Forum | 2 children drowned in the Channel today by noggin

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread

2 children drowned in the Channel today 16:08 - Sep 10 with 5873 views

I bet they were fighting aged men in disguise. Stop the boats!, innocent people are perishing, while privileged white people fly flags as a show of hatred against them.

Poll:

If KM goes now, will you applaud him when he returns with his new club?

2 children drowned in the Channel today on 07:28 - Sep 11 with 456 views

noggin

2 children drowned in the Channel today on 19:58 - Sep 10 by djgooder
Crikey, very pleasant. Bigoted? All I’m suggesting is people pass security checks. That isn’t bigoted, it is sensible.

The vast majority of UK citizens never have to pass a security check. How would you security clear someone arriving on a boat, with no papers and from a war torn 'undeveloped' country?

Poll:

If KM goes now, will you applaud him when he returns with his new club?

2 children drowned in the Channel today on 07:48 - Sep 11 with 391 views

djgooder

2 children drowned in the Channel today on 07:28 - Sep 11 by noggin
The vast majority of UK citizens never have to pass a security check. How would you security clear someone arriving on a boat, with no papers and from a war torn 'undeveloped' country?

That’s exactly the point. How do you do it? ie it isn’t an acceptable entry point from any angle for entry to our country. From security, or from safety as seen with these recent young children crushed to death.

2 children drowned in the Channel today on 07:59 - Sep 11 with 371 views

noggin

2 children drowned in the Channel today on 07:48 - Sep 11 by djgooder
That’s exactly the point. How do you do it? ie it isn’t an acceptable entry point from any angle for entry to our country. From security, or from safety as seen with these recent young children crushed to death.

So you're suggesting safe and legal routes for everyone? Very controversial. I don't see how that would make security clearing any easier though.
Unless of course, you're saying nobody should be able to flee war, persecution or famine, because they might be future criminals?

Poll:

If KM goes now, will you applaud him when he returns with his new club?

2 children drowned in the Channel today on 08:11 - Sep 11 with 339 views

djgooder

2 children drowned in the Channel today on 07:59 - Sep 11 by noggin
So you're suggesting safe and legal routes for everyone? Very controversial. I don't see how that would make security clearing any easier though. Unless of course, you're saying nobody should be able to flee war, persecution or famine, because they might be future criminals?

Well obviously nobody can predict the future.

But war and famine? How does crossing the channel
Align with that. If they are fleeing war and famine then there are many good options before the reach the channel. Hence, they are likely not fleeing war and famine.

2 children drowned in the Channel today on 08:15 - Sep 11 with 326 views

noggin

2 children drowned in the Channel today on 08:11 - Sep 11 by djgooder
Well obviously nobody can predict the future. But war and famine? How does crossing the channel Align with that. If they are fleeing war and famine then there are many good options before the reach the channel. Hence, they are likely not fleeing war and famine.

Well government statistics of granted applications would suggest otherwise. You appear to disagree?

Poll:

If KM goes now, will you applaud him when he returns with his new club?

2 children drowned in the Channel today on 08:35 - Sep 11 with 282 views

djgooder

2 children drowned in the Channel today on 08:15 - Sep 11 by noggin
Well government statistics of granted applications would suggest otherwise. You appear to disagree?

Look. I don’t have all the answers obviously.

But channel crossings cannot be the answer, if do no reason apart for the tragedy we’ve seen yesterday of two children crushed to deaths

2 children drowned in the Channel today on 09:02 - Sep 11 with 233 views

Swansea_Blue

2 children drowned in the Channel today on 08:35 - Sep 11 by djgooder
Look. I don’t have all the answers obviously. But channel crossings cannot be the answer, if do no reason apart for the tragedy we’ve seen yesterday of two children crushed to deaths

Agreed, Channel crossings can’t be the answer. But neither is always stopping in the first safe country. For lots of well-publicised reasons, all countries need to work together to provide safe havens for people.

Poll:

Do you think Pert is key to all of this?

2 children drowned in the Channel today on 10:25 - Sep 11 with 93 views

ArnoldMoorhen

2 children drowned in the Channel today on 16:41 - Sep 10 by Zx1988

I agree with all of this, except for the seemingly arbitrary decision as to whether someone will be granted asylum in France or the UK.

That element should be down to the needs and desires of the individual applicant, taking into account that there are probably a good number who already decide to stop and claim asylum in France.

I came across this poster outside a church in Gelsenkirchen at the weekend, which I feel is particularly fitting:

"Our cross has no hooks*. We want heart, not hate. You cannot choose your origins, but you can choose your homeland. We believe that falafal goes well with sauerkraut, and living together is better than living against oneanother. Our horizon is as wide as the sky over the Baltic beaches; rainbows included. Democracy means wanting the best for everyone and, as a result, sometimes having differing opinions. Racism is not an opinion. #WeAreMore"

*The German word for 'Swastika' literally translates as 'hooked cross'

If I, as a reasonably well-off and decently-educated individual can (broadly speaking) choose whether I want to live in the UK, France, Spain, Germany, or Burkina Faso, I believe that right should be afforded to everyone, not just those considered 'economically desirable'.

[Post edited 10 Sep 16:44]

In an ideal world, we'd be free to choose...

Your open-heartedness is a long way from the middle ground of public opinion in the UK at the moment.

The Asylum Treaties and International Law that the UK has signed up to over the years was never intentioned to give freedom of movement. It was always intended to spell out humanitarian obligations to Sovereign States, and to provide a means for people's lives to be saved in the most horrendous and extreme circumstances.

Of course I understand that an individual may *prefer* to live in the UK if, for example, they can speak English or there is a community of people from their nation or region that is well-established in the UK.

But Asylum Law isn't about preference, it's about saving lives and preventing humanitarian disasters in extremis.

There is no prospect whatsoever in the UK at the moment of establishing the generous "everyone is welcome" policy that you favour. That would be supported by a very small proportion of the population.

Instead I would favour a re-establishing of the generations old consensus regarding Asylum and Refugee Status. That has been undermined by criminal people traffickers gaming the system, and by divisions with our former EU partners post-Brexit.

In the Trump era, the EU does need the UK, and the UK has a problem (people trafficking) that can only be solved with EU help. A sensible, mature, but urgent, shift is needed.

(And, on a fairly insubstantial point, I don't have the right to live in France, Spain or Germany. No idea about Burkina Faso!)

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread