Immigration Crisis

Joined
6 Aug 2022
Messages
2,317
Reaction score
103
Country
United Kingdom
Another with a no doubt wide angled lens. Looks over 25ft carrying around 30 passengers. P&O could learn a trick here, wasting their money on big ships and all these dingy manufacturers who waste time and effort getting CE mark certification. Just set up in France, no body cares.

skynews-small-boat-migrants_5758585.jpg

and another at least 20 ft long carrying 25-30 people.
I'd estimate about 300mm per person, plus about 400mm either end, that would make it about 5 metres long.

1_Migrant-Channel-crossing-incidents.jpg

No respectable manufacture would produce boats of this size, due to the inherent instability, not to mention the inability to make it comply with DIRECTIVE 2013/53/EU
DIY boats then. :rolleyes:
And the space for each person looks closer to 300mm. Plus about 400mm at the bow and the transom. Very different from your 500mm to 600mm per person, plus 1,2 metres at each end. Then there's many in the middle. :rolleyes:
You do like to distort the perspective in order to carry your inhumane and xenophobic argument.
If you take one passenger's back, at about 1 metre, (about 2cm in the picture) then compare that to the length (passenger space) of the boat (about 12cm in the picture), I'd estimate about 6 metres in length, plus about 400 mm either end, that'll be under 7 metres.
You've been all over the place with your estimates, 6 - 8 metres, at least 8 metres, 8 - 10 metres. :rolleyes:
All exaggerations base on your prejudice.
But the length of the boats, the carrying capacity, the safety of them is not the issue. The issue is that they're forced into making such hazardous crossings because there are no safe nor legal routes for them. if you were genuinely so concerned you'd be campaigning for those safe and legal routes.

Indeed - you have at least 2.5 tonnes of load, no rigid hull, a motor that can barely push you along and a vessel likely to fold /twist if it has to deal with any kind of wave frequency. The transom is held on with sticky tape, so if that opens the two pontoons will separate and everyone will be dumped in the sea.
No more than DIY flotation devices then. You were saying how many people these boats were designed for?

There have been vessels similar to this with 100 people used in the med and sadly they frequently drown despite the warmer water. ... they know they will be picked up by border force, coast guard or RNLI taxi service if anything goes wrong.
I'm pretty sure that RNLI don't operate in the Med.
Yes they do frequently drown, all the stronger argument for safe and legal routes to be created.
Any argument against asylum seekers crossing any body of water, based on the argument that it's not safe nor legal falls at the first hurdle, when those protagonists refuse to consider safe and legal routes.

The channel despite being tidal, busy and cold is a much shorter crossing than Africa to Italy via the med. It doesn't matter if you are at sea for 30 mins or 30 hours, you'll drown very quickly if you have no floatation.
See above. Your argument is disingenuous if you refuse to consider safe and legal routes.

In the Med the boats are way worse, probably 150 people on this one:
migrants-e1553717986938.jpeg
Why are you concerned, as long as they don't make it to UK?
 
Sponsored Links
Joined
31 May 2016
Messages
9,127
Reaction score
1,168
Country
United Kingdom
Bold type makes your arguments so much more convincing.

I don't want people to drown. I care less about illegal migrants, I care more about large gang networks of people smugglers being established. Organised crime takes decades to unpick and typically it becomes very hard once established. Each boat is making the smugglers around 100k profit. Its costing the UK around 3bn a year and I suspect its costing France a similar amount. It is fairly easy to stop/reduce.

Turning a blind eye to the problem because they are heading for the UK with a gallic shrug "there is nothing we can do once they are in the water" is just making it worse for both countries. Proposing an open door for online claims will just encourage even more economic migrants.
 
Last edited:
Joined
6 Aug 2022
Messages
2,317
Reaction score
103
Country
United Kingdom
Bold type makes your arguments so much more convincing.
So you were convinced?

I don't want people to drown. I care less about illegal migrants,
You don't seem to care enough to want safe and legal routes for the asylum seekers.
It's a bit inhumane to not care if illegal migrants drown on crossing the channel. But you're entitled to your opinions.

I care more about large gang networks of people smugglers being established. Organised crime takes decades to unpick and typically it becomes very hard once established. Each boat is making the smugglers around 100k profit. Its costing the UK around 3bn a year and I suspect its costing France a similar amount. It is fairly easy to stop/reduce.
:confused:o_O:?:
Neither UK nor France pay for these smugglers.
Are you beginning to realise the difficulties in catching the people smugglers?
Wouldn't it be better, quicker, and more effective to create safe and legal routes which would destroy the smugglers market overnight.
But no, neither you nor any other right-wingers would consider it, probably because it would work.

Turning a blind eye to the problem because they are heading for the UK with a gallic shrug "there is nothing we can do once they are in the water" is just making it worse for both countries.
No-one is turning a blind eye, but trying the same old unsuccessful methods for decades after decades is...... what do they say about trying the same old unsuccessful methods time and again?

Proposing an open door for online claims will just encourage even more economic migrants.
There would still be the application process, same as now. Only the channel crossings could be safe and legal.
RLNI could stand down, Border force could be redeployed into application processing, money would no longer be payable to France, Calais, etc would turn into an orderly queue. What's not to like?
 
Joined
31 May 2016
Messages
9,127
Reaction score
1,168
Country
United Kingdom
You misunderstood my comment when I said I care less about illegal migrants, the context was one of caring about the problems they cause as I went on to say, my concern was the traffickers/gangs. I would have thought it was clear when I said I don't want people to drown.

Show me where your proposal has been implemented and hasn't led to10s of thousands of more applicants than currently get here via illegal means.

Show me also where tougher options such as those deployed by Japan, Australia, Greece, Italy etc haven't resulted in few migrants.
 
Sponsored Links
Joined
25 Jul 2022
Messages
2,138
Reaction score
151
Country
United Kingdom
Bold type makes your arguments so much more convincing.

I don't want people to drown. I care less about illegal migrants, I care more about large gang networks of people smugglers being established. Organised crime takes decades to unpick and typically it becomes very hard once established. Each boat is making the smugglers around 100k profit. Its costing the UK around 3bn a year and I suspect its costing France a similar amount. It is fairly easy to stop/reduce.

Turning a blind eye to the problem because they are heading for the UK with a gallic shrug "there is nothing we can do once they are in the water" is just making it worse for both countries. Proposing an open door for online claims will just encourage even more economic migrants.
if it is fairly easy to stop/reduce, have you not wondered why our Government is not stopping/reducing it? The issue appears to be rising, not decreasing.

It does keep a certain demographic very angry. Surely that can't be related though.

From what I can see, the only or best way to stop it would be to have an efficient, clear system in place. If people know they are likely to be processed and returned if appropriate it will reduce the demand for people traffickers
 
Joined
6 Aug 2022
Messages
2,317
Reaction score
103
Country
United Kingdom
You misunderstood my comment when I said I care less about illegal migrants, the context was one of caring about the problems they cause as I went on to say, my concern was the traffickers/gangs.
And I suggested a relatively easy way to put the traffickers out of business but it's never been considered for some vague reasons.

I would have thought it was clear when I said I don't want people to drown.
Yet you dismiss out-of-hand a way of avoiding it.

Show me where your proposal has been implemented and hasn't led to10s of thousands of more applicants than currently get here via illegal means.
Has it ever been implemented anywhere?
For sure there have been amnesties, but that is a different animal for illegal immigrants who may have been resident for years.
Asylum seeking is not illegal. But anti-foreigners have also tried to characterise the seeking of asylum as an illegal action, it's not.


Show me also where tougher options such as those deployed by Japan, Australia, Greece, Italy etc haven't resulted in few migrants.
There's tougher, and then there's illegal methods.
Australia, Greece, Italy methods have been illegal and inhumane.
Excess money spent on wasted efforts trying to prevent asylum seekers would be better spent on processing them more efficiently and effectively.
 
Joined
2 Jul 2019
Messages
9,482
Reaction score
1,031
Location
cornwall
Country
United Kingdom

France failed to tell Britain that a migrant boat was sinking and ignored a rescue offer from a passing tanker, according to a leaked probe.


The report also praised Britain for its exemplary response to last year's deadly Channel tragedy.

Previous reports suggested that the French and British coastguard services both passed the buck as a dinghy packed with migrants sank in the Channel on November 24 last year, resulting in 27 deaths.

However, a probe conducted by Cherbourg gendarmes and leaked to Le Monde on Tuesday pointed the finger squarely at the French, suggesting Calais coastguards’ stubborn refusal to help the stricken vessel despite migrants’ repeated and increasingly desperate pleas may warrant criminal charges for “non-assistance of persons in danger”. It called for “further investigations” to examine this possibility.

The flimsy vessel, which was totally “unsuited to a night Channel crossing” set off at around 10pm local time. French authorities were first notified it was sinking at 1.35am and were made aware of its location at 2.05am.

The leaked document concludes that the French coastguard repeatedly failed to respond to distress calls sent from French territorial waters backed up by GPS coordinates and lied to migrants by claiming it was sending a boat that never showed up.

When the migrant dinghy did finally reach UK waters, the French contacted the British but “never” told them that the boat had been in distress for hours and was sinking. As a result, the British prioritised another three boats in distress, saving 98 migrants that night.

As soon as it was made aware of the vessel’s location at 2.30am, the UK coastguard “rapidly” dispatched its rescue boat, the Valiant, to the area but asked the French to send its rescue craft, le Flamant, because it was much nearer the zone.

The French failed to do so, later claiming the boat was engaged in another rescue operation. However, Le Monde cites the probe as saying this claim was false and that Le Flamant was not, in fact, performing any “vital” task.
“Receiving no more calls (from the migrants, who were in contact with the French),” the UK coastguard “clearly thought that they had been saved,” wrote the gendarmes.

At 3.27am, the British issued a mayday call, which went unanswered.

In further damning findings, the French also told a tanker that came across the stricken boat not to help because its rescue boat was on its way.

The following afternoon, a fishing boat came across dead bodies in the water. There were only two survivors.

The gendarmes also accused the “Gris-Nez” coastguard of dragging its feet when communicating contact details of staff involved that night.

They also pointed to the “inappropriate” behaviour of certain French personnel, notably the deputy director of the Griz-Nez coastguard who nicknamed himself Super Migrant on his iPad.

The number of migrants crossing the Channel from France to England has soared over the last five years from almost none to 42,000 this year, causing severe tensions between Paris and London.

The drownings last November led to plunging relations relations when Boris Johnson, the then prime minister, suggested all asylum seekers who landed in Britain be sent back across the Channel.

Britain agreed last week to pay another £63 million to France to help finance extra security measures on French beaches.

However, in an editorial, Le Monde dismissed the deal as little more than a “vanity” project.

“Subcontracting French police (to prevent Channel crossings) allows the UK to largely shirk its duty to examine asylum requests on its border,” it wrote, pointing out that the UK handled 48,000 such requests last year compared with 96,000 in France.

Such requests for asylum in the UK should at least “partially” be conducted in France, its editorial added. “It’s time for the deadly blame game to end”.



 
Joined
20 Nov 2009
Messages
35,874
Reaction score
4,386
Location
Surrey
Country
United Kingdom
Well that holding centre that caused all the fuss is now empty awaiting the next batch of migrants coming over from France

They are all in hotels

Apparently over all it’s costing the UK 42 million a week in hotel fees

Jeez us wept
 
Joined
2 Mar 2020
Messages
6,646
Reaction score
186
Country
United Kingdom
DateMigrants detectedBoats detected
14 November 20224008
15 November 202200
16 November 202200
17 November 202200
18 November 202200
19 November 202200
20 November 202200
 
Joined
11 Nov 2020
Messages
2,944
Reaction score
367
Location
Middle Earth
Country
United Kingdom
Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak could adopt a more open approach to migration without damaging their electoral prospects, according to a study by a left-of-centre thinktank.

Data on voting intentions and attitudes to immigration examined by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) suggests that a more flexible approach would attract many more swing voters than it would repel for Labour; from an article @ the Grauniad.

Rob Ford, professor of political science at the University of Manchester and co-author of the report, said: “There has been a sea change in public opinion on immigration in the past decade, unlocking a centre-ground majority for an immigration system which combines clear and well enforced rules with open, flexible policies to maximise the gains from immigration, compassion to those fleeing conflict and generosity to those who have made their homes in Britain.”
 
Joined
23 May 2004
Messages
13,733
Reaction score
575
Country
United Kingdom
You misunderstood my comment when I said I care less about illegal migrants, the context was one of caring about the problems they cause as I went on to say
Have you thought about the reason that people are leaving their own countries and the problems that they have?

Illegal wars that the UK has been involved in?

Leftover effects of the exploitation of colonialism?

The unfairness of the wealth of developed countries vs the poverty of the third world?

And yet those moaning about those people coming here (they are not illegal until to be legally deemed so) invariably call for foreign aid to be cut!
 
Sponsored Links
Top