Pointless waste of tax-payer cash.
Are the border force and the RNLI losing their touch?
- Thread starter Mottie
- Start date
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2023
- Messages
- 21,451
- Reaction score
- 13,913
- Country
Yes to just scrap it without even trying it, I agree.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 28,122
- Reaction score
- 7,175
- Country
Selecting a small snippet of a larger statement to change the original speaker's true intent or tone. Is a misquote
No one.
What do you expect the UK to do about it? Strategically placed machine gun nests at 600 yard intervals up the coast? Any war historian will tell you that large stretches of coast are notoriously difficult to defend. Even with the full might of the military on side.
We either accept we are going to get small boats and do something robust and legal about returning them - just live with it - or stop all hostilities in their homeland.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 28,122
- Reaction score
- 7,175
- Country
OMG!!
Major flashback.
Don't make me kick your arse a third time on this
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 28,122
- Reaction score
- 7,175
- Country
I'm sure you'd be the first person to get upset if the next government introduced push backs.
Why would I? As long as they make it legal, effective and not a complete waste fo taxpayer cash.
Crack on.
NO, but it could stop them giving Millions of Pounds for a Service that is not being given and it could stop Border Control Boats being Used as Taxis to bring the Illegal Migrants from the half way point of the Channel, those saving could help fund Small Boats the Royal Navy could utilise to Intercept and Block the Dinghies from coming over.................. I suspect that would also stop the French Navy providing Life Jackets and Navel Patrol boat escorts for the Dinghies, knowing that they would no longer just be handing over their problems to us !
Exactly the same as accepting Illegal Migrants, Not Refugees ! They are happy to commit the Crime of Entering the UK Illegally by destroying or dumping their ID papers and Passports and spending Thousands of Pounds to cross the Channel by Dinghies or in the back of Lorries, just because it is the boat crossing the media report on doesn't mean the Lorry Option has stopped ! The No ID, No Passport action is for no other reason than to hide their Identity, names, ages, Countries of Origin and any Criminal Past or indeed any Terrorist Connections. Does it Not even Register with you that there is also something behind the Fact that almost all of these Fighting Aged Men (because there are rarely any Women and Children amongst them) are Predominantly Islamic ? They are Invading the Country By Stealth Without a Single Shot Needed to Be Fired and to Top It All, We the Tax Payers are Funding the Invasion !!
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2025
- Messages
- 4,242
- Reaction score
- 222
- Country
Perhaps we could make performance a condition of paying?
Why don't you lobby your MP and tell them that France are not performing and we should withhold the performance payment.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2025
- Messages
- 4,242
- Reaction score
- 222
- Country
What makes an asylum seeker an illegal migrant, and therefore not a refugee?
There are many reasons asylum seekers arrive without ID papers.
If I was living in a country ravaged by war, famine or I was being persecuted, I wouldn't signal to the government that I was about to emigrate, by applying for a passport, or travel document.
In addition, take Pakistan, every adult has an ID card containing fingerprints and biometric data. Any asylum seeker from Pakistan can be verified by UK government matching that Biometric data with that held by Pakistan, to verify the ID of the asylum seeker.
Similarly for Afghan, Iranians, Eritreans, etc.
Of course if the government did check the asylum seekers ID with these countries, the government of the country of origin would know where the asylum seeker was, and could persecute the family.
So if I was intending to flee a country, I wouldn't alert the government by applying for a travel warrant, and I wouldn't risk the country of my destination informing my country of origin where I ended up, applying for asylum.
And to prevent the country of origin persecuting the family left behind.
If I was intending to send a family member out intot he wide world on their own ata relatively young age, I would want the strongest, the wisest and the least vulnerable to make that journey.
Would you have it otherwise? Would you send the most vulnerable?
So it's the religion of these asylum seekers that scares you so?
Ah, so you think they're coming to conquer, not for asylum?
How long has this invasion been going on, and how successful so far, are theses invaders from conquering the UK?
A neutral third party:
'It covers the entire lifecycle of the policy, stretching from its initial announcement in April 2022 right up until the briefing's publication in July 2024.
When Oxford University analysed this period, they tracked the small boat data across all the major political and legal milestones that occurred between those two dates.
If we map those "political discussions" chronologically, the briefing is evaluating the deterrent effect of this entire timeline:
- April 2022: Boris Johnson first announces the partnership. (Arrivals do not drop).
- June 2022: The European Court of Human Rights blocks the first scheduled flight at the eleventh hour. (Arrivals continue).
- December 2022: The UK High Court rules the policy is lawful. (No noticeable drop in crossings).
- November 2023: The Supreme Court unanimously rules the policy unlawful. (Arrivals continue).
- Winter 2023 – Spring 2024: Intense political debate over the Safety of Rwanda Bill, which is designed to bypass the court's ruling. (No drop).
- April 2024: The Safety of Rwanda Act officially becomes law. (Crossings continue).
- July 2024: The general election takes place, the Labour Party wins, and the scheme is officially cancelled.
By looking at the complete timeline up to July 2024, the briefing was able to confidently conclude that the continuous, loud public debate surrounding the policy simply failed to act as a real-world deterrent.'
Another neutral third party:
'In this briefing, "political discussions" refers to the public debate, announcements, and legislative/legal wrangling over the Rwanda policy — things like Boris Johnson's initial announcement, the ongoing court cases, parliamentary debate over the Safety of Rwanda Act, and media coverage — as opposed to the policy's actual implementation.
This distinction matters because, as the document notes, nobody was forcibly sent to Rwanda under the scheme, and it seems unlikely that anybody will be. So the policy was never actually put into practice through removals. The only thing that did happen, for over two years, was the political noise around it: the announcement, the legal challenges, the new treaty, and the new legislation.
The briefing is essentially asking: even without anyone being removed, could the mere existence of this policy and the surrounding debate have scared people off from crossing the Channel? Its answer is no — the number of people taking this route did not fall following the policy's announcement in April 2022, and if there was a deterrent effect, it was too small to see in the data.
It then adds a caveat: because the Rwanda policy was never implemented, we cannot be sure what its impact would have been on the number of people crossing the Channel in small boats or claiming asylum in the UK. So the finding is specifically about the discussion/threat of the policy having no measurable deterrent effect — it isn't a claim about what actual removals might have done, since that was never tested.'
The point you were making, though, was that the mere announcement of the policy and the subsequent publicity, court cases, debates, discussions etc. had caused a large deterrent effect, before the policy got cancelled. I simply referred you to Oxford University whose research found no such effect: the number of small boat crossings didn't fall after the April 2022 announcement, and if the following two years of publicity, court cases and debate deterred anyone, the effect, in their assessment, was too small to show up in the data. Nobody was ever actually removed to Rwanda, so it says nothing about what removals themselves might have done, and the researchers say as much themselves, since the policy was never implemented.