Keir Starmer

[planesleuth]

I see you are all back again debating and bemoaning. You all got what you deserved voting YET AGAIN in an entirely undemocratic system. On and on it goes. Century after century. Wake up! Join the enlightened! DONT VOTE IN THIS SYSTEM. Then things will change.

 

[spanner48]

I see you are all back again debating and bemoaning. You all got what you deserved voting YET AGAIN in an entirely undemocratic system. On and on it goes. Century after century. Wake up! Join the enlightened! DONT VOTE IN THIS SYSTEM. Then things will change.

"Then things will change." ?

For the worse

 

[Blackswanwood]

I see you are all back again debating and bemoaning. You all got what you deserved voting YET AGAIN in an entirely undemocratic system. On and on it goes. Century after century. Wake up! Join the enlightened! DONT VOTE IN THIS SYSTEM. Then things will change.

Yeah …

 

[Croolis]

That is a good question but very true, we have lost politicians that were true to themselves and stood by their convictions but it was not all great. We only think we had much better politicians in the past because the current bunch are really inept and achieving even higher levels of incompetance and stupidity so making the past ones look better.


But unless we take a gamble on something different then how can you expect real change, the slide into the abyss will just continue as the two party system continues in going round in circles ever downwards. Many of these so called asylum seekers are really just taking the pee, what about the albanian burglar who got locked up, let out early and deported, sneaked back in and got married to some lithuanian, had a kid and now cannot be deported so continues his crime spree. Are we really now that stupid ?


Bang on because every system has a capacity that it can maintain, exceed that limit and then something has to give and just filling up our country with deadweights will capsize the boat.

All we need to do is look around and mimic another countries immigraton system, if we follow say Australia then no one can say we are not complying with any rules and there system seems to work.

Do you see many Albanians in North Cumbria?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I doubt they walk around with banners saying Hi, I'm an Albanian crook!

 

[RonnieI]

The real question is how do we work out exactly who needs to come and who just want to get out of there perfectly safe country for other reasons

As a dentist in Newcastle several years ago I used to treat several Syrian, Afghan and Iraqi families who had claimed asylum. These families comprised Dad, Mum, one, two or three kids who had fled persecution in their country. All the parents were well educated (doctors, engineers, solicitors, etc) and had been warned that if they didn't leave the country they would be killed. They fled with nothing apart from the clothes they were wearing via a major travel route with full documentation direct to the UK where they claimed asylum. They were all very traumatised. They did not recognise the people they saw in the dinghies as people who were fleeing persecution to claim asylum in a safe country.
The people I see coming over in rubber dinghy do not resemble these patients at all. The majority seem to be younger, single males coming from countries that don't seem likely to offer an immediate threat to life. They arrive without documentation but appear to be well dressed and have mobile phones. If these people are economic migrants, how do they amass the £5k or so to pay the people for the crossing? I imagine that in many 'third' world countries £5k is a king's ransom?
I think that 500 to 1000 people a day arriving by a dinghy is not sustainable for the UK because the bulk of the migrants represent an economic loss to the country.
True asylum seekers should be welcomed, economic or illegal migrants should not.

 

[Jacob]

Refugees:

Migrants:

Are you suggesting that we should invite and look after the women and children from the world's trouble spots?
That's very woke of you, congratulations, it's never too late to wake up!
The reason it's mostly chaps is because they tend to be stronger, fitter, more likely to find work. Then they can send money back home, or if they are staying can set up homes for their families, possibly earning enough to bring them here by safe means without risking their lives.
If you wanted to move to a foreign country would you first send your wife and kids to explore possibilities?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

You should ask Lord Alli for a pair of rose coloured glasses.

 

[Jacob]

.... They did not recognise the people they saw in the dinghies as people who were fleeing persecution to claim asylum in a safe country.

What, did you ask them?

The people I see coming over in rubber dinghy do not resemble these patients at all.

Probably because they have had a very rough journey and unlike your patients had not yet settled down to life in Britain

The majority seem to be younger, single males coming from countries

Always the way with population movements. They are best able to make the journey and establish a base. They are more likely to be qualified, experienced, with sellable skills and earning capacity.

that don't seem likely to offer an immediate threat to life.

What, have you asked them?

They arrive without documentation but appear to be well dressed and have mobile phones.

A very familiar cliche coming from the usual sources. In fact the mobile phone has become an essential survival tool for migrants. Takes the place of less portable "documents" but also has all those other functions; communications, map reading, information seeking, keeping in touch.

If these people are economic migrants, how do they amass the £5k or so to pay the people for the crossing?

Many have incurred massive debts to find their way here, on the promise of paying them off when they get work. If they can't do it they may never be able to return home. There's a recent film on the subject

I imagine that in many 'third' world countries £5k is a king's ransom?
I think that 500 to 1000 people a day arriving by a dinghy is not sustainable for the UK because the bulk of the migrants represent an economic loss to the country.

It's nearer to 80 per day on average. Varies from year to year. Lower in 2023 compared to 22. Not a huge number, far more come by easier normal methods. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac....-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/

 

[RobinBHM]

but that is no excuse. We need to co-operate with each other.

So this is what we are saying to France:

"please can you stop all people leaving in small boats from leaving France, we want you to have them all so we dont have to take any"

I think you can see why they arent going for it...........if it was the other way around would you be wanting to stop small boats leaving our shores and going to France?

 

[RobinBHM]

Since the they increased the population by 10,000,000? Just a thought, though that's hardly irrational.

the 10 million figure is just the total number people registered as foreign born noted on the 2021/2022 census

so that covers everybody from birth to death.........so the figures you are talking about mightve come here 70 years ago


By the way, if they have increased the population by 10 million, given unemployment is very low I might suggest we rather need them to keep our economy working

 

[RobinBHM]

Refugees:

Migrants:

thank you for your reply.

There are 4 main reasons why its mostly males:

1) "Professor Sigona added that "the journey to Europe is dangerous and expensive, and raising enough money for all members to seek protection abroad is difficult, so often men are sent abroad first to secure an income to support the family and also a safer route to international protection via family reunion."

2) "The young men you see on these boats are doing their best to protect their families. Their mothers, grandmothers, sisters, babies, daughters. How often does a father say they’d die for their daughter, and a husband say they’d die for their wife? Well, these guys are putting it into practice."

3) In families, the women often have to stay behind and look after young children and elderly relatives that cant make thew journey

4) men are seen as the main breadwinner in many countries and are engaged in more public-facing activities including being expected to join the army.
"These make them also more likely to be a target in a situation of political and social turmoil,"

the right wing media often use the false narrative that its just young men looking for an easy life and are economic migrants, some take the really unpleasant narrative that it is "young men of fighting age" and that it is an invasion




Anybody with empathy will appreciate it must be heart rending for the these families to be broken apart and their life must be totally intolerable to take such journeys. It is shame here in the UK so many people just dehumanise the situation

 

[spanner48]

thank you for your reply.

There are 4 main reasons why its mostly males:

1) "Professor Sigona added that "the journey to Europe is dangerous and expensive, and raising enough money for all members to seek protection abroad is difficult, so often men are sent abroad first to secure an income to support the family and also a safer route to international protection via family reunion."

2) "The young men you see on these boats are doing their best to protect their families. Their mothers, grandmothers, sisters, babies, daughters. How often does a father say they’d die for their daughter, and a husband say they’d die for their wife? Well, these guys are putting it into practice."

3) In families, the women often have to stay behind and look after young children and elderly relatives that cant make thew journey

4) men are seen as the main breadwinner in many countries and are engaged in more public-facing activities including being expected to join the army.
"These make them also more likely to be a target in a situation of political and social turmoil,"

the right wing media often use the false narrative that its just young men looking for an easy life and are economic migrants, some take the really unpleasant narrative that it is "young men of fighting age" and that it is an invasion




Anybody with empathy will appreciate it must be heart rending for the these families to be broken apart and their life must be totally intolerable to take such journeys. It is shame here in the UK so many people just dehumanise the situation

"Anybody with empathy will appreciate" ?

Anyone with commonsense will realise that the principle motive is economic, NOT security. If it were security, we would see the Ukrainian pattern . . .

Not the Albanian pattern - where the country has not been invaded, and there is no military threat to life and limb. . .

 

[RobinBHM]

We have politicians of both parties who want to create the illusion of action whilst doing nothing constructive or effective

I hate to say this but you accuse British politicians of "doing nothing constructive or effective", whilst you yourself have offered suggestions that are not realistic at all

Are you sure you want to put these forward as real world ideas:

• asylum claims to be made on line before arrival with very clear criteria.
• only one claim allowed, a decision within three months, and no repeated appeals
• sink the boats as they enter UK waters
• deportation within 1 month if asylum claim not approved

I mean "sink the boats as they enter UK waters" .............come on Terry you cant be suggesting that

 

[RobinBHM]

"Anybody with empathy will appreciate" ? Anyone with commonsense will realise that the principle motive is economic, NOT security. If it were security, we would see the Ukrainian pattern . . . . .

the Ukrainian pattern is men have stayed behind to fight with a supportive democratic government who has support of the West

the Syrian pattern is men have been continuously persecuted and caught in a war where the leader is killing its people


I might politely suggest your "commonsensense" is not based on fact


If you have any reasoned counter arguments to make against the 4 main reasons I posted explaining why its mostly men, I will welcome them

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I mean "sink the boats as they enter UK waters" .............come on Terry you cant be suggesting that

Forewarn people, they'd take their chances. We'd need to do it only once.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

We import thousands of people like this.
https://x.com/RadioGenoa/status/1843682363651555583

 

[Jacob]

"Anybody with empathy will appreciate" ?

Anyone with commonsense will realise that the principle motive is economic, NOT security. If it were security, we would see the Ukrainian pattern . . . . .

Have you looked at the "pattern" behind other immigrants?
In any case what is wrong with being an economic migrant?
Wouldn't you consider moving if you could find better work and lifestyle? Didn't Norman Tebbitt suggest that if necessary you should "get on your bike"?
Is it not a benefit to an economy to attract fit young people anxious and willing to work?
Being an economic migrant is highly commendable. Best of luck to them.

 

[spanner48]

the Ukrainian pattern is men have stayed behind to fight with a supportive democratic government who has support of the West

the Syrian pattern is men have been continuously persecuted and caught in a war where the leader is killing its people


I might politely suggest your "commonsensense" is not based on fact


If you have any reasoned counter arguments to make against the 4 main reasons I posted explaining why its mostly men, I will welcome them

No more 'fact' than having lived and worked in Ukraine, and hosted Ukrainian refugees - women and children. And having lived and worked in Albania - and in virtually all the countries from which migrants are coming. And the FACTS - gathered on the ground from the people concerned - is that the motive is primarily economic: to earn money to be sent back home to support the family there.

That may be a laudable enterprise. But it's NOT grounds for 'Refugee' status.

Welcoming them in may - or may not -= be of value for the UK. But in that case a change in the immigration rules is called for.

 

[John Brown]

As a dentist in Newcastle several years ago I used to treat several Syrian, Afghan and Iraqi families who had claimed asylum. These families comprised Dad, Mum, one, two or three kids who had fled persecution in their country. All the parents were well educated (doctors, engineers, solicitors, etc) and had been warned that if they didn't leave the country they would be killed. They fled with nothing apart from the clothes they were wearing via a major travel route with full documentation direct to the UK where they claimed asylum. They were all very traumatised. They did not recognise the people they saw in the dinghies as people who were fleeing persecution to claim asylum in a safe country.
The people I see coming over in rubber dinghy do not resemble these patients at all. The majority seem to be younger, single males coming from countries that don't seem likely to offer an immediate threat to life. They arrive without documentation but appear to be well dressed and have mobile phones. If these people are economic migrants, how do they amass the £5k or so to pay the people for the crossing? I imagine that in many 'third' world countries £5k is a king's ransom?
I think that 500 to 1000 people a day arriving by a dinghy is not sustainable for the UK because the bulk of the migrants represent an economic loss to the country.
True asylum seekers should be welcomed, economic or illegal migrants should not.

Most of the asylum seekers I met did not have mobile phones, until they were furnished with older used devices, donated by "do gooders". They were also not given houses, cars etc. Their meals were eaten in their sleeping quarters out of plastic containers, and they were provided with approx £8 per week. I realise this is far more than that deserve, since they weren't lucky enough to be born in this country, but hey ho..
It would make far more sense, IMO, to throw some money at processing the asylum applications in a speedy manner, rather than warehousing them for months at the taxpayers's expense, which incidentally catapulted one of the Tory cronies into the top 50 rich list, IIRC.