egg

I share your interpretation. Whilst I don't care much for the poster, it seemed clear that he was referring to lost tax revenue from departing selfish greedy bastards.

Yep. Imbruglia is aging well - her now.

Fortune

I think a basic amenities detention centre, people living god knows how many to a room, is less appealing than a house or hotel. But yep, it's a variation on a theme.

You don't - the same as per HMO'S and hotels.

Yep. In reality it's HMO's or hotels, simply because there's nothing else. I'd build much simpler detention centres, large rooms, bunks, shared bathrooms, very basic facilities. It's about providing somewhere safe and that meets basic needs, nothing more. Sure, it's expensive,but it needs not be anywhere near prison type facilities or expense.

I said similar at the time. Whilst certain things shouldn't have to be said, they're better said than unsaid.

Indeed. We are the solution to France's problem, sadly.

I'm not sure it's that simple. If it is, no issue for me. That Pompey boat yesterday was a disgrace - monitored (escorted) out of french waters and left as our problem.

Yep. All sorts of practical issues as well. It was an expensive change for the sake of change.

Pathetic. So no answer, just rudeness. Best get yourself to Pompey mate, people at your level there.

Simple question mate... difficult answer though, hence you ignored it. Answer in your own time.

What's the answer to my question?

Ok. So, hypothetically, someone who has yet to be approved staggers into a&e, heart attack, stabbed, appendix popped, whatever. What do the medics do, step over them and leave them to die? If you're there with your kids, is that the kind of society you want them to see?

I get that. That defeats the purpose of asylum.

Let's look at the people that do arrive. Choices:. 1. Accomodated. 2. Left to wander, sleeping wherever and disappearing from the system. Which one? If 2, are you ok with them kipping in the field outside your house? I'd prefer they were odd the streets.

Agreed. I don't see the appeal at all. Whatever the appeal is needs to be choked off.

If they can afford nothing, then a shanty town down the rec? People can moan about HMO's all they like, but people can and will arrive on our shores, and either be accommodated at our expense or left to roam free - it's one or the other.

Behave. I agree with you only as far as there's a problem. There's nothing else to agree with you on as you've made zero actual proposals to address the issue. Just "hot air", to borrow your phrase. I've said there's nothing practically that we can do to stop boats arriving. What we do when people arrive, and our attraction, are different matters.

So no suggestion of a solution. Helpful.

So where do people stay when they're here pending being dealt with ? A shanty town down the rec?

You're reading what you want to read into people's comments. Being realistic, and dismissing non sensical suggestions, isn't acceptance of the problem.

There's no conversation to be had when people take your approach, and just shout headline solutions without any thought about the reality. We won't stop people wanting a better life here. We won't stop France all but helping them in their way. We won't stop traffickers milking it. We can't close down a stretch of water. Those are the realities we face. What we can do is as Hypo says. We can then accommodate people meeting needs only. We can then have a streamlined processing system, with limited appeals and tougher outcomes, and prompt enforcement. Basically we can make ourselves less attractive a proposition, and deal with things quicker. What we can't do, realistically, is stop the boats coming, that's just populism.

That's another way of saying, I know there's no easy solution, but there should be, and adds absolutely nothing to sensible discussion.

Yep, although most people just moan about the problem and make no suggestions. They don't even say where (last country or origin) when they say send them back, let alone think about the reality of any country accepting them.