Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Give them time Seph, they're currently only halfway through smashing the Pensioner and Disabled gangs :D

As for EU countries, why would they bother trying to stop those who are just "passing through".? If they smash the smugglers, the migrants are stuck in their Country ;)

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Not factually correct - the smugglers take the vast majority to the EU countries, so it will also benefit them…

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statis...ual_statistics

For comparison, there 108,000 applications for asylum in the U.K. in 2024.

From the link above

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

To be perfectly honest Hugh, I used the phrase 'EU Countries' so it didn't look like I was pointing at France :D

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

France had more asylum seekers than the U.K….

---------- Post added at 11:14 ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 ----------

What are "the right naval operations", please?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Get Chere on deck singing turn back migrants :tu:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Now then Hugh, you've been warned before about bringing facts into this thread! :D

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Dodging the answer, then...

Be more specific - have the courage of your convictions...

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

No…

You’re avoiding responsibility for defining actions by hinting at what actions you want to happen, so you can later say "no, no, I didn’t say/mean that to happen" - you are Nigel Farage, and I claim my ten pounds!

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

We're already sending people back so there would be more people here if the agreement was not in place.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Well France is a bit bigger isn't it, anyway they'd have more and we'd have less if they got off their derrières and took a harder line.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

U.K. population 69 million, France population 67 million…

---------- Post added at 17:31 ---------- Previous post was at 17:29 ----------

But you’re deliberately vague about what "taking France on" means, just like your statement about "stop them with the right naval operations" - meaningless soundbites…

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

France is just over twice the size of the UK, yet the UK population numbers are greater than France. Plenty of room left over there ;)

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

And are the French happy about that?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I'd rather you stated what you actually meant, rather than misinterpret what I thought you thought you meant...

How would this confrontation take place, and would it involve " the right naval operations", and would these "operations" breach International Law?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

We're not 'taking on' France. Complete brainrot.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

People do seem to let their irrational hatreds get the better of them, but would no doubt be at the back of the queue to volunteer for getting involved with any facing off with France.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Once again, you waffle without specifics…

Trust me, our imaginations are unlikely to be congruent, as I don’t have paranoid fantasies about the Great Replacement Theory or moot Trump-like solutions…

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

some people would rather stand on the Kent shoreline with their pants around their ankles waving a white flag

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Please keep your personal fantasies to yourself… ;)

---------- Post added at 09:22 ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 ----------

No, I’m trying to understand what you would like done, rather than just "something must be done!" or "the right naval operations"…

Once again, you’re Faraging - being non-specific, hoping others will think inappropriate solutions/actions, and then deny that is what you meant…

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

In quite a few discussions on the topic of the stopping 'boat people', my usual go-to answer is snipers.

I very rarely get asked again, which is a shame as my alternate choice is Minefields :D

Of course this is just me being the fearless and intrepid dick that I can be, because if I say "you'll never stop them" it just provokes further pointless discussion.

The monster is out of the box and growing, and you won't get it back in unless you slice and dice it.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The monster now won't fit unless you chop it into smaller tightly packed pieces.
Do you start with the head, the tail, or just chop away indiscriminately hoping to get lucky? Can you actually see and reach the all of the monster?

I can identify as a Dick if I want to :p: Sometimes being a Dick means giving an answer nobody wants to hear, to a question nobody has an answer to :D

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Probably because your suggestions have as much basis in reality as saying "I'll click my Red Doc Martens and say "there's no place like home!"... :)

It would be a crime for military personnel to snipe unarmed civilians who were not posing an imminent threat to anyone at the time (and also against the detailed guidance is found in JSP 383 -
Joint Services Manual on the Law of Armed Conflict), and mining the busiest waterway in the world would have inappropriate consequences on the rest of the shipping (over 500 ships per day) that use the Channel...

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

But is it more realistic than a conflict with France?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

GB News revealed on Wednesday that 107 migrants crossed the Channel in one boat and it was a new design compared to what has been used to date. A senior maritime security source told GB News, “This is highly alarming.


107 in one boat, that's going to end in disaster if it's the new boat size.

https://londonlovesbusiness.com/smug...-100-migrants/

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

they won't be stopped by hiding behind "international Law"

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

If it was easy, it would have been done by now. If you can sort out the root causes in the countries they are coming from you could prevent a lot of them coming. Easier said than done but better than declaring war on France!

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Can we hold off on the war with France until after Sunday, my Granddaughters are at Disney land Paris

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Exactly Hugh, I'm glad you recognized the tactical way I managed to say "go away, stop bothering me" :D

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

"took France on"?

By doing what?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Would it cause an "International Incident" if we just towed them back to French waters . . . about 15 times until they gave up :D

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Try it…

However, you will have to find them first, which is tricky, as RIBs are hard to find on radar, as they have a low reflective profile, and there’s a lot of water and coastline (both sides of the Channel) to cover..

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Oh, a danger to other ships then ;)

Anyway, if you did just happen to accidentally find one, wouldn't you be legally obliged to tow it back to the nearest coast (which would coincidentally be French), especially if it was overloaded, had no radio onboard, and some of the people on it were women and children?

Maybe even lawfully obliged to call the French coastguard and see what they did with it :D

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

If we're breaking out the old classics, it might be worth a pop at Spain as well? Usually goes well for us.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Yes, offshore processing.

That's how Australia did it.

That was how, given a chance, Rwanda would have worked.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Yes - and that's what's needed.

---------- Post added at 17:00 ---------- Previous post was at 16:58 ----------

But it's what you want? Yes? There's technology that will sort out the challenge you have raised.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I look forward to you providing examples of the technology that can detect low radar profile RIBs amongst all the traffic and sea clutter in the Channel and the multipath reflections from the waves.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The Rwanda scheme was deemed unlawful by the UK's Supreme Court, so it couldn't have worked. The court cited concerns about Rwanda not being a safe country for refugees, citing potential risks of returning refugees to persecution and Rwanda's human rights record.

If the government of the day had wanted it to work, they would have worked with a country with a good human rights record. But would that country want failed immigrants to the UK and how much would they charge the UK?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

It says it won’t discuss what methods are used, not what methods are used - it is supposition in your part to assume this includes technology to find small boats.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

1 turn on AIS system
2 locate French coastguard vessel
3 ohh look it's shadowing a small boat full of migrants

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

As per Seph.

Problem was Labour opposed the scheme in opposition, obviously.

So because of their bloody mindedness, they scrapped it immediately, with no alternative plan to replace it.

Champagne all round for the human traffickers, they’ve been bathing in it since. Starmer has made sure their business plan remains lucrative.

And while it is lucrative they’ll keep sending the boats.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

:LOL: he'll get a warning.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

they just make you buy a license, which he has now done

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Despite the environment agency, saying it will always prosecute, as there is no excuse. Good to see that labour politicians are above the law.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Is that license to kill :naughty:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Once spotted, are they then 'collected' and brought to the UK, or is their location given to the French coastguard?

If they're brought ashore here it doesn't seem a good way of deterring them :D

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Or just changed the legislation!

Why do successive governments keep painting themselves into a corner?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Hey, if you've got a skill why not always use it :rofl:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

no it's catch and return [alive]

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Now he's got a rod license any chance of him hooking Diane Abbotts wig :D

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

It'll be listed in 'expenses' no doubt :D

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The Labour government knew that the government's changes would not stand up to scrutiny, so decided not to throw good money after bad on it. And the source you link to reckons that Rwanda would not have acted as a deterrent anyway. Worth a read and thank for sharing it.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

What do you mean by taking France on?

I think it's hard to find a country with an acceptable human rights record to take unlawful migrants on a cost effective basis. Rwanda was only meant to take small numbers and was very expensive.

Your link was sceptical about the Australian process as it found that migrants now come by plane instead of boat.

Trying to tackle the symptoms rather than the cause clearly doesn't work. You need to analyse where they're coming from and help resolve the issues there. That's something for a coalition of the willing. However, it's not something your average politician will advocate for because the British public have been led to believe there are easy solutions when there are clearly not.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

And you’re going Nigel on us.

This is a discussion forum, the idea is you say what you mean. You don’t insinuate stuff so you can wait for other people to road test it for you by saying it out loud, then deny that’s what you meant when it turns out to be unworkable, idiotic or just plain nasty.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Why should others have to guess what you mean, when you’re too Faragist to clarify it?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Exactly!

---------- Post added at 09:57 ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 ----------

:tu:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

What would be wrong with you saying that in the first place, if it’s what you actually mean?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The cause is varied and widespread, much of it with a snowball in a hot place chance of changing it.

Seems to me the British Public are becoming increasingly aware there are no easy solutions, and are probably starting to think a tougher 'harder' line is more acceptable than just carrying on getting nowhere.

Opinions vary of course ;)

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

It’s called “imagination”. I can’t be bothered to ask you to explain what you mean by “faragist”. My imagination doesn’t tend toward what your accusation implies - which I have to guess.

---------- Post added at 12:40 ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 ----------


What’s wrong with you picking up the baton on what I tendered? You are gabbing on about process. Your imagination can provide the substance. All that you and Hugh are looking for (in this case) is a line of attack rather than debate on substance.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

A tougher 'harder' line is not possible whether some people feel it's acceptable or not. It's presented as an easy solution but it isn't.

We're stuck between a rock and a hard place on this.

---------- Post added at 13:41 ---------- Previous post was at 13:36 ----------

I'm sorry Seph but on this point, Chris, Hugh and Maggie are correct. Just be brave and say what you mean. This is a plain old discussion forum, not a diplomatic ball.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Because this is a discussion forum, not a battle rap.

Finding lines of attack - or, indeed, points of agreement - is part and parcel of a discussion. Just say what you mean and let others agree or disagree with you. If you don’t, you just end up looking like you lack the moral fibre to express or defend your beliefs.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

So we have to imagine what you mean, but you can’t imagine what we mean?

Irony skids off the tracks, careens wildly down the embankment, smashes through a circus, bulldozes a mink farm, and plows into the river, where it bursts into flame, then rolls over and explodes, raining down smoking clown shrapnel and flaming weasels over a terrified countryside…

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Have stopped my standing order to the R N L I . not that it will make any difference but makes me feel better.if you help people break the law, perhaps they should be prosecuted , clearly they are helping the gangs ,starmer wants to stop. NOT

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2025/08/2.gif

You could always redirect your Standing Order to here….

https://www.gofundme.com/f/buy-a-new...-flying-farage

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Many people won’t say openly what they believe because it forces them to confront who they actually are.

An admission of guilt

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Ricky Jones: Suspended Labour councillor who called for protesters' throats to be cut at rally not guilty of encouraging violent disorder


WTF two tier justice or what :shrug:


https://news.sky.com/story/ricky-jon...order-13412060

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

or two years for this

that was seen by about 40 people before it was deleted

This type of thing promotes distrust between the government and the governed, and the public and the police.

I don't think Jones should be in prison, but neither do I think Connolly should be imprisoned either. She should be released immediately and compensated.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3nn60wyr6o

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

it's been made clear that it's ok to insight a mob to murder people you don't like as long as they are far right

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I think what he did was wrong, but he was acquitted by a jury, whilst Connolly plead guilty to the offences…

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Her and many others, were advised by their own counsel to plead guilty, and they all suffered for it and were given overly harsh sentences.

Whereas, ones that held out for a trial were acquitted by a jury in 17mins.

https://murrayhughman.co.uk/jamie-mi...-of-southport/

Do you think Lucy Connolly should be in prison Hugh?

---------- Post added at 12:36 ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 ----------

Sold down the river by her own counsel. Didn't do a very good job of representing her.

So it's illegal to have a dim view of illegal immigrants. I'm guilty then.

Again, what's wrong with those opinions and statements?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The UK's bioethanol industry faces collapse, after a government decision not to offer the sector a rescue package.

The US-UK trade pact, agreed in May, removed a 19% tariff on ethanol imported from the US up to a quota of 1.4bn litres. That is approximately equivalent to the current size of the UK market and the firms claim the trade agreement had made their businesses "commercially unviable".

Bioethanol, a fuel made from wheat, corn or sugar beet, is added to fuels such as E10 petrol in the UK.

The bioethanol industry buys thousands of tonnes of wheat from UK farms, and Ensus also produces 30% of the UK's commercial carbon dioxide – used in soft drinks, medical and nuclear industries.

The government said it would continue to work on measures to ensure the resilience of the CO2 supply chain.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24zlel2y5yo

So whilst pushing us to higher-ethanol fuels, they effectively kill the UK ethanol industry. And whilst they scream at us to reduce CO2 production, they need to produce CO2 for other uses. I wonder what is going on in Miliband's empty head?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I don't think anyone in a position of power - Govt. or Business - are making decisions that benefit the Country.

Still, it's nice and sunny outside and there's lots of shite on the TV to look forward to later :rolleyes:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Lucy Connelly was inciting violence and it could easily have led to some idiot actually setting fire to a building full of illegal immigrants. So sorry, nobody should be allowed to get away with that.

Ricky Jones should have been banged up, too. It’s completely unacceptable behaviour.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

"Inciting Violence" seems a bit of a catchall phrase, and open to how you personally work it into a situation.

for example, things that may incite violence:

Piss poor referees in football matches
Constant phone calls from energy advice companies (and others)
Boxing promoters (because sport is watching two people batter each other isn't it)
Weapon Manufacturers (go on, tell me it's just for defense)
Neighbours that have outside parties until 2am
Little scrotes that tell you to "F off Gramps" when you catch them looking a little too closely at your car interior

I could go on :D

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

And what ever you do don't wave cardboard with writing on it. Imagine the UK press reaction if it happen in the USA or even China.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Really?

Was she saying "let's all meet on the corner South Rd and West street at 18:00, bring some petrol and we'll go to the migrant hotel in the town centre and burn it down" ?

Now that is incitement to violence.

What she said didn't come anywhere near that, and to assume that she would be responsible if somebody did, is to take away any responsibility and agency of that individual.

it's a child's defence. "Tony told me to do it" and if Tony told you to jump off a cliff would you? It's how we educate children that they are responsible for their own actions.

Pathetic.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Not answered by Hugh but relevant so I ask again.

Hugh is more than happy to fact check and snipe on here, what is your position on this?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

My position is that she pled guilty to the crime - she accepted that she had intended to stir racial hatred, and suffered the consequences of that action.

The severity of the offence was increased by the fact that her tweet had been seen by 310,000* people (not 40)…

This sub stack explains the legal reasons why she was imprisoned (without any Telegraph or HopeNotHate slanting either way)

https://emptycity.substack.com/p/exp...h-sentence-for



*Pesky fact-checking again…

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

expertly dodged.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

with the customary snipe at the end

Re: Starmer’s chronicles