They didn't stop the boats.

[srb7677]

But the UK cannot solve the problem by itself. It's a European off-shore island. It has no empire, and it's jettisoned its nearby friends. It now has to work hard to prove it wants to play its part in trying to solve the problems of mass migration that's affecting the whole of Europe, and elsewhere.

Unfortunately, all mainland Europe sees is anti-foreigner rhetoric from UK politicians and rioting from its racist thugs — and they've enough of their own to contend with, why would they feel safe dealing with the UK...?

I do not disagree with you, but nevertheless maintain that faster processing of claims can only be a good thing, because this will mean the genuine ones being integrated into the economy much more quickly and the failed ones being deported much more quickly.

I acknowledge that the problem is international but our ability to process claims of people arriving here isn't. It is something we can do ourselves just by investing sufficient resources to do the job reasonably quickly

[patman post]

Rwanda was working, as Southern Ireland will testify.

Just shows that no country can do this on its own — mass immigration and refugees are an International problem that needs massive intpternational effort to solve it.

Besides, Ireland has had enjoyed unrestricted access to the UK and help for decades. Couldn't it show its gratitude and join with with the UK in trying to help solve the current crisis...

[patman post]

Actually investing money in the asylum processing system is what needs to be done, so that the genuine ones can be allowed into the economy to support themselves through working instead of being a burden upon us whilst the bogus ones can be swiftly deported. Doing the latter quickly will be by far the best possible deterrent to bogus asylum seekers coming here without putting off genuine ones, who may wish to seek asylum here because they speak the language or know people already here. Many more actually stay in France or go to other EU countries for such reasons.

But the UK cannot solve the problem by itself. It's a European off-shore island. It has no empire, and it's jettisoned its nearby friends. It now has to work hard to prove it wants to play its part in trying to solve the problems of mass migration that's affecting the whole of Europe, and elsewhere.

Unfortunately, all mainland Europe sees is anti-foreigner rhetoric from UK politicians and rioting from its racist thugs — and they've enough of their own to contend with, why would they feel safe dealing with the UK...?

[srb7677]

Rwanda was working, as Southern Ireland will testify.

A policy that cost us nearly a billion quid without sending anyone there? If that is a definition of success god help us if we see failure,

[Nick]

One important point to recognise is how does the UK refuse entry to those who land on its shores, or who the coastguard rescue at sea?

Where does the UK despatch them to? Rwanda was a farce — even assuming it w a deterrent, how many plane loads of illegals would it take?

And how does the UK solve this problem on its own, now that it's no longer a country with any clout — and currently looking like it's tearing itself apart...?

Rwanda was working, as Southern Ireland will testify. 

[Nick]

Nick you must be the only person in Great Britain is not very worried about the scale of legal immigration during the Tories time in office. The diversion tactics about the few thousand a year "boat people," fools no-one except it appears you. The current levels of legal migration are just unsustainable. The strain on housing and infrastructure and the resultant social unrest will have to be addressed and urgently.

Net migration Smurf, that means IN - OUT. And as you kept saying, all the fruit pickers had bugged off. Same as Beeb, you need to pick a stance and stick to it. 
Why should I worry about something I have no control over, I can like or dislike a situation but worrying is for people without better things to do. 

[Nick]

The point being that legal immigration numbers have shot up since 2020 (aside from a dip during covid) and mostly from countries whom have always needed visas.

Asylum claims have been relatively flat in comparison.

Now you can make the argument that the extra population due to net migration has put extra pressure on public services and infrastructure.

However that does neglect the fact that the biggest reason for a visa is work, and the biggest type of work is helthcare.

School wise, yes it does mean more children to educate but pupil numbers are falling anyway. Schools are going to close because of low pupil numbers.

The housing issue is more down to decades of failed housing policy. We haven't built enough homes, and in particular not enough social housing. Ironically, one of the things currently holding building back is lack of skilled labour - as a good chunk pissed off back to where they came from as requested.

And as I've pointed out, half a million of those are Ukrainian and Hong Kong citizens fleeing persecution in a one off program. And as you keep telling us, all the Polish workers went back after Brexit, which way do you want it cause you can't have it both ways. 

[srb7677]

One important point to recognise is how does the UK refuse entry to those who land on its shores, or who the coastguard rescue at sea?

Where does the UK despatch them to? Rwanda was a farce — even assuming it w a deterrent, how many plane loads of illegals would it take?

And how does the UK solve this problem on its own, now that it's no longer a country with any clout — and currently looking like it's tearing itself apart...?

Actually investing money in the asylum processing system is what needs to be done, so that the genuine ones can be allowed into the economy to support themselves through working instead of being a burden upon us whilst the bogus ones can be swiftly deported. Doing the latter quickly will be by far the best possible deterrent to bogus asylum seekers coming here without putting off genuine ones, who may wish to seek asylum here because they speak the language or know people already here. Many more actually stay in France or go to other EU countries for such reasons.

[srb7677]

Well thats up to labour .If they don't address the problems people will join the front line of the protest . They are not being manipulated they are saying they have had enough.

Denying reality does not enhance your credibility. Of course they were manipulated, by lies about a child murderer being an Arabic asylum seeking Muslim from Syria, none of which was true. And you numpties allowed yourselves to be whipped up into a rage over it, and in doing so shitting all over the memory of those three poor girls. And that truly is both stupid and contemptuous. Shame on you.

[papasmurf]

We tow them back to France and leave  them up on the beach .

Best of luck with that. Sounds simple. I suggest you try to do it.

[Streetwalker]

One important point to recognise is how does the UK refuse entry to those who land on its shores, or who the coastguard rescue at sea?

Where does the UK despatch them to? Rwanda was a farce — even assuming it w a deterrent, how many plane loads of illegals would it take?

And how does the UK solve this problem on its own, now that it's no longer a country with any clout — and currently looking like it's tearing itself apart...?

We tow them back to France and leave  them up on the beach . If the French don't like it tough we can deal with them  after . It will take about three days before the message gets through that they are wasting their time and money .
We have plenty of clout Posty ,but leaders with little backbone . 

[cromwell]

One important point to recognise is how does the UK refuse entry to those who land on its shores, or who the coastguard rescue at sea?

Where does the UK despatch them to? Rwanda was a farce — even assuming it w a deterrent, how many plane loads of illegals would it take?

And how does the UK solve this problem on its own, now that it's no longer a country with any clout — and currently looking like it's tearing itself apart...?

Perhaps we should invent new rules like the eu has for people travelling from the UK to there 

[Streetwalker]

"Released on police bail" does not mean "un-arrested"

Huw Edwards was arrested and released on police bail.

I fact, because being reksed on police bail imposes restrictions on the police, being released on Police bail is much more likely to be a prelude to being charged than simply being released.

Im here to be corrected if Im wrong .....but .......... There seems to be different ways this pans out . You mention the BBC pedo Edwards  . He could be /was released on police bail as he had pleaded guilty and charged under the offence he committed . The Pakistani lads were released on police bail and not charged so were de-arrested . You cant be under arrest for more than 24 hours without charge under normal circumstances 

[patman post]

One important point to recognise is how does the UK refuse entry to those who land on its shores, or who the coastguard rescue at sea?

Where does the UK despatch them to? Rwanda was a farce — even assuming it w a deterrent, how many plane loads of illegals would it take?

And how does the UK solve this problem on its own, now that it's no longer a country with any clout — and currently looking like it's tearing itself apart...?

[papasmurf]

 We haven't built enough homes, and in particular not enough social housing. Ironically, one of the things currently holding building back is lack of skilled labour - as a good chunk pissed off back to where they came from as requested.

Around a million after the Brexit referendum.