees of conviction, your culture is your culture, you may be born into a religion, but your choices in later life may go against that faith, but culture is something that will endure with you for life, as its extremely difficult to change the environment in which you live.

Ive lived within both Christian and Muslim cultures, Im neither Christian or Muslim though, the two cultures are only compatible up to an extent, the two religions share many similarities, and many clerics of both faiths can easily discuss them peacefully.

What Im saying is that religion can find more common ground than culture, if that makes sense ?

I get what you are saying and perhaps it's a personal perspective thing but I still think in general religion is the dominant shaper of culture, albeit increasingly less so in the context of the wider tapestry of life, experiences, environments and the modern world. I'd potentially go as far as to suggest that affiliation with a certain religion informs the likely patterns of cultural traits. Anyway, interesting topic but we may be going a little off-piste. BTW you still haven't answered my question 😉 

[Rewulf]

10 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

You think pre Brexit EU migrant religious mix is close to the post Brexit legal migration religious mix?

I don't think anything has changed, except for the larger volume coming in.

But my point is, do we even know the religious mix, it's not a requirement? to declare. Neither is culture.

Brexit didn't stop migrants, EU or non EU,  it made it worse, because those that were supposed to control it. Didn't.

 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

6 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Brexit didn't stop migrants, EU or non EU,  it made it worse, because those that were supposed to control it. Didn't.

Amen to that, they, those in charge are working to an agenda that they think will solve everything whilst in reality it is a 180 degree smack in the face for the vast majority of those whose country they are abusing.

All the good, genuine immigrants that join in and pay there way and help this country prosper are welcome.

The others are NOT.

[Raja Clavata]

8 hours ago, Rewulf said:

I don't think anything has changed, except for the larger volume coming in.

But my point is, do we even know the religious mix, it's not a requirement? to declare. Neither is culture.

Brexit didn't stop migrants, EU or non EU,  it made it worse, because those that were supposed to control it. Didn't.

 

My point is that for legal migration Brexit changed the religious and cultural mix since we’ve had to take people from typically more culturally diverse regions than our own.

Illegal immigration got worse as a result of a divorce from local partners.

Both of these points were obvious prior to the vote. 

Prior to Brexit the EU were seen as the enemy, now it’s those in charge, nothing ever seems to be of our own doing. Always somebody else’s fault.

1 hour ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

All the good, genuine immigrants that join in and pay there way and help this country prosper are welcome.

The others are NOT.

What do you mean by good, genuine? By definition immigrants are those already here, and that’s a mix of those who arrived here illegally, legally or as asylum seekers. We absolutely cannot take all the migrants who’d want to come here to work if the border was completely open.

[Penelope]

9 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Brexit didn't stop migrants, EU or non EU,  it made it worse, because those that were supposed to control it. Didn't.

In a nutshell.

[ditchman]

Are we no longer talking about DRONES.........they are far more interesting ..

[Rewulf]

3 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

My point is that for legal migration Brexit changed the religious and cultural mix since we’ve had to take people from typically more culturally diverse regions than our own.

I dont see that weve HAD to, there hasnt actually been a massive black hole of unfilled jobs, especially skilled ones, weve imported PEOPLE, not workers, and many of them drift through the system filling roles that appear to have been created for them specifically, security work , food delivery , car washers and more barbers than you can shake a stick at.
Brexit in itself changed nothing when it comes to the type of migrant or cultural and religious make up, EU countries have a huge amount of diverse demographics, before Brexit we had the full spectrum anyway.

 

4 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

Illegal immigration got worse as a result of a divorce from local partners.

How does that work though ?
Are you actually saying that the 'divorce' caused that much animosity, they actively send us more illegal migrants ?
What kind of 'local partners' were they to start with ?

 

4 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

Prior to Brexit the EU were seen as the enemy, now it’s those in charge, nothing ever seems to be of our own doing. Always somebody else’s fault.

They were sending migrants on to us 20 years ago, the 'jungle camps' were allowed to fester and promote illegal channel crossings for a long, long time.
So who was the enemy as such.
And when it comes to fault, its a 2 stage problem, when you have a neighbour who actively allows migrants to build up on our shared coast, and our own border force ill equipped to deal with it, and laws that disallow them being sent back, at least some of the fault does lie elsewhere.

Analogy time.
Disclaimer: I am not referring to migrants as rats.

You have a lovely pristine garden, your pride and joy, a place to enjoy barbecues and such.
Your immediate neighbour has a rubbish tip for his, old furniture, waste food strewn about, he has rats and insects running about.
Your shared fence is only partially rat proof.
Eventually, YOU have rats in your garden too.

Whos fault is it that you have rats in your once beautiful garden ?

[johnphilip]

1 hour ago, ditchman said:

Are we no longer talking about DRONES.........they are far more interesting ..

Here you go Simon when I got my first drone a few years ago , was a bit to scared to fly it to high and to far away  this is our little clay  ground  near the village of Glenluce.

 

 

[ditchman]

did we see any immigrants ?

[Raja Clavata]

4 hours ago, Rewulf said:

I dont see that weve HAD to, there hasnt actually been a massive black hole of unfilled jobs, especially skilled ones, weve imported PEOPLE, not workers, and many of them drift through the system filling roles that appear to have been created for them specifically, security work , food delivery , car washers and more barbers than you can shake a stick at.
Brexit in itself changed nothing when it comes to the type of migrant or cultural and religious make up, EU countries have a huge amount of diverse demographics, before Brexit we had the full spectrum anyway.

Maybe we are talking cross purposes. How have we been legally importing migrants for menial roles, what's the mechanism for that?

From the ONS:

Non-EU immigration for work-related reasons increased from 277,000 in the YE December 2022 to 423,000 in the YE December 2023, replacing study as the main reason for long-term migration; almost half of those immigrating for work-related reasons came from India or Nigeria, most commonly in the health and social care sector.

I don't see how you can say Brexit changed nothing in terms of cultural or religious make up of legal immigrants.

4 hours ago, Rewulf said:

How does that work though ?
Are you actually saying that the 'divorce' caused that much animosity, they actively send us more illegal migrants ?
What kind of 'local partners' were they to start with ?

I'm not suggesting actively but do you think they, the French for example, are more or less sympathetic to illegal immigrants arriving by boat from France?

Also, it was not well exercised but there were instruments in place, such as the Dublin procedure, which ended when we left the EU.

4 hours ago, Rewulf said:

They were sending migrants on to us 20 years ago, the 'jungle camps' were allowed to fester and promote illegal channel crossings for a long, long time.
So who was the enemy as such.
And when it comes to fault, its a 2 stage problem, when you have a neighbour who actively allows migrants to build up on our shared coast, and our own border force ill equipped to deal with it, and laws that disallow them being sent back, at least some of the fault does lie elsewhere.

 Assuming "they" are the French, what do you mean by sending - directly facilitating trafficking, providing the boats, pushing the boats away off the jetties or what?

I agree it's a multiple factor issue, what law expressly prohibits us pushing the boats back into French waters or what prevents us having a processing station mid channel?

We've spent £700M on Rwanda and are spending circa. £130M per year paying the French and thereby confirming to them that it's as much our problem as ours.

Why don't we grow some, repeal the agreement with, and funding to France, and prevent the boats setting foot on UK soil. In fact why aren't the protestors / rioters on our beaches trying to prevent the landings? Once they set foot here we are up the proverbial creek without a paddle... 

4 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Analogy time.
Disclaimer: I am not referring to migrants as rats.

You have a lovely pristine garden, your pride and joy, a place to enjoy barbecues and such.
Your immediate neighbour has a rubbish tip for his, old furniture, waste food strewn about, he has rats and insects running about.
Your shared fence is only partially rat proof.
Eventually, YOU have rats in your garden too.

Whos fault is it that you have rats in your once beautiful garden ?

Depends on perspective, outlook or perhaps even culture. The cause / source of the rats is clearly the messy neighbour but ultimately it's your fault for not taking reasonable actions to prevent them spreading to your garden. It might be excusable for a few to get through initially but then you need to deal with them and stop more coming through.

I suspect this isn't the answer you were looking for.

A softer analogy is the ivy coming into our garden through our fence from the neighbours garden, we can't directly kill the ivy in her garden but we can and do "treat" the leaves that come through the slats on our side.

[Rewulf]

27 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Maybe we are talking cross purposes. How have we been legally importing migrants for menial roles, what's the mechanism for that?

Perhaps 'importing' was the incorrect term, I didnt mean it in its literal sense, lets say we have 'allowed' migration, with no cap, no means test, and no job set up before they get here ?
 

27 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Non-EU immigration for work-related reasons increased from 277,000 in the YE December 2022 to 423,000 in the YE December 2023, replacing study as the main reason for long-term migration; almost half of those immigrating for work-related reasons came from India or Nigeria, most commonly in the health and social care sector.

I don't see how you can say Brexit changed nothing in terms of cultural or religious make up of legal immigrants.

Are you saying before Brexit the make up of the people coming was less Indian or Nigerian ect, were the people coming to do health and social care French,  German, or Polish ect ?
Because I dont believe thats true.
I just think the total volume of migrants has increased, and we certainly havent seen a mass exodus of EU workers.

27 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Assuming "they" are the French, what do you mean by sending - directly facilitating trafficking, providing the boats, pushing the boats away off the jetties or what?

Yes some of that, also turning a blind eye to traffikers, and the presence of huge numbers of undocumented people near the crossing points, despite the money we give them.

27 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I agree it's a multiple factor issue, what law expressly prohibits us pushing the boats back into French waters or what prevents us having a processing station mid channel?

Maritime law I would imagine, but the situation is complex, as UK asylum law was changed in 2023, and was also tweaked further earlier this year, yet not fully implemented.
I would suspect since labour scrapped Rwanda, its going to be changed again, and not for the better.
A mid channel site for processing would likely fall foul of ECHR, plus I would be very surprised if France agreed to take any back.

27 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

We've spent £700M on Rwanda and are spending circa. £130M per year paying the French and thereby confirming to them that it's as much our problem as ours.

Lets be clear, labour scrapped Rwanda, they blew the £700M, and if they spend more or spend less on French 'support' , its not had, and wont make much difference in the long run.

27 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Why don't we grow some, repeal the agreement with, and funding to France, and prevent the boats setting foot on UK soil. In fact why aren't the protestors / rioters on our beaches trying to prevent the landings? Once they set foot here we are up the proverbial creek without a paddle... 

If the tories wont do it, why would labour ?
If there is no deterrent, and little chance of being sent back, even if your asylum claim fails, why would they not continue to keep coming ?

 

28 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I suspect this isn't the answer you were looking for.

Its exactly the answer I was looking for.
The rats will continue to find a way through an insecure border, until you make it secure.

The ivy analogy isnt actually softer, any encroachments from the ivy are destroyed.
At least you could trap the rats that filter through, secure your new fence, then tip them back into next doors garden !
Until your neighbour takes affront and starts trapping rats and tipping them into your garden deliberately ?

Or...You could go woke, remove the fence, have open borders and share the 'diversity' of having a garden just like your neighbours 

[Raja Clavata]

13 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Maritime law I would imagine, but the situation is complex, as UK asylum law was changed in 2023, and was also tweaked further earlier this year, yet not fully implemented.
I would suspect since labour scrapped Rwanda, its going to be changed again, and not for the better.
A mid channel site for processing would likely fall foul of ECHR, plus I would be very surprised if France agreed to take any back.

Skipped over the other stuff as it's not as much the crux of the issue as above (imho). I think this is something we need to get to the bottom of, definitively, for both, maybe all of our sakes.

16 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Or...You could go woke, remove the fence, have open borders and share the 'diversity' of having a garden just like your neighbours 

Lol - I was going to say that's not woke but just plain stupid then remembered you consider woke == stupid 😉 

By the way, this is the ONS report I was quoting from...

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/longterminternationalmigrationprovisional/yearendingdecember2023

 

[Rewulf]

30 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I think this is something we need to get to the bottom of, definitively, for both, maybe all of our sakes.

At least you recognise the problem, which is more than some do.
The problem is more economic than the 'hate' issue its often portrayed to be, which leads to.....

32 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Lol - I was going to say that's not woke but just plain stupid then remembered you consider woke == stupid 😉

Woke isnt 'stupid per se, but not wanting to limit immigration to those who are actually going to be net contributors to UK society is.
We have enough lazy, feckless pieces of excrement that are born here, without importing more.
A lot of wokies seem to think otherwise, and that we have room, and money for anyone that wants to come in. I disagree, and if they really want to express their desires for open borders, perhaps they should open their houses and wallets up themselves ? Maybe register with the local council and embrace diversity directly ?
 

[old man]

On the periphery of this, maybe the reason there is no rumpus locally to Dover is the economic benefit of serving so many breakfasts to the boaties? When there fairly recently I was told (un verified) that they were taken straight to the local food outlets for a nosh up?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Just now, old man said:

On the periphery of this, maybe the reason there is no rumpus locally to Dover is the economic benefit of serving so many breakfasts to the boaties? When there fairly recently I was told (un verified) that they were taken straight to the local food outlets for a nosh up?

I can believe that, the poor dears will be hungry after being sick for hours crossing the Channel.