talking about Laura Kunsberg's program last night, did anyone notice the woman from the British Hovercraft Company wrongly believes that Brexit would free her company from Brasilian import tariff of 50%? and the boss of Tate & Lyle expects not to pay £150 millions in UK duty on his sugar cane import? that's what we can expect from Brexit, cheap imports wiping out local growers and less money from taxes.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
flecc, I said in post 76 above that we are obliged to rescue them.
The migrants know that people will risk their lives to save them, that's why they do it. I suspect that they embark on the crossing knowing that they are unlikely to make it across unless another person puts their life in jeopardy saving or assisting them. They expect it, they capitalise and abuse that aspect of human nature.
What I am saying is that they should absolutely not prosper as a result. If it is seen as being a successful way to enter the UK more will try it thus increasing the risks. A firm message needs sending that the only place this activity will get you is back home within hours.
Not in this latest case, what they were doing was not in the slightest bit dangerous and they certainly wouldn't have been anticipating a problem. I'd think nothing of crossing the channel in that twin Mercury inflatable, far safer than a slow moving yacht, and small yachts are crossing the channel all the time. That inflatable could do it in under an hour and would cross each of the four shipping lanes in moments. After all, the Royal Navy routinely use similar on the open seas when boarding vessels and they are also used by the RNLI for rescues. When I had boats on the channel I crossed a few times with one boat no larger, equipped with a single outboard motor.
These migrants were just unfortunate that the boat sprang a leak, and that can happen to any boat. Without the leak we'd probably never have known they got here.
.
The Royal Navy, RNLI and I suspect you are different to the migrants in that you have had training and know how to ensure that the equipment is serviceable and in a safe condition, where as the migrants are not likely to be so well skilled. You / RN and RNLI are aware of maritime navigation procedures too. I am astonished that you compare the skills of totally unknown quantity (a migrant) to those of the RN & RNLI crews and I suspect that you don't believe it either.
If allowed to continue, this method of crossing the channel will gather pace, the boats will become more unsuitable and the danger will increase. Whatever way you look at it, by crossing the channel, these migrants are guilty of reckless stupidity and wilfully putting the lives of others at risk in order to satisfy their own desire to illegally enter another country. They need to be repelled.
No they aren't, and I wasn't comparing the skills, I was comparing the boat suitability. The huge numbers of small yachts and other small boats which cross the channel and often go much further like the Channel Islands are mostly owned by amateurs with very variable appropriate knowledge.
When crossing the channel at the narrow points, the best safety factor is speed, so these migrants chose a much more safer method than many of our own boating public.
I agree with you that we need to do something about returning illegal migrants much more quickly than at present, but that's a separate issue from the facts about this crossing. What these migrants did was far less reckless than many of our own boating public do at sea all the time. Not only were they on an ideal boat for a fast, safe, clandestine crossing, it appears the boat was being navigated by the two men who were organising this illegal immigration. Since they were presumably the boat's owners, it's likely they had suitable experience for a run of under an hour.
.
"repelling" sounds wonderfully romantic, almost napoleonic (i have an image of all of us, in our glory, lining the white cliffs with front loaders and muskets; although we coudl just be repellant i guess, perhaps fart in their general direction). Morality aside, what did you ahve in mind with repelling given that migrants are evidently in utterly desperate enough situations to undertake suicidal journeys?
Lets be clear here, the only thing these people are desperate for is to suck up UK resources and money from the public purse like voracious vacuum cleaners. They are already in a place of safety in France, but that's not good enough, their sense of entitlement drives them onward and into acts of recklessness. They have no regard or care for the danger that they cause to others because they are blinded to all of this by their appetite other countries wealth.
Lets also not forget that they are committing a criminal act in trying to enter the country illegally. They should be repelled, resisted, pushed back, turned around or whatever you want to call it. It's quite easy to do and a wonderful force such as Her Majesty's Royal Navy are more than capable of sorting this out.
I did laugh when I read this:
It is rather naive.
And you base that statement on what research? None of them want to come here and work to look after their families?
Remembering of course that illegal immigrants don't get benefits and can't work either
Sent from my E2303 using Tapatalk
I should have mentioned - all your arguments so far make you sound like a racist who is unable to empathise with people who speak a different language than you.
That's my opinion of your opinions. I suppose I could be wrong
Sent from my E2303 using Tapatalk
Some claim asylum. They are then in the system which takes years to achieve nothing except soak up money, health care and housing.
I would like you to qualify that statement with hard evidence of racism on my part. If you are unable to, which I suspect will be the case, then my opinion of you is that you are a **** You have no right to level that accusation at me.
That's just my opinion, but of course, I could be wrong.
{Sweetened up by admin}
Last edited by a moderator:
We can cope, 87% of our population were born here in the UK.
Of the remaining 13%, the majority are gainfully employed and often in essential services for all of us, including the areas you mention.
.
'Some'.
You said that 'all these people want to do is hoover up uk resources. '
Sent from my E2303 using Tapatalk
Nice try but unfortunately WRONG
1: It is simply your opinion as to their status, and you can't simply dismiss them as enemy aliens because it suits you.
2: Refugees have the right to attempt to enter any country under International Law
3; Yes they have taken a big risk, and we need to take steps to reduce the incidence of this happening but not at expense of putting innocent lives at risk
4: Well at least you can be funny when you try, and seem to assume that your opinion is somehow superior to mine, and I am a "dripping old tap"?
Now tell me, was that an attempt to "Denigrate me?" I'll explain that so it's simple for you to understand (it means put down)
5: I agree on this one, it was in fact all you needed to say, but you had to egg the pudding didn't you?
6: Well now aren't you a pleasant chap? I was born in a devastated city in 1944 and despite that and growing up in hard times retained a charitable attitude to foreigners , whereas you seem to regard them as a mortal threat to your wallet, and hide behind mock patriotism to cover what is in fact simply greed.
So in conclusion I am not the one who despises the British, whereas you so obviously do in the case of people like myself, so respectfully may I suggest you take your own advice?
Do have a nice day, won't you?
What I said was that your opinions made you sound racist.
But can I now add that your reply makes me sound like a bully. Typical reaction of a bully is to become belligerent
Luckily 1) this is just an internet forum and 2) I don't value your opinion of me at all
No I did not say those words within the quotation marks. You are a liar.
Do not continue to lie and misquote what I have said.
Well you have proven yourself to be a liar, so anything more that you have to say can be disregarded.
(removed by admin)
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps it would be helpful when people calm themselves to read this
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy_research/the_truth_about_asylum/the_facts_about_asylum
And hopefully discuss in a normal way.
One highly significant paragraph sinks the Brexit argument about control of our borders being impossible while in the EU is this
"It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum. (United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees)
The 1951 Refugee Convention guarantees everybody the right to apply for asylum. It has saved millions of lives. No country has ever withdrawn from it.
The logic is obvious: the EU has nothing to do with controlling our borders to illegal immigrants, as we have always had closed borders to them, yet if they make the effort and take the risk to come we are bound to consider their claims for asylum.
Leaving the EU will change nothing in this regard we will have to withdraw from the 1951 convention, which we could actually do while remaining a member of the EU if we made that decision.
Clearly our governments have not felt it to be a good idea, or they would have done so years ago, and the EU would not stop them.
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy_research/the_truth_about_asylum/the_facts_about_asylum
And hopefully discuss in a normal way.
One highly significant paragraph sinks the Brexit argument about control of our borders being impossible while in the EU is this
"It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum. (United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees)
The 1951 Refugee Convention guarantees everybody the right to apply for asylum. It has saved millions of lives. No country has ever withdrawn from it.
The logic is obvious: the EU has nothing to do with controlling our borders to illegal immigrants, as we have always had closed borders to them, yet if they make the effort and take the risk to come we are bound to consider their claims for asylum.
Leaving the EU will change nothing in this regard we will have to withdraw from the 1951 convention, which we could actually do while remaining a member of the EU if we made that decision.
Clearly our governments have not felt it to be a good idea, or they would have done so years ago, and the EU would not stop them.
Last edited:
I do apologise. I was on my phone and cutting and pasting is a pain. Anyway, what you said was
" the only thing these people are desperate for is to suck up UK resources and money from the public purse like voracious vacuum cleaners."
Of course instead of just calling me a liar you could have provided the correct quote. But as far as I can see I got the meaning of what you said right, so maybe you didn't want to do that
Like I said, it's an internet forum.
You are the one who has resorted to insult rather than countering the argument presented to you.
Having said that, if you want to trade insults that's fine with me (removed by admin)
Sent from my E2303 using Tapatalk
Last edited by a moderator: