UK asylum seekers expected to be flown to Rwanda
Discussion
Vipers said:
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.
"Just asking questions" huh?Just asking.
If the answer is "most asylum seekers arrive by commercial flights and have legitimate cases" would you accept the answer?
I think we should be combatting people smuggling on a variety of moral reasons but some people seem so fixated on punishing the migrants that they forget that they're actually the victims of people smugglers... And punishing them isn't doing Jack against people smugglers.
Vipers said:
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.
I think your start point should be to understand the legitimacy and sources of the 600,000. Just asking.
HINT: they aren’t all illegal immigrants. Very, very few of them are.
captain_cynic said:
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.
"ICEYE’s SAR satellites can capture an area of up to 50,000 km2 in a single satellite image. You can monitor even entire sea routes anywhere on Earth, up to multiple times a day, regardless of darkness or cloud cover. Persistent monitoring enables you to detect and react to any maritime activity that poses a threat to border security or commerce."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.
Vipers said:
That 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.
The 560,000 ish who came in via "other ways" were on the whole students, people with working visas or who came in via the very few "legal" asylum seeker routes. All of whom had their paperwork signed off by the government before arriving. Just asking.
No doubt a small number did come in via the back of a lorry, but that is nowhere near as common as it used to be.
My point was that the government have allowed 560,000 people to come here, and yet are making a massive fuss about the small number of people who land and then claim asylum. The argument that boat crossings are putting loads of pressure on public services, housing etc simply doesn't stand up when 95% of the people arriving are not boat crossings.
That said, there is no reason at all an asylum seeker from Albania should be allowed to stay given their country is safe, democratic etc, but that is a failure of the asylum system to process and deport them quickly and efficiently. If the same money was put into processing and decision making as is being put into Rwanda and trying to stop the boats in the first place then there simply wouldn't be a problem. There wouldn't be people stuck in hotels for months and there wouldn't be people unable to work (if they have a valid claim).
The problem is the slow pace of decision making - likely at least in part due to funding cuts for the Home Office - rather than the fact people are arriving here.
272BHP said:
"ICEYE’s SAR satellites can capture an area of up to 50,000 km2 in a single satellite image. You can monitor even entire sea routes anywhere on Earth, up to multiple times a day, regardless of darkness or cloud cover. Persistent monitoring enables you to detect and react to any maritime activity that poses a threat to border security or commerce."
Read the rest of it.... 8 hours from image taken to image delivered to the user.
6 passes per day.
Even at 3m resolution the area in an image is only 30 x 50 km, and even then you'd likely find some boats which are too small to be identified.
I doubt what you're suggesting can even be done with military hardware, let alone anything commercial. It is one thing tracking a 200m oil tanker moving at 15kts across an ocean thousands of miles wide, but very different trying to identify and stop a 3m rubber dinghy which only has to make it across 13 miles of water. Maybe you have been watching to much CSI?!
nickfrog said:
8 hours? That's about the length of a lunch break in France.
Come on 272BHP, tell us more about your plan.
SAR networks can work much faster than that, certainly under an hour if push comes to shove.Come on 272BHP, tell us more about your plan.
What I posted above is just a well presented example of the technology and how it can be used.
272BHP said:
SAR networks can work much faster than that, certainly under an hour if push comes to shove.
What I posted above is just a well presented example of the technology and how it can be used.
In an hour they are already at sea and then it's too late to do anything except intercept and rescue when normal rules apply.What I posted above is just a well presented example of the technology and how it can be used.
Under an hour? Sounds better. So take the big pic, send it to someone. That someone looks at it straight away for a little while and if they spot a dinghy, then what happens? Do they call the local Gendarmes? And then what do the Gendarmes do?
Come on 272BHP, tell us more about the plan please.
Come on 272BHP, tell us more about the plan please.
Edited by nickfrog on Wednesday 20th March 11:12
valiant said:
In an hour they are already at sea and then it's too late to do anything except intercept and rescue when normal rules apply.
Exactly.The problem is not the detect and intercept part, we could do that with various technology and intelligence led operations.
The problem as you rightly say is that neither the UK or France wants to turn these boats around or put the people back on the beach.
272BHP said:
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-...
I also suffer from fat fingers and dyslexia, so if I make sense I am winning.One installs a wide series of retractable floating stingers that would rip through a dingy. Think of it like a floating barbed wire fence.
Legitimate boats and sea craft would have a certified system that magnetically or signally pushes the stinger fully back under the water. Think of that as like a sea tax disc.
Legitimate boats and sea craft would have a certified system that magnetically or signally pushes the stinger fully back under the water. Think of that as like a sea tax disc.
272BHP said:
valiant said:
In an hour they are already at sea and then it's too late to do anything except intercept and rescue when normal rules apply.
Exactly.The problem is not the detect and intercept part, we could do that with various technology and intelligence led operations.
The problem as you rightly say is that neither the UK or France wants to turn these boats around or put the people back on the beach.
And why the feck do the French care who enters the channel in a boat?
julian987R said:
One installs a wide series of retractable floating stingers that would rip through a dingy. Think of it like a floating barbed wire fence.
Legitimate boats and sea craft would have a certified system that magnetically or signally pushes the stinger fully back under the water. Think of that as like a sea tax disc.
Great for kids swimming off the beach in the summer, inflatable lilo’s etcLegitimate boats and sea craft would have a certified system that magnetically or signally pushes the stinger fully back under the water. Think of that as like a sea tax disc.
You haven’t thought that through at all. And it wouldn’t take long for the traffickers to work out how circumvent such idiocy.
sugerbear said:
And why the feck do the French care who enters the channel in a boat?
They don't and that is part of the problem, it is simply not in their interests to do anything except pay lip service to the issue.Also, how many of these migrants are criminals in their home country and are off for a fresh start? it suits them and it also suits their countries of origin who do not have ongoing incarceration expenses and rehabilitation difficulties - simply let them slip over borders so someone else has the problem.
Condi said:
Vipers said:
That 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.
The 560,000 ish who came in via "other ways" were on the whole students, people with working visas or who came in via the very few "legal" asylum seeker routes. All of whom had their paperwork signed off by the government before arriving. Just asking.
No doubt a small number did come in via the back of a lorry, but that is nowhere near as common as it used to be.
My point was that the government have allowed 560,000 people to come here, and yet are making a massive fuss about the small number of people who land and then claim asylum. The argument that boat crossings are putting loads of pressure on public services, housing etc simply doesn't stand up when 95% of the people arriving are not boat crossings.
That said, there is no reason at all an asylum seeker from Albania should be allowed to stay given their country is safe, democratic etc, but that is a failure of the asylum system to process and deport them quickly and efficiently. If the same money was put into processing and decision making as is being put into Rwanda and trying to stop the boats in the first place then there simply wouldn't be a problem. There wouldn't be people stuck in hotels for months and there wouldn't be people unable to work (if they have a valid claim).
The problem is the slow pace of decision making - likely at least in part due to funding cuts for the Home Office - rather than the fact people are arriving here.
Edited by swisstoni on Thursday 21st March 08:24
blueg33 said:
julian987R said:
One installs a wide series of retractable floating stingers that would rip through a dingy. Think of it like a floating barbed wire fence.
Legitimate boats and sea craft would have a certified system that magnetically or signally pushes the stinger fully back under the water. Think of that as like a sea tax disc.
Great for kids swimming off the beach in the summer, inflatable lilo’s etcLegitimate boats and sea craft would have a certified system that magnetically or signally pushes the stinger fully back under the water. Think of that as like a sea tax disc.
You haven’t thought that through at all. And it wouldn’t take long for the traffickers to work out how circumvent such idiocy.
blueg33 said:
julian987R said:
One installs a wide series of retractable floating stingers that would rip through a dingy. Think of it like a floating barbed wire fence.
Legitimate boats and sea craft would have a certified system that magnetically or signally pushes the stinger fully back under the water. Think of that as like a sea tax disc.
Great for kids swimming off the beach in the summer, inflatable lilo’s etcLegitimate boats and sea craft would have a certified system that magnetically or signally pushes the stinger fully back under the water. Think of that as like a sea tax disc.
You haven’t thought that through at all. And it wouldn’t take long for the traffickers to work out how circumvent such idiocy.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff