5 years hard labour ?

[Haliotis]

Immigrants claiming asylum under international law is all very well - when the claims are honest and justifiable.  But we all know that the present influx is gangland-driven for profit, and the illegals themselves are taking advantage of what is now a broken system.

For the sake of the country’s security, the fabric of society and the economy, the government needs to cut across the pious red tape and summarily bundle these people back to where they came from.

For myself, my humanitarian considerations are for the population that rightfully resides here in the UK - not for the welfare of opportunists who pay criminal gangs to help them get into the UK illegally and under false pretences.

[Bper]

19 hours ago, Haliotis said:

Immigrants claiming asylum under international law is all very well - when the claims are honest and justifiable.  But we all know that the present influx is gangland-driven for profit, and the illegals themselves are taking advantage of what is now a broken system.

For the sake of the country’s security, the fabric of society and the economy, the government needs to cut across the pious red tape and summarily bundle these people back to where they came from.

For myself, my humanitarian considerations are for the population that rightfully resides here in the UK - not for the welfare of opportunists who pay criminal gangs to help them get into the UK illegally and under false pretences.

Many of us have serious concerns about the level of migration and its impact on the UK's security and resources. The issue of gang-driven migration and potentially fraudulent claims is at the heart of this problem. Balancing our security with humanitarian responsibilities is a significant problem. We need to identify genuine asylum seekers and address illegal activities without compromising the UK's commitments under international law. Before Brexit, we were told that we would be able to take back control of our borders, manage migration levels, and stop the boats. However, this hasn't happened, and we need to ask why. It's been suggested that over 50% of MPs in the House of Commons are anti-Brexiteers. If that's the case, it might explain why there has been no real progress in stopping illegal migration.All available legal resources seem to be used by those who oppose efforts to curb illegal migration. While everyone recognises that genuine asylum seekers have the right to claim asylum, economic migrants and those driven by gangs to carry out illegal activities do not.Despite assurances from MPs and Prime Ministers about tackling the problem promising to stop the boats, smash the gangs, and implement the scrapped Rwanda plan nothing has changed.Why hasn't it?

[Haliotis]

“All available legal resources seem to be used by those who oppose efforts to curb illegal migration.”

These people are enemies of the state.  They are also NOT elected representatives of the general public.  The elected representatives are the government, and they should be in a position to block the anti-social (money-making lawyers?) from their activities.  I cannot see any reason why the government are able to do this.  The legal system is not there for the purpose of frustrating the government in its duty towards UK citizens.

The riots and demonstrations now happening, even though some of the “protesters” are opportunist troublemakers using the demonstrations to pursue their own brand of violence and looting, will not be quashed until the government are clearly seen to have illegal migration firmly under control. In this respect, the government must be given a clear mandate to carry out any actions necessary - even to the point of being Draconian in the eyes of some people - to stamp out the illegal trafficking.

[Benzowner]

5 hours ago, Haliotis said:

“All available legal resources seem to be used by those who oppose efforts to curb illegal migration.”

  I cannot see any reason why the government are able to do this.  The legal system is not there for the purpose of frustrating the government in its duty towards UK citizens.

It's called the ECHR and there are quite a few people who believe we should leave this, but alas no. I am convinced the current regime wish us to rejoin the EU and there for have opposed leaving at every time anyone has broached the subject

[Cyker]

It's nothing to do with being anti-Brexit and I can't believe people are STILL trying to blame it on some sort of anti-Brexit cabal even when we've already left! Open your eyes, none of the things you were told would happen, have happened, because you were lied to to trick you into voting for Brexit, it's done, get over it.

This is one of the things we were saying all along that all the fanatical Brexit pushers glossed over: All Brexit could possibly do is stop LEGAL immigration from THE EU.

It could never have done anything about ILLEGAL immigration despite all the claims (Which they will have no doubt retracted "Oooh I never said or meant that and it is your fault for interpreting what I said that way, not mine!"), esp. since a lot of that was from non-european countries anyway, but as with all the other 'promises' that was the lie/half-truth that a lot of the people who voted for it swallowed, and if anything it just made preventing illegal immigration harder because we no longer have a common legal framework with France and the EU to work with and have to build it up all over again from scratch.

TBH the only way you'd even be able to make a dent in illegal immigration is to fund law enforcement at the source and/or get some sort of cross-country agreement going so a task force with enough cross-country jurisdiction can be created to take down all the gangs trafficking these people in the first place, or even just help make those source countries less awful so the people don't feel so hard pressed to come here in the first place, but the irony is the people who don't want illegal immigration also don't want us sending funds overseas to other countries and it feels like they just complain but shoot down any attempt to do anything about it.

At the end of the day, most of the ones trying to come over are doing so because where they're coming from is pretty much hell - If we could fix that, that'd go a long way to fixing this.

[Bper]

6 hours ago, Haliotis said:

“All available legal resources seem to be used by those who oppose efforts to curb illegal migration.”

These people are enemies of the state.  They are also NOT elected representatives of the general public.  The elected representatives are the government, and they should be in a position to block the anti-social (money-making lawyers?) from their activities.  I cannot see any reason why the government are able to do this.  The legal system is not there for the purpose of frustrating the government in its duty towards UK citizens.

The riots and demonstrations now happening, even though some of the “protesters” are opportunist troublemakers using the demonstrations to pursue their own brand of violence and looting, will not be quashed until the government are clearly seen to have illegal migration firmly under control. In this respect, the government must be given a clear mandate to carry out any actions necessary - even to the point of being Draconian in the eyes of some people - to stamp out the illegal trafficking.

It’s true that those opposing stricter migration policies aren’t elected representatives, but they operate within the framework of existing laws. If the government, despite its mandate from recent elections, isn’t taking effective steps to curb illegal migration, it calls their commitment into question. While the government has the power to change laws and implement measures, this requires both political will and overcoming various challenges and differing opinions.Keir Starmer’s focus on targeting gangs in France is another complex issue. France has struggled with migration for years and, despite receiving significant financial support from the UK, their actions suggest a lack of real intent to stop migrants from leaving their shores.Addressing illegal migration effectively will require broader EU cooperation. In the end, a successful approach needs strong national policies combined with international collaboration to manage the complex social and economic impacts.

[Flatcoat]

8 hours ago, Bper said:

Many of us have serious concerns about the level of migration and its impact on the UK's security and resources. The issue of gang-driven migration and potentially fraudulent claims is at the heart of this problem. Balancing our security with humanitarian responsibilities is a significant problem. We need to identify genuine asylum seekers and address illegal activities without compromising the UK's commitments under international law. Before Brexit, we were told that we would be able to take back control of our borders, manage migration levels, and stop the boats. However, this hasn't happened, and we need to ask why. It's been suggested that over 50% of MPs in the House of Commons are anti-Brexiteers. If that's the case, it might explain why there has been no real progress in stopping illegal migration.All available legal resources seem to be used by those who oppose efforts to curb illegal migration. While everyone recognises that genuine asylum seekers have the right to claim asylum, economic migrants and those driven by gangs to carry out illegal activities do not.Despite assurances from MPs and Prime Ministers about tackling the problem promising to stop the boats, smash the gangs, and implement the scrapped Rwanda plan nothing has changed.Why hasn't it?

It isn’t just remainer MP’s. It's the 80% of civil servants who are anti Brexit and frustrate politicians at every turn, including with trying to address illegal immigration. This is why eventually people will turn against the unelected elite, too clever by half lawyers (in particular Starmer and the odious former speaker) and technocrats that continually try to force their will on the country in the face of democratic will of voters. Brexit should have been a wake up call to be a bit more humble and remember who pays their wages, but in their condescending sneering disparaging calling of Brexiteers as ‘thick’, they will end up with much, much worse. Reform and the current thug driven riots are just the start. This is not remotely support for the riots, the organisers of which have hijacked an utterly tragic crime for their ends. The rumours behind the riots come from a Russian fake news outlet masquerading as a US online news channel. Our enemies are out to cause trouble in whatever way they can but on this occasion have tapped into years of simmering anger by ‘working people’ who believe their views are ignored on Brexit, economy, immigration legal or otherwise and nut zero. I hope Starmer is aware of McMillans phrase ‘events dear boy, events’, or Harold Wilson’s ‘a week is a long time in politics. Or in my words, be careful what you wish for…… 

[Bper]

16 minutes ago, Flatcoat said:

It isn’t just remainer MP’s. It's the 80% of civil servants who are anti Brexit and frustrate politicians at every turn, including with trying to address illegal immigration. This is why eventually people will turn against the unelected elite, too clever by half lawyers (in particular Starmer and the odious former speaker) and technocrats that continually try to force their will on the country in the face of democratic will of voters. Brexit should have been a wake up call to be a bit more humble and remember who pays their wages, but in their condescending sneering disparaging calling of Brexiteers as ‘thick’, they will end up with much, much worse. Reform and the current thug driven riots are just the start. This is not remotely support for the riots, the organisers of which have hijacked an utterly tragic crime for their ends. The rumours behind the riots come from a Russian fake news outlet masquerading as a US online news channel. Our enemies are out to cause trouble in whatever way they can but on this occasion have tapped into years of simmering anger by ‘working people’ who believe their views are ignored on Brexit, economy, immigration legal or otherwise and nut zero. I hope Starmer is aware of McMillans phrase ‘events dear boy, events’, or Harold Wilson’s ‘a week is a long time in politics. Or in my words, be careful what you wish for…… 

 

1 hour ago, Cyker said:

It's nothing to do with being anti-Brexit and I can't believe people are STILL trying to blame it on some sort of anti-Brexit cabal even when we've already left! Open your eyes, none of the things you were told would happen, have happened, because you were lied to to trick you into voting for Brexit, it's done, get over it.

This is one of the things we were saying all along that all the fanatical Brexit pushers glossed over: All Brexit could possibly do is stop LEGAL immigration from THE EU.

It could never have done anything about ILLEGAL immigration despite all the claims (Which they will have no doubt retracted "Oooh I never said or meant that and it is your fault for interpreting what I said that way, not mine!"), esp. since a lot of that was from non-european countries anyway, but as with all the other 'promises' that was the lie/half-truth that a lot of the people who voted for it swallowed, and if anything it just made preventing illegal immigration harder because we no longer have a common legal framework with France and the EU to work with and have to build it up all over again from scratch.

TBH the only way you'd even be able to make a dent in illegal immigration is to fund law enforcement at the source and/or get some sort of cross-country agreement going so a task force with enough cross-country jurisdiction can be created to take down all the gangs trafficking these people in the first place, or even just help make those source countries less awful so the people don't feel so hard pressed to come here in the first place, but the irony is the people who don't want illegal immigration also don't want us sending funds overseas to other countries and it feels like they just complain but shoot down any attempt to do anything about it.

At the end of the day, most of the ones trying to come over are doing so because where they're coming from is pretty much hell - If we could fix that, that'd go a long way to fixing this.

It’s clear that Brexit has created a lot of unexpected issues. It’s important to acknowledge that Brexit mainly impacted legal immigration from the EU, not illegal immigration. The promises made during the campaign didn't fully address this, and now we see that tackling illegal immigration requires different solutions.The government needs to work on practical ways to handle this and have the will to do so. Cooperating more with other countries to fight trafficking gangs and improving conditions in the countries where many migrants come from. This could help reduce the number of people feeling forced to leave their homes in the first place. However, investing in international aid is obviously controversial, but it’s something we need to be willing to do if we want real change. Rather than focusing on the Brexit debate, we should look at comprehensive solutions involving international cooperation, better law enforcement, and addressing the root causes of migration.

[Flatcoat]

Reading about international stock market melt downs this morning, Middle East geo politics and homegrown riots. Welcome to government Sir Kneeler….. let’s see how YOU deal with these issues given all your criticism of the previous occupants of no10? 

[Bper]

22 minutes ago, Flatcoat said:

Reading about international stock market melt downs this morning, Middle East geo politics and homegrown riots. Welcome to government Sir Kneeler….. let’s see how YOU deal with these issues given all your criticism of the previous occupants of no10? 

Well he wanted the job and look how its going so far. It’s obvious that leading through such tough times isn’t easy, especially with issues like market instability, Middle East tensions, and domestic unrest. Given the gravity of these challenges, it’s worth questioning how well he is managing things.Political ineptitude over the years has definitely played a part in getting us to this point. While talk is cheap, real change usually comes from taking concrete actions.

IMO if they don't get to grips with these problems quickly this rioting can easily spread and that's a situation that nobody wants. Keir Starmer's next few weeks and the way he handles things may well mark his future as both Prime Minister and leader of his party.

[Haliotis]

“We should look at comprehensive solutions involving international cooperation, better law enforcement, and addressing the root causes of migration.”

One has only to look at the differences in opinion within our own society and the conflict raging in the middle and far east, to see that any form of cooperative plan would never get a start.  We cannot even agree a viable plan to deal with  the problem within our own country boundaries, so to get other countries to assist us in resolving our own problems, which might adversely affect their position, is a clear indication that we in the UK must resolve the problem ourselves.

And the only way to achieve this is to drill it into would-be migrants heads that the Uk is not a pleasant place to try and sneak into.  Which means POW-type compounds, minimal spending on supporting them, no freedom to roam outside such compounds, and certainly no legal system to help delay their departure.

Since we cannot make other countries be willing to take them, the only way to get rid of them is to make them only too ready to get the hell out.

The current mollycoddling practice only serves to encourage more to come.  The British Bulldog needs to get its bite back.

[Flatcoat]

15 hours ago, Bper said:

 

It’s clear that Brexit has created a lot of unexpected issues. It’s important to acknowledge that Brexit mainly impacted legal immigration from the EU, not illegal immigration. The promises made during the campaign didn't fully address this, and now we see that tackling illegal immigration requires different solutions.The government needs to work on practical ways to handle this and have the will to do so. Cooperating more with other countries to fight trafficking gangs and improving conditions in the countries where many migrants come from. This could help reduce the number of people feeling forced to leave their homes in the first place. However, investing in international aid is obviously controversial, but it’s something we need to be willing to do if we want real change. Rather than focusing on the Brexit debate, we should look at comprehensive solutions involving international cooperation, better law enforcement, and addressing the root causes of migration.

More hot air conferences by the elite fiddling while Rome burns. That will solve it all! Let’s sit down with the Taliban in Afghanistan, president of Syria, war lords and Iranian leaders over a vegan cup of tea to discuss Yemen, yeah, that’s going to work…… People who flee war and horrific persecution are desperate for safe haven. People like the beekeeper of Aleppo (a wonderful man who I met just last week) who are coming here to escape certain death but trying to better their lives when they arrive. The gangs bringing in illegals from Eastern Europe or broadly stable if impoverished countries in Africa or elsewhere are a front for Russian and other efforts to destabilise the west and UK. All this let’s sit down and hold hands and say soothing words while doing absolutely FA about the source has our enemies rolling with laughter. Sending money to those countries is simply peeing it away but it makes the liberals feel good about themselves because they have avoided hard uncomfortable decisions. 

[Flatcoat]

24 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

“We should look at comprehensive solutions involving international cooperation, better law enforcement, and addressing the root causes of migration.”

One has only to look at the differences in opinion within our own society and the conflict raging in the middle and far east, to see that any form of cooperative plan would never get a start.  We cannot even agree a viable plan to deal with  the problem within our own country boundaries, so to get other countries to assist us in resolving our own problems, which might adversely affect their position, is a clear indication that we in the UK must resolve the problem ourselves.

And the only way to achieve this is to drill it into would-be migrants heads that the Uk is not a pleasant place to try and sneak into.  Which means POW-type compounds, minimal spending on supporting them, no freedom to roam outside such compounds, and certainly no legal system to help delay their departure.

Since we cannot make other countries be willing to take them, the only way to get rid of them is to make them only too ready to get the hell out.

The current mollycoddling practice only serves to encourage more to come.  The British Bulldog needs to get its bite back.

Unfortunately it is probably the eventual likely outcome. 

[Bper]

1 hour ago, Flatcoat said:

More hot air conferences by the elite fiddling while Rome burns. That will solve it all! Let’s sit down with the Taliban in Afghanistan, president of Syria, war lords and Iranian leaders over a vegan cup of tea to discuss Yemen, yeah, that’s going to work…… People who flee war and horrific persecution are desperate for safe haven. People like the beekeeper of Aleppo (a wonderful man who I met just last week) who are coming here to escape certain death but trying to better their lives when they arrive. The gangs bringing in illegals from Eastern Europe or broadly stable if impoverished countries in Africa or elsewhere are a front for Russian and other efforts to destabilise the west and UK. All this let’s sit down and hold hands and say soothing words while doing absolutely FA about the source has our enemies rolling with laughter. Sending money to those countries is simply peeing it away but it makes the liberals feel good about themselves because they have avoided hard uncomfortable decisions. 

People who flee certain death and arrive here seeking to improve their lives are welcome, as they actively contribute to the country. However, those coming here with criminal intent or solely to exploit the benefits offered are not.The immigration crisis extends beyond Europe, with ongoing instability in various regions, marked by decades of war and corruption, forcing people to seek safe havens.

Russia's role in destabilising the West is a reality.When the government claims financial constraints but announces £117 million in protective security funding for UK Muslims over the next four years, including an additional £29.4 million, it creates a sense of unfairness. This feeling is exacerbated when pensioners are told the winter fuel bill will be scrapped, and the cost of housing migrants in hotels is £8 million a day. Many view these decisions as unjust.Leaving the ECHR is unlikely to happen, and attempts to dismantle smuggling gangs in France, as announced by Keir Starmer, are likely to have limited impact on illegal migration. International cooperation and financial aid are contentious, often seeming ineffective despite substantial investment. If the issues driving instability are not resolved soon, the situation will continue to worsen.

[Flatcoat]

^^^^^^^ Agree completely. There is too much political naivety with regard to our enemies. The axis of Russia, Iran, China, North Korea. They dont think like us but our politicians and most of the foreign office beleive they are all sincere, honest and desperate to adopt western democracy and ethics. 

[Bper]

2 hours ago, Flatcoat said:

^^^^^^^ Agree completely. There is too much political naivety with regard to our enemies. The axis of Russia, Iran, China, North Korea. They dont think like us but our politicians and most of the foreign office beleive they are all sincere, honest and desperate to adopt western democracy and ethics. 

For too many years, it has become apparent that the UK government's main ambition is to maintain its image on the world stage rather than addressing domestic concerns. It often seems they are embarrassed by our history and culture, seeking to amend the past by appeasing minority groups. In my opinion, Russia and China have no intention of adopting Western ways. They are probably laughing at how we allow this to happen, and anything they can do to push it along further, they are all too happy to oblige.

China has become the world marketplace for many Western countries, and I doubt they want to jeopardise this trade and the colossal financial benefits it brings.The UK ranks around 5th to 7th in terms of wealth, but to people living here, whose living and housing standards are so poor, it feels more like a third-world country.Roads, healthcare, police, crime, migration, and anti-social behavior, to name a few issues, have all been brought about by political mismanagement over many years. These need to be addressed as government priorities.

[Haliotis]

The recent violence is a warning of how far the troublemakers are prepared to go.  When I was a young man, even a gang of youths would not dare to challenge a lone police officer - that’s where we should be now.

[Mjolinor]

2 hours ago, Haliotis said:

The recent violence is a warning of how far the troublemakers are prepared to go.  When I was a young man, even a gang of youths would not dare to challenge a lone police officer - that’s where we should be now.

In order to get there they need to re-introduce the entry requirements we used to have when the police had morals, did not steal or lie and could be trusted.

 

[Big_D]

Perhaps they should also re-introduce the good old 'clip alongside the earhole'. It seems that nowadays you can only give someone a stern talking to, as long as it doesn't affect their human rights and they aren't little snowflakes who may take offence at being told off.

As for asylum seekers, why do they need to pass through a number of other countries before they can claim asylum. Surely they should be able to claim asylum at the first safe country they come to? Why is this usually the UK??

RANT OVER

[FROSTYBALLS]

OK please get back to the topic subject - 5 years hard labour - rather than general rants about immigration, police, etc, etc, etc.

[Haliotis]

Yesterday I was watching the Jacob Rees Mogg programme on GBNews.  At one point it was stated that the new Labour government has scrapped plans that, had the Conservatives been returned to office, they [the Conservatives] were going to kill off the jobs of 66,000 civil servants.   There must be an army of civil servants breathing a sigh of relief at that news!

[Bper]

32 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

Yesterday I was watching the Jacob Rees Mogg programme on GBNews.  At one point it was stated that the new Labour government has scrapped plans that, had the Conservatives been returned to office, they [the Conservatives] were going to kill off the jobs of 66,000 civil servants.   There must be an army of civil servants breathing a sigh of relief at that news!

Hi Albert,not sure how that would have worked, there has been a general concern about staffing shortages in various parts of the public sector, including the civil service for a long time. Perhaps they could look at transferring many of these to departments that are critical amd running behind. Once finished send them to other departments to do the same. They would then come away with the experience and knowledge to do the same in multiple departments. In effect a task force.

[FROSTYBALLS]

What was announced was a likely freeze on recruitment -

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/02/jeremy-hunt-war-immoral-whitehall-waste-budget-tax-cuts/

Labour have dropped the initiative -

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/04/labour-drops-tory-plans-to-cut-civil-service-numbers/

[Haliotis]

1 hour ago, Bper said:

Hi Albert,not sure how that would have worked, there has been a general concern about staffing shortages in various parts of the public sector, including the civil service for a long time. Perhaps they could look at transferring many of these to departments that are critical amd running behind. Once finished send them to other departments to do the same. They would then come away with the experience and knowledge to do the same in multiple departments. In effect a task force.

I’m not sure either, Bob.  When one refers to “civil servants” it seems to me that they can be anything from local council employees to people who work in top jobs in Whitheall.  I suppose these must also include secretaries who work for Members of Parliament?  If the planned cuts were at parliamentary level, could they lose 66,000 without making the system unworkable? Mind you, a party can plan anything when they are pretty sure that they will not be returned to power!

[Bper]

8 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

I’m not sure either, Bob.  When one refers to “civil servants” it seems to me that they can be anything from local council employees to people who work in top jobs in Whitheall.  I suppose these must also include secretaries who work for Members of Parliament?  If the planned cuts were at parliamentary level, could they lose 66,000 without making the system unworkable? Mind you, a party can plan anything when they are pretty sure that they will not be returned to power!

Civil servants covers a wide range of roles, from local council workers to senior Whitheall officials. It doesn't usually include secretaries working directly for MPs, though. If those job cuts had gone ahead at the parliamentary level, losing 66,000 positions could have seriously disrupted the system. Then again, parties sometimes propose these big plans knowing they might not be in power to implement them.😃