Originally Posted by thenry (Post 36202409)

Freeloaders Ukraine got told to get with the reality of things while the rest of the world sympathised with Ukraine then agreed with Trumps leadership.

What do you want me to explain?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36202410)

Originally Posted by thenry (Post 36202409)

Freeloaders Ukraine got told to get with the reality of things while the rest of the world sympathised with Ukraine then agreed with Trumps leadership.

What do you want me to explain?

Originally Posted by thenry (Post 36202411)

I basically said they should move to America along with their friends. Clearly living next to Russia isn't for everyone.

Originally Posted by thenry (Post 36202411)

I've been over this in the relevant thread before where my nonsensical posts were removed. I basically said they should move to America along with their friends. Clearly living next to Russia isn't for everyone.

Where has Damien been these past months asking me to explain his absence.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36202424)

So let me make sure I got this correct.
You think its the Ukrainians fault they got invaded, because they live next to Russia ? and they should all have moved to America ?

Originally Posted by thenry (Post 36202409)

Freeloaders Ukraine got told to get with the reality of things while the rest of the world sympathised with Ukraine then agreed with Trumps leadership.

What do you want me to explain?

Originally Posted by thenry (Post 36202411)

I've been over this in the relevant thread before where my nonsensical posts were removed. I basically said they should move to America along with their friends. Clearly living next to Russia isn't for everyone.

Where has Damien been these past months asking me to explain his absence.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36202404)

On the crossing route, I don't think there is. If they stick to the well known '22 miles', or even venture into 24 mile territory, they pass directly into our territorial waters. No, what's required is an international incident with France to push the boats back. If the boats spill, we take the floating people back to France and they can refuse landing - it's on them then.

---------- Post added at 14:07 ---------- Previous post was at 14:06 ----------

Btw, if they were fleeing persecution, then they's be genuine refugees. But they are fleeing France.

---------- Post added at 14:25 ---------- Previous post was at 14:07 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36202408)

What are you actually saying? Stood up to Ukraine? Trump? I can't make sense of it.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36202433)

What does that have to do with this idea of not issuing visas?

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36202433)

Whose absence?

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 36202434)

I would of thought with your obsessional hatred of everything France related you'd understand why they're so desperate to get here, infact I'd expect you'd even congratulate them on their choice to leave :confused:.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36202437)

Originally Posted by thenry (Post 36202430)

Russia had its reasoning for the offensive.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36202432)

They were attacking Russians in Eastern Ukraine since 2014, with thousands killed The democratically elected President was ousted just before that started.
Ukrainians had been itching to leave before long then. They were looking for visa-free travel to the EU and EU membership.
The Canadian Parliament gave 2 standing ovations to a Ukrainian who had fought to clear out the Russians from Ukraine. The problem is that was during WW2 where he and other Ukrainians fought with the SS Division Galicia.

Originally Posted by thenry (Post 36202435)

You want me to explain Ukraine! I have already which were removed as nonsensical.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36202433)

Whose absence?

Originally Posted by thenry (Post 36202435)

Where has Damien been these past months asking me to explain his absence.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36202437)

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36202558)

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36202557)

Mandelson fired after his birthday message to Epstein, along with his preexisting links to him, were revealed.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36202562)

Thought the PM had full confidence in him yesterday :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36202558)

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36202558)

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36202564)

That's usually the kiss of death.:D

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36202573)

Exactly, how many chairman at football clubs have said that before sacking the manager after the next game! :D

---------- Post added at 13:34 ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 ----------

An interesting point here on how the Conservatives could have made the situation worse by letting it drag on.

https://news.sky.com/story/politics-...eform-12593360

Originally Posted by thenry (Post 36202835)

These guys :LOL:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...se-island.html

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36202853)

What a surprise the courts run the country, not parliament. And sir keir bottles it. Nothing changes

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36202858)

What exactly is bottling it? The UK is not a dictatorship so Government needs to adhere to the law.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36202836)

Un fortunately they still landed.

Originally Posted by thenry (Post 36202861)

Dodgy satnav :erm:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36202858)

What exactly is bottling it? The UK is not a dictatorship so Government needs to adhere to the law.

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36202867)

To busy to come to Parliament to explain what he really about his mate sir Peter
Government via Parliament sets the law, un elected judge decides that he knows best.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36202870)

He is entertaining the US president! Judges just interpret the law to apply it to the circumstances. Most jobs are not done by election. The Home Office is appealing.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36202870)

He is entertaining the US president! Judges just interpret the law to apply it to the circumstances. Most jobs are not done by election. The Home Office is appealing.

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36202880)

Perhaps they should, better than" old school tie" etc .perhaps to you don't appeal to me!

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36202878)

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36202884)

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36202884)

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36202858)

What exactly is bottling it? The UK is not a dictatorship so Government needs to adhere to the law.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36202929)

The law needs changing. This country is looking very foolish. We've boxed ourselves into a corner, now we can't do anything sensible about anything!

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36202933)

I know - if only someone had negotiated to keep the Dublin III Regulation as part of a deal…

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36202928)

<snip>
But at least one inflatable dinghy full of young men made its way out to sea from Gravelines beach, north east Calais, at daybreak on Friday morning.
</snip>

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36202941)

Oh good, that will hopefully be the Doctors and Dentists we need.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36202958)

Maybe.

https://www.ft.com/content/d41900d4-...a-7184dcf62984

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36202961)

Now be honest, how many on that boat (if it actually exists) will speak decent English, have their passports in hand, full details of previous occupations, a complete file on their medical history, and a full checkable list of their higher education?

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36202941)

Oh good, that will hopefully be the Doctors and Dentists we need.

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36202963)

Agreed, yet Andrew posted a reply regarding the chaps on boats.

or was it just deflection? ;)

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36202965)

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36202968)

GB news reporting 1 migrant out and 800 in today

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36202969)

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36202972)

"One migrant out" is there for deterrent purposes. If you think that you might be returned back to France, you may not set off in the first place.

Whether migrants perceive this to be a deterrent in reality, time will tell.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36202972)

"One migrant out" is there for deterrent purposes. If you think that you might be returned back to France, you may not set off in the first place.

Whether migrants perceive this to be a deterrent in reality, time will tell.

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36202941)

Oh good, that will hopefully be the Doctors and Dentists we need.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36202968)

GB news reporting 1 migrant out and 800 in today

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36202972)

"One migrant out" is there for deterrent purposes. If you think that you might be returned back to France, you may not set off in the first place.

Whether migrants perceive this to be a deterrent in reality, time will tell.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36202982)

Oh, come off it Andrew, what planet are you on? The migrants are openly boasting that they will use our legal system to avoid deportation, and if that fails, they will be back. They are laughing at our stupidity.

Why are we spending all that money putting them in four star hotels when every other country has them living in tents? No wonder they want to come here.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36203016)

If it really is a deterrent, then the large numbers currently in France, would be claiming asylum in France.
Only small number are ever going to be in the "out" category, so not only is there a high probability they wouldn't be affected, they might end up being in the "in " category.
There is a time limit of 2 weeks between when arriving in the UK and the UK applying to France to have them returned. Get past the 2 week limit and the scheme doesn't apply.
Link

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36203013)

Please read my post as oppose to imagining what I said. To assist you: I am explaining the government's rationale and I concluded that it remains to be proven as to whether it will work. I didn't offer my opinion either way onto it.

Please provide links to show we're housing the majority of refugees in four-star hotels whilst France, Germany, etc house them in tents.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36203019)

Not tents, but not 4 star hotels either.
Link
They are for some strange reason only too happy to trudge through France etc, at most living in tents.
France
So while some may be housed in hotels as a last resort, most are held in large reception centres, eg large former airport.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36203018)

The government has designed it as a deterrent and they don’t expect it to have instant impact.

It's clearly not a volume shifter as it's one in, one out. What do you think it was designed to do?

As I said before, whether it works only time will tell.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36203020)

Thanks, similar to the UK then.

Did you find anything to back-up Old Boy's four-star hotel claim?

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36203022)

There is a cap on numbers. There also has to an "in" candidate.
All the others that also arrived in that 2 week period are not subject to the scheme. Those are good odds, given how many arrived with only 2(?) leaving.
If they have made a "dangerous crossing", they can't then claim to be seeking safety. Automatically asylum should be refused.

---------- Post added at 23:57 ---------- Previous post was at 23:39 ----------


UK
That rule for some reason doesn't apply to France or Germany, and possibly others. Weird that.

Link

Link

Not quite 5,000 crammed into a former airport in Germany.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36203013)

Please provide links to show we're housing the majority of refugees in four-star hotels whilst France, Germany, etc house them in tents.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36203027)

However, your research does not answer my question below.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36203041)

Its not a question. ;)

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36203046)

so Friday we had 1,072 in and 1 out

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36203018)

The government has designed it as a deterrent and they don’t expect it to have instant impact.

It's clearly not a volume shifter as it's one in, one out. What do you think it was designed to do?

As I said before, whether it works only time will tell.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36203018)

It's clearly not a volume shifter as it's one in, one out. What do you think it was designed to do?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36203027)

Thank you for stepping up to the challenge which Old Boy has yet to take up.

However, your research does not answer my question below.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36203068)

It’s not one in, one out though is it.

And as Starmer is celebrating one leaving, another thousand turned up.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36203069)

Where is the word "majority" in that quote?
There are numerous articles about EU countries having thousands of asylum seekers in tents.
Last year in Ireland

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36203069)

The point being there should NO duty to house them at all. They were quite happy living in tents or worse, on their long journey, and didn't seek shelter(ie asylum) in any of the many countries they passed through.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36203077)

Yes it is. One lawful immigrant in and one unlawful one out. These two people are obviously not the only people emigrating from or migrating to, the UK.

---------- Post added at 22:12 ---------- Previous post was at 21:48 ----------


Old Boy says they are being housed in 4-star hotel accommodation in the UK and in tents in the rest of Europe. This is clearly a flawed comparison which understandably he has not backed up with evidence. To your credit, you have tried to help him out with some anecdotal evidence.

In essence, hotels in the UK and Europe are used. All European countries seem to use a variety of accommodation.


How do you know that they were quite happy living in tents or worse?

Most do seek asylum in countries that they pass through, we don't take as many asylum seekers as our European peers. It's those with connections to the UK and other reasons who continue on here across the risky English channel. Of the top ten countries accepting refugees, only Poland, Turkey and Germany are in Europe and even Turkey is only partly in.
https://www.concern.org.uk/news/thes...-refugees-2023

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36203077)

Yes it is. One lawful immigrant in and one unlawful one out.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36203082)

Are you just trying to be silly ? it was 1000+ unlawful in, not one.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36203085)

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36203083)

I'm sure that no one is being silly in this thread.

The policy I've described is about swapping an unlawful migrant for a lawful one. Hence the agreement being nicknamed one in, one out.

There's thousands more emigrations and immigrations, lawful and unlawful taking place every day.

No one is pretending otherwise. Unlawful immigration by boat which Farage et al focus on is a very minor portion of immigration into the UK.
https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...8&d=1758404981
https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...est-statistics

Originally Posted by thenry (Post 36203251)

Didn't he beg he didn't do it :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36203264)

could be out of prison by xmas according to GB news

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 36203407)

So just seen this on the news "Starmer to require all UK adults to own government-issued digital ID"

Well if there is a charge to get it they can go forth in short jerky movements. I don't want one, i don't need one as i have a driving licence that works fine as an ID.

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 36203407)

So just seen this on the news "Starmer to require all UK adults to own government-issued digital ID"

Well if there is a charge to get it they can go forth in short jerky movements. I don't want one, i don't need one as i have a driving licence that works fine as an ID.