Suspect is a 66 year old man from High Wycombe. All very sad really. You’d think during the course of the long drive to Dover, somewhere along the A2 or M20, you’d think this isn’t going to go well. Just pull over, have a coffee and a Ginsters and turn back. The mind can get fixed in some very sad ways.
Braverman going full NF in the Commons last night, talking about an ‘invasion’ and a ‘conspiracy’ by opposition parties to prevent action being taken on asylum and immigration. Backed up by 30p Lee saying that asylum seekers should be ‘grateful’ and if they don’t like the conditions (sleeping on the floor with disease spreading) they can get on a dinghy back to France. All this despite being in power for nearly 13 years. Why have the Tories allowed this to become such a mess? Because that is what they have done. This is what happens when you make a subject so toxic that it becomes impossible to do the right thing. Resolving this is not rocket science. Set up bureaus to claim asylum on route, work with EU partners rather than against them to crack down on smugglers, for example fund a rapid response team for the beaches, a big effort to prosecute and disrupt the gangs. Speed up processing so asylum seekers with a genuine claim can go off and work for a living/have some dignity. Others with no valid claim will get quickly returned, a massive disincentive to make the crossing in itself. But no, the Tories have set the immigration expectation to almost zero. Moreover, this chaos is one of the few things keeping the base onside at the moment as it deliberately confuses Labour’s practical approach with permissiveness. A horrible political failure that in itself requires the Government to step down and seek a new mandate.
Anyone else remember when our resident know-it-all thought that three consecutive days of zero border crossings meant that simply by announcing the policy to send them to Rwanda, the Tories had solved the problem?
True but it seems to be back on the menu as they would prefer eyes to be looking elsewhere. This is what I see when they talk now.
They did fix it, but then the liberal do-gooder lefties messed it up again with a false flag and paid crisis actors.
I've heard it was the despair at the naff quality of the Ginster 'pasty' that finally convinced him...
A source revealed that the accused reached breaking point immediately after a third consecutive mouthful of anaemic pastry without reaching the filling.
Interesting, but not surprising, how many apologists for terrorism there are on social media today justifying the actions of the petrol-bomber, no doubt emboldened by the sort of rhetoric Braverman, Guillis, Anderson and others have been using. If an Asian man threw petrol bombs at a sensitive public facility in the UK and then killed himself, the tabloids would be calling 'TERRORIST!' and rightly so. But he was white, so the narrative is that he was just a bit fed up with 'illegals', probably had mental health issues, was driven to it by 'channel paddlers', etc. No. He was a terrorist. Just not a very 'good' one, thankfully.
France continues to offer the UK set up a migrant processing centre in Northern France to avoid the crossings. The UK continues to reject it, preferring a deterrent approach. Link from this time last year. https://www.france24.com/en/france/...pen-legal-migration-route-amid-channel-crisis
On initial review it makes the UK look bad, really bad but thinking a little about it.... We need to massively improve and streamline the immigration/asylum process. It needs money being spent on it, of course this is a difficult sell in the current climate. We need to tackle the issue at source, improving the situation in the origin countries to reduce demand to begin with. Bona fide asylum seekers and qualifying migrants do need to be swiftly identified and offered safe passage to the UK, but imho this should be done in their country of origin or as close to as possible. I'm not sure processing in France is the answer. There should be no need to trek for thousands of miles to then be holed up in a camp in France waiting processing. We need to setup/improve processing camps further a field making it simpler and faster to apply. Opening a centre in France causes issues with the ability to deal with those identified that don't gain a right to entry. France would need to give the UK the right to eject failed claimants from France otherwise, they will just attempt illegal entry anyway having had a more comfortable stay in the centre before deportation than in a camp. If anything it would possibly be an incentive for more to try the dangerous passage which is where I think the UK government's deterrent position is centred. Where the UK fail is in not adequatley offering the alternative. Like most problems you can tackle the symptoms but unless you look at the cause the situation will not improve. I can see why France have offered it. It's a political win for them whatever happens. Maybe what we need to do is take the offer temporarilly whilst we can improve permanent processing facilities further afield to replace it.
It does take an international response. But the UK, along with many other nations, fail to adequately fund and support those nations on the "frontline". If we can process applicants quickly, and fairly, as close to their country of origin then that would be great but we can't expect those nations to do so using just their own resources. And the greatest deterrent to those who are claiming asylum when they are not entitled to it is to speed up the assessment process. If they are kept safely, but securely, and deported within months, then there will no longer be the incentive to make the attempt.
I agree but then that's one objective of the foreign aid budget which is targeted for reduction/removal by the same people who froth at the mouth about illegal immigration (accept entirely by the way you're not one of them). IMO you can't have the best of all worlds - either we try and get ahead of the problem and spend cash abroad or we wait for them to arrive here and end up paying probably more in the long run. Unfortunately we're now at a point where a previously 'out of sight, out of mind' humanitarian crisis is now brewing right here in our country. Some of these encampments the Home Office is running look pretty appalling. Sadly the government is too paralysed by it's need to maintain a hostile front to keep its base on side, as well as dealing with all the chickens coming home to roost after a decade plus of mismanagement and neglect of the asylum and immigration infrastructure, to do anything other than flail around wildly.
Of course there are no easy answers. If there were they would have been acted upon. I think funding needs to be separated from "Foreign Aid" which is a bit of a dodgy term when you look at what it funds. The title gives it a charity like air which is why some campaign for it to be cut when there are those also in dire need in the UK.
I don’t know if it would lead to failed applicants sailing anyway. What would be the point? They would be easily identified and deported. A large proportion of the whole are granted asylum. Get them processed and when they arrive they can work. Far fewer beach landings.
Apparently the UK has the lowest immigration numbers in Europe, this includes illegals, it is a non topic being used to fire up the flag shaggers. Open borders everywhere now, borders are scars on the planet. If the western world and the super powers werent stealing resources from everywhere and propping up dictatorships there wouldnt be people travelling thousands of miles for a better life.
What's your source for this? Certainly not what this suggests (albeit a little out of date): https://www.pewresearch.org/global/...of-europes-unauthorized-immigrant-population/ I agree with the rest of the post.
Saw two interesting things yesterday from opposite sides of the debate. Firstly, New Statesman graph of the day shows that we are some way down the league table for asylum applications per capita - the talk of an "invasion" is clearly aimed at the more base element of their support. https://twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1587559558741901319?s=20&t=n3Gjxb7o9yCP3M810JHEdQ Secondly, from this article in the Spectator - we grant 76% of all asylum claims compared to the EU average of 34%. Now either those coming to the UK have much better claims for some reason or, as seems more likely, this isn't the ECHR tying our hands and "leftie lawyers" exploiting that, it's our interpretation of international law. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/suella-bravermans-critics-ignore-an-uncomfortable-truth/ What both these points demonstrate is the facile and disingenuous nature of the Braverman/ERG arguments on this. No, half the world isn't scrambling to get here to take advantage of our world beating benefits system and no, it's not the mean Europeans and their human rights nonsense that means we can't turn people away.
Albanian Prime Minister wades in. Thread with Albanian position. https://twitter.com/ediramaal/status/1587800223430180864?s=46&t=FQFJnLdCwxV2RPZvn8EeQg
Those figures make it incomprehensible why we do not take up the French offer of an Asylum processing facility on French soil, other than this is a manufactured crisis to try to deter all asylum and feed ‘red meat’ to a few belligerent Brexiteers and nationalists.
Interesting interview with Albanian PM Edi Rama on Newsnight. https://twitter.com/bbcnewsnight/status/1587940280753274880?s=46&t=hnmyyJEPkk66C607yz0nsQ
Taking back control. Vol 931. Asylum seekers from Manston dumped at Victoria Station by Home Office and left with no money or accommodation. Good British people from a homeless charity Under One Sky helped them out. I’ll be donating to them straight after I’ve done my RNLI one. Strangely, the papers so keen on immigration stories, the Mail, Express, Telegraph and Sun, quiet on this one. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ekers-from-manston-stranded-in-central-london
Don't think you really get what I'm saying. It's called Foreign aid and therefore the great unwashed think it's charitable donations abroad. They think that the charitable donations would be better directed within the UK where people can't afford food, housing or care costs. What I'm suggeting is it is designated as immigration/border operating costs. Cutting that whilst moaning about immgration numbers would be harder for the morons to campaign for. I'm not suggesting we cut foreign aid, quite the contrary it needs to be increased, but spent in aproactive rather than reactive manner. I am at odds with the people that as you suggest want to cut foreign aid to spend at home. I also think that we need to increse spending on those that need it in the UK, but we need to make sure it is used efficiently not thrown about to those that don't need it and withheld from those that do. Both issues are caused by a lack of decent policy, oversight and manpower in government.
Braverman uses a Chinook helicopter to travel 20 miles from Dover to Manston. Yes a Chinook, one of those two propellor giants that makes your house shake. Shameless photo op at thousands of pounds per hour.
Just wondering if there are motorways or rail links in Kent? Or maybe she wanted to portray the image of flying into a dangerous warzone like Helmand was, to stir up the racist rhetoric even more.
