Immigration

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Such strange times. It really feels like population replacement these days.

Sooner than you think.

 

[Spiderman]

Welcome to the greatest City in the World!, I know it’s only the Mail so it shouldn’t be reporting such tripe ( not my words) but all the crime figures appear to be true. Anyone now saying this country has not truly gone to s***?

How three-star migrant hotel in Barbican became a living nightmare

Woken by police to be told that his car had been damaged, Ufuoma Odoh wasn't prepared for the scene that confronted him.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Welcome to the greatest City in the World!, I know it’s only the Mail so it shouldn’t be reporting such tripe ( not my words) but all the crime figures appear to be true. Anyone now saying this country has not truly gone to s***?

How three-star migrant hotel in Barbican became a living nightmare

Woken by police to be told that his car had been damaged, Ufuoma Odoh wasn't prepared for the scene that confronted him.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The criticism of the Mail is not simply their choice of stories but also the style of presentation. What is included, what is omitted and why.

Everyone knows there is a problem with illegal migration and that our system of assessing asylum claims takes far too long. That’s existed for years and successive governments have not found a solution. Nor is there a practical one being suggested by anyone else. It’s a problem that can only be solved by working with our neighbours.

In the meantime we have no choice but to accommodate the arrivals and wherever they are taken there are going to be issues. Repetitive stories about those issues contributes nothing but increased anger to the problem. It adds to it, rather than diminishing it. Some might think that increased anger incentives the government to find solutions but that’s unlikely as the incentives are already there. More likely is that the problems get moved and the cost to the taxpayer increases.

So why does the Mail do it? To sell newspapers to a particular readership. Why don’t others report every problem? Because they don’t want to make things worse.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

The criticism of the Mail is not simply their choice of stories but also the style of presentation. What is included, what is omitted and why.

Everyone knows there is a problem with illegal migration and that our system of assessing asylum claims takes far too long. That’s existed for years and successive governments have not found a solution. Nor is there a practical one being suggested by anyone else. It’s a problem that can only be solved by working with our neighbours.

In the meantime we have no choice but to accommodate the arrivals and wherever they are taken there are going to be issues. Repetitive stories about those issues contributes nothing but increased anger to the problem. It adds to it, rather than diminishing it. Some might think that increased anger incentives the government to find solutions but that’s unlikely as the incentives are already there. More likely is that the problems get moved and the cost to the taxpayer increases.

So why does the Mail do it? To sell newspapers to a particular readership. Why don’t others report every problem? Because they don’t want to make things worse.

Or because they want to keep up the pretence that things aren't as bad as they are.

 

[Spiderman]

Or because they want to keep up the pretence that things aren't as bad as they are.

Exactly

 

[Rudi Hedman]

The criticism of the Mail is not simply their choice of stories but also the style of presentation. What is included, what is omitted and why.

Everyone knows there is a problem with illegal migration and that our system of assessing asylum claims takes far too long. That’s existed for years and successive governments have not found a solution. Nor is there a practical one being suggested by anyone else. It’s a problem that can only be solved by working with our neighbours.

In the meantime we have no choice but to accommodate the arrivals and wherever they are taken there are going to be issues. Repetitive stories about those issues contributes nothing but increased anger to the problem. It adds to it, rather than diminishing it. Some might think that increased anger incentives the government to find solutions but that’s unlikely as the incentives are already there. More likely is that the problems get moved and the cost to the taxpayer increases.

So why does the Mail do it? To sell newspapers to a particular readership. Why don’t others report every problem? Because they don’t want to make things worse.

1. Accommodate illegal migrants in detention centres, not expensive hotels. That will put off many coming.

2. If after processing they do not qualify, send them to Rwanda seeing as all of them lie about where they’re from after throwing their I.D into the sea. That will put off many more.

We need to disincentivise illegal migrants to come, and those 2 things will do it. Your arm round the shoulder from 200 miles away while more and more citizens are putting up with this cr@p is what is unacceptable, not any media reporting facts that you think should be hidden, probably because it’s out of your sight already.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

George Carlin used to talk about this stuff years ago.

The 'Illuminati' control everything. They can control how most think because they own the media. They own the big companies, so they own advertising. Most importantly, they own politicians.

Britain is now unrecognisable in most places, and yet we are told that there is nothing to see here. A lot of dumbos still actually believe it, despite being able to see the change with their own eyes. Anyone who speaks out is marginalised. They are a Nazi, a racist, just plain stupid. They have the Police, some useful idiots and those just too scared to disobey company orders doing the heavy lifting.

What ever the plan is, it is a plan that our overlords made.

 

[georgenorman]

1. Accommodate illegal migrants in detention centres, not expensive hotels. That will put off many coming.

2. If after processing they do not qualify, send them to Rwanda seeing as all of them lie about where they’re from after throwing their I.D into the sea. That will put off many more.

We need to disincentivise illegal migrants to come, and those 2 things will do it. Your arm round the shoulder from 200 miles away while more and more citizens are putting up with this cr@p is what is unacceptable, not any media reporting facts that you think should be hidden, probably because it’s out of your sight already.

We should not accommodate them anywhere nor provide them with any other support.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

1. Accommodate illegal migrants in detention centres, not expensive hotels. That will put off many coming.

2. If after processing they do not qualify, send them to Rwanda seeing as all of them lie about where they’re from after throwing their I.D into the sea. That will put off many more.

We need to disincentivise illegal migrants to come, and those 2 things will do it. Your arm round the shoulder from 200 miles away while more and more citizens are putting up with this cr@p is what is unacceptable, not any media reporting facts that you think should be hidden, probably because it’s out of your sight already.

Where are these detention centres? Who are the trained staff ready to deal with them? If they existed, or could be erected and staffed quickly, then we probably wouldn’t have the problems with overcrowded jails we do. It’s a Reform type solution. Not a real one.

Rwanda proved a hugely expensive disaster. Why do you think trying again would be any different? Finding a suitable place to off shore illegals has proved difficult and not just for us.

Disincentivising illegals sounds great but when they are desperate and being fed lies by the gangs getting them aware of the realities won’t be so easy.

The only effective way is to disincentive the gangs by detection and severe punishment so they no longer can profit from them. That they would turn to other criminal activities is of little comfort though.

There are small straws in the wind that some progress is being made.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

We should not accommodate them anywhere nor provide them with any other support.

Great.

Let them arrive on the beaches, be picked up and transported to join the black economy, or become homeless, hungry and unsupervised.

That would work.

 

[georgenorman]

Great.

Let them arrive on the beaches, be picked up and transported to join the black economy, or become homeless, hungry and unsupervised.

That would work.

Would work far better than what goes on now and they would stop coming within a matter of days.

 

[Common Sense Club]

The criticism of the Mail is not simply their choice of stories but also the style of presentation. What is included, what is omitted and why.

Everyone knows there is a problem with illegal migration and that our system of assessing asylum claims takes far too long. That’s existed for years and successive governments have not found a solution. Nor is there a practical one being suggested by anyone else. It’s a problem that can only be solved by working with our neighbours.

In the meantime we have no choice but to accommodate the arrivals and wherever they are taken there are going to be issues. Repetitive stories about those issues contributes nothing but increased anger to the problem. It adds to it, rather than diminishing it. Some might think that increased anger incentives the government to find solutions but that’s unlikely as the incentives are already there. More likely is that the problems get moved and the cost to the taxpayer increases.

So why does the Mail do it? To sell newspapers to a particular readership. Why don’t others report every problem? Because they don’t want to make things worse.

Wisbech, years ago in Sociology classes, I was taught that people read a newspaper - not for the news - but to read what reflects their own views. Hence the Mail reports on these things, The Guardian on what rainbow flag wavers are doing this week, and The Star on who has the largest breasts that day.
Consequently, The Mail with the largest circulation, probably reflects a large proportion of the nation's views. However, they tend to be the silent ones, whereas those that think they are oppressed, take to the streets.
What grates with the authorities is that the silent majority are now becoming the oppressed and reacting accordingly.. That is why there is criticism of The Mail as they report on these things...things that matter to the majority.

 

[Common Sense Club]

Great.

Let them arrive on the beaches, be picked up and transported to join the black economy, or become homeless, hungry and unsupervised.

That would work.

I may be wrong, but I thought that Spain now has an agreement with Gibraltar that they will place Spanish Immigration staff in Gibraltar to vet those crossing the borders. If true, place UK Border Force on French soil and do likewise. No Passport = stay where you are. Have Passport = some form of pre-vetting and potential onward safe travel to the UK. If Spain has set a precedent then I don't see why we cannot do the same. Numbers would fall dramatically.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I may be wrong, but I thought that Spain now has an agreement with Gibraltar that they will place Spanish Immigration staff in Gibraltar to vet those crossing the borders. If true, place UK Border Force on French soil and do likewise. No Passport = stay where you are. Have Passport = some form of pre-vetting and potential onward safe travel to the UK. If Spain has set a precedent then I don't see why we cannot do the same. Numbers would fall dramatically.

I believe that we already have officers based in the French ports with authority to turn back those without the correct documentation. Not just a passport.

It’s not legal travel that’s the problem or illegal attempts on regular routes. It’s the small boats.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Wisbech, years ago in Sociology classes, I was taught that people read a newspaper - not for the news - but to read what reflects their own views. Hence the Mail reports on these things, The Guardian on what rainbow flag wavers are doing this week, and The Star on who has the largest breasts that day.
Consequently, The Mail with the largest circulation, probably reflects a large proportion of the nation's views. However, they tend to be the silent ones, whereas those that think they are oppressed, take to the streets.
What grates with the authorities is that the silent majority are now becoming the oppressed and reacting accordingly.. That is why there is criticism of The Mail as they report on these things...things that matter to the majority.

That’s stretching the truth when newspaper readership is now so low. It might also be true that more people with right wing views buy newspapers than those who don’t.

 

[Common Sense Club]

I believe that we already have officers based in the French ports with authority to turn back those without the correct documentation. Not just a passport.

It’s not legal travel that’s the problem or illegal attempts on regular routes. It’s the small boats.

Which is why those not using a recognised route should be refused entry and taken straight back to France. The RNLI should head south not north when 'rescuing' these people. Their day trip starts in France.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Would work far better than what goes on now and they would stop coming within a matter of days.

Much more likely that the numbers would increase because of the lack of restrictions.

 

[Common Sense Club]

That’s stretching the truth when newspaper readership is now so low. It might also be true that more people with right wing views buy newspapers than those who don’t.

Maybe The Mail Online? Maybe only people with 'right wing' views can read? Maybe 'right wing' is actually common sense?

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Which is why those not using a recognised route should be refused entry and taken straight back to France. The RNLI should head south not north when 'rescuing' these people. Their day trip starts in France.

Sounds so simple doesn’t it?

If it really was don’t you think it would already be done?

There might be a reason why it’s not.

 

[Common Sense Club]

Sounds so simple doesn’t it?

If it really was don’t you think it would already be done?

There might be a reason why it’s not.

Well, if you can't stop something, then presumably you just roll over and let it continue to happen.

If it hasn't happened, maybe because they don't want it to happen?

Why would France want to have the problem, if it can unload some people onto the UK? If Britain got really tough then France could then have momentum to get tough with its neighbours to stop arrivals at their border. But that would mean a fundamental clash with the EU's free movement...as I imply, they don't want a solution.