Migrants crossing the channel
 

Why is this still happening? We should have taken control of this, unfortunately it looks as if it’s getting worse. One reason touted why we are attractive to these illegal migrants, is that they can easily disappear into our grey economy.

Good question Michael and your surmise is most likely correct, and they will not be subject to immediate vaccination or any medical checks so will no doubt delivering parcels or takeaways to an address near you any time soon. Chris.S. P.S I have just subjected some poor minion at the local Conservative office to a 15 minutes diatribe on the subject and the cost in electoral support and adverse general and world opinion that would be the least the Government could expect. He agreed.

It is still happening because Macron is up for election very soon and either way has a battle on his hands. Add to that the collective view of support for an ex-member of the Union and consider the current blind eye being offered.

In international law it is primarily a French problem which should be resolved by EU. It’s a strange thing that when UK was a member we were told the responsibility resides with the country of entry into the EU. There are several countries between UK and the entry point into EU. Every one of them between entry and Calais has ushered and aided the travellers ever onwards. Meanwhile, Brussels looks on and laughs.

History, especially the European flavour, always repeats ad nauseum.

Whilst it is true that France does have some form re border control going back over the last century and before it does have a point along with other EU members about the UK's inaction over the pull factor. The expenses fiddlers really do seem to take the taxpayer for granted over this issue in particular. Maybe their perception of the sustainability of it stems from an addiction of some if not many of them to the teat of the public payroll. :shrug:

Whilst your post and previous ones cover the issue rather well. However, the talk of a high wage/salary workforce (latest buzzword) will obviously be of a higher attraction than some other EU countries were ID cards are compulsory.

Add in free health care (they will not be tax payers in the black economy), more freedoms, not be executed for rape and only have laughable sanctions when caught via criminal activity (because they don't exist) and it's a wonderful life!

Kev

It is awful that so many lost their lives in such a dreadful way.


Why do they feel the need to come here illegally instead of legally?
What is the problem in their own country that makes them want to leave? Is this where the world needs to bring change?

If they arrive illegally and then marry a UK citizen or give birth in the UK, does that give them the right to stay? If it does then perhaps this is a rule we need to change?
Certainly if they commit crime deport them.

How many illegally arrived people do we deport each year?

It concerns me that these people may be facing all sort of dangers to get here, spend all their money to get here and then we poo on them. On the News there have been reports of staff shortages in low paid jobs. I am infuriated that we have people drawing the dole and not working when they are fit to work. What it does show, is that we need a foreign workforce, so perhaps they don't need to as has been suggested, disappear into a grey economy. This however would be "rewarding" breaking the law

macafee2

Illegals
 

OK the now for my two penny worth.

I believe that the inactivity of not stopping the flow of immigrants is because of the following reasons.

When the UK was controlled by the EU, there was an agreement signed that EU countries would be made to take a number if immigrants, When the UK left the EU they were still bound by this agreement.. Since then the UK government have been trying to pass thru parliament a Bill to annul this aforementioned agreement. This has been presented to Parliament several times, But every time it has been defeated/blocked by opposition parties.

This is why we see countless numbers of illegals entering the country who are there for only one reason.

It is amazing that with today's technology we cannot keep these people out, how many German soldiers crossed the Channel during WW2?

Neither gives them the automatic right to stay in the UK, anybody coming into the country has to apply to remain here. I suspect laying minefields in the channel would raise a few eyebrows.

If you're seking asylum apparently you can't apply for a job, yet we have a skill shortage. Many of these migrants are highly skilled and came here to work. Does that make any sort of sense to anyone outside of no. 10?

Quote:- Neither gives them the automatic right to stay in the UK, anybody coming into the country has to apply to remain here"

How many have applied to stay here???? I doubt any one of them have. They have disappeared into the country side never to be seen again except at the Benefits Office;)

Do you mean their was an agreement signed within the EU or with an outside party?I can't see how we are bound by it having left the EU :shrug: Afterall,a high percentage of people who voted to leave did so to regain control of our borders.Even though the horse had already bolted ;)

Are you questioning the viability of Priti Patel's latest plan? :shrug:


There is a school of thought that the skill shortage is largely a smokescreen manufactured by business and financial leaders in order to justify either exporting UK jobs to places of lower pay and therefore cost or importing lower-paid workers through various visa schemes.

Many of our high-tech companies have been offshoring jobs or onshoring low-cost workers for years whilst at the same time offering redundancy packages to 50+ age high paid professionals. There is a large population of UK professionals not working in their areas of expertise as a result of the above. I don't believe this is going to change.

So the choice may be between allowing these jobs to be offshored, to countries such as China, thus funding their strategic aspirations, or taking in migrants to perform jobs at equivalent low pay rates.

What would the contributors to this thread choose?

The government has a large majority. Many Tories must have sided with the opposition parties.

and that one reason is?

macafee2

The weather? :D

Put them in a course on how to drive an HGV and if they pass they can stay.:D

Seriously most of my customers are desperate for staff, some are running with less than 75% of there normal staffing levels.

join a campaign for better pay in the UK.

macafee2

how much are they offering as a wage and what is the job role they need to fill.

macafee2

To turn it into a Muslim country. You can see by the demands to implement Sharia Laws to replace our current Laws .

This happens where ever you get large concentrations of Muslim immigrants, They dont want to integrate, They want to take over.

I thought that was putting Boris in an inflatable dingy in the middle of the channel holding a placard saying "Do you really want to come to a country where I'm in charge"!

Good point and more than likely correct, But there are more other parties apposing it than a few tories.

I cannot imagine what it must be like to be in the position these poor people are in. Crossing the channel in an inflatable dinghy in the winter smacks of desperation.

Whatever the rights or wrongs are- and from our comfortable homes we can debate all night- these people are dying horrible deaths. It's tragic

I agree with you............BUT if they are that desperate to go to the UK, WHY dont they go the LEGAL ROUTE?? OK it might take longer but at least they would be legally allowed here.

[QUOTE=Simondi;2909619]I cannot imagine what it must be like to be in the position these poor people are in. Crossing the channel in an inflatable dinghy in the winter smacks of desperation.

Well they are all Poor now! as they have all paid ££££'s to attempt to get here in inflatables.

French police could quite easily stop many attempts by shooting holes in the inflatables on sight before they get near the water. :eek:

Kev.

In answer to both, I have no idea.

It's still tragic though, there but for the grace of God:grouphug:

Nobody wants to see anyone lose their lives in tragic circumstances but economic migrants/assylum seekers are meant to stop in the first safe country.As far as I'm aware France is a safe country.Why would you risk your life and those of your family to illegally enter the UK?

[QUOTE=KLM;2909630]

Maybe not shoot holes in the dingy but certainly hole them, either with a spiked pole, slash with a knife, or better still all those type of boats should only be sold to anyone with a full passport, driving licence, also they should be registered to that person.

If then found to be used in crossings like this, the registered person is jailed with intent to endanger lives.

How about this if you did manage to reach our shores, you are given dry warm clothing, a good hot meal, then 4-8 hours later you are shipped back to France to start all over again, how many would even bother if they knew that was going to be the outcome no matter what.

Also if we and other countries can track down international crooks, and terrorists, so why can't we track down the people smugglers it should be easy.

We are not at war with anyone at the moment are we so why not use the navy, use the SAS etc to penetrate these gangs and so on, as already stated above come here through the proper channels, i am sure if you are skilled or not and can arrange to have a job here you would be more than welcome and not have to jump through lots of different hoops.

It could all be stopped over night if the government really wanted it too, as for lady ( Priti Patel ) she is a puppet not fit to do the job, like a lot of politicians, it's a job for someone to be strong and not to bothered about what people might think of you.

Would it not be good if job description actually matched you, ie a doctor be the health minister, etc someone from the actual profession.

bricklayers lay bricks, bakers bake bread and cake, pilots fly planes, seems simple don't you think.

Now the job of being a prime minister does not really need a skill does it? as all you have to do is follow what we the people of the country ask you to do for us, is that really hard. :shrug:

I see a letter from Boris has scuppered the apple cart. Unfortunately it’s not an EU problem it’s a UK one, our current relationship with the EU doesn’t help.:duh:

disabling the boats, where does that leave the migrants.........France.
Why would the French want them, if they want to exit the country..... let them, must be their thinking.

How come the French let them in in the first place, oh wait, they have history in letting unwanted people in:D

Perhaps they are still sore at us for the bombardment of their Navy in WW2 or for beating them at Waterloo or for winning the Battle of Quiberon Bay and that why they let them leave their shores:D.

macafee2

I have deleted the post i quoted as I have lost track of who posted what and may have attributed quite to wrong person

How strange
 

A large amount of migrants have died and all of a sudden there are arrests on the French side, so why not before? As for highly skilled, I doubt that 1% of them have any skills at all, if they were Doctors or engineers etc, they would have been filtered out on the journey across Europe and offered higher pay than the UK ever would give them. By the time they reach France there's only the dregs left with one reason they want to get to the UK, it's a soft touch and the streets are paved with benefits, many of them get more than a lot of UK nationals in handouts. The UK has a very nice benefits system but pays the poorest pensions, I'd travel across Europe for a chance of getting a free ride, they're not coming for the weather are they. It's time to make it much harder, a hot meal and then shipped right back to their country of origin, real refugees don't have £3000 to pay to be shipped to the UK. The truth is that we're allowing an army of fighting age young men that don't respect our laws or customs to come here without question, it's a recipe for disaster and our children and grandchildren will pay a high price. It's not sensationalist to think the worst, it's a growing problem the world over, import the third world, become the third world. They leave a place because it's become a hell hole and then proceed to turn they place they get to into the hell hole they left, look around at some of the ghettos that are appearing all over.

There's a certain degree of NAUGHTY WORD-NAUGHTY WORD-NAUGHTY WORD-NAUGHTY WORD- being spouted by some on here!

If you don't think the UK is involved in any warfighting, have a look at Op Shader and Op Barkhane, and then look at the RN's commitments in the Persian Gulf, Caribbean and Far East.

If you want to know why people are flocking here from the Middle East and Africa, look at what jihadists are doing to ordinary people in those regions. If you're not familiar with ISGS, ISWAP and various other factions, and what they do, maybe now is the time!

And the idea that people come here because they 'won't be executed for rape' - seriously? The illegal immigrants may well be after all the benefits our country has to offer, but the suggestion that they are sexual predators looking for a safe haven to carry out appalling crimes is just absurd.

Finally, whatever your views of Brexit, it should now be clear that the whole business of 'taking back control' of our borders was a myth. We had full control of our borders even within the EU, but successive British governments chose not to impose a cap on how many EU citizens came here to work. All that has happened is that we have restricted the number of hard-working people who broadly share our values, and funny old thing, we can't now fill all the jobs in care homes, meat processing, haulage etc (yes I'm aware that there are other factors which have contributed to the shortages as well). The number of people trying to enter this country illegally hasn't changed, because that was nothing to do with EU membership. The only difference is that the EU is less likely to sympathize with our situation since we told them to do one!

Interesting pictures you have included at the bottom of the post. Are you able to explain what the middle one is trying to say?

To anyone not familar with this thread, I suspect Israel will be the odd one out because it is the only country of the lot that has not been liberated by western countries or our allies in recent years from the rule of their chosen dictators.

[QUOTE=macafee2;2909654]
Ian - I think you need to edit your post as some comments made by others are appearing to be attributed to Simondi.

Yes I agree. The myth of taking back control, served its purpose at the referendum, sensible people saw it for what it was. The people who said it, need to be taken to task IMO. I cannot see a resolution to this as we have poor relations with the EU, France in particular. Unfortunately as a third country now, one that has just left the EU, we will not be helped even if we donate many more £’s to France. Luckily the winter weather will come to our aid but the problem will not go away.

We need Captain Mainwaring and crew to man the beach defenses.;) Our country is just too attractive. We take a lot for granted here and need to appreciate what we have but also protect it too. Why bother having an immigration system if we can't control it?:shrug:Unfortunately for many of the incomers, the grass isn't always greener here. Perhaps we could swap some of our shirkers for would be workers?;)

Dad's Army would do a better job than our border force!

Border farce!

I find the current situation with regard to these migrants as tragic, not a subject to make fun of.

Could that be the high risk of being murdered, limbs removed, close family disposed of etc?


Look at our history: has not our scientific and cultural knowledge to say nothing of a multitude of energetic small businesses been started and enhanced by immigrants? Doesn't the fella in no. 10 have some Turkish roots? (OK can't win 'em all).

I thought he was American!

As to the risk of being murdered, how likely is that in France (as one example of a western European country)? The fact that France receives three times as many asylum applications as the UK would suggest that the vast majority of arrivals feel perfectly safe there.

This "tragic" situation would not exist if we had a robust border control and the illegal immigrants were treated as such. Genuine assylum seekers do not need to enter the country via these dangerous routes. If they can afford to pay thousands to people smugglers, they can afford to enter in a legal fashion via the proper routes using legal papers and passports.:shrug:I would never make fun of a tragic situation but of our way of dealing with and policing our border.

[QUOTE=MSS;2909664]
I suspect that anyone who has read my posts would realise what side of the fence I sit on regarding this and other issues:}.

For avoidance of doubt, we have a basic human responsibility to look after people.:D

Spot on, though there are other factors but all this baloney about many of them having skills is utter tosh. Even if there are a few that have and get jobs it means as a country we don't want to upskill native personnel!

Kev

There have been a number of such incidents if one read's the court papers but the punishment is very lenient. I have to admit, though, in Eritriea and Somalia (the two regions where the perpetrators I read about) came from it is considered to be the female who is at fault. However, commit rape in either of those countries. as a foreigner, as see what sanction you would get.

We have enough naughty native people and don't need to import more.

Kev

Well yes, but: "Johnson's paternal grandfather Osman Wilfred Kemal, was born to Ali Kemal’s first wife Winifred Brun, an Anglo-Swiss woman, while the Kuneralp siblings came from Kemal’s second marriage with Sabiha Hanim, a Turkish woman, who was the daughter of a prominent Ottoman pasha."


And . . . according to another website (FindMyPast) he and Cameron (remember him?) are both distantly related to King George 11 but via an illegitimate line. Make of that what you will.

Well
 

The western allies haven't invaded Syria or Yemen as far as I can recall, when the rule of law is decided by tribes as it is in many places such as these, you get countries imploding. The western allies tried to bring normality to some of these places but, the second the countries are handed back they revert back to tribal rule.

I'll throw a name in here...Elin Krantz.

Well, mongrels are supposed to be more genetically able to withstand certain diseases :shrug: ;)

Kev

One of the attractions might just be the attitude to women, particularly girls. I imagine, in my admitted naivety, that fathers all over the world might be as protective of their children as we are.

To whit: one of our MP's is currently presenting a bill for a new law to make illegal a particularly intrusive medical examination of young girls about to marry. Some of them very young.

I'm told the bill has only to go through the Lord's to be on the statute book. No need to go into details I'm sure, but such invasive treatment is horrific and is, as I understand it, endemic in certain areas of the country. Why else would the children be in those boats?

I think you have answered you own point!

I also think you need to do some reading up on Syria and Yemen. The latter is still bombed on a weekly basis by a coalition led by Saudi Arabia using weapons purchased from and maintained by the US and UK.

The only form of stability in many Arab and African countries is for a continuous low-level of infighting between tribes and/or dictatorship. Trying to bring Western normality disturbs the equilibrium leading to destabilisation and major wars. Surely, we have learnt this in Afghanistan?

I personally don't have a problem with wars. But, careful planning is needed in terms of who to choose as the enemy at what point in time and the desired outcome.

So, the end justifies the means?

Don't miss the point on this one. The reason for the need of a Bill to criminalise FGM and not for previouse generations is because it is now very prevalent in the UK.

However, circumcision is not. Go figure!

Kev

[QUOTE=MSS;2909664]if it was post 31 I have updated it.
Simondi if I attributed something incorrectly to you, my apologies, genuine error. Very sorry if I have embarrassed you.

if it was not 31, please tell me which post

macafee2

Correct.
 

A `religion` that allows dirty old men to marry girls of ten and under isn't anything I want to recognise as normal or `part of a culture` it's paedophilia and nothing less, here in Wigan there are already gangs of Afghan `refugees` harassing young girls, this is not how I want things to be, afraid for my daughters and granddaughters.

Exactly what proportion of immigrants commit rape, either here or in their own country? The later point about FGM is valid, and that is a shocking issue, but to suggest that immigrants come here for consequence-free rape opportunities is absurd. And it's irrelevant to compare how those countries would treat a foreigner who commits rape - it's the people from those countries we're talking about, not what might happen to a westerner!

IF you read the papers or listen to the news you will note that when these crimes are committed they now say a"Male" person or a "Person" has been charged with Rape etc, It is only later in to the arrest that they will identify the race and origins of the perpetrator. Why is this??? it is to stop the public being told what they already know, That the rape and paedophilia that is going on has increased ten fold since the influx of these Illegals entered the country.

[QUOTE=macafee2;2909748]Absolutely no need to apologise but thanks:bowdown:

The criminals ought to be arrested and dealt with in accordance to our laws.
Fortunately I have not witnessed hoards of migrant gangs rampaging through the streets but even if I had it still would not mean that every human being that is fleeing to our wonderful country is a criminal.

I don't like referring to a human being as being an illegal. It diminishes them as a person thereby dehumanising them and making it easier to ignore their plight. No human is illegal, but their actions can be.

I realise that my views and opinions will be distasteful to some, however that's life. We all have different views and opinions.

Take the politicians to task, who said that they would take back control of our borders. They clearly have not. Our police should deal with sorting out the criminals, unfortunately they don’t seem fit for purpose. I’m afraid our country is in a mess. How we proceed to getting it sorted is difficult to imagine. As we now are a third country in relation to the EU, a country that is battling away with the block on many fronts, we cannot expect much in the way of help from them sorting out this migrant problem. The UK has a problem.

Blame the ‘take back control’ of Brexit as much and as often as you like – it’s a mute and disreputable argument and the facts are entirely different.

The facts of the matter are that the EU is blatantly turning a blind eye to their own legal responsibilities. They have a collective duty to abide by their own laws without favour or strategic avoidance. There are several countries that lie between the points of entry into the continent, the final one happens to be France, not UK. It is a simple fact that the real problem is being avoided by UKGOV out of a desire not to light fires of even greater animosity than Macron has displayed.

EU law requires any so-called ‘illegal aliens’ are to be held at their point of entry into EU territory and repatriated at an early opportunity. They have each ignored their own laws and have overridden EU law because they do not want to accept unfettered immigration for a variety of reasons. Hence the blind eyes and even assistance for travel oinwards with a known destination.

Oddball arguments about ‘taking back control’ are deliberately ignorant of what is involved in a now much wider mood of animosity towards UK by the EU and are an unfounded basis for argument which can only serve to confuse and misdirect the argument.

Correct me if I am wrong but the EU regulations to which you refer also state that the distribution of refugees across EU countries is to be proportionate. At the moment, I believe the French take roughly 3+ times the number of immigrants compared with the UK and Germany a far higher number. The UK is number 5 in the EU+UK hierarchy for numbers processed/admitted.

I don't believe it is possible to ignore one part of an agreement/regulation and cry foul that another part is not being implemented. The UK is in no position to tell the EU how to implement its regulations in the same way as the EU cannot tell the UK. Both parties have control of their own territories and systems.

I am not arguing for or against allowing the migrants in, but merely pointing out yours appears a very much one-sided view.

I’m sorry but we were told that we would be able to take back control over our borders, full stop. Leaving the EU would allow us to do that. It’s not the EU’s fault that we cannot do that.

So I can assume you don't think the French are in any way being helpful, or alternatively deliberately obstructive and complicit, in allowing illegal immigrants unrestricted passage to UK? Allowing known criminals to operate a tragic trade which must occasionally lead to the death of minors? Even waving the passengers on across the beaches and into rubber dinghies?

The UK bears no responsibility for this trafficking in any way. As said, the comments about a failed opposition to UK independence as an argument is a false premise and that is obvious, let's keep on track!

We do have control of our borders but we do not control or have any say in the EU and particularly France. We do not control or have any say in the operation of of border control for France, or blind eye of Brussels. Or are 'we' the only country that operates inside the settled law? Encouraging people to their demise is hardly a responsible thing to do. So far we have been welcoming these unfortunate people, that demonstrates our ethics. Wish we could say the same for Europe.

May I ask which 'settled law' you are referring to?

As far as I understand it, EU law is applicable within the EU, not between the EU and the UK.

It is not unreasonable to assume that the French are not being as helpful as they could be to address a potential problem for the UK. Especially if doing so would enhance the problem for them.

Talk about state the obvious! Of course we can control our borders but if a EU country chooses to adopt deliberate policies of antagonism (see Fishing etc.) we must act only in a reasonable and gentlemanly way. To use threats and retaliate in like kind in anger it would only lead to escalation. Not exactly a sensible way forward!

However, my original thoughts about using the fallacious argument of Brexit remains unchallenged. That's a battle won, which ever side we were on. Seen our latest trade figures? And foreign trade agreements?

It always seems to be someone else's fault. The French, the EU, the ............ whoever.

Meanwhile people are dying. Tragic.

We as part of the EU were in a scheme that allowed us to send the migrants back through the EU. Unfortunately we are no longer able to do that, as we decided to leave the bloc.

I believe our brilliant trade sec has signed some 50 international agreements 49 of which are virtually identical to those that prevailed before. The exception is that with Australia which the NFU and others say will cripple our livestock farmers by allowing increased use of hormones and lower husbandry standards. Maybe you're happy with that?

What do you see when you look at pictures of those migrants and their families?
 

I see people who will work as hard as anyone to make ends meet and in their young I see future doctors, scientists, kitchen fitters and so on.

I don't have a clear view on whether the migrants should we welcomed into the UK or turned away. I do understand the view held by some that they have different customs, values and norms which may/would dilute or conflict with the British way of life and norms. But then I came from a different culture yet my boss of one time used to say to me that I was more English than he was. A French friend also used to get annoyed that I was 'so English'.

The one thing I am sure about is that 'the problem' will not be solved by saying the migrants are a French or EU problem. These people actually want to come to the UK. Those who wanted to settle in an EU country have applied to do so - large numbers of them. The solution I think lies in our government working with the governments of the migrants and potential migrants origins to educate their citizens that the UK is not the place where their dreams and aspirations are going to be realised.

This article provides useful information on numbers. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53699511

To highlight the contradictions and complexities of the whole issue of immigration, my brother and I used to work in a PCB making firm during the summer holidays whilst at college. Between us we were able to cover for anyone on holiday as we could run any of the machines or workstations in the firm. There was one person who always used to leave newspaper cuttings saying foreigners should go home on his table whenever we stood in for him. Yet his aspiration was to go and live in Spain at retirement, which he and his wife did when they retired!

Let’s hope that couple have done it correctly and obtained Spanish residency, if not citizenship rather having to return home due to the aftermath of Brexit.

My boss is retiring to Spain next year, can't say I blamed her

How easy is it to retire to Spain now? I suppose it’s getting the health that will be big deal. The good old days are definately gone. We would eventually retire to NZ on a family sponsored retirement scheme if we had the money, don’t think we have. To be ok you need about £3/4 m Sterling in cash and a good income.

I see the futility of going to war to assist so-called friends who merely see the UK as a bumwipe. And given the unmentionable common denominator that many if not most of the channel migrants bring with them I see, having spent some time in Ealing and Southall, potential for Sikhism in particular to encounter more bad weather resulting from the said unmentionable common denominator. :D :getmecoat:

Show me the statistics that prove your point. I won't hold my breath. And anyway, you're missing the point - I don't dispute that some of the immigrants commit crimes, some of which are very serious. But what I objected to was the statement that the ability to commit rape without getting executed was the motive for them coming to Britain.

And to those who accuse the EU of not playing by the rules, I think the old adage about people living in glass houses not throwing stones might be worth revisiting!

I think we have found the nub of this. There seem to be two schools of thought around this sea-borne invasion.

1. My point is one of legality, especially when there are already in existence adequate procedures for asylum and other reasons for entry into UK domicile. Well used and well known.

2. Then there is the view that we might temper our objection to illegal entry by only accepting the ones that might be of beneficial use to us.

That second one seems to me to be uncomfortably close to the dodgy principles surrounding slavery but using humanitarian principles as an unintended cloak. At the very least it is selectivism at its worst.

In response to earlier questions about legalities and boundaries I wonder if perhaps not all of us are fully aware of some of the contractual obligations surrounding border management negotiated at the time of cessation of membership of EU.

For any uninitiated members there was a treaty negotiated with Michel Barnier, and later passed in to the final exit law within the EU in 2003 (remains in force), called the Treaty of Touquet. It alllows Britain to operate border controls in France. French officials at the time agreed with this amongst other favourable matters.

Now, as well as tearing up that treaty, Macron is the maverick taking the settled EU law into his own hands to suit his election chances. Not only that, but the very same Barnier is now saying (according to legitimate reports) that ‘It is now time to rescind Touquet...and let people who wish to claim asylum in the UK go there and do so’. Of course M. Barnier is also seeking election in France next April in direct competition with Macron. You couldn’t make it up! French perfidity knows no bounds.

Meanwhile, Macron is saying ‘France has never had so many police and gendarmes, and at times military personnel, mobilised in the battle against illegal immigration’. In whose interests, exactly?

Meanwhile EU Commission is somewhat muted, in spite of this squabbling in contravention of major EU Treaties.

Wraymond, as possibly one of the uninitiated (:o), I wonder if I can ask you to confirm whether this particular treaty allows for British policemen to patrol French beaches and likewise, of concern to myself, French policemen on Felixstowe beach?

As a non-lawyer I do not have the forensic knowledge worth chancing my neck. But I wouldn't think so. Considering the hectic atmosphere of the time then, all kinds of things had importance of varying degree and understanding. However there is no doubt that, as mentioned above, the treaty exists at least with regard to French liabilities. Unless, of course, anyone can establish differently. Hasten thee to Wicki I guess.

However, taken together with the historic, or should that be histrionic, repeated action of French lorry drivers and similar with the French fishing fleet, nothing seems out of bounds between 'allies'. Except on our side perhaps. Maybe we were seduced into compliance in 39/45.

Blame all our woes on Johnny Foreigner. Unfortunately we cannot as we have taken back control!

If at first you can't think of anything constructive...or even helpful...why not use sarcasm. What a shame.

Thank you. So, would you say that the first three of the four points in BJ's letter to Macron fall under this particular treaty?

Putting aside the fact that the Frenchies are bad, would you say that putting the head of state to head of state level letter on Twitter was a sincere and wise action or merely intended to appease supporters at home by making suggestions that the other side could not possibly accept?

The reason I am having difficulty, apart from quite possibly being one of the uninitiated, is that I was taught never to put something in the public domain until discussion and agreement with the other side of a proposed negotiation is in place unless it is merely to score points for non-constructive motives.

You are trying to blame JF.

So Boris is obeying all the treaties he signed? See here to possibly refresh your memory.

Para1. BJ is rubbish, a bluffer of the first order. I would not trust him with any kind of French letter. His publishing of inter-premier correspondence is crass bad manners and distinctly undiplomatic. If he actually thought what you imply, it merely shows my opinion of him and some of those who support his antics is valid.

Para2. Please tell me which posts of mine give the impression that I think all 'Frenchies' (as you put it), using an unfortunate abbreviation that has cost Yorkshire cricket so much, are bad. I have a 20 strong collection of hats and I will eat them all if you can do that.

Para3. If you took umbrage at 'uninitiated' you might have been unaware that it is not insulting, at least not in this context. Further, my motives are not disguised in any way. HTH.

I didn't say he was. But if you think he is not, see previous post for my opinion. Do you think if one acts badly, then the other can do the same?

[QUOTE=Torqueofthedevil;2909995]Show me the statistics that prove your point. I won't hold my breath. And anyway, you're missing the point - I don't dispute that some of the immigrants commit crimes, some of which are very serious) Quote

At least you dont dispute that immigrants commit crimes.. For statistics you only have to read 1,what crimes are being commited,2How they are being committed and 3 by whom they are being committed ,

1 Increased Rape and Gang Rape, Child abduction and trafficking, Increase of Drug supply.

2 Violent crimes with the weapon of choice a machete or knife, This was not so prevalent years ago.

3 An increased number of unemployed ethnic minority people who dont want to work and prefer a life of crime because they know there is little or no punishment for what they do
3

That neatly covers the need for our already existing and operating system of considering applications from asylum seekers and other worthy people irrespective of race, creed, or colour. Exactly as it should be.

They have to satisfy reasonable security checks to be successful applicants and it covers all legitimate requirements. That's why it is legal. Trying to force acceptance by brandishing infants and knowing our morals will not turn them away is horrific. What's more, it works.

Point 2 - OK it's just Macron?


Point 3 - not at all. No umbrage, just a bit of amusement.

[QUOTE=Number 6;2910047]Sorry, that's nowhere near good enough - what I am waiting for is statistics showing 'That the rape and paedophilia that is going on has increased ten fold since the influx of these Illegals entered the country.' [sic]

If I could have it in English, that would be even better!

It's clearly an emotive subject, balancing a sense of basic human compassion against a fear of people who are different.

I wonder though, if for arguments sake China launched an invasion against Australia and New Zealand and succeeded in taking control. Imagine then them handing power back to the indigenous population and removing the rights to freedom of speech, education, religious worship, voting and land ownerhip to white people. Some of the white people then decide to flee to the UK and Europe, after all, we are safe, have peace within our borders, stable governments, honour and respect human rights, have spoken out against the atrocities being committed in their homeland, who knows perhaps we even sent troops there or bombed them:shrug: Some flee as families for a better life, others decide to flee here and send money back to their families in Australia or New Zealand as their families are not up for such an arduous journey.

Would we treat them the same or differently as those fleeing from Iran, Yeman, Kurdistan and so on?

A hypothetical question I know, but if they look the same and speak the same as us would we welcome them or turn them back. Would we say you have passed through other countries stay there or tell them if you can afford to pay a trafficker then you don't need to come here :shrug:

Or would we just blame the French and the EU?

As usual Simondi you speak wise words.

[QUOTE=Torqueofthedevil;2910074]Can you explain the above please???

Looks English to me:smilie_re:.


On another note, As you are looking for "statistics" Can you show me any where they disprove what I have said?

[QUOTE=Number 6;2910105]Oh dear! How does an influx enter the country? In English it would read:

'...since the influx of these illegals to the country'

or alternatively:

'...since the increase in the number of these illegals entering the country'

Happy to help :)

And on the question of statistics, that's not how it works. You have stated something as fact, I have queried your 'facts', so the onus is on you to back up your claim - or admit that it was bolleaux in the first place. Over to you!

Just read the express on line, not my sort of paper but like to get a feel of different points of view. At the end of an article about how popular the two main parties were, I read a comment by a disillusioned reader who said

‘We are taking back control’ that’s what we voted for in the last election and have lost control of everything.

I apply his/her thoughts to the current migrant crisis. How can we expect the EU and particularly France, to help us with our migrant crisis when we are battling away with them on other issues such as NI, fisheries etc. The winter weather will hopefully almost stop these poor people risking their lives, I do hope so.

A fertile imagination Simon, but it ignores the very basic premise that Australians coming here would presumably come via the legal route! It’s a preposterous scenario given the vested interests of over half of the rest of the world.

I don’t doubt for a second that you are not excluding Aboriginal applicants as they would, if they wanted to, have to desert their fabled historic lands and ancestors and that would be understandably extremely unlikely. But if they chose to come here they would have exactly the same standing as other Australians provided they came legally. Such an invasion is a false premise on more than one level in my view.

The last sentence is, I regret to say, fatuous. UK is right now forging new links with several EU nations in joint cooperation over a range of avenues - from industry to military cooperation. All details available online if one is interested. There is no need for hostilities of any kind, the intercontinental cooperation is ongoing but nationalistic fervour continues to get in the way in some areas.

[QUOTE=Number 6;2910105]
It looks English to me. All the words are English and the relevant subjective pronoun to which the description refers, is influx.

Sorry I clearly don't as Wraymond has corrected me.
I am a very naughty and fatuous boy it would seem:eek:

As a canny Scot you must know one can't be all things to all men! Well, not often anyway.
Edit: Er, correction, didn't say you were fatuous, just the sentence. I'm not clever enough to safely insult people.

[QUOTE=Number 6;2910047]
Some of the points I made earlier. Don't forget FGM.


Kev

Why, as a male, do you need to rape? I don't read about every case but there is a common thread. Of course, if it's not your mother/wife/daughter involved then it is much easier to argue for rights rather than look at the life sentence of the victims.


Kev

Please Wraymond, do not do yourself down. I think you are so clever that at times you allow us to see right through your writing! ;):bowdown:

Do you not remember the incident in Germany where "refugee" gangs raped and molested women?


What is more subjective for us, reports from various institutions, the media or what we actually see, hear have relevant experience of?


Saga_Lout is correct when he says that gangs (in his case Afghans) are using force to commit rape/sexual assualt and which the police turn their eyes away so that they are not deemed "institutionally racist". Think of all the girl victims of the grooming people that were let down by the many institutions of this country. Standards have dropped dramatically, and will continue to do so, due the racial (and other pressures) card and such.


Diversity means division and as it has happened on our watch we can see the difference since, say, the 50's (a much more fragmented society).


Kev

Kev - I fully respect your right to hold the above rather interesting view. I am however curious, do you ever take holidays abroad?

Indeed, do you ever visit Wales or Scotland?

Finally, I guess Ravinder and I should not be expecting to be included in your Christmas wishes message? :eek:

You are correct again:bowdown: it's so uncanny

This 'diversity' claptrap thing interests me. It only goes to force people to join what are essentially gangs of argumentative attention seekers. And most of them have nothing new to say, still less to contribute, to the human condition.

Can we ever expect to be once again a constituent and singular part of the human race? And stop all this splintering divisiveness?

I have met Rav a number of occasions and although I have never met you I hope too one day. Both of you will be very much in my Christmas wishes:D

Diversity is a great thing, thank goodness we are in the early part of the 21st century and not stuck in the middle of the last century:}

What have Pakistani grooming gangs got to do with migrants crossing the Channel? Secondly, please tell me how many of the approximately one million "regugees" who entered Germany in 2015 took part in the revolting attacks on the following New Year's Eve? Finally, where did Saga_lout mention rape/sexual "assualt" by Afghans?

[QUOTE=wraymond;2910160]Yes, but it's not good English! As I have said, an influx cannot enter a country because it's an abstract - and anyway, it's a noun, not a pronoun ;)

Indeed so (the first bit) - and not helped by hysteria, which is fed by lazy assumption.

I suspect that your hypothetical mass migration from Aus/NZ would meet a different reception, because people from those countries - like western European countries - share a broadly common background in terms of values and beliefs. There would be much less of 'the fear of people who are different'.

The big irony of this is that Brexit promised the prospect of taking back control of our borders. Overlooking for a moment the fact that we could have had complete control of our borders even within the EU, all that has actually changed is that we have lost a great many EU migrants who worked hard at many of the useful but difficult jobs which many Brits don't fancy, whereas the situation with immigrants from elsewhere hasn't changed at all!

I think you are right, the fear or hype is largely because the majority of migrants have different cultures and let's be honest they tend not to be white. I am pretty certain that others will argue differently.
Your point, copied above, sums up our current predicament beautifully.

Thank you. What a shame that so many people fell for it!

The way you have worded that is almost suggesting the victim is acceptable collateral damage.
Watching things like police interceptors there are foreigners committing crime. Jail them then deport them, simple as that. If they run the risk of abuse or death in their own country, they should have thought about that before committing crime here. We will give you a save place but commit crime and you are out. To much pussy footing round. FWIW there is a case where I think English parents so abuse their son he lost both legs, the parent will be out of jail after only 5 years. Government is talking about making similar crimes a life term but these parents did not get the maximum sentence so making it life is "pointless"

macafee2

[QUOTE=Torqueofthedevil;2910414]Thank you, always happy to be corrected! However, my Big Book has it as an alternative in that a pronoun can be 'a word used as a substitute for a noun to establish or differentiate intent'. Mind you, it is a very old Big Book.

I certainly didn't intend to imply that - I don't believe that at all. And it's true that plenty of foreigners commit crimes in Britain, whatever path they took to get here - in the same way that plenty of Brits commit crimes abroad. But what I object to is the hysterical ranting by several other posters which lacks any basis in fact or reason.

And while I wish that your instant conviction/deportation combo was an option, the fact is that it's not - in the majority of cases. Another illusion of Brexit was that we would be able to make our own arrangements on this, whereas the reality is that the Government chose to lock us into the ECHR - which of course is a separate treaty and predated the EU by a number of years.

I love stereo types and on the basis of that and what fleeting sights Ive had of the ???? channel crossers and general reporting giving clues to the origin of the people they look to me to be mostly young males (14/15-30ish years old) from Syria/Northern Kurdistan/Libya likely to be more familiar with the workings of a AK47 and or RPG than be a Nuclear scientist or any other skills. Got fed up with fighting whoever or on whatever side and maybe their see their skills are numbered and its time to get out? The others are winning and we will be in a little book? They all looked strong well clothed and well fed fellows-in a fight Id back them against most Britons of today, certainly nothing like the rag clothed, starving millions of displaced persons who wandered Europe 1945- 55. So let them in? not sensible really. If anyone wants to let them in, they can give one board and bed and go bail for them but dont leave any sharp knives around. Chris.S

[QUOTE=wraymond;2910456]So are you saying I could possibly have been correct in the way I worded my response??

[QUOTE=Number 6;2911190]If that's aimed at me, I have no idea what you're on about! You appear to be attributing to me a statement by someone else.

Please don't check the facts of where they come from, because you might not enjoy realizing that your assumption is wrong! None of the countries you list is in the top three countries of origin for those arriving recently (although I would be interested to see exactly where you place the boundaries of 'Northern Kurdistan').

OK Charlie. you tell me where they come from and who told you where they come from and what evidence was produced by whoever from where ever. And you point about where is Northern Kurdistan is very relevant, Maybe Syria, Turkey and Irak could help with that point. And none of that matters- what does is I am about right in what I say. Chris,S.

Unfortunately, you're not! And rather than me pointing out the factual errors in what you have posted, why don't you do some homework before posting?

This will never happen. Regardless of the uniformity of the human race, there will always be something to debate and disagree about. For example, is the correct term clipping, absorbing or something altogether different when applied to DC? Uniformity of the human race could not possibly be allowed to get in the way of the settling such important matters.:snowball1:

I blame the Romans, I mean what have they done for us?

My last sentence?

Can we ever expect to be once again a constituent and singular part of the human race? And stop all this splintering divisiveness?

'Constituent'? 'Singular'? Of course. One part of the whole with definable characteristics and objectives. Size, features and colour being irrelevant in any analysis.

Not to be pedantic Jon, but my dictionary has it as:

Singular: Extraordinary, remarkable, uncommon, unconventional, not customary or usual.

The poetic tradition sees it as the unique differences to a greater or lesser degree between all comparators making up the whole.

Source: Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language 1996!

About time this thread was closed, It is no longer about "Illegal Immigrants" crossing the Channel.

It is now a Thread about Grammar and which word is or is not used in the correct tense/way. This may have started when I was pulled up by a member for using the word "Influx in what he determined was the wrong context.

So Mods please close it.

Filled the country full of nettles...

Nettles - yep - another bunch of immigrant invaders that the natives have to tolerate and avoid getting too close to. No doubt a few people feel. :icon_lol:

John Nettles? he drove a Rover 75 didn't he?:laugh:

This one perhaps…

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...d51d87900e.jpg

Makes lovely tea.---:icon_lol:

And Rabbits.

Migrants crossing.
 

Migrants crossing. At school in the 1950's I learnt they were were called "Settlers".
Things have changed, now they are called "illegal immigrants". It's enough to give you indigestion :icon_redface:
Kev.

That's the 'new age' of accepted truth. It's called Progress. Or Wokeness, where we get into Alice in Wonderland.

I hope it is only just indigestion that you suffer from and nothing more serious.

With something more serious, you are most likely to be driven to the hospital by an immigrant taxi driver, the doctor is likely to be an immigrant or even better a mixed-race couple with one white-English and the other an immigrant. The nurses are likely to be immigrants, the cleaners immigrants and the person who brings you your meals may also be an immigrant.

You will then find the junior doctors of all nationalities, colours, shapes and sizes, mixing together and behaving like a family not noticing any differences in their friends and colleagues.

When you are back here, there will be someone like myself, an immigrant, who is married to a stunning Suffolk native, full of himself and grateful for the wonderful life that multiculturalism has brought him.

Life could feel quite miserable, with happy multiculturalism all around you.

So, be grateful if it is only indigestion!

:xmas-smiley-008::xmas-smiley-008::xmas-smiley-008:

Charlie if you know Im willing to be informed. As to being right or wrong,I have been wrong and will no doubt be so again but Im pretty sure Im not this time. They dont come with any identification because it has been destroyed by them or their helpers long before they entered the no borders area. So no identification, no origin, no repatriation. We only have the evidence of our eyes and ears. And for those who think some trade or skill makes a case for them its not that,it is numbers, too many is too many, we are over populated, now. Chris S.

Chris - you must have a happy life living in Reading given how culturally diverse the area is! :laugh:

Maninder.

In the 1950,s these people were "Immigrants" with documents and proper paper work who applied to come to the country.

Now they come here undocumented, land from a rubber boat and disappear into the country side. And also it is the numbers that do this that is the problem.

Migrants crossing. At school in the 1950's I learnt they were were called "Settlers" when arriving in the Americas.
I should have made that clearer. :icon_redface:
Things have changed, now they are called "illegal immigrants". It's enough to give you indigestion.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...tory-22739301/
Kev.

Well said Maninder, where would we be without this multicultural society we live in, I have known nothing else in my life growing up in the middle of Coventry, all races, creeds and colours were my mates.

Now we see on the media about the hundreds of dinghy crossings each week, the gangs that earn tens of thousands from other folks misery, it's about time we put these folk on a P&O ferry to bring them across, at least then there would be no more loss of life.

I get that there are 100 chancers in ther Man Utd shirt and latest mobile phone that want to come to Britain for the ease of joining ourr benefit scheme, but if one of those hundered folk is a genuine refugee, escaping from God knows what then ill happily pay my taxes to support the other 99 so that the genuine one can live here without fear.

I thought someone would have got it.---:icon_question::icon_question::icon_question:

Maninder you are doing it again you naughty boy! Ive lived in Reading since 1956 and the population has changed more than a little, no problem really, Ive seen Chinese, West Indians, Nigerians, Spaniards, Irish(North and South), Poles, Ukrainians, Indians, Pakistani's, Iranians,Germans, French, and many more come to live here. They have grown old like me and in conversation one thing comes up almost everytime and that is immigration is out of control. This maybe a bit of a rose tinted back view at work but its expressed. As for culturally diverse and liking it no I dont. Chris.S. P.S. you better be careful, if I moved Suffolk has some nice area's.

Be careful, Chris. If you did move up here I would be inviting myself around regularly for a cupa so that you could experience diversity at first hand! :icon_lol:

Oh I dont know, the mensahib can be a bit sticky. Chris.S

What a great pic ... car looking good too. :xmas-smiley-008:

I dont think the NHS used as an example of multiculturalism and its benefits is very apt. Chris.S.

My family were "immigrants" brought in by Lord Londonderry to mine coal in the North East of England after the famines in Ireland (they rushed here in their thousands). The coal was used to power the Industrial Revolution and great grandads on both sides of the family worked "down't pit" to fuel the manufacturing of armaments during the First World War. My grandad was brought up around horses and went up and down the country finding "War Horses", before being sent off to France. We can't have an open door policy but we should welcome genuine folks here so that we can protect ourselves. How that can be done is a difficult task.