|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 5, 2024 13:05:30 GMT
This has surely been said often before but let's just say it again simply.
- The minute that these scum are allowed to land "In England". It's basically impossible to deport them - even at vast expense.
- So the only solution is to NEVER let them into "England"
- If these scum try to get here via scheduled flights they are instantly deported if they don't have the right to land here and have full ID.
- So what's different? The difference is that people who fly into this country are nor let into the country until their documentation checked. That's because parts of airports are designated as "not England". Until you've gone through "airside" checks you're not in England.
- So why don't we do exactly the same thing with the boat scum? It's very easy.
- Any illegals who land by boat (usually escorted by the French out of their waters and ferried to Dover by the RNLI) should be taken to a detention centre for processing. The detention centre should be like "Airside" at an airport - i.e. you're not in ENgland.
- Anyone who doesn't have the required documentation is then - just like with an aircraft - returned to where they came from. And we know exactly where they came from in nearly every case.
Why the fuck don't the govt finally wise up and do this? This is entirely compliant with international law.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 5, 2024 13:09:30 GMT
It became eminently clear that this post was the nonsense it is by the use of the word "scum".
I could explain the technicalities of why your scheme wouldn't work but don't intend to engage with that terminology.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 5, 2024 14:12:22 GMT
Twat. There are no reasons why the plan wouldn't work. There's no difference between arriving illegally by plane or dinghy except that those on the dinghy are landed in England. Out govt is just stupid - or actually want to destroy the country by flooding it with scum.
Why do you think you're so clever dappy when you post utter crap.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 5, 2024 14:43:02 GMT
Oh there are. Lots actually.
If you want a sensible conversation and to learn a little, you could post in a new thread using more grown up language. Or, as the mods seem to be quite happy, humour yourself using ever more moronic language to describe fellow human beings and learn nothing. Your choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 5, 2024 15:08:07 GMT
Using terms like 'scum' to describe asylum seekers or even uninvited economic migrants is certainly likely to result in outrage on the part of liberal progressives so should perhaps be avoided but, that aside, what in particular do you find to be unworkable with the proposed scheme dappy?
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 5, 2024 15:16:30 GMT
As I said if Steppenwolf would like to open up a new thread using grown up language with his "scheme", I will happily explain why it is impractical.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 5, 2024 15:51:25 GMT
Why not do it here?
You've already registered your disapproval so what difference will a new thread make?
Another 'win' to chalk on the bed-post?
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 5, 2024 16:15:16 GMT
I always preferred the "notch" rather than chalk, Dan.
Big mistake in hindsight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 5, 2024 16:45:18 GMT
Mod Notice
I have censored the offending word - please keep the thread polite.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Feb 5, 2024 22:49:35 GMT
It became eminently clear that this post was the nonsense it is by the use of the word "individuals". I could explain the technicalities of why your scheme wouldn't work but don't intend to engage with that terminology. Well now it seems whatever word you didn’t like has been censored, suppose you tell me why everyone intercepted on a rubber boat without evidence of identification is allowed to vanish into the uk population as soon as their asylum claim is rejected. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 5, 2024 23:27:12 GMT
I think it's clear that dappy has absolutely no idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Feb 5, 2024 23:48:36 GMT
The answer is of course dead simple.
We already have a ‘non england’ area in which we can corral these illegals. It’s called ‘The EU’ and all we have to do is open a processing centre in ‘le jungle’ and process all comers the way the french do.
With the sort of success rates they have in france
And no appeals
And anyone landing by boat on our shore is automatically excluded from consideration. Throw them back at France and let the french sift the genuine from the fraudster.
And by the way, what do the french do when a french child drifts off a french beach into the channel. Our inshore life boats rescue dozens of leisure and sports users whose need for rescue comes from causes varying from bad luck through momentary lapse all the way to rank stupidity. I do not believe no frenchman ever has this problem nor do i believe they are left to drown. So why are the RNLI always the taxi of french navy choice for their bloody illegals
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 6, 2024 7:58:29 GMT
The answer is of course dead simple. We already have a ‘non england’ area in which we can corral these illegals. It’s called ‘The EU’ and all we have to do is open a processing centre in ‘le jungle’ and process all comers the way the french do. Have you any idea how many people would apply for asylum in the UK if we allowed people to apply in France? It would be many millions. But we've already declared France to be a safe country so asylum would be automatically rejected. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 6, 2024 8:01:32 GMT
Mod NoticeI have censored the offending word - please keep the thread polite. What's wrong with scum? Angela Rayner called all Tories scum I think. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 6, 2024 8:19:07 GMT
Mod NoticeI have censored the offending word - please keep the thread polite. What's wrong with individuals? Angela Rayner called all Tories individuals I think. Yes - and I dont think the forum needs to sink to the same level as Angela Rayner. |
|
