Border force are being trained to turn back migrant boats.

First topic message reminder :

A record 13,500 migrants have crossed the Channel in small boats this year, including at least 1,000 this week.
The UK has just paid a further 55 million to France, to fund another clampdown on small boat crossings from France to England....obviously it doesn't seem to have helped.




Priti Patel is set to anger France by moving ahead with plans to forcibly redirect migrant boats back across the Channel, despite warnings about the impact such a tactic would have on Anglo-French relations.

The home secretary is said to have ordered officials to rewrite maritime laws to allow Border Force to turn boats around before they reach England.

It follows a G7 interior minister's meeting on Wednesday when Ms Patel told her French counterpart that the UK public "expect to see results" from French efforts to prevent ongoing migrant crossings.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58495948?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA


https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/boris-johnson-news-live-patel-plan-to-return-migrant-boats-to-france-not-going-to-work-senior-tory-admits/ar-AAOfsSi?ocid=msedgntp

I think the Syria/ISIS refugee crisis should have been enough to teach the leading nations of the world that it's only fair that refugees should be parcelled out fairly. The United States, Canada and Australia have so much room for more people, and take so few refugees compared to the UK. It's not fair.

I'm not saying that the UK is anywhere close to being overwhelmed, but it does seem to do the lion's share when it comes to refugees, with other European countries taking the piss and non-European countries seeming to act like they can just do a small bit and that will be okay.

Having a well-functioning and fair system of refugee care would have so many positives -- the foremost, in my mind, being that people being able to easily flee the likes of ISIS or the Taliban should show such groups how unpopular their ideas actually are.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Vintage wrote:I think the French attitude to all this is already having an impact on Anglo - French relations.
They seem reluctant to patrol the coast of Calais, even eager to escort the boats into British waters, won't accept them back by ferry or luxury cruise, how much worse can it be after accepting £55 million to do the job.

Was going to say the same thing -- the French don't seem to give half a fuck about Anglo-French relations.

France has bought into the EU, whereas the UK is seen as hostile to it.  I think the French - the entire European community, really - view Britain as the 'bad guys' on the humanitarian front.  So they're not going to help Britain cleanse the immigrants who want in.  It is manifested in the nonchalant attitude of French patrols.

Hahahahaha you don’t know the French very well. They don’t like anyone who’s not French. This has nothing to do with Brexit.
Asylum seekers wash up on their chores and they sell them the fucking dinghies to go across the channel. Ultimately sending them to their deaths. The French don’t want them.

Ben Reilly wrote:I think the Syria/ISIS refugee crisis should have been enough to teach the leading nations of the world that it's only fair that refugees should be parcelled out fairly. The United States, Canada and Australia have so much room for more people, and take so few refugees compared to the UK. It's not fair.

I'm not saying that the UK is anywhere close to being overwhelmed, but it does seem to do the lion's share when it comes to refugees, with other European countries taking the piss and non-European countries seeming to act like they can just do a small bit and that will be okay.

Having a well-functioning and fair system of refugee care would have so many positives -- the foremost, in my mind, being that people being able to easily flee the likes of ISIS or the Taliban should show such groups how unpopular their ideas actually are.

Are you mad???


The overwhelming vast majority of these illegal immigrants are fighting age sub Saharan African or middle Eastern men... And most likely Isis...

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

France has bought into the EU, whereas the UK is seen as hostile to it.  I think the French - the entire European community, really - view Britain as the 'bad guys' on the humanitarian front.  So they're not going to help Britain cleanse the immigrants who want in.  It is manifested in the nonchalant attitude of French patrols.

Hahahahaha you don’t know the French very well. They don’t like anyone who’s not French. This has nothing to do with Brexit.

Well, it might be another notch in the stick - Nicolas Chauvin, after whom chauvinism was coined, was after all a Frenchman. But, when one is chauvinistic, every argument becomes incorporated into the crossfire. Brexit is simply another notch.

If you say it's a matter of the French character, I won't disagree with you - although I am quite fond of the French, as they have some favorable qualities. Anyway, they are not cooperating with your returnee program, and you have a problem. If you English get heavy-handed, and some children die as a result, you're going to get branded as cruel despots, responsible for the deaths of innocent women and children.

People are short-sighted, and don't tolerate long answers. If you are caught with a stick, standing over the bloody corpse of a dead child, they are not going to hear to your yeah, buts...

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Hahahahaha you don’t know the French very well. They don’t like anyone who’s not French. This has nothing to do with Brexit.

Well, it might be another notch in the stick - Nicolas Chauvin, after whom chauvinism was coined, was after all a Frenchman.  But, when one is chauvinistic, every argument becomes incorporated into the crossfire.  Brexit is simply another notch.

If you say it's a matter of the French character, I won't disagree with you - although I am quite fond of the French, as they have some favorable qualities.  Anyway, they are not cooperating with your returnee program, and you have a problem.  If you English get heavy-handed, and some children die as a result, you're going to get branded as cruel despots, responsible for the deaths of innocent women and children.

People are short-sighted, and don't tolerate long answers.  If you are caught with a stick, standing over the bloody corpse of a dead child, they are not going to hear to your yeah, buts...  

Correct me if I am wrong, but no child has died as a result of somehow being physically barred from entry into the U.K.by gun-toting sailors but rather by being drowned in a tragic maritime accident involving a ridiculously small rubber dinghy designed for seaside holiday fun or fishing - not making a perilous 20 plus mile crossing of a notoriously dangerous and intensely busy shipping lane.

Laying the blame on the U.K. makes about as much sense as blaming Spain for the death of Jewish refugees from the Nazis who died attempting to cross the Pyrenees in ordinary shoes and clothing in the middle of winter.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, it might be another notch in the stick - Nicolas Chauvin, after whom chauvinism was coined, was after all a Frenchman.  But, when one is chauvinistic, every argument becomes incorporated into the crossfire.  Brexit is simply another notch.

If you say it's a matter of the French character, I won't disagree with you - although I am quite fond of the French, as they have some favorable qualities.  Anyway, they are not cooperating with your returnee program, and you have a problem.  If you English get heavy-handed, and some children die as a result, you're going to get branded as cruel despots, responsible for the deaths of innocent women and children.

People are short-sighted, and don't tolerate long answers.  If you are caught with a stick, standing over the bloody corpse of a dead child, they are not going to hear to your yeah, buts...  

Correct me if I am wrong, but no child has died as a result of somehow being physically barred from entry into the U.K.by gun-toting sailors but rather by being drowned in a tragic maritime accident involving a ridiculously small rubber dinghy designed for seaside holiday fun or fishing - not making a perilous 20 plus mile crossing of a notoriously dangerous and intensely busy shipping lane.

Laying the blame on the  U.K. makes about as much sense as blaming Spain for the death of Jewish refugees from the Nazis who died attempting to cross the Pyrenees in ordinary shoes and clothing in the middle of winter.

Thank God.

It's not laying of blame, for you can't lay blame for what has not happened. It's just prudence. When such a photo comes out, if it does, the public won't care about details.

Ben Reilly wrote:I think the Syria/ISIS refugee crisis should have been enough to teach the leading nations of the world that it's only fair that refugees should be parcelled out fairly. The United States, Canada and Australia have so much room for more people, and take so few refugees compared to the UK. It's not fair.

I'm not saying that the UK is anywhere close to being overwhelmed, but it does seem to do the lion's share when it comes to refugees, with other European countries taking the piss and non-European countries seeming to act like they can just do a small bit and that will be okay.

Having a well-functioning and fair system of refugee care would have so many positives -- the foremost, in my mind, being that people being able to easily flee the likes of ISIS or the Taliban should show such groups how unpopular their ideas actually are.

You’re quite right about it being unfair on the U.K.; France has much the same population as the U.K. - about 65 million - but a land mass twice the size of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland put together.

As for your assumption that this country is not “close to being overwhelmed”, I’m afraid this is a misapprehension on your part. I’m not sure where Eddie and yourself live, but in the counties surrounding London and up into the Midlands we have huge, rapidly growing and frequently long-established ethnic minority populations and it is here where most of the incomers, both genuine refugees and illegal immigrants, wish to live because they often have families and people from their own ethnic background already here.

The sheer amount of housing and industrial development that is taking place and the frightening loss of essential food-producing land, particularly around where I live, has to be seen to be believed. Schools previously rated as being excellent are being driven into “inadequate” status and even special measures because they are having to take in so many non English speaking children; my own local authority’s official publications have to be printed in God knows how many different languages at enormous cost and the sheer numbers of people are rapidly outstripping the availability of essential services, particularly health and social care.

And if you want a sinister pointer to the future….we have at least two councils that within a few years will almost certainly come under the control of Muslim Asian councillors…one faction of which to my own knowledge is starting to demand the drafting of local bye-laws to incorporate Sharia.

Is it any wonder that I fear for my own family’s future?

Ben Reilly wrote:I think the Syria/ISIS refugee crisis should have been enough to teach the leading nations of the world that it's only fair that refugees should be parcelled out fairly. The United States, Canada and Australia have so much room for more people, and take so few refugees compared to the UK. It's not fair.

I'm not saying that the UK is anywhere close to being overwhelmed, but it does seem to do the lion's share when it comes to refugees, with other European countries taking the piss and non-European countries seeming to act like they can just do a small bit and that will be okay.

Having a well-functioning and fair system of refugee care would have so many positives -- the foremost, in my mind, being that people being able to easily flee the likes of ISIS or the Taliban should show such groups how unpopular their ideas actually are.

You’re quite right about it being unfair on the U.K.; France has much the same population as the U.K. - about 65 million - but a land mass twice the size of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland put together.

As for your assumption that this country is not “close to being overwhelmed”, I’m afraid this is a misapprehension on your part. I’m not sure where Eddie and yourself live, but in the counties surrounding London and up into the Midlands we have huge, rapidly growing and frequently long-established ethnic minority populations and it is here where most of the incomers, both genuine refugees and illegal immigrants, wish to live because they often have families and people from their own ethnic background already here.

The sheer amount of housing and industrial development that is taking place and the frightening loss of essential food-producing land, particularly around where I live, has to be seen to be believed. Schools previously rated as being excellent are being driven into “inadequate” status and even special measures because they are having to take in so many non English speaking children; my own local authority’s official publications have to be printed in God knows how many different languages at enormous cost and the sheer numbers of people are rapidly outstripping the availability of essential services, particularly health and social care.

And if you want a sinister pointer to the future….we have at least two councils that within a few years will almost certainly come under the control of Muslim Asian councillors…one faction of which to my own knowledge is starting to demand the drafting of local bye-laws to incorporate Sharia.

Is it any wonder that I fear for my own family’s future?

Apologies for the unintentional double posting.

It was worth repeating, you make some brilliant points there.

The area I live in is overwhelmed too....for years there has been no vacancies in any NHS Dr's or dentists, no school places, obviously a housing shortage.
Certain areas seem to be first on the list when refugees arrive.
Greater Manchester and parts of Liverpool are always listed, whereas other areas (obviously the more affluent ones) are never expected to take in anyone.

It creates problems for people already here, causes resentment, and is unfair to everyone.

13 year old girl has been gang raped by Afghan refugees in Vienna. She made contact via Instagram, met up with one who was 16 who took her to a building where older ones drugged her, raped her then smothered her to death.

We know not all refugees are rapists and murderers but when it's your kid who's been slaughtered then even one is too many.

And this sorry incident compounds to me that any child under 18 needs to either not have access to social media, or their accounts and activity should be linked to parental devices so they can be monitored as to who they connect with, where they go etc.

What a world we live in today. We have this poor kid, then we have 12 year olds put into a position of adult decisions about their sexuality. You're either a child or you're not. Let kids be kids for as long as possible. No wonder we have so many on anti depressants and with mental health issues.

Syl wrote:It was worth repeating, you make some brilliant points there.

The area I live in is overwhelmed too....for years there has been no vacancies in any NHS Dr's or dentists, no school places, obviously a housing shortage.
Certain areas seem to be first on the list when refugees arrive.
Greater Manchester and  parts of Liverpool  are always listed, whereas other areas (obviously the more affluent ones) are never expected to take in anyone.

It creates problems for people already here, causes resentment, and is unfair to everyone.

Same where I am.   Did anyone see that documentary last night about social housing?   It was disgusting.  We have people in this country, this very rich country, living in waterlogged poverty stricken situations with black mould crawling on the walls, and then we have migrants being put into four star hotels.   Inner city living is the pits if you're poor.    It was a real eye opener for some people who never guessed that human beings have to live like this.

The councils responsible - mostly Labour run - should hang their heads in shame.

The last few posts force me to agree with Fred and HT...'what a world we live in'.

Even an optimist has to open their eyes and wonder just what the future holds for our kids and grandkids.

There is little point in everyone running away from their country because they don't like the way its run, its up to the citizens to change things, maybe with outside help but ultimately its up to them. The developed world has to try and help bring these countries up to some level where staying there - financially - will be worth while. The problem seems to be unless you are actually in control of the country not much seems to get done. Trade has to be on equal footing, there has to be enough in it for each side, not the one up man ship, I'll get more out of you than you get out of me attitude some nations seem to have.
Illegal entry to a country should not be tolerated by anyone, unless there is dire need. Why people make their way to a totally different culture that they have no wish or ability to integrate into to make a permanent move makes me wonder.

HoratioTarr wrote:13 year old girl has been gang raped by Afghan refugees in Vienna. She made contact via Instagram, met up with one who was 16 who took her to a building where older ones drugged her, raped her then smothered her to death.

We know not all refugees are rapists and murderers but when it's your kid who's been slaughtered then even one is too many.

And this sorry incident compounds to me that any child under 18 needs to either not have access to social media, or their accounts and activity should be linked to parental devices so they can be monitored as to who they connect with, where they go etc.

What a world we live in today. We have this poor kid, then we have 12 year olds put into a position of adult decisions about their sexuality. You're either a child or you're not. Let kids be kids for as long as possible. No wonder we have so many on anti depressants and with mental health issues.

This is not a one off... Been happening for years and years wherever there are Islamist immigrants.


Remember the German politicians daughter who was taped and murdered a few years ago?


And the rape by Islamist immigrants against Swedish women is off the scale.

Tommy Monk wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:13 year old girl has been gang raped by Afghan refugees in Vienna.   She made contact via Instagram, met up with one who was 16 who took her to a building where older ones drugged her, raped her then smothered her to death.  

We know not all refugees are rapists and murderers but when it's your kid who's been slaughtered then even one is too many.

And this sorry incident compounds to me that any child under 18 needs to either not have access to social media, or their accounts and activity should be linked to parental devices so they can be monitored as to who they connect with, where they go etc.    

What a world we live in today.   We have this poor kid, then we have 12 year olds put into a position of adult decisions about their sexuality.   You're either a child or you're not.  Let kids be kids for as long as possible.  No wonder we have so many on anti depressants  and with mental health issues.

This is not a one off... Been happening for years and years wherever there are Islamist immigrants.


Remember the German politicians daughter who was taped and murdered a few years ago?


And the rape by Islamist immigrants against Swedish women is off the scale.

The systematic grooming, exploitation, abuse and frequently actual rape of young girls, some of whom were hardly into their teens, was (maybe still is) virtually a cottage industry among some of the Asian community in Rotherham not so long ago.

The appalling thing is that it was known about by both the Labour-controlled local authority and police and was deliberately covered up “in the interests of social cohesion.”

Many years ago my uncle, a tough steelworker and an army veteran who was a stalwart Labour supporter all his life, was Mayor of the borough and in more recent times my late brother was a copper in the South Yorkshire force and I know damn well that neither of them would have accepted politically correct excuses and justification for such an abomination being tolerated.

But then of course, Labour was a party of principle led by diligent and honourable people like my uncle and the police “service” was not led by woke prats like some of our present chief constables and police commissioners.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/afghan-asylum-seeker-arrested-over-murder-of-eu-officials-daughter-in-germany/

Fred M. wrote:The systematic grooming, exploitation, abuse and frequently actual rape of young girls, some of whom were hardly into their teens, was (maybe still is) virtually a cottage industry among some of the Asian community in Rotherham not so long ago.

We in the US have the same thing, without even involving immigration.  Southerners take that same abusive attitude toward women and race, as you speak of here.  Their mantra is guns, race and violence...and women should be barefoot and pregnant.

Fred M. wrote:The appalling thing is that it was known about by both the Labour-controlled local authority and police and was deliberately covered up “in the interests of social cohesion.”

Likewise, there is political protection for southerners over here, with Republican politicians.  They commit the wildest acts of destruction, assault and murder - including attacking our own seat of government - and then hide behind the Constitution, saying that their criminal acts were only expressions of political views.

Syl wrote:The last few posts force me to agree with Fred and HT...'what a world we live in'.

Even an optimist has to open their eyes and wonder just what the future holds for our kids and grandkids.

Everything is twisted out of shape now. We live in world of moral destitution. When I was a kid it was safe to walk home from school...alone. I was eight or nine when I did that. We never locked our front door. You could leave a bike outside a shop with no padlock on it. Knife crime was unheard of. People didn't go the supermarket in their pyjamas. Young women didn't degrade themselves on our streets. Young men were mostly chivalrous.

We're all told that we must cut back on this or that, buy this or that, otherwise the planet is going to hell in a handcart, and it'll be all our fault if we don't fork out thousands for a new hydrogen boiler or electric car. And all the while, millions of jets crowd our skies and belch out the very thing we're being told to eliminate.

And the lust for tech goes on regardless, nobody will give up their smart phones and TV's...oh dear no. Even though we bury our heads in the sands of denial when confronted with the endless shores of toxic lakes hidden in Mongolia.

And the leftie woke eco idiots screaming at the public and squatting on motorways don't give a thought to the real problems this country faces. We pull down 100 year statues while people live in abject poverty and hovels you wouldn't put a dog in. We put migrants in hotels while ex soldiers live on the streets and kids rely on foodbanks. We shriek with outrage on social media about cultural appropriation while young girls get gang raped by muslims.

It makes me fucking sick.

George Michael got it right when he wrote this...

These are the days of the empty hand
Oh you hold on to what you can
And charity is a coat you wear twice a year

This is the year of the guilty man
Your television takes a stand
And you find that what was over there is over here

So you scream from behind your door
Say "what's mine is mine and not yours"
I may have too much but I'll take my chances
Because God's stopped keeping score!"
And you cling to the things they sold you
Did you cover your eyes when they told you

That He can't come back
Because He has no children to come back for

It's hard to love there's so much to hate
Hanging on to hope when there is no hope to speak of
And the wounded skies above say it's much too late
So maybe we should all be praying for time

HT wrote:We pull down 100 year statues while people live in abject poverty and hovels you wouldn't put a dog in.

And those statutes should never have been erected in the first place. Could'a put the money in decent housing and solved two problems.

Original Quill wrote:

HT wrote:We pull down 100 year statues while people live in abject poverty and hovels you wouldn't put a dog in.

And those statutes should never have been erected in the first place.  Could'a put the money in decent housing and solved two problems.

You're missing the point.  Or, as usual, being deliberately obtuse.  

At the time most of those statues were erected immense reforms were taking place in Victorian England.  So piss off.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And those statutes should never have been erected in the first place.  Could'a put the money in decent housing and solved two problems.

You're missing the point.  Or, as usual, being deliberately obtuse.  

At the time most of those statues were erected immense reforms were taking place in Victorian England.  So piss off.

Fuk off, yourself cunus. If they had the money, whenever, they should of used it for shelter and sustenance.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:The last few posts force me to agree with Fred and HT...'what a world we live in'.

Even an optimist has to open their eyes and wonder just what the future holds for our kids and grandkids.

Everything is twisted out of shape now.   We live in world of moral destitution.  When I was a kid it was safe to walk home from school...alone.   I was eight or nine when I did that.  We never locked our front door.   You could leave a bike outside a shop with no padlock on it.   Knife crime was unheard of.   People didn't go the supermarket in their pyjamas.  Young women didn't degrade themselves on our streets.  Young men were mostly chivalrous.  

We're all told that we must cut back on this or that, buy this or that, otherwise the planet is going to hell in a handcart, and it'll be all our fault if we don't fork out thousands for a new hydrogen boiler or electric car.   And all the while, millions of jets  crowd our skies and belch out the very thing we're being told to eliminate.  

And the lust for tech goes on regardless, nobody will give up their smart phones and TV's...oh dear no.   Even though we bury our heads in the sands of denial when confronted with the endless shores of toxic lakes hidden in Mongolia.

And the leftie woke eco idiots screaming at the public and squatting on motorways don't give a thought to the real problems this country faces.    We pull down 100 year statues while people live in abject poverty and hovels you wouldn't put a dog in.  We put migrants in hotels while ex soldiers live on the streets and kids rely on foodbanks.  We shriek with outrage on social media about cultural appropriation while young girls get gang raped by muslims.  

It makes me fucking sick.

Many people do seem to have their priorities wrong in this modern world.
It started with Thatcher, greed, pc madness, and then the internet, all seem to have changed peoples mindsets.

No... It started with the overthrow of Thatcher for the EU stooge John major and then ramped up under the Tony Blair labour pro EU whore mongers for the next 13 years that really fukked things up!!!



Notice that the vast majority of the bullshit that we are currently being subjected to has never been in any manifesto or voted for...!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:


No... It started with the overthrow of Thatcher for the EU stooge John major and then ramped up under the Tony Blair labour pro EU whore mongers for the next 13 years that really fukked things up!!!



Notice that the vast majority of the bullshit that we are currently being subjected to has never been in any manifesto or voted for...!!!???

Our opinions differ, but mine is that this 'I'm all right Jack' attitude that many of the British people have now started in the Thatcher era.
Greed is good, look out for No 1, sell off everything that moves to the highest bidder, clamp down on the unions.
Societies and communities were broken up, and in her reign the rich certainly did get richer and the poor got poorer in their wake.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

No... It started with the overthrow of Thatcher for the EU stooge John major and then ramped up under the Tony Blair labour pro EU whore mongers for the next 13 years that really fukked things up!!!

Notice that the vast majority of the bullshit that we are currently being subjected to has never been in any manifesto or voted for...!!!???

Our opinions differ, but mine is that this 'I'm all right Jack' attitude that many of the British people have now started in the Thatcher era.

Greed is good, look out for No 1, sell off everything that moves to the highest bidder, clamp down on the unions.

Societies and communities were broken up, and in her reign the rich certainly did get richer and the poor got poorer in their wake.

Very typical RW philosophy, now out in the open. It's the same philosophy in economics that we call capitalism. It's flaw is, it inevitably ends up in monopoly...in the hands of the selfish RWers.

That's what privatization is...sell government assets to private buyers, but when only one or two can afford it in the bulk that government arranged, for purposes of savings...bingo, instant monopoly. It's a way to disassemble the immense gains that Labour had made.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


No... It started with the overthrow of Thatcher for the EU stooge John major and then ramped up under the Tony Blair labour pro EU whore mongers for the next 13 years that really fukked things up!!!



Notice that the vast majority of the bullshit that we are currently being subjected to has never been in any manifesto or voted for...!!!???

Our opinions differ, but mine is that this 'I'm all right Jack' attitude that many of the British people have now started in the Thatcher era.
Greed is good, look out for No 1, sell off everything that moves to the highest bidder, clamp down on the unions.
Societies and communities were broken up, and in her reign the rich certainly did get richer and the poor got poorer in their wake.

Are the poor in the UK worse off now than they were 40 years ago?

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

Our opinions differ, but mine is that this 'I'm all right Jack' attitude that many of the British people have now started in the Thatcher era.
Greed is good, look out for No 1, sell off everything that moves to the highest bidder, clamp down on the unions.
Societies and communities were broken up, and in her reign the rich certainly did get richer and the poor got poorer in their wake.

Are the poor in the UK worse off now than they were 40 years ago?

The UK was able to withstand the assault of the top 1% redistribution of wealth primarily because of the social programs in place, that have acted as an anchor on losses to the middle-class and the poor.  For example, NHS means that a person can withstand severe illness without going into bankruptcy in the UK.  The UK has exercised forethought in that regard.

So, yes, that anchor has slowed down the level of tragedy.  Nevertheless, the assault of the top 1% redistributors of wealth is still going on.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

Our opinions differ, but mine is that this 'I'm all right Jack' attitude that many of the British people have now started in the Thatcher era.
Greed is good, look out for No 1, sell off everything that moves to the highest bidder, clamp down on the unions.
Societies and communities were broken up, and in her reign the rich certainly did get richer and the poor got poorer in their wake.

Are the poor in the UK worse off now than they were 40 years ago?

I'd say no, not financially. But some are no better off with regards to help and housing. These days we have food banks. 40 years ago there was no help and it was tough tit if you ran out of money. I experienced some crushing poverty when I was 18 or so. I had a child, my husband was a feckless waste of space and as a single mother it was very very hard.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


No... It started with the overthrow of Thatcher for the EU stooge John major and then ramped up under the Tony Blair labour pro EU whore mongers for the next 13 years that really fukked things up!!!



Notice that the vast majority of the bullshit that we are currently being subjected to has never been in any manifesto or voted for...!!!???

Our opinions differ, but mine is that this 'I'm all right Jack' attitude that many of the British people have now started in the Thatcher era.
Greed is good, look out for No 1, sell off everything that moves to the highest bidder, clamp down on the unions.
Societies and communities were broken up, and in her reign the rich certainly did get richer and the poor got poorer in their wake.

Her policies enabled my mum the only chance she'd ever have to own her own house. She looked after the police. She saved the Falklands. She did quite a few things that needed a backbone. But she also made some hideous mistakes. But, compared to what we have now, I think we've no chance of ever being "Great" Britain again.

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

You're missing the point.  Or, as usual, being deliberately obtuse.  

At the time most of those statues were erected immense reforms were taking place in Victorian England.  So piss off.

Fuk off, yourself cunus.  If they had the money, whenever, they should of used it for shelter and sustenance.  

Do brush up on your spelling and grammar, then your invective might have more impact.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

Our opinions differ, but mine is that this 'I'm all right Jack' attitude that many of the British people have now started in the Thatcher era.
Greed is good, look out for No 1, sell off everything that moves to the highest bidder, clamp down on the unions.
Societies and communities were broken up, and in her reign the rich certainly did get richer and the poor got poorer in their wake.

Are the poor in the UK worse off now than they were 40 years ago?

Poverty is viewed differently today.
There is definitely more help for people, but when a footballer has to campaign for kids to be fed in the school holidays, and when more food banks are needed all the time to supply hungry people with something to eat, it doesn't seem that much better.

Also, 40 years ago, Thatcher was persuading everyone to get on the property ladder, interest rates were soaring sky high, and thousands signed up for a mortgage only to sell with negative equity a year or two down the line.
We bought our first house back then on a new estate....the 'For Sale' signs that were goung up every week were unbelievable.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

Our opinions differ, but mine is that this 'I'm all right Jack' attitude that many of the British people have now started in the Thatcher era.
Greed is good, look out for No 1, sell off everything that moves to the highest bidder, clamp down on the unions.
Societies and communities were broken up, and in her reign the rich certainly did get richer and the poor got poorer in their wake.

Her policies enabled my mum the only chance she'd ever have to own her own house.  She looked after the police.  She saved the Falklands.  She did quite a few things that needed a backbone.  But she also made some hideous mistakes.  But, compared to what we have now, I think we've no chance of ever being "Great" Britain again.

Thatcher sold off council houses, giving people who lived in them a great and cheap opportunity to buy. The problem was she didn't replace them, so people had to rent off dodgy landlords.
At least there are laws now that protect tenants, not so much back then.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Are the poor in the UK worse off now than they were 40 years ago?

Poverty is viewed differently today.
There is definitely more help for people, but when a footballer has to campaign for kids to be fed in the school holidays, and when more food banks are needed all the time to supply hungry people with something to eat,   it doesn't seem that much better.

Also, 40 years ago, Thatcher was persuading everyone to get on the property ladder, interest rates were soaring sky high, and thousands signed up for a mortgage only to sell with negative equity a year or two down the line.
We bought our first house back then on a new estate....the 'For Sale' signs that were goung up every week were unbelievable.

Yes it is. Poverty today includes multiple TVs, a lap top, a cell phone and some fairly decent clothes in a paid for apartment.


At least in Western countries.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Fuk off, yourself cunus.  If they had the money, whenever, they should of used it for shelter and sustenance.  

Do brush up on your spelling and grammar, then your invective might have more impact.  

I like my spelling.  It's Scottish...being either 'fook' or 'fuk', utilizing the long vowel, /ou/.  Very popular in eastern Canada.

Do brush up on your Latin.   'Cunus' or 'cunnus', is Latin, the French vernacular of which had slipped into English sometime during the Court of Kathrine of France (Valois), wife of your beloved Henry V.  Those Lancastrians must have been a nasty lot; Kate loved poetry (and ballads) glorifying her cunus.  

I was poor growing up, many people were, now I am not, and I dont see poverty because I am not amongst it now.
Does that mean that sort of poverty doesn't exist anymore?

I think if someone is living in a damp, mouldy house, needs to use food banks, has to claim benefits to get by...that's poverty.

Home Secretary Priti Patel visits Dover as boats carrying asylum seekers continue to cross the English Channel


https://www.kentonline.co.uk/dover/news/home-secretary-meets-with-border-force-254086/




Until we start to imprison these illegal immigrants and return them to where they came from, they will just keep on coming and costing us a fortune, raping the women here, and plotting terrorist attacks here.


We must change the law to enable us to drop them back to where they came from.

Tommy Monk wrote:Home Secretary Priti Patel visits Dover as boats carrying asylum seekers continue to cross the English Channel

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/dover/news/home-secretary-meets-with-border-force-254086/

Until we start to imprison these illegal immigrants and return them to where they came from, they will just keep on coming and costing us a fortune, raping the women here, and plotting terrorist attacks here.

We must change the law to enable us to drop them back to where they came from.

Which do you want: imprison them or return them?  Either way, it will be more expensive than giving them a flat and a few meals until England can determine their status lawfully.

The Border Force is trying to avoid that question by keeping them from landing.  Unfortunately, in the eyes of the majority of the world, that puts the Border Force in charge of their safety - or at least, not to cause harm to them.  The Border Force have boats and guns, the people are vulnerables and children, and that kind of defines the situation right there.

Imprison them until their status can be decided and then removed asap if asylum application declined.


Many of those given places to stay just disappear into the wider population here.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Imprison them until their status can be decided and then removed asap if asylum application declined.

Many of those given places to stay just disappear into the wider population here.

Prisons require security measures, and labor costs for many prison guards and administration. Expensive! And, usually it requires a specified release date for those not accused of a collateral crime.

The EU allows them to roam across the continent unchallenged and this enables them to get on boats across the English channel to our shores... So they should at least be returned immediately to the EU without allowing any claims here.



Funnily enough... Michel Barnier who was the EU anti Brexit negotiator has changed his time somewhat in recent months...


https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/world-news/954098/michel-barnier-profile-europhile-brexit-negotiator-eurosceptic-french-presidency-candidate


https://inews.co.uk/opinion/michel-barnier-u-turn-french-sovereignty-brexit-twist-1197242

Tommy Monk wrote:The EU allows them to roam across the continent unchallenged and this enables them to get on boats across the English channel to our shores... So they should at least be returned immediately to the EU without allowing any claims here.

But, once on English soil, or in English custody, those people are subject to English laws and rights.  (That's one of the reasons why US suspected-terrorist prisoners are kept in Guantanamo Bay, off-shore, out-of-reach of the courts.)

Once in the hands of the Border Force, they are entitled to a release date pending their hearing.  So, what's the difference?  The only way you can do it, is to force their boats to turn back before reaching English soil.

That's sometimes tricky on open seas.  Any tragedies will be blamed on the Border Force.  I know you don't care, but more people than just you do care.  It could be diplomatically inconvenient for Britain on the world stage.

For example, when the UK goes on the offensive against N. Korea for its civil rights abuses, or against Afghanistan for its denial of the rights of women...the retort will be: Ho-hum.  Don't you do the same?  What about the 10 babies you drowned, when you forced that boat to capsize?

Then pick them up and drop them off straight back to the French beaches that they came from...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Then pick them up and drop them off straight back to the French beaches that they came from...

In this country, once you pick them up they are in custody.  That entitles them to due process of law, which means opportunity to post bail, be released and go about the community...awaiting their ultimate hearing of determination.

You're not going to undo tried-n-true rules, evolved over centuries of experience, just because of a few immigrants, are you?

I think as soon as any police force takes action against a person or group -- including turning them away by threat of force -- those people should enjoy the rights of everyone else policed by that force. Any other way of doing things would be extremely unethical.

Ben Reilly wrote:I think as soon as any police force takes action against a person or group -- including turning them away by threat of force -- those people should enjoy the rights of everyone else policed by that force. Any other way of doing things would be extremely unethical.

Wouldn't the roll of the "Border" force be to defend the border?

I think their roll is to sort out, who can legally be there or not.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I think as soon as any police force takes action against a person or group -- including turning them away by threat of force -- those people should enjoy the rights of everyone else policed by that force. Any other way of doing things would be extremely unethical.

Wouldn't the roll of the "Border" force be to defend the border?

I think their roll is to sort out, who can legally be there or not.

The role (not roll) of the Border Patrol in this country remains unchanged: to detect and prevent the illegal entry of individuals into the United States. Together with other law enforcement officers, the Border Patrol helps maintain borders that work - facilitating the flow of legal immigration and goods while preventing the illegal trafficking of people and contraband.

The problem, as tom points out, is that the in-flow is so great that modern techniques are stretched to their limits.  Normal justice procedures - capture, incarceration, bail hearing, release, final hearing and disposition - can take 3 - 5 years.  Meanwhile, the immigrants go on about living comfortable lives in the US, sometimes relying of the social safety nets provided.

However, due process requires it.

Then we need to change the law here in UK so that we can drop them back to the French beaches that they come from...

Tommy Monk wrote:Then we need to change the law here in UK so that we can drop them back to the French beaches that they come from...

Are you sure you want such a 'quick-fix', when it has taken centuries of trial, and loads of error, to get to where we are.  Some of the paths you would take have been tried, and led to disappointments.

Remember what George Santayana said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"