The UK/European migrant problem

Londo

LE
For you FOC.
My last visit to London I dropped in to what used to be my local paper shop and there were two teenage Asian girls in there excited to see each other and catching up . .
Never have I heard so many innits in such a short space of time .
Must have been two or three to every sentence .
It was quite funny to hear it .
 
Should do some 'exercises' where coastguards need to get rid of some dinghies at sea, as a proper test, fill them with mannequins, and as you dont need rubbish drifting away put some high vis jackets on them, some weights to make them sink as well..

You know safer to sink dangerous craft in the water, maybe using machine gun fire to sink them...

But the coastguard is a public service so should do these 'exercises' during the day and allow any passing 'Daytripper's' a chance to observe
 
Priti Patel's own department warns there is 'limited' evidence her tough new crackdown on migrant Channel boat crossings will work


The post by @Snowy. above . . .

“Priti Patel's own department warns there is 'limited' evidence her tough new crackdown on migrant Channel boat crossings will work”

. . . got me thinking about what would be the reaction if Government paid CS staff, from other departments started “sounding off”, like these examples of opinionated Border Force (BF) “wokeness”.

We can be certain that, the disciplinary action would be swift if the members of the armed services, were “sounding off”, to the press . . . but I cannot really imagine CS staff from other Department, feeling they have the right, the authority, to articulate to the MSM, their distain for Government policy !!


The post by @Snowy. was not the first example of this unfortunate, embarrassing, undisciplined, situation . . .

When the new policy of “Push Back” was announced earlier this month, it was a surprise when it was confirmed in the MSM, that a Senior Home Office official, had immediately, publicly, voiced disparaging remarks about the policy.

His remarks unfortunately echo the attitude widely understood to be prevalent throughout Border Force (BF) staff, and articulated by their Trade Union leader . . .

Lucy Moreton, professional officer at the Immigration Services Union, (said) she would be “very surprised” if the “Push Back” practice ends up being used at all - calling it “dead in the water”.

The above examples - of resistance, indiscipline, and a preparedness to refuse to follow . . . to ignore . . . and to work against . . . Government policy - was compounded by the recent announcement to explore the purchase of new BF Cutters, designed to specifically uplift and accommodate migrants below decks, so that they could be “processed” whilst still in the English Channel.

This level of widespread, systemic indiscipline is now beyond “serious” !!

BF staff at all levels, have already demonstrated that they do not have the resolve, or the willingness, to work in a more robust manner. From experience of their past performance - and, all the above recent announcements - BF personnel have proven themselves to be incapable and unwilling to now adopt the more robust and effective approach, that will be necessary to implement the welcome new policy of “Push Back” . . .

. . . The sooner they are ALL sent back to their "airport arrivals desks", the better.

It is suggested, that it will therefore require a change of personnel, to crew BF vessels, in the English Channel. To implement this welcome new strategy of “Push Back”, it is suggested that personnel from other UK uniformed services should be “seconded” to use BF vessels.


The UK does already have uniformed personnel with the required skills, knowledge, experience, willingness and attitude, to implement the more robust policy of "Push Back". It would be appropriate for these personnel to be now "seconded" to FB.
 
Last edited:

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
The UK does already have uniformed personnel with the required skills, knowledge, experience, willingness and attitude, to implement the more robust policy of "Push Back". It would be appropriate for these personnel to be now "seconded" to FB.

except it doesn’t…
 
The post by @Snowy. above . . .

“Priti Patel's own department warns there is 'limited' evidence her tough new crackdown on migrant Channel boat crossings will work”

. . . got me thinking about what would be the reaction if Government paid CS staff, from other departments started “sounding off”, like these examples of opinionated Border Force (BF) “wokeness”.
This is not staff ‘sounding off’ - reading the article it looks like someone senior (possibly a minister/senior CS) commissioned a report to see if the new policy would work. The grown ups like to know what the possible impacts of decisions they are making will be for some reason - in the military they even have ‘Staff Officers’ appointed to do this. This has then been leaked.
ETA: @RCT(V) - this also has probably been VERY selectively quoted. The Mail relies on ad revenue and getting its readership angry ensures that they ‘click’ on follow up stories.

We can be certain that, the disciplinary action would be swift if the members of the armed services, were “sounding off”, to the press . . . but I cannot really imagine CS staff from other Department, feeling they have the right, the authority, to articulate to the MSM, their distain for Government policy !!
Same in the CS - if you gob off and are linked to them then interview sans coffee.

The post by @Snowy. was not the first example of this unfortunate, embarrassing, undisciplined, situation . . .

When the new policy of “Push Back” was announced earlier this month, it was a surprise when it was confirmed in the MSM, that a Senior Home Office official, had immediately, publicly, voiced disparaging remarks about the policy.
Edit: @RCT(V) - the quotes of the Senior Home Office official are probably made up. See my comment above re: click bait.
His remarks unfortunately echo the attitude widely understood to be prevalent throughout Border Force (BF) staff, and articulated by their Trade Union leader . . .

Lucy Moreton, professional officer at the Immigration Services Union, (said) she would be “very surprised” if the “Push Back” practice ends up being used at all - calling it “dead in the water”.
A gobby, lefty union official may ‘represent’ the views of her members but that is probably not the views of her members.
ETA: I know that my union official DOES NOT represent my views on a number of matters concerning my area of work, nor most of my colleagues.

The above examples - of resistance, indiscipline, and a preparedness to refuse to follow . . . to ignore . . . and to work against . . . Government policy - was compounded by the recent announcement to explore the purchase of new BF Cutters, designed to specifically uplift and accommodate migrants below decks, so that they could be “processed” whilst still in the English Channel.

This level of widespread, systemic indiscipline is now beyond “serious” !!

BF staff at all levels, have already demonstrated that they do not have the resolve, or the willingness, to work in a more robust manner. From experience of their past performance - and, all the above recent announcements - BF personnel have proven themselves to be incapable and unwilling to now adopt the more robust and effective approach, that will be necessary to implement the welcome new policy of “Push Back” . . .
That’s funny because imagery on this thread have shown them exercising the drills to do exactly that.
. . . The sooner they are ALL sent back to their "airport arrivals desks", the better.
Weird as a lot of the BF were not working on airport arrivals desk - they are employed full time on the cutters/etc and in other areas you are probably totally unaware of.
It is suggested, that it will therefore require a change of personnel, to crew BF vessels, in the English Channel. To implement this welcome new strategy of “Push Back”, it is suggested that personnel from other UK uniformed services should be “seconded” to use BF vessels.
Despite what the union official says, and your opinion, the views of actual BF personnel are not what is being stated. Quite a few are ex-military and rather robust in their attitudes and actions (even if stymied by having to act within the law - you know, as you are supposed to)
The UK does already have uniformed personnel with the required skills, knowledge, experience, willingness and attitude, to implement the more robust policy of "Push Back". It would be appropriate for these personnel to be now "seconded" to FB.
No it doesn’t - it would require massive levels of retraining and education in areas of law. AND mean that they are not able to be utilised in their core functions at a time of massive overstretch in normal duties AND in MACA to the pandemic.
 
Last edited:
This is not staff ‘sounding off’ - reading the article it looks like someone senior (possibly a minister/senior CS) commissioned a report to see if the new policy would work. The grown ups like to know what the possible impacts of decisions they are making will be for some reason - in the military they even have ‘Staff Officers’ appointed to do this. This has then been leaked.
If it was a report, whoever commissioned the report is irrelevant. That it was"leaked", can only be have done with malicious intent.

Same in the CS - if you gob off and are linked to them then interview sans coffee.
EXCELLENT . . . with hopefully a period "suspended" from work to emphasise the point, and the first (of three) written warning, before employment is terminated.

A gobby, lefty union official may ‘represent’ the views of her members but that is probably not the views of her members.
I do not know how/when she was appointed, but it is to be hoped that she will be replaced if she is - actually - misrepresenting the views of her members.

That’s funny because imagery on this thread have shown them exercising the drills to do exactly that.
No! There was a video of them practising. There has been no evidence of them implementing the policy.

Weird as a lot of the BF were not working on airport arrivals desk - they are employed full time on the cutters/etc and in other areas you are probably totally unaware of.
The phrase "airport arrivals desk" was in italics, to indicate the phrase was used a disparaging manner. But, you knew that !!

We have been told on this thread – by them that purport to know these things – that a number of the BF staff now manning the cutters in the Channel, are from other areas, geographical and functional. Hopefully they will be soon able to return to their families and their normal duties.

Despite what the union official says, and your opinion, the views of actual BF personnel are not what is being stated. Quite a few are ex-military and rather robust in their attitudes and actions (even if stymied by having to act within the law - you know, as you are supposed to)
The law is (about) to be changed. Hopefully those "Quite a few are ex-military and rather robust in their attitudes and actions", will then be able to show their capabilities.

No it doesn’t - it would require massive levels of retraining and education in areas of law. AND mean that they are not able to be utilised in their core functions at a time of massive overstretch in normal duties AND in MACA to the pandemic.
I doubt Royal Marines will require much "retraining". I would imagine an appropriate "education in areas of law", would be proportionate. I fail to see how it would be described as "massive".


@Ryder02 , you deliberately choose to ignore all the evidence that indicates, BF regard themselves to be in a position to decide and determine policy . . . rather than implement the policy that is given to them by their Minister.

+ Why would BF announce the need to buy new BF Cutters, designed to specifically uplift and accommodate migrants below decks, so that they could be “processed” whilst still in the English Channel, when the Department's policy is for “Push Back” ?!

+ Why would a Senior Home Office official, consider it appropriate to immediately, publicly, voice disparaging remarks about the new policy of “Push Back”, as confirmed in the MSM ?!
 
Last edited:
 
 
I am quite friendly with a lovely lad who made it from Eritrea some 25 years ago.

He is unreservedly critical about most of those who have followed since.

I think that since the Kenyan and Ugandan Asians arrived in the 1970's as genuine cases, most of them are equally as critical too.
But if I had a glass eye, it would have a tear in it tonight for all those who have arrived in the UK since 2000 fleeing for their lives from the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Other war-torn countries are equally discussed in this regard.
And those who were given leave to remain in the UK indefinitely.
Especially all of those brave souls that returned home and visited family and friends subsequently, in that country that they had to flee from, but probably visiting on an annual basis.
But those who sadly got caught short just last month yet still managed to negotiate numerous Taliban checkpoints to get airside at HKIA.
How lucky were they then?
 

Latest Threads

Top