Nigel Farage

[Chorley]

Scandalous

More importantly, what the fuck are the RNLI doing rescuing illegal immigrants? 

[willie loman]

Rail against immigration all you want, let's see what happens when the numbers of foreign WGs (who would normally come on tourist visas) drops due to the prohibitive cost of travel (plus there will be less money back home to pay for flights due to the drop in global remittances flowing in).

They will do what they did before there was cheap flights, catch an inexpensive coach to Victoria,plus there are plenty of foreign hookers who have more or less settled here.

[willie loman]

Rather enteraining that - because they are flying in Romanians to pick fruit, since nobody British wants to do that (and other jobs). I also wonder who will replace the waiters in restaurants and so on. But also why Farage wasn't arrested for breaking the law as anyone else would be, or whether everyone gets two nurses like Boris ... and so on. Two laws in this country.

There will be plenty of legal migrants to do these jobs in agriculture and hospitality, its in no ones interest that these unfortunates are trying to arrive here by boat, a proper country would have sorted the problem, but France falls way short of that.

[hullad]

More importantly, what the fuck are the RNLI doing rescuing illegal immigrants? 

The RNLI is there to save lives at sea regardless of nationality, state or status. They are doing the service they have performed for over 100 years.

I do not think for one minute that the French are aiding the migration just because Farage 'tells'  me they are. We need to tackle the problem but allow them to die is not the way. We need the French on side and I can't stress enough alleviating them and moving the border back here will do massive damage.

[sparkus]

The RNLI is there to save lives at sea regardless of nationality, state or status. They are doing the service they have performed for over 100 years.

I do not think for one minute that the French are aiding the migration just because Farage 'tells'  me they are. We need to tackle the problem but allow them to die is not the way. We need the French on side and I can't stress enough alleviating them and moving the border back here will do massive damage.

+1

[Trenlover]

We need to tackle the problem but allow them to die is not the way.

We need to make it very tough for these illegal immigrants to come.

Otherwise guess what?

They will keep coming.

[Avg_Joe]

we need to start herding them at landing point and then sending them back to wherever they came from, no bleeding hearts bullshit, they are not refugees and should not be treated as such, they are invaders, and should be treated as such. they are not welcome without having gone through the proper immigration process before arriving, we are simply too fucking soft, but, when half of our politicians are of the "multicultural" generation, what do you think they will do.

we are too fucking soft, period, taking care of everyone before ourselves is how we have ended up being perceived as weak in the first place

[NIK]

we need to start herding them at landing point and then sending them back to wherever they came from, no bleeding hearts bullshit, they are not refugees and should not be treated as such, they are invaders, and should be treated as such. they are not welcome without having gone through the proper immigration process before arriving, we are simply too fucking soft, but, when half of our politicians are of the "multicultural" generation, what do you think they will do.

we are too fucking soft, period, taking care of everyone before ourselves is how we have ended up being perceived as weak in the first place

Exactly.
Bollocks to the ‘hope not hate & refugees welcome’ bullshit we are full.
Unless they are sent to Scotland or Ireland. 

[AnthG]

Exactly.
Bollocks to the ‘hope not hate & refugees welcome’ bullshit we are full.
Unless they are sent to Scotland or Ireland. 

+1 Billion, and even that is not enough to how much I agree with you NIK.

[hullad]

Where are you going to send them ??

International law covers them we can't do much about it. These people have no papers, passports so you have to work out which country they belong to. Then guess most of those countries don't except them back as there citizens. We have to prevent them coming because once there here where stuck with them. The government talks a big game, they have released loads off illegals as soon as the virus hit. They will be away hiding now picking strawberries.

Our problem is not as great as Italy or Greece, this can and will get worse. It's so easy to talk big but we are limited under international laws, laws that Winston Churchill helped set up.

[AnthG]

Where are you going to send them ??

Detention centres/Prison till they agree to go home.

It is better than the current free council house and lifetime if freebies they get now.

[Avg_Joe]

Where are you going to send them ??

International law covers them we can't do much about it. These people have no papers, passports so you have to work out which country they belong to. Then guess most of those countries don't except them back as there citizens. We have to prevent them coming because once there here where stuck with them. The government talks a big game, they have released loads off illegals as soon as the virus hit. They will be away hiding now picking strawberries.

Our problem is not as great as Italy or Greece, this can and will get worse. It's so easy to talk big but we are limited under international laws, laws that Winston Churchill helped set up.

Last point of departure, in this case fucking france, which if i'm not mistaken is what airlines are liable for if they bring someone in without the required visas/paperwork.

[Chorley]

We need to make it very tough for these illegal immigrants to come.

Otherwise guess what?

They will keep coming.

This 100%

[King Nuts]

Where are you going to send them ??

International law covers them we can't do much about it. These people have no papers, passports so you have to work out which country they belong to. Then guess most of those countries don't except them back as there citizens. We have to prevent them coming because once there here where stuck with them. The government talks a big game, they have released loads off illegals as soon as the virus hit. They will be away hiding now picking strawberries.

Our problem is not as great as Italy or Greece, this can and will get worse. It's so easy to talk big but we are limited under international laws, laws that Winston Churchill helped set up.

1. There is no such thing as 'international law'. There are agreements with other countries but a law isn't a law unless it's enforceable.

2. We are not 'stuck with them' any more than all the other countries they have passed through are 'stuck with them'. Greece, Hungary, Austria, France, Italy, Germany, Benelux etc have all had them pass through. Those countries didn't take the view that they were 'stuck with them' but they fucking well should have. That's the deal. Refugees stop in the first safe country they get to. So much for fucking international law, huh.

3. We send them back to wherever their last port of call was. France. The French, as ever, are useless in a crisis and we have to send the message loud and clear to the French that we're not fucking having it.

[King Nuts]

Exactly.
Bollocks to the ‘hope not hate & refugees welcome’ bullshit we are full.
Unless they are sent to Scotland or Ireland. 

In all seriousness, I have often wondered why we don't just send them up to Scotland in bus loads. There are bits of Scotland that for mile after mile are empty. Take plenty of supplies and get them renovating old farm buildings, cottages, crofts and so on. They could literally build a community, be amongst their own kind and actually end up invigorating the local economy. It'd be a bit like FDR's New Deal in the 1930s. Worked there, so why not here?

Well of course I know why not. Politicians lack the balls, and they'd be up against the unions, the media wankerati and the entire left-liberal Establishment.

At a time like this, we need politicians with a bit of vision and gumption. Just think of the benefits. All the locals up there would welcome some grafters to turn things around. Think of all the window cleaners, plumbers, dentists and so on, not to mention all the strippers and tarts.

[NIK]

In all seriousness, I have often wondered why we don't just send them up to Scotland in bus loads. There are bits of Scotland that for mile after mile are empty. Take plenty of supplies and get them renovating old farm buildings, cottages, crofts and so on. They could literally build a community, be amongst their own kind and actually end up invigorating the local economy. It'd be a bit like FDR's New Deal in the 1930s. Worked there, so why not here?

Well of course I know why not. Politicians lack the balls, and they'd be up against the unions, the media wankerati and the entire left-liberal Establishment.

At a time like this, we need politicians with a bit of vision and gumption. Just think of the benefits. All the locals up there would welcome some grafters to turn things around. Think of all the window cleaners, plumbers, dentists and so on, not to mention all the strippers and tarts.

Afraid they prefer to gather together in the big cities, far and away predominantly London, where they will be amongst plenty more of their own, easy access to social services and lefty natives to support them.
Scotland, with its often shitty weather and square miles of fuck all wouldn’t appeal to them.

[AnthG]

In all seriousness, I have often wondered why we don't just send them up to Scotland in bus loads.

That is what I have said to myself too. As the SNP absolutely love Europe and Migrants because they barely get any, everyone wants to come to England. So the SNP don't see any of the problems, they just see the benefits.

If we started just shipping every Migrant that arrived up to Edinburgh and told Sturgeon, here you deal with them all. I suspect that Migrant loving attitude will change, very-very fast. And she will start stating the stuff she calls everyone else for now.

I really wish Boris would do it. It would be the best kick in the teeth to that arrogant annoying women ever. But no, we need to deal with it. And first port of call is free council house for everyone who gets ashore.

Never mind old people, or war veterans, or young people starting a family. Nope, no houses for you. But fighting age men arriving by themselves, each one for you.

[sparkus]

1. There is no such thing as 'international law'. There are agreements with other countries but a law isn't a law unless it's enforceable.

2. We are not 'stuck with them' any more than all the other countries they have passed through are 'stuck with them'. Greece, Hungary, Austria, France, Italy, Germany, Benelux etc have all had them pass through. Those countries didn't take the view that they were 'stuck with them' but they fucking well should have. That's the deal. Refugees stop in the first safe country they get to. So much for fucking international law, huh.

3. We send them back to wherever their last port of call was. France. The French, as ever, are useless in a crisis and we have to send the message loud and clear to the French that we're not fucking having it.

Great, I'm off to annex parts of countries that get on my nerves and the ICJ can do nuffin' about it.  I'll let you know how I get on.

[King Nuts]

Great, I'm off to annex parts of countries that get on my nerves and the ICJ can do nuffin' about it.  I'll let you know how I get on.

I'm calling your bluff. Do it.

[winkywanky]

I think what we do need is proper ID cards for everyone in the UK.

They can be made to be virtually unfakeable.

[AnthG]

Great, I'm off to annex parts of countries that get on my nerves and the ICJ can do nuffin' about it.  I'll let you know how I get on.

Hungary and Poland did not take in a single migrant from one particular religion (which is most migrants as you rarely get Buddhists or Sikhs seeking asylum). And proudly boasted that fact. its leaders have not been brought up in front of the Hague for this. They have just been allowed to set their own rules.

Watch this fantastic interview with one of the Polish leaders if you don't believe that. I love this guy. He just brazenly says it, not one single migrant have we taken in, none, zilch.

External Link/Members Only

[NIK]

Hungary and Poland did not take in a single migrant from one particular religion (which is most migrants as you rarely get Buddhists or Sikhs seeking asylum). And proudly boasted that fact. its leaders have not been brought up in front of the Hague for this. They have just been allowed to set their own rules.

Watch this fantastic interview with one of the Polish leaders if you don't believe that. I love this guy. He just brazenly says it, not one single migrant have we taken in, none, zilch.

External Link/Members Only

That's true. I wonder why most of them are Muzzies?

[sparkus]

That's true. I wonder why most of them are Muzzies?

Sikhs are found exclusively in India (other than ones born in other countries), in fact the ones in East Africa expelled by Idi Amin made up the bulk of Commonwealth immigration in the early 70s, which caused no end of scaremongering in the media at the time.  Buddhists are also mainly in India, China and Japan.

I think you may see a pattern in the most significant warzones since the 90s...

[sparkus]

I think what we do need is proper ID cards for everyone in the UK.

They can be made to be virtually unfakeable.

Agreed, though it's usually the right who disagree with them and start acting like Yanks and the right to bear arms in their reasons to not have their 'liberty violated'.

[AnthG]

Sikhs are found exclusively in India (other than ones born in other countries), in fact the ones in East Africa expelled by Idi Amin made up the bulk of Commonwealth immigration in the early 70s, which caused no end of scaremongering in the media at the time.  Buddhists are also mainly in India, China and Japan.

I think you may see a pattern in the most significant warzones since the 90s...

But you never, ever see Sikhs, or Buddhists or anyone else go to war with followers of the same religion as they don't agree with how those others interpret it.

[sparkus]

But you never, ever see Sikhs, or Buddhists or anyone else go to war with followers of the same religion as they don't agree with how those others interpret it.

You don't see Buddhists go to war full stop.

The people of Pakistan may have a few words to say about Sikhs not being war-like.

[NIK]

You don't see Buddhists go to war full stop.

The people of Pakistan may have a few words to say about Sikhs not being war-like.

Yes, I think the Sikhs can hold their own. As can the Tamals  who are mainly Hindu or Catholic (I know a few and they don’t seem particularly keen on Muslims, nor of course the Singalese.)

[The High Sparrow]

1. There is no such thing as 'international law'. There are agreements with other countries but a law isn't a law unless it's enforceable.

Wouldnt you say part of our "international law" forms part of states "social contract" with each other much in the same way internally societies form social contract as per Hobbes. Laws are nothing but agreement between individuals and their societies.

for instance a huge part. A sizeable chunk of the UK constitution is unwritten and known through customs and conventions. some of it may be unenforceable by the courts of laws. Surely those parts of our constitution still carry legal basis?

[The High Sparrow]

You don't see Buddhists go to war full stop.

Thailand, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Laos beg to differ. 

[sparkus]

Thailand, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Laos beg to differ.

Which leads back to the question of groups within religions differentiating between true believers and heretics.  Strictly speaking, Buddhists eschew violence but governments of majority Buddhist countries can wage war.

[King Nuts]

Wouldnt you say part of our "international law" forms part of states "social contract" with each other much in the same way internally societies form social contract as per Hobbes. Laws are nothing but agreement between individuals and their societies.

for instance a huge part. A sizeable chunk of the UK constitution is unwritten and known through customs and conventions. some of it may be unenforceable by the courts of laws. Surely those parts of our constitution still carry legal basis?

Yes, I'd agree that so-called international law consists of social contracts. But true and proper laws are more than just an agreement or understanding. They are enforceable through the application of penalties. But enforcing across borders is usally (but not always) impossible.

[spiralnotebook]

I thought Australia had the perfect model for dealing with illegal immigrants.

[timsussex]

I thought Australia had the perfect model for dealing with illegal immigrants.

Making captains of ships that see a sinking immigrant boat pass them by

[Avg_Joe]

Making captains of ships that see a sinking immigrant boat pass them by

wonder if that worked... if they now have less of a problem because they know no-one is going to fish them out when they sink.

Farage is clever in that he's pointing heavily to the problem being the criminal gangs that are charging for the service, that is something that may be able to be attacked/enforced

[Adoniron]

But you never, ever see Sikhs, or Buddhists or anyone else go to war with followers of the same religion as they don't agree with how those others interpret it.

No it's only Muslims who do that. And Christians.

[Avg_Joe]

I was about to say, Christians can't really preach too much here, as history tells a very dark tale indeed !!


that said, most religions seem to have evolved and become more "civilised" whereas muslems still seem to think oppression,war,violence and abuse is the first and only response, along with trying to assilmilate every culture to theirs. News for them.. there is no such thing as a holy war, just war.


In general, relegion has a shit ton to answer for when it comes to the worst of humanity

[NIK]

No it's only Muslims who do that. And Christians.

I am not saying your post does this, but I have noticed some Muzzy defenders like to have a go at Christianity in the hope it will upset the Muzzy critics. As far as I am concerned they can have a go at Christianity all they like as I believe all religions are complete cock. However Islam is far and away the worst as they are completely obsessed with it, brooking no criticism and ramming it down your throat at every opportunity.
Catholicism is probably the next worse, but miles behind Islam these days.

[King Nuts]

Hungary and Poland did not take in a single migrant from one particular religion (which is most migrants as you rarely get Buddhists or Sikhs seeking asylum). And proudly boasted that fact. its leaders have not been brought up in front of the Hague for this. They have just been allowed to set their own rules.

Watch this fantastic interview with one of the Polish leaders if you don't believe that. I love this guy. He just brazenly says it, not one single migrant have we taken in, none, zilch.

External Link/Members Only

This Polish guy is right. Their country, their laws. I noticed the interviewer said that these refugees have a 'legal right to asylum'. I doubt that very much. Asylum I always understood to be something that can be granted on a case-by-case basis. If I went to Iran, for example, I don't think I'd have a 'legal right' to be granted asylum.

(Brodie tried that on 'Homeland' and it didn't get him very far either.)

[RadioKid]

You don't see Buddhists go to war full stop.

Er... Burma and Sri Lanka would like a word.

[Avg_Joe]

This Polish guy is right. Their country, their laws. I noticed the interviewer said that these refugees have a 'legal right to asylum'. I doubt that very much. Asylum I always understood to be something that can be granted on a case-by-case basis. If I went to Iran, for example, I don't think I'd have a 'legal right' to be granted asylum.

(Brodie tried that on 'Homeland' and it didn't get him very far either.)

i like that polish guy

[Adoniron]

This Polish guy is right. Their country, their laws. I noticed the interviewer said that these refugees have a 'legal right to asylum'. I doubt that very much. Asylum I always understood to be something that can be granted on a case-by-case basis. If I went to Iran, for example, I don't think I'd have a 'legal right' to be granted asylum.

(Brodie tried that on 'Homeland' and it didn't get him very far either.)

They have a legal right to CLAIM asylum, but not that it should be granted.

[King Nuts]

They have a legal right to CLAIM asylum, but not that it should be granted.

No they don't. No-one has a legal right to claim it.

[Adoniron]

No they don't. No-one has a legal right to claim it.

External Link/Members Only

[King Nuts]

External Link/Members Only

Yes, the UK Govt permits people to apply. But that's not a legal right.

I don't have a legal right to go into Tesco, but as long as I don't show up covered in maggots and swearing at the staff, I am permitted to enter.

[Doc Holliday]

Yes, the UK Govt permits people to apply. But that's not a legal right.

Actually it is.

[Adoniron]

Yes, the UK Govt permits people to apply. But that's not a legal right.

I don't have a legal right to go into Tesco, but as long as I don't show up covered in maggots and swearing at the staff, I am permitted to enter.

You have an implied licence to enter Tesco while they are open to purchase goods. That right exists until they revoke it because you are covered in maggots or swearing at staff.

[King Nuts]

You have an implied licence to enter Tesco while they are open to purchase goods. That right exists until they revoke it because you are covered in maggots or swearing at staff.

And what is this 'implied licence' you speak of? I have no right - implied, licenced or otherwise - to enter Tesco. I do so entirely as Tesco's discretion.

[King Nuts]

Actually it is.

No, it isn't.

[winkywanky]

No they don't. No-one has a legal right to claim it.

Oh yes they do.

Whether they win that claim is another matter of course, but once they turn up unannounced on your doorstep and claim it, that claim has to be assessed and processed according to international law. Of course different countries would vary on the rigour with which they applied that international law.

From Wikipedia External Link/Members Only:

Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." The United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees guides national legislation concerning political asylum. Under these agreements, a refugee (or for cases where repressing base means has been applied directly or environmentally to the refugee) is a person who is outside that person's own country's territory (or place of habitual residence if stateless) owing to fear of persecution on protected grounds. Protected grounds include race, caste, nationality, religion, political opinions and membership or participation in any particular social group or social activities. Rendering true victims of persecution to their persecutor is a violation of a principle called non-refoulement, part of the customary and trucial Law of Nations.

These are the accepted terms and criteria as principles and a fundamental part in the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees non-refoulement order.[7]

Since the 1990s, victims of sexual persecution (which may include domestic violence, or systematic oppression of a gender or sexual minority) have come to be accepted in some countries as a legitimate category for asylum claims, when claimants can prove that the state is unable or unwilling to provide protection.

[Adoniron]

And what is this 'implied licence' you speak of? I have no right - implied, licenced or otherwise - to enter Tesco. I do so entirely as Tesco's discretion.

You're wrong.