General News

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I think we’re past that point already for swathes of the globe, north and south of the equatorial regions and especially areas away from oceans. 
 

It's entirely possible, but I don't think it's a good idea to write off hundreds of millions of lives (minimum) as essentially doomed just yet. 

 

NB. I've seen the "do-nothing because it might make my life a little less comfortable" crowd move their justification from "there is no climate change so why bother?" to "oh dear, too late, why bother?" in a heartbeat before. 

[Dr The Singh]

10 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

So by this logic a tourist is illegal until they can show their right to entry a country on arrival? The only difference is what the person in question has to prove they have the right to stay? 

That is correct, If I go to US without an ESTA or say a country that requires a VISA or do not meet there entry requirement, it does not matter what the reasons for travel, I will be an illegal alien.

 

But there is fault in your logic, these people coming on boats, it's fair to say are not comming to Britian to see that sights etc, it's fair to say they are coming without any paperwork, they have not met any of our entry requirements and by illegal means.  We have an asylum process which they have chose to ignore and go through traffickers

[Robo61]

17 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

That is correct, If I go to US without an ESTA or say a country that requires a VISA or do not meet there entry requirement, it does not matter what the reasons for travel, I will be an illegal alien.

 

But there is fault in your logic, these people coming on boats, it's fair to say are not comming to Britian to see that sights etc, it's fair to say they are coming without any paperwork, they have not met any of our entry requirements and by illegal means.  We have an asylum process which they have chose to ignore and go through traffickers

Can you please explain to the rest of us the asylum process that the vast majority of those crossing by boat have ignored.

[Dr The Singh]

41 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

Can you please explain to the rest of us the asylum process that the vast majority of those crossing by boat have ignored.

I have no bloody idea, I will ask my cousins who have done this a few times.

[LFox99]

Kids and a Holocaust survivor included

[st albans fox]

43 minutes ago, LFox99 said:

Kids and a Holocaust survivor included

Pretty sure no kids were involved (certainly none injured). 

 

 

Edited 2 June 2025 by st albans fox

[leicsmac]

41 minutes ago, LFox99 said:

Kids and a Holocaust survivor included

More detail on this:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cev47ze8vp3o

 

Multiple people have been injured after a man shouting "free Palestine" tossed Molotov cocktails at a gathering in support of Israeli hostages in Colorado, authorities say.

Police said eight people - aged 52 to 88 - were injured in the attack at the Pearl Street Mall, a popular outdoor space in Boulder, about 30 miles (48km) from Denver.

The FBI called it a suspected terror attack and said the suspect used a makeshift flamethrower, Molotov cocktails and other incendiary devices.

Footage of the attack shows the suspect, who was shirtless, screaming at the group and had what appears to be Molotov cocktails in each hand when he was arrested.

The attack unfolded during a weekly scheduled demonstration put on by Run for Their Lives, a pro-Israeli group that holds walks in the outdoor pedestrian mall in solidarity with Israeli hostages in Gaza. 

 

It always seems that the number of ideologues on both sides that are caught in the cycle of violence is far outmatched by the number of those who are innocent in the matter and in all likelihood have no big grievance with the other side, doesn't it?

[Robo61]

3 hours ago, Dr The Singh said:

I have no bloody idea, I will ask my cousins who have done this a few times.

I'll save you the bother THERE AREN'T ANY

[Tommy G]

6 hours ago, Dr The Singh said:

That is correct, If I go to US without an ESTA or say a country that requires a VISA or do not meet there entry requirement, it does not matter what the reasons for travel, I will be an illegal alien.

 

But there is fault in your logic, these people coming on boats, it's fair to say are not comming to Britian to see that sights etc, it's fair to say they are coming without any paperwork, they have not met any of our entry requirements and by illegal means.  We have an asylum process which they have chose to ignore and go through traffickers

Finally some sense

[Trav Le Bleu]

25 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Finally some sense

Do you mean in general or from @Dr The Singh?

[urban.spaceman]

it’s time we brought in IQ tests for voting. 

 

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

it’s time we brought in IQ tests for voting. 

 

 

Then who would vote?

[urban.spaceman]

49 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Then who would vote?

Definitely not Liz Truss.

[bovril]

What's really fascinating about the immigration debate in England is that all evidence points to the fact that leaving the EU has made the situation worse in a number of ways, yet millions of people still seem to think the answer is Nigel Farage. It's like people still having faith in Patson Daka.

Edited 2 June 2025 by bovril

[Danizen]

51 minutes ago, bovril said:

What's really fascinating about the immigration debate in England is that all evidence points to the fact that leaving the EU has made the situation worse in a number of ways, yet millions of people still seem to think the answer is Nigel Farage. It's like people still having faith in Patson Daka.

Some brexiters are so stubborn that they blame pro-EU politicians for deliberately sabotaging Brexit rather than thinking that when those same politicians were screaming, 'this is a bad idea', they might have been on to something.

[Jimothy]

8 hours ago, Dr The Singh said:

That is correct, If I go to US without an ESTA or say a country that requires a VISA or do not meet there entry requirement, it does not matter what the reasons for travel, I will be an illegal alien.

 

But there is fault in your logic, these people coming on boats, it's fair to say are not comming to Britian to see that sights etc, it's fair to say they are coming without any paperwork, they have not met any of our entry requirements and by illegal means.  We have an asylum process which they have chose to ignore and go through traffickers

You're comparing tourists to asylum seekers though, which appreciate Debs brought it up, but they just aren't comparable. 

 

When you travel to another country through official means, with a passport etc then you obviously have to show documentation on entry to prove why you are going. But you have been afforded a means of travel, a passport and an application for whatever the thing is you need to enter and stay in that country. I don't know if you realise but all travel routes for the countries these people on boats have come from have been closed off. Also people who facing political persecution are not likely have a passport or be allowed to cross a border with ease. They have to be snuck out they respective county. Granted there's are arguments about them claiming asylum elsewhere, but they don't have to. You or me travelling to another country in a boat and just wandering off too look at the site would be illegal. Someone with no other way of getting to a country can get there by any means, and they aren't illegal unless they skip asylum process.

 

You want to sort this boat crisis/migrants in hotels situation out? Process the backlog so we can either send back or grant asylum to those already here waiting for a decision. That will clear the hotels and bring down thar cost. Then either offer people a safe way to get here and claim asylum or allow them to start the process in another country, which them completely shut the smugglers business model down. No more hotels housing people waiting, no more boats making dangerous crossings. More control over who comes and when. People are making this dangerous crossing for shits and giggles, give them a better way and I'm sure they'll take it.

 

People should have empathy with these people and also be careful what they wish for. They way this country is heading and the types currently leading the polls might mean we're all grateful of an asylum process where we can flee to another country for safety.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

You're comparing tourists to asylum seekers though, which appreciate Debs brought it up, but they just aren't comparable. 

 

When you travel to another country through official means, with a passport etc then you obviously have to show documentation on entry to prove why you are going. But you have been afforded a means of travel, a passport and an application for whatever the thing is you need to enter and stay in that country. I don't know if you realise but all travel routes for the countries these people on boats have come from have been closed off. Also people who facing political persecution are not likely have a passport or be allowed to cross a border with ease. They have to be snuck out they respective county. Granted there's are arguments about them claiming asylum elsewhere, but they don't have to. You or me travelling to another country in a boat and just wandering off too look at the site would be illegal. Someone with no other way of getting to a country can get there by any means, and they aren't illegal unless they skip asylum process.

 

You want to sort this boat crisis/migrants in hotels situation out? Process the backlog so we can either send back or grant asylum to those already here waiting for a decision. That will clear the hotels and bring down thar cost. Then either offer people a safe way to get here and claim asylum or allow them to start the process in another country, which them completely shut the smugglers business model down. No more hotels housing people waiting, no more boats making dangerous crossings. More control over who comes and when. People are making this dangerous crossing for shits and giggles, give them a better way and I'm sure they'll take it.

 

People should have empathy with these people and also be careful what they wish for. They way this country is heading and the types currently leading the polls might mean we're all grateful of an asylum process where we can flee to another country for safety.

A fair bit more empathy would certainly be a good thing, necessary even, because the lack of it results in the exact outcome you say here. Sadly, I fear that fleeing such ideology would at best only buy someone a little time, as it will have consequences felt worldwide and by everyone and everything. 

[DennisNedry]

22 hours ago, Tommy G said:

Disgraceful what is happening in Paris. Got to be careful what you say on the matter though.

The doctors and engineers again? 

[leicsmac]

27 minutes ago, DennisNedry said:

The doctors and engineers again? 

Seven hells, my dog just went berserk. Goodness only knows why. 

[st albans fox]

Shapps (or whatever his name is now) was on the radio earlier.  Mentioned that he had seen confidential stuff when a minister re trump and what Putin might have which would severely compromise him.  Obviously unable to go into any detail but the inference was clear. 

[leicsmac]

29 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Shapps (or whatever his name is now) was on the radio earlier.  Mentioned that he had seen confidential stuff when a minister re trump and what Putin might have which would severely compromise him.  Obviously unable to go into any detail but the inference was clear. 

Wouldn't really be surprising.

 

How exactly do you deal with that in Whitehall when you're almost certain the US President is a compromised Russian asset, I wonder?

[st albans fox]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Wouldn't really be surprising.

 

How exactly do you deal with that in Whitehall when you're almost certain the US President is a compromised Russian asset, I wonder?

I think to definitively call him a Russian asset is over stating it. However, he clearly doesn’t want to do anything which will upset putin to the extent that he might release the photos ! 

[Dr The Singh]

2 hours ago, Facecloth said:

You're comparing tourists to asylum seekers though, which appreciate Debs brought it up, but they just aren't comparable. 

 

When you travel to another country through official means, with a passport etc then you obviously have to show documentation on entry to prove why you are going. But you have been afforded a means of travel, a passport and an application for whatever the thing is you need to enter and stay in that country. I don't know if you realise but all travel routes for the countries these people on boats have come from have been closed off. Also people who facing political persecution are not likely have a passport or be allowed to cross a border with ease. They have to be snuck out they respective county. Granted there's are arguments about them claiming asylum elsewhere, but they don't have to. You or me travelling to another country in a boat and just wandering off too look at the site would be illegal. Someone with no other way of getting to a country can get there by any means, and they aren't illegal unless they skip asylum process.

 

You want to sort this boat crisis/migrants in hotels situation out? Process the backlog so we can either send back or grant asylum to those already here waiting for a decision. That will clear the hotels and bring down thar cost. Then either offer people a safe way to get here and claim asylum or allow them to start the process in another country, which them completely shut the smugglers business model down. No more hotels housing people waiting, no more boats making dangerous crossings. More control over who comes and when. People are making this dangerous crossing for shits and giggles, give them a better way and I'm sure they'll take it.

 

People should have empathy with these people and also be careful what they wish for. They way this country is heading and the types currently leading the polls might mean we're all grateful of an asylum process where we can flee to another country for safety.

What a confusing post, I didn't compare them, Debs did, I gave her the paradox of her comparison and ofcourse they are not similar, which I stated. 

 

According to Wikipedia the house of commons defines illegal immigrant as:

 

Illegal immigrants in the UK include have:

 

entered the UK without authority

entered with false documents

overstayed their visas

worked or studied on a tourist visa/ non-immigrant visa waiver

entered into forced or fraudulent marriage[12][13][14]

had their marriages terminated or annulled

 

I hope that clarifies things

 

[Jimothy]

2 hours ago, Dr The Singh said:

What a confusing post, I didn't compare them, Debs did, I gave her the paradox of her comparison and ofcourse they are not similar, which I stated. 

 

According to Wikipedia the house of commons defines illegal immigrant as:

 

Illegal immigrants in the UK include have:

 

entered the UK without authority

entered with false documents

overstayed their visas

worked or studied on a tourist visa/ non-immigrant visa waiver

entered into forced or fraudulent marriage[12][13][14]

had their marriages terminated or annulled

 

 

I hope that clarifies things

 

The refugee convention overrides the one you highlight as soon as the asylum process starts. 

 

I hope this clarifies things.

 

Also not sure why the post is confusing, I referenced Debs bringing it up, you continued the comparison. The rest wasnt confusing, it made many points and ideas on how to deal with the current crisis, none of which you engaged with.

 

We both want people to stop making dangerous trips across the channel, probably for different reasons. We can deal with it humanely, sensibly and with a long term view to continue to manage the situation, as I previously mentioned, or we can keep messing about with these gimmicky tactics the last government, this government and Reform are all fixated on.

Edited 2 June 2025 by Facecloth

[Lionator]

4 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Shapps (or whatever his name is now) was on the radio earlier.  Mentioned that he had seen confidential stuff when a minister re trump and what Putin might have which would severely compromise him.  Obviously unable to go into any detail but the inference was clear. 

Surely that is breaching the secrets act even eluding to something like that? 
 

on the other hand, it seems that Putin and Trump were communicating during Biden’s presidency which is obviously an issue