DeePeeNCAFC wrote: March 11th, 2023, 10:39 am [quote=Bangitintrnet.

That would mean intercepting small boats at sea and effectively risking lives of people who are trying to escape conflicts, to return them to a country that they had just passed through. Half of asylum seekers are from the middle East, and once in the hands of people traffickers have no idea of where they have passed through, or their final destination. That is chosen by the traffickers, on the basis of who they know at the other end who can enslave them. These are desperate people who are just trying to survive, not people who prefer UK to France or even Rwanda for that matter.
[/quote]

No, it wouldn’t - quite the opposite in fact.

I’m talking about setting up a UK asylum screening centre in Northern France. Migrants seeking asylum then gave no need to risk their lives or pay the people traffickers to get them across the water. Initial review of their asylum case is done in France, if it looks like a genuine case then we transport them safely to the UK and complete the asylum screening process. Given that 60-70% of recent claims have been successful we therefore stop 60-70% of the small boat trips.

Claims not successful at first review - claimants are told this and if they subsequently try to cross the Channel then we send them back, because we know who they are, have their fingerprints etc from the initial case.
[/quote]

There was a former head of border control on the BBC the other day, saying that when he was in post it was 15k making the journey not the estimated 45k today. The reason he suggested, was there is no legal route to claiming asylum in the UK, that all stopped with Brexit. It was him that was suggesting that intercepting people in boats was too dangerous, and as for placing them back in France, he felt that wasn't actually possible.

The BBC also spoke to an asylum seeker originally from Iran, who paid to get out of Iran. He had waited 18 months so far in this country, unable to work as it is illegal for him to do so, waiting to be processed. He paid for his trip, but after leaving Iran had no idea where he had been taken, as all the stop off points were in woodland in the various countries having crossed borders in non obvious locations at night. He ended up here, but had no idea that was the plan, or where he had travelled to in between.
The former border control head seemed to indicate that this particular chap was typical and by no means unrepresentative of how people traffickers work. He had to escape to claim asylum, otherwise he would be working in a captive situation.

Wondering who the “resident incel” is but given I’ve been married a while it might be me, birthday & Christmas if I’m lucky!

All end of pier jokes aside this forum at least should be able to stand up to free speech however controversial or contrarian even if the BBC can’t.

Undoubtedly unintentionally yesterday's MOTD has raised the question, at least in my mind, as to whether the BBC need to be spending so much on so many pundits on highlights programmes,and the length of air time they are given. Last nights programme certainly highlighted how high a percentage of the programme is usually taken up by ex-players often banal and inane 'punditry'.

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: March 12th, 2023, 8:09 am Undoubtedly unintentionally yesterday's MOTD has raised the question, at least in my mind, as to whether the BBC need to be spending so much on so many pundits on highlights programmes,and the length of air time they are given. Last nights programme certainly highlighted how high a percentage of the programme is usually taken up by ex-players often banal and inane 'punditry'.

You are posting this on a forum which is full of banal and inane punditry and much better for it.

Watching Match Of The Day was better last night , IMO.
If the games had commentary it would have been better but more Football highlights and less punditry is the way forward...People watch the programme to see the highlights of football not the same old drivel from the same people...

And with the money saved on wages the beeb could teach us all to be woke

Free beer wrote: March 12th, 2023, 9:11 am

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: March 12th, 2023, 8:09 am Undoubtedly unintentionally yesterday's MOTD has raised the question, at least in my mind, as to whether the BBC need to be spending so much on so many pundits on highlights programmes,and the length of air time they are given. Last nights programme certainly highlighted how high a percentage of the programme is usually taken up by ex-players often banal and inane 'punditry'.

You are posting this on a forum which is full of banal and inane punditry and much better for it.

I know the focus of the Lineker argument is on refugees arriving in boats and the Nazi Germany comparison. But there are people saying that the UK doesn't take as many refugees as other European countries. The latest UN figures show differently. As of 2020 we were in the top 5 countries in the world to take in foreign born immigrants. We are the 78th largest country by land mass. I know we are one of the richest, but millions more people into a country of our size is going to cause problems.

The answer? Perhaps build create infrastructure in countries with more land. Then send the money we would have spent on refugees to those countries?

Top 10 Countries with the Highest Number of Foreign-Born Residents (Immigrants) - United Nations 2020:

United States — 50.6 million
Germany — 15.8 million
Saudi Arabia — 13.5 million
Russia — 11.6 million
United Kingdom — 9.4 million
United Arab Emirates — 8.7 million
France — 8.5 million
Canada — 8.0 million
Australia — 7.7 million
Spain — 6.8 million

Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

aberexile wrote: March 13th, 2023, 10:37 am
We are the 78th largest country by land mass. I know we are one of the richest, but millions more people into a country of our size is going to cause problems.

The answer? Perhaps build create infrastructure in countries with more land. Then send the money we would have spent on refugees to those countries?

Where Rwanda? the two other possibilities from our old Empire that haven't been disclosed yet?

Also we don't have millions of asylum seeker's do we? If we are talking about taking Ukrainians or Afghan interpreter migrants, surely we have not only a moral duty, but a financial incentive, because bombs cost more money, and are not well educated people who can add to the UK economy?

Of course the Australian economy suffered greatly from convicts being transported there. Also America when everyone went west......

And of cource the good old Roman Catholics, whose rhythm method produced the workforce of many growing econonies. Just a shame about the Irish bias towards male babies, and the Irish Roman Catholic Magdalene Laundry scandals...........

Whatever our individual opinions it appears he has been re-instated in time for next weekend.

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 13th, 2023, 11:10 am

aberexile wrote: March 13th, 2023, 10:37 am
We are the 78th largest country by land mass. I know we are one of the richest, but millions more people into a country of our size is going to cause problems.

The answer? Perhaps build create infrastructure in countries with more land. Then send the money we would have spent on refugees to those countries?

Where Rwanda? the two other possibilities from our old Empire that haven't been disclosed yet?

Also we don't have millions of asylum seeker's do we? If we are talking about taking Ukrainians or Afghan interpreter migrants, surely we have not only a moral duty, but a financial incentive, because bombs cost more money, and are not well educated people who can add to the UK economy?

Of course the Australian economy suffered greatly from convicts being transported there. Also America when everyone went west......

And of cource the good old Roman Catholics, whose rhythm method produced the workforce of many growing econonies. Just a shame about the Irish bias towards male babies, and the Irish Roman Catholic Magdalene Laundry scandals...........

I think Australia and the United Sates have a little bit more space than us? If we were as big as them and had as much space as them then fine. My sister in law is an asylum seeker. She knows the process very well, and yes in answer to your question we do have millions of asylum seekers, or certainly have had in the last decade or so.

aberexile wrote: March 13th, 2023, 11:41 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 13th, 2023, 11:10 am

aberexile wrote: March 13th, 2023, 10:37 am
We are the 78th largest country by land mass. I know we are one of the richest, but millions more people into a country of our size is going to cause problems.

The answer? Perhaps build create infrastructure in countries with more land. Then send the money we would have spent on refugees to those countries?

Where Rwanda? the two other possibilities from our old Empire that haven't been disclosed yet?

Also we don't have millions of asylum seeker's do we? If we are talking about taking Ukrainians or Afghan interpreter migrants, surely we have not only a moral duty, but a financial incentive, because bombs cost more money, and are not well educated people who can add to the UK economy?

Of course the Australian economy suffered greatly from convicts being transported there. Also America when everyone went west......

And of cource the good old Roman Catholics, whose rhythm method produced the workforce of many growing econonies. Just a shame about the Irish bias towards male babies, and the Irish Roman Catholic Magdalene Laundry scandals...........

I think Australia and the United Sates have a little bit more space than us? If we were as big as them and had as much space as them then fine. My sister in law is an asylum seeker. She knows the process very well, and yes in answer to your question we do have millions of asylum seekers, or certainly have had in the last decade or so.

Migrants or asylum seeker's, because your link is purely migrants? 100k a year doesn't seem to fit with any numbers I have seen.

Also I know there is an issue with males in particular, trying to ovoid fighting in conflicts they don't agree with. Which on the face of it sounds bad, but looking at the bigger picture, if you take the fighters out of a conflict, it can only help not prolong things surely.

I myself have a Coachouse that I own in Cardiff, and rent out to a Hong Kong couple. Migrants that simply knew friends over here that liked the place name Canton. Both my tenants used to work on the stock market, but now work in hospitality here, as apparently their qualifications are not transferable.

If you go on a cruise these days, the staff tend to be from the far east. Maybe employing asylum seekers temporarily on ships just for bed and board could form part of the answer? Almost a floating workhouse.

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 13th, 2023, 1:23 pm

aberexile wrote: March 13th, 2023, 11:41 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 13th, 2023, 11:10 am

aberexile wrote: March 13th, 2023, 10:37 am
We are the 78th largest country by land mass. I know we are one of the richest, but millions more people into a country of our size is going to cause problems.

The answer? Perhaps build create infrastructure in countries with more land. Then send the money we would have spent on refugees to those countries?

Where Rwanda? the two other possibilities from our old Empire that haven't been disclosed yet?

Also we don't have millions of asylum seeker's do we? If we are talking about taking Ukrainians or Afghan interpreter migrants, surely we have not only a moral duty, but a financial incentive, because bombs cost more money, and are not well educated people who can add to the UK economy?

Of course the Australian economy suffered greatly from convicts being transported there. Also America when everyone went west......

And of cource the good old Roman Catholics, whose rhythm method produced the workforce of many growing econonies. Just a shame about the Irish bias towards male babies, and the Irish Roman Catholic Magdalene Laundry scandals...........

I think Australia and the United Sates have a little bit more space than us? If we were as big as them and had as much space as them then fine. My sister in law is an asylum seeker. She knows the process very well, and yes in answer to your question we do have millions of asylum seekers, or certainly have had in the last decade or so.

Migrants or asylum seeker's, because your link is purely migrants? 100k a year doesn't seem to fit with any numbers I have seen.

Also I know there is an issue with males in particular, trying to ovoid fighting in conflicts they don't agree with. Which on the face of it sounds bad, but looking at the bigger picture, if you take the fighters out of a conflict, it can only help not prolong things surely.

I myself have a Coachouse that I own in Cardiff, and rent out to a Hong Kong couple. Migrants that simply knew friends over here that liked the place name Canton. Both my tenants used to work on the stock market, but now work in hospitality here, as apparently their qualifications are not transferable.

If you go on a cruise these days, the staff tend to be from the far east. Maybe employing asylum seekers temporarily on ships just for bed and board could form part of the answer? Almost a floating workhouse.

Well,i can't say I've been on too many cruises lately.

aberexile wrote: March 13th, 2023, 10:37 am I know the focus of the Lineker argument is on refugees arriving in boats and the Nazi Germany comparison. But there are people saying that the UK doesn't take as many refugees as other European countries. The latest UN figures show differently.

Two points.

Firstly. Lineker did not mention Nazi's. Nor was that the comparison. What he said was that the language used was not dissimilar to that being used in 1930s Germany. Talking of the UK being invaded, or of being swamped is the type of language which became acceptable in Germany in the 1930s. We keep hearing of foreign criminals, of foreign rapists. Newspapers use terms like Asylum Seeker accused of rape. I have yet to see Non Asylum Seeker accused of rape.

And most people don't follow the story closely. And an impression grows. And once that populist genie is out of the bottle, it won't be going back in. Which neatly leads me on to my second point.

The UK doesn't take it's fair share of refugees. Unfortunately a lot of people who don't know what they are talking about confuse refugees with all immigrants.

UN figures for foreign born people in any country show immigrants. Refugees who are immigrants are only a proportion of immigrants. Most migrants to the UK are either from the EU, the Commonwealth, and came here not as refugees but as documented migrants.

Not surprising that many don't understand that. And a perfect example of why language matters.