Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Stop the boats



Seagull58

In the Algarve
Jan 31, 2012
8,096
Vilamoura, Portugal
Because their intention is to claim asylum in the UK which is not a crime. How pray tell do you do that without travelling to Northern France? I repeat, If they are committing a crime why aren't they arrested, charged and deported? A very simple question and a very easy answer. I guess your biggotry clouds your judgement. You posted quite often on this thread and, irrespective of the circumstances, not once shown the slightest compassion of 6 people dying.
As I said on several occasions they could claim asylum in the first country they enter without permission, which legalises their status. Then, once they are legal immigrants they can apply for immigration visas to the country they want to ultimately migrate to, e.g. the UK.
Regarding mycompassion for people dying, one of my first posts on this thread, and several after, pointed out that it would be safer for them to claim asylum in Southern Europe and then go through the official migration process ( as I did when I moved to South Africa and again when I moved to Portugal) rather than risking their lives in small boats crossing the channel.
You and a couple of other posters on this thread are determined to attribute nasty underlying motives to my posts, and to throw insults because I have suggested alternatives to travelling illegally (because they don't the necessary paperwork) through multiple countries without claiming asylum and then risking their lives trying to cross the channel to claim asylum in the UK.
I am not a moron and I would think neither are you and your "friends" who have ganged up to attack me on here.
 




kojak

Well-known member
Jan 17, 2022
776
We are always being told on here how great the EU is and especially France
And how shit Britain is
You'd think the boats would be going in the other direction
 


BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
17,894
As I said on several occasions they could claim asylum in the first country they enter without permission, which legalises their status. Then, once they are legal immigrants they can apply for immigration visas to the country they want to ultimately migrate to, e.g. the UK.
Regarding mycompassion for people dying, one of my first posts on this thread, and several after, pointed out that it would be safer for them to claim asylum in Southern Europe and then go through the official migration process ( as I did when I moved to South Africa and again when I moved to Portugal) rather than risking their lives in small boats crossing the channel.
You and a couple of other posters on this thread are determined to attribute nasty underlying motives to my posts, and to throw insults because I have suggested alternatives to travelling illegally (because they don't the necessary paperwork) through multiple countries without claiming asylum and then risking their lives trying to cross the channel to claim asylum in the UK.
I am not a moron and I would think neither are you and your "friends" who have ganged up to attack me on here.
The law states that it works differently to this. They 'could' do it in many different ways. The international community have decided that this is the best way to do.

Personally I agree with the international community and am thankful they haven't chosen your method because it would mean that certain countries would be taking and processing an even higher % of asylum seekers than they already do.

This has been explained to you a number of times but you choose to ignore it. Because of this many posters have assumed you are a moron or a troll. It is all pretty simple to understand.

Your own logic suggests that you should have moved to France.
 


Seagull58

In the Algarve
Jan 31, 2012
8,096
Vilamoura, Portugal
The law states that it works differently to this. They 'could' do it in many different ways. The international community have decided that this is the best way to do.

Personally I agree with the international community and am thankful they haven't chosen your method because it would mean that certain countries would be taking and processing an even higher % of asylum seekers than they already do.

This has been explained to you a number of times but you choose to ignore it. Because of this many posters have assumed you are a moron or a troll. It is all pretty simple to understand.

Your own logic suggests that you should have moved to France.
My logic refers to asylum seekers, not economic migrants. I've explained this several times. They are different situations but you refuse to acknowledge it, even though you are also an economic migrant and must surely understand the difference.
 


BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
17,894
My logic refers to asylum seekers, not economic migrants. I've explained this several times. They are different situations but you refuse to acknowledge it, even though you are also an economic migrant and must surely understand the difference.
There are many reasons that people choose to go to different countries (as has been explained to you many time). Just as you made your decision based on more than just proximity, so did I, so do all immigrants.

Anyway you have said what you think many times. International law says different and with good reason.

Probably best to leave it there.
 




Seagull58

In the Algarve
Jan 31, 2012
8,096
Vilamoura, Portugal
There are many reasons that people choose to go to different countries (as has been explained to you many time). Just as you made your decision based on more than just proximity, so did I, so do all immigrants.

Anyway you have said what you think many times. International law says different and with good reason.

Probably best to leave it there.
OK, we will leave it there, with tens of thousands of migrants travelling undocumented (illegally) across Europe and risking their lives in small boats with hundreds of deaths as a consequence.
 


BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
17,894
OK, we will leave it there, with tens of thousands of migrants travelling undocumented (illegally) across Europe and risking their lives in small boats with hundreds of deaths as a consequence.
If you still vote in the UK you can help change the situation by voting for a party that will increase the speed of processing and open up some safer methods of claiming asylum in the UK.

Your preferred method of doing this suggests voting for a party that will significantly increase the numbers of asylum seekers taken from the refugee camps in countries close to the areas people are fleeing.
 


Seagull58

In the Algarve
Jan 31, 2012
8,096
Vilamoura, Portugal
If you still vote in the UK you can help change the situation by voting for a party that will increase the speed of processing and open up some safer methods of claiming asylum in the UK.

Your preferred method of doing this suggests voting for a party that will significantly increase the numbers of asylum seekers taken from the refugee camps in countries close to the areas people are fleeing.
I don't vote in the UK but I'm certainly not against what you suggest, despite what my cyberbullies think.
 




Randy McNob

Now go home and get your f#cking Shinebox
Jun 13, 2020
4,653
OK, we will leave it there, with tens of thousands of migrants travelling undocumented (illegally) across Europe and risking their lives in small boats with hundreds of deaths as a consequence.
So you agree the Tories have no intention of stopping the boats, they pretend they are tough on immigration but realy they want this to happen and use the deaths of human beings to win votes.

Instead of stop the boats, stop the tories murdering people
 


Seagull58

In the Algarve
Jan 31, 2012
8,096
Vilamoura, Portugal
So you agree the Tories have no intention of stopping the boats, they pretend they are tough on immigration but realy they want this to happen and use the deaths of human beings to win votes.

Instead of stop the boats, stop the tories murdering people
I honestly don't know about their intentions. As I have said now in several posts, if the asylum seekers claimed asylum and had their claims processed in another country, such as Montenegro, Greece, Italy, France or Spain, and obtained residence papers in that country, they could apply to migrate to the UK through the official immigration process rather than by risking their lives crossing the channel to seek asylum. I understand that international law doesn't say they MUST do that, I'm saying that it is a safer process that avoids hundreds of drowning deaths. Net migration to the UK is 600,000 p.a. so there is demonstrably a working official immigration process.
 


sydney

tinky ****in winky
Jul 11, 2003
17,944
town full of eejits
As I said on several occasions they could claim asylum in the first country they enter without permission, which legalises their status. Then, once they are legal immigrants they can apply for immigration visas to the country they want to ultimately migrate to, e.g. the UK.
Regarding mycompassion for people dying, one of my first posts on this thread, and several after, pointed out that it would be safer for them to claim asylum in Southern Europe and then go through the official migration process ( as I did when I moved to South Africa and again when I moved to Portugal) rather than risking their lives in small boats crossing the channel.
You and a couple of other posters on this thread are determined to attribute nasty underlying motives to my posts, and to throw insults because I have suggested alternatives to travelling illegally (because they don't the necessary paperwork) through multiple countries without claiming asylum and then risking their lives trying to cross the channel to claim asylum in the UK.
I am not a moron and I would think neither are you and your "friends" who have ganged up to attack me on here.
oh they love it mate ....never mind , wait till it hits sussex.
 




sydney

tinky ****in winky
Jul 11, 2003
17,944
town full of eejits
I honestly don't know about their intentions. As I have said now in several posts, if the asylum seekers claimed asylum and had their claims processed in another country, such as Montenegro, Greece, Italy, France or Spain, and obtained residence papers in that country, they could apply to migrate to the UK through the official immigration process rather than by risking their lives crossing the channel to seek asylum. I understand that international law doesn't say they MUST do that, I'm saying that it is a safer process that avoids hundreds of drowning deaths. Net migration to the UK is 600,000 p.a. so there is demonstrably a working official immigration process.
these people were convinced 4 years ago that there was free entry to the UK , no one has been able to convince them otherwise.....look up a journo called simon reeve , an incredibly left leaning chap , interviewing syrians, afghans and iraqis in the greek islands .
 


Randy McNob

Now go home and get your f#cking Shinebox
Jun 13, 2020
4,653
these people were convinced 4 years ago that there was free entry to the UK , no one has been able to convince them otherwise.....look up a journo called simon reeve , an incredibly left leaning chap , interviewing syrians, afghans and iraqis in the greek islands .
by incredibly left leaning you mean he actually spoke to these people, therefore had viewpoint from first hand evidence rather than newspapers columns, and got to understand their plight and their reasons for fleeing their countries (personally i'd sy that was balanced but hey ho) whereas some incredibly right leaning chap wouldn't bother with research or interviews, use generally innaccurate preconceptions and say things like they deserve their fate becasue they should claim asylum anywhere else but the UK?
 


Mo Gosfield

Well-known member
Aug 11, 2010
6,347
oh they love it mate ....never mind , wait till it hits sussex.
Too late. The proverbial horse has bolted.
The Albanians control most of the prostitution and drugs in large towns in Southern England already. The generals came over first, set up camp and then the foot soldiers followed. These poor asylum seekers should be supported in their criminal activities. They are providing lots of employment for young girls and the motor industry ( all the catalytic converters they steal off cars need replacing ) All the wiring they strip out has to be replaced, particularly by the railway companies and all the cars they steal might force the owners to switch to electric and save the planet.
Win win.
 




carlzeiss

Well-known member
May 19, 2009
6,145
Amazonia
Too late. The proverbial horse has bolted.
The Albanians control most of the prostitution and drugs in large towns in Southern England already. The generals came over first, set up camp and then the foot soldiers followed. These poor asylum seekers should be supported in their criminal activities. They are providing lots of employment for young girls and the motor industry ( all the catalytic converters they steal off cars need replacing ) All the wiring they strip out has to be replaced, particularly by the railway companies and all the cars they steal might force the owners to switch to electric and save the planet.
Win win.
While it was disappointing for me to have to p/x my dependable and frugal Hybrid car for a regular ICE model due their tendency for the catalytic converters to disappear it is jolly convenient to have so many new Barber shop's spring up all over town . Not sure why this has occured , maybe a side effect of covid causing hair to grow at an enhanced rate . Who knows ?
 


sydney

tinky ****in winky
Jul 11, 2003
17,944
town full of eejits
by incredibly left leaning you mean he actually spoke to these people, therefore had viewpoint from first hand evidence rather than newspapers columns, and got to understand their plight and their reasons for fleeing their countries (personally i'd sy that was balanced but hey ho) whereas some incredibly right leaning chap wouldn't bother with research or interviews, use generally innaccurate preconceptions and say things like they deserve their fate becasue they should claim asylum anywhere else but the UK?
no , not at all ...he is a very left orientated type of guy , his opinions on global issues are overwhelmingly depressing, unfortunately for me they match my own , environmentally aware he is but he loves to grind it into the viewer , almost screaming " this is partly your fault" one can only wonder if he will go across to ireland and report on the utter clusterfuck that is going on over there.....you need to wake the f*** up mate , you'll be over run within 5 yrs , virtually guaranteed.
 


sydney

tinky ****in winky
Jul 11, 2003
17,944
town full of eejits
Too late. The proverbial horse has bolted.
The Albanians control most of the prostitution and drugs in large towns in Southern England already. The generals came over first, set up camp and then the foot soldiers followed. These poor asylum seekers should be supported in their criminal activities. They are providing lots of employment for young girls and the motor industry ( all the catalytic converters they steal off cars need replacing ) All the wiring they strip out has to be replaced, particularly by the railway companies and all the cars they steal might force the owners to switch to electric and save the planet.
Win win.
i hear you mate , hopefully the Albanians will sort the Syrians , Congolese and Afghans out because it looks like most English lads just wanna buy nail varnish and blankets off 'em...ffs.......absolutely unreal what is happening and the attitudes of some towards it.
 


Seagull58

In the Algarve
Jan 31, 2012
8,096
Vilamoura, Portugal
by incredibly left leaning you mean he actually spoke to these people, therefore had viewpoint from first hand evidence rather than newspapers columns, and got to understand their plight and their reasons for fleeing their countries (personally i'd sy that was balanced but hey ho) whereas some incredibly right leaning chap wouldn't bother with research or interviews, use generally innaccurate preconceptions and say things like they deserve their fate becasue they should claim asylum anywhere else but the UK?
Has anyone on this thread said they deserve their fate because they should claim asylum elsewhere, or are you referring to comments in other media channels?
 




WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
27,346
Too late. The proverbial horse has bolted.
The Albanians control most of the prostitution and drugs in large towns in Southern England already. The generals came over first, set up camp and then the foot soldiers followed. These poor asylum seekers should be supported in their criminal activities. They are providing lots of employment for young girls and the motor industry ( all the catalytic converters they steal off cars need replacing ) All the wiring they strip out has to be replaced, particularly by the railway companies and all the cars they steal might force the owners to switch to electric and save the planet.
Win win.

I will type this very slowly for yours @Seagull58 and @carlzeiss's benefit, although I don't hold out a lot of hope :wink:

If you stop allowing asylum claims from people whilst abroad as this Government did in 2011 then you will force people to actually come to the UK in order to claim, which in turn, opens up great opportunities for criminals to hide amongst them and then disappear on arrival.

If you then shut down all legal channels of claiming asylum and force people to cross the channel in small boats, this happens

2018 - 299
2019 - 1,890
2020 - 8,466
2021 - 28,526
2022 - 45,755

Giving even more opportunity to smuggle criminals in.

If you then withdraw resources in order to increase processing times for asylum seekers then this is what you will do to the backlog

2012 - 9,800
2018 - 27,000
2022 - 161,000

Increasing the opportunities hugely for Albanian (obviously your favourites, but also other foreign) criminals to smuggle more criminals into the UK amongst these tens of thousands being forced into boats and the hundreds of thousands awaiting processing, and get them to 'disappear'.

You have had this pointed out to you numerous times over the years that all of these things increase the opportunity to smuggle criminals into Britain. Why would the Government create and exacerbate the situation ? To ensure racists, bigots, and the stupid, together with the misguided and naïve, get angry enough about immigration/asylum to vote for more of the same ? Or maybe you have another suggestion as to why they have done it ?

But here you are, voting time and again for more of the same whilst getting angrier and angrier about the results of what you're voting for :shrug:

Even you must see the amusing aspect of this :lolol:



Or maybe you two could join @carlzeiss in posting on his favourite immigration/asylum thread where you could all be angry ever after :laugh:

carlzeiss race.jpg


http://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/threads/welcoming-refugees-well-done-brits.383170/

Sorry to leave you out @sydney, but I know that you are either beyond help or a spoof account and I'm favouring the latter :wink:
 
Last edited:


Seagull58

In the Algarve
Jan 31, 2012
8,096
Vilamoura, Portugal
I will type this very slowly for yours @Seagull58 and @carlzeiss's benefit, although I don't hold out a lot of hope :wink:

If you stop allowing asylum claims from people whilst abroad as this Government did in 2011 then you will force people to actually come to the UK in order to claim, which in turn, opens up great opportunities for criminals to hide amongst them and then disappear on arrival.

If you then shut down all legal channels of claiming asylum and force people to cross the channel in small boats, this happens

2018 - 299
2019 - 1,890
2020 - 8,466
2021 - 28,526
2022 - 45,755

Giving even more opportunity to smuggle criminals in.

If you then withdraw resources in order to increase processing times for asylum seekers then this is what you will do to the backlog

2012 - 9,800
2018 - 27,000
2022 - 161,000

Increasing the opportunities hugely for Albanian (obviously your favourites, but also other foreign) criminals to smuggle more criminals into the UK amongst these tens of thousands being forced into boats and the hundreds of thousands awaiting processing, and get them to 'disappear'.

You have had this pointed out to you numerous times over the years that all of these things increase the opportunity to smuggle criminals into Britain. Why would the Government create and exacerbate the situation ? To ensure racists, bigots, and the stupid, together with the misguided and naïve, get angry enough about immigration/asylum to vote for more of the same ? Or maybe you have another suggestion as to why they have done it ?

But here you are, voting time and again for more of the same whilst getting angrier and angrier about the results of what you're voting for :shrug:

Even you must see the amusing aspect of this :lolol:



Or maybe you two could join @carlzeiss in posting on his favourite immigration/asylum thread where you could all be angry ever after :laugh:

View attachment 165069

http://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/threads/welcoming-refugees-well-done-brits.383170/

Sorry to leave you out @sydney, but I know that you are either beyond help or a spoof account and I'm favouring the latter :wink:
Thankyou for the analysis but, once again, I want to point out that you have misinterpreted my posts.
The reason I mentioned Albanians is because they represented 28% of asylum seekers in the year ending 6th March 2023. I also mentioned Afghanis who represented 20%. Those two nationalities were by far the highest percentages.
I have NEVER voted Tory in my life. I have not voted in the UK for 20 years or so.
I don't find any aspects of this amusing but I am slightly annoyed that you are so insistent on pigeonholing me as some sort of anti-immigrant fascist. All I have done on this thread is ask reasonable, imo, questions and suggesting, admittedly several times, an alternative process for asylum seekers than climbing into small boats and risking death by drowning. Please back off now.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here