FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Migrants crossing the channel

Migrants crossing the channel

By *otMe66 OP Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

What is stopping the government simply chartering a daily boat and charging the migrants a crossing fee to ensure no out of pocket expenses. The lives saved, money saved on sending out rescue boats is a no brainer to me. Add to that, you take out reliance on the gangs and the migrants are going to end up here any way, what am I missing?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

brilliant idea

we could even pay them to come

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66 OP Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"brilliant idea

we could even pay them to come "

What is it you don't like? That they are paying for safe travel?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

You're missing the main point that most of the people that spend all day worrying about immigrants coming over 'ere. Don't actually care about the gangs or danger to human life. That's just an excuse to legitimise their views. They really they just don't want foreigners round here.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66 OP Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

I have a strange feeling you could be right,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"brilliant idea

we could even pay them to come

What is it you don't like? That they are paying for safe travel?"

You have removed the callousness, coldheartedness and the ability to look down on people looking for a better life.

How can we pretend we are better than others without having immigrants to look down on?

(Immigrants who historically have made our country a better place, every single generation)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

Cutting out the middle man is always a good business idea. The money made could fund the tax cuts Liz is promising..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

It is a great idea, unfortunately there is a minority who won’t agree,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eroy1000Man over a year ago

milton keynes

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

Have a dedicated ship with lots of signs around the area advertising it. Charge them the same rate as the traffickers. It will most likely encourage more to come but they can still be processed in whatever way it's done now. Possibly some could end up in Rwanda unless the new leadership scrap that scheme

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

If twitter is right the Courts have ruled it isn't safe to send people to Rwanada, so they need somewhere new.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"brilliant idea

we could even pay them to come

What is it you don't like? That they are paying for safe travel?

You have removed the callousness, coldheartedness and the ability to look down on people looking for a better life.

How can we pretend we are better than others without having immigrants to look down on?

(Immigrants who historically have made our country a better place, every single generation)

I think everyone accepts the needs and benefits of immigration. But should we be open house for any mad bad foreigner that wants to come? Are we happy with tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of anonymous young men . They may be lovely young men with the very best of intentions but how can you tell?

I don’t know anyone that ‘looks down’ on immigrants. Why do you think that every generation of immigrants has always made the country a better place? What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan over a year ago

here

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house? "

…..And where to accommodate them - as highlighted by Ireland in the past few days - “Refugees pour into Ireland as Dublin blames Britain’s Rwanda policy - An increase in people seeking asylum in Ireland is causing an accommodation crisis that has forced Ukrainians to be put in tents”

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eroy1000Man over a year ago

milton keynes

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

If twitter is right the Courts have ruled it isn't safe to send people to Rwanada, so they need somewhere new."

At present I believe the scheme is still open but of course it can change quickly. I think both Tory candidates are in favour of the scheme which surprised me a bit. Anyway whatever the process happens to be at the time it should be applied. The key thing is, if they are prepared to pay 2k for an overcrowded dingy then 2k for a nice ferry should have them queuing up and hopefully we won't have anymore tragedies in the channel

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

Fairly predictable.

A topic gets raised about how immigrants get here and how it can be more humane.

People who are anti-immigration don't care about that and try and make it about something else.

IE what to do when they are here.

And that answer is easy. We process their claims like we always do. we just don't have to make it a deadly prospect to get into that process.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uddy laneMan over a year ago

dudley

The UK government response is to process and accommodate the people crossing the english channel and to treat them as they appear, I have to say the majority I have seen from the media do not have the persona of what they claim to be. Is the UK governments response correct or do they allow the travellers crossing to carry on with their travels freely to be put on inflatables at holyhead for isle of Man or Ireland, what the French are doing is absolutely nothing most of Europe they have crossed have bureaucraticly done the same nothing, were is the echr on the UK government response of containment of these people and not allowing them to carry on with their migration as anyone asked these people if the UK is their final destination.

Just a thought.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMan over a year ago

Grantham

"Fairly predictable.

A topic gets raised about how immigrants get here and how it can be more humane.

People who are anti-immigration don't care about that and try and make it about something else.

IE what to do when they are here.

And that answer is easy. We process their claims like we always do. we just don't have to make it a deadly prospect to get into that process."

Do you have any practical answers?

I presume that there are no migrants housed in Eastbourne Hotels?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"Fairly predictable.

A topic gets raised about how immigrants get here and how it can be more humane.

People who are anti-immigration don't care about that and try and make it about something else.

IE what to do when they are here.

And that answer is easy. We process their claims like we always do. we just don't have to make it a deadly prospect to get into that process.

Do you have any practical answers?

I presume that there are no migrants housed in Eastbourne Hotels?

Again this is a discussion about whether we should mitigate the chances of their death getting here.

If you want to start a conversation about what to do when they are here, go right ahead in another thread.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"Fairly predictable.

A topic gets raised about how immigrants get here and how it can be more humane.

People who are anti-immigration don't care about that and try and make it about something else.

IE what to do when they are here.

And that answer is easy. We process their claims like we always do. we just don't have to make it a deadly prospect to get into that process.

Do you have any practical answers?

I presume that there are no migrants housed in Eastbourne Hotels?

Again this is a discussion about whether we should mitigate the chances of their death getting here.

If you want to start a conversation about what to do when they are here, go right ahead in another thread."

That would best be solved by them not starting out from the French coast in the first place. It’s only a short section, roughly from Dunkirk to Le Touquet so if the will is there it’s easy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"Fairly predictable.

A topic gets raised about how immigrants get here and how it can be more humane.

People who are anti-immigration don't care about that and try and make it about something else.

IE what to do when they are here.

And that answer is easy. We process their claims like we always do. we just don't have to make it a deadly prospect to get into that process.

Do you have any practical answers?

I presume that there are no migrants housed in Eastbourne Hotels?

Maybe the government could help them, process them, and those that are successful can join society. Seems like a crazy idea, but it might just work.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house? "

Here's a piece of news that will shock you to the core.

The OPs gaff is not the only option for housing asylum seekers.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Fairly predictable.

A topic gets raised about how immigrants get here and how it can be more humane.

People who are anti-immigration don't care about that and try and make it about something else.

IE what to do when they are here.

And that answer is easy. We process their claims like we always do. we just don't have to make it a deadly prospect to get into that process.

Do you have any practical answers?

I presume that there are no migrants housed in Eastbourne Hotels?

It keeps the hotels in business, better that sending all the money to Rwanda

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house? "

Not this again, here we go , do you care about homeless veterans

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"Fairly predictable.

A topic gets raised about how immigrants get here and how it can be more humane.

People who are anti-immigration don't care about that and try and make it about something else.

IE what to do when they are here.

And that answer is easy. We process their claims like we always do. we just don't have to make it a deadly prospect to get into that process.

Do you have any practical answers?

I presume that there are no migrants housed in Eastbourne Hotels?

Maybe the government could help them, process them, and those that are successful can join society. Seems like a crazy idea, but it might just work. "

But why? And would that not just encourage many more to trek from one continent to another? We already have tens of thousands in temporary accommodation at enormous expense.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

Not this again, here we go , do you care about homeless veterans

Here we go again indeed. Perhaps the homeless veterans would like to be looked after in a hotel.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

Not this again, here we go , do you care about homeless veterans

Here we go again indeed. Perhaps the homeless veterans would like to be looked after in a hotel."

I agree, but they are not, so, In the meantime , how many are you housing ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Fairly predictable.

A topic gets raised about how immigrants get here and how it can be more humane.

People who are anti-immigration don't care about that and try and make it about something else.

IE what to do when they are here.

And that answer is easy. We process their claims like we always do. we just don't have to make it a deadly prospect to get into that process.

Do you have any practical answers?

I presume that there are no migrants housed in Eastbourne Hotels?

Maybe the government could help them, process them, and those that are successful can join society. Seems like a crazy idea, but it might just work.

But why? And would that not just encourage many more to trek from one continent to another? We already have tens of thousands in temporary accommodation at enormous expense."

Does it cost over £600,000 per person?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"Fairly predictable.

A topic gets raised about how immigrants get here and how it can be more humane.

People who are anti-immigration don't care about that and try and make it about something else.

IE what to do when they are here.

And that answer is easy. We process their claims like we always do. we just don't have to make it a deadly prospect to get into that process.

Do you have any practical answers?

I presume that there are no migrants housed in Eastbourne Hotels?

Maybe the government could help them, process them, and those that are successful can join society. Seems like a crazy idea, but it might just work.

But why? And would that not just encourage many more to trek from one continent to another? We already have tens of thousands in temporary accommodation at enormous expense."

Why, to help fellow humans in need, to process claims efficiency, to get those successful to join society and contribute, fill labour shortages, bring needed skills, earn money, spend money, pay taxes etc.

No, it won't. These people are desperate and making the process more efficient and less painful won't be in their thinking.

Then maybe the Tories could cut off one or two of their mates dodgy PPE contracts and use that money. Or use the tax generated by said immigrants. As I'm sure you know, they mate a net input to the British economy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"Fairly predictable.

A topic gets raised about how immigrants get here and how it can be more humane.

People who are anti-immigration don't care about that and try and make it about something else.

IE what to do when they are here.

And that answer is easy. We process their claims like we always do. we just don't have to make it a deadly prospect to get into that process.

Do you have any practical answers?

I presume that there are no migrants housed in Eastbourne Hotels?

Maybe the government could help them, process them, and those that are successful can join society. Seems like a crazy idea, but it might just work.

But why? And would that not just encourage many more to trek from one continent to another? We already have tens of thousands in temporary accommodation at enormous expense.

Does it cost over £600,000 per person? "

I fucking hope not! Random figure or something up your sleeve?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

Not this again, here we go , do you care about homeless veterans

Here we go again indeed. Perhaps the homeless veterans would like to be looked after in a hotel.

I agree, but they are not, so, In the meantime , how many are you housing ? "

None. I’m not in a position to do so. But then I’m not encouraging others to do so.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

Not this again, here we go , do you care about homeless veterans

Here we go again indeed. Perhaps the homeless veterans would like to be looked after in a hotel.

I agree, but they are not, so, In the meantime , how many are you housing ?

None. I’m not in a position to do so. But then I’m not encouraging others to do so."

None,? don’t you care about the poor army veterans on the streets?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

You know I wonder why the argument always has to shift.

Could it possibly be that if they remained on the topic of how they get here, they would be arguing to let them die?

Nah, that is just silly!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example? "

jerk chicken

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Fairly predictable.

A topic gets raised about how immigrants get here and how it can be more humane.

People who are anti-immigration don't care about that and try and make it about something else.

IE what to do when they are here.

And that answer is easy. We process their claims like we always do. we just don't have to make it a deadly prospect to get into that process.

Do you have any practical answers?

I presume that there are no migrants housed in Eastbourne Hotels?

Maybe the government could help them, process them, and those that are successful can join society. Seems like a crazy idea, but it might just work.

But why? And would that not just encourage many more to trek from one continent to another? We already have tens of thousands in temporary accommodation at enormous expense.

Does it cost over £600,000 per person?

I fucking hope not! Random figure or something up your sleeve? "

Rwanda, it cost £120 million for 200 people, get a calculator and work it out

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMan over a year ago

Grantham

We could process them in France.

What do you think their next move will be, should they get rejected?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"We could process them in France.

What do you think their next move will be, should they get rejected?"

That won't give the further right of the Tory party the same kind of boner as shipping them to Rwanda.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"We could process them in France.

What do you think their next move will be, should they get rejected?"

You want the French to control our borders?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"Fairly predictable.

A topic gets raised about how immigrants get here and how it can be more humane.

People who are anti-immigration don't care about that and try and make it about something else.

IE what to do when they are here.

And that answer is easy. We process their claims like we always do. we just don't have to make it a deadly prospect to get into that process.

Do you have any practical answers?

I presume that there are no migrants housed in Eastbourne Hotels?

Maybe the government could help them, process them, and those that are successful can join society. Seems like a crazy idea, but it might just work.

But why? And would that not just encourage many more to trek from one continent to another? We already have tens of thousands in temporary accommodation at enormous expense.

Does it cost over £600,000 per person?

I fucking hope not! Random figure or something up your sleeve?

Rwanda, it cost £120 million for 200 people, get a calculator and work it out

Oh dear. So a hypothetical figure from a silly scheme that was never going to get off the ground.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"Again this is a discussion about whether we should mitigate the chances of their death getting here.

If you want to start a conversation about what to do when they are here, go right ahead in another thread."

It seems a legitimate concern. We don't want to invite lots of people to come and live here, and only once they have arrived do we find out that there aren't any places for them to live.

We do need a lot more immigrants to this country, but we need to have a plan for them. Just inviting them in and creating a new class of homeless people isn't a sensible idea.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

guiness punch

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Fairly predictable.

A topic gets raised about how immigrants get here and how it can be more humane.

People who are anti-immigration don't care about that and try and make it about something else.

IE what to do when they are here.

And that answer is easy. We process their claims like we always do. we just don't have to make it a deadly prospect to get into that process.

Do you have any practical answers?

I presume that there are no migrants housed in Eastbourne Hotels?

Maybe the government could help them, process them, and those that are successful can join society. Seems like a crazy idea, but it might just work.

But why? And would that not just encourage many more to trek from one continent to another? We already have tens of thousands in temporary accommodation at enormous expense.

Does it cost over £600,000 per person?

I fucking hope not! Random figure or something up your sleeve?

Rwanda, it cost £120 million for 200 people, get a calculator and work it out

Oh dear. So a hypothetical figure from a silly scheme that was never going to get off the ground. "

It isn’t hypothetical, that is the scheme the government’s wants to use,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

I’ll give you music. So not a significant contribution then.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

guiness punch

I forgot about drink,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

[Removed by poster at 25/07/22 19:33:40]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

guiness punch

Great crosses from the left (John Barnes).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

I’ll give you music. So not a significant contribution then. "

Art

Food & drink

Sportsmen and women

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

guiness punch

pace bowling

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

guiness punch

pace bowling

all inclusive swingers holidays

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

guiness punch

pace bowling

all inclusive swingers holidays

£93 million into the economy from a fancy dress event in west london

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 25/07/22 19:38:20]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

guiness punch

pace bowling

all inclusive swingers holidays

£93 million into the economy from a fancy dress event in west london

Attended by 2 million people

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMan over a year ago

Grantham

"We could process them in France.

What do you think their next move will be, should they get rejected?

You want the French to control our borders? "

Why would the French be involved? They attend a UK asylum centre in France, and apply for Refugee status.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"We could process them in France.

What do you think their next move will be, should they get rejected?

You want the French to control our borders?

Why would the French be involved? They attend a UK asylum centre in France, and apply for Refugee status."

On French soil? You can’t do that , they are a ‘sovereign’ nation

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"We could process them in France.

What do you think their next move will be, should they get rejected?

You want the French to control our borders?

Why would the French be involved? They attend a UK asylum centre in France, and apply for Refugee status."

Why would the French be involved?

it would be in France....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"We could process them in France.

What do you think their next move will be, should they get rejected?

You want the French to control our borders?

Why would the French be involved? They attend a UK asylum centre in France, and apply for Refugee status."

And if it is on French soil the French are very much involved ,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

guiness punch

pace bowling

all inclusive swingers holidays

£93 million into the economy from a fancy dress event in west london

Attended by 2 million people "

I think we could have managed without it. I was caught up it in a few years ago, the level of litter that was left on the underground was disgusting. Mind you, as it was at Glastonbury so a topic for another thread perhaps?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

guiness punch

pace bowling

all inclusive swingers holidays

£93 million into the economy from a fancy dress event in west london

Attended by 2 million people "

reggae reggae sauce flavoured peanuts

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

guiness punch

pace bowling

all inclusive swingers holidays

£93 million into the economy from a fancy dress event in west london

Attended by 2 million people

Yep, It is very popular though,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

[Removed by poster at 25/07/22 19:45:02]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

guiness punch

pace bowling

all inclusive swingers holidays

£93 million into the economy from a fancy dress event in west london

Attended by 2 million people

reggae reggae sauce flavoured peanuts

12" remixes

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMan over a year ago

Grantham

"We could process them in France.

What do you think their next move will be, should they get rejected?

You want the French to control our borders?

Why would the French be involved? They attend a UK asylum centre in France, and apply for Refugee status.

And if it is on French soil the French are very much involved ,

It's what people have been calling for. Asylum centres based overseas.

The question was, what is their probable next move should they get refused their claim?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

guiness punch

pace bowling

all inclusive swingers holidays

£93 million into the economy from a fancy dress event in west london

Attended by 2 million people

reggae reggae sauce flavoured peanuts

12" remixes

subwoofers

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

Yes, but apart from a boost to the work force in the 50s, music, art, food, sports people, pace bowling, jerk chicken, Guiness punch, and £93 million, what have the Caribbeans ever done for us?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

guiness punch

pace bowling

all inclusive swingers holidays

£93 million into the economy from a fancy dress event in west london

Attended by 2 million people

reggae reggae sauce flavoured peanuts

12" remixes

subwoofers

alfresco dominoes

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"Yes, but apart from a boost to the work force in the 50s, music, art, food, sports people, pace bowling, jerk chicken, Guiness punch, and £93 million, what have the Caribbeans ever done for us?"

Very little it would seem.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"Yes, but apart from a boost to the work force in the 50s, music, art, food, sports people, pace bowling, jerk chicken, Guiness punch, and £93 million, what have the Caribbeans ever done for us?"

Channel 4's Desmonds...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66 OP Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house? "

It has been mentioned that this is about getting them over the channel safely, they are coming over regardless.

If we take the gangs that coerce these people out of the loop, we could actually see a down turn as they are not being promised the world on a stick for the £2000 they are paying to cross.

Surely the time has come to take positive action, in removing the gangs and being human and not sitting back waiting for someone to drown, by giving them safe passage.

They could be processed as they would be when arriving by small boat, only this way they have paid legitimately to cross safely.

The only difference between what I have suggested and what happens now, is migrants are treated as humans and not left to risk their lives at the hands of gangs.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

It has been mentioned that this is about getting them over the channel safely, they are coming over regardless.

If we take the gangs that coerce these people out of the loop, we could actually see a down turn as they are not being promised the world on a stick for the £2000 they are paying to cross.

Surely the time has come to take positive action, in removing the gangs and being human and not sitting back waiting for someone to drown, by giving them safe passage.

They could be processed as they would be when arriving by small boat, only this way they have paid legitimately to cross safely.

The only difference between what I have suggested and what happens now, is migrants are treated as humans and not left to risk their lives at the hands of gangs."

How many and for how long?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66 OP Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

It has been mentioned that this is about getting them over the channel safely, they are coming over regardless.

If we take the gangs that coerce these people out of the loop, we could actually see a down turn as they are not being promised the world on a stick for the £2000 they are paying to cross.

Surely the time has come to take positive action, in removing the gangs and being human and not sitting back waiting for someone to drown, by giving them safe passage.

They could be processed as they would be when arriving by small boat, only this way they have paid legitimately to cross safely.

The only difference between what I have suggested and what happens now, is migrants are treated as humans and not left to risk their lives at the hands of gangs.

How many and for how long? "

The same as today... You are a smart guy, what is bothering you?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *amish SMan over a year ago

Eastleigh

Seems Denmark cured its immigration issue overnight. No one wants to go there.

Seems some are confused by asylum, refugee and immigration, why is it nearly all males of certain age that are seen and also recorded in statistics arriving, have they left their women at home to face the enemy, starvation or persecution. Says it all about some of those arriving here.

Maybe an open invitation to all Americans to travel here as immigrants and use our NHS, trust me if they could they would.

As for compassion about those trying to better themselves, why can't they do it in their own country.

I have no issue of who comes into the UK or from where, but it must be legally. If not then return them, either to country of origin or Rwanda if they don't disclose where they came from. Does anyone here think you could just arrive in someone else's country illegally and not get into trouble. About time this country stopped being a soft touch.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

It has been mentioned that this is about getting them over the channel safely, they are coming over regardless.

If we take the gangs that coerce these people out of the loop, we could actually see a down turn as they are not being promised the world on a stick for the £2000 they are paying to cross.

Surely the time has come to take positive action, in removing the gangs and being human and not sitting back waiting for someone to drown, by giving them safe passage.

They could be processed as they would be when arriving by small boat, only this way they have paid legitimately to cross safely.

The only difference between what I have suggested and what happens now, is migrants are treated as humans and not left to risk their lives at the hands of gangs.

How many and for how long?

The same as today... You are a smart guy, what is bothering you?"

Opening of the floodgates bothers me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

". About time this country stopped being a soft touch. "

You want the country to have an even more brutal, inhuman policy toward immigrants?

I can see the Tories going for this, especially as it's they best distraction/misdirection tactic.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

It has been mentioned that this is about getting them over the channel safely, they are coming over regardless.

If we take the gangs that coerce these people out of the loop, we could actually see a down turn as they are not being promised the world on a stick for the £2000 they are paying to cross.

Surely the time has come to take positive action, in removing the gangs and being human and not sitting back waiting for someone to drown, by giving them safe passage.

They could be processed as they would be when arriving by small boat, only this way they have paid legitimately to cross safely.

The only difference between what I have suggested and what happens now, is migrants are treated as humans and not left to risk their lives at the hands of gangs.

How many and for how long?

The same as today... You are a smart guy, what is bothering you?

Opening of the floodgates bothers me."

Then there's nothing to worry about, because the "floodgates" aren't open.

Sound.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66 OP Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

It has been mentioned that this is about getting them over the channel safely, they are coming over regardless.

If we take the gangs that coerce these people out of the loop, we could actually see a down turn as they are not being promised the world on a stick for the £2000 they are paying to cross.

Surely the time has come to take positive action, in removing the gangs and being human and not sitting back waiting for someone to drown, by giving them safe passage.

They could be processed as they would be when arriving by small boat, only this way they have paid legitimately to cross safely.

The only difference between what I have suggested and what happens now, is migrants are treated as humans and not left to risk their lives at the hands of gangs.

How many and for how long?

The same as today... You are a smart guy, what is bothering you?

Opening of the floodgates bothers me."

The gates are not opening any wider, they could actually close a little when they realise the UK is not all the gangs make it out to be.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

It has been mentioned that this is about getting them over the channel safely, they are coming over regardless.

If we take the gangs that coerce these people out of the loop, we could actually see a down turn as they are not being promised the world on a stick for the £2000 they are paying to cross.

Surely the time has come to take positive action, in removing the gangs and being human and not sitting back waiting for someone to drown, by giving them safe passage.

They could be processed as they would be when arriving by small boat, only this way they have paid legitimately to cross safely.

The only difference between what I have suggested and what happens now, is migrants are treated as humans and not left to risk their lives at the hands of gangs.

How many and for how long?

The same as today... You are a smart guy, what is bothering you?

Opening of the floodgates bothers me.

The gates are not opening any wider, they could actually close a little when they realise the UK is not all the gangs make it out to be.

it would help if the far-righty dreamers publically admitted that britain is shite and other countries are better .... that would put them off comming here then

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

It has been mentioned that this is about getting them over the channel safely, they are coming over regardless.

If we take the gangs that coerce these people out of the loop, we could actually see a down turn as they are not being promised the world on a stick for the £2000 they are paying to cross.

Surely the time has come to take positive action, in removing the gangs and being human and not sitting back waiting for someone to drown, by giving them safe passage.

They could be processed as they would be when arriving by small boat, only this way they have paid legitimately to cross safely.

The only difference between what I have suggested and what happens now, is migrants are treated as humans and not left to risk their lives at the hands of gangs.

How many and for how long?

The same as today... You are a smart guy, what is bothering you?

Opening of the floodgates bothers me.

Then there's nothing to worry about, because the "floodgates" aren't open.

Sound."

Tens of thousands in temporary accommodation. No idea how many more already in Europe. Floodgates could easily open.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

It has been mentioned that this is about getting them over the channel safely, they are coming over regardless.

If we take the gangs that coerce these people out of the loop, we could actually see a down turn as they are not being promised the world on a stick for the £2000 they are paying to cross.

Surely the time has come to take positive action, in removing the gangs and being human and not sitting back waiting for someone to drown, by giving them safe passage.

They could be processed as they would be when arriving by small boat, only this way they have paid legitimately to cross safely.

The only difference between what I have suggested and what happens now, is migrants are treated as humans and not left to risk their lives at the hands of gangs.

How many and for how long?

The same as today... You are a smart guy, what is bothering you?

Opening of the floodgates bothers me.

Then there's nothing to worry about, because the "floodgates" aren't open.

Sound.

Tens of thousands in temporary accommodation. No idea how many more already in Europe. Floodgates could easily open. "

But they're not. No need to worry about a few lads in a small boat.

Maybe take a look at what the government is doing to the country while you have a break from worrying about foreigners.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

It has been mentioned that this is about getting them over the channel safely, they are coming over regardless.

If we take the gangs that coerce these people out of the loop, we could actually see a down turn as they are not being promised the world on a stick for the £2000 they are paying to cross.

Surely the time has come to take positive action, in removing the gangs and being human and not sitting back waiting for someone to drown, by giving them safe passage.

They could be processed as they would be when arriving by small boat, only this way they have paid legitimately to cross safely.

The only difference between what I have suggested and what happens now, is migrants are treated as humans and not left to risk their lives at the hands of gangs.

How many and for how long?

The same as today... You are a smart guy, what is bothering you?

Opening of the floodgates bothers me.

Then there's nothing to worry about, because the "floodgates" aren't open.

Sound.

Tens of thousands in temporary accommodation. No idea how many more already in Europe. Floodgates could easily open. "

Anything to back that up, or is it just your "expertise"?

I mean most your data seems to come from the univeristy of Facebook

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

It has been mentioned that this is about getting them over the channel safely, they are coming over regardless.

If we take the gangs that coerce these people out of the loop, we could actually see a down turn as they are not being promised the world on a stick for the £2000 they are paying to cross.

Surely the time has come to take positive action, in removing the gangs and being human and not sitting back waiting for someone to drown, by giving them safe passage.

They could be processed as they would be when arriving by small boat, only this way they have paid legitimately to cross safely.

The only difference between what I have suggested and what happens now, is migrants are treated as humans and not left to risk their lives at the hands of gangs.

How many and for how long?

The same as today... You are a smart guy, what is bothering you?

Opening of the floodgates bothers me.

Then there's nothing to worry about, because the "floodgates" aren't open.

Sound.

Tens of thousands in temporary accommodation. No idea how many more already in Europe. Floodgates could easily open.

But they're not. No need to worry about a few lads in a small boat.

Maybe take a look at what the government is doing to the country while you have a break from worrying about foreigners. "

I’m not worried about foreigners. I am worried about an open door policy where we welcome anyone that wants to come. With no idea if they are mad bad or lovely. History, shows what happens when there is an imbalance of young males with little to do and little hope.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"I’m not worried about foreigners. I am worried about an open door policy where we welcome anyone that wants to come. With no idea if they are mad bad or lovely. History, shows what happens when there is an imbalance of young males with little to do and little hope. "

Alarmism.. gotya!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *AFKA HovisMan over a year ago

Sindon Swingdon Swindon

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

It has been mentioned that this is about getting them over the channel safely, they are coming over regardless.

If we take the gangs that coerce these people out of the loop, we could actually see a down turn as they are not being promised the world on a stick for the £2000 they are paying to cross.

Surely the time has come to take positive action, in removing the gangs and being human and not sitting back waiting for someone to drown, by giving them safe passage.

They could be processed as they would be when arriving by small boat, only this way they have paid legitimately to cross safely.

The only difference between what I have suggested and what happens now, is migrants are treated as humans and not left to risk their lives at the hands of gangs.

How many and for how long?

The same as today... You are a smart guy, what is bothering you?

Opening of the floodgates bothers me.

Then there's nothing to worry about, because the "floodgates" aren't open.

Sound.

Tens of thousands in temporary accommodation. No idea how many more already in Europe. Floodgates could easily open.

But they're not. No need to worry about a few lads in a small boat.

Maybe take a look at what the government is doing to the country while you have a break from worrying about foreigners.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

It has been mentioned that this is about getting them over the channel safely, they are coming over regardless.

If we take the gangs that coerce these people out of the loop, we could actually see a down turn as they are not being promised the world on a stick for the £2000 they are paying to cross.

Surely the time has come to take positive action, in removing the gangs and being human and not sitting back waiting for someone to drown, by giving them safe passage.

They could be processed as they would be when arriving by small boat, only this way they have paid legitimately to cross safely.

The only difference between what I have suggested and what happens now, is migrants are treated as humans and not left to risk their lives at the hands of gangs.

How many and for how long?

The same as today... You are a smart guy, what is bothering you?

Opening of the floodgates bothers me.

Then there's nothing to worry about, because the "floodgates" aren't open.

Sound.

Tens of thousands in temporary accommodation. No idea how many more already in Europe. Floodgates could easily open.

Anything to back that up, or is it just your "expertise"?

I mean most your data seems to come from the univeristy of Facebook"

You make some incredible assumptions. I don’t use Facebook. Let’s call it ‘ common sense’. An educated guess perhaps? Do you think if we went over and took everyone from the camps around Calais that that would be the end of what has been going on for best part of 30 years? Young men finding illegal ways to get here. Lorries for decades until that became almost impossible, recently small boats of course.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

It has been mentioned that this is about getting them over the channel safely, they are coming over regardless.

If we take the gangs that coerce these people out of the loop, we could actually see a down turn as they are not being promised the world on a stick for the £2000 they are paying to cross.

Surely the time has come to take positive action, in removing the gangs and being human and not sitting back waiting for someone to drown, by giving them safe passage.

They could be processed as they would be when arriving by small boat, only this way they have paid legitimately to cross safely.

The only difference between what I have suggested and what happens now, is migrants are treated as humans and not left to risk their lives at the hands of gangs.

How many and for how long?

The same as today... You are a smart guy, what is bothering you?

Opening of the floodgates bothers me.

Then there's nothing to worry about, because the "floodgates" aren't open.

Sound.

Tens of thousands in temporary accommodation. No idea how many more already in Europe. Floodgates could easily open.

But they're not. No need to worry about a few lads in a small boat.

Maybe take a look at what the government is doing to the country while you have a break from worrying about foreigners.

Yes - all gagging to get started helping to save the NHS and end the shortage of GPs

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

It has been mentioned that this is about getting them over the channel safely, they are coming over regardless.

If we take the gangs that coerce these people out of the loop, we could actually see a down turn as they are not being promised the world on a stick for the £2000 they are paying to cross.

Surely the time has come to take positive action, in removing the gangs and being human and not sitting back waiting for someone to drown, by giving them safe passage.

They could be processed as they would be when arriving by small boat, only this way they have paid legitimately to cross safely.

The only difference between what I have suggested and what happens now, is migrants are treated as humans and not left to risk their lives at the hands of gangs.

How many and for how long?

The same as today... You are a smart guy, what is bothering you?

Opening of the floodgates bothers me.

Then there's nothing to worry about, because the "floodgates" aren't open.

Sound.

Tens of thousands in temporary accommodation. No idea how many more already in Europe. Floodgates could easily open.

But they're not. No need to worry about a few lads in a small boat.

Maybe take a look at what the government is doing to the country while you have a break from worrying about foreigners.

We don't have an open door policy. So nothing to worry about then.

And you do post an awful lot of stuff worrying about foreigners for someone who doesn't worry about foreigners.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

Alarmism.. gotya!"
Let’s call it ‘realism’.

So you think I’m wrong and that clearing the Calais camps would be the end of it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

It has been mentioned that this is about getting them over the channel safely, they are coming over regardless.

If we take the gangs that coerce these people out of the loop, we could actually see a down turn as they are not being promised the world on a stick for the £2000 they are paying to cross.

Surely the time has come to take positive action, in removing the gangs and being human and not sitting back waiting for someone to drown, by giving them safe passage.

They could be processed as they would be when arriving by small boat, only this way they have paid legitimately to cross safely.

The only difference between what I have suggested and what happens now, is migrants are treated as humans and not left to risk their lives at the hands of gangs.

How many and for how long?

The same as today... You are a smart guy, what is bothering you?

Opening of the floodgates bothers me.

Then there's nothing to worry about, because the "floodgates" aren't open.

Sound.

Tens of thousands in temporary accommodation. No idea how many more already in Europe. Floodgates could easily open.

But they're not. No need to worry about a few lads in a small boat.

Maybe take a look at what the government is doing to the country while you have a break from worrying about foreigners.

We don't have an open door policy. So nothing to worry about then.

And you do post an awful lot of stuff worrying about foreigners for someone who doesn't worry about foreigners."

I was responding to the OP

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

common sense .... that tired meaningless old phrase trotted out by sanctimonious far-righties when they have run out of arguments during a debate

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"common sense .... that tired meaningless old phrase trotted out by sanctimonious far-righties when they have run out of arguments during a debate

I’m prepared to be proven wrong. I’m far from a sanctimonious far righty if you don’t mind.

So you think if the Calais camps were cleared that they wouldn’t start again?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

It has been mentioned that this is about getting them over the channel safely, they are coming over regardless.

If we take the gangs that coerce these people out of the loop, we could actually see a down turn as they are not being promised the world on a stick for the £2000 they are paying to cross.

Surely the time has come to take positive action, in removing the gangs and being human and not sitting back waiting for someone to drown, by giving them safe passage.

They could be processed as they would be when arriving by small boat, only this way they have paid legitimately to cross safely.

The only difference between what I have suggested and what happens now, is migrants are treated as humans and not left to risk their lives at the hands of gangs.

How many and for how long?

The same as today... You are a smart guy, what is bothering you?

Opening of the floodgates bothers me.

Then there's nothing to worry about, because the "floodgates" aren't open.

Sound.

Tens of thousands in temporary accommodation. No idea how many more already in Europe. Floodgates could easily open.

But they're not. No need to worry about a few lads in a small boat.

Maybe take a look at what the government is doing to the country while you have a break from worrying about foreigners.

We don't have an open door policy. So nothing to worry about then.

And you do post an awful lot of stuff worrying about foreigners for someone who doesn't worry about foreigners.

I was responding to the OP"

I was responding to you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

"So you think if the Calais camps were cleared that they wouldn’t start again? "

i don't think anything ... i couldn't care less who comes here

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

It has been mentioned that this is about getting them over the channel safely, they are coming over regardless.

If we take the gangs that coerce these people out of the loop, we could actually see a down turn as they are not being promised the world on a stick for the £2000 they are paying to cross.

Surely the time has come to take positive action, in removing the gangs and being human and not sitting back waiting for someone to drown, by giving them safe passage.

They could be processed as they would be when arriving by small boat, only this way they have paid legitimately to cross safely.

The only difference between what I have suggested and what happens now, is migrants are treated as humans and not left to risk their lives at the hands of gangs.

How many and for how long?

The same as today... You are a smart guy, what is bothering you?

Opening of the floodgates bothers me.

Then there's nothing to worry about, because the "floodgates" aren't open.

Sound.

Tens of thousands in temporary accommodation. No idea how many more already in Europe. Floodgates could easily open.

But they're not. No need to worry about a few lads in a small boat.

Maybe take a look at what the government is doing to the country while you have a break from worrying about foreigners.

We don't have an open door policy. So nothing to worry about then.

And you do post an awful lot of stuff worrying about foreigners for someone who doesn't worry about foreigners.

I was responding to the OP

I was responding to you. "

The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"So you think if the Calais camps were cleared that they wouldn’t start again?

i don't think anything ... i couldn't care less who comes here

Then don’t stick your nose in.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *AFKA HovisMan over a year ago

Sindon Swingdon Swindon

Alarmism.. gotya! Let’s call it ‘realism’.

So you think I’m wrong and that clearing the Calais camps would be the end of it? "
there's a lot of middle ground between "more than today" and "foodgates are opened".

I'd be looking at how many can we take, and what would need to happen to take more. It's not as though we take a fair share versus the rest of the world or even Europe.

But I do see this as being a global issue that needs to be managed across borders. And imo of we want to be Global Britain we need to do this across a number of measures, not just trade.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

"So you think if the Calais camps were cleared that they wouldn’t start again?

i don't think anything ... i couldn't care less who comes here

Then don’t stick your nose in."

free forum chap ... i'll write what i want, when i want, within the rules .... despite the far-righty cancel culture warriors telling me otherwise

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

Alarmism.. gotya! Let’s call it ‘realism’.

So you think I’m wrong and that clearing the Calais camps would be the end of it? there's a lot of middle ground between "more than today" and "foodgates are opened".

I'd be looking at how many can we take, and what would need to happen to take more. It's not as though we take a fair share versus the rest of the world or even Europe.

But I do see this as being a global issue that needs to be managed across borders. And imo of we want to be Global Britain we need to do this across a number of measures, not just trade. "

water poverty is the biggest driving factor in global migration today.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

guiness punch

pace bowling

all inclusive swingers holidays

£93 million into the economy from a fancy dress event in west london

Attended by 2 million people

reggae reggae sauce flavoured peanuts

12" remixes

subwoofers

alfresco dominoes

Drugs? Knife and gun crime perhaps?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

[Removed by poster at 25/07/22 20:54:51]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

guiness punch

pace bowling

all inclusive swingers holidays

£93 million into the economy from a fancy dress event in west london

Attended by 2 million people

reggae reggae sauce flavoured peanuts

12" remixes

subwoofers

alfresco dominoes

Drugs? Knife and gun crime perhaps? "

no that's an english cultural problem

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

guiness punch

pace bowling

all inclusive swingers holidays

£93 million into the economy from a fancy dress event in west london

Attended by 2 million people

reggae reggae sauce flavoured peanuts

12" remixes

subwoofers

alfresco dominoes

Drugs? Knife and gun crime perhaps?

no that's an english cultural problem

Right? Let’s blame the nasty English then.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

It has been mentioned that this is about getting them over the channel safely, they are coming over regardless.

If we take the gangs that coerce these people out of the loop, we could actually see a down turn as they are not being promised the world on a stick for the £2000 they are paying to cross.

Surely the time has come to take positive action, in removing the gangs and being human and not sitting back waiting for someone to drown, by giving them safe passage.

They could be processed as they would be when arriving by small boat, only this way they have paid legitimately to cross safely.

The only difference between what I have suggested and what happens now, is migrants are treated as humans and not left to risk their lives at the hands of gangs.

How many and for how long?

The same as today... You are a smart guy, what is bothering you?

Opening of the floodgates bothers me.

Then there's nothing to worry about, because the "floodgates" aren't open.

Sound.

Tens of thousands in temporary accommodation. No idea how many more already in Europe. Floodgates could easily open.

But they're not. No need to worry about a few lads in a small boat.

Maybe take a look at what the government is doing to the country while you have a break from worrying about foreigners.

We don't have an open door policy. So nothing to worry about then.

And you do post an awful lot of stuff worrying about foreigners for someone who doesn't worry about foreigners.

I was responding to the OP

I was responding to you.

The OP was proposing open house. Keep up."

No he wasn't

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

guiness punch

pace bowling

all inclusive swingers holidays

£93 million into the economy from a fancy dress event in west london

Attended by 2 million people

reggae reggae sauce flavoured peanuts

12" remixes

subwoofers

alfresco dominoes

Drugs? Knife and gun crime perhaps?

no that's an english cultural problem

Right? Let’s blame the nasty English then. "

We can either A. Blame the people responsible. Or B. Blame some brown people.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

[Removed by poster at 25/07/22 21:35:28]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up."

I thought the OP was suggesting we don't let as many human beings die trying to get here...

Obviously I was wrong.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

It has been mentioned that this is about getting them over the channel safely, they are coming over regardless.

If we take the gangs that coerce these people out of the loop, we could actually see a down turn as they are not being promised the world on a stick for the £2000 they are paying to cross.

Surely the time has come to take positive action, in removing the gangs and being human and not sitting back waiting for someone to drown, by giving them safe passage.

They could be processed as they would be when arriving by small boat, only this way they have paid legitimately to cross safely.

The only difference between what I have suggested and what happens now, is migrants are treated as humans and not left to risk their lives at the hands of gangs.

How many and for how long?

The same as today... You are a smart guy, what is bothering you?

Opening of the floodgates bothers me.

Then there's nothing to worry about, because the "floodgates" aren't open.

Sound.

Tens of thousands in temporary accommodation. No idea how many more already in Europe. Floodgates could easily open.

But they're not. No need to worry about a few lads in a small boat.

Maybe take a look at what the government is doing to the country while you have a break from worrying about foreigners.

We don't have an open door policy. So nothing to worry about then.

And you do post an awful lot of stuff worrying about foreigners for someone who doesn't worry about foreigners.

I was responding to the OP

I was responding to you.

The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No he wasn't "

What restrictions then? Other than financial.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

""The OP was proposing open house. Keep up."

I thought the OP was suggesting we don't let as many human beings die trying to get here...

Obviously I was wrong."

Obviously.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

guiness punch

pace bowling

all inclusive swingers holidays

£93 million into the economy from a fancy dress event in west london

Attended by 2 million people

reggae reggae sauce flavoured peanuts

12" remixes

subwoofers

alfresco dominoes

Drugs? Knife and gun crime perhaps?

no that's an english cultural problem

Right? Let’s blame the nasty English then.

We can either A. Blame the people responsible. Or B. Blame some brown people.

Let’s go for those responsible if we are in the blame game.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The OP has a point about taking measures on saving lives but there are legal routes into the UK. If these people have a legit claim to come to our shores as opposed to staying in Northern France, maybe we need to invest in a processing centre in Normandy. I want the deaths to stop, I want the illegal entries to stop.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

guiness punch

pace bowling

all inclusive swingers holidays

£93 million into the economy from a fancy dress event in west london

Attended by 2 million people

reggae reggae sauce flavoured peanuts

12" remixes

subwoofers

alfresco dominoes

Drugs? Knife and gun crime perhaps?

no that's an english cultural problem

Right? Let’s blame the nasty English then.

We can either A. Blame the people responsible. Or B. Blame some brown people.

Let’s go for those responsible if we are in the blame game."

the english

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

guiness punch

pace bowling

all inclusive swingers holidays

£93 million into the economy from a fancy dress event in west london

Attended by 2 million people

reggae reggae sauce flavoured peanuts

12" remixes

subwoofers

alfresco dominoes

Drugs? Knife and gun crime perhaps?

no that's an english cultural problem

Right? Let’s blame the nasty English then.

We can either A. Blame the people responsible. Or B. Blame some brown people.

Let’s go for those responsible if we are in the blame game.

the english

Based on what?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

It has been mentioned that this is about getting them over the channel safely, they are coming over regardless.

If we take the gangs that coerce these people out of the loop, we could actually see a down turn as they are not being promised the world on a stick for the £2000 they are paying to cross.

Surely the time has come to take positive action, in removing the gangs and being human and not sitting back waiting for someone to drown, by giving them safe passage.

They could be processed as they would be when arriving by small boat, only this way they have paid legitimately to cross safely.

The only difference between what I have suggested and what happens now, is migrants are treated as humans and not left to risk their lives at the hands of gangs.

How many and for how long?

The same as today... You are a smart guy, what is bothering you?

Opening of the floodgates bothers me.

Then there's nothing to worry about, because the "floodgates" aren't open.

Sound.

Tens of thousands in temporary accommodation. No idea how many more already in Europe. Floodgates could easily open.

But they're not. No need to worry about a few lads in a small boat.

Maybe take a look at what the government is doing to the country while you have a break from worrying about foreigners.

We don't have an open door policy. So nothing to worry about then.

And you do post an awful lot of stuff worrying about foreigners for someone who doesn't worry about foreigners.

I was responding to the OP

I was responding to you.

The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No he wasn't

What restrictions then? Other than financial. "

What?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

guiness punch

pace bowling

all inclusive swingers holidays

£93 million into the economy from a fancy dress event in west london

Attended by 2 million people

reggae reggae sauce flavoured peanuts

12" remixes

subwoofers

alfresco dominoes

Drugs? Knife and gun crime perhaps?

no that's an english cultural problem

Right? Let’s blame the nasty English then.

We can either A. Blame the people responsible. Or B. Blame some brown people.

Let’s go for those responsible if we are in the blame game.

the english

Based on what? "

Based on the people who are to blame being English.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

guiness punch

pace bowling

all inclusive swingers holidays

£93 million into the economy from a fancy dress event in west london

Attended by 2 million people

reggae reggae sauce flavoured peanuts

12" remixes

subwoofers

alfresco dominoes

Drugs? Knife and gun crime perhaps?

no that's an english cultural problem

Right? Let’s blame the nasty English then.

We can either A. Blame the people responsible. Or B. Blame some brown people.

Let’s go for those responsible if we are in the blame game.

the english

Based on what? "

the perps being english

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

guiness punch

pace bowling

all inclusive swingers holidays

£93 million into the economy from a fancy dress event in west london

Attended by 2 million people

reggae reggae sauce flavoured peanuts

12" remixes

subwoofers

alfresco dominoes

Drugs? Knife and gun crime perhaps?

no that's an english cultural problem

Right? Let’s blame the nasty English then.

We can either A. Blame the people responsible. Or B. Blame some brown people.

Let’s go for those responsible if we are in the blame game.

the english

Based on what? "

We’ve been responsible for knife crime , drug crime and terrorism(the English), we’ve also imported knife crime , drug crime and terrorism. However, for the sake of keeping the peace I will concede we need to be extinguished as a race. I’ve a feeling that would be an agreeable outcome for some.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

guiness punch

pace bowling

all inclusive swingers holidays

£93 million into the economy from a fancy dress event in west london

Attended by 2 million people

reggae reggae sauce flavoured peanuts

12" remixes

subwoofers

alfresco dominoes

Drugs? Knife and gun crime perhaps?

no that's an english cultural problem

Right? Let’s blame the nasty English then.

We can either A. Blame the people responsible. Or B. Blame some brown people.

Let’s go for those responsible if we are in the blame game.

the english

Based on what?

the perps being english

I’m starting to think that perhaps you are not very bright. Or just having a laugh perhaps?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iss SinWoman over a year ago

portchester

People are still coming over via lorries and paying £10k for the privilege. There’s no end to it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"People are still coming over via lorries and paying £10k for the privilege. There’s no end to it "

Wow! Where do they get 10k from?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" What benefits have we had from immigrants from the Caribbean for example?

jerk chicken

Music

Art

Food

guiness punch

pace bowling

all inclusive swingers holidays

£93 million into the economy from a fancy dress event in west london

Attended by 2 million people

reggae reggae sauce flavoured peanuts

12" remixes

subwoofers

alfresco dominoes

Drugs? Knife and gun crime perhaps?

no that's an english cultural problem

Right? Let’s blame the nasty English then. "

Britain has had gang and knife culture since the scuttlers in Manchester in the 19th century. Maybe even earlier.

So you blaming it has something that started when people from the carribean arrived is wrong

Until about 15 years ago, Glasgow was the knife violence capital of Europe. There wasn't many Caribbean people committing those.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eroy1000Man over a year ago

milton keynes

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

At first reading that did not ring true or at least not seen it on the main news. However it does appear to be the case. Irish times say it's a 600% increase and the Irish PM is blaming the Rwanda scheme. Surely this is good news for Ireland so he should be happy

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"People are still coming over via lorries and paying £10k for the privilege. There’s no end to it

Wow! Where do they get 10k from? "

The bank of bullshit.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *AFKA HovisMan over a year ago

Sindon Swingdon Swindon

"People are still coming over via lorries and paying £10k for the privilege. There’s no end to it

Wow! Where do they get 10k from? "
a life term of servitude I suspect (if true)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66 OP Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

It has been mentioned that this is about getting them over the channel safely, they are coming over regardless.

If we take the gangs that coerce these people out of the loop, we could actually see a down turn as they are not being promised the world on a stick for the £2000 they are paying to cross.

Surely the time has come to take positive action, in removing the gangs and being human and not sitting back waiting for someone to drown, by giving them safe passage.

They could be processed as they would be when arriving by small boat, only this way they have paid legitimately to cross safely.

The only difference between what I have suggested and what happens now, is migrants are treated as humans and not left to risk their lives at the hands of gangs.

How many and for how long?

The same as today... You are a smart guy, what is bothering you?

Opening of the floodgates bothers me.

Then there's nothing to worry about, because the "floodgates" aren't open.

Sound.

Tens of thousands in temporary accommodation. No idea how many more already in Europe. Floodgates could easily open.

But they're not. No need to worry about a few lads in a small boat.

Maybe take a look at what the government is doing to the country while you have a break from worrying about foreigners.

We don't have an open door policy. So nothing to worry about then.

And you do post an awful lot of stuff worrying about foreigners for someone who doesn't worry about foreigners.

I was responding to the OP

I was responding to you.

The OP was proposing open house. Keep up."

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"We could process them in France.

What do you think their next move will be, should they get rejected?

You want the French to control our borders?

Why would the French be involved? They attend a UK asylum centre in France, and apply for Refugee status.

And if it is on French soil the French are very much involved ,

It's what people have been calling for. Asylum centres based overseas.

The question was, what is their probable next move should they get refused their claim?

Why are you asking a hypothetical question ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

It has been mentioned that this is about getting them over the channel safely, they are coming over regardless.

If we take the gangs that coerce these people out of the loop, we could actually see a down turn as they are not being promised the world on a stick for the £2000 they are paying to cross.

Surely the time has come to take positive action, in removing the gangs and being human and not sitting back waiting for someone to drown, by giving them safe passage.

They could be processed as they would be when arriving by small boat, only this way they have paid legitimately to cross safely.

The only difference between what I have suggested and what happens now, is migrants are treated as humans and not left to risk their lives at the hands of gangs.

How many and for how long?

The same as today... You are a smart guy, what is bothering you?

Opening of the floodgates bothers me.

Then there's nothing to worry about, because the "floodgates" aren't open.

Sound.

Tens of thousands in temporary accommodation. No idea how many more already in Europe. Floodgates could easily open.

But they're not. No need to worry about a few lads in a small boat.

Maybe take a look at what the government is doing to the country while you have a break from worrying about foreigners.

We don't have an open door policy. So nothing to worry about then.

And you do post an awful lot of stuff worrying about foreigners for someone who doesn't worry about foreigners.

I was responding to the OP

I was responding to you.

The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed."

You suggested a daily boat to bring migrants over. Would there be a limit? What happens to those over you limit? If no limit - that’s open house.Every migrant would claim to be an asylum seeker, they would say whatever country they think suits them best. Shock horror - some even lie about their age!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"We could process them in France.

What do you think their next move will be, should they get rejected?

You want the French to control our borders?

Why would the French be involved? They attend a UK asylum centre in France, and apply for Refugee status.

And if it is on French soil the French are very much involved ,

It's what people have been calling for. Asylum centres based overseas.

The question was, what is their probable next move should they get refused their claim?

Why are you asking a hypothetical question ? "
it’s a rhetorical question

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"We could process them in France.

What do you think their next move will be, should they get rejected?

You want the French to control our borders?

Why would the French be involved? They attend a UK asylum centre in France, and apply for Refugee status.

And if it is on French soil the French are very much involved ,

It's what people have been calling for. Asylum centres based overseas.

The question was, what is their probable next move should they get refused their claim?

Why are you asking a hypothetical question ? it’s a rhetorical question "

It is hypothetical, it is based on an idea . I can try and answer it though, they will ‘probably’ be sent back to their country of origin

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

It has been mentioned that this is about getting them over the channel safely, they are coming over regardless.

If we take the gangs that coerce these people out of the loop, we could actually see a down turn as they are not being promised the world on a stick for the £2000 they are paying to cross.

Surely the time has come to take positive action, in removing the gangs and being human and not sitting back waiting for someone to drown, by giving them safe passage.

They could be processed as they would be when arriving by small boat, only this way they have paid legitimately to cross safely.

The only difference between what I have suggested and what happens now, is migrants are treated as humans and not left to risk their lives at the hands of gangs.

How many and for how long?

The same as today... You are a smart guy, what is bothering you?

Opening of the floodgates bothers me.

Then there's nothing to worry about, because the "floodgates" aren't open.

Sound.

Tens of thousands in temporary accommodation. No idea how many more already in Europe. Floodgates could easily open.

But they're not. No need to worry about a few lads in a small boat.

Maybe take a look at what the government is doing to the country while you have a break from worrying about foreigners.

We don't have an open door policy. So nothing to worry about then.

And you do post an awful lot of stuff worrying about foreigners for someone who doesn't worry about foreigners.

I was responding to the OP

I was responding to you.

The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

Migrants are legally allowed to ‘say whatever country they think suits them best’ , what has a persons age got to do with anything ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"Every migrant would claim to be an asylum seeker, they would say whatever country they think suits them best. Shock horror - some even lie about their age!"

"Migrants are legally allowed to ‘say whatever country they think suits them best’"

I think he meant "migrants would destroy their ID and say that they came from whichever country is most likely to see them accepted". They are definitely not legally allowed to do that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"I would like to think that everyone would agree that migrants crossing the channel in small boats after paying up to £2000 to gang members, is life threatening and needs to be stopped.

Is the solution easier than all the hot air that flies around and crazy ideas like sending anyone who makes it here to Rwanda?

How many are you prepared to house?

It has been mentioned that this is about getting them over the channel safely, they are coming over regardless.

If we take the gangs that coerce these people out of the loop, we could actually see a down turn as they are not being promised the world on a stick for the £2000 they are paying to cross.

Surely the time has come to take positive action, in removing the gangs and being human and not sitting back waiting for someone to drown, by giving them safe passage.

They could be processed as they would be when arriving by small boat, only this way they have paid legitimately to cross safely.

The only difference between what I have suggested and what happens now, is migrants are treated as humans and not left to risk their lives at the hands of gangs.

How many and for how long?

The same as today... You are a smart guy, what is bothering you?

Opening of the floodgates bothers me.

Then there's nothing to worry about, because the "floodgates" aren't open.

Sound.

Tens of thousands in temporary accommodation. No idea how many more already in Europe. Floodgates could easily open.

But they're not. No need to worry about a few lads in a small boat.

Maybe take a look at what the government is doing to the country while you have a break from worrying about foreigners.

We don't have an open door policy. So nothing to worry about then.

And you do post an awful lot of stuff worrying about foreigners for someone who doesn't worry about foreigners.

I was responding to the OP

I was responding to you.

The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

Migrants are legally allowed to ‘say whatever country they think suits them best’ , what has a persons age got to do with anything ? "

Legally lie? Claims to be 17 so a ‘child’

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"We could process them in France.

What do you think their next move will be, should they get rejected?

You want the French to control our borders?

Why would the French be involved? They attend a UK asylum centre in France, and apply for Refugee status.

And if it is on French soil the French are very much involved ,

It's what people have been calling for. Asylum centres based overseas.

The question was, what is their probable next move should they get refused their claim?

Why are you asking a hypothetical question ? it’s a rhetorical question

It is hypothetical, it is based on an idea . I can try and answer it though, they will ‘probably’ be sent back to their country of origin

It’s rhetorical because we know the answer. They all stay

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Every migrant would claim to be an asylum seeker, they would say whatever country they think suits them best. Shock horror - some even lie about their age!

Migrants are legally allowed to ‘say whatever country they think suits them best’

I think he meant "migrants would destroy their ID and say that they came from whichever country is most likely to see them accepted". They are definitely not legally allowed to do that."

Ah yes, my mistake , not sure which countries would they pretend to be from in this situation ,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"We could process them in France.

What do you think their next move will be, should they get rejected?

You want the French to control our borders?

Why would the French be involved? They attend a UK asylum centre in France, and apply for Refugee status.

And if it is on French soil the French are very much involved ,

It's what people have been calling for. Asylum centres based overseas.

The question was, what is their probable next move should they get refused their claim?

Why are you asking a hypothetical question ? it’s a rhetorical question

It is hypothetical, it is based on an idea . I can try and answer it though, they will ‘probably’ be sent back to their country of origin

It’s rhetorical because we know the answer. They all stay"

They stay in France?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"We could process them in France.

What do you think their next move will be, should they get rejected?

You want the French to control our borders?

Why would the French be involved? They attend a UK asylum centre in France, and apply for Refugee status.

And if it is on French soil the French are very much involved ,

It's what people have been calling for. Asylum centres based overseas.

The question was, what is their probable next move should they get refused their claim?

Why are you asking a hypothetical question ? it’s a rhetorical question

It is hypothetical, it is based on an idea . I can try and answer it though, they will ‘probably’ be sent back to their country of origin

It’s rhetorical because we know the answer. They all stay

They stay in France? "

Not France, here. Little old UK

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"We could process them in France.

What do you think their next move will be, should they get rejected?

You want the French to control our borders?

Why would the French be involved? They attend a UK asylum centre in France, and apply for Refugee status.

And if it is on French soil the French are very much involved ,

It's what people have been calling for. Asylum centres based overseas.

The question was, what is their probable next move should they get refused their claim?

Why are you asking a hypothetical question ? it’s a rhetorical question

It is hypothetical, it is based on an idea . I can try and answer it though, they will ‘probably’ be sent back to their country of origin

It’s rhetorical because we know the answer. They all stay

They stay in France?

Not France, here. Little old UK"

The question was based on the migrants being processed in France ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osephSamuel90Man over a year ago

Bracknell

I agree with the OP. And to the people who asked where would we house them and how many would you take in etc, from how I've read it the OP isn't even suggesting we give all of them asylum, just process them, which could mean some of them being returned to their home country or last destination. The point is that these gangs will carry on exploiting people as long as the illegal crossing remains the only way to get here. So why not take away their power and just do the crossing for free and safely? Even if you're anti-immigration offering a free, safe and legal passage gives you more control of who is coming in and means they can be processed more efficiently

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66 OP Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

If that is correct, you are missing a few crucial points. More migrants stay in mainland Europe, they have no intention of coming to the UK. Secondly, those that do travel to cross the channel are doing so for various reasons, such as family here. However many of them have been fooled into believing the UK is the place to be, easier to get work, easier to enter and so on. Those people are sold a dream, and they pay for it, as I mentioned earlier around £2000.

If we take out the gangs by simply charging the migrant a fare that covers the cost of the journey, those gangs will no longer have an interest in selling the dream and will not influence these individuals in the country they set off from.

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66 OP Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"I agree with the OP. And to the people who asked where would we house them and how many would you take in etc, from how I've read it the OP isn't even suggesting we give all of them asylum, just process them, which could mean some of them being returned to their home country or last destination. The point is that these gangs will carry on exploiting people as long as the illegal crossing remains the only way to get here. So why not take away their power and just do the crossing for free and safely? Even if you're anti-immigration offering a free, safe and legal passage gives you more control of who is coming in and means they can be processed more efficiently"

Perfect summary, thank you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less."

That is a very good point,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMan over a year ago

Grantham

"We could process them in France.

What do you think their next move will be, should they get rejected?

You want the French to control our borders?

Why would the French be involved? They attend a UK asylum centre in France, and apply for Refugee status.

And if it is on French soil the French are very much involved ,

It's what people have been calling for. Asylum centres based overseas.

The question was, what is their probable next move should they get refused their claim?

Why are you asking a hypothetical question ? it’s a rhetorical question

It is hypothetical, it is based on an idea . I can try and answer it though, they will ‘probably’ be sent back to their country of origin

It’s rhetorical because we know the answer. They all stay

They stay in France?

Not France, here. Little old UK

The question was based on the migrants being processed in France ? "

They have three options, should any UK asylum centre based in France reject their claim.

1. Wander around Europe trying to find someone to accept their claim.

2. Return to their home country.

3. Try to gain access to the UK illegally.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osephSamuel90Man over a year ago

Bracknell

Perfect summary, thank you. "

Like you say as well, by giving them easy passage and realistic information about life in the UK it would probably actually decrease the numbers wanting to come here. Rather than giving the criminal gangs free reign to sell the UK as some sort of utopia where you get everything for free and 50k a year in benefits, and all you have to do to get there is pay them 2k. Basically turns the whole thing into a deadly game show or a task in the hunger games

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66 OP Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

Perfect summary, thank you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"We could process them in France.

What do you think their next move will be, should they get rejected?

You want the French to control our borders?

Why would the French be involved? They attend a UK asylum centre in France, and apply for Refugee status.

And if it is on French soil the French are very much involved ,

It's what people have been calling for. Asylum centres based overseas.

The question was, what is their probable next move should they get refused their claim?

Why are you asking a hypothetical question ? it’s a rhetorical question

It is hypothetical, it is based on an idea . I can try and answer it though, they will ‘probably’ be sent back to their country of origin

It’s rhetorical because we know the answer. They all stay

They stay in France?

Not France, here. Little old UK

The question was based on the migrants being processed in France ?

They have three options, should any UK asylum centre based in France reject their claim.

1. Wander around Europe trying to find someone to accept their claim.

2. Return to their home country.

3. Try to gain access to the UK illegally."

So what are the advantages of processing them in France?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"We could process them in France.

What do you think their next move will be, should they get rejected?

You want the French to control our borders?

Why would the French be involved? They attend a UK asylum centre in France, and apply for Refugee status.

And if it is on French soil the French are very much involved ,

It's what people have been calling for. Asylum centres based overseas.

The question was, what is their probable next move should they get refused their claim?

Why are you asking a hypothetical question ? it’s a rhetorical question

It is hypothetical, it is based on an idea . I can try and answer it though, they will ‘probably’ be sent back to their country of origin

It’s rhetorical because we know the answer. They all stay

They stay in France?

Not France, here. Little old UK

The question was based on the migrants being processed in France ? "

The OP stated he wanted to charter a daily boat to bring migrants to the UK. I assume unlimited numbers as everyone has avoided saying how many

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66 OP Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"We could process them in France.

What do you think their next move will be, should they get rejected?

You want the French to control our borders?

Why would the French be involved? They attend a UK asylum centre in France, and apply for Refugee status.

And if it is on French soil the French are very much involved ,

It's what people have been calling for. Asylum centres based overseas.

The question was, what is their probable next move should they get refused their claim?

Why are you asking a hypothetical question ? it’s a rhetorical question

It is hypothetical, it is based on an idea . I can try and answer it though, they will ‘probably’ be sent back to their country of origin

It’s rhetorical because we know the answer. They all stay

They stay in France?

Not France, here. Little old UK

The question was based on the migrants being processed in France ?

The OP stated he wanted to charter a daily boat to bring migrants to the UK. I assume unlimited numbers as everyone has avoided saying how many "

Go 9 up and read down for the answers

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less."

You are guessing as we have no idea how many would take the daily charter boat. What size boat? No total limit? Or, 1000, 10000, 100000 ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66 OP Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

[Removed by poster at 26/07/22 09:59:36]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66 OP Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less.

You are guessing as we have no idea how many would take the daily charter boat. What size boat? No total limit? Or, 1000, 10000, 100000 ? "

It is wont be the size of the boat, it would be the number of crossings.

I can see you are either not reading the replies and thinking about them, or you are trying to force a point about not knowing numbers.

You know I wont know numbers, will an educated guess on outcome be okay?

I would imagine a rush of people for the first few weeks as they have the sold dream in their heads, after that I honestly think numbers would decline to a point less than we have crossing today.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osephSamuel90Man over a year ago

Bracknell

"We could process them in France.

What do you think their next move will be, should they get rejected?

You want the French to control our borders?

Why would the French be involved? They attend a UK asylum centre in France, and apply for Refugee status.

And if it is on French soil the French are very much involved ,

It's what people have been calling for. Asylum centres based overseas.

The question was, what is their probable next move should they get refused their claim?

Why are you asking a hypothetical question ? it’s a rhetorical question

It is hypothetical, it is based on an idea . I can try and answer it though, they will ‘probably’ be sent back to their country of origin

It’s rhetorical because we know the answer. They all stay

They stay in France?

Not France, here. Little old UK

The question was based on the migrants being processed in France ?

The OP stated he wanted to charter a daily boat to bring migrants to the UK. I assume unlimited numbers as everyone has avoided saying how many "

According to official government statistics 35 people made the crossing yesterday. If you extrapolate that for the year that's 12,775. The average capacity of a channel crossing ferry is 2,000. You could probably fit a lot more as you could strip out all the shops and what not on board and just have basic facilities. You wouldn't even need to run 6 ferries a year to meet the needs

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less.

You are guessing as we have no idea how many would take the daily charter boat. What size boat? No total limit? Or, 1000, 10000, 100000 ? "

12,000 a year

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osephSamuel90Man over a year ago

Bracknell

"We could process them in France.

What do you think their next move will be, should they get rejected?

You want the French to control our borders?

Why would the French be involved? They attend a UK asylum centre in France, and apply for Refugee status.

And if it is on French soil the French are very much involved ,

It's what people have been calling for. Asylum centres based overseas.

The question was, what is their probable next move should they get refused their claim?

Why are you asking a hypothetical question ? it’s a rhetorical question

It is hypothetical, it is based on an idea . I can try and answer it though, they will ‘probably’ be sent back to their country of origin

It’s rhetorical because we know the answer. They all stay

They stay in France?

Not France, here. Little old UK

The question was based on the migrants being processed in France ?

The OP stated he wanted to charter a daily boat to bring migrants to the UK. I assume unlimited numbers as everyone has avoided saying how many

Think about the number of people that come through airports everyday and are processed by immigration. We're not flooded by illegal immigrants through our airports though, because immigration processes them, assesses whether they have the right documentation, and if they don't they're sent back to the country they came from. Regardless of the outcome and whether it's ethical to send them back, they at least get to travel safely in chartered planes, rather than having to pay smugglers thousands to attach themselves to hundreds of kites or make the journey in a Wright Brothers plane, which is basically what crossing the channel in a dingy is like

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66 OP Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"We could process them in France.

What do you think their next move will be, should they get rejected?

You want the French to control our borders?

Why would the French be involved? They attend a UK asylum centre in France, and apply for Refugee status.

And if it is on French soil the French are very much involved ,

It's what people have been calling for. Asylum centres based overseas.

The question was, what is their probable next move should they get refused their claim?

Why are you asking a hypothetical question ? it’s a rhetorical question

It is hypothetical, it is based on an idea . I can try and answer it though, they will ‘probably’ be sent back to their country of origin

It’s rhetorical because we know the answer. They all stay

They stay in France?

Not France, here. Little old UK

The question was based on the migrants being processed in France ?

The OP stated he wanted to charter a daily boat to bring migrants to the UK. I assume unlimited numbers as everyone has avoided saying how many

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

in 40 years of yachting i can't remember any crew member being asked to show a passport on entry to any harbour or marina. perhaps it depends on how affluent the incomming vessel appears as to wether people are bothered about those entering the country by are legal or not.

i think the op's plan is a commendable on a humanitarian level, however i think it would have little impact on small craft bringing people to britain as it is unworkable owing to the situation being impossible to police.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less.

You are guessing as we have no idea how many would take the daily charter boat. What size boat? No total limit? Or, 1000, 10000, 100000 ?

12,000 a year "

Sounds realistic . What happens to number 12,001 though?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less.

You are guessing as we have no idea how many would take the daily charter boat. What size boat? No total limit? Or, 1000, 10000, 100000 ?

12,000 a year

Sounds realistic . What happens to number 12,001 though?"

We provide another boat

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"We could process them in France.

What do you think their next move will be, should they get rejected?

You want the French to control our borders?

Why would the French be involved? They attend a UK asylum centre in France, and apply for Refugee status.

And if it is on French soil the French are very much involved ,

It's what people have been calling for. Asylum centres based overseas.

The question was, what is their probable next move should they get refused their claim?

Why are you asking a hypothetical question ? it’s a rhetorical question

It is hypothetical, it is based on an idea . I can try and answer it though, they will ‘probably’ be sent back to their country of origin

It’s rhetorical because we know the answer. They all stay

They stay in France?

Not France, here. Little old UK

The question was based on the migrants being processed in France ?

The OP stated he wanted to charter a daily boat to bring migrants to the UK. I assume unlimited numbers as everyone has avoided saying how many

We know it’s weather / sea conditions dependent and some days it’s hundreds, and that’s just the ones we know of.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less.

You are guessing as we have no idea how many would take the daily charter boat. What size boat? No total limit? Or, 1000, 10000, 100000 ?

12,000 a year

Sounds realistic . What happens to number 12,001 though?

We provide another boat

So it’s unlimited then.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less.

You are guessing as we have no idea how many would take the daily charter boat. What size boat? No total limit? Or, 1000, 10000, 100000 ?

12,000 a year

Sounds realistic . What happens to number 12,001 though?

We provide another boat

So it’s unlimited then. "

You asked for a boat size? Anyway, there is no limit , this is about stoping people from drowning and trafficking gangs profiteering ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less.

You are guessing as we have no idea how many would take the daily charter boat. What size boat? No total limit? Or, 1000, 10000, 100000 ?

12,000 a year

Sounds realistic . What happens to number 12,001 though?

We provide another boat

So it’s unlimited then. "

What's the number that is just below you worrying about foreigners limit?

174?

931?

-17?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less.

You are guessing as we have no idea how many would take the daily charter boat. What size boat? No total limit? Or, 1000, 10000, 100000 ?

12,000 a year

Sounds realistic . What happens to number 12,001 though?

We provide another boat

So it’s unlimited then.

You asked for a boat size? Anyway, there is no limit , this is about stoping people from drowning and trafficking gangs profiteering ? "

So , whoever wants to come to the UK is welcome - no limits? Are you happy with tens of thousands of young men, fifteen to a bedroom ‘hot bedding’ with very little in common with majority and with little to do. Do you really think they will be happy doing shit jobs for shit wages for very long, possibly still being exploited . Are you a gang master ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less.

You are guessing as we have no idea how many would take the daily charter boat. What size boat? No total limit? Or, 1000, 10000, 100000 ?

12,000 a year

Sounds realistic . What happens to number 12,001 though?

We provide another boat

So it’s unlimited then.

What's the number that is just below you worrying about foreigners limit?

174?

931?

-17?"

Not with you?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less.

You are guessing as we have no idea how many would take the daily charter boat. What size boat? No total limit? Or, 1000, 10000, 100000 ?

12,000 a year

Sounds realistic . What happens to number 12,001 though?

We provide another boat

So it’s unlimited then.

What's the number that is just below you worrying about foreigners limit?

174?

931?

-17?

Not with you? "

You seem very worried about specific numbers. I was wondering if you had any specifics in mind that would be okay?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osephSamuel90Man over a year ago

Bracknell

"We could process them in France.

What do you think their next move will be, should they get rejected?

You want the French to control our borders?

Why would the French be involved? They attend a UK asylum centre in France, and apply for Refugee status.

And if it is on French soil the French are very much involved ,

It's what people have been calling for. Asylum centres based overseas.

The question was, what is their probable next move should they get refused their claim?

Why are you asking a hypothetical question ? it’s a rhetorical question

It is hypothetical, it is based on an idea . I can try and answer it though, they will ‘probably’ be sent back to their country of origin

It’s rhetorical because we know the answer. They all stay

They stay in France?

Not France, here. Little old UK

The question was based on the migrants being processed in France ?

The OP stated he wanted to charter a daily boat to bring migrants to the UK. I assume unlimited numbers as everyone has avoided saying how many

We know it’s weather / sea conditions dependent and some days it’s hundreds, and that’s just the ones we know of. "

Let's say it was 10 times the 12,775. It's nowhere near that but let's say it was, 127,750 immigrants trying to make that crossing. Using the average boat capacity I said about before you'd still only need to do 64 trips a year, basically 5 a month. That's with a ridiculously high figure. If as the OP suggested there was a daily service, for the 10,000-30,000 a year that it usually is making that crossing, then some days it might be near full and some days it may be empty. The point is thought those immigrants that would make that crossing regardless are able to do it in a way that means they won't risk drowning

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osephSamuel90Man over a year ago

Bracknell

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less.

You are guessing as we have no idea how many would take the daily charter boat. What size boat? No total limit? Or, 1000, 10000, 100000 ?

12,000 a year

Sounds realistic . What happens to number 12,001 though?

We provide another boat

So it’s unlimited then.

You asked for a boat size? Anyway, there is no limit , this is about stoping people from drowning and trafficking gangs profiteering ?

But that OP isn't even suggesting letting them all stay. It's just about safe passage

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less.

You are guessing as we have no idea how many would take the daily charter boat. What size boat? No total limit? Or, 1000, 10000, 100000 ?

12,000 a year

Sounds realistic . What happens to number 12,001 though?

We provide another boat

So it’s unlimited then.

What's the number that is just below you worrying about foreigners limit?

174?

931?

-17?

Not with you?

You seem very worried about specific numbers. I was wondering if you had any specifics in mind that would be okay?"

No specifics. But with everyone on here unwilling or unable to take these young men in thus exposing them to the horror of shitty hotels, just saying we must give them safe passage and bring them in is only exacerbating a growing problem.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less.

You are guessing as we have no idea how many would take the daily charter boat. What size boat? No total limit? Or, 1000, 10000, 100000 ?

12,000 a year

Sounds realistic . What happens to number 12,001 though?

We provide another boat

So it’s unlimited then.

You asked for a boat size? Anyway, there is no limit , this is about stoping people from drowning and trafficking gangs profiteering ?

But that OP isn't even suggesting letting them all stay. It's just about safe passage"

Safe passage - then what? Don’t say ‘send them back’ as we all know that doesn’t happen.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osephSamuel90Man over a year ago

Bracknell

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less.

You are guessing as we have no idea how many would take the daily charter boat. What size boat? No total limit? Or, 1000, 10000, 100000 ?

12,000 a year

Sounds realistic . What happens to number 12,001 though?

We provide another boat

So it’s unlimited then.

You asked for a boat size? Anyway, there is no limit , this is about stoping people from drowning and trafficking gangs profiteering ?

But that OP isn't even suggesting letting them all stay. It's just about safe passage

Safe passage - then what? Don’t say ‘send them back’ as we all know that doesn’t happen. "

It does though. In airports every single day

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less.

You are guessing as we have no idea how many would take the daily charter boat. What size boat? No total limit? Or, 1000, 10000, 100000 ?

12,000 a year

Sounds realistic . What happens to number 12,001 though?

We provide another boat

So it’s unlimited then.

What's the number that is just below you worrying about foreigners limit?

174?

931?

-17?

Not with you?

You seem very worried about specific numbers. I was wondering if you had any specifics in mind that would be okay?

Just to be clear, round at my gaff, or someone else on here's gaff, isn't the only option.

Not sure why you're so confused about this.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less.

You are guessing as we have no idea how many would take the daily charter boat. What size boat? No total limit? Or, 1000, 10000, 100000 ?

12,000 a year

Sounds realistic . What happens to number 12,001 though?

We provide another boat

So it’s unlimited then.

What's the number that is just below you worrying about foreigners limit?

174?

931?

-17?

Not with you?

You seem very worried about specific numbers. I was wondering if you had any specifics in mind that would be okay?

Just to be clear, round at my gaff, or someone else on here's gaff, isn't the only option.

Not sure why you're so confused about this."

Where then?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66 OP Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less.

You are guessing as we have no idea how many would take the daily charter boat. What size boat? No total limit? Or, 1000, 10000, 100000 ?

12,000 a year

Sounds realistic . What happens to number 12,001 though?

We provide another boat

So it’s unlimited then.

You asked for a boat size? Anyway, there is no limit , this is about stoping people from drowning and trafficking gangs profiteering ?

But that OP isn't even suggesting letting them all stay. It's just about safe passage

Safe passage - then what? Don’t say ‘send them back’ as we all know that doesn’t happen. "

By far you have the most concerns regarding safe passage and removing the power gangs have from people smuggling.

If this idea was actually on the table from our government, would you accept a 12 month trial of this approach and if things were significantly worse it would be pulled, but kept in place if the situation remained as is or better?

What would be your objection, if any?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less.

You are guessing as we have no idea how many would take the daily charter boat. What size boat? No total limit? Or, 1000, 10000, 100000 ?

12,000 a year

Sounds realistic . What happens to number 12,001 though?

We provide another boat

So it’s unlimited then.

What's the number that is just below you worrying about foreigners limit?

174?

931?

-17?

Not with you?

You seem very worried about specific numbers. I was wondering if you had any specifics in mind that would be okay?

Just to be clear, round at my gaff, or someone else on here's gaff, isn't the only option.

Not sure why you're so confused about this.

Where then? "

There are many options that aren't my gaff.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less.

You are guessing as we have no idea how many would take the daily charter boat. What size boat? No total limit? Or, 1000, 10000, 100000 ?

12,000 a year

Sounds realistic . What happens to number 12,001 though?

We provide another boat

So it’s unlimited then.

What's the number that is just below you worrying about foreigners limit?

174?

931?

-17?

Not with you?

You seem very worried about specific numbers. I was wondering if you had any specifics in mind that would be okay?

Just to be clear, round at my gaff, or someone else on here's gaff, isn't the only option.

Not sure why you're so confused about this.

Where then?

There are many options that aren't my gaff."

15 to a bedroom in a crappy house in Luton perhaps. Happy with that?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less.

You are guessing as we have no idea how many would take the daily charter boat. What size boat? No total limit? Or, 1000, 10000, 100000 ?

12,000 a year

Sounds realistic . What happens to number 12,001 though?

We provide another boat

So it’s unlimited then.

You asked for a boat size? Anyway, there is no limit , this is about stoping people from drowning and trafficking gangs profiteering ?

Gang master? What do you think the limit should be?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less.

You are guessing as we have no idea how many would take the daily charter boat. What size boat? No total limit? Or, 1000, 10000, 100000 ?

12,000 a year

Sounds realistic . What happens to number 12,001 though?

We provide another boat

So it’s unlimited then.

What's the number that is just below you worrying about foreigners limit?

174?

931?

-17?

Not with you?

You seem very worried about specific numbers. I was wondering if you had any specifics in mind that would be okay?

Just to be clear, round at my gaff, or someone else on here's gaff, isn't the only option.

Not sure why you're so confused about this.

Where then?

There are many options that aren't my gaff.

15 to a bedroom in a crappy house in Luton perhaps. Happy with that? "

Why are they in Luton?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less.

You are guessing as we have no idea how many would take the daily charter boat. What size boat? No total limit? Or, 1000, 10000, 100000 ?

12,000 a year

Sounds realistic . What happens to number 12,001 though?

We provide another boat

So it’s unlimited then.

You asked for a boat size? Anyway, there is no limit , this is about stoping people from drowning and trafficking gangs profiteering ?

Gang master? What do you think the limit should be? "

Yes - gang master hoping for some new cheap stock.

I don’t want anyone crossing a continent then entering the UK illegally.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less.

You are guessing as we have no idea how many would take the daily charter boat. What size boat? No total limit? Or, 1000, 10000, 100000 ?

12,000 a year

Sounds realistic . What happens to number 12,001 though?

We provide another boat

So it’s unlimited then.

What's the number that is just below you worrying about foreigners limit?

174?

931?

-17?

Not with you?

You seem very worried about specific numbers. I was wondering if you had any specifics in mind that would be okay?

Just to be clear, round at my gaff, or someone else on here's gaff, isn't the only option.

Not sure why you're so confused about this.

Where then?

There are many options that aren't my gaff.

15 to a bedroom in a crappy house in Luton perhaps. Happy with that?

Why are they in Luton? "
Simply as an example, one that I have witnessed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The OP was proposing open house. Keep up.

No I wasn’t! I was proposing a safe passage.

I cannot understand the blinkers, maybe a simple question will help.

A) Do you support the UK governments none involvement at source, that creates a clear danger to life by allowing people to risk their lives crossing the channel to be processed for asylum in the UK.

B) Do you support a safe corridor of travel for those people to be processed in the UK in exactly the same way as if they travelled by gang supplied small boats?

No rules for acceptance to stay in the Uk will be changed.

I've shortened the post down to make it readable.

I can see how you are thinking about this now, I think this is correct? If we put safe passage in place more migrants will try and cross the channel because it is now safer?

Numbers wanting to enter the UK could drop, those crossing the channel will be doing so safely and processing stays the same.

The positive from this type of approach, is people will stop dying trying to cross dangerous waters, nothing more nothing less.

You are guessing as we have no idea how many would take the daily charter boat. What size boat? No total limit? Or, 1000, 10000, 100000 ?

12,000 a year

Sounds realistic . What happens to number 12,001 though?

We provide another boat

So it’s unlimited then.

You asked for a boat size? Anyway, there is no limit , this is about stoping people from drowning and trafficking gangs profiteering ?

Gang master? What do you think the limit should be?

Yes - gang master hoping for some new cheap stock.

I don’t want anyone crossing a continent then entering the UK illegally. "

Ah, no, Iam not a gang master, if I was I wouldn’t be in favour of providing safe passage . Do you have a limit on the number we could bring here legally thus preventing the majority of these dangerous channel crossing

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)