Move on quickly nothing to see here

Who is that? Or are we just going to have more non answers?

Are you actually Dougal in real life?

Have you not noticed that approaching 100,000 per annum are allowed to enter illegally and are then put up in hotels? Then allowed to stay. Even when they are dangerous criminals?

Do you imagine this is all some coincidence and that the Navy, RNLI, government agencies, migrant charities, the asylum application committees and the judiciary are all accidentally allowing this to happen? And the trade union marches where every numpty has a placard saying "refugees welcome"?

Dougal: duh which people are supporting it?
 
You can't have a sensible debate with people who are certain the government strategy is wrong, but only offer "they need to fix it" as a solution.
 
Do you imagine this is all some coincidence and that the Navy, RNLI, government agencies, migrant charities, the asylum application committees and the judiciary are all accidentally allowing this to happen?
The Government are in control, and it is no accident. They are deliberately letting it happen.
And the trade union marches where every numpty has a placard saying "refugees welcome"?
More sensationalist nonsense.

I think it would be better if we reduced the numbers reaching the boats in the first place.
 
Refusing to consider claims made by those who pay traffickers and enter illegally - yes
Using drones to identify and prosecuting those who steer the boat - yes
using advanced radar to track and intercept boats - yes
routinely intercepting leisure vessels (I've been boarded twice) - needs to be intel based.
paying the French to stop the boats - partially working
Off-shore processing - needs to happen.
Safe legal routes or remote application based on specific criteria - yes
remote application based broad criteria - No
agreeing quotas with neighbours - wont work if you can''t send the excess back.
additional police to target gangs - explain how they can operate in France and Turkey?
allowing UK SARs to operate in French Waters routinely at the request of the French - No, unless they return to the nearest safe port.

At the end of the day, you have to make it hard for people to cross by boat and you have to make the risks and costs high for the traffickers.
 
At the end of the day, you have to make it hard for people to cross by boat
The trouble is, some don't care how hard it is. They must be out of their minds getting on some of the "boats", yet they do it.

We need to tackle the issue before they get to the boats, and tackle existing cases much faster.
 
You can't have a sensible debate with people who are certain the government strategy is wrong, but only offer "they need to fix it" as a solution.
the Rwanda scheme was never designed to work

we all know that

so yes we can talk about that without offering alternative solutions -because its not a solution

only idiots would try to change the law to state a country that is not safe, is safe
 
its wrong

GK1TJ1qXoAEgmqr


GK1TJ1mWYAASbwr


GK1TJ1pXEAEDngw
 
The Government are in control, and it is no accident. They are deliberately letting it happen.

More sensationalist nonsense.

I think it would be better if we reduced the numbers reaching the boats in the first place.

The sensationalist nonsense - is your opinion that the government are deliberately letting it happen.
 
please provide the evidence

what you thought you heard and what was said is not likely to match
Have you got a pipe here's something to put in it.

 
Have you got a pipe here's something to put in it.


giphy-12.gif
 
Back
Top