The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
The facts suggest that there was rather more control in the past than you seem to think. From the House of Commons Library -
"How has migration to the UK changed over time? The number of people migrating to the UK has been greater than the number emigrating in each year since 1994. Before then, immigration and emigration were roughly in balance, with net migration slightly decreasing the population in most years. Over the last twenty-five years, both immigration and emigration have increased to historically high levels, with immigration exceeding emigration by more than 100,000 in every year between 1998 and 2020."
Between 1964 and 1983 for instance the report says that net migration was negative.
But it was positive from the 1930s to the 1960s.
Was it positive in the 50's? I'm rather surprised. I can imagine that it was positive in the 40's, given the number of East Europeans who settled here then.
If you arrive here from France, you are not fleeing persecution.
So either piss off somewhere else, or live destitute on the street. Your choice.
Ultimately this is the issue for many, many people. Legally the applicant does not have to claim asylum in the first safe country. Morally people in this country think that they should.
If you are being attacked in your home and you flee, where do you go for help? The closest door or the one with the nicest furniture?
Because those in France are asylum shopping, to many it diminishes the strength of the claim.
Now PB'ers will no doubt now reel off a list of things why this post is wrong (factually, morally, legally) but to the person on the Clapham omnibus this is what they think. And its why my next door neighbour, unprovoked, told me he was listening to Farage "because he's right".
Good thread header. Not least because I learnt stuff from it.
But please don't start giving the UK Government - or future governments - ideas. I am not sure they are bright enough to have worked out the Tow back solution for themselves and it would be better if they stayed ignorant.
IT is an interesting and useful header, as was (some of) the discussion. But I'm left with the feeling that there is a fundamental asymmetry. The smugglers have narrow waters to contend with but UKG has affectively a 'width' that is a fair chunk of the length of the Channel when it comes to chucking them back into a return boat. That is going to complicate on station/off station time a great deal - especially when the day/night cycle is added. Maybe explains why Mr Sunak - who is not stupid - and colleagues didn't do it that way?
Set against that, the refugees boats are pretty slow, the coast guard seem to do a pretty good job of detecting them offshore. It sounds like a good number of the boats might sink before reaching Britain if this was not the case. Most boats attempt the crossing at the narrowest point of the channel. Have any set off from more than a couple of dozen miles from Calais?
Now, the smugglers will change tactics in response to a tow back operation, but it's much harder to cross the Channel from Normandy than Calais.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
We're talking about immigration, not a war. People coming over here, not an invading army. Though some racists do like the parallels.
For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is hilarious.
Amazing how many people ignore William of Orange and his allies in the 1680s.
The thing is, that wasn't an opposed invasion. The incumbent simply ran away, and William was invited in.
I think there has to be at least one battle to make it an invasion.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
Yep me too. I'd love to put it all (or even mainly) down to low economic growth and increasing inequality but I'm afraid I can't. I'm not succumbing to 'Farage PM is inevitable' though. Not yet anyway.
The way I would characterise the situation is with reference to Newtonian Mechanics.
Britain is currently on a political trajectory that leads to Farage becoming PM. So we only avoid Farage becoming PM if something happens to change the trajectory.
Now, maybe Starmer, his Cabinet, and his new Chief Secretary, will do something, and the trajectory will change. Maybe they've already set plans in motion that will bear fruit before the next election to that effect and we simply can't see it yet.
Thus far I have seen very little evidence that they have done so, or are capable of doing so. But one lives in hope.
The government is snookered because the only way to stop Farage becoming PM is by doing things that almost no-one in the Labour Party can accept, especially Starmer himself.
The fourteen million vote question.
Is there a solution to the boats that a) would work and b) wouldn't have worse knock-on effects and c) is only prevented by Starmer's essential Starmerness?
Clearly, some people think there is, but I'm not convinced. Supposedly respectable papers putting "we can just leave ECHR... it'll be fine" when it probably won't isn't helping resolve that question.
Are you a real person or an AI bot that’s been told to post mild criticism of the current government before concluding nobody else could possibly do any better?
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
We're talking about immigration, not a war. People coming over here, not an invading army. Though some racists do like the parallels.
For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is hilarious.
Amazing how many people ignore William of Orange and his allies in the 1680s.
The thing is, that wasn't an opposed invasion. The incumbent simply ran away, and William was invited in.
I think there has to be at least one battle to make it an invasion.
There were. Boyne, for instance. (In Irelan d, but all part of it ...).
Good thread header. Not least because I learnt stuff from it.
But please don't start giving the UK Government - or future governments - ideas. I am not sure they are bright enough to have worked out the Tow back solution for themselves and it would be better if they stayed ignorant.
IT is an interesting and useful header, as was (some of) the discussion. But I'm left with the feeling that there is a fundamental asymmetry. The smugglers have narrow waters to contend with but UKG has affectively a 'width' that is a fair chunk of the length of the Channel when it comes to chucking them back into a return boat. That is going to complicate on station/off station time a great deal - especially when the day/night cycle is added. Maybe explains why Mr Sunak - who is not stupid - and colleagues didn't do it that way?
Set against that, the refugees boats are pretty slow, the coast guard seem to do a pretty good job of detecting them offshore. It sounds like a good number of the boats might sink before reaching Britain if this was not the case. Most boats attempt the crossing at the narrowest point of the channel. Have any set off from more than a couple of dozen miles from Calais?
Now, the smugglers will change tactics in response to a tow back operation, but it's much harder to cross the Channel from Normandy than Calais.
Do we know how many boats sink en route? In passing, I think Starmer's right with a policy of 'smash the gangs'. Trouble is there are always some evil b*stards willing to make a quick euro or thousand.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
We're talking about immigration, not a war. People coming over here, not an invading army. Though some racists do like the parallels.
For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is hilarious.
Amazing how many people ignore William of Orange and his allies in the 1680s.
The thing is, that wasn't an opposed invasion. The incumbent simply ran away, and William was invited in.
I think there has to be at least one battle to make it an invasion.
There were. Boyne, for instance. (In Irelan d, but all part of it ...).
Sure, but Ireland isn't part of Britain. The question was about invasions of Britain.
“Starmer needed someone to do for him what Darren Jones had been doing for Rachel Reeves at the Treasury, and Jones was seen by the PM as an effective operator, the person said”. That person should be locked up for their own safety.
Is this the same Darren Jones who went on QT and lied about the demographic makeup of people arriving on small boats and then tried to lie his way out of it?
Indeed it is the same one.
I quite like the cut of his jib and I think he will go far. What's the problem with a little bit of gaslighting the public and then lying about it? They all do it and have done since Blair.
If you arrive here from France, you are not fleeing persecution.
So either piss off somewhere else, or live destitute on the street. Your choice.
Ultimately this is the issue for many, many people. Legally the applicant does not have to claim asylum in the first safe country. Morally people in this country think that they should.
If you are being attacked in your home and you flee, where do you go for help? The closest door or the one with the nicest furniture?
Because those in France are asylum shopping, to many it diminishes the strength of the claim.
Now PB'ers will no doubt now reel off a list of things why this post is wrong (factually, morally, legally) but to the person on the Clapham omnibus this is what they think. And its why my next door neighbour, unprovoked, told me he was listening to Farage "because he's right".
This is an important one: another level of Appeal Court ruling Trump's "reciprocal tariffs" illegal - basically that they are not within the powers of the President. This is the En Banque (ie all the Judges) panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (covering I think NY and region). It is the 2nd or perhaps 3rd level of Appeals and only SCOTUS is left.
The original ruling was by a specialist Court dealing with International Trade. If SCOTUS have any sense they just won't take it on.
A US appeals court has ruled that most tariffs issued by US President Donald Trump are illegal, setting up a potential legal showdown that could upend his foreign policy agenda.
The ruling affects Trump's so-called "reciprocal" tariffs, imposed on most countries around the world, as well as other tariffs slapped on China, Mexico and Canada.
In a 7-4 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected Trump's argument that the tariffs were permitted under an emergency economic powers act, calling them "invalid as contrary to law".
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
The facts suggest that there was rather more control in the past than you seem to think. From the House of Commons Library -
"How has migration to the UK changed over time? The number of people migrating to the UK has been greater than the number emigrating in each year since 1994. Before then, immigration and emigration were roughly in balance, with net migration slightly decreasing the population in most years. Over the last twenty-five years, both immigration and emigration have increased to historically high levels, with immigration exceeding emigration by more than 100,000 in every year between 1998 and 2020."
Between 1964 and 1983 for instance the report says that net migration was negative.
But it was positive from the 1930s to the 1960s.
Was it positive in the 50's? I'm rather surprised. I can imagine that it was positive in the 40's, given the number of East Europeans who settled here then.
Windrush etc maybe, and the first people from the Indian subcontinent?
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
Britain has been successfully invaded since 1066. Henry Tudor's invasion, leading to victory over Richard III at Bosworth, must surely count in any reasonable reckoning.
That, like the 1690 invasion, was welcomed by many of the then Governing Class. 1066 effectively wiped out the then Governing Class and replaced it by a pretty brutal New Order.
I find it interesting to consider the effect of the Norman conquest. On one level, that of the peasant farming his land under the aegis of the Lord of the Manor, little really changed. No more slavery but a some new rubbish about being a villein, and tied to the land. The cycle of the year still rolled on, the church calendar dominated everything. And yet the entire elite was gone, and those that replaced them spoke a different language. ISTR that it was 300 years before the King spoke English rather than French.
“Starmer needed someone to do for him what Darren Jones had been doing for Rachel Reeves at the Treasury, and Jones was seen by the PM as an effective operator, the person said”. That person should be locked up for their own safety.
Is this the same Darren Jones who went on QT and lied about the demographic makeup of people arriving on small boats and then tried to lie his way out of it?
Indeed it is the same one.
I quite like the cut of his jib and I think he will go far. What's the problem with a little bit of gaslighting the public and then lying about it? They all do it and have done since Blair.
True but reading PB one could be forgiven for thinking it’s only Farage and Tice doing it
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
We're talking about immigration, not a war. People coming over here, not an invading army. Though some racists do like the parallels.
For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is hilarious.
Small boats are a bit like a slow-motion D Day, but in reverse.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
Yes. And as a result we have a hard right party leading by 15 points in the polls
At what point do Woke wankers understand they are leading us to a very British kind of Nazism? You cannot bottle up and silence that fury forever. If we want our liberal democracy to endure, we are going to have to be very illiberal, for about a decade, on all matters to do with migration, asylum, integration, Islam, etc. That way democracy survives, there is no other way
What's more, just as Australia shows you CAN deal with boats, Denmark has shown that you CAN preserve your democracy and exclude the far right from power, if the centrist parties are willing to get suitably tough. But you really do have to be tough: Denmark demolishes ethnic ghettoes. It sends in the bulldozers. It ignores the pleas of lefty EU lawyers and gets on with the task
As a result the Danish far right has been reduced to a rump
The centre party in Poland also saw off the far right. Their method - attack the underlying issues.
Why are people upset by migration? Because their community is getting poorer and they feel helpless. If people felt like they had good jobs and good pay and good services then there wouldn't be the same frustration.
I have said for a while that we should fear what comes after Farage - because he will fail. Lets assume that he is elected and he does all the things you suggest about migration. Go further - send it masked "patriots" to drag people away. After a period of euphoria people then ask if they are better off. And find not only things aren't getting better, they are getting worse.
We aren't having enough babies, we aren't training enough people to do the work we need. Which is why we had waves of migration. Take away the migrants and we have even fewer people paying taxes and doing critical work - and a government whose policies on practically everything that isn't migration work against the issues people cite as problems for them.
We saw this with Brexit. Vote leave. Take Back Control. Get Brexit Done. Fuck all positive changed in people's lives so they threw that government out. As they will Farage. But with so many governments having failed to go after the structural inequalities breaking western societies like ours, the trend is towards authoritarian solutions...
I like this take, RP, there's a lot in it and it's hopeful and it steers to the sort of politics (focus on reducing inequality) that I support.
But I increasingly struggle to hang onto it. The alternative view is this frenzy about migrants isn't driven by economics, what it's mainly about is racism - or xenophobic nativism if we wish to be kind - finding an outlet and its voice.
Most Reform supporters are not financially struggling and working class. The notion it's a predominantly 'redwall' uprising is false. And a very sobering stat from the other day, almost half of Reform supporters think the party should actively associate itself with Lucy Connolly. I mean, wow or what?
The irony is real. The viral video of angry white people shouting abuse at African students was in Stanley. A town that's 98% white and these racist morons were shouting about invasions and being replaced. That mentality is true of the comfortably off people backing Reform and saying the foreigners are being given things that "homeless veterans" and the like don't get. The further irony? These people vote against welfare payments to "our" people.
Shitkickers will kick shit. But even there, at the heart of the issue is a very simple premise - that our society is getting poorer and more run down which is the systemic failure I mentioned.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
The facts suggest that there was rather more control in the past than you seem to think. From the House of Commons Library -
"How has migration to the UK changed over time? The number of people migrating to the UK has been greater than the number emigrating in each year since 1994. Before then, immigration and emigration were roughly in balance, with net migration slightly decreasing the population in most years. Over the last twenty-five years, both immigration and emigration have increased to historically high levels, with immigration exceeding emigration by more than 100,000 in every year between 1998 and 2020."
Between 1964 and 1983 for instance the report says that net migration was negative.
But it was positive from the 1930s to the 1960s.
Was it positive in the 50's? I'm rather surprised. I can imagine that it was positive in the 40's, given the number of East Europeans who settled here then.
Windrush etc maybe, and the first people from the Indian subcontinent?
You may well be right; I was thinking of the number I knew, or knew of, who went to Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
The facts suggest that there was rather more control in the past than you seem to think. From the House of Commons Library -
"How has migration to the UK changed over time? The number of people migrating to the UK has been greater than the number emigrating in each year since 1994. Before then, immigration and emigration were roughly in balance, with net migration slightly decreasing the population in most years. Over the last twenty-five years, both immigration and emigration have increased to historically high levels, with immigration exceeding emigration by more than 100,000 in every year between 1998 and 2020."
Between 1964 and 1983 for instance the report says that net migration was negative.
What element of that was UK 'controlling their borders' and what was relative stability in foreign parts, foreign countries enforcing their land borders and limited forms of travel?
The UK didn't have significant immigration controls until the 1905 Aliens Act, a reaction to Jewish immigration from eastern Europe.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
Utterly bewildering we ever allowed such a generous system to operate in the first place. And predictably maddening that first the Tories then Labour (until now) have never moved to close it down
My hunch is that this issue is now baked in. The public mood has gone far beyond "the boats" and is now anti-immigration in general, and to a pretty severe degree., and it is probably irreversible, until dramatic changes occur
It's sad. We had a pretty harmonious country, with flaws, until 10-20 years ago. Grotesque ineptitude - or outright treachery - has squandered this inheritance
They never wanted to close it down as the system was operating as intended. We had years of politicians, on inward migration in general, moaning it was too high while doing nothing aside enable it. The moral cowardice of the Blair and Cameron years on migration is stark.
What’s changed ? The public seems to have had enough and the old tactic of just telling everyone they are racist for not being happy clappy about mass inward migration no longer works.
It is ironic that you describe Blair's "moral cowardice" on this issue and yet Farage in his big policy launch speech repeatedly praised Blair for his swift action to remove illegal migrants...
You’re talking about two different things.
I’m talking about Blair’s moral cowardice for enable a huge increase in inward migration while failing to make the case for it and even complaining, as Cameron did, it was too high and they needed to do something about it. While doing nothing.
The case for it? We lacked a workforce in a large areas of the economy. The wave of Eastern Europeans was paraded as a Massive Crisis. 20 years on and nobody is bothered about Poles et al.
Again, as filling the workforce gaps is now seen as treason, we have two choices: 1) A national campaign to get people shagging. Get the birthrate up significantly. Combined with a significant long term investment to train "British" people to be plumbers, doctors, chefs, engineers. 2) Successfully deport the "pakis" (note how that word keeps coming back as the label for everyone) and suffer a sharp national decline as patriots fail to train up as plumbers, doctors, chefs, engineers and fail to have more babies because nobody wants to shag them
We've had millions of economically inactive people since the 1980s. What should have happened is that those people should have been trained to do the new jobs which were becoming available instead of expecting migrants to do them. But that would have been more difficult and cost more initially. Politicians took this easy route instead of the one they should have done.
Is that not my second point? People won't do these jobs but then attack the people brought in to do them instead.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
Britain has been successfully invaded since 1066. Henry Tudor's invasion, leading to victory over Richard III at Bosworth, must surely count in any reasonable reckoning.
That, like the 1690 invasion, was welcomed by many of the then Governing Class. 1066 effectively wiped out the then Governing Class and replaced it by a pretty brutal New Order.
I find it interesting to consider the effect of the Norman conquest. On one level, that of the peasant farming his land under the aegis of the Lord of the Manor, little really changed. No more slavery but a some new rubbish about being a villein, and tied to the land. The cycle of the year still rolled on, the church calendar dominated everything. And yet the entire elite was gone, and those that replaced them spoke a different language. ISTR that it was 300 years before the King spoke English rather than French.
Yes; I think too that the Norman castles were bigger and more dominating than the Saxon ones. Couldn't have been long, of course, before the soldiers the new aristocrats brought with were supplemented by Saxons.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
The facts suggest that there was rather more control in the past than you seem to think. From the House of Commons Library -
"How has migration to the UK changed over time? The number of people migrating to the UK has been greater than the number emigrating in each year since 1994. Before then, immigration and emigration were roughly in balance, with net migration slightly decreasing the population in most years. Over the last twenty-five years, both immigration and emigration have increased to historically high levels, with immigration exceeding emigration by more than 100,000 in every year between 1998 and 2020."
Between 1964 and 1983 for instance the report says that net migration was negative.
That's demand, not control. And rather more recent that 1,000 years.
Let's take the 19th century.
About 1 million Irish people moved to the mainland. Immigrants? Arguably not since the Act of Union in 1801. It was internal migration within the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
German immigration amounted to ca 29,000. Then at the end of that century about 120,000 Russian Jews moved to Britain. About 120,000 Polish veterans who fought for Britain remained here after WW2. Then there were the Caribbeans, Indians and Pakistanis who were invited here after the war. The numbers of Flemings and Huguenots who moved here in earlier centuries were small, both in relative and absolute numbers. Britain did seek to control who could come and was largely effective in doing so. That effectiveness has changed significantly in recent decades for a variety of reasons. And the numbers and types of migrants / asylum seekers have also changed. It is simply disingenuous to pretend that what is happening now is simply a continuation of what has always happened.
Some migration is a good thing. The questions are always is about how much, who comes, what control there is and the effect on existing citizens. It is the failure to address these issues honestly or even think they are worthwhile issues to consider which is behind much of the discontent. And much of the superficial and/or sentimental pretendy solutions and posturing. (Nor do I exempt what I have suggested from this criticism. But nor do I see anything better suggested by any political party.)
Governments are addressing these issues and do consider then worthwhile issues to consider. For example, Sunak's government did a lot to reverse the Boriswave. Starmer's government said they wanted net immigration to fall, and it has. Net immigration is way down on 2022/3 and continuing to fall.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
Britain has been successfully invaded since 1066. Henry Tudor's invasion, leading to victory over Richard III at Bosworth, must surely count in any reasonable reckoning.
That, like the 1690 invasion, was welcomed by many of the then Governing Class. 1066 effectively wiped out the then Governing Class and replaced it by a pretty brutal New Order.
I find it interesting to consider the effect of the Norman conquest. On one level, that of the peasant farming his land under the aegis of the Lord of the Manor, little really changed. No more slavery but a some new rubbish about being a villein, and tied to the land. The cycle of the year still rolled on, the church calendar dominated everything. And yet the entire elite was gone, and those that replaced them spoke a different language. ISTR that it was 300 years before the King spoke English rather than French.
I might be wrong about this, but the impression I've gained is that the Normans extracted more money from the peasantry. They were more highly militarised, and all those castles they built to subjugate the peasantry needed paying for.
That's not to say that life for a peasant before the Conquest was a bed of roses, or that the rule of Anglo-Saxon kings and lords was benign, but I think the peasants would have noticed the change beyond the new lords speaking French.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
Britain has been successfully invaded since 1066. Henry Tudor's invasion, leading to victory over Richard III at Bosworth, must surely count in any reasonable reckoning.
That, like the 1690 invasion, was welcomed by many of the then Governing Class. 1066 effectively wiped out the then Governing Class and replaced it by a pretty brutal New Order.
I find it interesting to consider the effect of the Norman conquest. On one level, that of the peasant farming his land under the aegis of the Lord of the Manor, little really changed. No more slavery but a some new rubbish about being a villein, and tied to the land. The cycle of the year still rolled on, the church calendar dominated everything. And yet the entire elite was gone, and those that replaced them spoke a different language. ISTR that it was 300 years before the King spoke English rather than French.
I might be wrong about this, but the impression I've gained is that the Normans extracted more money from the peasantry. They were more highly militarised, and all those castles they built to subjugate the peasantry needed paying for.
That's not to say that life for a peasant before the Conquest was a bed of roses, or that the rule of Anglo-Saxon kings and lords was benign, but I think the peasants would have noticed the change beyond the new lords speaking French.
And that goes with the Domesday book - working out exactly who needed to pay what!
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
Britain has been successfully invaded since 1066. Henry Tudor's invasion, leading to victory over Richard III at Bosworth, must surely count in any reasonable reckoning.
That, like the 1690 invasion, was welcomed by many of the then Governing Class. 1066 effectively wiped out the then Governing Class and replaced it by a pretty brutal New Order.
I find it interesting to consider the effect of the Norman conquest. On one level, that of the peasant farming his land under the aegis of the Lord of the Manor, little really changed. No more slavery but a some new rubbish about being a villein, and tied to the land. The cycle of the year still rolled on, the church calendar dominated everything. And yet the entire elite was gone, and those that replaced them spoke a different language. ISTR that it was 300 years before the King spoke English rather than French.
I might be wrong about this, but the impression I've gained is that the Normans extracted more money from the peasantry. They were more highly militarised, and all those castles they built to subjugate the peasantry needed paying for.
That's not to say that life for a peasant before the Conquest was a bed of roses, or that the rule of Anglo-Saxon kings and lords was benign, but I think the peasants would have noticed the change beyond the new lords speaking French.
The Normans also abolished slavery, so that was an important change.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
Yep me too. I'd love to put it all (or even mainly) down to low economic growth and increasing inequality but I'm afraid I can't. I'm not succumbing to 'Farage PM is inevitable' though. Not yet anyway.
The way I would characterise the situation is with reference to Newtonian Mechanics.
Britain is currently on a political trajectory that leads to Farage becoming PM. So we only avoid Farage becoming PM if something happens to change the trajectory.
Now, maybe Starmer, his Cabinet, and his new Chief Secretary, will do something, and the trajectory will change. Maybe they've already set plans in motion that will bear fruit before the next election to that effect and we simply can't see it yet.
Thus far I have seen very little evidence that they have done so, or are capable of doing so. But one lives in hope.
The government is snookered because the only way to stop Farage becoming PM is by doing things that almost no-one in the Labour Party can accept, especially Starmer himself.
And Corbyn's party hasn't even got going yet. The danger is that they bleed different parts of their coalition to Reform and Corbyn. If the LDs can keep their block of 72 seats and maybe add a few more, then there has to be a chance they could become the official opposition instead of Labour.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
Britain has been successfully invaded since 1066. Henry Tudor's invasion, leading to victory over Richard III at Bosworth, must surely count in any reasonable reckoning.
That, like the 1690 invasion, was welcomed by many of the then Governing Class. 1066 effectively wiped out the then Governing Class and replaced it by a pretty brutal New Order.
I find it interesting to consider the effect of the Norman conquest. On one level, that of the peasant farming his land under the aegis of the Lord of the Manor, little really changed. No more slavery but a some new rubbish about being a villein, and tied to the land. The cycle of the year still rolled on, the church calendar dominated everything. And yet the entire elite was gone, and those that replaced them spoke a different language. ISTR that it was 300 years before the King spoke English rather than French.
Yes; I think too that the Norman castles were bigger and more dominating than the Saxon ones. Couldn't have been long, of course, before the soldiers the new aristocrats brought with were supplemented by Saxons.
And people generally do people things, like chat, become friends, fall in love, etc. You only need to look at what happened in the countries that Nazi Germany occupied in WW2 to see that.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
We're talking about immigration, not a war. People coming over here, not an invading army. Though some racists do like the parallels.
For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is hilarious.
Amazing how many people ignore William of Orange and his allies in the 1680s.
The thing is, that wasn't an opposed invasion. The incumbent simply ran away, and William was invited in.
I think there has to be at least one battle to make it an invasion.
There were. Boyne, for instance. (In Irelan d, but all part of it ...).
Sure, but Ireland isn't part of Britain. The question was about invasions of Britain.
The boats issue is missing the point. The problems are caused by three factors:
1. The Refugee Convention which defines widely who is entitled to asylum. 2. The fact that it removes the decision from the country concerned ie if the person fits the criteria they get entry automatically regardless of any factors (numbers, other unsuitability, resources, the wishes of a country's citizens). It is this loss of control which is a key issue. It might have been bearable when the numbers were small but seems less so when a significant proportion of the world's population fall within the criteria. 3. The fact that people can only apply for asylum when they are here and not from outside the country. This creates an obvious incentive to arrive here. (Plus the fact that when here it is easy to disappear into the black economy. @rcs1000 has said how this last might be addressed. So I won't repeat.)
So deal with each of these. Possible answers (each with their own pluses and minuses) include -
1. Withdraw from the Refugee Convention. State that if people want to come to live in Britain they have to apply in the normal way like everyone else and will only be accepted if they fulfil the criteria decided by the government here. Having a horrible time in a shitty state will not be enough. The govt could exceptionally give itself the power to admit some exceptional cases but this would be in its gift not an automatic right for the applicant. Brutal but probably effective. 2. Applications must be made outside Britain. If rejected only one very limited opportunity to appeal. 3. Anyone arriving here through unorthodox means gets arrested, detained in a secure facility ie not a hotel or HMO and gets deported to home state or third country. If they won't reveal where they are from, they get detained indefinitely. Again brutal but probably effective. No-one comes here to be detained and unable to work in the black economy or otherwise move around freely.
Lots of undoubted criticisms to be made of these suggestions. They may well be unacceptable for all sorts of reasons. But the ECHR criticism seems to miss the point. It is the Refugee Convention which creates the obligation and it is the wideness of its definitions which has made the gatekeeping so weak.
If you can't identify the problem accurately, it is harder than it need be to come up with an effective solution.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
Britain has been successfully invaded since 1066. Henry Tudor's invasion, leading to victory over Richard III at Bosworth, must surely count in any reasonable reckoning.
That, like the 1690 invasion, was welcomed by many of the then Governing Class. 1066 effectively wiped out the then Governing Class and replaced it by a pretty brutal New Order.
I find it interesting to consider the effect of the Norman conquest. On one level, that of the peasant farming his land under the aegis of the Lord of the Manor, little really changed. No more slavery but a some new rubbish about being a villein, and tied to the land. The cycle of the year still rolled on, the church calendar dominated everything. And yet the entire elite was gone, and those that replaced them spoke a different language. ISTR that it was 300 years before the King spoke English rather than French.
I might be wrong about this, but the impression I've gained is that the Normans extracted more money from the peasantry. They were more highly militarised, and all those castles they built to subjugate the peasantry needed paying for.
That's not to say that life for a peasant before the Conquest was a bed of roses, or that the rule of Anglo-Saxon kings and lords was benign, but I think the peasants would have noticed the change beyond the new lords speaking French.
The Normans also abolished slavery, so that was an important change.
And replaced it with a different system that was not exactly freedom for the serfs.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
Britain has been successfully invaded since 1066. Henry Tudor's invasion, leading to victory over Richard III at Bosworth, must surely count in any reasonable reckoning.
That, like the 1690 invasion, was welcomed by many of the then Governing Class. 1066 effectively wiped out the then Governing Class and replaced it by a pretty brutal New Order.
I find it interesting to consider the effect of the Norman conquest. On one level, that of the peasant farming his land under the aegis of the Lord of the Manor, little really changed. No more slavery but a some new rubbish about being a villein, and tied to the land. The cycle of the year still rolled on, the church calendar dominated everything. And yet the entire elite was gone, and those that replaced them spoke a different language. ISTR that it was 300 years before the King spoke English rather than French.
I might be wrong about this, but the impression I've gained is that the Normans extracted more money from the peasantry. They were more highly militarised, and all those castles they built to subjugate the peasantry needed paying for.
That's not to say that life for a peasant before the Conquest was a bed of roses, or that the rule of Anglo-Saxon kings and lords was benign, but I think the peasants would have noticed the change beyond the new lords speaking French.
The Normans also abolished slavery, so that was an important change.
Didn't need it when they had manorial servitude, though, no? (IANAE: just wondering.)
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
Britain has been successfully invaded since 1066. Henry Tudor's invasion, leading to victory over Richard III at Bosworth, must surely count in any reasonable reckoning.
That, like the 1690 invasion, was welcomed by many of the then Governing Class. 1066 effectively wiped out the then Governing Class and replaced it by a pretty brutal New Order.
I find it interesting to consider the effect of the Norman conquest. On one level, that of the peasant farming his land under the aegis of the Lord of the Manor, little really changed. No more slavery but a some new rubbish about being a villein, and tied to the land. The cycle of the year still rolled on, the church calendar dominated everything. And yet the entire elite was gone, and those that replaced them spoke a different language. ISTR that it was 300 years before the King spoke English rather than French.
I might be wrong about this, but the impression I've gained is that the Normans extracted more money from the peasantry. They were more highly militarised, and all those castles they built to subjugate the peasantry needed paying for.
That's not to say that life for a peasant before the Conquest was a bed of roses, or that the rule of Anglo-Saxon kings and lords was benign, but I think the peasants would have noticed the change beyond the new lords speaking French.
The Normans also abolished slavery, so that was an important change.
And replaced it with a different system that was not exactly freedom for the serfs.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
Britain has been successfully invaded since 1066. Henry Tudor's invasion, leading to victory over Richard III at Bosworth, must surely count in any reasonable reckoning.
That, like the 1690 invasion, was welcomed by many of the then Governing Class. 1066 effectively wiped out the then Governing Class and replaced it by a pretty brutal New Order.
I find it interesting to consider the effect of the Norman conquest. On one level, that of the peasant farming his land under the aegis of the Lord of the Manor, little really changed. No more slavery but a some new rubbish about being a villein, and tied to the land. The cycle of the year still rolled on, the church calendar dominated everything. And yet the entire elite was gone, and those that replaced them spoke a different language. ISTR that it was 300 years before the King spoke English rather than French.
I might be wrong about this, but the impression I've gained is that the Normans extracted more money from the peasantry. They were more highly militarised, and all those castles they built to subjugate the peasantry needed paying for.
That's not to say that life for a peasant before the Conquest was a bed of roses, or that the rule of Anglo-Saxon kings and lords was benign, but I think the peasants would have noticed the change beyond the new lords speaking French.
The Normans also abolished slavery, so that was an important change.
And replaced it with a different system that was not exactly freedom for the serfs.
A bit like indenturement replacing 19th century slavery?
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
Britain has been successfully invaded since 1066. Henry Tudor's invasion, leading to victory over Richard III at Bosworth, must surely count in any reasonable reckoning.
That, like the 1690 invasion, was welcomed by many of the then Governing Class. 1066 effectively wiped out the then Governing Class and replaced it by a pretty brutal New Order.
I find it interesting to consider the effect of the Norman conquest. On one level, that of the peasant farming his land under the aegis of the Lord of the Manor, little really changed. No more slavery but a some new rubbish about being a villein, and tied to the land. The cycle of the year still rolled on, the church calendar dominated everything. And yet the entire elite was gone, and those that replaced them spoke a different language. ISTR that it was 300 years before the King spoke English rather than French.
I might be wrong about this, but the impression I've gained is that the Normans extracted more money from the peasantry. They were more highly militarised, and all those castles they built to subjugate the peasantry needed paying for.
That's not to say that life for a peasant before the Conquest was a bed of roses, or that the rule of Anglo-Saxon kings and lords was benign, but I think the peasants would have noticed the change beyond the new lords speaking French.
The Normans also abolished slavery, so that was an important change.
Didn't need it when they had manorial servitude, though, no? (IANAE: just wondering.)
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
Britain has been successfully invaded since 1066. Henry Tudor's invasion, leading to victory over Richard III at Bosworth, must surely count in any reasonable reckoning.
That, like the 1690 invasion, was welcomed by many of the then Governing Class. 1066 effectively wiped out the then Governing Class and replaced it by a pretty brutal New Order.
I find it interesting to consider the effect of the Norman conquest. On one level, that of the peasant farming his land under the aegis of the Lord of the Manor, little really changed. No more slavery but a some new rubbish about being a villein, and tied to the land. The cycle of the year still rolled on, the church calendar dominated everything. And yet the entire elite was gone, and those that replaced them spoke a different language. ISTR that it was 300 years before the King spoke English rather than French.
I might be wrong about this, but the impression I've gained is that the Normans extracted more money from the peasantry. They were more highly militarised, and all those castles they built to subjugate the peasantry needed paying for.
That's not to say that life for a peasant before the Conquest was a bed of roses, or that the rule of Anglo-Saxon kings and lords was benign, but I think the peasants would have noticed the change beyond the new lords speaking French.
The Normans also abolished slavery, so that was an important change.
What happened in Yorkshire, Lancashire and the rest of the North was a lot worse, though.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
Britain has been successfully invaded since 1066. Henry Tudor's invasion, leading to victory over Richard III at Bosworth, must surely count in any reasonable reckoning.
That, like the 1690 invasion, was welcomed by many of the then Governing Class. 1066 effectively wiped out the then Governing Class and replaced it by a pretty brutal New Order.
I find it interesting to consider the effect of the Norman conquest. On one level, that of the peasant farming his land under the aegis of the Lord of the Manor, little really changed. No more slavery but a some new rubbish about being a villein, and tied to the land. The cycle of the year still rolled on, the church calendar dominated everything. And yet the entire elite was gone, and those that replaced them spoke a different language. ISTR that it was 300 years before the King spoke English rather than French.
I might be wrong about this, but the impression I've gained is that the Normans extracted more money from the peasantry. They were more highly militarised, and all those castles they built to subjugate the peasantry needed paying for.
That's not to say that life for a peasant before the Conquest was a bed of roses, or that the rule of Anglo-Saxon kings and lords was benign, but I think the peasants would have noticed the change beyond the new lords speaking French.
The Normans also abolished slavery, so that was an important change.
What happened in Yorkshire, Lancashire and the rest of the North was a lot worse, though.
Nowadays, Harrying of the north would just mean a tour from the 5th in line to the throne.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
Britain has been successfully invaded since 1066. Henry Tudor's invasion, leading to victory over Richard III at Bosworth, must surely count in any reasonable reckoning.
That, like the 1690 invasion, was welcomed by many of the then Governing Class. 1066 effectively wiped out the then Governing Class and replaced it by a pretty brutal New Order.
I find it interesting to consider the effect of the Norman conquest. On one level, that of the peasant farming his land under the aegis of the Lord of the Manor, little really changed. No more slavery but a some new rubbish about being a villein, and tied to the land. The cycle of the year still rolled on, the church calendar dominated everything. And yet the entire elite was gone, and those that replaced them spoke a different language. ISTR that it was 300 years before the King spoke English rather than French.
I might be wrong about this, but the impression I've gained is that the Normans extracted more money from the peasantry. They were more highly militarised, and all those castles they built to subjugate the peasantry needed paying for.
That's not to say that life for a peasant before the Conquest was a bed of roses, or that the rule of Anglo-Saxon kings and lords was benign, but I think the peasants would have noticed the change beyond the new lords speaking French.
The Normans also abolished slavery, so that was an important change.
Didn't need it when they had manorial servitude, though, no? (IANAE: just wondering.)
Villeinage, in this country, was certainly an improvement on being a chattel slave. The Norse and Danes' (and England was essentially half-Danish in 1066), treatment of slaves was awful.
Serfdom in 18th century Poland and parts of Russia far more closely resembled chattel slavery.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
We're talking about immigration, not a war. People coming over here, not an invading army. Though some racists do like the parallels.
For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is hilarious.
Small boats are a bit like a slow-motion D Day, but in reverse.
“Starmer needed someone to do for him what Darren Jones had been doing for Rachel Reeves at the Treasury, and Jones was seen by the PM as an effective operator, the person said”. That person should be locked up for their own safety.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
We're talking about immigration, not a war. People coming over here, not an invading army. Though some racists do like the parallels.
For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is hilarious.
Amazing how many people ignore William of Orange and his allies in the 1680s.
The thing is, that wasn't an opposed invasion. The incumbent simply ran away, and William was invited in.
I think there has to be at least one battle to make it an invasion.
There were. Boyne, for instance. (In Irelan d, but all part of it ...).
Sure, but Ireland isn't part of Britain. The question was about invasions of Britain.
There were minor skirmishes at Wincanton and Reading during 1688.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
Britain has been successfully invaded since 1066. Henry Tudor's invasion, leading to victory over Richard III at Bosworth, must surely count in any reasonable reckoning.
That, like the 1690 invasion, was welcomed by many of the then Governing Class. 1066 effectively wiped out the then Governing Class and replaced it by a pretty brutal New Order.
I find it interesting to consider the effect of the Norman conquest. On one level, that of the peasant farming his land under the aegis of the Lord of the Manor, little really changed. No more slavery but a some new rubbish about being a villein, and tied to the land. The cycle of the year still rolled on, the church calendar dominated everything. And yet the entire elite was gone, and those that replaced them spoke a different language. ISTR that it was 300 years before the King spoke English rather than French.
I might be wrong about this, but the impression I've gained is that the Normans extracted more money from the peasantry. They were more highly militarised, and all those castles they built to subjugate the peasantry needed paying for.
That's not to say that life for a peasant before the Conquest was a bed of roses, or that the rule of Anglo-Saxon kings and lords was benign, but I think the peasants would have noticed the change beyond the new lords speaking French.
The Normans also abolished slavery, so that was an important change.
Didn't need it when they had manorial servitude, though, no? (IANAE: just wondering.)
Villeinage, in this country, was certainly an improvement on being a chattel slave. The Norse and Danes' (and England was essentially half-Danish in 1066), treatment of slaves was awful.
Serfdom in 18th century Poland and parts of Russia far more closely resembled chattel slavery.
Interesting historical debate also on on the slave/serf status of coal miners and saltmakers in Scotland (till 1800 IIRC).
"Even though irregular maritime arrivals are a small fraction of the total immigration to the UK, they have totemic potency way beyond their actual number."
If it was not for them, the racists would find something else to whip up a frenzy about.
There speaks a well off member of society, no inkling of what is going on at the bottom of the pile among the great unwashed.
The point is that the racists want some issue to be able to 'get' at immigrants. Currently, the main one is the boat arrivals. The fact that the frenzy they're stirring up is affecting the lives of immigrants who did not come on boats is irrelevant to them - as seen in several stories over the last couple of days. Or even a positive side-effect in their eyes. If the boat arrivals were to immediately stop, they would find some other issue with which to get at immigrants.
The current situation with asylum and the boats is unsustainable, for society and the asylum-seekers themselves. It needs improving. But even when it is, there will be some new anti-immigrant scandal that the racists will hook on to.
On this point watch Sky News at 10.30am on their report from Nuneaton
It is very disturbing and why the boats have to be stopped urgently when I believe the oxygen will be removed from the right and racist
Reform won’t stop . They’re now saying net migration should be zero , even if asylum claims fall dramatically they’ll say that’s too much . Reform survive by making people angry , offering simplistic solutions . Why Zia Yusuf is with him when what’s really going on amongst their base is they want non-white immigrants shipped out even if here legally . The brain dead wife beaters masquerading as so called patriots want a whiter Britain .
The righteous have spoken, the locals are all brain dead wife beaters. Next you will be suggesting forcible deportation for any white person not welcoming immigrants
The boats issue is missing the point. The problems are caused by three factors:
1. The Refugee Convention which defines widely who is entitled to asylum. 2. The fact that it removes the decision from the country concerned ie if the person fits the criteria they get entry automatically regardless of any factors (numbers, other unsuitability, resources, the wishes of a country's citizens). It is this loss of control which is a key issue. It might have been bearable when the numbers were small but seems less so when a significant proportion of the world's population fall within the criteria. 3. The fact that people can only apply for asylum when they are here and not from outside the country. This creates an obvious incentive to arrive here. (Plus the fact that when here it is easy to disappear into the black economy. @rcs1000 has said how this last might be addressed. So I won't repeat.)
So deal with each of these. Possible answers (each with their own pluses and minuses) include -
1. Withdraw from the Refugee Convention. State that if people want to come to live in Britain they have to apply in the normal way like everyone else and will only be accepted if they fulfil the criteria decided by the government here. Having a horrible time in a shitty state will not be enough. The govt could exceptionally give itself the power to admit some exceptional cases but this would be in its gift not an automatic right for the applicant. Brutal but probably effective. 2. Applications must be made outside Britain. If rejected only one very limited opportunity to appeal. 3. Anyone arriving here through unorthodox means gets arrested, detained in a secure facility ie not a hotel or HMO and gets deported to home state or third country. If they won't reveal where they are from, they get detained indefinitely. Again brutal but probably effective. No-one comes here to be detained and unable to work in the black economy or otherwise move around freely.
Lots of undoubted criticisms to be made of these suggestions. They may well be unacceptable for all sorts of reasons. But the ECHR criticism seems to miss the point. It is the Refugee Convention which creates the obligation and it is the wideness of its definitions which has made the gatekeeping so weak.
If you can't identify the problem accurately, it is harder than it need be to come up with an effective solution.
About two thirds of asylum applications are made by people who are legally in the UK via other routes, e.g. employment visa. With (2), are you saying these people have to leave the country before applying for asylum?
If point 1 is adopted, your question does not arise. If they are already legally here, why would they need to apply for asylum? If they are here on a short-term basis, then at the end of it they should leave. I am not aware of how normal applications for a visa to work and live here work but that is the policy which should be adopted for everyone ie it is Britain who decides who is let into the country on the criteria it lays out - not by a person claiming persecution which the government is obliged to accept regardless of any other factors.
So, if someone is in the UK legally but their visa is coming to an end, and they face persecution in their country of origin, you think they should travel back to that country and seek asylum from there?
They can always go somewhere else, you think you are allowed to overstay a visa in any other country than Britain.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I’m afraid the conversation has moved on . Reform and the Tories don’t want even genuine asylum seekers. If you’re non white and here legally you’re likely get more abuse as the atmosphere becomes even more toxic .
I do not accept your generalisation that conservatives dont want genuine asylum seekers and do not forget it was the conservatives who offered sanctuary to Ukranians and those from Hong Kong
Immigration into the UK has to be controlled, and it is not helpful for some to label those wanting the boats and migrants hotels to be stopped as far right and racist, because this has spread way beyond the far right to many in the population who just want fairness
Everyone, no matter their ethnicity, living here are integral to our community and if someone can stop the boats this issue will lanced
Yes, immigration has to be controlled (and it largely is). I think nearly everyone wants the boats to stop. It is government policy to get rid of migrant hotels. It is not far right or racist to want these things.
However, clearly some of the people protesting outside hotels and some of the people posting here are more generally anti-immigrant and want, in the words of one poster, more white babies.
There are extremes on both the right and the left but on the question of the boats and asylum hotels, it is unhelpful to brand those protesting and objecting as far right and racist when this is a view shared across many in the population and of course Starmer and Cooper would not be talking about deportation and even reclusing parts of the ECHR if they did not know this is a serious issue for them
It is a serious issue, yes. We agree on wanting to reduce the numbers coming over on boats and reduce the numbers staying in asylum hotels. However, those organising the hotel protests are objectively far right and racist. Those in the Epping Forest protests include, "Eddy Butler, a former British National Party (BNP) organiser previously linked to a violent neo-Nazi group; Callum Barker, an activist for the fascist Homeland Party; Toni Collins (AKA Ginger Toni), a key figure in the circle surrounding Tommy Robinson; Lance Wright, involved in the neo-Nazi music network Blood & Honour; former Combat 18 activist Phil Curson; and activists associated with the anti-Muslim group Britain First." See https://hopenothate.org.uk/2025/07/18/violence-at-the-bell-hotel-far-right-footprints-in-epping-forest/
Indeed but again you miss the point that this is way beyond these agitators and is becoming the view of many of the population that the whole issue is unfair and has to be stopped
Both conservative and labour governments have singularity failed to address the problem which is spinning out of control
And the public dont just want the boats reduced, they want them stopped altogether
As I've said, I think we all agree that we want no boats and no asylum hotels. That's government policy. That has widespread support.
Yes, you're right that past governments have done badly at delivering on this. It was worst under Johnson, but hotel numbers fell under Sunak and have fallen further under Starmer. Those coming over on boats has gone up and done and has proven harder to stop, but criminal action against people smugglers is up. The first deportations under the new deal with France start soon. I hope these will be successful in reducing boat numbers.
Yes, we want boats stopped altogether, but the way to do that is to reduce the current numbers. The public want a solution, but I don't think the public want to give up traditional British values to get a solution immediately as long as we're moving in the right direction.
In the mean time, we shouldn't ignore the far right agitators who are bringing disorder to our streets. We shouldn't pretend that Eddy Butler and Ginger Toni and Tommy Robinson have legitimate concerns. We shouldn't let people legally in Britain be terrorised in parks because they have brown skin.
I feel optimistic that the 1 in 1 out policy will work as a deterrent if they can keep it going with France and scale it up as needed. From the perspective of the person paying a smuggler, your costs just doubled, potentially more. You risk your life and spend your family savings getting to the UK only to be dropped back in Calais.
Parish Pump. West Northants Reform Councillors standing up and doing what they should:
Opposition parties have suggested the Reform UK administration “cannot be trusted to stand by their own words” after two-thirds of its members attended a training session that included sections on EDI and climate, despite previously announcing a boycott.
In May, when the new Reform UK administration was appointed, West Northamptonshire Council (WNC) Leader Mark Arnull said that he would stand with the party’s national policy and that his councillors would not be attending any equality or climate change training put on.
According to a council source, an induction pack handed out at the local election count initially invited all councillors to a training session named ‘Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in Local Government - Councillors’ roles and opportunities’. At some point after this, it was replaced by a different session on the same date instead called ‘Statutory consideration in lawful decision making’.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I’m afraid the conversation has moved on . Reform and the Tories don’t want even genuine asylum seekers. If you’re non white and here legally you’re likely get more abuse as the atmosphere becomes even more toxic .
Almost no-one would have a problem with returning to the situation as it was before 1997, where a few thousand genuine asylum seekers were admitted to the country each year.
I’m not going to wade through. 98 paragraphs of quasi-military crepitations first thing in the morning. If you can’t make an argument in five sentences, don’t make it
Next
TikTok brain. It's a good article and demonstrates the military babble BTL is a choice, not a condition.
I’m teasing @Dura_Ace as he has, in the past, been incredibly rude to other prolix commenters. The threader is informative and useful
His misuse of “approbation” is surprisingly poor form, however
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I’m afraid the conversation has moved on . Reform and the Tories don’t want even genuine asylum seekers. If you’re non white and here legally you’re likely get more abuse as the atmosphere becomes even more toxic .
Almost no-one would have a problem with returning to the situation as it was before 1997, where a few thousand genuine asylum seekers were admitted to the country each year.
Early 90s it was over forty thousand a year, not a few thousand.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I’m afraid the conversation has moved on . Reform and the Tories don’t want even genuine asylum seekers. If you’re non white and here legally you’re likely get more abuse as the atmosphere becomes even more toxic .
I do not accept your generalisation that conservatives dont want genuine asylum seekers and do not forget it was the conservatives who offered sanctuary to Ukranians and those from Hong Kong
Immigration into the UK has to be controlled, and it is not helpful for some to label those wanting the boats and migrants hotels to be stopped as far right and racist, because this has spread way beyond the far right to many in the population who just want fairness
Everyone, no matter their ethnicity, living here are integral to our community and if someone can stop the boats this issue will lanced
Yes, immigration has to be controlled (and it largely is). I think nearly everyone wants the boats to stop. It is government policy to get rid of migrant hotels. It is not far right or racist to want these things.
However, clearly some of the people protesting outside hotels and some of the people posting here are more generally anti-immigrant and want, in the words of one poster, more white babies.
There are extremes on both the right and the left but on the question of the boats and asylum hotels, it is unhelpful to brand those protesting and objecting as far right and racist when this is a view shared across many in the population and of course Starmer and Cooper would not be talking about deportation and even reclusing parts of the ECHR if they did not know this is a serious issue for them
It is a serious issue, yes. We agree on wanting to reduce the numbers coming over on boats and reduce the numbers staying in asylum hotels. However, those organising the hotel protests are objectively far right and racist. Those in the Epping Forest protests include, "Eddy Butler, a former British National Party (BNP) organiser previously linked to a violent neo-Nazi group; Callum Barker, an activist for the fascist Homeland Party; Toni Collins (AKA Ginger Toni), a key figure in the circle surrounding Tommy Robinson; Lance Wright, involved in the neo-Nazi music network Blood & Honour; former Combat 18 activist Phil Curson; and activists associated with the anti-Muslim group Britain First." See https://hopenothate.org.uk/2025/07/18/violence-at-the-bell-hotel-far-right-footprints-in-epping-forest/
Indeed but again you miss the point that this is way beyond these agitators and is becoming the view of many of the population that the whole issue is unfair and has to be stopped
Both conservative and labour governments have singularity failed to address the problem which is spinning out of control
And the public dont just want the boats reduced, they want them stopped altogether
As I've said, I think we all agree that we want no boats and no asylum hotels. That's government policy. That has widespread support.
Yes, you're right that past governments have done badly at delivering on this. It was worst under Johnson, but hotel numbers fell under Sunak and have fallen further under Starmer. Those coming over on boats has gone up and done and has proven harder to stop, but criminal action against people smugglers is up. The first deportations under the new deal with France start soon. I hope these will be successful in reducing boat numbers.
Yes, we want boats stopped altogether, but the way to do that is to reduce the current numbers. The public want a solution, but I don't think the public want to give up traditional British values to get a solution immediately as long as we're moving in the right direction.
In the mean time, we shouldn't ignore the far right agitators who are bringing disorder to our streets. We shouldn't pretend that Eddy Butler and Ginger Toni and Tommy Robinson have legitimate concerns. We shouldn't let people legally in Britain be terrorised in parks because they have brown skin.
I feel optimistic that the 1 in 1 out policy will work as a deterrent if they can keep it going with France and scale it up as needed. From the perspective of the person paying a smuggler, your costs just doubled, potentially more. You risk your life and spend your family savings getting to the UK only to be dropped back in Calais.
I need to see what happens on that. But I do think that the reduction-by-half (or whatever) reduction over 2024 total numbers will have an impact, as will the room for rapid improvement from the previous Govt not operating the system.
I think we need more than that, politically, and a tighter system. But I'm not sure how far it needs to go, or will actually go.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I’m afraid the conversation has moved on . Reform and the Tories don’t want even genuine asylum seekers. If you’re non white and here legally you’re likely get more abuse as the atmosphere becomes even more toxic .
Almost no-one would have a problem with returning to the situation as it was before 1997, where a few thousand genuine asylum seekers were admitted to the country each year.
There is always something in the past that people would like to go back to. I'd like to go back to about 1993. Doing great at Uni (first team for rugby, top of the year academically, first proper girlfriend, learned to drive, Swindon at the height of their success).
But the past is gone. Migration has changed. Unless the world agrees a new set of rules the situation with asylum and migration is only going in one direction. In 1997 there was barely an internet. Now its everywhere. If you grow up in a shit hole country in the Asia or Africa why wouldn't you fancy a better, western lifestyle in the UK? You almost certainly already speak English. You've probably got relatives and friends here too.
And I sometimes think that the ones who make all the effort to get here are showing the kind of grit that we need. They are NOT coming for the benefit system, they are coming to make a better life. YOLO and all that.
"Even though irregular maritime arrivals are a small fraction of the total immigration to the UK, they have totemic potency way beyond their actual number."
If it was not for them, the racists would find something else to whip up a frenzy about.
There speaks a well off member of society, no inkling of what is going on at the bottom of the pile among the great unwashed.
The point is that the racists want some issue to be able to 'get' at immigrants. Currently, the main one is the boat arrivals. The fact that the frenzy they're stirring up is affecting the lives of immigrants who did not come on boats is irrelevant to them - as seen in several stories over the last couple of days. Or even a positive side-effect in their eyes. If the boat arrivals were to immediately stop, they would find some other issue with which to get at immigrants.
The current situation with asylum and the boats is unsustainable, for society and the asylum-seekers themselves. It needs improving. But even when it is, there will be some new anti-immigrant scandal that the racists will hook on to.
On this point watch Sky News at 10.30am on their report from Nuneaton
It is very disturbing and why the boats have to be stopped urgently when I believe the oxygen will be removed from the right and racist
Reform won’t stop . They’re now saying net migration should be zero , even if asylum claims fall dramatically they’ll say that’s too much . Reform survive by making people angry , offering simplistic solutions . Why Zia Yusuf is with him when what’s really going on amongst their base is they want non-white immigrants shipped out even if here legally . The brain dead wife beaters masquerading as so called patriots want a whiter Britain .
The righteous have spoken, the locals are all brain dead wife beaters. Next you will be suggesting forcible deportation for any white person not welcoming immigrants
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I’m afraid the conversation has moved on . Reform and the Tories don’t want even genuine asylum seekers. If you’re non white and here legally you’re likely get more abuse as the atmosphere becomes even more toxic .
Almost no-one would have a problem with returning to the situation as it was before 1997, where a few thousand genuine asylum seekers were admitted to the country each year.
Early 90s it was over forty thousand a year, not a few thousand.
It seems to me the real issue is the Boris wave combined with lack of new houses. That is the substantial and rapid change.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
We're talking about immigration, not a war. People coming over here, not an invading army. Though some racists do like the parallels.
For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is hilarious.
Amazing how many people ignore William of Orange and his allies in the 1680s.
The thing is, that wasn't an opposed invasion. The incumbent simply ran away, and William was invited in.
I think there has to be at least one battle to make it an invasion.
There were. Boyne, for instance. (In Irelan d, but all part of it ...).
Sure, but Ireland isn't part of Britain. The question was about invasions of Britain.
But Britain is meaningless in 1066 anyway ...
No it wasn't. There might not have been a British political state, but Britain as a concept existed, and done previous English Kings had been recognised as overlord of Britain, and received homage from Kings on the rest of the island.
And it would be perfectly valid to say that a successful invasion of Scotland, from outwith Britain, would have been a successful invasion of Britain, even had such an invasion left England undisturbed.
On woke - a colleague has spent time today creating an "Inclusion Calendar" that we can all add to our calendars, just so we can keep on all the 'days' such as 'Furry appreciation day' easily to mind.
Amusingly the first draft missed out Easter entirely. Not sure what that says...
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I’m afraid the conversation has moved on . Reform and the Tories don’t want even genuine asylum seekers. If you’re non white and here legally you’re likely get more abuse as the atmosphere becomes even more toxic .
Almost no-one would have a problem with returning to the situation as it was before 1997, where a few thousand genuine asylum seekers were admitted to the country each year.
Early 90s it was over forty thousand a year, not a few thousand.
It seems to me the real issue is the Boris wave combined with lack of new houses. That is the substantial and rapid change.
Also, the generalised lack-of-money, coupled with a load of historic bills landing. It's human to want someone to blame, preferably not "ourselves for making crap short-term decisions over the decades". And foreigners are always the ones to blame in that situation. Always have been, always will be.
The Boris wave didn't help. Some of it was the right thing to do (refugees from HK and Ukraine, say), some was utter cynicism (turning on the migration taps to counter the Brexit economic squeeze), and some was probably utter incompetence.
But seeing some of BoJo's biggest fans chasing after the next charlatan promising to fix it is funny. Albeit it would be funnier if it weren't happening in my country.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
Britain has been successfully invaded since 1066. Henry Tudor's invasion, leading to victory over Richard III at Bosworth, must surely count in any reasonable reckoning.
That, like the 1690 invasion, was welcomed by many of the then Governing Class. 1066 effectively wiped out the then Governing Class and replaced it by a pretty brutal New Order.
I find it interesting to consider the effect of the Norman conquest. On one level, that of the peasant farming his land under the aegis of the Lord of the Manor, little really changed. No more slavery but a some new rubbish about being a villein, and tied to the land. The cycle of the year still rolled on, the church calendar dominated everything. And yet the entire elite was gone, and those that replaced them spoke a different language. ISTR that it was 300 years before the King spoke English rather than French.
William the Conqueror. 1066 and all that. Half right for most of the country but have you not heard of the harrying of the north (arguably a genocide) that wiped out half to three quarters of the whippet-fancying classes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North
"Even though irregular maritime arrivals are a small fraction of the total immigration to the UK, they have totemic potency way beyond their actual number."
If it was not for them, the racists would find something else to whip up a frenzy about.
There speaks a well off member of society, no inkling of what is going on at the bottom of the pile among the great unwashed.
The point is that the racists want some issue to be able to 'get' at immigrants. Currently, the main one is the boat arrivals. The fact that the frenzy they're stirring up is affecting the lives of immigrants who did not come on boats is irrelevant to them - as seen in several stories over the last couple of days. Or even a positive side-effect in their eyes. If the boat arrivals were to immediately stop, they would find some other issue with which to get at immigrants.
The current situation with asylum and the boats is unsustainable, for society and the asylum-seekers themselves. It needs improving. But even when it is, there will be some new anti-immigrant scandal that the racists will hook on to.
On this point watch Sky News at 10.30am on their report from Nuneaton
It is very disturbing and why the boats have to be stopped urgently when I believe the oxygen will be removed from the right and racist
Reform won’t stop . They’re now saying net migration should be zero , even if asylum claims fall dramatically they’ll say that’s too much . Reform survive by making people angry , offering simplistic solutions . Why Zia Yusuf is with him when what’s really going on amongst their base is they want non-white immigrants shipped out even if here legally . The brain dead wife beaters masquerading as so called patriots want a whiter Britain .
The righteous have spoken, the locals are all brain dead wife beaters. Next you will be suggesting forcible deportation for any white person not welcoming immigrants
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
We're talking about immigration, not a war. People coming over here, not an invading army. Though some racists do like the parallels.
For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is hilarious.
Amazing how many people ignore William of Orange and his allies in the 1680s.
The thing is, that wasn't an opposed invasion. The incumbent simply ran away, and William was invited in.
I think there has to be at least one battle to make it an invasion.
There were. Boyne, for instance. (In Irelan d, but all part of it ...).
Sure, but Ireland isn't part of Britain. The question was about invasions of Britain.
But Britain is meaningless in 1066 anyway ...
No it wasn't. There might not have been a British political state, but Britain as a concept existed, and done previous English Kings had been recognised as overlord of Britain, and received homage from Kings on the rest of the island.
And it would be perfectly valid to say that a successful invasion of Scotland, from outwith Britain, would have been a successful invasion of Britain, even had such an invasion left England undisturbed.
Mm. But not homage from the whole of the rest of the island (archipelago strictly) - much of Scotland was Norse at the relevant time, quite apart from Orkney and Shetland).
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
Britain has been successfully invaded since 1066. Henry Tudor's invasion, leading to victory over Richard III at Bosworth, must surely count in any reasonable reckoning.
That, like the 1690 invasion, was welcomed by many of the then Governing Class. 1066 effectively wiped out the then Governing Class and replaced it by a pretty brutal New Order.
I find it interesting to consider the effect of the Norman conquest. On one level, that of the peasant farming his land under the aegis of the Lord of the Manor, little really changed. No more slavery but a some new rubbish about being a villein, and tied to the land. The cycle of the year still rolled on, the church calendar dominated everything. And yet the entire elite was gone, and those that replaced them spoke a different language. ISTR that it was 300 years before the King spoke English rather than French.
William the Conqueror. 1066 and all that. Half right for most of the country but have you not heard of the harrying of the north (arguably a genocide) that wiped out half to three quarters of the whippet-fancying classes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North
Yes I have - my two points were perforce extreme versions. There used to be a school of thought that 1066 really only effected the elites - it was a change of government etc, but of course it was much more than that, even in the South. And truly terrible in the North.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I’m afraid the conversation has moved on . Reform and the Tories don’t want even genuine asylum seekers. If you’re non white and here legally you’re likely get more abuse as the atmosphere becomes even more toxic .
I do not accept your generalisation that conservatives dont want genuine asylum seekers and do not forget it was the conservatives who offered sanctuary to Ukranians and those from Hong Kong
Immigration into the UK has to be controlled, and it is not helpful for some to label those wanting the boats and migrants hotels to be stopped as far right and racist, because this has spread way beyond the far right to many in the population who just want fairness
Everyone, no matter their ethnicity, living here are integral to our community and if someone can stop the boats this issue will lanced
Yes, immigration has to be controlled (and it largely is). I think nearly everyone wants the boats to stop. It is government policy to get rid of migrant hotels. It is not far right or racist to want these things.
However, clearly some of the people protesting outside hotels and some of the people posting here are more generally anti-immigrant and want, in the words of one poster, more white babies.
There are extremes on both the right and the left but on the question of the boats and asylum hotels, it is unhelpful to brand those protesting and objecting as far right and racist when this is a view shared across many in the population and of course Starmer and Cooper would not be talking about deportation and even reclusing parts of the ECHR if they did not know this is a serious issue for them
It is a serious issue, yes. We agree on wanting to reduce the numbers coming over on boats and reduce the numbers staying in asylum hotels. However, those organising the hotel protests are objectively far right and racist. Those in the Epping Forest protests include, "Eddy Butler, a former British National Party (BNP) organiser previously linked to a violent neo-Nazi group; Callum Barker, an activist for the fascist Homeland Party; Toni Collins (AKA Ginger Toni), a key figure in the circle surrounding Tommy Robinson; Lance Wright, involved in the neo-Nazi music network Blood & Honour; former Combat 18 activist Phil Curson; and activists associated with the anti-Muslim group Britain First." See https://hopenothate.org.uk/2025/07/18/violence-at-the-bell-hotel-far-right-footprints-in-epping-forest/
Indeed but again you miss the point that this is way beyond these agitators and is becoming the view of many of the population that the whole issue is unfair and has to be stopped
Both conservative and labour governments have singularity failed to address the problem which is spinning out of control
And the public dont just want the boats reduced, they want them stopped altogether
As I've said, I think we all agree that we want no boats and no asylum hotels. That's government policy. That has widespread support.
Yes, you're right that past governments have done badly at delivering on this. It was worst under Johnson, but hotel numbers fell under Sunak and have fallen further under Starmer. Those coming over on boats has gone up and done and has proven harder to stop, but criminal action against people smugglers is up. The first deportations under the new deal with France start soon. I hope these will be successful in reducing boat numbers.
Yes, we want boats stopped altogether, but the way to do that is to reduce the current numbers. The public want a solution, but I don't think the public want to give up traditional British values to get a solution immediately as long as we're moving in the right direction.
In the mean time, we shouldn't ignore the far right agitators who are bringing disorder to our streets. We shouldn't pretend that Eddy Butler and Ginger Toni and Tommy Robinson have legitimate concerns. We shouldn't let people legally in Britain be terrorised in parks because they have brown skin.
I feel optimistic that the 1 in 1 out policy will work as a deterrent if they can keep it going with France and scale it up as needed. From the perspective of the person paying a smuggler, your costs just doubled, potentially more. You risk your life and spend your family savings getting to the UK only to be dropped back in Calais.
Has there been any news about when "1 in 1 out" will be implemented, or any other details about it?
"Even though irregular maritime arrivals are a small fraction of the total immigration to the UK, they have totemic potency way beyond their actual number."
If it was not for them, the racists would find something else to whip up a frenzy about.
There speaks a well off member of society, no inkling of what is going on at the bottom of the pile among the great unwashed.
The point is that the racists want some issue to be able to 'get' at immigrants. Currently, the main one is the boat arrivals. The fact that the frenzy they're stirring up is affecting the lives of immigrants who did not come on boats is irrelevant to them - as seen in several stories over the last couple of days. Or even a positive side-effect in their eyes. If the boat arrivals were to immediately stop, they would find some other issue with which to get at immigrants.
The current situation with asylum and the boats is unsustainable, for society and the asylum-seekers themselves. It needs improving. But even when it is, there will be some new anti-immigrant scandal that the racists will hook on to.
On this point watch Sky News at 10.30am on their report from Nuneaton
It is very disturbing and why the boats have to be stopped urgently when I believe the oxygen will be removed from the right and racist
Reform won’t stop . They’re now saying net migration should be zero , even if asylum claims fall dramatically they’ll say that’s too much . Reform survive by making people angry , offering simplistic solutions . Why Zia Yusuf is with him when what’s really going on amongst their base is they want non-white immigrants shipped out even if here legally . The brain dead wife beaters masquerading as so called patriots want a whiter Britain .
The righteous have spoken, the locals are all brain dead wife beaters. Next you will be suggesting forcible deportation for any white person not welcoming immigrants
Extreme but it would Stop The Riots.
Would it have stopped the 2011 riots.
The main thing that will stop the riots seems to be happening.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
Britain has been successfully invaded since 1066. Henry Tudor's invasion, leading to victory over Richard III at Bosworth, must surely count in any reasonable reckoning.
That, like the 1690 invasion, was welcomed by many of the then Governing Class. 1066 effectively wiped out the then Governing Class and replaced it by a pretty brutal New Order.
I find it interesting to consider the effect of the Norman conquest. On one level, that of the peasant farming his land under the aegis of the Lord of the Manor, little really changed. No more slavery but a some new rubbish about being a villein, and tied to the land. The cycle of the year still rolled on, the church calendar dominated everything. And yet the entire elite was gone, and those that replaced them spoke a different language. ISTR that it was 300 years before the King spoke English rather than French.
I might be wrong about this, but the impression I've gained is that the Normans extracted more money from the peasantry. They were more highly militarised, and all those castles they built to subjugate the peasantry needed paying for.
That's not to say that life for a peasant before the Conquest was a bed of roses, or that the rule of Anglo-Saxon kings and lords was benign, but I think the peasants would have noticed the change beyond the new lords speaking French.
The Normans also abolished slavery, so that was an important change.
What happened in Yorkshire, Lancashire and the rest of the North was a lot worse, though.
Nowadays, Harrying of the north would just mean a tour from the 5th in line to the throne.
On woke - a colleague has spent time today creating an "Inclusion Calendar" that we can all add to our calendars, just so we can keep on all the 'days' such as 'Furry appreciation day' easily to mind.
Amusingly the first draft missed out Easter entirely. Not sure what that says...
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
Britain has been successfully invaded since 1066. Henry Tudor's invasion, leading to victory over Richard III at Bosworth, must surely count in any reasonable reckoning.
That, like the 1690 invasion, was welcomed by many of the then Governing Class. 1066 effectively wiped out the then Governing Class and replaced it by a pretty brutal New Order.
I find it interesting to consider the effect of the Norman conquest. On one level, that of the peasant farming his land under the aegis of the Lord of the Manor, little really changed. No more slavery but a some new rubbish about being a villein, and tied to the land. The cycle of the year still rolled on, the church calendar dominated everything. And yet the entire elite was gone, and those that replaced them spoke a different language. ISTR that it was 300 years before the King spoke English rather than French.
I might be wrong about this, but the impression I've gained is that the Normans extracted more money from the peasantry. They were more highly militarised, and all those castles they built to subjugate the peasantry needed paying for.
That's not to say that life for a peasant before the Conquest was a bed of roses, or that the rule of Anglo-Saxon kings and lords was benign, but I think the peasants would have noticed the change beyond the new lords speaking French.
The Normans also abolished slavery, so that was an important change.
What happened in Yorkshire, Lancashire and the rest of the North was a lot worse, though.
Nowadays, Harrying of the north would just mean a tour from the 5th in line to the throne.
Now it’s called levelling up.
Normans - on the upside they abolished slavery. Normans - on the downside they abolished a lot of slaves.
On the unchanging soul thing, Carswell seems to have gone from slightly loony but harmless Conkipper to out and out racist just by moving to the USA, so travel can apparently narrow the mind and the soul.
He's running a small ($800k per annum) "free market conservative" thinktank in Mississippi, somewhere, who embrace strange causes and make bizarre comparisons. He is out and proud to have gone down the particular rabbit hole. An application for US citizenship would not be a surprise.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
We're talking about immigration, not a war. People coming over here, not an invading army. Though some racists do like the parallels.
For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is hilarious.
Amazing how many people ignore William of Orange and his allies in the 1680s.
The thing is, that wasn't an opposed invasion. The incumbent simply ran away, and William was invited in.
I think there has to be at least one battle to make it an invasion.
There were. Boyne, for instance. (In Irelan d, but all part of it ...).
Sure, but Ireland isn't part of Britain. The question was about invasions of Britain.
But Britain is meaningless in 1066 anyway ...
No it wasn't. There might not have been a British political state, but Britain as a concept existed, and done previous English Kings had been recognised as overlord of Britain, and received homage from Kings on the rest of the island.
And it would be perfectly valid to say that a successful invasion of Scotland, from outwith Britain, would have been a successful invasion of Britain, even had such an invasion left England undisturbed.
Mm. But not homage from the whole of the rest of the island (archipelago strictly) - much of Scotland was Norse at the relevant time, quite apart from Orkney and Shetland).
Afternoon to all from sunny Athens. Weren't Shetland and the Orkneys originally part of the same norse group as Iceland, who were all offered to Henry VIii in a deal ?
Horace is always one of the more quotable classical writers. As an example: "Carpe diem! Rejoice while you are alive; enjoy the day; live life to the fullest; make the most of what you have. It is later than you think."
And ""Dare to begin! He who postpones living rightly is like the rustic who waits for the river to run out before he crosses."
@Dura_Ace's quotation is perfect for his piece as his admonition of "Remember the human." Very well said.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I’m afraid the conversation has moved on . Reform and the Tories don’t want even genuine asylum seekers. If you’re non white and here legally you’re likely get more abuse as the atmosphere becomes even more toxic .
I do not accept your generalisation that conservatives dont want genuine asylum seekers and do not forget it was the conservatives who offered sanctuary to Ukranians and those from Hong Kong
Immigration into the UK has to be controlled, and it is not helpful for some to label those wanting the boats and migrants hotels to be stopped as far right and racist, because this has spread way beyond the far right to many in the population who just want fairness
Everyone, no matter their ethnicity, living here are integral to our community and if someone can stop the boats this issue will lanced
Yes, immigration has to be controlled (and it largely is). I think nearly everyone wants the boats to stop. It is government policy to get rid of migrant hotels. It is not far right or racist to want these things.
However, clearly some of the people protesting outside hotels and some of the people posting here are more generally anti-immigrant and want, in the words of one poster, more white babies.
There are extremes on both the right and the left but on the question of the boats and asylum hotels, it is unhelpful to brand those protesting and objecting as far right and racist when this is a view shared across many in the population and of course Starmer and Cooper would not be talking about deportation and even reclusing parts of the ECHR if they did not know this is a serious issue for them
It is a serious issue, yes. We agree on wanting to reduce the numbers coming over on boats and reduce the numbers staying in asylum hotels. However, those organising the hotel protests are objectively far right and racist. Those in the Epping Forest protests include, "Eddy Butler, a former British National Party (BNP) organiser previously linked to a violent neo-Nazi group; Callum Barker, an activist for the fascist Homeland Party; Toni Collins (AKA Ginger Toni), a key figure in the circle surrounding Tommy Robinson; Lance Wright, involved in the neo-Nazi music network Blood & Honour; former Combat 18 activist Phil Curson; and activists associated with the anti-Muslim group Britain First." See https://hopenothate.org.uk/2025/07/18/violence-at-the-bell-hotel-far-right-footprints-in-epping-forest/
Indeed but again you miss the point that this is way beyond these agitators and is becoming the view of many of the population that the whole issue is unfair and has to be stopped
Both conservative and labour governments have singularity failed to address the problem which is spinning out of control
And the public dont just want the boats reduced, they want them stopped altogether
As I've said, I think we all agree that we want no boats and no asylum hotels. That's government policy. That has widespread support.
Yes, you're right that past governments have done badly at delivering on this. It was worst under Johnson, but hotel numbers fell under Sunak and have fallen further under Starmer. Those coming over on boats has gone up and done and has proven harder to stop, but criminal action against people smugglers is up. The first deportations under the new deal with France start soon. I hope these will be successful in reducing boat numbers.
Yes, we want boats stopped altogether, but the way to do that is to reduce the current numbers. The public want a solution, but I don't think the public want to give up traditional British values to get a solution immediately as long as we're moving in the right direction.
In the mean time, we shouldn't ignore the far right agitators who are bringing disorder to our streets. We shouldn't pretend that Eddy Butler and Ginger Toni and Tommy Robinson have legitimate concerns. We shouldn't let people legally in Britain be terrorised in parks because they have brown skin.
I feel optimistic that the 1 in 1 out policy will work as a deterrent if they can keep it going with France and scale it up as needed. From the perspective of the person paying a smuggler, your costs just doubled, potentially more. You risk your life and spend your family savings getting to the UK only to be dropped back in Calais.
Has there been any news about when "1 in 1 out" will be implemented, or any other details about it?
Cooper is supposed to be updating the Commons this afternoon. I wouldn’t be surprised if she announces when the deportations will begin as I suspect an announcement was being planned when it would get the maximum impact .
I’m not going to wade through. 98 paragraphs of quasi-military crepitations first thing in the morning. If you can’t make an argument in five sentences, don’t make it
Next
TikTok brain. It's a good article and demonstrates the military babble BTL is a choice, not a condition.
I’m teasing @Dura_Ace as he has, in the past, been incredibly rude to other prolix commenters. The threader is informative and useful
His misuse of “approbation” is surprisingly poor form, however
Big client not paying my invoices - they've been put on 120 days payment terms. Which the client thinks is wholly unacceptable and is pushing to change.
Lets just say that I won't be doing a lot of work for them on 120 days terms...
I’m not going to wade through. 98 paragraphs of quasi-military crepitations first thing in the morning. If you can’t make an argument in five sentences, don’t make it
Next
TikTok brain. It's a good article and demonstrates the military babble BTL is a choice, not a condition.
I’m teasing @Dura_Ace as he has, in the past, been incredibly rude to other prolix commenters. The threader is informative and useful
His misuse of “approbation” is surprisingly poor form, however
Big client not paying my invoices - they've been put on 120 days payment terms. Which the client thinks is wholly unacceptable and is pushing to change.
Lets just say that I won't be doing a lot of work for them on 120 days terms...
I've no idea if this ever gets passed, or should that happen, if will prove effective.
"UK to tighten family member rules for asylum cases"
This is a classic example of the lunacy of Britain’s migration policies. The government thinks it is doing a good, popular thing in tightening an immigration loophole, but the publicity merely reveals that an insane loophole exists and everyone is astonished that it wasn’t tightened before
"UK to tighten family member rules for asylum cases"
This is a classic example of the lunacy of Britain’s migration policies. The government thinks it is doing a good, popular thing in tightening an immigration loophole, but the publicity merely reveals that an insane loophole exists and everyone is astonished that it wasn’t tightened before
So everyone gets angrier
It's also tackling the wrong issue in terms of public outrage. If you watch videos of locals being interviewed about asylum hotels they mostly object to the ones that just host single men. The mixed ones with women and children are perceived (rightly or wrongly) as being less threatening as the children often go to local schools and integrate with local kids. Several of the hotel protests kicked off in the first place because the government wanted to convert them from mixed accomodation to single male accommodation.
"UK to tighten family member rules for asylum cases"
This is a classic example of the lunacy of Britain’s migration policies. The government thinks it is doing a good, popular thing in tightening an immigration loophole, but the publicity merely reveals that an insane loophole exists and everyone is astonished that it wasn’t tightened before
So everyone gets angrier
True. Though it sounds like it will end the absurd situation where someone born here has to prove minimum income to bring in a spouse, but an successful asylee doesn't.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I’m afraid the conversation has moved on . Reform and the Tories don’t want even genuine asylum seekers. If you’re non white and here legally you’re likely get more abuse as the atmosphere becomes even more toxic .
I do not accept your generalisation that conservatives dont want genuine asylum seekers and do not forget it was the conservatives who offered sanctuary to Ukranians and those from Hong Kong
Immigration into the UK has to be controlled, and it is not helpful for some to label those wanting the boats and migrants hotels to be stopped as far right and racist, because this has spread way beyond the far right to many in the population who just want fairness
Everyone, no matter their ethnicity, living here are integral to our community and if someone can stop the boats this issue will lanced
Yes, immigration has to be controlled (and it largely is). I think nearly everyone wants the boats to stop. It is government policy to get rid of migrant hotels. It is not far right or racist to want these things.
However, clearly some of the people protesting outside hotels and some of the people posting here are more generally anti-immigrant and want, in the words of one poster, more white babies.
There are extremes on both the right and the left but on the question of the boats and asylum hotels, it is unhelpful to brand those protesting and objecting as far right and racist when this is a view shared across many in the population and of course Starmer and Cooper would not be talking about deportation and even reclusing parts of the ECHR if they did not know this is a serious issue for them
It is a serious issue, yes. We agree on wanting to reduce the numbers coming over on boats and reduce the numbers staying in asylum hotels. However, those organising the hotel protests are objectively far right and racist. Those in the Epping Forest protests include, "Eddy Butler, a former British National Party (BNP) organiser previously linked to a violent neo-Nazi group; Callum Barker, an activist for the fascist Homeland Party; Toni Collins (AKA Ginger Toni), a key figure in the circle surrounding Tommy Robinson; Lance Wright, involved in the neo-Nazi music network Blood & Honour; former Combat 18 activist Phil Curson; and activists associated with the anti-Muslim group Britain First." See https://hopenothate.org.uk/2025/07/18/violence-at-the-bell-hotel-far-right-footprints-in-epping-forest/
Indeed but again you miss the point that this is way beyond these agitators and is becoming the view of many of the population that the whole issue is unfair and has to be stopped
Both conservative and labour governments have singularity failed to address the problem which is spinning out of control
And the public dont just want the boats reduced, they want them stopped altogether
As I've said, I think we all agree that we want no boats and no asylum hotels. That's government policy. That has widespread support.
Yes, you're right that past governments have done badly at delivering on this. It was worst under Johnson, but hotel numbers fell under Sunak and have fallen further under Starmer. Those coming over on boats has gone up and done and has proven harder to stop, but criminal action against people smugglers is up. The first deportations under the new deal with France start soon. I hope these will be successful in reducing boat numbers.
Yes, we want boats stopped altogether, but the way to do that is to reduce the current numbers. The public want a solution, but I don't think the public want to give up traditional British values to get a solution immediately as long as we're moving in the right direction.
In the mean time, we shouldn't ignore the far right agitators who are bringing disorder to our streets. We shouldn't pretend that Eddy Butler and Ginger Toni and Tommy Robinson have legitimate concerns. We shouldn't let people legally in Britain be terrorised in parks because they have brown skin.
I feel optimistic that the 1 in 1 out policy will work as a deterrent if they can keep it going with France and scale it up as needed. From the perspective of the person paying a smuggler, your costs just doubled, potentially more. You risk your life and spend your family savings getting to the UK only to be dropped back in Calais.
Has there been any news about when "1 in 1 out" will be implemented, or any other details about it?
Cooper is supposed to be updating the Commons this afternoon. I wouldn’t be surprised if she announces when the deportations will begin as I suspect an announcement was being planned when it would get the maximum impact .
The boats issue is missing the point. The problems are caused by three factors:
1. The Refugee Convention which defines widely who is entitled to asylum. 2. The fact that it removes the decision from the country concerned ie if the person fits the criteria they get entry automatically regardless of any factors (numbers, other unsuitability, resources, the wishes of a country's citizens). It is this loss of control which is a key issue. It might have been bearable when the numbers were small but seems less so when a significant proportion of the world's population fall within the criteria. 3. The fact that people can only apply for asylum when they are here and not from outside the country. This creates an obvious incentive to arrive here. (Plus the fact that when here it is easy to disappear into the black economy. @rcs1000 has said how this last might be addressed. So I won't repeat.)
So deal with each of these. Possible answers (each with their own pluses and minuses) include -
1. Withdraw from the Refugee Convention. State that if people want to come to live in Britain they have to apply in the normal way like everyone else and will only be accepted if they fulfil the criteria decided by the government here. Having a horrible time in a shitty state will not be enough. The govt could exceptionally give itself the power to admit some exceptional cases but this would be in its gift not an automatic right for the applicant. Brutal but probably effective. 2. Applications must be made outside Britain. If rejected only one very limited opportunity to appeal. 3. Anyone arriving here through unorthodox means gets arrested, detained in a secure facility ie not a hotel or HMO and gets deported to home state or third country. If they won't reveal where they are from, they get detained indefinitely. Again brutal but probably effective. No-one comes here to be detained and unable to work in the black economy or otherwise move around freely.
Lots of undoubted criticisms to be made of these suggestions. They may well be unacceptable for all sorts of reasons. But the ECHR criticism seems to miss the point. It is the Refugee Convention which creates the obligation and it is the wideness of its definitions which has made the gatekeeping so weak.
If you can't identify the problem accurately, it is harder than it need be to come up with an effective solution.
About two thirds of asylum applications are made by people who are legally in the UK via other routes, e.g. employment visa. With (2), are you saying these people have to leave the country before applying for asylum?
If point 1 is adopted, your question does not arise. If they are already legally here, why would they need to apply for asylum? If they are here on a short-term basis, then at the end of it they should leave. I am not aware of how normal applications for a visa to work and live here work but that is the policy which should be adopted for everyone ie it is Britain who decides who is let into the country on the criteria it lays out - not by a person claiming persecution which the government is obliged to accept regardless of any other factors.
So, if someone is in the UK legally but their visa is coming to an end, and they face persecution in their country of origin, you think they should travel back to that country and seek asylum from there?
They can always go somewhere else, you think you are allowed to overstay a visa in any other country than Britain.
If you are claiming asylum, you are not overstaying your visa. You have entered into a specific and regulated process, and have legal right to stay until the Govt says otherwise. You have explicitly engaged with the immigration authorities.
Big client not paying my invoices - they've been put on 120 days payment terms. Which the client thinks is wholly unacceptable and is pushing to change.
Lets just say that I won't be doing a lot of work for them on 120 days terms...
Why does the client think 120 days is unacceptable ? Do they want to make it 180 or something ?
'Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is to announce a tightening of rules for migrants granted asylum bringing their families to the UK.
As MPs return to Westminster on Monday, she is expected to set out criteria for family members - including tougher English language standards and access to sufficient funds - and outline reforms to the asylum appeals system.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626p66d6jxo
The BBC article I linked earlier quotes Yvette Cooper comparing our rules to rules in other European countries, so I think it's on their mind. It'll be a sort of continent-wide race to the bottom, where the bottom is whatever the ECHR minimum turns out to be after court cases across the continent...
Big client not paying my invoices - they've been put on 120 days payment terms. Which the client thinks is wholly unacceptable and is pushing to change.
Lets just say that I won't be doing a lot of work for them on 120 days terms...
Why does the client think 120 days is unacceptable ? Do they want to make it 180 or something ?
I suspect because the client isn’t the accounts team and has been told in no uncertain terms that payment terms are x days and if you fail to pay by then no future work will be done.
I know that’s my viewpoint - anyone paying me beyond 30 day terms is taking the Mickey and will discover that they are no longer a priority customer or if I’m vaguely busy a customer at all.
I’m not going to wade through. 98 paragraphs of quasi-military crepitations first thing in the morning. If you can’t make an argument in five sentences, don’t make it
Next
TikTok brain. It's a good article and demonstrates the military babble BTL is a choice, not a condition.
I’m teasing @Dura_Ace as he has, in the past, been incredibly rude to other prolix commenters. The threader is informative and useful
His misuse of “approbation” is surprisingly poor form, however
We're all allowed one lapse.
indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus
"The sleep of Homer brings forth solecisms" ?
Traditionally, "Even the good Homer nods", ie we all make mistakes.
Big client not paying my invoices - they've been put on 120 days payment terms. Which the client thinks is wholly unacceptable and is pushing to change.
Lets just say that I won't be doing a lot of work for them on 120 days terms...
Why does the client think 120 days is unacceptable ? Do they want to make it 180 or something ?
I suspect because the client isn’t the accounts team and has been told in no uncertain terms that payment terms are x days and if you fail to pay by then no future work will be done.
I know that’s my viewpoint - anyone paying me beyond 30 day terms is taking the Mickey and will discover that they are no longer a priority customer or if I’m vaguely busy a customer at all.
Strikes me that the client has financial problems.
Big client not paying my invoices - they've been put on 120 days payment terms. Which the client thinks is wholly unacceptable and is pushing to change.
Lets just say that I won't be doing a lot of work for them on 120 days terms...
Why does the client think 120 days is unacceptable ? Do they want to make it 180 or something ?
I suspect because the client isn’t the accounts team and has been told in no uncertain terms that payment terms are x days and if you fail to pay by then no future work will be done.
I know that’s my viewpoint - anyone paying me beyond 30 day terms is taking the Mickey and will discover that they are no longer a priority customer or if I’m vaguely busy a customer at all.
You could email callmeDave and ask if he knows anyone who'll factor your invoices at a good rate plus some "hypothetical" ones.
Big client not paying my invoices - they've been put on 120 days payment terms. Which the client thinks is wholly unacceptable and is pushing to change.
Lets just say that I won't be doing a lot of work for them on 120 days terms...
Why does the client think 120 days is unacceptable ? Do they want to make it 180 or something ?
I suspect because the client isn’t the accounts team and has been told in no uncertain terms that payment terms are x days and if you fail to pay by then no future work will be done.
I know that’s my viewpoint - anyone paying me beyond 30 day terms is taking the Mickey and will discover that they are no longer a priority customer or if I’m vaguely busy a customer at all.
Strikes me that the client has financial problems.
There are a whole set of large companies who at some point have extended payment terms for accounting reasons and can’t now reverse their stupidly long periods for similar accounting reasons.
My viewpoint has been to keep as far away from them as possible but I suspect RD has to deal with the worst offenders as part of his job
Comments
If you are being attacked in your home and you flee, where do you go for help? The closest door or the one with the nicest furniture?
Because those in France are asylum shopping, to many it diminishes the strength of the claim.
Now PB'ers will no doubt now reel off a list of things why this post is wrong (factually, morally, legally) but to the person on the Clapham omnibus this is what they think. And its why my next door neighbour, unprovoked, told me he was listening to Farage "because he's right".
Now, the smugglers will change tactics in response to a tow back operation, but it's much harder to cross the Channel from Normandy than Calais.
I think there has to be at least one battle to make it an invasion.
In passing, I think Starmer's right with a policy of 'smash the gangs'. Trouble is there are always some evil b*stards willing to make a quick euro or thousand.
I've had to make my first ever angry phone call to a utility.
And I'm normally ever so mild-mannered.
The original ruling was by a specialist Court dealing with International Trade. If SCOTUS have any sense they just won't take it on.
A US appeals court has ruled that most tariffs issued by US President Donald Trump are illegal, setting up a potential legal showdown that could upend his foreign policy agenda.
The ruling affects Trump's so-called "reciprocal" tariffs, imposed on most countries around the world, as well as other tariffs slapped on China, Mexico and Canada.
In a 7-4 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected Trump's argument that the tariffs were permitted under an emergency economic powers act, calling them "invalid as contrary to law".
The ruling will not take effect until 14 October, to give the administration time to ask the US Supreme Court to take up the case.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgj7jxkq58o
Shitkickers will kick shit. But even there, at the heart of the issue is a very simple premise - that our society is getting poorer and more run down which is the systemic failure I mentioned.
That's not to say that life for a peasant before the Conquest was a bed of roses, or that the rule of Anglo-Saxon kings and lords was benign, but I think the peasants would have noticed the change beyond the new lords speaking French.
And Corbyn's party hasn't even got going yet. The danger is that they bleed different parts of their coalition to Reform and Corbyn. If the LDs can keep their block of 72 seats and maybe add a few more, then there has to be a chance they could become the official opposition instead of Labour.
Shame on them.
Serfdom in 18th century Poland and parts of Russia far more closely resembled chattel slavery.
But, you should remember that there are other vehicles that can move people to your island. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco-submarine
And there are ultralights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_aviation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_aviation
And hang gliders. And so on.
Salah's value is going to sharply decline after this year I think tbh.
Opposition parties have suggested the Reform UK administration “cannot be trusted to stand by their own words” after two-thirds of its members attended a training session that included sections on EDI and climate, despite previously announcing a boycott.
In May, when the new Reform UK administration was appointed, West Northamptonshire Council (WNC) Leader Mark Arnull said that he would stand with the party’s national policy and that his councillors would not be attending any equality or climate change training put on.
According to a council source, an induction pack handed out at the local election count initially invited all councillors to a training session named ‘Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in Local Government - Councillors’ roles and opportunities’. At some point after this, it was replaced by a different session on the same date instead called ‘Statutory consideration in lawful decision making’.
WNC has confirmed that the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) training was delivered as part of the wider ‘lawful decision making’ session, which included content on statutory services, the roles and legal responsibilities of councillors, workplace employee legislation, and financial, EDI and climate change duties.
https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/politics/claims-reform-cannot-be-trusted-after-west-northamptonshire-councillors-attended-training-that-included-diversity-5294186
I think we need more than that, politically, and a tighter system. But I'm not sure how far it needs to go, or will actually go.
But the past is gone. Migration has changed. Unless the world agrees a new set of rules the situation with asylum and migration is only going in one direction. In 1997 there was barely an internet. Now its everywhere. If you grow up in a shit hole country in the Asia or Africa why wouldn't you fancy a better, western lifestyle in the UK? You almost certainly already speak English. You've probably got relatives and friends here too.
And I sometimes think that the ones who make all the effort to get here are showing the kind of grit that we need. They are NOT coming for the benefit system, they are coming to make a better life. YOLO and all that.
And it would be perfectly valid to say that a successful invasion of Scotland, from outwith Britain, would have been a successful invasion of Britain, even had such an invasion left England undisturbed.
Amusingly the first draft missed out Easter entirely. Not sure what that says...
The Boris wave didn't help. Some of it was the right thing to do (refugees from HK and Ukraine, say), some was utter cynicism (turning on the migration taps to counter the Brexit economic squeeze), and some was probably utter incompetence.
But seeing some of BoJo's biggest fans chasing after the next charlatan promising to fix it is funny. Albeit it would be funnier if it weren't happening in my country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North
Is there no understanding of how PB is supposed to work.
It's chucking it down something mental out there.
THAT is Cards Against Humanity.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626p66d6jxo
"UK to tighten family member rules for asylum cases"
Normans - on the downside they abolished a lot of slaves.
Alabama's gotten me so upset
Tennessee made me lose my rest
And everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
Weren't Shetland and the Orkneys originally part of the same norse group as Iceland, who were all offered to Henry VIii in a deal ?
And
""Dare to begin! He who postpones living rightly is like the rustic who waits for the river to run out before he crosses."
@Dura_Ace's quotation is perfect for his piece as his admonition of "Remember the human." Very well said.
@JasonGroves1
No 10 road-testing a new economic pledge to deliver ‘growth people can feel in their pockets’
Lets just say that I won't be doing a lot of work for them on 120 days terms...
Time to pay up: Toughest crackdown on late payments in a generation unveiled in plan to back small businesses
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/time-to-pay-up-toughest-crackdown-on-late-payments-in-a-generation-unveiled-in-plan-to-back-small-businesses
FWIW, I try to pay everyone on 30 days if possible, and small contractors, 7 days.
So everyone gets angrier
Remarkable.
Three of the top 5 "most watched" BBC videos are about "E-Motorcycles".
Are they updating "e-bike" in old stories, which adds "updated stories" to the top of something?
@GoodwinMJ
Much of Europe says refugees have to wait 3 years before bringing over relatives. Britain? No time limit whatsoever"
https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1962440185641042423
As MPs return to Westminster on Monday, she is expected to set out criteria for family members - including tougher English language standards and access to sufficient funds - and outline reforms to the asylum appeals system.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626p66d6jxo
I know that’s my viewpoint - anyone paying me beyond 30 day terms is taking the Mickey and will discover that they are no longer a priority customer or if I’m vaguely busy a customer at all.
My viewpoint has been to keep as far away from them as possible but I suspect RD has to deal with the worst offenders as part of his job