Calais

[BadFish]

Or maybe not.

Sorry Bobby. I'll stop now I promise.

In fact i think we would all agree not to post about religion or politics until Bobby scores his first goal . A bin fest cease fire in honour of the big man..... what more could NSC do?

 

[pastafarian]

Scaremongering. Appeals to the right wingers, fits in with the EU narrative, fools them into thinking it's the UK's biggest problem. It's not. That would be persecution of the poor, tax evasion and institutional child rape.

Tax evasion is a big problem.
No doubt you have included in your list of tax evaders the people who have no intention of going through the asylum process(68% get rejected in this country) and hence unable to work but prefer to enter the country avoiding the authorities and then disappear into the black economy.

 

[Hastings gull]

So here is bloke who is the Professor of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies and Director at one of the worlds leading university, has written numerous books on the subject and even more numerous papers. Your take away from his thoughts are that he has ignored his years of research, put aside his life's work and risked his career and reputation by just offering answers based on his own (undisclosed) political slant? You have also done this without addressing a single one of his ill-informed and inaccurate points or giving any evidence of your claims. Sounds like a libel case waiting to happen to me

Put like that, then who are we mere mortals to question such an "expert". However, as I well know from education, "experts" are little other than folk who have devoted a lot of time to a project, advertise themselves as experts, and the conclusions that they come to, invariably mirror their own pre-conceived view of life. When he writes that if we let all those presently in Calais in, it is "improbable" that this will attract more, after what we have seen for years, then you really start to wonder. Be honest, do you seriously think this will be the case? "Experts" may have all the answers straight out of their most recent book, just that common sense may be lacking - just like the "expert" visiting my school many years ago, who advised against covering books (done to lengthen their lifetime and save cash) because pupils need to be able to feel the texture of the book.

 

[BadFish]

Put like that, then who are we mere mortals to question such an "expert". However, as I well know from education, "experts" are little other than folk who have devoted a lot of time to a project, advertise themselves as experts, and the conclusions that they come to, invariably mirror their own pre-conceived view of life. When he writes that if we let all those presently in Calais in, it is "improbable" that this will attract more, after what we have seen for years, then you really start to wonder. Be honest, do you seriously think this will be the case? "Experts" may have all the answers straight out of their most recent book, just that common sense may be lacking - just like the "expert" visiting my school many years ago, who advised against covering books (done to lengthen their lifetime and save cash) because pupils need to be able to feel the texture of the book.

Without going off topic there is a lot to be said for understanding children's need for texture and the feel of things. Without knowing the context of what he was talking about i would say, as a teacher and a parent of a boy on the Autism spectrum who has many sensory issues that wouldn't be writing his professional opinion off quite so readily. Much more about this kind of stuff has been discovered in the many years that have passed since your encounter with this guy and much more has been discovered.

Aside from this i don't think you can dismiss the findings of one expert because many years ago a completely different expert (in a completely different field) told you something that you disagreed with. Surely if this fella was such a fraud you could do better than some vague reference to one word in his answer . To answer your question though I would agree that it seems to go against common sense and was interested in what made him come to this conclusion. However with out knowing his reasons I would not be prepared to write the point off.

FWIW I think there is a big difference between questioning his work and writing it off because you don't like experts. His findings are there to be disputed, yet you choose only to try and discredit him based on flimsy if not no-existent evidence- you don't work for Rupert Murdoch do you?

 

[Hastings gull]

Without going off topic there is a lot to be said for understanding children's need for texture and the feel of things. Without knowing the context of what he was talking about i would say, as a teacher and a parent of a boy on the Autism spectrum who has many sensory issues that wouldn't be writing his professional opinion off quite so readily. Much more about this kind of stuff has been discovered in the many years that have passed since your encounter with this guy and much more has been discovered.

Aside from this i don't think you can dismiss the findings of one expert because many years ago a completely different expert (in a completely different field) told you something that you disagreed with. Surely if this fella was such a fraud you could do better than some vague reference to one word in his answer . To answer your question though I would agree that it seems to go against common sense and was interested in what made him come to this conclusion. However with out knowing his reasons I would not be prepared to write the point off.

FWIW I think there is a big difference between questioning his work and writing it off because you don't like experts. His findings are there to be disputed, yet you choose only to try and discredit him based on flimsy if not no-existent evidence- you don't work for Rupert Murdoch do you?

What a stupid final comment. I see you are now lecturing on education as well. I gave you one example, for brevity's sake and believe me, there were many others whose presentations I had to sit through. All followed the usual pattern - a pre-rehearsed routine and any awkward questions inevitably met with the standard response -we will come on to that this afternoon. And I was not talking about autism. But anyway, this is not the point.
Of course this "expert" was in a different field, but the point is that one should be very way of and self-appointed "experts" and I must have a point if even you agree that an element of common sense is missing here. Again, I do not have the time to read all that this "Expert" has written, but if this is his conclusion to something so fundamental to the situation in Calais, then it is surely reasonable to cast doubt on, or at least be wary of, further conclusions. As you say, we do not know what led him to this conclusion, but again, if he has researched to say this, one really wonders what he is researching!

 

[BadFish]

What a stupid final comment. I see you are now lecturing on education as well. I gave you one example, for brevity's sake and believe me, there were many others whose presentations I had to sit through. All followed the usual pattern - a pre-rehearsed routine and any awkward questions inevitably met with the standard response -we will come on to that this afternoon. And I was not talking about autism. But anyway, this is not the point.
Of course this "expert" was in a different field, but the point is that one should be very way of and self-appointed "experts" and I must have a point if even you agree that an element of common sense is missing here. Again, I do not have the time to read all that this "Expert" has written, but if this is his conclusion to something so fundamental to the situation in Calais, then it is surely reasonable to cast doubt on, or at least be wary of, further conclusions. As you say, we do not know what led him to this conclusion, but again, if he has researched to say this, one really wonders what he is researching!

On second thoughts I think i will leave it there. Any evidence, opinion or information that counters your own is written off on the flimsiest pretence or you start whining about being lectured. I am not sure what you are here for but there seems to be little worthwhile to be gained from our exchanges at this point. We will have to agree to disagree on this I think.

 

[Hastings gull]

Singapore is not a signatory to the UN convention on refugees and hold a similar view to you on their treatment. Russia has 236,000 refugees (UK has 117,00 for comparison).

The idea I am supporting isn't my idea. I would suggest that the 51 and 67 UN conventions are in dire need of updating given that the situation is so different now compared to when they were written. As Creaky says the answer to this is global cooperation which for me would start with a discussion about how to update the conventions currently being used. I would like to see the UN come up with a more equitable way of dealing with the problem that takes the burden of developing nations (last year 86% of refugee were dealt with by developing nations) and spreads the load. I would also like to see more countries being signatories on such a convention so the burden can be spread further. While they are at it I would also like the UN to look at what member countries can do to lessen the problems and conflict in the affected areas to provide a safe place for people to live so they don't have to leave (stop selling them weapons would be a start). This is not blaming the west for all the problems refugees are running from but i think it is naive to think that UN member countries are not involved in some of these conflicts in some way.

Anyway i won't be holding my breath for any of this and think that what will happen is that we will keep muddling along the way we are now which is doing little good for refugees, the countries they are fleeing and the host countries. Nigh on impossible situation this one.

I was giving Singapore as an example, but yet again you take things so literally. So Russia has let in 236,000 refuges from these affected countries has it? I do agree that international cooperation is key and it is high time some of these conventions are looked at again, because I would imagine some were written perhaps to deal with the aftermath of WW2 and not really applicable to the modern-day situation. As to whether the UN will make a great deal of difference, sadly, I am rather sceptical, because governments will know that taking in thousands on top of whatever has already been done, will be hugely unpopular in the western world. Governments will also sign anything in an attempt to make themselves look good -how often was it pointed out in the past that communist governments signed all sorts of agreements guaranteeing freedoms.
Granted other countries such as Turkey have got more, but that to the vast majority in the West is irrelevant. Perhaps it shouldn't be, but try telling that to a resident of, say, Bradford, who has seen his area change beyond recognition. It is all very well taking the "do-gooding" line and saying that the load should be spread, and spread and spread and spread, but at the end of the day it boils down to whether individuals are prepared to host them, or at least accept the existence of a hostel down the road housing say a couple of hundred single men with little in the way of job opportunities. Spreading the load usually means in the mindset of those advocating it, that someone, somewhere will at sometime do something. Does your version of spreading the load mean that you will give up part of your house for them?
I am not trying to have a personal"dig" by the way, just that if we are to take thousands and then more, it is going to take some hard thinking and some element of possibly considerable sacrifice, which we both know the vast majority of folk will be very unwilling to countenance.
As you say, nigh on impossible, and I think that countries in the west will eventually entertain the idea of rather more extreme and probably military action, simply because this will seem to them to be the only option to stem the tide.

 

[Hastings gull]

On second thoughts I think i will leave it there. Any evidence, opinion or information that counters your own is written off on the flimsiest pretence or you start whining about being lectured. I am not sure what you are here for but there seems to be little worthwhile to be gained from our exchanges at this point. We will have to agree to disagree on this I think.

You said that two days ago, and then carried on! I don't somehow think that your passing will be mourned too deeply on NSC.

 

[BadFish]

You said that two days ago, and then carried on! I don't somehow think that your passing will be mourned too deeply on NSC.

A fine example of what I was talking about. I am not going anywhere. I will still be in these discussion. I will just stick with talking to people who can follow what is being said and who is saying it.

No charge for the lecture BTW

 

[carlzeiss]

Unemployed migrants are being given thousands of pounds to find work in Britain under an EU scheme, The Telegraph can disclose.

It has emerged that the UK has taken a third of the young migrants involved in the “Your First EURES Job” programme.

Some 1,178 unemployed young people from the Continent have been found jobs, training or apprenticeships in Britain under the “jobs mobility” programme since it was set up in 2012.

That accounted for 34.7 per cent of the 3,387 jobs handed out so far, much higher than second place Germany, which has provided 659 placements. At the same time, just 25 Britons under 30 have found work under the scheme, less than 1 per cent of the total.

The scheme offers up to €5,000 (£3,500) in relocation expenses and course fees per participant. The average cost per head of the scheme was €1,818, according to official figures.

A report into the scheme acknowledged that it was moving people from economies of high unemployment to Britain.

“The high number of placements in the UK could be due to the dynamics of the UK labour market,” it said. “A high share of outgoing job finders in certain countries (Italy and Spain) mirrors the situation of the EU labour market, as these countries have high youth unemployment rates.

"Similarly to previous quarters, the UK remains the main country of destination.”

EU sources said British public bodies did not take part in the scheme, meaning there was a low uptake among the unemployed in this country.

Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, claimed that the Government “has a grip” on the migration crisis in Calais. Downing Street defended David Cameron, who is on holiday within the UK, saying that he was due back at his desk on Thursday.

Mr Hammond said 100 additional guards would be on duty at the terminal in Calais while UK Border Force officials were due to start working inside the Eurotunnel control room Monday night. “I think we have got a grip on the crisis. We saw a peak last week, since when the number of illegal migrants has tailed off,” he said.

“We have taken a number of measures in collaboration with the French authorities and Eurotunnel which are already having an effect and over the next day or two I would expect to have an even greater effect.”

The EU work scheme contains a generous programme of grants and reimbursements to encourage people to move.

They include travel allowances of up to €350 for distances of more than 500 miles, plus subsistence funds of up to €50 a day while undergoing interviews.

Participants can also claim up to €1,060 in relocation expenses to move to the UK, €1,270 for language training and €1,000 to have their qualifications recognised in a new country.

Jobseekers with special “socio-economic” or “geographical” needs can claim a further €500 in reimbursements.

British businesses that employ people through the scheme can claim up to €1,060 in training and language allowances. In total, it means a single jobseeker could, in theory, cost the taxpayer more than €5,000 in handouts.

Jane Collins, the Ukip MEP who uncovered the figures, said the scheme was a poor deal for Britain. “It is a slap in the face to the young people all over the UK who are looking for work and whose taxes have been spent making their chances of employment less likely.”

Britain is facing increasing pressure from Brussels to take more immigrants and show “solidarity” with the rest of the EU.

Mina Andreeva, a European Commission spokesman, said the Calais crisis underlines why all EU member states should take part in a scheme that sought to resettle 40,000 migrants across the continent to ease the pressure on Italy and Greece. Britain has so far opted out of the scheme.

Phil Woolas, a Labour immigration minister between 2008 and 2010, said the “mess” in Calais was “down to years of soft-minded liberalism and utter naivety”. He said that when in office, he was “frustrated” by how the Human Rights Act, introduced by his party, made it difficult to remove migrants to came to the UK.

Mr Woolas also blamed similar liberalism within the coalition government and by the French and said a detention centre should replace the camps at Calais to “send a signal”.

“If migrants knew they’d be locked up and deported when they got to Calais, they wouldn’t go,” he said.

The Government announced a series of measures over the weekend to tackle the problem, including tougher penalties for landlords who fail to check the immigration status of tenants.

John Keefe, public affairs director for Eurotunnel, welcomed the efforts by the Government to make the UK less attractive for migrants, but warned that they would not solve the immediate issue. He said there was a “major problem” now with the “5,000 or so migrants living and moving around the Calais area at will”.

New powers will also be made available to make it easier for landlords to evict tenants if they are in the country illegally, following a successful trial in the West Midlands.

But the effectiveness of the Government’s proposals was immediately disputed after Greg Clark, the Communities Secretary, could not say how many evicted illegal immigrants had been deported.

Richard Lambert, chief executive of the National Landlords Association, said the policy could lead to illegal immigrants “barricading themselves in” and “defending themselves with all the force they can muster”.

“It could put people in potential danger. We need to think through the consequences of the kind of systems we are putting in to place,” he said.

 

[Hastings gull]

A fine example of what I was talking about. I am not going anywhere. I will still be in these discussion. I will just stick with talking to people who can follow what is being said and who is saying it.

No charge for the lecture BTW

Arrogant to the last -stick with people on your higher wavelength.

 

[Hastings gull]

Unemployed migrants are being given thousands of pounds to find work in Britain under an EU scheme, The Telegraph can disclose.

It has emerged that the UK has taken a third of the young migrants involved in the “Your First EURES Job” programme.

Some 1,178 unemployed young people from the Continent have been found jobs, training or apprenticeships in Britain under the “jobs mobility” programme since it was set up in 2012.

That accounted for 34.7 per cent of the 3,387 jobs handed out so far, much higher than second place Germany, which has provided 659 placements. At the same time, just 25 Britons under 30 have found work under the scheme, less than 1 per cent of the total.

The scheme offers up to €5,000 (£3,500) in relocation expenses and course fees per participant. The average cost per head of the scheme was €1,818, according to official figures.

A report into the scheme acknowledged that it was moving people from economies of high unemployment to Britain.

“The high number of placements in the UK could be due to the dynamics of the UK labour market,” it said. “A high share of outgoing job finders in certain countries (Italy and Spain) mirrors the situation of the EU labour market, as these countries have high youth unemployment rates.

"Similarly to previous quarters, the UK remains the main country of destination.”

EU sources said British public bodies did not take part in the scheme, meaning there was a low uptake among the unemployed in this country.

Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, claimed that the Government “has a grip” on the migration crisis in Calais. Downing Street defended David Cameron, who is on holiday within the UK, saying that he was due back at his desk on Thursday.

Mr Hammond said 100 additional guards would be on duty at the terminal in Calais while UK Border Force officials were due to start working inside the Eurotunnel control room Monday night. “I think we have got a grip on the crisis. We saw a peak last week, since when the number of illegal migrants has tailed off,” he said.

“We have taken a number of measures in collaboration with the French authorities and Eurotunnel which are already having an effect and over the next day or two I would expect to have an even greater effect.”

The EU work scheme contains a generous programme of grants and reimbursements to encourage people to move.

They include travel allowances of up to €350 for distances of more than 500 miles, plus subsistence funds of up to €50 a day while undergoing interviews.

Participants can also claim up to €1,060 in relocation expenses to move to the UK, €1,270 for language training and €1,000 to have their qualifications recognised in a new country.

Jobseekers with special “socio-economic” or “geographical” needs can claim a further €500 in reimbursements.

British businesses that employ people through the scheme can claim up to €1,060 in training and language allowances. In total, it means a single jobseeker could, in theory, cost the taxpayer more than €5,000 in handouts.

Jane Collins, the Ukip MEP who uncovered the figures, said the scheme was a poor deal for Britain. “It is a slap in the face to the young people all over the UK who are looking for work and whose taxes have been spent making their chances of employment less likely.”

Britain is facing increasing pressure from Brussels to take more immigrants and show “solidarity” with the rest of the EU.

Mina Andreeva, a European Commission spokesman, said the Calais crisis underlines why all EU member states should take part in a scheme that sought to resettle 40,000 migrants across the continent to ease the pressure on Italy and Greece. Britain has so far opted out of the scheme.

Phil Woolas, a Labour immigration minister between 2008 and 2010, said the “mess” in Calais was “down to years of soft-minded liberalism and utter naivety”. He said that when in office, he was “frustrated” by how the Human Rights Act, introduced by his party, made it difficult to remove migrants to came to the UK.

Mr Woolas also blamed similar liberalism within the coalition government and by the French and said a detention centre should replace the camps at Calais to “send a signal”.

“If migrants knew they’d be locked up and deported when they got to Calais, they wouldn’t go,” he said.

The Government announced a series of measures over the weekend to tackle the problem, including tougher penalties for landlords who fail to check the immigration status of tenants.

John Keefe, public affairs director for Eurotunnel, welcomed the efforts by the Government to make the UK less attractive for migrants, but warned that they would not solve the immediate issue. He said there was a “major problem” now with the “5,000 or so migrants living and moving around the Calais area at will”.

New powers will also be made available to make it easier for landlords to evict tenants if they are in the country illegally, following a successful trial in the West Midlands.

But the effectiveness of the Government’s proposals was immediately disputed after Greg Clark, the Communities Secretary, could not say how many evicted illegal immigrants had been deported.

Richard Lambert, chief executive of the National Landlords Association, said the policy could lead to illegal immigrants “barricading themselves in” and “defending themselves with all the force they can muster”.

“It could put people in potential danger. We need to think through the consequences of the kind of systems we are putting in to place,” he said.

Thanks. I saw some of these headlines as well. The first it - does this refer to non-EU immigrants or those within the EU? I am not quite sure, as I think you have merged several articles -is that right?

 

[BadFish]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...on-swarm-plague-god-migrants-calais?CMP=fb_gu

Gotta love Frankie Boyle.

 

[Simster]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...on-swarm-plague-god-migrants-calais?CMP=fb_gu

Gotta love Frankie Boyle.

I'm torn. On the one hand I think that, as a progressive nation, there is something to be admired about people so willing to work and make a better life for themselves that they are prepared to do what these migrants have done - certainly compared to the endless numbers of useless dossers (at both ends of the social spectrum) that take their comfortable lives for granted. But on the other hand, this is typical Boyle, offering absolutely nothing in the way of solutions whilst sneering at the government for daring to protect the country's borders. Boyle is certainly nowhere near as clever as he thinks he is.

 

[Hastings gull]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...on-swarm-plague-god-migrants-calais?CMP=fb_gu

Gotta love Frankie Boyle.

Absolutely. What a harmless fool.

 

[BadFish]

Unemployed migrants are being given thousands of pounds to find work in Britain under an EU scheme, The Telegraph can disclose.

It has emerged that the UK has taken a third of the young migrants involved in the “Your First EURES Job” programme.

Some 1,178 unemployed young people from the Continent have been found jobs, training or apprenticeships in Britain under the “jobs mobility” programme since it was set up in 2012.

That accounted for 34.7 per cent of the 3,387 jobs handed out so far, much higher than second place Germany, which has provided 659 placements. At the same time, just 25 Britons under 30 have found work under the scheme, less than 1 per cent of the total.

The scheme offers up to €5,000 (£3,500) in relocation expenses and course fees per participant. The average cost per head of the scheme was €1,818, according to official figures.

A report into the scheme acknowledged that it was moving people from economies of high unemployment to Britain.

“The high number of placements in the UK could be due to the dynamics of the UK labour market,” it said. “A high share of outgoing job finders in certain countries (Italy and Spain) mirrors the situation of the EU labour market, as these countries have high youth unemployment rates.

"Similarly to previous quarters, the UK remains the main country of destination.”

EU sources said British public bodies did not take part in the scheme, meaning there was a low uptake among the unemployed in this country.

Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, claimed that the Government “has a grip” on the migration crisis in Calais. Downing Street defended David Cameron, who is on holiday within the UK, saying that he was due back at his desk on Thursday.

Mr Hammond said 100 additional guards would be on duty at the terminal in Calais while UK Border Force officials were due to start working inside the Eurotunnel control room Monday night. “I think we have got a grip on the crisis. We saw a peak last week, since when the number of illegal migrants has tailed off,” he said.

“We have taken a number of measures in collaboration with the French authorities and Eurotunnel which are already having an effect and over the next day or two I would expect to have an even greater effect.”

The EU work scheme contains a generous programme of grants and reimbursements to encourage people to move.

They include travel allowances of up to €350 for distances of more than 500 miles, plus subsistence funds of up to €50 a day while undergoing interviews.

Participants can also claim up to €1,060 in relocation expenses to move to the UK, €1,270 for language training and €1,000 to have their qualifications recognised in a new country.

Jobseekers with special “socio-economic” or “geographical” needs can claim a further €500 in reimbursements.

British businesses that employ people through the scheme can claim up to €1,060 in training and language allowances. In total, it means a single jobseeker could, in theory, cost the taxpayer more than €5,000 in handouts.

Jane Collins, the Ukip MEP who uncovered the figures, said the scheme was a poor deal for Britain. “It is a slap in the face to the young people all over the UK who are looking for work and whose taxes have been spent making their chances of employment less likely.”

Britain is facing increasing pressure from Brussels to take more immigrants and show “solidarity” with the rest of the EU.

Mina Andreeva, a European Commission spokesman, said the Calais crisis underlines why all EU member states should take part in a scheme that sought to resettle 40,000 migrants across the continent to ease the pressure on Italy and Greece. Britain has so far opted out of the scheme.

Phil Woolas, a Labour immigration minister between 2008 and 2010, said the “mess” in Calais was “down to years of soft-minded liberalism and utter naivety”. He said that when in office, he was “frustrated” by how the Human Rights Act, introduced by his party, made it difficult to remove migrants to came to the UK.

Mr Woolas also blamed similar liberalism within the coalition government and by the French and said a detention centre should replace the camps at Calais to “send a signal”.

“If migrants knew they’d be locked up and deported when they got to Calais, they wouldn’t go,” he said.

The Government announced a series of measures over the weekend to tackle the problem, including tougher penalties for landlords who fail to check the immigration status of tenants.

John Keefe, public affairs director for Eurotunnel, welcomed the efforts by the Government to make the UK less attractive for migrants, but warned that they would not solve the immediate issue. He said there was a “major problem” now with the “5,000 or so migrants living and moving around the Calais area at will”.

New powers will also be made available to make it easier for landlords to evict tenants if they are in the country illegally, following a successful trial in the West Midlands.

But the effectiveness of the Government’s proposals was immediately disputed after Greg Clark, the Communities Secretary, could not say how many evicted illegal immigrants had been deported.

Richard Lambert, chief executive of the National Landlords Association, said the policy could lead to illegal immigrants “barricading themselves in” and “defending themselves with all the force they can muster”.

“It could put people in potential danger. We need to think through the consequences of the kind of systems we are putting in to place,” he said.

This starts off as an article about a scheme to get migrants into work by moving them across Europe and ends up being about the situation in Calais. It is a fine example of the press blurring the lines between migrants and refugees in order to demonise both groups.

Off topic though it is you have to wonder about a situation where migrants who need to relocate and need extra money for language assistance (what ever that is?) are beating applicants who already reside in the UK and speak the language. Are the UK applicants that hopeless or do the companies providing the jobs get some sort of subsidy from the scheme as well? Quite how this segues into the stuff about Calais I don't know, but HG is right it reads like two merged articles.

 

[BadFish]

I'm torn. On the one hand I think that, as a progressive nation, there is something to be admired about people so willing to work and make a better life for themselves that they are prepared to do what these migrants have done - certainly compared to the endless numbers of useless dossers (at both ends of the social spectrum) that take their comfortable lives for granted. But on the other hand, this is typical Boyle, offering absolutely nothing in the way of solutions whilst sneering at the government for daring to protect the country's borders. Boyle is certainly nowhere near as clever as he thinks he is.

This is very true, although he is funny. For me he is a comedian and a comedian's job isn't to provide solutions, His job is to highlight the lunacy and madness that surrounds us and maybe even point out some of our double standards.

 

[Hastings gull]

I'm torn. On the one hand I think that, as a progressive nation, there is something to be admired about people so willing to work and make a better life for themselves that they are prepared to do what these migrants have done - certainly compared to the endless numbers of useless dossers (at both ends of the social spectrum) that take their comfortable lives for granted. But on the other hand, this is typical Boyle, offering absolutely nothing in the way of solutions whilst sneering at the government for daring to protect the country's borders. Boyle is certainly nowhere near as clever as he thinks he is.

Thanks. I imagine that many folk feel as you do. Norman Tebbitt said once that his dad got on his bike to find work and so I suppose there is nothing different in principle to what we are seeing here. The difference is the sheer scale of course, and the hypocrisy of the fool with his exaggerated ramblings, who offers nothing. Indeed it is hard to work out what is mickey-taking and what he actually thinks. Have you or anyone reading this by chance been watching the ITV News at 6pm where they have followed the fortunes of a chap from Sudan, I think it is, from being rescued by HMS Bulwark to his nice flat in the UK. It throws up all sorts of issues.

 

[BigGully]

So here is bloke who is the Professor of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies and Director at one of the worlds leading university, has written numerous books on the subject and even more numerous papers. Your take away from his thoughts are that he has ignored his years of research, put aside his life's work and risked his career and reputation by just offering answers based on his own (undisclosed) political slant? You have also done this without addressing a single one of his ill-informed and inaccurate points or giving any evidence of your claims. Sounds like a libel case waiting to happen to me

He is a University Professor FFS, what kind of political slant would you expect.

He doesnt say anything other than finishing with ''to find policies that ensure that we minimise the costs and maximise the benefits of migration for society as a whole.''

He is pro migration, but then again I suspect he will be living within some rural idyll, where there would be uproar if so much as a convenience store was proposed on his patch, but bring on an African ghetto for everyone else.

 

[alfredmizen]

He is a University Professor FFS, what kind of political slant would you expect.

He doesnt say anything other than finishing with ''to find policies that ensure that we minimise the costs and maximise the benefits of migration for society as a whole.''

He is pro migration, but then again I suspect he will be living within some rural idyll, where there would be uproar if so much as a convenience store was proposed on his patch, but bring on an African ghetto for everyone else.

Bit like glynde and our own lord bracknell then