Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. 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
How do you know they are unarmed? If you fire "warning shots" and they still keep coming, what do you assume?

Does it HAVE to be "imminent" danger to one's life?

When ever drafted/agreed/adopted, such laws/regulations did not anticipate what we are now experiencing. Hopefully, the new laws/regulations that PMBJ was talking about today/yesterday, will address these new circumstances . . . about which some seem to become all confused.

Do not worry - and I hope Boris will not worry - about who will (be asked to), be "squeezing the trigger" ;) .

. . . . Slightly out of context, but that's just trying to justify brassing them up in a "shot while trying to escape" stylee.
Oh! No, no . . . if they turn round, and go back whence they came, there is no need to waste ammunition.
 
Do not worry - and I hope Boris will not worry - about who will (be asked to), be "squeezing the trigger" ;) .

im sure anyone ordered to do do a spot of ‘squeezing the trigger’ will be delighted to know that under international, and U.K. law, they will be committing a bona fide crime that goes under the name of murder.

will you be volunteering to murder defenceless women and children?
 

StormsInAfrica

Old-Salt
Shadow R1 picking up where the Atlas C1 left off.
Screenshot_20200813-104408_Chrome.jpg
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
Read something the other week that it'll be soon time for the Cypriots to have their annual we want our land back protests on the SBA.
There will no doubt come a day when we have to hand it back.

Now if only we had people who wanted to get to Britain.
We don't want them, but need a bit of British land to put them on somewhere with lots of facilities.
Somewhere almost back where they started But safe.
I wonder, mmm I wonder
Perfect, Great minds think alike. The Australian stop the boats relied on putting the "refugees" on Christmas Island, remote ands hard to get off. The facilities were pretty basic and Australia excised Christmas island from Australia so they hadn't legally actually made it to Australia. If they didn't like it there they were sent to Manos Island borrowed from PNG, the facilities were very basic but raised the ire of the locals because they were more luxurious than there own dwellings, hence they were not particularly empathetic to the new arrivals. Oh and if the SBA's in Cyprus don't work HMG could always use Jersey & Guernsey, save those tax dodging twats right.
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
I did leave this on another thread:
To my mind a sort of halfway Australian method would be sufficient to deter a lot of them.
On Reception, fingerprint them and take away personal items, allowing them a similar arrangement to the emailaprisoner idea. Needless to say the personal items would be returned to them on their later movement depending on the result of their case.
Off the coast of UK there are many small islands where a prefabricated set of buildings could be erected (solving our own slump/depression employment type problems) which could provide single and married accom, medical facilities, schools and shops.
Needless to say such people could earn money by manufacturing certain items.
There would be an outcry from the luvvies as well as both male and female charity workers who would see their free sex disappearing.
These places could provide suitable accom until their cases are heard.
They would be provided for and it wouldn't really matter how many of them there were though somehow word would get out that UK life is not a bed of roses and possibly illegal immigrants would not bother to attempt to invade UK.
 
The problem as I see it is that the UK is playing an utterly passive role. It waits until it gets word that the boats are on the way and as soon as they reach UK waters the Border Force (a misnomer if ever there was one) sails out and picks them up and as per international law they are taken to the UK for processing. While that situation persists there will be no end to the crossings and technically the UK government can do no other.

Surely therefore the option is to cut the UK government (officially) out of the loop and to man and equip a suitable rescue boat, launched by a specifically set up "charity", in France perhaps, which lays off the French coast each day awaiting word of the boats setting off and which then rushes to rescue the migrants and returns them safe and with their no-doubt eternal gratitude to the nearest safe haven, in France. Under international law the French cannot stop this rescue effort.

The UK exchequer in gratitude for this sterling service can make substantial grants and payments to this charity and its founder can get a knighthood and all the appropriate honours that he and they so richly deserve for their humanitarian efforts.

Until such times as the UK government is prepared to take such innovative thinking and abandons its current taxi service I will remain convinced that it is in fact government policy to receive these migrants. There can be no other explanation for its current passive role, Priti Patel's vacuous soundbites notwithstanding
 
The problem as I see it is that the UK is playing an utterly passive role. It waits until it gets word that the boats are on the way and as soon as they reach UK waters the Border Force (a misnomer if ever there was one) sails out and picks them up and as per international law they are taken to the UK for processing. While that situation persists there will be no end to the crossings and technically the UK government can do no other.

Surely therefore the option is to cut the UK government (officially) out of the loop and to man and equip a suitable rescue boat, launched by a specifically set up "charity", in France perhaps, which lays off the French coast each day awaiting word of the boats setting off and which then rushes to rescue the migrants and returns them safe and with their no-doubt eternal gratitude to the nearest safe haven, in France. Under international law the French cannot stop this rescue effort.

The UK exchequer in gratitude for this sterling service can make substantial grants and payments to this charity and its founder can get a knighthood and all the appropriate honours that he and they so richly deserve for their humanitarian efforts.

Until such times as the UK government is prepared to take such innovative thinking and abandons its current taxi service I will remain convinced that it is in fact government policy to receive these migrants. There can be no other explanation for its current passive role, Priti Patel's vacuous soundbites notwithstanding

the French have made in explicitly clear, no UK boats or aircraft will be allowed to operate on or over their territorial waters.
 
the French have made in explicitly clear, no UK boats or aircraft will be allowed to operate on or over their territorial waters.
That's right, so register the rescue boat, a civilian craft, in France. The French cannot stop a French boat operating in French waters rescuing people in peril on the seas.
 

Yokel

LE
And justifying existence in forthcoming ISDR......

It does prove a potential role in maritime force protection - detecting small craft such as IRGCN FIACs in the Strait of Hormuz or similar, and freeing the Poseidon and RN Merlin HM2 for ASW/AEW roles.

Some thick people (eg me) never considered that the Shadow might have a maritime role.
 

syrup

LE
I did leave this on another thread:
To my mind a sort of halfway Australian method would be sufficient to deter a lot of them.
On Reception, fingerprint them and take away personal items, allowing them a similar arrangement to the emailaprisoner idea. Needless to say the personal items would be returned to them on their later movement depending on the result of their case.
Off the coast of UK there are many small islands where a prefabricated set of buildings could be erected (solving our own slump/depression employment type problems) which could provide single and married accom, medical facilities, schools and shops.
Needless to say such people could earn money by manufacturing certain items.
There would be an outcry from the luvvies as well as both male and female charity workers who would see their free sex disappearing.
These places could provide suitable accom until their cases are heard.
They would be provided for and it wouldn't really matter how many of them there were though somehow word would get out that UK life is not a bed of roses and possibly illegal immigrants would not bother to attempt to invade UK.


Interesting to note that a lot of the immigrants decided that Sweden wasn't for them when they didn't receive a luxury flat in Stockholm with a blonde and a Volvo thrown in.
Being dumped up in the artic circle with 6 months of daylight and 6 foot of snow triggered a desire to head back somewhere warmer.
 
While this subject has been discussed at length since 21 Sep 2016... Discounting the 'shot them all' comments which are at best black humour. The bottom line is that uncontrolled and illegal migration, is without doubt a drain on State finances and resources, that is unsustainable and dangerous to the nation state.

Simply put any nation can have either "Open Borders or Welfare State" to try and maintain both is both impossible and destructive to the fabric of society. Clearly there needs to be a change in both national and international law. The western world as a whole cannot accommodate, those who are in need because of conditions in their own nations. Like it or not it just cannot.


There is also across Europe a lot of 'nimbyism' caused by the dysfunctional nature 'The Schengen Agreement' and the failures to address this issue since 1999, when the Sangatte refugee camp was opened. It is 2020 so for 20 years, this has affect the whole of Europe. Within the thread quoted below, it was oft mentioned that Italy and Greece was both struggling to cope but ignored by the institutions of the EU.

Little wonder then that they did little to stop illegals leave their nations to go north.


Illegally crossing the channel to enter the UK was as much as a issue then, and I propose that the numbers doing so were much the same then as they are today, just not as viable visible. Like it or not when the general population say this Island is full, they are correct the nations infrastructure is in many places broken and not scaled to handle such a force of numbers being injected into it.

We do not have the housing stock, for our own citizens let alone these waves of illegals, the welfare state while considered by some to be fundamentally underfunded by the 'cradle to grave' citizenry whom it was created for, has no slack to afford it to be given away to those who have contributed nothing.

The black economy is rife with criminality, and illegal migration has added to that in such numbers that our national systems of policing has also been stretched to breaking point, means that lawlessness has increased. While the criminal element be it people smugglers, drug networks, hand car washes or nail bars to name but a few have profited.

It must be said many of these criminal enterprises have not been started by citizens born in this nation.

That some aspects of the legal profession has become in large parts, both facilitators and cheerleaders for 'open borders' while at the same time decrying cuts to legal aid, is disingenuous at best or at worst deliberately seeking to change society for political reasons. That 'lawfare' has and is used to undermine elected governance is clear for all to see, regardless of the 'whataboutry' we hear spouted, on almost a daily basis.

To those who are broadly supportive of the current international laws regarding requests for asylum, and push back against either those laws being set aside or leaving such convention by the UK, until such times as they are redrafted to fit this century's conditions, I contented that you are either 'not very bright' or someone who believes that national sovereignty is to be actively broken and replaced by some utopian pipe dream.

If fundamentally nothing is done, and the 'can' once more kicked down the road, not just in the UK and quickly there will be social upheaval but not in the utopian kumbaya way that some wish for. As I have said this has been discussed at length and foreshadowed in many aspects in the thread below.


Continuation thread of the now mumsnet version still available in CA for those that like that sort of thing. As with the original we start in Calais, with equally futile measures.

Work begins on 'The Great Wall Of Calais'

edit for spelling see strike through.
 
Last edited:

syrup

LE
Perfect, Great minds think alike. The Australian stop the boats relied on putting the "refugees" on Christmas Island, remote ands hard to get off. The facilities were pretty basic and Australia excised Christmas island from Australia so they hadn't legally actually made it to Australia. If they didn't like it there they were sent to Manos Island borrowed from PNG, the facilities were very basic but raised the ire of the locals because they were more luxurious than there own dwellings, hence they were not particularly empathetic to the new arrivals. Oh and if the SBA's in Cyprus don't work HMG could always use Jersey & Guernsey, save those tax dodging twats right.

Don't know what they were whinging for when my uncle was there someone let of a massive great big bomb.
Mind he did have a wet towel for protection so that was ok then....
 
Surely therefore the option is to cut the UK government (officially) out of the loop and to man and equip a suitable rescue boat, launched by a specifically set up "charity", in France perhaps, which lays off the French coast each day awaiting word of the boats setting off and which then rushes to rescue the migrants and returns them safe and with their no-doubt eternal gratitude to the nearest safe haven, in France. Under international law the French cannot stop this rescue effort.

They would need an armed crew or at least some of those handy ex RM chaps that were on the maritime security contracts a few years ago on there though if the numerous reports of threats to truck drivers and families heading for the ferry terminals are anything to go by. How long would it be before an unarmed crew were threatened with knives to take them to the UK or have their throats cut by our new doctors and brain surgeons?
 
They would need an armed crew or at least some of those handy ex RM chaps that were on the maritime security contracts a few years ago on there though if the numerous reports of threats to truck drivers and families heading for the ferry terminals are anything to go by. How long would it be before an unarmed crew were threatened with knives to take them to the UK or have their throats cut by our new doctors and brain surgeons?
Yeah, well I wasn't thinking of manning the craft with actual charity workers, NGO girls and university students on gap years, I would assume that the crew would be rather more robust and be paid a bounty per head of migrants "rescued" and returned safely to France.

But my main point is not how this problem could be solved, my solution might not work, but rather the lack of any government effort to make any attempt to solve it, which clearly indicates that the government of the UK has no real desire to end this problem, nor does it even regard it as a problem.

We all know that when it comes to getting things done, whether they be arms sales to dodgy regimes or the infiltration of undesirable organisations, the UK government has a remarkable facility for bending the rules whenever it wants. Anyone who believes that the UK government and officials are sticklers for the rule book if it is not convenient for them to do so is naive in the extreme. The fact that the government is being such sticklers for the rules in this instance tells you all you need to know about how it views this situation.

The Australian government, as stated above, decided migrants crossing by boats was a problem and by heaven the Aussie government found it was perfectly capable of bending every rule in the book if it needed to, and guess what, it worked. You can get around the rules if you have the political will to do so, there is clearly no political will among the current "conservative" government to stop this problem. This fact should be blindingly obvious to all by now.
 
Perfect, Great minds think alike. The Australian stop the boats relied on putting the "refugees" on Christmas Island, remote ands hard to get off. The facilities were pretty basic and Australia excised Christmas island from Australia so they hadn't legally actually made it to Australia. If they didn't like it there they were sent to Manos Island borrowed from PNG, the facilities were very basic but raised the ire of the locals because they were more luxurious than there own dwellings, hence they were not particularly empathetic to the new arrivals. Oh and if the SBA's in Cyprus don't work HMG could always use Jersey & Guernsey, save those tax dodging twats right.
South Georgia Island - Wikipedia

I reckon here would be fine.
 

Yokel

LE
Another point that I made on a similar thread several years ago is that the people smuggling is not without huge cost to the countries of origin. The smuggling costs take huge amounts of money from societies that can ill afford it, it takes fit and healthy working age people away from where their countries need them, and I imagine the smuggling gangs are involved in other crimes.

Doing nothing is a no win situation. We need to be firm, but humane, in accordance with British values.
 

Latest Threads

Top