UK asylum seekers expected to be flown to Rwanda

[sugerbear]

2 million per person.

The problem with right wing head bangers is they love spending other poeples money on their brain dead ideas.

[Vipers]

Why are we spending millions of deporting these invaders, paying the frogs to stop them in the first place, but no one has managed to shut down the traffictors in France, is it that difficult to find out who is supplying the boats to these invaders.

[Unreal]

272BHP said:

After the inevitable ping-pong the bill will be forced through by Royal Assent I guess. I assume Charles will hold his nose and sign it.

As you say it will then come down to protests on the actual flights.

I think the whole scheme is a joke but on that point, why use commercial flights? Get the RAF to move them.

Edited by Unreal on Tuesday 19th March 11:32

[s1962a]

Vipers said:

Why are we spending millions of deporting these invaders, paying the frogs to stop them in the first place, but no one has managed to shut down the traffictors in France, is it that difficult to find out who is supplying the boats to these invaders.

I'd like to know the answer to this as well. Apparently it's going to get worse

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26727630/small-boat-...

[Vipers]

s1962a said:

Vipers said:

Why are we spending millions of deporting these invaders, paying the frogs to stop them in the first place, but no one has managed to shut down the traffictors in France, is it that difficult to find out who is supplying the boats to these invaders.

I'd like to know the answer to this as well. Apparently it's going to get worse

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26727630/small-boat-...

Way beyond a joke.

[Condi]

Vipers said:

Way beyond a joke.

Feel free to head over there for a few weeks and patrol the beaches if you like.

Or you could just understand that of the 600,000 people coming to the UK less than 5% of them came by boat across the Channel. Wouldn't it be easier and most cost efficient to worry about the other 95%??

[blueg33]

Condi said:

Vipers said:

Way beyond a joke.

Feel free to head over there for a few weeks and patrol the beaches if you like.

Or you could just understand that of the 600,000 people coming to the UK less than 5% of them came by boat across the Channel. Wouldn't it be easier and most cost efficient to worry about the other 95%??

Yes but then the pork related people cannot rant about the French, about invading hoards on boats like a reverse d-day, about how they are all criminals etc. They would have to accept that their beloved tory rabble who throw them red meat are actually totally incompetent.

[272BHP]

It is technically feasible to setup a system to monitor an entire coast line by satellite and send real time alerts to alert authorities of small boat launch.

Good intelligence and pattern matching would also reveal likely launch points and timings.

I don't think the authorities are particularly interested in turning boats around before they leave French waters though.

[sugerbear]

272BHP said:

It is technically feasible to setup a system to monitor an entire coast line by satellite and send real time alerts to alert authorities of small boat launch.

Good intelligence and pattern matching would also reveal likely launch points and timings.

I don't think the authorities are particularly interested in turning boats around before they leave French waters though.

I love this idea and as long as there aren't any clouds / mist / fog / night time it will absolutely work 100% of the time and will only need about fifty satallites to work. Brilliant.

[Eric Mc]

272BHP said:

It is technically feasible to setup a system to monitor an entire coast line by satellite and send real time alerts to alert authorities of small boat launch.

I don't think it is, actually.

[S600BSB]

Condi said:

Vipers said:

Way beyond a joke.

Feel free to head over there for a few weeks and patrol the beaches if you like.

Or you could just understand that of the 600,000 people coming to the UK less than 5% of them came by boat across the Channel. Wouldn't it be easier and most cost efficient to worry about the other 95%??

That makes far too much sense for this lot.

[272BHP]

sugerbear said:

I love this idea and as long as there aren't any clouds / mist / fog / night time it will absolutely work 100% of the time and will only need about fifty satallites to work. Brilliant.

Never heard of radar?

[julian987R]

Vipers said:

Why are we spending millions of deporting these invaders, paying the frogs to stop them in the first place, but no one has managed to shut down the traffictors in France, is it that difficult to find out who is supplying the boats to these invaders.

it is that the sentences are so lenient.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67145474

facilitated 10,000 into the country yet only gets 11 years jail. He'll be out in half that time.
They, any associate, no matter if a light touch of involvement, and all family members should get a mandatory life, proper life, sentencing**

You think I am joking, I really am not. That IS a deterrent. If the sentencing system works in their favour, and they can afford to take such a calculated risk (as the gains far outweigh 5 years in prison if caught) then then start there, right there. Its not rocket science.

[blueg33]

272BHP said:

sugerbear said:

I love this idea and as long as there aren't any clouds / mist / fog / night time it will absolutely work 100% of the time and will only need about fifty satallites to work. Brilliant.

Never heard of radar?

Radar can’t really see stuff at ground level. That’s why military aircraft fly low, to avoid radar detection.

I think you are clutching at straws

[272BHP]

blueg33 said:

Radar can’t really see stuff at ground level. That’s why military aircraft fly low, to avoid radar detection.

I think you are clutching at straws

https://www.iceye.com/blog/utilizing-sar-in-multi-sensor-data-collection

[blueg33]

272BHP said:

https://www.iceye.com/blog/utilizing-sar-in-multi-...

Do you not know how to post a clickable link? The address only is a PITA on a phone

[blueg33]

272BHP said:

https://www.iceye.com/blog/utilizing-sar-in-multi-...

And you think that’s proportionate for a few thousand boat people.

[272BHP]

blueg33 said:

Do you not know how to post a clickable link? The address only is a PITA on a phone

Apologies. I am also on a phone and I have not got my reading glasses with me.

This is probably a better link in any case.

https://www.iceye.com/sar-data/use-cases/maritime-...

But my point is that this is entirely fixable if there was a true co-ordinated effort between us and France.

To break the model you don't have to catch everyone you just have to turn around a few boats now and then.

Is it worth it? well it is certainly politically advantageous for any government who could do it. But also it is not a great situation having 1000s risking their lives in the channel week in and week out.

[Vipers]

S600BSB said:

Condi said:

Vipers said:

Way beyond a joke.

Feel free to head over there for a few weeks and patrol the beaches if you like.

Or you could just understand that of the 600,000 people coming to the UK less than 5% of them came by boat across the Channel. Wouldn't it be easier and most cost efficient to worry about the other 95%??

That makes far too much sense for this lot.

What is the easiest way in, back of trucks or boats? Just asking, all we seem to hear about is the boat people not the 600,000 who came in other ways, over how long? What is the ratio of boat people say in 2023 v other ways?

Just asking.

[captain_cynic]

blueg33 said:

272BHP said:

https://www.iceye.com/blog/utilizing-sar-in-multi-...

And you think that’s proportionate for a few thousand boat people.

He pretty much has no idea of the technologies involved.

He flat out said you can monitor the entire coastline from satellite in real time.... By magic is he only way I can guess this is possible.

Good commercial imagery is 2m per pixel and that will be producing imagery of gigabytes per image. The bandwidth requirements alone means it isn't possible to doninnteal time and how, pray tell does he intend to tell a boat apart from any other artifact in the image?

Beyond that how can you tell the difference between a pleasure craft and a migrant boat from a top down image?

Rectifying the image (adjusting it to fit the curvature of the earth) is going to take longer than real time... Let alone running any kind of image recognition. Yes, I've worked with satellite imagery before.

I think he has just demonstrated how thick people who "believe" in this Rwanda/migrants crisis nonsense are.