The streets are not paved with gold .

You cannot 'ship someone back' to 'the Middle East' or 'East Africa' or 'Northern Europe'. Which country?

Any one they crawled here from without being allowed here.
Do not belong here, getting here illegally.

Sod off, fuc off. And tell your friends we are shut.
 
Sponsored Links
Which country?
Any one they crawled here from without being allowed here.
Which, it seems to have escaped you, is what our authorities do :rolleyes: Unfortunately, a lot of Daily Wail and The Stun readers seem incapable of grasping what the problem is - before we can ship someone back to "Any one they crawled here from" we need to determine which country that was. You can't just accept what someone (who's already demonstrated dishonesty by coming here illegally) says at face value without doing some checking.

After all, suppose someone thinks India is a nicer country than their own - if we just accepted what they say, then all they need to do is get here, say they are from India, and we ship them there. So job accomplished, get some third state to throw them into the country they want to be in. We wouldn't accept that if we were on the receiving end (yes, the Daily Wail and Stun would have something to say if we did), and it's unreasonable to suggest any other country should.

And typical of Daily Fail and Stun readers (which is it sooey ?) to call someone who points out the obvious practical issues a "Bleeding Heart". I get enough of that at work (I sit next to an avid Fail reader :()
 
Another bleeding heart!!!! You're username says it all. :rolleyes:

Well, at least it suggests that I can spell and can avoid all those common homophone errors which make some people's posts look so amateurish!

And if we are into the suggestive power of usernames, may I just remark that yours sounds like a rather unpleasant sort of pudding, the kind they used to feed to junior school pupils in the 1950s. A cross between 'suet' and 'runny' with a hint of 'sago' and a whiff of 'phooey'.

Enjoy your day.

:D
 
Sponsored Links
And typical of Daily Fail and Stun readers (which is it sooey ?) to call someone who points out the obvious practical issues a "Bleeding Heart". I get enough of that at work (I sit next to an avid Fail reader :()

I think you should get paid more for having to do work in those inhuman conditions!

This is from a while back, but it still makes me laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI
 
And typical of Daily Fail and Stun readers (which is it sooey ?) to call someone who points out the obvious practical issues a "Bleeding Heart". I get enough of that at work (I sit next to an avid Fail reader )

I wasn't commenting on the obvious factual issues, :rolleyes: I was commenting on the obvious fact that she is another bleeding heart, so we know where her sympathies lie. Based more on heart than brain I would suggest.
FYI I don't buy newspapers and would never buy the sun if I did. I think you'll find that the gist of alarms argument was to say that people should be turned back to their last port of call on the way here.
We all know that there are obvious practical issues with removing people when they are here, which is why I said it's better that we don't let them in in the first place. Much more could be done on that side of things. :rolleyes:
 
We all know that there are obvious practical issues with removing people when they are here, which is why I said it's better that we don't let them in in the first place. Much more could be done on that side of things. :rolleyes:
Err, turning them back at the point of entry IS what immigration control does - you don't need to see much by the way of documentaries, news reports, and articles in technical journals to realise that they do a lot in this respect*

But, this whole thread is about dealing with people whop are already here - so discussions about turning them back on entry are moot.

* At Dover for instance, they have whole-vehicle X-ray equipment, cameras looking at the underside of trucks, sniffers that can detect the extra CO2 from people hiding in boxes or containers, etc, etc. It's a far cry from some solitary guy, counting down his days to retirement, casually taking a peek in the back of a few lorries.
 
Another bleeding heart!!!! You're username says it all. :rolleyes:
Well, at least it suggests that I can spell and can avoid all those common homophone errors which make some people's posts look so amateurish! And if we are into the suggestive power of usernames, may I just remark that yours sounds like a rather unpleasant sort of pudding, the kind they used to feed to junior school pupils in the 1950s. A cross between 'suet' and 'runny' with a hint of 'sago' and a whiff of 'phooey'. Enjoy your day. :D

People's posts are amateurish!!! :rolleyes: Or do you somehow think that you've wandered into a forum for professional writers?
Some juveniles on here have told me in the past that my username is used as a call for pigs as a matter of fact. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I hope that that brings you as much childish delight as it obviously brought them. :LOL: Your name suggests to me that you are a romantic, and so do arguments like this.....
There is an argument (requiring a long view, rather than a short one), that treating foreigners suffering from HIV under the NHS is the least we can do after the way Britain shafted their countries for centuries. But that is another matter.
:rolleyes:
 
We all know that there are obvious practical issues with removing people when they are here, which is why I said it's better that we don't let them in in the first place. Much more could be done on that side of things. :rolleyes:
Err, turning them back at the point of entry IS what immigration control does - you don't need to see much by the way of documentaries, news reports, and articles in technical journals to realise that they do a lot in this respect* But, this whole thread is about dealing with people whop are already here - so discussions about turning them back on entry are moot. * At Dover for instance, they have whole-vehicle X-ray equipment, cameras looking at the underside of trucks, sniffers that can detect the extra CO2 from people hiding in boxes or containers, etc, etc. It's a far cry from some solitary guy, counting down his days to retirement, casually taking a peek in the back of a few lorries.
I've got news for you pal....IT ISN'T WORKING.
You don't need to see much by the way of documentaries, news reports and articles concerning "sheds with beds" to realise that!
Some honest government action to stop illegal immigration is what's called for.
We all know that that is not what we are getting.
THAT is what this thread is all about.
 
I've got news for you pal....IT ISN'T WORKING.
OK, since you are so damn sure, I've got news for you - it would be A DAMN SIGHT WORSE if they weren't doing what they can to stop it. And I'm equally sure that if "the government" took the sort of steps required to meet your standards then you'd be moaning a lot louder about infringement of your liberties.
You don't need to see much by the way of documentaries, news reports and articles concerning "sheds with beds" to realise that!
Some honest government action to stop illegal immigration is what's called for.
We all know that that is not what we are getting.
THAT is what this thread is all about.
You think they aren't trying.

Your argument is "because some people get through, the process isn't working".

By that argument, we need to completely scrap and replace our electrical regs because they clearly aren't working (people have electrical problems), we need to scrap and replace our gas safety regs because clearly they aren't working (we still have some gas problems/leaks/occasional explosion), etc, etc.
You really, really sound like the Daily Fail reader next to me in the office - constantly whining and whinging about this and that, expecting 100% guarantees for things that cannot be 100%. But it's pointless "debating" the issue because I've observed that those exhibiting the attitude you seem to be showing are seldom open to any reasoned argument unless it's some soundbite promising the undeliverable. Life's a bitch and then you die - get over it.
 
Grow up Simon. This country is bust yet people like you propagate all that is wrong with it. It'll have to change when we default - so sort it now eh? :rolleyes:
 
Youi need to give that daily mail argument of yours a rest pal you're beginning to sound moronic.
As for
Your argument is "because some people get through, the process isn't working".

No. my argument is because too many people get through the process isn't working. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Believe me if there was a gas explosion for every illegal that gets in here we would change the regs, and rightly so.
 
A process not working is defined by the volume of failures or exceptions to the desired output above the set tolerance level (as defined by a lower and upper control limit)
If, in this case, the failure rate is the number of illegals currently residing in the UK and the government can state that this number is below expected or that which is set out as their "tolerable level" then the process is working.
If not then the process is failing, it's that simple.

Doesn't matter what daily rag you read, the above are the simple facts of how processes can defined as succeeding or failing.

Do we all believe that the level of illegals in the UK is below the tolerance level that the government will have?
I would bet my Six Sigma Black Belt that it's not.
 
I completely agree, which is why I wrote..

Some honest government action to stop illegal immigration is what's called for.

note the word honest.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top