Solving the Immigration Problem

[skintsaint]

5 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Yes, but what's to stop France towing them or sending them back? It'll be like the fucking Chuckle Brothers as they are not either of our countries responsibilities.

Well what we paying them for then? Go hard on them to take them back or withdraw all funds given right now as it seems right now they are taking the piss.

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

But how? What are you nuking and where? Just explain your thinking.

It really isn't hard. You said "Why won't you accept that something doesn't have a workable solution?"

Which i see you edited, nice edit as "workable" wasnt there before 😂

 

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

Well what we paying them for then? Go hard on them to take them back or withdraw all funds given right now as it seems right now they are taking the piss.

Let's be honest the French have very little incentive to try too hard to solve the problem. Even if they did, they'd be unable to police the entire coastline.

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

Well what we paying them for then? Go hard on them to take them back or withdraw all funds given right now as it seems right now they are taking the piss.

But it's not realistic to think they'll stop every boat without much more investment. 

If we withdraw all funds it's going to get much, much worse as they'll just be funnelled through by the French.

[egg]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Let's be honest the French have very little incentive to try too hard to solve the problem. Even if they did, they'd be unable to police the entire coastline.

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

[hypochondriac]

Another thing I found odd was that people were outraged a couple of weeks ago about the government literature telling new migrants not to assault people and the laws in this country. We know there will be some -not all - migrants who come from different cultures and pose a threat to others. Ideally they wouldn't be here at all but given that they are and will be here for at least some time, surely the right thing to do would be to try to reduce any potential harm they might cause in the meantime. How is that a bad thing?

Edited 1 hour ago by hypochondriac

[skintsaint]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But it's not realistic to think they'll stop every boat without much more investment. 

Going on this latest boat, they escorted this across so its a load of fanny they are not trying to stop them.

Agree its a complex problem, but some steps put in place (as mentioned earlier) would reduce it a lot, but the Governement won't do anything drastic as it might lose some votes I expect.

[Osvaldorama]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Another thing I found odd was that people were outraged a couple of weeks ago about the government literature telling new migrants not to assault people and the laws in this country. We know there will be some -not all - migrants who come from different cultures and pose a threat to others. Ideally they wouldn't be here at all but given that they are and will be here for at least some time, surely the right thing to do would be to try to reduce any potential harm they might cause in the meantime. How is that a bad thing?

The reason this is outrageous is because if these people are that dangerous and backwards, they should not be allowed to step foot in the country. 
 

Im not sure why that needs explaining? 

[skintsaint]

Just now, Osvaldorama said:

The reason this is outrageous is because if these people are that dangerous and backwards, they should not be allowed to step foot in the country. 
 

Im not sure why that needs explaining? 

Nor will a pamphlet do anything I expect.

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

Going on this latest boat, they escorted this across so its a load of fanny they are not trying to stop them.

Agree its a complex problem, but some steps put in place (as mentioned earlier) would reduce it a lot, but the Governement won't do anything drastic as it might lose some votes I expect.

Once they are at sea the policy is not to stop them because there's a risk that the boat would capsize and people could die. I'm not an expert on these things but given how many people were on board I'd say that's a reasonable risk.

Edited 1 hour ago by hypochondriac

[Osvaldorama]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

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

We could nuke France? 

[Farmer Saint]

10 minutes ago, Turkish said:

It really isn't hard. You said "Why won't you accept that something doesn't have a workable solution?"

Which i see you edited, nice edit as "workable" wasnt there before 😂

 

Unfortunately you're wrong, the bit I added was in brackets. If you go back and look at Osvaldorama's post directly underneath you'll see that as he posted just before I did the edit.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Farmer Saint

[Osvaldorama]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Once they are at see the policy is not to stop them because there's a risk that the boat would capsize and people could die. I'm not an expert on these things but given how many people were on board I'd say that's a reasonable risk.

And he we circle back to.. there are solutions. 
 

Sink a couple and they’d stop. 

[skintsaint]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Once they are at see the policy is not to stop them because there's a risk that the boat would capsize and people could die. I'm not an expert on these things but given how many people were on board I'd say that's a reasonable risk.

They could load them on the boat and take them back. Just like the RNLI load them on the boat and bring them here.

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

The reason this is outrageous is because if these people are that dangerous and backwards, they should not be allowed to step foot in the country. 
 

Im not sure why that needs explaining? 

But they already have stepped foot in the country. Given that someone can set off anywhere along the French coast and then arrive in Britain it's simply not practical to stop them all even if you manage to reduce it substantially. Once they are here, on top of getting rid of them as quickly as possible surely you also want to reduce the harm they do. If handing out this literature to individuals who genuinely may not realise that what may be acceptable in their country is not acceptable here, reduces the potential harm they may do then surely that's a good thing ?

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

Nor will a pamphlet do anything I expect.

Maybe not, but that's a different conversation isn't it. 

Edited 1 hour ago by hypochondriac

[Osvaldorama]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

But they already have stepped foot in the country. Given that someone can set off anywhere along the French coast and then arrive in Britain it's simply not practical to stop them all even if you manage to reduce it substantially. Once they are here, on top of getting rid of them as quickly as possible surely you also want to reduce the harm they do. If handing out this literature to individuals who genuinely may not realise that what may be acceptable in their country is not acceptable here, reduces the potential harm they may do then surely that's a good thing ?

Detention centre / send them elsewhere. 
 

People that need pamphlets to tell them not to sexually assault people should not be sent to towns around the country. 

[Farmer Saint]

Christ, if I like anymore of @hypochondriac I'm going to have to go for a scalding hot shower.

 

Only kidding Hypo 😉 

[hypochondriac]

44 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

And he we circle back to.. there are solutions. 
 

Sink a couple and they’d stop. 

Assuming you're being serious and not flippant for the sake of it -are you seriously suggesting that the UK government sinks these vessels at sea- potentially killing people on board-in order to deter people from making the journey? I thought we were talking about sensible solutions?

Edited 32 minutes ago by hypochondriac

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, Osvaldorama said:

Detention centre / send them elsewhere. 
 

People that need pamphlets to tell them not to sexually assault people should not be sent to towns around the country. 

Which detention centre?

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Osvaldorama said:

Detention centre / send them elsewhere. 
 

People that need pamphlets to tell them not to sexually assault people should not be sent to towns around the country. 

I've already said I support the creation of detention centres. The issue of course is not that all migrants are like that, it's that we don't know which ones are likely to be a danger.

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

They could load them on the boat and take them back. Just like the RNLI load them on the boat and bring them here.

Presumably trying to load hundreds of people onto a boat against their will whilst at sea is viewed as hazardous to health. The difference is that these people are taken willingly by the rnli because they want to come here.

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Christ, if I like anymore of @hypochondriac I'm going to have to go for a scalding hot shower.

 

Only kidding Hypo 😉 

Don't worry. I'll post something for balance about the facking immigrant scum shortly and balance will be restored.

[Osvaldorama]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Assuming you're being serious and not flippant for the sake of it -are you seriously suggesting that the UK government sinks these vessels at see- potentially killing people on board-in order to deter people from making the journey? I thought we were talking about sensible solutions?

I was being flippant, but I wouldn’t object to sinking a couple close enough to France that they can swim back there.

But I know that would probably cause people to get their knickers in a twist 😂

 

[Osvaldorama]

7 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Which detention centre?

A fuckin horrible one

[egg]

21 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Another thing I found odd was that people were outraged a couple of weeks ago about the government literature telling new migrants not to assault people and the laws in this country. We know there will be some -not all - migrants who come from different cultures and pose a threat to others. Ideally they wouldn't be here at all but given that they are and will be here for at least some time, surely the right thing to do would be to try to reduce any potential harm they might cause in the meantime. How is that a bad thing?

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

[Osvaldorama]

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I've already said I support the creation of detention centres. The issue of course is not that all migrants are like that, it's that we don't know which ones are likely to be a danger.

I think detention centres are still the answer.

You said we can’t work out which ones are dangerous.. our current solution is to throw them into town centres next to schools. 
 

If they know that instead of entering the country, they’ll stay in a shit hole detention centre until they can be identified, that will deter them. 
 

And if we can’t identify them, they don’t come in 🤷‍♂️ 

[badgerx16]

23 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

We could nuke France? 

They have more nuclear weapons than us.

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

I think detention centres are still the answer.
 

Start with keeping the ones in Pompey on the sceptic isle. If that doesn't deter them we don't have a chance.

[hypochondriac]

12 minutes ago, egg said:

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

You deal with reality as it is not as you'd like it to be. I'll be pleased once this issue is dealt with seriously and the numbers decrease to the degree that literature like this is much less of an issue. Until that happens, if this has any positive impact on crimes committed then surely that's the goal.

[hypochondriac]

10 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

I think detention centres are still the answer.

You said we can’t work out which ones are dangerous.. our current solution is to throw them into town centres next to schools. 
 

If they know that instead of entering the country, they’ll stay in a shit hole detention centre until they can be identified, that will deter them. 
 

And if we can’t identify them, they don’t come in 🤷‍♂️ 

I don't disagree although I wouldn't say shit hole. Just invest money in basic detention centres where needs are met but it's not an overly desirable place to live. This should be happening now but in the meantime these migrants will have to go somewhere sadly. 

[Farmer Saint]

27 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

A fuckin horrible one

Do the kids and women go there as well?

[tdmickey3]

42 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

And he we circle back to.. there are solutions. 
 

Sink a couple and they’d stop. 

Like I said, vile

[tdmickey3]

42 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

But they already have stepped foot in the country. Given that someone can set off anywhere along the French coast and then arrive in Britain it's simply not practical to stop them all even if you manage to reduce it substantially. Once they are here, on top of getting rid of them as quickly as possible surely you also want to reduce the harm they do. If handing out this literature to individuals who genuinely may not realise that what may be acceptable in their country is not acceptable here, reduces the potential harm they may do then surely that's a good thing ?

Another great post

[Farmer Saint]

25 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

I think detention centres are still the answer.

You said we can’t work out which ones are dangerous.. our current solution is to throw them into town centres next to schools. 
 

If they know that instead of entering the country, they’ll stay in a shit hole detention centre until they can be identified, that will deter them. 
 

And if we can’t identify them, they don’t come in 🤷‍♂️ 

But which detention centres? If we have to house 30k in detention centres how do we do that if we don't have any big enough to take them? Considering we're struggling for prison places (which is what you're asking for), why would we build for migrants but not for prisoners. And how long would they take to build? Prisons take between 3 to 5 years to build, and cost about £1bn to build for 1500 inmates. And that's not taking into account running costs. And we need twenty to thirty of these.

Edited 30 minutes ago by Farmer Saint

[tdmickey3]

48 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

The reason this is outrageous is because if these people are that dangerous and backwards, they should not be allowed to step foot in the country. 
 

Im not sure why that needs explaining? 

Irony?

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But which detention centres? If we have to house 30k in detention centres how do we do that if we don't have any big enough to take them? Considering we're struggling for prison places (which is what you're asking for), why would we build for migrants but not for prisoners. And how long would they take to build? Prisons take between 3 to 5 years to build, and cost about £1bn to build for 1500 inmates. And that's not taking into account running costs. And we need twenty to thirty of these.

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. 

[tdmickey3]

Hats off to Hypo, he is bang on the money with all his posts today👏

[hypochondriac]

Maybe I'm just in a particularly agreeable mood this afternoon. Don't worry I'll be a contrarian again by Friday.

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

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. 

How do you stop them getting out though? I cannot imagine it's be easy to hold huge amounts of fighting age men under lock and key.

[Osvaldorama]

15 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Do the kids and women go there as well?

There are no kids and women 

[Osvaldorama]

12 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But which detention centres? If we have to house 30k in detention centres how do we do that if we don't have any big enough to take them? Considering we're struggling for prison places (which is what you're asking for), why would we build for migrants but not for prisoners. And how long would they take to build? Prisons take between 3 to 5 years to build, and cost about £1bn to build for 1500 inmates. And that's not taking into account running costs. And we need twenty to thirty of these.

Valid points, well made. 
 

Back to sinking 

[Farmer Saint]

3 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

There are no kids and women 

There are - not as many as the m n, but they are there - so where do they go?

Edited 16 minutes ago by Farmer Saint

[Osvaldorama]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

There are - not as many as the m n, but they are there - so where do they go?

Same place. Just give the men some pamphlets on how to behave 

[hypochondriac]

10 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

How do you stop them getting out though? I cannot imagine it's be easy to hold huge amounts of fighting age men under lock and key.

You're right it would be a challenge. I expect you'd have to offer some amenities in the center and entertainment (although you'd run the risk of silly newspaper headlines about what they were being given.) and you'd need some proper security.

I think given the likely cost of operation for only a few weeks, I'd consider paying migrants a sum much lower than the cost of their care to leave voluntarily with the understanding that they would immediately be arrested if they came back. 

Others might have a different view but I'd consider integrating mothers and children more (not least because children will need schooling and we have a responsibility to them that we don't to random men). I'd still be encouraging them all to go back though.

Edited 9 minutes ago by hypochondriac

[egg]

10 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

How do you stop them getting out though? I cannot imagine it's be easy to hold huge amounts of fighting age men under lock and key.

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

[hypochondriac]

22 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But which detention centres? If we have to house 30k in detention centres how do we do that if we don't have any big enough to take them? Considering we're struggling for prison places (which is what you're asking for), why would we build for migrants but not for prisoners. And how long would they take to build? Prisons take between 3 to 5 years to build, and cost about £1bn to build for 1500 inmates. And that's not taking into account running costs. And we need twenty to thirty of these.

You're right it would require quite a project but would pay off eventually. Demand would ultimately fall much lower once it became clear that it would no longer be tolerated and they would be living in conditions they wouldn't be happy with. At the moment the journey is still worth the risk clearly because so many are still coming.

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

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

TBF though that doesn't actually solve the problem of them being an ongoing danger to locals.

[Osvaldorama]

I do think something like the Rwanda scheme was a good idea too. 
 

What they tried to do failed, but just yeeting them somewhere else is something I’d like. Basically anywhere that they wouldn’t be endangering British communities. 
 

That was also slow them down as they realise they won’t be allowed avoid the gravy train 

Edited 2 minutes ago by Osvaldorama