What has the UK become under the far right influence?

inbetween said:
The risk of travelling across the channel in a dinghy is the deterrent. Some choose to take that risk but many don't so there is already a deterrent
Click to expand...

It's not an effective deterrent if (a) it doesn't deter a significant % of people and (b) it means legitimate asylum seekers have to risk their lives alongside the people we're trying to deter.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
Still see no one actually wanting to resolve the issue, just tell them not to get in boats. That doesn’t seem to be working.
Click to expand...

If you spend more than a second thinking about it, what @LangleyBlue1970 and @blueinsa are saying is simply that they don't believe in asylum. They're advocating for a system where the only way to claim asylum is being from a bordering country, so the only countries we could ever accept asylum seekers from is France, Ireland, Netherlands, Belgium and Norway. Which of course are 5 countries which conveniently haven't seen war for 80 years, are all well developed first world countries that won't be providing any refugees any time soon.

It's their right I suppose, but I wish they'd just front up and say they don't believe in asylum rather than dance around it.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
So is it that you don’t believe in the concept of claiming asylum?
Click to expand...
If someone is genuinely fleeing a war torn situation in their country and have to flee, of course I believe in welcoming them here, although I don’t see why they can’t stay in any of the other countries they cross to get to Calais.

But let’s be honest, it’s not always boat loads of people fleeing war torn countries now is it.
 
LangleyBlue1970 said:
If someone is genuinely fleeing a war torn situation in their country and have to flee, of course I believe in welcoming them here, although I don’t see why they can’t stay in any of the other countries they cross to get to Calais.

But let’s be honest, it’s not always boat loads of people fleeing war torn countries now is it.
Click to expand...
70% are granted asylum, so it can’t be as clear cut as you may think?

The number that choose to stay in France vastly outnumber the ones that try to get here.
 
domalino said:
If you spend more than a second thinking about it, what @LangleyBlue1970 and @blueinsa are saying is simply that they don't believe in asylum. They're advocating for a system where the only way to claim asylum is being from a bordering country, so the only countries we could ever accept asylum seekers from is France, Ireland, Netherlands, Belgium and Norway. Which of course are 5 countries which conveniently haven't seen war for 80 years, are all well developed first world countries that won't be providing any refugees any time soon.

It's their right I suppose, but I wish they'd just front up and say they don't believe in asylum rather than dance around it.
Click to expand...

Mind reader as well as general know it all?

Impressive even for you.

I’m on record as saying we should pay for and build, with the permission of the French of course a processing centre in France where these asylum seekers could be processed in a safe manner. Those granted asylum could be transported safely into the UK.

I’m just not in favour of people paying criminal gangs to risk their lives and die.

Go on, twist that into something else you actually think I believe to suit.
 
bert38 said:
Overwhelming majority of police do not want to be armed.
Click to expand...

Yes but is that because they don't want to be armed, or is it due to some of the insane levels of scrutiny they would then be under?

The bloke with the samurai sword today should have had a clip emptied into him straight away no questions asked.
 
Australia which has a pretty similar approach to guns as us here, have all police armed with side arms and I don't know any Aussies who think they shouldn't be. The other day when the bloke ran around stabbing people in Sydney, one police woman was required to take him out and that was with a sidearm - she sustained no injuries.
 
Bazzmand Show said:
Yes but is that because they don't want to be armed, or is it due to some of the insane levels of scrutiny they would then be under?

The bloke with the samurai sword today should have had a clip emptied into him straight away no questions asked.
Click to expand...
Because if they have to shoot and kill they immediately become murder suspects, and the IOPC will be looking to charge them with it
 
domalino said:
It's not an effective deterrent if (a) it doesn't deter a significant % of people and (b) it means legitimate asylum seekers have to risk their lives alongside the people we're trying to deter.
Click to expand...
A legitimate asylum seeker is somebody who is in the UK and has claimed asylum so legally speaking from the UK pov there cannot be a legitimate asylum seeker who is outside of the UK. A border post in France would therefore actually require us to effectively annex a portion of France (like an embassy) unless we're going to accept applications from anyone anywhere.

I am a UK citizen and I am not a legitimate citizen of the USA for example. I have no claim to become a US citizen unless I go through the process of becoming one. If I decided to take a risk to cross the Atlantic in a boat to enter the US then would you say that the US should build a border post in the UK to stop it and help me? It's a stupid suggestion.

France itself actually does not recognise those people as legitimate asylum seekers either even though they're physically in France. This because they have not claimed asylum in France.

Technically they're actually illegal immigrants until an asylum claim is made. Most countries in Europe however don't enforce their own laws or borders to stop this movement. Instead they allow the problem to get passed on to the end country which in some cases ends up being the UK.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mexico1970 said:
The blame is on the parent who decided to put the child in the boat, escaping war torn France wasn't/ isn't a good enough reason.
Click to expand...

To them it is. And that is the point. They believe they have good reason and will risk death for themselves and their family. You may not understand it, I may not understand it, but then we are not in their position are we?

So, if they are willing to risk their lives, what possible deterrent are we going to put into place that will work?

As I said it’s a simple enough question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top