Cross Channel Migrant Issue

  • Thread starter Deleted 3147
  • Start date
D

Deleted 3147

Guest
* Couldn't see this as a thread of it's own *

News of the appointment of an SCS1 to oversee the migrant issue in the Channel makes the Telegraph Article, with another article exposing a bid for the Navy to be drawn into this, which I disagree with - that's why Border Force and HRMC have their own cutters and MCA have air assets to assist. The JMSC should be able to manage this themselves without drawing in an already stretched RN. It just highlights Border Force has failed.

Over on Twitter the new appointee is being eviscerated, I have a little sympathy (not with the uniform and PR stunt with the Home Sec), but it's not an easy problem to solve and the channel issue needs to be resolved before there is a tragedy. We need to take this way back up the chain and do more on French soil with their authorities. The treaty of Sandhurst was set up for this and we fund a lot of activity and whilst their coastline is significant, there should be more progress on this to stop the exploitation of these people and the ruthless endangerment of them.

Not often I bother with Twitter but today just reinforces why I don't.
 
*

Not often I bother with Twitter but today just reinforces why I don't.
Possibly why I have a lifetime ban from Twatter. Probs a good thing.
 
that's why Border Force and HRMC have their own cutters and MCA have air assets to assist. The JMSC should be able to manage this themselves without drawing in an already stretched RN. It just highlights Border Force has failed.
Perhaps they are simply not scaled to deal with the current refugee issues? This logic is a little like saying the Army should not have gone into Northern Ireland in 1969 as the RUC and the B Specials were there to deal with it and it was not the Army's job.

No doubt in my mind either that the French are encouraging the refugees to up the pressure on us during Brexit negotiations.
 
News of the appointment of an SCS1 to oversee the migrant issue in the Channel makes the Telegraph Article, with another article exposing a bid for the Navy to be drawn into this, which I disagree with - that's why Border Force and HRMC have their own cutters and MCA have air assets to assist. The JMSC should be able to manage this themselves without drawing in an already stretched RN. It just highlights Border Force has failed.
If the Border Force has neither the manpower or logistics to deal with the current crisis it's not so much them that's failed but rather they who have been failed. They have been let down by the lack of support. If the Border Force does have sufficient manpower and logistics then the RN's help is not required. My view is that this is a political failing.
 
I read recently that we shouldn't blame the traffickers for sending the illegals across the Channel, but blame our government/s for making our welfare and benefits system too generous to illegal immigrants.

For me, if the authorities really wanted to target the trafficking gangs, follow the trail of all these new boats and life jackets the illegals seem to wear.
 
D

Deleted 3147

Guest
If the Border Force has neither the manpower or logistics to deal with the current crisis it's not so much them that's failed but rather they who have been failed. They have been let down by the lack of support. If the Border Force does have sufficient manpower and logistics then the RN's help is not required. My view is that this is a political failing.
Border Force is a Home Office department, rather than stamping their feet and demanding they get MoD support my point is their seniors, including their Minister the Home Secretary, could and should have done something about funding/equipping before now.

Yes, it's very political and another reason not to mire the RN.
 
Round them all up, build concentration camps (minus the dodgy showers and Arbeit Macht Frei signs)

Sort the genuine asylum seekers from the economic migrants who are here to fleece our benefits system. I have absolutely no issue with a person who is a genuine refugee who has fled persecution in order to save the lives of themselves and their family.
I do have a problem with people coming here purely for the economic advantages.

The genuine asylum seekers won't mind being incarcerated while their application is processed, the shysters will create holy hell.

Two types of camp.
1 for families and unaccompanied children.

2nd for men of fighting age who have travelled alone.
 
...
This logic is a little like saying the Army should not have gone into Northern Ireland in 1969 as the RUC and the B Specials were there to deal with it and it was not the Army's job...
Good point, well made. Up until then, I saw little wrong with the RN lending a hand, but I agree with you that we don't really want them being dragged into a situation that has nothing to do with them, and they won't be able to get out of for decades.
 
Last edited:
I read recently that we shouldn't blame the traffickers for sending the illegals across the Channel, but blame our government/s for making our welfare and benefits system too generous to illegal immigrants.

For me, if the authorities really wanted to target the trafficking gangs, follow the trail of all these new boats and life jackets the illegals seem to wear.
no entitlement to benefits. That will stop the flow
 

UKRaider

Old-Salt
OK
'Genuine' refugees. From where? France? Didn't know they were at war.
'Genuine' Asylum seekers. Again. Seeking asylum from France?

Nah. They are criminals breaking laws.

I am sick of hearing the word 'desperate' being used. They know damn well what they are doing!
'Determined' would be a better description.
 
OK
'Genuine' refugees. From where? France? Didn't know they were at war.
'Genuine' Asylum seekers. Again. Seeking asylum from France?

Nah. They are criminals breaking laws.

I am sick of hearing the word 'desperate' being used. They know damn well what they are doing!
'Determined' would be a better description.

Incorrect. No refugees, end of. And start booting out Albanians/Romanians. ALL of them. They add nothing to the U.K.
 
D

Deleted 3147

Guest
OK
'Genuine' refugees. From where? France? Didn't know they were at war.
'Genuine' Asylum seekers. Again. Seeking asylum from France?

Nah. They are criminals breaking laws.

I am sick of hearing the word 'desperate' being used. They know damn well what they are doing!
'Determined' would be a better description.
I disagree. Many will be refugees and genuine, in desperate situations and hence easily exploited by criminal gangs who promise passage to the UK and a better life.

Does our benefits system additionally encourage people is another question and maybe that does need to be addressed but its a secondary issue.

France doesn't need this either despite what people may say. As they progress through France and end up in camps/halfway stations it creates problems for them to manage too and they are harsher.

It benefits both countries to address this, properly.
 
If the Navy gets drawn into this, it’s going to produce very painful headlines that will not help the Navy.
The Daily Hate will have a field day - ’Navy ferry’s migrants to new life in UK’
 

UKRaider

Old-Salt
While we are at it take the NHS numbers, housing, school places, and other benefits of being a UK citizen away from the 'Refugees Welcome' mongs (currently infesting LeftyTwatter) and pass their benefits on to the GENUINE refugees who enter the country LEGALLY.
 

Latest Threads

Top