How come the tv companies can find them getting into the boats yet the French police can’t? I’ve never seen once a tv interviewer ask any refugee why they don’t want to stay in France.
They can, they stop a lot of boats already. The issue is just how many are needed in order to properly patrol what is a very very long coastline.
On your second point, there was a special on Newsnight on exactly that last night. Think it was Lewis Goodall that did the reporting. Main points were they spoke English already rather than French, family ties to people already here and they believed they’d be treated better by the U.K.
Also on the second point, people ask this of refugees all the time...like every single time its in the news there's some journalist on the ground in France asking people why the UK.
So if someone's "never seen a TV producer ask" then they're deliberately avoiding coverage.
Every deaths a tragedy, as the op says, women, kids, families but the "until we get a govt" narrative. Who's government is responsible? Couldn't the French do more to stop them leaving? They could but won't, they're happy to see the backs of what they see as parasites. So, It falls on our govt to do more? Say, send a coupe of ferries to pick them up in batches? How many do we propose to collect? A lucky few, a few hundred, thousand? And then what? It is a problem, its a big problem but it shouldn't just fall on us.
They might not be Belgian Christians but I'll point out that 10%-12% of the Syrian population are Christians. I'm not sure you knew that because perhaps you have a pre-conceived idea of what Christians look like.....where do they originate? None are white Belgian Christians. Personally I have no problem with anyone coming here and we should be facilitating their arrival and helping them leave if they don't like it. Its called being civilised.
I might be being thick here but why don't they just travel to the UK legally on a plane or ferry?They can, they stop a lot of boats already. The issue is just how many are needed in order to properly patrol what is a very very long coastline.
On your second point, there was a special on Newsnight on exactly that last night. Think it was Lewis Goodall that did the reporting. Main points were they spoke English already rather than French, family ties to people already here and they believed they’d be treated better by the U.K.
I'm not sure attempting to cross the English Channel in a dinghy would be deemed as safe passage.Once again for those at the back......
Its a breach of the UN Refugee Convention of 1951 (which the UK wrote) to disrupt the safe passage of an asylum seeker.
Its a breach of the UN Convention On the Law of the Sea 1986 not to render assistance to people in distress on the sea
It doesn't just fall on ''us'' we take one of the lowest numbers of refugees in Europe.
The solution is to provide safe passage by allowing asylum applications to the UK to be made from another country (like other civilised countries do) ......this would end the people smugglers and the deaths on the channel.
I might be being thick here but why don't they just travel to the UK legally on a plane or ferry?
They sometimes can clearly pay ridiculous amounts to traffickers so it's not like money is the problem. Why don't they fly from Paris to London and then lodge an asylum case upon arrival at the border?
The only reason I can think of is they aren't true refugees and don't bring identification so it's impossible to determine the country of origin but then it's also impossible to travel legally. With no country of origin you can't determine if they're a true refugee and therefore how can you lose an asylum case?