Westminster Politics

oates said:
I'm sorry I missed your joke however it is a perfectly sensible idea. These smugglers are buying them by the dozen, the manufacturers, wholesalers, retail outlets have never had it so good while taking part in helping smugglers to make money and kill people.

These immigrants hear about a country of workers and layabouts, a country where people aren't being killed by the governments or insurgents in their countries, feck me I'd be heading for anywhere in Europe I've already got friends and family in to help get me and my family set up. It ain't rocket science or were you just taking the piss again?

edit, some are asylum seekers, some are immigrants, they're all looking for a better life, I don't feel an urgent need to mind my Ps&Qs describing them when what we need is for people to stop making money out of killing them.
Click to expand...

Now that is a sensible post. But the question that needs to be asked is why are all these countries so unstable? Why is Iraq unstable? Why is Libya unstable? Why is Syria unstable? Yes they were all brutal dictators but their lives were a lot better under the brutal dictators. There were no smugglers or insurgents. They go out and a lot of them go back home. People do not get killed wholesale like they are getting now. They had food and free education and basic needs. Not anymore after Europe and the UK and the US got involved in their countries and toppled whoever was ruling them. Now its absolute chaos and disaster.
 
F-Red said:
It's all produced in the Far East and shipped directly. It's easier to target the gangs than it is the manufacturers/sellers of dinghy. It's actually far easier to address the problem with policy & diplomacy I'd argue. Clear failings from every side of the Channel on this issue.
Click to expand...

Diplomacy can be extremely useful, providing those involved have a common purpose.
But in this case, it is clear that France and the UK simply don't agree.

Don't agree that it is easier to target the gangs. These are highly sophisticated organisations who know how to evade detection.
But the dinghies and engines are a commodity that are bought and sold and transported. And that can leave a cyber footprint. As does the money.
 
Apparently the dinghies being used by the smugglers are being bought in Germany with cash and transported over at least one border to the North West of France, not bought in France, neither online from Far East.
 
Lucky to have travelled to many countries in my short life. Migrated to the UK on the 24th of October 2009 (a decision I do not regret).
However, I have never, never...never seen a country as obsessed with a non-issue as I have seen the UK is with migration.
If you're from Syria, Iraq... In fact almost anywhere that isn't Australia, New Zealand and co, there is almost no legal route of emigrating to this country.
 
Buster15 said:
Those things you mentioned are of course part of the whole picture. Don't disagree with any of that.
But remember, my initial post was in response to Boris saying that he intends to 'break the traffickers business model'

A business model that is totally reliant on the supply of boats and engines.
Nothing comical about that. And I don't choose to respond to your posts by trivialising them.
I am instead trying to make a constructive suggestion.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but there are some key points to consider

1) crossing the Channel is not illegal

2) refugees are neither illegal or migrants

3) under international law anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that signed the 1951 convention. And have the right to remain there while their claim is assessed.

4) last year 79.5M refugees lost their home.

The UK took in 20,339. Or 0.026%.

The problem is not the traffickers business model but countries asylum and immigration policies which make it near impossible to apply remotely.
 
4) last year 79.5M refugees lost their home.

The UK took in 20,339. Or 0.026%.

The problem is not the traffickers business model but countries asylum and immigration policies which make it near impossible to apply remotely.
[/QUOTE]

Well yes... but that includes internally displaced

https://www.unhcr.org/uk/figures-at-a-glance.html

So going by the unhcr figures it's 20.7 million

So the uk took 0.98% which when you consider the uk has around 0.87% of world population

Plus consider people who have come in illegally will not be in the 20,399 figures and it can be argued the uk is more than pulling its weight on a per capita basis.

As you say an overhaul at un level would probably be the best starting point... and making a system that can cope with potential future climate migration but let's be honest that's not gonna be easy or achieved quickly
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
Fair enough, but there are some key points to consider

1) crossing the Channel is not illegal

2) refugees are neither illegal or migrants

3) under international law anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that signed the 1951 convention. And have the right to remain there while their claim is assessed.

4) last year 79.5M refugees lost their home.

The UK took in 20,339. Or 0.026%.

The problem is not the traffickers business model but countries asylum and immigration policies which make it near impossible to apply remotely.
Click to expand...

Quite agree with you. But as usual, Boris knows best... As does his henchmen/women the foreign secretary.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
4) last year 79.5M refugees lost their home.

The UK took in 20,339. Or 0.026%.

The problem is not the traffickers business model but countries asylum and immigration policies which make it near impossible to apply remotely.
Click to expand...


Well yes... but that includes internally displaced

https://www.unhcr.org/uk/figures-at-a-glance.html

So going by the unhcr figures it's 20.7 million that were Internationally displaced and looking for a new country

So the uk took 0.98% which when you consider the uk has around 0.87% of world population is I would suspect better than most countries

Plus consider people who have come in illegally will not be in the 20,399 figures and it can be argued the uk is more than pulling its weight on a per capita basis.

As you say an overhaul at un level would probably be the best starting point... and making a system that can cope with potential future climate migration but let's be honest that's not gonna be easy or achieved quickly
 
Jippy said:
Even if they're setting out to sea in non-seaworthy vessels organised by criminal gangs with no qualified person piloting it? Surely any country would have a duty of care to try and stop that and prevent loss of life?
Click to expand...
It’s not illegal to do so though? Didn’t Top Gear cross the channel in cars?!
A lot of teeth nashing is over aspects of this which aren’t illegal no matter how it’s framed.
 
cyberman said:
It’s not illegal to do so though? Didn’t Top Gear cross the channel in cars?!
A lot of teeth nashing is over aspects of this which aren’t illegal no matter how it’s framed.
Click to expand...
No teeth gnashing, I just genuinely think any law enforcement person seeing a heavily overloaded dinghy full of people setting off into the channel might want to query it. They are part of a criminal operation.

I've not heard anyone say about dying refugees, 'well fecking Clarkson managed it in a mini.'

The actual act of crossing the Channel is obviously one part of a whole chain of events though.
 
Jippy said:
No teeth gnashing, I just genuinely think any law enforcement person seeing a heavily overloaded dinghy full of people setting off into the channel might want to query it. They are part of a criminal operation.

I've not heard anyone say about dying refugees, 'well fecking Clarkson managed it in a mini.'

The actual act of crossing the Channel is obviously one part of a whole chain of events though.
Click to expand...
All I’m saying is crossing the channel isn’t an illegal act, people have swam it as well.
It’s why there’s so much bluff from both sides, it’s almost impossible to solve. Human trafficking is everywhere, it’s just more obvious when on a dinghy
 
cyberman said:
All I’m saying is crossing the channel isn’t an illegal act, people have swam it as well.
It’s why there’s so much bluff from both sides, it’s almost impossible to solve. Human trafficking is everywhere, it’s just more obvious when on a dinghy
Click to expand...
It is illegal to swim from France to England, the French say it's too dangerous. Cross-channel swimmers have to go England to France, no choice.

Completely irrelevant to the debate of course, just thought I'd mention it. Climbing Everest is easier than swimming the Channel apparently, judging by the number of people that have done it.
 
711 said:
It is illegal to swim from France to England, the French say it's too dangerous. Cross-channel swimmers have to go England to France, no choice.

Completely irrelevant to the debate of course, just thought I'd mention it. Climbing Everest is easier than swimming the Channel apparently, judging by the number of people that have done it.
Click to expand...

Didn't know this, but apparently this is completely correct. 1881 solo swimmers compared to over 4000 Everest ascents. Cool factoid!
 
Kentonio said:
Didn't know this, but apparently this is completely correct. 1881 solo swimmers compared to over 4000 Everest ascents. Cool factoid!
Click to expand...
Off topic, but piqued my ineterest too; so I dug a little bit into the stats. Seems only around 33% make it to the summit of Everest, whereas around 45% complete the swim. So climbing Everest is more inetersting and tougher than swimming the channel!
 
Why the fascination with the UK? Why don't they stay in France, Germany, Spain or wherever on mainland Europe?

Must be something to risk your life.
 
RedChip said:
Off topic, but piqued my ineterest too; so I dug a little bit into the stats. Seems only around 33% make it to the summit of Everest, whereas around 45% complete the swim. So climbing Everest is more inetersting and tougher than swimming the channel!
Click to expand...

Stands to reason that Everest would be a lot more appealing. If you're not British or French, why would you care about the channel?
 
arnie_ni said:
Why the fascination with the UK? Why don't they stay in France, Germany, Spain or wherever on mainland Europe?

Must be something to risk your life.
Click to expand...

The BBC did an article about this recently. Apparently there's stuff about language, family ties and even old colonial reputations that can play a part. Also maybe a bit of a grass is greener effect when they find out most European countries aren't particularly immigrant welcoming and perhaps naively believe Britain will be.
 
sun_tzu said:
Well yes... but that includes internally displaced

https://www.unhcr.org/uk/figures-at-a-glance.html

So going by the unhcr figures it's 20.7 million that were Internationally displaced and looking for a new country

So the uk took 0.98% which when you consider the uk has around 0.87% of world population is I would suspect better than most countries

Plus consider people who have come in illegally will not be in the 20,399 figures and it can be argued the uk is more than pulling its weight on a per capita basis.

As you say an overhaul at un level would probably be the best starting point... and making a system that can cope with potential future climate migration but let's be honest that's not gonna be easy or achieved quickly
Click to expand...
Bit of a ridiculous hair splitting post.

Even if we take your figures of the UK taking 0.98% of refugees with 0.87% of the World population, it is hardly worthy of the amount of media coverage it gets in the UK. Or the the radical UK policies.

Refugee numbers into the UK are about half of what they were 20 years ago. Yet the likes of the Daily Mail and Guido would have you believe it is at the worst level ever. It is pure and simple media and government xenophobia. And anyone falling for it is an idiot.
 
arnie_ni said:
Why the fascination with the UK? Why don't they stay in France, Germany, Spain or wherever on mainland Europe?

Must be something to risk your life.
Click to expand...

The English language and existing networks of family/friends/countrymen. A lot do go and stay in France and Germany anyway, we just don’t hear as much about them.
 
MoskvaRed said:
The English language and existing networks of family/friends/countrymen. A lot do go and stay in France and Germany anyway, we just don’t hear as much about them.
Click to expand...
They should just hand each refugee a copy of the daily mail in calais. Problem solved. Now onto the much more pressing issue of which of my bathrooms I should use for my pre sleep dump.
 
sun_tzu said:
Didn't germany grant the million in 2015

Therefore it's possibly factually correct that since 2015 the uk has taken in the most

Selective facts and spin but the dates seem to suggest he has factored in the German decision to take in a million
Click to expand...
700k of that million happened in 2016. January 2016 alone had over 50k. No clue if a English version exists but the table on page 13 is self explanatory.

Edit: To be fair I think Javid is talking about the number of people resettled directly from the country of origin and his claim is possibly factual correct if seen in that context.
 
Last edited:
sun_tzu said:
Didn't germany grant the million in 2015

Therefore it's possibly factually correct that since 2015 the uk has taken in the most

Selective facts and spin but the dates seem to suggest he has factored in the German decision to take in a million
Click to expand...



People constantly making excuses for BS, allows for it to carry on
 
sun_tzu said:
Didn't germany grant the million in 2015

Therefore it's possibly factually correct that since 2015 the uk has taken in the most

Selective facts and spin but the dates seem to suggest he has factored in the German decision to take in a million
Click to expand...
It is factually correct because he's using the term "resettled", which has a very specific technical definition and most refugees settle through asylum, but not in any way correct in regards to number of immigrants taken or applications for asylum received. Of course, he's deliberately creating this conflation and confusion. Because he's an odious cnut.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
It is factually correct because he's using the term "resettled", which has a very specific technical definition and most refugees settle through asylum, but not in any way correct in regards to number of immigrants taken or applications for asylum received. Of course, he's deliberately creating this conflation and confusion. Because he's an odious cnut.
Click to expand...
Agreed .... its a politically crafted statistic but one that has some factual base he can fall back on
 
esmufc07 said:
Click to expand...


Listen to what he says. He's obviously a weasel, which means it's important to note that he's making a specific claim that has nothing to do with total numbers, just made to sound like it. "Through the refugee programs" is an important qualifier. Here's the data. In the very specific terms he's referencing he's also correct. Not a liar (in this instance), just an arsehole who's job is to distort.

You can change the country of resettlement on the left hand side.
 
For overall figures you can look at these two sources:

This one has a handy slidebar to show you each year. You can also change it to show per capita:
https://public.tableau.com/shared/ST8T49D3Q?:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link&:embed=y

This one is a bit more complicated, you can change the output based on specific types of decision top right:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/MIGR_ASYDCFSTA__custom_1662053/default/table?lang=en

From 2016 onward we oscillate between 6th and 10th in absolute numbers. Per capita we oscillate between 19th and 22nd. Javid eats more chips than anyone else that lives on his street. Of course he's the only person that lives on his street.
 
Last edited:
arnie_ni said:
Why the fascination with the UK? Why don't they stay in France, Germany, Spain or wherever on mainland Europe?

Must be something to risk your life.
Click to expand...
The Times and others, including a French minister, blamed the UK's inability to handle refugees- eg very few are ever deported, even when rejected, and the giant black economy where they can get work more easily than in other countries.
 
sun_tzu said:
Agreed .... its a politically crafted statistic but one that has some factual base he can fall back on
Click to expand...

Exactly, the phrase... "Lies... dam lies.... and then there is statistics" comes to mind.

The terms, 'immigrants'...'illegal immigrants'... 'asylum seekers'...'economic migrants'... 'refugees'... 'displaced persons'... etc. etc. are used by politicians, news editors, and indeed many on here (Red Caf) as almost interchangeable elements, no wonder people at large are becoming 'blind to statistics' on this and other related matters.
 
sun_tzu said:
Didn't germany grant the million in 2015

Therefore it's possibly factually correct that since 2015 the uk has taken in the most

Selective facts and spin but the dates seem to suggest he has factored in the German decision to take in a million
Click to expand...
Even when confronted with lies and spin you try to find a way to make it fit your pre conceived narrative with excuses? Rather than confront the untruths.

Interesting and concerning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.