RIB with 19 on board intercepted at 2am off Kent coast

[Not-The-Messiah]

Coolbanana said:

We all need to try and imagine ourselves in the same position as those that feel the need to flee their own countries for whatever reason and honestly ask ourselves if we would attempt the same under the same conditions. If the answer is yes, then individual countries trying to blockade is not the answer. It is a temporary solution and an ongoing problem that will be forever happening on home shores.

If you cannot feed or provide safety for your family, you will try and seek the place you feel you will help the most. If you hear stories that one country is better than another to resettle in, you will go for that once you have uprooted yourself anyway.

The only truly effective way of tackling Global Refugee and Economic Migrant issues is to make it unnecessary for them to need to move in the first place by providing aid at source. If it is War, then provide aid to areas willing to allow them temporary or even permanent homes. By not being able to deal with all refugees, it is only obvious and natural that they will try and help themselves - and if that means settling in countries they are told are very prosperous and easy to find work in or get financial aid from, then that is where they will try and go.

The UK is one of, if not the best place in the World to live in (if you can put up with the weather, sadly I cannot, but even I took advantage of the Great Nation ) and thus a major attraction. Why wouldn't you want to aim for one of the greatest places on Earth to live if you are forced to find a new home?

Deal with the problem at source. Stop giving refugees reasons or a need to relocate. The UK is a major contributor to helping, not doubt, but there needs to be a louder, more committed voice in the UN to actually remedy the financial shortfall.

Much of that makes sense but the main premise of it is at 15 year old GCSE or delusional left wing activists levels of thinking.

Your basic argument is if we fix world poverty we fix the problem. Good luck with that especially achieving that with free aid. Capitalism and open economic competition is more likely to drag the most amount of people out of poverty. But with that you will always have winners and losers.

Your argument seems to be for a sort of global welfare system with a sort of global equality of outcome.
If you look at our welfare system as an example immigration is like a homeless person braking into a house and asking to stay. Also welfare payment only really work when they come with quite stringent obligation, "You can have this money only if you go out and look for a job". In global terms that would mean a return to a sort of economic colonialism. Although the Chinese are doing that anyway with much of Africa.

There always will be have's and have nots, wars and death. The question is what level of responsibility does your average person on the street in the UK have about it and what should they be expected to do about it?

If you ask the average person most I think if they could do something would. But it's all about what they can or feel if fair. If you are the sort who are struggling to get by each week to pay the bills and so on which is lots of people then that's not much.
The problem is within the west at the moment it's not these people who's opinions are important and making the decisions it's the wealthy elites. The people who are the most prosperous wealthy decadent human beings to have ever walk the earth. People who feel they can give more because they actually could do if they wanted to. But when they do get all virtuous it's not them who take the biggest hit and suffer the consequences.

[Jazzy Jag]

Shouldn't we be very concerned that people who have fled war and oppression in conflict areas are not safe in Spain, Italy or France and feel the need to put the lives of themselves and their families in mortal danger by crossing the worlds busiest shipping lanes at night, in winter?

If the rest of Europe are such dangerous places for refugees, we should protest at the highest levels of the European Union and if they are unable to guarantee these poor people's safety we should disassociate ourselves with them and leave the EU.


Only by showing our true humanity and distancing ourselves from the violence and racism of the rest of Europe can we feel at ease with our collective conscience

[JagLover]

Not-The-Messiah said:

The problem is within the west at the moment it's not these people who's opinions are important and making the decisions it's the wealthy elites. The people who are the most prosperous wealthy decadent human beings to have ever walk the earth. People who feel they can give more because they actually could do if they wanted to. But when they do get all virtuous it's not them who take the biggest hit and suffer the consequences.

Perhaps some are motivated by altruism, but for them economic self interest and open borders coincide. Cheap labour and the inflation of asset values is not a cost for them as it benefits them.

[Mothersruin]

We need people to stop breeding, but no one will say so.

[dsgrnmcm]

Winder said:

Because I'm in that kind of mood tonight! Because that's a media item released by NCHQ/MOD Media Ops types. Rarely at sea, no idea, should know better. Admiralty Manual of Seamanship is just as bad, I just checked!!

I'm still correct, I just am. You know I am.

NCHQ update BRd 67.......................

Not till the next promotion reports are due....

[Not-The-Messiah]

JagLover said:

Not-The-Messiah said:

The problem is within the west at the moment it's not these people who's opinions are important and making the decisions it's the wealthy elites. The people who are the most prosperous wealthy decadent human beings to have ever walk the earth. People who feel they can give more because they actually could do if they wanted to. But when they do get all virtuous it's not them who take the biggest hit and suffer the consequences.

Perhaps some are motivated by altruism, but for them economic self interest and open borders coincide. Cheap labour and the inflation of asset values is not a cost for them as it benefits them.

Agree and don't forget the extra votes, I do feel much of it is driven not by altruism but a level of guilt and decadence. You just need to look at the likes of Germany and Merkel. But most of them are not personally willing to make any really sacrifice that would personal affect them.

It's the same with climate change all crying that something should be done but unwilling to sacrifice their own living standards to achieve it. They just can go out and buy a Tesla and feel they have done their bit.

[Patrat]

It's all gone a bit The Camp Of The Saints

[don'tbesilly]

Mrr T said:

don'tbesilly said:

As the UK is still a member of the EU under Regulation number 604/2013 due process of law is returning the migrants to France as that's where the migrants are coming from.

It would then fall to the French to determine where the migrants first originated from within the EU and return them to that country, which would probably be Italy.

Is that what you had in mind?

Unless they claim refugee status in the UK and refuse to be returned to France. Since UK treaty obligations take prescience of EU law due process must then take place in the UK.

They could indeed claim asylum in the UK, however the claim could and arguably should be denied by the Home Office, based on the evidence of where the current immigrants are arriving from (France).

France is hardly a country that is in a state of conflict with any other countries to my knowledge, and would be able to provide any immigrants safe haven, as would Italy where at a guess most of the immigrants first set foot within an EU country.

[Mrr T]

don'tbesilly said:

They could indeed claim asylum in the UK, however the claim could and arguably should be denied by the Home Office, based on the evidence of where the current immigrants are arriving from (France).

France is hardly a country that is in a state of conflict with any other countries to my knowledge, and would be able to provide any immigrants safe haven, as would Italy where at a guess most of the immigrants first set foot within an EU country.

The problem with your suggestion is that you can only refuse if the UK can find a country to accept them. This is difficult to apply because its the "first safe place" not the "last". Unless the refugee identifies the counties they passed through it not even possible. Even then a) what evidence does the UK have? b) the candidate countries can argue which is safe.

For those reasons unless a country and the refugee agree the UK cannot use this as a reason to refuse to consider the case.

[PositronicRay]

Mothersruin said:

We need people to stop breeding, but no one will say so.

Not sure that's the answer, you'll just end up with an elderly population. No one to care for them and no productivity.

We need to reduce life expectancy (but no one will say so)

[Getragdogleg]

Mrr T said:

don'tbesilly said:

They could indeed claim asylum in the UK, however the claim could and arguably should be denied by the Home Office, based on the evidence of where the current immigrants are arriving from (France).

France is hardly a country that is in a state of conflict with any other countries to my knowledge, and would be able to provide any immigrants safe haven, as would Italy where at a guess most of the immigrants first set foot within an EU country.

The problem with your suggestion is that you can only refuse if the UK can find a country to accept them. This is difficult to apply because its the "first safe place" not the "last". Unless the refugee identifies the counties they passed through it not even possible. Even then a) what evidence does the UK have? b) the candidate countries can argue which is safe.

For those reasons unless a country and the refugee agree the UK cannot use this as a reason to refuse to consider the case.

Change it then so its the last safe place, the point is they were safe, they came from France, we know they were in France most recently so return them there.

If France want to be in the EU and have no borders then that's their problem. We don't, we have a border and we can and should Police it, otherwise there is no point to any of it and we might as well just all throw our passports out and do what we like.

I am sick of the one rule for one and one rule for another, I piss out straight to make sure my papers are in order to travel but letting in undocumented randoms with nothing is ok ? Why do we bother to do it right ?

[JagLover]

PositronicRay said:

Not sure that's the answer, you'll just end up with an elderly population. No one to care for them and no productivity.

We need to reduce life expectancy (but no one will say so)

You first

The world's population is forecast to go from 7.3 billion to 9.7 billion in 2050 and then 11.2 billion in 2100. All those saying how the west needs to go back to the stone age to reduce carbon emissions seemingly don't have a problem with the massively increased resources needed to sustain such a number.

Without immigration the population of western Europe would be falling, just as Japan's is doing now. So it is not something that is our fault by living longer.

[anonymous-user]

PositronicRay said:

Mothersruin said:

We need people to stop breeding, but no one will say so.

Not sure that's the answer, you'll just end up with an elderly population. No one to care for them and no productivity.

We need to reduce life expectancy (but no one will say so)

Garbage. If people live longer they, in general, can work longer. Indisputably.

It’s not that hard to figure out.

But no one in power wants to grasp and tackle our single biggest issue.

[don'tbesilly]

Mrr T said:

don'tbesilly said:

They could indeed claim asylum in the UK, however the claim could and arguably should be denied by the Home Office, based on the evidence of where the current immigrants are arriving from (France).

France is hardly a country that is in a state of conflict with any other countries to my knowledge, and would be able to provide any immigrants safe haven, as would Italy where at a guess most of the immigrants first set foot within an EU country.

The problem with your suggestion is that you can only refuse if the UK can find a country to accept them. This is difficult to apply because its the "first safe place" not the "last". Unless the refugee identifies the counties they passed through it not even possible. Even then a) what evidence does the UK have? b) the candidate countries can argue which is safe.

For those reasons unless a country and the refugee agree the UK cannot use this as a reason to refuse to consider the case.

The title of this thread is:

"RIB with 19 on board intercepted at 2am off Kent coast".

The discussion is about migrants who are leaving the French coast in many different modes of water borne craft, some are managing to get to the Kent coast completely on their own, others are being picked up by the Coast Guard and by other vessels and bringing them onshore in Kent.

The evidence of where the immigrants came from is indisputable, so based on France being the last place the migrants came from under the present rules that is where the migrants should be returned to.

What the French then do with the migrants is a decision to be made by the French authorities, and not made by the UK.

The French have themselves sent migrants back to Italy because that's where they originated from, the situation with migrants reaching UK shores via the French coastline is no different, and shouldn't be treated any differently.

[PositronicRay]

REALIST123 said:

PositronicRay said:

Mothersruin said:

We need people to stop breeding, but no one will say so.

Not sure that's the answer, you'll just end up with an elderly population. No one to care for them and no productivity.

We need to reduce life expectancy (but no one will say so)

Garbage. If people live longer they, in general, can work longer. Indisputably.

It’s not that hard to figure out.

But no one in power wants to grasp and tackle our single biggest issue.

Health care has a lot to answer for, without modern developments I'd have died 40yrs ago! One less to worry about. Disproportionately aging populations will fail.

And no I won't lead by example. 😁

[Ron Maiden]

Mothersruin said:

We need people to stop breeding, but no one will say so.

That is exactly the hub of the problem, and I am saying it... Too much irresponsible shagging.

There isn't much in the short term that's going to stop people breeding though, other than maybe a huge asteroid strike,
Nuclear war, or a colossal disease pandemic.

[Helicopter123]

Back on topic, 2 more rescue ships coming back from the med. Looks like Sajid is setting up a taxi service in the channel.

[gooner1]

Helicopter123 said:

Back on topic, 2 more rescue ships coming back from the med. Looks like Sajid is setting up a taxi service in the channel.

As well as Hogmany, will you be celebrating Sturgeons transformation
into the Scottish Merkel?

[voyds9]

gooner1 said:

As well as Hogmany, will you be celebrating Sturgeons transformation
into the Scottish Merkel?

Perhaps we could bypass landing them in England and take them straight to Scotland, give them a feel running their own independent country.

[hutchst]

Mothersruin said:

We need people to stop breeding, but no one will say so.

You're in the wrong thread mate. The climate change thread is over there ---->