RNLI

Highway Man said:
Anyone with half a brain cell can see that these are not genuine assylum seekers flooding over here in small boats, a genuine assylum seeker wouldn't be paying a human trafficker £5000 a ticket. A genuine assylum seeker fleeing from a war would be happy to reach safety in the first safe country that they found refuge in. Not trek across the globe to illegally enter a country beyond normal reach.
Click to expand...

What did I say only a few minutes ago about your attitude to truth etc?
 
motorbiking said:
I think it’s fair to say most are well tutored economic migrants, wanting a better life and work.
Click to expand...
That must be why 64% are granted asylum.
The UK grants asylum to individuals who cannot return to their home countries because of a well-founded fear of persecution based on their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a specific social group. Applicants must be inside the UK to apply.
Click to expand...

Around 64% of asylum seekers are ultimately successful once initial Home Office decisions and appeals are combined.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter how much you twist and turn it, or go round and round over previous time consuming discussions when you were again proven wrong, your use of the incorect terminology to refer to asylum seekers is based entirely on your desire to demonise them.

They are asylum seekers, unless and until they enter UK covertly and do not apply for asylum they remain asylum seekers and cannot possibly be described as immigrants of any sort because they have not yet arrived in UK.
And they cannot apply for asylum until they arrive in UK.

Of course there are other illegal immigrants such as Visa and student overstayers.
 
Koolpc said:
Nope, you got it wrong!! Lol...own it dude.
Click to expand...
Do I really need to go to the bother of proving you wrong? :rolleyes:
You are a trolling nuisance.

Here is the timeline of the conversation. Own it, troll.
1784225249388.png

1784225193748.png

1784225385392.png

1784225489894.png
 
King Billy said:
According to MBK, they'd end up where they started from. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Think about it - The alternative is for all the water to drain away.

There are a few places in the world where the surface tide only goes in one direction. The channel isn’t one.
 
motorbiking said:
He was correct. Nosenout was talking to me. I’ve never pretended to be a dog. I was going to reply that you couldn’t read also but couldn’t be ar*ed.
Click to expand...
Oh, so it's only certain posters that are allowed to post nonsensical irrelevant comments.
Sorry, I didn't realise there was a monopoly on who can post off-topic banter. Or deny the obvious. Or perhaps yawn when they have nothing to add. :rolleyes:
Perhaps if I try barking occasionally I can join this group of posters allowed to post nonsense. :rolleyes:
 
Again for the clueless…

Wind with tide - tide and wind in the same direction makes the sea flatter.

Wind over tide - opposite direction makes it choppier.

This notion that a strong tide could take you from Calais to Devon is beyond daft.

A full tide takes 12 hours and 25 minutes. So if the tide is going to take you from Calais to say Plymouth Approx 240Nm and given the tide turns in the west first. You’ve got approx 3 hours of the tide taking you west at Calais before the easterly currents take you back again. Thats under 10Nm west in a super spring. Not to mention the need for a boat that can do 80Kts. Which is going to cross the channel in under 20 minutes. Making the impact of the tide irrelevant
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
RNLI buys burkinis for Africans
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
SirGalahad
S
S
RNLI takes down its website after suspected hacking attempt
9 10 11
Replies
156
Views
14K
AngleEyes
AngleEyes
S
Just for CHW
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
LooPrEvil
L
Back
Top