Cross Channel Migrant Issue

  • Thread starter Deleted 3147
  • Start date
So change the Human Rights Act.
Only peripherally. The human rights act makes it an offence to participate in human trafficking Or any action that undermines the right of the individual. Unfortunately it also prevents to Police from being overly concerned without specific evidence. Since the majority of Traffickers are not in or of the EU, it follows that the EU have to find
a the victims
b the perpetrators.
They have fewer staff, are far too dependent on technology and anti smuggling procedures are invasive and physical. It all goes back to the Canada convention that travellers have to expect a lower level of privacy when crossing borders because it’s not a right. And once again freedom of movement is even conditional in the EU. The premise is that it only applies to LEGAL transactions. You can draw your own conclusions
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Only peripherally. The human rights act makes it an offence to participate in human trafficking Or any action that undermines the right of the individual. Unfortunately it also prevents to Police from being overly concerned without specific evidence. Since the majority of Traffickers are not in or of the EU, it follows that the EU have to find
a the victims
b the perpetrators.
They have fewer staff, are far too dependent on technology and anti smuggling procedures are invasive and physical. It all goes back to the Canada convention that travellers have to expect a lower level of privacy when crossing borders because it’s not a right. And once again freedom of movement is even conditional in the EU. The premise is that it only applies to LEGAL transactions. You can draw your own conclusions
Fair. But how does being an offence to take part in 'any action which undermines the right of the individual' influence such as, oh, burning down accommodation and denying others shelter?

We've provided accommodation. It may not be pretty and there may not be a nightclub full of willing young hotties next door, but the last time I looked I had to pay a mortgage for the roof over my head - and also pay the supermarket for the food I choose to eat. All I see in many cases is an outstretched hand.

Realistically, what continued responsibility have we in the face of vandalism/criminal damage by those to whom we've provided?

Also, we keep getting fed the line that the incomers are the kinds of highly skilled artisans that the country needs to bolster its ageing population - the strivers and go-getters who will keep this country great. Where's the entrepreneurial* spirit which compels them to ask for the tools and materials that will enable them to turn basic but adequate accommodation into something to be proud of?

Or are we as a country just a great, big vending machine?





*Oh, I forgot. They came through France, and the French don't have a word for 'entrepreneur'... it's been sucked out of them with a big syringe, hasn't it?
 
Only peripherally. The human rights act makes it an offence to participate in human trafficking Or any action that undermines the right of the individual. Unfortunately it also prevents to Police from being overly concerned without specific evidence. Since the majority of Traffickers are not in or of the EU, it follows that the EU have to find
a the victims
b the perpetrators.
They have fewer staff, are far too dependent on technology and anti smuggling procedures are invasive and physical. It all goes back to the Canada convention that travellers have to expect a lower level of privacy when crossing borders because it’s not a right. And once again freedom of movement is even conditional in the EU. The premise is that it only applies to LEGAL transactions. You can draw your own conclusions

I have always regarded your Posts with respect and bow to your greater knowledge and experience in this field.

I totally accept 'change that Act' is not a perfect answer in itself - only peripherally as you say.
I consider it a step on the way.
 
Fair. But how does being an offence to take part in 'any action which undermines the right of the individual' influence such as, oh, burning down accommodation and denying others shelter?

We've provided accommodation. It may not be pretty and there may not be a nightclub full of willing young hotties next door, but the last time I looked I had to pay a mortgage for the roof over my head - and also pay the supermarket for the food I choose to eat. All I see in many cases is an outstretched hand.

Realistically, what continued responsibility have we in the face of vandalism/criminal damage by those to whom we've provided?

Also, we keep getting fed the line that the incomers are the kinds of highly skilled artisans that the country needs to bolster its ageing population - the strivers and go-getters who will keep this country great. Where's the entrepreneurial* spirit which compels them to ask for the tools and materials that will enable them to turn basic but adequate accommodation into something to be proud of?

Or are we as a country just a great, big vending machine?





*Oh, I forgot. They came through France, and the French don't have a word for 'entrepreneur'... it's been sucked out of them with a big syringe, hasn't it?
I think we have to forget the semantics. The claim for Asylum would not be viewed sympathetically after deliberate arson, which if I had my way would mean instant deportation as non conducive. I mean they are certainly entrepreneurial but if that hasn’t prevented them at home is hardly relevant to their claim. But we live in times when challenging the norms is considered a prerequisite of democracy, even if those participating don’t believe in it themselves.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I think we have to forget the semantics. The claim for Asylum would not be viewed sympathetically after deliberate arson, which if I had my way would mean instant deportation as non conducive. I mean they are certainly entrepreneurial but if that hasn’t prevented them at home is hardly relevant to their claim. But we live in times when challenging the norms is considered a prerequisite of democracy, even if those participating don’t believe in it themselves.
Semantics?

They are not asylum seekers. We are an island - we do not border a country in conflict. They are economic migrants.
 
You can't force them to go anywhere if the country that you're trying to force them to go to won't accept them.
Dump them on a French beach , in reality the UK has to start looking much less attractive to asylum seekers and illegal immigrants than EU countries , with the UK`s new rights to write our own new human rights laws this should be possible.
 

Tyk

LE
Dump them on a French beach , in reality the UK has to start looking much less attractive to asylum seekers and illegal immigrants than EU countries , with the UK`s new rights to write our own new human rights laws this should be possible.

Entirely possible (hugely desirable in my book), but the optics in the press and pressure groups scare the politicians so much it's a non starter. The screaming from the wokerati would be clearly audible from Jupiter.
 
Entirely possible (hugely desirable in my book), but the optics in the press and pressure groups scare the politicians so much it's a non starter. The screaming from the wokerati would be clearly audible from Jupiter.
They dont seem to scare Priti , hopefully she will get off her very fat arrse and do something .
 

Tyk

LE
They dont seem to scare Priti , hopefully she will get off her very fat arrse and do something .

At this point it's all talk and no delivery. If they started mass deportations, which is what's required just to get rid of the thousands that crossed the channel in boats then the fuss would properly start. They're scared to death of that.
 

BratMedic

LE
Book Reviewer
My reasoning goes along the lines of stopping the lawyers working pro bono for these illegal gimmegrants. Pro bono literally means 'for the public good', nothing they do is for the public good.
 
Semantics?

They are not asylum seekers. We are an island - we do not border a country in conflict. They are economic migrants.
Yes Semantics- sorry to disagree and all that, but the first word that will come forth with be the A word. That's the key whatever their intent. the 51 Protocol doesn't prevent anyone getting here and claiming. The interpretation is that it has to be the first safe country. I'm sorry people still don't get this and I'm not having a pop at anyone in particular. The EU is not a country it is a bloc, it has no authority to grant Asylum only the member states do. Crucial is IF a person has not claimed in a safe country and they claim when they get here, they are not applying in the first safe country. But Brussels since 2008 has claimed to control Migration.
That is why we have this problem because the ms HAVE WASHED THEIR HANDS OF THE PROBLEM, because Brussels has said so.
 
At this point it's all talk and no delivery. If they started mass deportations, which is what's required just to get rid of the thousands that crossed the channel in boats then the fuss would properly start. They're scared to death of that.
But deported to where? If as we are told most have “lost” their passports or ID where do they come from?
I can’t see the fFrench wanting them back either.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Yes Semantics- sorry to disagree and all that, but the first word that will come forth with be the A word. That's the key whatever their intent. the 51 Protocol doesn't prevent anyone getting here and claiming. The interpretation is that it has to be the first safe country. I'm sorry people still don't get this and I'm not having a pop at anyone in particular. The EU is not a country it is a bloc, it has no authority to grant Asylum only the member states do. Crucial is IF a person has not claimed in a safe country and they claim when they get here, they are not applying in the first safe country. But Brussels since 2008 has claimed to control Migration.
That is why we have this problem because the ms HAVE WASHED THEIR HANDS OF THE PROBLEM, because Brussels has said so.
Upside down and back to front then, isn't it?

The EU is not a country but Brussels is behaving as though it is.

In a nutshell, you've described why many people voted for Brexit - not because of racism, but because of an undemocratic and undesired shift of power.
 
Upside down and back to front then, isn't it?

The EU is not a country but Brussels is behaving as though it is.

In a nutshell, you've described why many people voted for Brexit - not because of racism, but because of an undemocratic and undesired shift of power.
Exactly so, that's why I never wore the Gammon bit and I still don't but this country is becoming decidedly more racist by the day especially by the media input. I mean I had to put up with mean spirited indifference but that is preferable.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
For example?
If I interpret @LeoRoverman correctly, what he's saying is that the MSM are hard at the job of telling us what a horrible, racist place this is - despite all evidence to the contrary.

I would agree that attitudes are hardening. However, I'd contend that attitudes are hardening against the attitude, if that makes sense. I object strongly to being called a racist not because of unconscious racism but because I'm simply not racist.

@dogmeat flagged the concept of Kafka-trapping a few weeks ago. To borrow an example from the web:

"You drink too much, you're an alcoholic!"
"No, I'm not."
"That proves it, alcoholics always deny they have a problem!"

...that's precisely what's going on. It's wrong and that's why people are pushing back.
 
But deported to where? If as we are told most have “lost” their passports or ID where do they come from?
I can’t see the fFrench wanting them back either.

Any British overseas territories that have a colder climate than blighty, would be a start
 
Top