Priti Patel's migrant war... against Ben & Jerry's: Ice cream giant goes on Twitter attack over Home Secretary's call for Navy to police the Channel
The spat began when Ben & Jerry's UK Twitter account posted: 'We think the real crisis is our lack of humanity for people fleeing war, climate change and torture.'
Honestly...In a Brexit discussion with a distant family member who was reminiscing about all of the little workshops in an area of Hanley(Stoke) now over run with Pakistanis/Muslims etc so Brexit would help rebalance the local economy...it was a difficult conversation reminding them that Pakistan/Bangladesh/India etc were not in Europe/EU....despair all round...still Bojo has at least got Covid to blame for the 'no deal scenario we face and the £100+trillion hedge funder mates will make off the back of it
Honestly...In a Brexit discussion with a distant family member who was reminiscing about all of the little workshops in an area of Hanley(Stoke) now over run with Pakistanis/Muslims etc so Brexit would help rebalance the local economy...it was a difficult conversation reminding them that Pakistan/Bangladesh/India etc were not in Europe/EU....despair all round...still Bojo has at least got Covid to blame for the 'no deal scenario we face and the £100+trillion hedge funder mates will make off the back of it
Honestly, and Brexit discussion, shouldnt appear in the same sentence.
Tory MP tells Gary Lineker to offer his mansion for migrants to use after blasting Match of the Day host for 'virtue signalling' over record Channel crossings
Ashfield MP Lee Anderson (bottom), 53, slammed the Match of the Day host (left) for 'virtue signalling' while discussing the record number of migrants who have arrived in the UK on boats this year. Mr Anderson joked the former professional footballer could email him his address 'and I will make sure that's available for the next boat of illegal immigrants to come and live in.' The former professional footballer today revealed on Twitter he has been in touch with charity Refugees at Home to offer to host a refugee or asylum seeker in his five-bedroom property (right, his home studio). Lineker, who is worth an estimated £28million and is the BBC's highest paid sports pundit, lives in a luxurious home in Barnes, south west London. At least 4,375 migrants have reached the UK by small boat so far this year - including some 825 this month.
It's like gammon bingo.....virtue signalling and 'you put them up then'.
Since when was basic human decency 'virtue signalling'?
What is your definition of a gammon? Obviously somebody that has different views to you, but what else? I think you’ve played live, and met some players on this site, so are there any you regard as gammon? Just interested so I can make sense of who you are referring to.
It's like gammon bingo.....virtue signalling and 'you put them up then'.
Since when was basic human decency 'virtue signalling'?
What is your definition of a gammon? Obviously somebody that has different views to you, but what else? I think you’ve played live, and met some players on this site, so are there any you regard as gammon? Just interested so I can make sense of who you are referring to.
A gammon is something that people might have for dinner. What's your definition of a gammon?
It's like gammon bingo.....virtue signalling and 'you put them up then'.
Since when was basic human decency 'virtue signalling'?
What is your definition of a gammon? Obviously somebody that has different views to you, but what else? I think you’ve played live, and met some players on this site, so are there any you regard as gammon? Just interested so I can make sense of who you are referring to.
A gammon is something that people might have for dinner. What's your definition of a gammon?
Ah, all your references to gammon make sense now. Only I would have it for lunch.
Tory MP tells Gary Lineker to offer his mansion for migrants to use after blasting Match of the Day host for 'virtue signalling' over record Channel crossings
Ashfield MP Lee Anderson (bottom), 53, slammed the Match of the Day host (left) for 'virtue signalling' while discussing the record number of migrants who have arrived in the UK on boats this year. Mr Anderson joked the former professional footballer could email him his address 'and I will make sure that's available for the next boat of illegal immigrants to come and live in.' The former professional footballer today revealed on Twitter he has been in touch with charity Refugees at Home to offer to host a refugee or asylum seeker in his five-bedroom property (right, his home studio). Lineker, who is worth an estimated £28million and is the BBC's highest paid sports pundit, lives in a luxurious home in Barnes, south west London. At least 4,375 migrants have reached the UK by small boat so far this year - including some 825 this month.
Gary Lineker WILL welcome migrants into his £4m luxury London townhouse after being called out by Tory MP... and challenges politician to 'offer his own house to the homeless'
Ashfield MP Lee Anderson slammed Match of the Day host as a 'virtue signaller' He made comments while discussing illegal Channel crossings on Talk Radio But Gary Lineker, 59, said he would welcome migrants into his own home A friend of the star said Tory MP should open up own house too to help Lineker lives in a luxurious five-bedroom home in Barnes, south west London
The Government Is Demonising Migrants To Distract You From Its Failings
It’s no coincidence that in the week the UK dipped into the worst recession the country has ever seen, the government chose to redirect public attention to a small number of people crossing the British channel.
Public mood suggests that the country wants answers to difficult questions, to understand the high death toll from coronavirus and the depth of the economic fallout.
So, it’s no real surprise that the government is looking to find someone to blame.
This is not a new tactic from the government. In a disturbingly regular cycle, when the news cycle is quiet, and the summer months are warm, the government turns its eye to the Channel.
Successive Home Secretaries have chosen this strategy, vilifying people who want nothing more than to live otherwise ordinary lives in safety, but whose only path is the dangerous journey across the Channel.
When the public hears the stories of people granted refuge in the UK, they are sympathetic, understanding that fleeing war, persecution and hardship is a matter of life and death, and that being with the people you love is of utmost importance.
Many of us have felt a fraction of this during the pandemic and can wholly relate – how many of us have desperately wished we could be with the people we love during lockdown? But what the government does not tell us is that the only difference between refugees in the UK and those in Calais, is 15 miles.
The reality is these perilous journeys are a problem of the government’s making, one that has gotten progressively worse decade after decade.
Where we can agree with the government is that these journeys need to end – no one wants these journeys to occur, least of all those forced to risk their lives on overcrowded dinghies and those providing services, support and legal advice. But the reality is that these perilous journeys are a problem of the government’s making, one that has gotten progressively worse decade after decade, and could be resolved with simple action.
The government’s current proposals to “secure” the borders will do nothing to end dangerous crossings or curtail trafficking. We’ve heard all of this before – that it’s France’s responsibility, that the route should be made “unviable” and that that the Navy should “push people back” in breach of international refugee and maritime law.
When the government abruptly closed camps in Calais in 2016, organisations on the ground warned that these strategies would push people away from oversight, and directly into the hands of traffickers. Similarly, a report from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in 2019 highlighted that “policy that focuses exclusively on closing borders will drive migrants to take more dangerous routes, and push them into the hands of criminal groups” – Priti Patel sat on this very committee.
The region of Calais acts as a black hole, where a small but steady population of homeless and destitute people are trapped, vulnerable to people traffickers and smugglers, exposed to violence from the French authorities, denied support service and legal advice.
Many have family or loved ones in the UK and are desperate to reach them but in most cases, it is physically impossible to apply for asylum unless you are on British soil.
The only existing routes to apply from outside the UK include the Global Resettlement Scheme, which is limited to Syrian refugees and has currently been suspended – no one has been resettled since March, and the Family Reunion Reunification route, which is extremely limited in its definition of “family”. Earlier this year, the government closed the Dubs route so that even unaccompanied children in the EU cannot reach the UK safely.
The only way to ensure that these journeys are ended is to introduce accessible and legal ways for people to apply for asylum or entry from abroad, so that they can travel here safely and don’t have to rely on people traffickers.
This could include expanding or recommitting to existing routes, introducing a claims processing centre in France or establishing Humanitarian Visas. Safe and legal routes would be a far more simple and pragmatic solution than building higher walls, putting a blindfold over our eyes and our hands over our hearts.
In the coming months, we can expect to see the government increase their dangerous rhetoric about those crossing, as a means to scapegoat migrants for their catastrophic failings.
It will be migrants who are to blame for the lack of jobs, a drop in house prices, the decimation of the high street and long queues at the Jobcentre – when this couldn’t be further from the truth.
At this precise moment, it is vital that we call for safe and legal routes of entry to the UK, ensuring that no one dies trying to reach what should be home. But it is equally important that we stand fast against dangerous rhetoric – the same rhetoric that placed responsibility for the last financial crisis on to migrants. A compassionate and practical approach must be championed by everyone who wants to end dangerous crossings once and for all.
OK I'm going to toss the grenade in and shut the door.
Why are these people SO DESPERATE to get to the U.K.?
Surely if you are fleeing a war, torture, climate change etc, France is a SAFE European Nation bound by the laws of the EU. and therefore perfectly fine to settle in.
Why is it always the UK Government that's painted as the bad guy?. The French Authorities are obviously not serious about allowing these poor people into their society.
Now I work with some of these survivors via our Church and they are happy to admit once here, that the lure of the packages they can obtain if successful in an application to stay far outweighs anything that the EU countries can offer and when deciding where to try to seek asylum / safety / settlement this is a huge factor in selecting the UK as the destination of choice.
Many would claim to be genuine but the fact that they have travelled through "safe" countries to get to France with the sole intention of getting to the UK would suggest economic rather than humanitarian considerations are at the fore. And this is where the problems occur.
A father desperately swimming with a baby on an inflatable is I would suggest a genuine refugee trying to save his family at whatever cost.
A dozen young men all claiming to be under the age of 17, sorry no papers, no proof, so we have to take them, many who then disappear into the ether are obviously not the same.
And before the trolls start lining up to have a pop remember this, I am PRO refugee, PRO asylum seeker and don't have a problem with immigration.
It is just that if we stop the economic migrants, we have more resources to help the humanitarian migrants.
OK I'm going to toss the grenade in and shut the door.
Why are these people SO DESPERATE to get to the U.K.?
Many have family or loved ones in the UK and are desperate to reach them but in most cases, it is physically impossible to apply for asylum unless you are on British soil. Maybe they speak English.
Surely if you are fleeing a war, torture, climate change etc, France is a SAFE European Nation bound by the laws of the EU. and therefore perfectly fine to settle in.
Why is it always the UK Government that's painted as the bad guy?. The French Authorities are obviously not serious about allowing these poor people into their society.
When the government abruptly closed camps in Calais in 2016, organisations on the ground warned that these strategies would push people away from oversight, and directly into the hands of traffickers. Similarly, a report from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in 2019 highlighted that “policy that focuses exclusively on closing borders will drive migrants to take more dangerous routes, and push them into the hands of criminal groups” – Priti Patel sat on this very committee.
Now I work with some of these survivors via our Church and they are happy to admit once here, that the lure of the packages they can obtain if successful in an application to stay far outweighs anything that the EU countries can offer and when deciding where to try to seek asylum / safety / settlement this is a huge factor in selecting the UK as the destination of choice.
The only way to ensure that these journeys are ended is to introduce accessible and legal ways for people to apply for asylum or entry from abroad, so that they can travel here safely and don’t have to rely on people traffickers.
Many would claim to be genuine but the fact that they have travelled through "safe" countries to get to France with the sole intention of getting to the UK would suggest economic rather than humanitarian considerations are at the fore. And this is where the problems occur.
This could include expanding or recommitting to existing routes, introducing a claims processing centre in France or establishing Humanitarian Visas. Safe and legal routes would be a far more simple and pragmatic solution than building higher walls, putting a blindfold over our eyes and our hands over our hearts.
A father desperately swimming with a baby on an inflatable is I would suggest a genuine refugee trying to save his family at whatever cost.
A dozen young men all claiming to be under the age of 17, sorry no papers, no proof, so we have to take them, many who then disappear into the ether are obviously not the same.
We agreed to allow unaccompanied kids from Syria to enter the UK, but didnt stick to the plan.
And before the trolls start lining up to have a pop remember this, I am PRO refugee, PRO asylum seeker and don't have a problem with immigration.
It is just that if we stop the economic migrants, we have more resources to help the humanitarian migrants.
We dont have a plan'
Yours in debate.
Mark
The figure of 3,000 child refugees was originally proposed by Save The Children, which said it would represent a "fair share" for the UK of the estimated 26,000 children who arrived in Europe in 2015 without any family.
Government backtracks on pledge to take child refugees Only 350 unaccompanied child refugees will be allowed to settle in the UK, thousands short of numbers previously indicated
Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron called the decision “a betrayal of British values”.
“Last May, MPs from all parties condemned the Government’s inaction on child refugees in Europe, and voted overwhelmingly to offer help to the thousands of unaccompanied kids who were stranded without their families backed by huge public support,” Mr Farron said.
Instead, the Government has done the bare minimum, helping only a tiny number of youngsters and appearing to end the programme while thousands still suffer. At the end of December last year the Government had failed to bring a single child refugee to the UK under the Dubs scheme from Greece or Italy where many of these children are trapped.”
How MPs voted on whether to accept 3,000 unaccompanied Syrian child refugees who travelled to Europe The bid to accept the children was defeated 294-276
'Over 300 unaccompanied kids' in Calais camp - BBC www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03kkd9s There are "over 300 unaccompanied kids" in the section of the Calais 'Jungle' refugee camp which could be closed, according to comedian Shappi Khorsandi, who has visited the camp. Lorry driver Euan...
It's just another example of the anti Government rhetoric that underpins every post you make.
It will matter not soon because if we have a second lockdown then that's it. The Government won't be able to underwrite furloughs. or provide any financial assistance because it's fast running out of money.
Not Government money, lets remember the Government doesn't have any money of it's own, it's OUR money.
Perhaps when there's nothing left to subsidise housing, health, education and welfare, then France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Turkey, Belgium, Holland, Bulgaria, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bosnia, Luxembourg, Austria, Switzerland, Croatia et al will look quite appealing.
My original question stands, unexamined, unanswered and avoided.
Come on. You always berate others for not answering.
Answer the question, oh and with your own words, not some copy and paste newspaper drivel.
You should be a poster boy for left wing liberalism politics.
You'd drive Paxman insane.
Just out of interest, how would you stop them coming?
Yes, and I posted bits from the article that you said didnt answer you questions. I just thought that may have been more credible than me answering them.
Just out of interest, how would you stop them coming?
We have no legal control of anyone in France.
Its obviously not illegal for people to get into a dinghy on a French beach.
Once they have set sail they cant be pushed back, because it would put lives at risk, and is illegal.
On top of this we have just told The EU to F Off, so I suppose it would be foolish to go asking them for help?
Whatever the French say, I suppose they must be thinking that one more for us, is one less for them. As we would if they were going the other way.
I just wonder why they use traffickers, and dont just go and buy their own dinghies.
Yes they can be pushed back. Australia has proven time and time again. Remember the standoff when they stopped the Vietnamese boat people from landing. The boat people claimed illness and hunger so the Authorities sent out Doctors and medicines and food and clothing then sent them back at gunboat point.
Drastic, yes. Anti humanitarian, definately. Morally wrong, certainly. Illegal no.
The problem is unless we show a very firm attitude then all we do is encourage the crossings.
The minute we allow carte blanche then every man and his dog will be rocking up which will be a right wingers wet dream, and the less ammo those morons get the better.
Maybe we could have some sort of screening / vetting system in place in France, something I think the French would be only too happy for us to have.
Genuine applicants could then cross in safety via a ferry / tunnel and be afforded a proper welcome and the assistance required to integrate into a multi cultural UK
This would effectively designate any "unauthorised" crossing as illegal entry and they can be turned around / sent back.
If they then wish to protest by jumping off ferries etc that is their right.
The problem is there is always a sob story, getting a balance is difficult but the first priority has to be the children, Women with children, families with children in that order.
As a Father and Grandfather, I would be happy knowing that my kids, Grandkids were safe even if I was still living in He11.
This is good lets keep the exchange of ideas going
Yes they can be pushed back. Australia has proven time and time again. Remember the standoff when they stopped the Vietnamese boat people from landing. The boat people claimed illness and hunger so the Authorities sent out Doctors and medicines and food and clothing then sent them back at gunboat point.
Drastic, yes. Anti humanitarian, definately. Morally wrong, certainly. Illegal no.
The problem is unless we show a very firm attitude then all we do is encourage the crossings.
The minute we allow carte blanche then every man and his dog will be rocking up which will be a right wingers wet dream, and the less ammo those morons get the better.
Maybe we could have some sort of screening / vetting system in place in France, something I think the French would be only too happy for us to have.
Genuine applicants could then cross in safety via a ferry / tunnel and be afforded a proper welcome and the assistance required to integrate into a multi cultural UK
This would effectively designate any "unauthorised" crossing as illegal entry and they can be turned around / sent back.
If they then wish to protest by jumping off ferries etc that is their right.
The problem is there is always a sob story, getting a balance is difficult but the first priority has to be the children, Women with children, families with children in that order.
As a Father and Grandfather, I would be happy knowing that my kids, Grandkids were safe even if I was still living in He11.
This is good lets keep the exchange of ideas going
I think that if we had an office in Calais.
Where applications for asylum were available.
A limited number of genuine applicants could be allowed in to the UK.
We would automatically disallow those that tried to enter illegally forever, and drop them back in Calais.
This would mean that you could choose the deserving cases, limit the number, and discourage crossings because those that were caught would be banned forever
If you just dropped them back in Calais they would soon get fed up, or run out of money, and not be able to pay the traffickers.
Comments
The spat began when Ben & Jerry's UK Twitter account posted: 'We think the real crisis is our lack of humanity for people fleeing war, climate change and torture.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
https://international.thenewslens.com/article/104923
Ashfield MP Lee Anderson (bottom), 53, slammed the Match of the Day host (left) for 'virtue signalling' while discussing the record number of migrants who have arrived in the UK on boats this year. Mr Anderson joked the former professional footballer could email him his address 'and I will make sure that's available for the next boat of illegal immigrants to come and live in.' The former professional footballer today revealed on Twitter he has been in touch with charity Refugees at Home to offer to host a refugee or asylum seeker in his five-bedroom property (right, his home studio). Lineker, who is worth an estimated £28million and is the BBC's highest paid sports pundit, lives in a luxurious home in Barnes, south west London. At least 4,375 migrants have reached the UK by small boat so far this year - including some 825 this month.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
Since when was basic human decency 'virtue signalling'?
Obviously somebody that has different views to you, but what else?
I think you’ve played live, and met some players on this site, so are there any you regard as gammon?
Just interested so I can make sense of who you are referring to.
What's your definition of a gammon?
Only I would have it for lunch.
Ashfield MP Lee Anderson slammed Match of the Day host as a 'virtue signaller'
He made comments while discussing illegal Channel crossings on Talk Radio
But Gary Lineker, 59, said he would welcome migrants into his own home
A friend of the star said Tory MP should open up own house too to help
Lineker lives in a luxurious five-bedroom home in Barnes, south west London
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8623095/Gary-Lineker-welcome-migrants-home-calls-Tory-MP-offer-house.html
It’s no coincidence that in the week the UK dipped into the worst recession the country has ever seen, the government chose to redirect public attention to a small number of people crossing the British channel.
Public mood suggests that the country wants answers to difficult questions, to understand the high death toll from coronavirus and the depth of the economic fallout.
So, it’s no real surprise that the government is looking to find someone to blame.
This is not a new tactic from the government. In a disturbingly regular cycle, when the news cycle is quiet, and the summer months are warm, the government turns its eye to the Channel.
Successive Home Secretaries have chosen this strategy, vilifying people who want nothing more than to live otherwise ordinary lives in safety, but whose only path is the dangerous journey across the Channel.
When the public hears the stories of people granted refuge in the UK, they are sympathetic, understanding that fleeing war, persecution and hardship is a matter of life and death, and that being with the people you love is of utmost importance.
Many of us have felt a fraction of this during the pandemic and can wholly relate – how many of us have desperately wished we could be with the people we love during lockdown? But what the government does not tell us is that the only difference between refugees in the UK and those in Calais, is 15 miles.
The reality is these perilous journeys are a problem of the government’s making, one that has gotten progressively worse decade after decade.
Where we can agree with the government is that these journeys need to end – no one wants these journeys to occur, least of all those forced to risk their lives on overcrowded dinghies and those providing services, support and legal advice. But the reality is that these perilous journeys are a problem of the government’s making, one that has gotten progressively worse decade after decade, and could be resolved with simple action.
The government’s current proposals to “secure” the borders will do nothing to end dangerous crossings or curtail trafficking. We’ve heard all of this before – that it’s France’s responsibility, that the route should be made “unviable” and that that the Navy should “push people back” in breach of international refugee and maritime law.
When the government abruptly closed camps in Calais in 2016, organisations on the ground warned that these strategies would push people away from oversight, and directly into the hands of traffickers. Similarly, a report from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in 2019 highlighted that “policy that focuses exclusively on closing borders will drive migrants to take more dangerous routes, and push them into the hands of criminal groups” – Priti Patel sat on this very committee.
The region of Calais acts as a black hole, where a small but steady population of homeless and destitute people are trapped, vulnerable to people traffickers and smugglers, exposed to violence from the French authorities, denied support service and legal advice.
Many have family or loved ones in the UK and are desperate to reach them but in most cases, it is physically impossible to apply for asylum unless you are on British soil.
The only existing routes to apply from outside the UK include the Global Resettlement Scheme, which is limited to Syrian refugees and has currently been suspended – no one has been resettled since March, and the Family Reunion Reunification route, which is extremely limited in its definition of “family”. Earlier this year, the government closed the Dubs route so that even unaccompanied children in the EU cannot reach the UK safely.
The only way to ensure that these journeys are ended is to introduce accessible and legal ways for people to apply for asylum or entry from abroad, so that they can travel here safely and don’t have to rely on people traffickers.
This could include expanding or recommitting to existing routes, introducing a claims processing centre in France or establishing Humanitarian Visas. Safe and legal routes would be a far more simple and pragmatic solution than building higher walls, putting a blindfold over our eyes and our hands over our hearts.
In the coming months, we can expect to see the government increase their dangerous rhetoric about those crossing, as a means to scapegoat migrants for their catastrophic failings.
It will be migrants who are to blame for the lack of jobs, a drop in house prices, the decimation of the high street and long queues at the Jobcentre – when this couldn’t be further from the truth.
At this precise moment, it is vital that we call for safe and legal routes of entry to the UK, ensuring that no one dies trying to reach what should be home. But it is equally important that we stand fast against dangerous rhetoric – the same rhetoric that placed responsibility for the last financial crisis on to migrants. A compassionate and practical approach must be championed by everyone who wants to end dangerous crossings once and for all.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/the-government-is-demonising-migrants-to-distract-you-from-its-failings/ar-BB17VlND?ocid=msedgntp
Why are these people SO DESPERATE to get to the U.K.?
Surely if you are fleeing a war, torture, climate change etc, France is a SAFE European Nation bound by the laws of the EU. and therefore perfectly fine to settle in.
Why is it always the UK Government that's painted as the bad guy?. The French Authorities are obviously not serious about allowing these poor people into their society.
Now I work with some of these survivors via our Church and they are happy to admit once here, that the lure of the packages they can obtain if successful in an application to stay far outweighs anything that the EU countries can offer and when deciding where to try to seek asylum / safety / settlement this is a huge factor in selecting the UK as the destination of choice.
Many would claim to be genuine but the fact that they have travelled through "safe" countries to get to France with the sole intention of getting to the UK would suggest economic rather than humanitarian considerations are at the fore. And this is where the problems occur.
A father desperately swimming with a baby on an inflatable is I would suggest a genuine refugee trying to save his family at whatever cost.
A dozen young men all claiming to be under the age of 17, sorry no papers, no proof, so we have to take them, many who then disappear into the ether are obviously not the same.
And before the trolls start lining up to have a pop remember this, I am PRO refugee, PRO asylum seeker and don't have a problem with immigration.
It is just that if we stop the economic migrants, we have more resources to help the humanitarian migrants.
Yours in debate.
Mark
It's just another example of the anti Government rhetoric that underpins every post you make.
It will matter not soon because if we have a second lockdown then that's it. The Government won't be able to underwrite furloughs. or provide any financial assistance because it's fast running out of money.
Not Government money, lets remember the Government doesn't have any money of it's own, it's OUR money.
Perhaps when there's nothing left to subsidise housing, health, education and welfare, then France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Turkey, Belgium, Holland, Bulgaria, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bosnia, Luxembourg, Austria, Switzerland, Croatia et al will look quite appealing.
My original question stands, unexamined, unanswered and avoided.
Come on. You always berate others for not answering.
Answer the question, oh and with your own words, not some copy and paste newspaper drivel.
Mark
You should be a poster boy for left wing liberalism politics.
You'd drive Paxman insane.
Yes, and I posted bits from the article that you said didnt answer you questions.
I just thought that may have been more credible than me answering them.
Just out of interest, how would you stop them coming?
We have no legal control of anyone in France.
Its obviously not illegal for people to get into a dinghy on a French beach.
Once they have set sail they cant be pushed back, because it would put lives at risk, and is illegal.
On top of this we have just told The EU to F Off, so I suppose it would be foolish to go asking them for help?
Whatever the French say, I suppose they must be thinking that one more for us, is one less for them.
As we would if they were going the other way.
I just wonder why they use traffickers, and dont just go and buy their own dinghies.
So how do we stop it?
Drastic, yes. Anti humanitarian, definately. Morally wrong, certainly. Illegal no.
The problem is unless we show a very firm attitude then all we do is encourage the crossings.
The minute we allow carte blanche then every man and his dog will be rocking up which will be a right wingers wet dream, and the less ammo those morons get the better.
Maybe we could have some sort of screening / vetting system in place in France, something I think the French would be only too happy for us to have.
Genuine applicants could then cross in safety via a ferry / tunnel and be afforded a proper welcome and the assistance required to integrate into a multi cultural UK
This would effectively designate any "unauthorised" crossing as illegal entry and they can be turned around / sent back.
If they then wish to protest by jumping off ferries etc that is their right.
The problem is there is always a sob story, getting a balance is difficult but the first priority has to be the children, Women with children, families with children in that order.
As a Father and Grandfather, I would be happy knowing that my kids, Grandkids were safe even if I was still living in He11.
This is good lets keep the exchange of ideas going
Where applications for asylum were available.
A limited number of genuine applicants could be allowed in to the UK.
We would automatically disallow those that tried to enter illegally forever, and drop them back in Calais.
This would mean that you could choose the deserving cases, limit the number, and discourage crossings because those that were caught would be banned forever
If you just dropped them back in Calais they would soon get fed up, or run out of money, and not be able to pay the traffickers.