Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Cross Channel Migrant Issue

  • Thread starter Deleted 3147
  • Start date
YOu must now have hundreds of the things which are actually seaworthy.
Kept in secure storage as potential evidence in any forthcoming legal cases.
images.jpeg
 
The vast majority of the migrants crossing the Channel are Iraqi and Iranian Kurds and they are seeking family reunification. Given that we are now refusing EU citizens at Calais, etc. I am waiting for a dinghy full of Romanians next.
By now we were told that boat loads of starving Remoaners would be heading for asylum in the EU. Any sign of them at Calais beaches yet?
 
In the late 80s, TV show Surprise Surprise had a Polish man who stayed here after fighting for us during WW2. He hadn't seen his family since the war. They reunited them, but he couldn't speak a word of Polish, he had forgotten it. He hadn't even spoken it with other Poles all those years, he had acclimatised himself here so much
Where as I work with people that have been here 12 years plus but only speak Russian. not even bothered to learn Thank you
 

Le_addeur_noir

On ROPS
On ROPs
It's odd, but reading the cold war home defence thread, they are talking about how to counter a Soviet/Spetnaz port invasion. We had a plan for that, but not for this, and this is bigger and actual threat
 
We had a plan for that, but not for this, and this is bigger and actual threat
I've had a think about, you could be wrong for the right reasons or viki verke. but it's worth reminding ourselves that when the first immigration act came in c 1796, it was a customs function, not least because Customs did the baggage and any unfriendly elements (Napoleonic) could be countered if stupid enough to be direct enough about their threat. It's also worth pointing out that aliens landing in coves and not through direct channels could be shot as spies
In fact it turns out that the transfer of money- letters of credit etc which were not considered goods and essential for the economy, but that money could be could be put to nefarious uses would never be provable. In fact starting from the inception of the EU- it has never been that interested in controlling money laundering- not least because they benefitted from the Oligarchies in Russia during the Yeltsin time- not least us being members. The vast majority of "Asylum seekers" are no direct threat- so to speak but they are potential sleepers for the "right time". This is a long haul game and patience is a watchword and no one is a friend. The last 40 years has been reputable companies working, in some cases, with organised crime as their responsibility is with shareholders. There's that old argument again, what's first. profit or the law?
 

Le_addeur_noir

On ROPS
On ROPs
I've had a think about, you could be wrong for the right reasons or viki verke. but it's worth reminding ourselves that when the first immigration act came in c 1796, it was a customs function, not least because Customs did the baggage and any unfriendly elements (Napoleonic) could be countered if stupid enough to be direct enough about their threat. It's also worth pointing out that aliens landing in coves and not through direct channels could be shot as spies
In fact it turns out that the transfer of money- letters of credit etc which were not considered goods and essential for the economy, but that money could be could be put to nefarious uses would never be provable. In fact starting from the inception of the EU- it has never been that interested in controlling money laundering- not least because they benefitted from the Oligarchies in Russia during the Yeltsin time- not least us being members. The vast majority of "Asylum seekers" are no direct threat- so to speak but they are potential sleepers for the "right time". This is a long haul game and patience is a watchword and no one is a friend. The last 40 years has been reputable companies working, in some cases, with organised crime as their responsibility is with shareholders. There's that old argument again, what's first. profit or the law?

In this country, profit wins every time, or almost. As they say, "money talks".

Exhibit A in that argument is one Tony Blair.
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top