Immigrants crossing the channel.

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you talk to the left, they'll say its the opposite, that they have been abandoned by movement on mass to the right, which is of course hilarious but that's where we're at.
Somebody has changed and I highly doubt its the electorate.
Still, its their funeral.

We only have to look to the USA to see how people vote when large numbers of them feel abandoned and despised by what they see as a corrupt and remote ruling class. I don't know if that could happen here (a total outsider, maybe in more ways than one) as the UK population tend not to vote in large enough numbers for extremists or the oddballs.

At the last election my area switched from Labour to Con for clear reasons that Labour chose to ignore and if the worst that happens is we get the steelworks back together with everything else they're trying to push through then all well and good and that's a victory for democracy and Labour can try again once they've sorted themselves out. If Labour are seen to be unelectable and the Cons also prove a failure then it is entirely possible that people could vote for... someone else.
 
We only have to look to the USA to see how people vote when large numbers of them feel abandoned and despised by what they see as a corrupt and remote ruling class.
Yep vote for another corrupt and remote ruling class!
 
He's something of an outsider and he had the catchy slogans that resonated with a lot of people, "Lock her up" and "Drain the swamp" spring to mind. If there's any proof of wrong doing and as importantly the will to prosecute I'd agree with the former and I'd agree with the latter both in the USA and here. Sadly, I don't believe Trump will drain any swamps and the chances of it happening here are equally remote. Unless there's some sort of seismic shift.
 
We only have to look to the USA to see how people vote when large numbers of them feel abandoned and despised by what they see as a corrupt and remote ruling class. I don't know if that could happen here (a total outsider, maybe in more ways than one) as the UK population tend not to vote in large enough numbers for extremists or the oddballs.

At the last election my area switched from Labour to Con for clear reasons that Labour chose to ignore and if the worst that happens is we get the steelworks back together with everything else they're trying to push through then all well and good and that's a victory for democracy and Labour can try again once they've sorted themselves out. If Labour are seen to be unelectable and the Cons also prove a failure then it is entirely possible that people could vote for... someone else.

Given the choices available as sad as it is, you're likely to be voting for the least worst or not bothering at all.
Labour are disappearing up their own radical authoritarian backsides, and the LD's don't even deserve a ticket, so what's left ?
I'll say one thing though, Labour would sort out your channel chugging safety concerns...
 
Given the choices available as sad as it is, you're likely to be voting for the least worst or not bothering at all.
Labour are disappearing up their own radical authoritarian backsides, and the LD's don't even deserve a ticket, so what's left ?
I'll say one thing though, Labour would sort out your channel chugging safety concerns...

I know quite a few people who said that if Brexit was stopped they'd never vote again. Before people get hot under the collar about me mentioning Brexit, Brexit isn't the point. The point is rather that some people feel so disenfranchised that they don't see the point in voting but I always say vote for someone else. There's a danger in that though as if people have no confidence in the mainstream parties they may start to vote for even less savory people.
 
He's something of an outsider and he had the catchy slogans that resonated with a lot of people,
...but in no way a majority. Trump received 62,984,828 votes and Clinton received 65,853,514 votes (46.1% against 48.2%). However, due to the way in which the American Electoral College works, Trump won by 304 votes to 227 votes.

The result appears to have re-ignited demands to remove the Electoral College system, which increases the importance of rural voters by as much as 4:1 over urban voters.
 
We've had governments in the UK that haven't had the most votes. I can't remember which but it's certainly happened more than once in the UK. The Trump machine ran a very effective race and afaik spent less money than the opposition. Trump said words to the effect that if they'd campaigned harder in some of the places he didn't win he'd have won and whilst not everything out of his mouth is gospel on this he may be right. And of course he was helped by Clinton being an awful candidate.

We're getting further off the point with politics so I'll mention that one of Mrs WW best friends, an immigrant, is reopening her business after lock down and her British staff will be returning to work.
 
I’m only now catching up on this thread.
I’m confused as to what the OP thought the French should do? Start patrolling with gunboats and open fire when the boats don’t turn round?

Regarding Farage and the proclamations to leave him out of the argument. The OP is remiss if he himself does not consider the source of a message and he is on shaky ground telling everyone else to also ignore the source. Farage is a well known rabble rouser and some analysis and fact checking of what is presented is a necessity.
 
I’m only now catching up on this thread.
I’m confused as to what the OP thought the French should do? Start patrolling with gunboats and open fire when the boats don’t turn round?

Regarding Farage and the proclamations to leave him out of the argument. The OP is remiss if he himself does not consider the source of a message and he is on shaky ground telling everyone else to also ignore the source. Farage is a well known rabble rouser and some analysis and fact checking of what is presented is a necessity.

Don't be an idiot.

I think I've made it clear from the off that my objection is on the grounds of fear for the immigrants lives.

I knew when I posted this thread that some people would ignore the issue and instead focus on Farage so thanks again for confirming my rather low view of some of the posters on this site.
 
I’m only now catching up on this thread.
I’m confused as to what the OP thought the French should do? Start patrolling with gunboats and open fire when the boats don’t turn round?

Regarding Farage and the proclamations to leave him out of the argument. The OP is remiss if he himself does not consider the source of a message and he is on shaky ground telling everyone else to also ignore the source. Farage is a well known rabble rouser and some analysis and fact checking of what is presented is a necessity.

Why don't the French control their border and rehouse them throughout the country?
 
It's not a just a right wing initiated thing. My area was staunch Labour for decades and has only rebelled for specific reasons, namely unhappiness with the local Labour machine and its seeming indifference to the steel works woes, the imposition of an unpopular candidate from London and of course the whole Jeremy Corbyn debacle and the wider feeling that Labour has abandoned them. Immigration is in there somewhere but it isn't the number one right wing racist driving force some would have you believe. The area has been Labour for years. There's been no one knocking on doors pushing racist views. The left needs a new message and it needs to do better when in office.

It is EXACTLY a right wing initiated thing. The reality is that the UK economy is sliding ever downwards, as the benefits of Empire all but disappear, and the steady supply of cheap exploited labour and resources has dried up, leaving the UK with no manufacturing base, and a 'service' industry economy which is going to lose out to cheaper markets such as India and south America etc. The elites have seen this coming, and have quietly been selling off the family silver (Gas, Oil, Telecoms, Transport, Water, Electricity, and now Education and the NHS) in order to line their own pockets. There is now very little left to sell off, and this has impacted on communities all across the UK, not just certain northern areas, and has had a particularly vicious effect on many people in London. Obviously, something needed to change. Whatever you think about Corbyn, the policies instigated under his leadership (renationalisation, the prevention of selling off the NHS etc, better levels of welfare, education and healthcare, proper effective taxation of the wealthy and big corporations, better regulation of the financial sector, and generally policies which many economists state are the only things that will reverse or at least slow down the economic decline. This would of course have an impact on the power and wealth of the elites, who could not afford to let someone like Corbyn take control. So, they destroyed him. By using the (mainly) right wing controlled mainstream media, by funding and promoting right wing populism, and by generally instilling in people a feeling that change is something to fear. The British people have developed a sort of Stockholm Syndrome, and were too frightened of anything different. Hence many traditional Labour voters voting Tory; Boris represented the same thing, Corbyn represented the unknown. All the smearing of Anti-Semitism etc was only ever a smokescreen; the same people screaming the loudest have stopped bothering now Corbyn has gone. Surprise surprise. And the reality is that the Labour party has become infested with centre right neo-liberals who don't really give a s*** about working class people in Stockton on Tees, and more than the Tories do. So they didn't bother getting behind their (democratically elected) party leader. Because truth be told, a tory government suits their best interests too. They'll continue to be rich and comfortable. So why bite the hand that feeds you? Corbyn was a significant threat to the status quo, and he had to go.

The UK needs some proper grass roots political movements, if it is to recover. It needs to recognise and value the political power of unions (those organisations that gave us many of our employment rights, that the tories want to now take away again). But above all; it needs ordinary working class people to get up off their arses and actually get involved, instead of letting sme rich men in suits dictate their lives. But they're too busy screaming abuse at asylum seekers to notice that the rich men in suits are screwing them over.

Many people in those traditional Labour heartlands will soon realise the error of their ways. I wonder who they'll blame next? Anyone but themselves...
 
Last edited:
AZ6.

Maybe I'm just older than you (born in 1961) but I think you have maybe a simplistic view of this. I remember the boom and bust years when we swapped Labour for Con and then back again. I remember the involvement of the IMF too. I don't think the UK's manufacturing decline was due to a lack of cheap empire labour and I don't think any government could sell off the NHS.

I don't think the antisemitism allegation were a smoke screen. Jeremy Corbyn may be a decent man but I think his dislike for the Israeli regime is a slippery slope he can't navigate and his control of his more extremist followers seemed weak to non existent. If he's fit for office or not is another matter as is the question of if he's an effective leader or not. For me he fails on all counts except for possibly being a decent man if you can keep him off Israel and politics :D

The unions have a valuable job to do regarding rights, conditions and safety and I'm all for them but political power should be the realm of elected representatives and the unions of the recent past definitely fell down hard here with some becoming institutions which would be more at home in some hellish hard line communist state.
 
Last edited:
As a relatively densely populated country. What do you think is a manageable maximum population our country could accomodate?
 
I don't think the UK's manufacturing decline was due to a lack of cheap empire labour and I don't think any government could sell off the NHS.

Well then I'm sorry but you are seriously deluded. The UK's manufacturing decline is the result of many factors, the main being the end of the supply of cheap (basically, stolen) resources from former colonies, and the end of more or less forced labour there, and improved workers rights ending rampant exploitation of workers here, making manufacturing here increasingly expensive. That and emerging economies being able to undercut UK manufacturers (by using exploited labour and resources). As for the sell off of the NHS; it's been happening for years mate. Open your eyes..


I don't think the antisemitism allegation were a smoke screen. Jeremy Corbyn may be a decent man but I think his dislike for the Israeli regime is a slippery slope he can't navigate. If he's fit for office or not is another matter as is the question of if he's an effective leader or not. For me he fails on all counts except for possibly being a decent man if you can keep him off Israel and politics

Corbyn's lack of blind support for Isreal (which was set up as a base for the West to oversee oil industries in the Middle East, under the auspices of giving the Jewish people a homeland, and has been financed by the West ever since) meant he was an enemy of Western Capitalist Imperialism. Opposing the regime in the state of Israel isn't 'anti-Semitism'. It's just opposing a fascistic racist regime which is hell bent on persecuting and murdering other people in the name of expansionism. Whilst Corbyn is undoubtedly naive when it comes to stuff like deeply entrenched anti-Semitism on the Left (the thing about tweeting the picture of the bankers which was seen as an A-S meme), he is nowhere near being an anti-Semite. I know; I have attended events which he has been at, hosted by Jewish organisations. He has many long time Jewish friends. None of whom were given any voice when it came to the malicious smear campaign. I wonder why? Because it would destroy the narrative that he was 'anti-Semitic'? It was a smokescreen, end of.

He wasn't an effective leader. Because the Labour party is a mess; it's a loose disparate collection of various Left to centre-right groups, with the neo Liberals having the most money and power. Trying to lead that would be like herding cats. Impossible. Starmer isn't going to change anything; he's just a convenient stooge for neoliberalism, who will do what people like Blair tell him to, and who won't rock the boat. But he won't be able to change the status quo. He'll be no more effective a 'leader' than Corbyn.

What needs to happen with Labour, is that it needs to return to the Left, to its modern political roots, and away from the centre right neoliberalism that Blair infected it with. And this means that working class people will have to get up off their arses, open their eyes, and get active. This shower in government, destroying our society, are only doing so because we let them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mex
Well then I'm sorry but you are seriously deluded. The UK's manufacturing decline is the result of many factors, the main being the end of the supply of cheap (basically, stolen) resources from former colonies, and the end of more or less forced labour there, and improved workers rights ending rampant exploitation of workers here, making manufacturing here increasingly expensive. That and emerging economies being able to undercut UK manufacturers (by using exploited labour and resources). As for the sell off of the NHS; it's been happening for years mate. Open your eyes..

Corbyn's lack of blind support for Isreal (which was set up as a base for the West to oversee oil industries in the Middle East, under the auspices of giving the Jewish people a homeland, and has been financed by the West ever since) meant he was an enemy of Western Capitalist Imperialism. Opposing the regime in the state of Israel isn't 'anti-Semitism'. It's just opposing a fascistic racist regime which is hell bent on persecuting and murdering other people in the name of expansionism. Whilst Corbyn is undoubtedly naive when it comes to stuff like deeply entrenched anti-Semitism on the Left (the thing about tweeting the picture of the bankers which was seen as an A-S meme), he is nowhere near being an anti-Semite. I know; I have attended events which he has been at, hosted by Jewish organisations. He has many long time Jewish friends. None of whom were given any voice when it came to the malicious smear campaign. I wonder why? Because it would destroy the narrative that he was 'anti-Semitic'? It was a smokescreen, end of.

He wasn't an effective leader. Because the Labour party is a mess; it's a loose disparate collection of various Left to centre-right groups, with the neo Liberals having the most money and power. Trying to lead that would be like herding cats. Impossible. Starmer isn't going to change anything; he's just a convenient stooge for neoliberalism, who will do what people like Blair tell him to, and who won't rock the boat. But he won't be able to change the status quo. He'll be no more effective a 'leader' than Corbyn.

What needs to happen with Labour, is that it needs to return to the Left, to its modern political roots, and away from the centre right neoliberalism that Blair infected it with. And this means that working class people will have to get up off their arses, open their eyes, and get active. This shower in government, destroying our society, are only doing so because we let them.

Well, there you go.

All I can say is I don't share your views on the international picture, the roots of industrial decline or modern politics and I doubt a voting majority will unless it's a protest vote against the cons. That could happen but that wouldn't be an endorsement of any modern political roots if by that you mean a more metropolitan elite support than the more traditional working class / northern and scottish roots that supported the party for decades.
 
As a relatively densely populated country. What do you think is a manageable maximum population our country could accomodate?

Of the UK? I don't know. I heard something a while back that said that the built up areas of the UK amounted to that little quarter circle around the corner flag on a football field. If that's true I don't know and it wasn't clear to me if they meant just one or all four... There are large areas of the UK where you could easily lose a large city but of course the infrastructure and all the rest that would be needed soon adds up and there's environmental impact and all the rest to think about.

I do think that the UK population could rise but then I live in the NE not London so I may have a different view. At the time of the HK handover I'd have supported bringing a very large number here but I do know that the situation may be different now after years of change.

Even though I'd like to see more control, as in the UK decides, I'm not in favor of closed borders and whatever "normal" immigration we have we do I think need to consider refugees as a part of the picture and do the right and decent thing.
 
Well, there you go.

All I can say is I don't share your views on the international picture, the roots of industrial decline or modern politics and I doubt a voting majority will unless it's a protest vote against the cons. That could happen but that wouldn't be an endorsement of any modern political roots if by that you mean a more metropolitan elite support than the more traditional working class / northern and scottish roots that supported the party for decades.

You say you don't share A6Z's views but fail to give yours? So maybe for balance it might be an idea to post them?
 
You say you don't share A6Z's views but fail to give yours? So maybe for balance it might be an idea to post them?

I posted a lot of views in this thread.

I'll try and answer any specifics you may have but I don't want to sit here all day debating UK politics when the point of this thread was something a bit different to the path the Labour party has been on and what caused the UK's manufacturing decline.
 
Well, there you go.

Well, there go the facts of the matter, quite frankly. You've clearly emboldened a particular bit of text from my post, to make a point, yet fail to actually state what that point is.


You say you don't share A6Z's views but fail to give yours? So maybe for balance it might be an idea to post them?

Yep. That.


All I can say is I don't share your views on the international picture, the roots of industrial decline or modern politics

So do some reading/research. It's all there. Or you can choose to have your head in the sand, like so many others.


I'll try and answer any specifics you may have but I don't want to sit here all day debating UK politics when the point of this thread was something a bit different to the path the Labour party has been on and what caused the UK's manufacturing decline.

But these are things which have led to the situation we have now. Don't forget that many people are fleeing places where Western military involvement and political influence has totally destabilised the region. And it was the 'Labour Party' led by Blair, which helped create a lot of those issues. The legacy of the Gulf War in 2003 will be with us for many decades yet. And it's the manufacturing decline, and lack of any effective investment in new industries, which has led to the mass unemployment, social deprivation and poverty than increasing numbers of people are suffering. You can't look to solutions to problems, without first understanding the root causes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mex
But these are things which have led to the situation we have now. Don't forget that many people are fleeing places where Western military involvement and political influence has totally destabilised the region. And it was the 'Labour Party' led by Blair, which helped create a lot of those issues. The legacy of the Gulf War in 2003 will be with us for many decades yet. And it's the manufacturing decline, and lack of any effective investment in new industries, which has led to the mass unemployment, social deprivation and poverty than increasing numbers of people are suffering. You can't look to solutions to problems, without first understanding the root causes.

This :agree:.
 
Well, there go the facts of the matter, quite frankly. You've clearly emboldened a particular bit of text from my post, to make a point, yet fail to actually state what that point is.




Yep. That.

So do some reading/research. It's all there. Or you can choose to have your head in the sand, like so many others.

But these are things which have led to the situation we have now. Don't forget that many people are fleeing places where Western military involvement and political influence has totally destabilised the region. And it was the 'Labour Party' led by Blair, which helped create a lot of those issues. The legacy of the Gulf War in 2003 will be with us for many decades yet. And it's the manufacturing decline, and lack of any effective investment in new industries, which has led to the mass unemployment, social deprivation and poverty than increasing numbers of people are suffering. You can't look to solutions to problems, without first understanding the root causes.

As I'm waiting for a long and expensive print run for Mrs WW to finish I'll say this about the decline in manufacturing...

Lack of consistency, short termism, resistance to change, resistance to change in working practices, poor management, a belief that financial services and wider services were a more desirable way to go and even the class structure as gentlemen don't get their hands dirty with manufacturing, they enter financial services or even better take an income from land.

Googling may give other answers but I'd be surprised if the lack of opportunity to exploit cheap labour from the empire was a major factor.

Regarding interference abroad. Some places had brutal regimes before the west became militarily involved and whilst we did make a mess of some interventions I'd argue that it would have been right to intervene if we had the stomach and commitment to do it right. We didn't. Not intervening in the plight of people and the behaviour of their governments and rulers is an option and there's always sanctions and the UN but these may or even more likely will be ineffectual. Leaving it to Russia or China is another possibility.
 
Last edited:
Googling may give other answers but I'd be surprised if the lack of opportunity to exploit cheap labour from the empire was a major factor.

Ever been to Bristol? Seen the magnificent buildings there, in the city centre, and up around Clifton? Ever wondered where the money came from?

Manufacturing; Britain was once the world's leading shipbuilder; where did the raw materials come from?

Revisionist and denialist anglo-centric views may not cite the end of Empire as a major contributory factor to the relative economic decline of the UK, but that's an ostrich attitude towards reality. Britain was once the most wealthy and powerful nation on Earth. It is now anywhere between 5th and somewhere outside the top 10 economic powers, depending on which source you choose. And bear in mind figures are heavily manipulated to tell a particular picture; many countries have better standards of living, better infrastructure and public services, and more wealth per capita, without being anywhere near the top economic powers. Positions in league tables aren't everything; the UK currently has the highest death rate from CV19 in Europe. Not exactly something to be proud of.

Regarding interference abroad. Some places had brutal regimes before the west became militarily involved and whilst we did make a mess of some interventions I'd argue that it would have been right to intervene if we had the stomach and commitment to do it right. We didn't. Not intervening in the plight of people and the behaviour of their governments and rulers is an option and there's always sanctions and the UN but these may or even more likely will be ineffectual. Leaving it to Russia or China is another possibility.

'Intervention' was only ever along economic grounds. If doing so benefited the UK economically. The Gulf War was all about controlling the oil money; the 'brutality' of certain regimes has never been much concern for the West; plenty of business with Saudi Arabia, for example. Anti-Semitism? The Wahhabists aren't big fans of Judaism, yet it's fine for the UK to trade with them. Without so much as a peep from the British press.

2427647.jpg
 
Why don't the French control their border and rehouse them throughout the country?

They are controlling their border - in the interests of their own country. Lets not get on our high horse and pretend those on the far right like Farage and his acolytes would be doing anything different if the positions were reversed and migrants were leaving the UK heading to France. It is merely an accident of geography that this isn't the case.

Now we have left the EU, the French shadowing the boats on their way to UK is no different to them shadowing boats back to Libya.
 
Don't be an idiot.

I think I've made it clear from the off that my objection is on the grounds of fear for the immigrants lives.

I knew when I posted this thread that some people would ignore the issue and instead focus on Farage so thanks again for confirming my rather low view of some of the posters on this site.

I'll not respond to the first line.
Regarding the second paragraph, if you have an overloaded dinghy that is set on heading west, surely the safest outcome is for the French to shadow the boat while in its waters and to liaise with the UK coastguard to meet at an agreed location where all parties know that the migrants will set of a flare and seek asylum and willingly comply with any requests to disembark.
What you have posted is a video trying to portray this as something underhand and devious by the French published by a far right racist with links to the ugliest parts of UK society.
PS. you may find the responses predicable. I find the attempt to dismiss any contrary views because you know they will becoming also predictable.

PPS Actually I am going to reply to your first line. Let's be a bit more grown up and civil in our responses shall we?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
to meet at an agreed location where all parties know that the migrants will set of a flare and seek asylum and willingly comply with any requests to disembark.
The problem is that it's political dynamite to do that.

The fundamental question is the legality of anyone claiming asylum to pass through safe countries to seek asylum in another country. There is, in fact, no international law that demands this. The EU's "Dublin Rule" in effect expects a refugee to apply for registration in the first EU country at which they arrive. If they comply with this then any application for asylum in another country may be reviewed with that in mind.

Where this all breaks down is when the number of people seeking entry into a country begins to overwhelm that country's resources or damage its political stability. In such a case, countries may instruct their officials to deal with the problem in ways which are not necessarily illegal but which aren't entirely in accord with the country's international obligations either. For various reasons this seems to be the point we have reached in the UK.
 
The problem is that it's political dynamite to do that.

The fundamental question is the legality of anyone claiming asylum to pass through safe countries to seek asylum in another country. There is, in fact, no international law that demands this. The EU's "Dublin Rule" in effect expects a refugee to apply for registration in the first EU country at which they arrive. If they comply with this then any application for asylum in another country may be reviewed with that in mind.

Where this all breaks down is when the number of people seeking entry into a country begins to overwhelm that country's resources or damage its political stability. In such a case, countries may instruct their officials to deal with the problem in ways which are not necessarily illegal but which aren't entirely in accord with the country's international obligations either. For various reasons this seems to be the point we have reached in the UK.

It's a difficult issue. One issue is the resentment by the locals as they struggle to access services which they see being allocated to asylum seakers. One way to avoid this would be to stop placing asylum seekers in areas of relative deprivation and need and instead place them in more affluent areas where resources aren't so much of an issue. Unfortunately placing asylum seekers in Middlesbrough is a lot cheaper than placing them in Godalming.
 
I'll not respond to the first line.
Regarding the second paragraph, if you have an overloaded dinghy that is set on heading west, surely the safest outcome is for the French to shadow the boat while in its waters and to liaise with the UK coastguard to meet at an agreed location where all parties know that the migrants will set of a flare and seek asylum and willingly comply with any requests to disembark.
What you have posted is a video trying to portray this as something underhand and devious by the French published by a far right racist with links to the ugliest parts of UK society.
PS. you may find the responses predicable. I find the attempt to dismiss any contrary views because you know they will becoming also predictable.

PPS Actually I am going to reply to your first line. Let's be a bit more grown up and civil in our responses shall we?

Hey, if you post in such an aggressive stupid manor expect to be told called on it. If you can get past that sort of post and drop the attitude I'd be happy to discuss the situation. Or thinking about it, maybe not, see below.

As to the rest. I hope you'll agree that stopping the overloaded boats setting off would be the ideal scenario and that's where efforts should be greatest once the issue has got as far as the coast as once we're past that point we're introducing much more danger to life. There's also an argument for intercepting boats as quickly as possible and returning them to the point of origin as it's possible that effectively escorting them across the channel until they can be effectively handed over encourages more to do the same.

And on NF. That vid was the one that I saw and even though you may view him as completely untrustworthy there's also the other sources for the same story one of which was posted by someone else in this thread.

All I'm asking is that people drop the hate and the bias and instead of shooting the messenger, sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "Nigel Farage! Don't look! Don't Listen!" take a look at what is apparently happening as confirmed by other sources.

Apparently that's too much to ask in this knee jerk shrill society we apparently have now.

I saw this NF deflection and hate coming, as I said I wouldn't have cared if Hitler had posted that vid but of course to avoid this if I'd found the other souse that someone else posted I'd have used that.
 
Last edited:
Hey, if you post in such an aggressive stupid manor expect to be told called on it. If you can get past that sort of post and drop the attitude I'd be happy to discuss the situation.

As to the rest. I hope you'll agree that stopping the overloaded boats setting off would be the ideal scenario and that's where efforts should be greatest once the issue has got as far as the coast as once we're past that point we're introducing much more danger to life. There's also an argument for intercepting boats as quickly as possible and returning them to the point of origin as it's possible that effectively escorting them across the channel until they can be effectively handed over encourages more to do the same.

And on NF. That vid was the one that I saw and even though you may view him as completely untrustworthy there's also the other sources for the same story one of which was posted by someone else in this thread.

All I'm asking is that people drop the hate and the bias and instead of shooting the messenger, sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "Nigel Farage! Don't look! Don't Listen!" take a look at what is apparently happening as confirmed by other sources.

Apparently that's too much to ask in this knee jerk shrill society we apparently have now.

I saw this NF deflection and hate coming, as I said I wouldn't have cared if Hitler had posted that vid but of course to avoid this if I'd found the other souse that someone else posted I'd have used that.

Good luck with that.
 
And with that I'm out.

I had intended to talk about what I see as an unsafe life threatening official/semi official policy of escorting boats across the channel until they can be handed over to UK coastguards but as far as I'm concerned the thread has been over shadowed and effectively trashed by what I see as an irrelevant issue, Nigel Farage. He's irrelevant in the context of this thread as I'm not interested in any alleged racist overtones or message or Brexit. All I'm interested in is the issue of immigrants crossing the channel unsafely and this has been reported by other more mainstream and less controversial sources. So NF is as far as I can see a non issue. But some of you just can't get past him.

So as far as I'm concerned this thread should end here as views seem far too polorised for anything like friendly debate.
 
It's a difficult issue. One issue is the resentment by the locals as they struggle to access services which they see being allocated to asylum seakers. One way to avoid this would be to stop placing asylum seekers in areas of relative deprivation and need and instead place them in more affluent areas where resources aren't so much of an issue. Unfortunately placing asylum seekers in Middlesbrough is a lot cheaper than placing them in Godalming.



What would really help though, is if resources were allocated properly, according to how they should be used. The government can always find several trillion to fund some illegal war, it can overlook hundreds of billions not paid in taxes, it can find billions to subsidise the private rail companies, zero hours exploitation, and bail out banks, yet it claims there's no money when it comes to actually providing for the people. Oh but Crossrail! HS2!

If there was as much populist anger against this kind of s***, as there is directed towards some 'foreign' target, we'd soon see some change. If there was as much effort concentrated on getting the truth out, instead of constant myths and lies, we'd soon see some change. Fact is that resources end up being allocated to those with the greatest need. This sometimes happens to be people like asylum seekers. And there's an awful lot of people who sit on their arses and complain when things aren't handed to them on a plate; the British have a sense of collective entitlement you don't see in many other places. The kind of people I see moaning the loudest about 'immigrunts' are the kind of lazy bastards who do f-all to further their own lives; those who are genuinely working hard to better themselves, don't have the time or energy to waste worrying about such distractions.

And it's also about education. Levels of education are pitifully low in a country which boasts some of the world's finest universities. Tory spending on education has been in decline since Thatcher took over. Blair facilitated the privatisation of education through 'academies', leaving the most deprived areas with b****r all resources. Financial barriers to aspiring students are growing ever larger. Adult education has all but disappeared. So we have an increasingly ignorant and docile society which laps up any old s*** it's fed. Which is the whole aim of the ruling elites; keep people ignorant and they won't be able to understand what's going on, let alone question it.

Knowledge is Power.
 
Good luck with that.

Good luck with trying to keep it civil and keep NF bashing out if it?

If that's the sentiment, I've given up Brian.

Reading other threads recently I've found them to be... well... upsetting and disappointing. This has lead me to thinking about keeping out of this completely as despite appearances I do have a life away from the keyboard. I'm on here a lot as I'm isolating but even in normal times I'm tied to the house a lot as I'm a full time carer but recent threads have made me think... but having said all that I do think that many forums are just the same and actually... worse.
 
And with that I'm out.

I had intended to talk about what I see as an unsafe life threatening official/semi official policy of escorting boats across the channel until they can be handed over to UK coastguards but as far as I'm concerned the thread has been over shadowed and effectively trashed by what I see as an irrelevant issue, Nigel Farage. He's irrelevant in the context of this thread as I'm not interested in any alleged racist overtones or message or Brexit. All I'm interested in is the issue of immigrants crossing the channel unsafely and this has been reported by other more mainstream and less controversial sources. So NF is as far as I can see a non issue. But some of you just can't get past him.

So as far as I'm concerned this thread should end here as views seem far too polorised for anything like friendly debate.


This is laughable, it really is. You knew exactly what you were starting. You've tried to play the 'neutral', but I think quite a few people have seen through that. Why not just have the balls to lay your cards on the table? It's quite clear from your posts, where your sympathies really lie. Fact is; you've been unable to 'control' the debate to your liking. And now you want to go and take your ball away.
 
This is laughable, it really is. You knew exactly what you were starting. You've tried to play the 'neutral', but I think quite a few people have seen through that. Why not just have the balls to lay your cards on the table? It's quite clear from your posts, where your sympathies really lie. Fact is; you've been unable to 'control' the debate to your liking. And now you want to go and take your ball away.

Indeed, he posted a video that was purely created to inflame racial tensions by a known racist and tries to disown any such association.
You've only got to look at the responses to the video to see that this video is a dog whistle for racists.
The replies include
  • The conservative cabinet were too busy with Ramadamadingdong messages to care
  • kalergi plan must go on to destroy whats left of the European homelands ......
  • Wouldn't it be a tragedy if your boat has passed a little too close and swamped the migrants dingy? In the confusion of trying to rescue them it's always possible to run a few over,propellers can do huge damage to swimmers.
  • search and rescue huh? Should be seek and destroy
  • Drastic action needed now, or we're all doomed! Muslim party running Britain within 10 years guaranteed! We need civil war now!
  • The Tories ARE "The Left", you Muppet. Lib-Lab-Con. The UniParty. All Immigrant-Loving, Globalist, EuroManiac, Communist Scum
 
Lol! Has Hatie Plopkins been let loose at a keyboard again?
 
Fact is; you've been unable to 'control' the debate to your liking.
Well, no one can, really. Even the Chinese government with its virtually unlimited resources hasn't achieved that.

I'm quite sure the current government would love to shut down the Cummings debate but I can't imagine there's any practical way of doing so. :bat:
 
Well, no one can, really. Even the Chinese government with its virtually unlimited resources hasn't achieved that.

I'm quite sure the current government would love to shut down the Cummings debate but I can't imagine there's any practical way of doing so. :bat:

Sack him seems the most obvious option.
 
Sack him seems the most obvious option.
To simple souls like thee and me, yes.

From the viewpoint of a none too competent politician it's rather more complicated. If they dump him, will Cummings pull down the cabinet with him? After all, he must know more than enough to finish all their careers. Even if he's loyal enough to go quietly, the next problem for the prime minister is: why didn't he push out this over-mighty subject sooner? Even without Cummings's testimony the mere fact of having backed him against the tumult only to say "He's a bad lad after all", makes the prime minister's already questionable judgement look even worse.
 
Good luck with trying to keep it civil and keep NF bashing out if it?

If that's the sentiment, I've given up Brian.

Reading other threads recently I've found them to be... well... upsetting and disappointing. This has lead me to thinking about keeping out of this completely as despite appearances I do have a life away from the keyboard. I'm on here a lot as I'm isolating but even in normal times I'm tied to the house a lot as I'm a full time carer but recent threads have made me think... but having said all that I do think that many forums are just the same and actually... worse.

Your thinking is wrong (as is mine), haven't you realised that yet? You're either piled on by the usual suspects or warned off for causing trouble. (Disagreeing.) That's why most centre or right people don't bother.
 
Last edited:
Your thinking is wrong (as is mine), haven't you realised that yet? You're either piled on by the usual suspects or warned off for causing trouble. (Disagreeing.) That's why most centre or right people don't bother.

What a load of nonsense. All that's happened here is that some people have posted to dispel myths, using facts and rationality, to which there has been no real counter. What you really mean is; ignorant right wing views are quickly shot down for what they are, racist paranoid rubbish, and people espousing such views then realise they will look like idiots if they continue to post crap. That's all. The simple truth of it is; you can't argue with fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top