The National Barrier Asset
Discussion
jmorgan said:
Efforts need to be spent at the source. The traffickers should also be part of the target. Perhaps they are but we do not get told.
what needs to be done is a high profile ad campaign in north africa etc saying come here and you will get turned away, no money, help, nothing.Same as the Aussies did to stop the boats (from indonesia etc.)
Whilst we broadcast to the world that the UK is a soft touch and benefits are free and easy, what exactly do you expect?
Scuffers said:
jmorgan said:
Efforts need to be spent at the source. The traffickers should also be part of the target. Perhaps they are but we do not get told.
what needs to be done is a high profile ad campaign in north africa etc saying come here and you will get turned away, no money, help, nothing.Same as the Aussies did to stop the boats (from indonesia etc.)
Whilst we broadcast to the world that the UK is a soft touch and benefits are free and easy, what exactly do you expect?
Scuffers said:
jmorgan said:
Efforts need to be spent at the source. The traffickers should also be part of the target. Perhaps they are but we do not get told.
what needs to be done is a high profile ad campaign in north africa etc saying come here and you will get turned away, no money, help, nothing.Same as the Aussies did to stop the boats (from indonesia etc.)
Whilst we broadcast to the world that the UK is a soft touch and benefits are free and easy, what exactly do you expect?
But in this day and age, how do you put them off. We have a set of rules, they know that and they know we will pretty much play by them. They play another game with another set of rules. We will not scratch the surface.
If we started to dump all the people we catch in Somalia, word might get around after a while but then we will be on the naughty step.
xjsdriver said:
Maybe we should have a family on benefits tell them - life isn't easy on benefits - how far do you think £70 quid (approx. current JSA rates) goes these days?
So do you think that if you go to their country of origin and tell them that having their housing paid along with an additional £70 for doing nothing, (along with free healthcare, schooling etc), they'd be; a) put off coming here, or b) encouraged to come here? Scuffers said:
jmorgan said:
If we started to dump all the people we catch in Somalia, word might get around after a while but then we will be on the naughty step.
So?Aus got a slagging at the time, they stuck with it though...
Scuffers said:
what needs to be done is a high profile ad campaign in north africa etc saying come here and you will get turned away, no money, help, nothing.
Same as the Aussies did to stop the boats (from indonesia etc.)
Whilst we broadcast to the world that the UK is a soft touch and benefits are free and easy, what exactly do you expect?
There is a massive amount of work and money being spent to disrupt the traffickers, over the last few years a lot of effort has been put into joint working between agencies European wide to target these criminal gangs and has been quite successful in taking apart many networks. Same as the Aussies did to stop the boats (from indonesia etc.)
Whilst we broadcast to the world that the UK is a soft touch and benefits are free and easy, what exactly do you expect?
Unfortunately the bulk of UK penetrations are either by clandestines jumping into the various hiding places that freight offer (As seen on TV!) or by lone agents smuggling people in using cars and small vans, it is extremely difficult to target such people and due to the massive volume of traffic coming through the Channel ports impossible at present staffing/infrastructure levels to search every vehicle that comes through.
Money has been spent on dissuading people from the affected areas on coming to the UK but is largely ineffective as, to be blunt, if you're coming from abject poverty there is nothing much that is going to stop you trying. Also the great majority of people don't actually automatically head for the UK, that's just Daily Mail rubbish for simple minded people, most of them just want to get to Europe and find work anywhere. The problem is that due to the UK's influence in the world, at the moment and for the last few centuries there are a lot of ties that will attract migrants here (Family, friends, English language and the perception of the UK being the land of opportunity)
The only sure way of solving the Calais problem is by turning the area into Fort Knox (Port and Eurotunnel) and increasing staffing and technology there at least tenfold, the bill for this would be astronomical and waiting times would rise by a considerable amount. And when all that is done you would then have to do the same at every other cross-Channel port to prevent dispersal.
In other words, impossible.......
I'm sure you're right, the problem is it's never going to work,
what is needed is a clear and unambiguous message to be sent out.
for example (and no I am not saying we should do this, it's an example!)
If we showed TV picture of the migrants trying to jump on trucks being lined up and shot, I'm pretty sure the message would get back quick enough.
Same goes for the boats, instead of helping them, shell the boats.
Yes, I know this will never happen as it would simply be unpalatable etc, but until we do something that sends a strong message, we will not solve this problem.
Look, Aus have been here, they sorted it in actually a relatively short period of time.
what is needed is a clear and unambiguous message to be sent out.
for example (and no I am not saying we should do this, it's an example!)
If we showed TV picture of the migrants trying to jump on trucks being lined up and shot, I'm pretty sure the message would get back quick enough.
Same goes for the boats, instead of helping them, shell the boats.
Yes, I know this will never happen as it would simply be unpalatable etc, but until we do something that sends a strong message, we will not solve this problem.
Look, Aus have been here, they sorted it in actually a relatively short period of time.
Scuffers said:
If we showed TV picture of the migrants trying to jump on trucks being lined up and shot, I'm pretty sure the message would get back quick enough.
Same goes for the boats, instead of helping them, shell the boats.
WTF is wrong with you? Can you not see that people who are born on different shores are still human? Same goes for the boats, instead of helping them, shell the boats.
How is it that you're allowed to peddle this sort of Nazi filth on here? You are a disgusting sub-human with repugnant opinions.
Craigyp79 said:
There is a massive amount of work and money being spent to disrupt the traffickers, over the last few years a lot of effort has been put into joint working between agencies European wide to target these criminal gangs and has been quite successful in taking apart many networks.
Unfortunately the bulk of UK penetrations are either by clandestines jumping into the various hiding places that freight offer (As seen on TV!) or by lone agents smuggling people in using cars and small vans, it is extremely difficult to target such people and due to the massive volume of traffic coming through the Channel ports impossible at present staffing/infrastructure levels to search every vehicle that comes through.
Money has been spent on dissuading people from the affected areas on coming to the UK but is largely ineffective as, to be blunt, if you're coming from abject poverty there is nothing much that is going to stop you trying. Also the great majority of people don't actually automatically head for the UK, that's just Daily Mail rubbish for simple minded people, most of them just want to get to Europe and find work anywhere. The problem is that due to the UK's influence in the world, at the moment and for the last few centuries there are a lot of ties that will attract migrants here (Family, friends, English language and the perception of the UK being the land of opportunity)
The only sure way of solving the Calais problem is by turning the area into Fort Knox (Port and Eurotunnel) and increasing staffing and technology there at least tenfold, the bill for this would be astronomical and waiting times would rise by a considerable amount. And when all that is done you would then have to do the same at every other cross-Channel port to prevent dispersal.
In other words, impossible.......
Fort Knoxifying Dover wouldn't do it. Look at much of the US/Mexican border. Unfortunately the bulk of UK penetrations are either by clandestines jumping into the various hiding places that freight offer (As seen on TV!) or by lone agents smuggling people in using cars and small vans, it is extremely difficult to target such people and due to the massive volume of traffic coming through the Channel ports impossible at present staffing/infrastructure levels to search every vehicle that comes through.
Money has been spent on dissuading people from the affected areas on coming to the UK but is largely ineffective as, to be blunt, if you're coming from abject poverty there is nothing much that is going to stop you trying. Also the great majority of people don't actually automatically head for the UK, that's just Daily Mail rubbish for simple minded people, most of them just want to get to Europe and find work anywhere. The problem is that due to the UK's influence in the world, at the moment and for the last few centuries there are a lot of ties that will attract migrants here (Family, friends, English language and the perception of the UK being the land of opportunity)
The only sure way of solving the Calais problem is by turning the area into Fort Knox (Port and Eurotunnel) and increasing staffing and technology there at least tenfold, the bill for this would be astronomical and waiting times would rise by a considerable amount. And when all that is done you would then have to do the same at every other cross-Channel port to prevent dispersal.
In other words, impossible.......
We need to remove the incentive, and make sure it's a well known established principle that anyone caught here illegally is deported, no benefits are given and anyone caught transporting or employing illegal immigrants is given a meaningful penalty.
We need to stop helping boats cross the Mediterranean and turn them back to where they came from.
Genuine asylum claims should be reviewed case by case where the applicant is from a country of genuine political persecution and has a good reason for choosing the UK not anywhere closer to their home country.
Ideally this would be done across Europe as a whole in a co-ordinated way, and it's exactly the sort of thing you would think the European Union would be good for. So far it seems like we're just towing them across to Italy and dumping them there, and Italy is returning the favour by shovelling them off to France, who last I heard closed the Italian border. Good old EU.
Absent of that we are quite capable of doing it ourselves if we had the resolve to do so.
toohangry said:
Scuffers said:
If we showed TV picture of the migrants trying to jump on trucks being lined up and shot, I'm pretty sure the message would get back quick enough.
Same goes for the boats, instead of helping them, shell the boats.
WTF is wrong with you? Can you not see that people who are born on different shores are still human? Same goes for the boats, instead of helping them, shell the boats.
How is it that you're allowed to peddle this sort of Nazi filth on here? You are a disgusting sub-human with repugnant opinions.
Scuffers said:
for example (and no I am not saying we should do this, it's an example!)
instead of getting all righteous on us, what is your solution?maybe if you offered to put them up in your home a your expense I might respect your view?
Scuffers said:
toohangry said:
Scuffers said:
If we showed TV picture of the migrants trying to jump on trucks being lined up and shot, I'm pretty sure the message would get back quick enough.
Same goes for the boats, instead of helping them, shell the boats.
WTF is wrong with you? Can you not see that people who are born on different shores are still human? Same goes for the boats, instead of helping them, shell the boats.
How is it that you're allowed to peddle this sort of Nazi filth on here? You are a disgusting sub-human with repugnant opinions.
Scuffers said:
for example (and no I am not saying we should do this, it's an example!)
instead of getting all righteous on us, what is your solution?maybe if you offered to put them up in your home a your expense I might respect your view?
Excuse me, did you really just describe NOT shooting civilians and bombing refugees as righteous??!
Why do you have to go to ludicrous extremes, such as asking me to house people, to try and justify your insane rants? Let's still talk about your views, if that's ok, before moving onto mine as mine are pretty boring in comparison.
Some Qs:
How many would need to be shot before they got the message?
What if the boat was full of white female refugees, would you want them shelled too?
Who are you going to ask to kill these innocent civilians?
toohangry said:
Your disclaimer is a meaningless cloak that you're hoping allows you to hide behind your true thoughts. It doesn't wash with anyone I'm afraid, as we're all over the age of 7.
Excuse me, did you really just describe NOT shooting civilians and bombing refugees as righteous??!
Why do you have to go to ludicrous extremes, such as asking me to house people, to try and justify your insane rants? Let's still talk about your views, if that's ok, before moving onto mine as mine are pretty boring in comparison.
Some Qs:
How many would need to be shot before they got the message?
What if the boat was full of white female refugees, would you want them shelled too?
Who are you going to ask to kill these innocent civilians?
It washes with me. It's pretty clear that what he said was an extreme logical conclusion of the idea that disincentives will discourage migrants. He wasn't saying that is what we should actually do. Excuse me, did you really just describe NOT shooting civilians and bombing refugees as righteous??!
Why do you have to go to ludicrous extremes, such as asking me to house people, to try and justify your insane rants? Let's still talk about your views, if that's ok, before moving onto mine as mine are pretty boring in comparison.
Some Qs:
How many would need to be shot before they got the message?
What if the boat was full of white female refugees, would you want them shelled too?
Who are you going to ask to kill these innocent civilians?
Do you disagree with the idea of providing a disincentive?
AJS- said:
It washes with me. It's pretty clear that what he said was an extreme logical conclusion of the idea that disincentives will discourage migrants. He wasn't saying that is what we should actually do.
Do you disagree with the idea of providing a disincentive?
It's pretty clear how he feels about people, regardless of whether he would actually pull the trigger. Do you disagree with the idea of providing a disincentive?
Of course I don't disagree with providing a disincentive. As ever, there are more acceptable means that shooting and shelling civilians though. Lack of benefits and/or bigger restrictions on eligibility to work would probably do it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff