Forum Topic

French just watching migrant dinghy's

I see photos of the French police just watching boats being put on the water and not approaching the migrants due to being outnumbered.Why don't they take photos and then drive as close as possible with the vehicle giving them protection and shoot some holes in the rubber dinghies with a non human lethal 2.2 airifle or similar before they can launch.  If the boat was legit the owner can then go back to the police for compensation which they can compare to the photos.  If it's illegal they obviously won't.

Nik Solomon ● 1764d75 Comments

Nik Solomon explained"I see photos of the French police just watching boats being put on the water and not approaching the migrants due to being outnumbered."And why should they ? Why should they want to get in the way of migrants who clearly want to go to a country which has taken back controland freed itself from the shackles of the EU.And speaks American as well.This is just one more of the benefits of Brexitand these migrants should be welcomed with open arms.So over to you, Priti Patel.michael adams 

Michael Adams ● 1764d

Who is going to stand by and watch someone shoot holes in a boat thatthey could have paid up to £50,000 for.

Janice Evans ● 1764d

The UK economy has always relied on foreigners coming here but throughout our history we've been encouraged resent them. We lost at least a quarter of a million EU workers last year because of Brexit, so we'll need far more that 25,000 boat people to replace them, particularly if they can drive trucks, pick fruit, work in care homes, or be nurses, or doctors, or.....

Peter Evans ● 1764d

Blooming Brexit againIts about war,persecution and imigration.You dont let someone ride a train or a fair ground attraction knowing a big chance you wont be getting off alive.It has to be stopped and people need to be stopped and vetted by way of imigration controll and not just in france.

Julian Pavey ● 1764d

I don’t think the French would be wanting to blast away at boats. France isn’t  Trump’s USA.  The EU has strict Health and Safety regulations, thankfully.  Anyway those French Police are well aware that we are desperately seeking migrants to replace EU citizens who were forced out after the Brexit vote.  We could do with some decent workers to sort out all our litter, weeding, potholes and general filth in Hounslow Borough. Not to mention the hospitality sector which has all but collapsed as far as service is concerned.  Let the migrants in!!

Steve Taylor ● 1764d

People can claim asylum wherever they want to.

Philippa Bond ● 1764d

Why should they do jobs like that they want to come here for a better life and who can blame them but if they do it legally they won't die in icy waters, thankfully some of these people traffickers have been arrestedthey are making millions out of sending people to their deaths, and manyworkers also left here because of the Pandemic which you fail to mention.

Janice Evans ● 1764d

I hate the water and this is just horrific.

Janice Evans ● 1764d

For those with short memories, we have had this issue for many years pre brexit.I agree with the op, we should be stopping the boats from launching and dealing with asylum claims in France.If someone is allowing their boat to be used for this purpose, then they have to be held to account and the message of 'no compensation' for lost or damaged boats should ring loud and clear and subsequent criminal proceedings should take place.International law may also need a modern update as well in my opinion.

Keith Iddon ● 1764d

No way! We're still looking for 6 bed houses for those from Afghanistan, we don't need a big influx from anywhere thanks!

peter king ● 1764d

'Why should they do jobs like that they want to come here for a better life and who can blame them but if they do it legally they won't die in icy waters'There is NO legal way for these people to come to the U.K. that's the problem. If we had a humane and practical system it would not only cut down on the traffickers antics, it would also help keep out any would be asylum seekers with a criminal record. We are desperate for people to come here and work and be part of our society, so many of them speak English and have some family ties here, so it seems reasonable that they should prefer the U.K. But Brexit was founded on anti-immigration rhetoric and the mysterious' taking back control' - that worked well didn't it?

Vanessa Smith ● 1764d

What do Church leaders on either side of the Channel think of these dreadful happenings.Aren't those suffering souls "Children of God"?

Jim Lawes ● 1764d

Vanessa, they do still come here to work, and many have come across the channel for years, they will choose what looks like aneasy way across although be it very expensive with the possibility of drowning.  Anyone who thinks Brexit was ever going to stop illegal immigration are living in lala land.  And now there is Covid to worry about.

Janice Evans ● 1764d

You'll probably find that a lot of them are better educated than people here.  We're short of doctors and nurses and teachers too.

Philippa Bond ● 1764d

You mean that they are not all uneducated but rather a mixture. I myslef are less educated than others, but i am more educated than others allso. Your point is a daft one

Julian Pavey ● 1764d

Janice, you really need to educate yourself. They are not illegal immigrants, they are asylum seekers.

Carl Wynne ● 1764d

Very funny Julian.  SyDlexics can be brilliant.  It's not funny though for the desperate people making this trip, many of whom are likely to have more training and skills and enthusiasm and aspirations to work here than British people.  However they won't legally be allowed to.

Philippa Bond ● 1763d

Carl, if they are not legally allowed to stay they are illegal.

Janice Evans ● 1763d

There will never be aspirations or motivation for many Brits to work here for as long as we have the Nanny State and such generous handouts and a weak criminal justice system.

Steve Taylor ● 1763d

Given the amount of empty properties you see around both private and council - I believe if the political will was in it - we could go a along way to housing lot more people, both those from Afghanistan and those here already living in sub standard accomodation. However, when you consider the government's appalling treatment of those in flats with combustible cladding four and a bit years after Grenfell it really doesn't given you much hope does it?

Vanessa Smith ● 1763d

Vanessa what are private developments got to do with the government? I have every sympathy for private flat owners with the wrong cladding but the developer should sort this and not the tax payer remember government has no money it’s our money. For sure governments are responsible for safety standards  but private developers should correct any materials found to be not fit for purpose.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1763d

I suspect doctors and nurses will apply through the correct channels. What I find sad is all the people making the dangerous crossing across the channel when they are already in safe countries. It doesn’t make any sense and the EU should do everything possible to stop people making such a dangerous crossing along with our support.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1763d

It is not/was not just the cladding but much more. It has a lot to do with Govt because it has to do with regulation and reduction in and changes in regulation.  Developers also often create a company simply to create a particular building and then fold that company on its completion so as to avoid any further responsibility.

Philippa Bond ● 1763d

I give up with you. You seem to think that every poor soul attempting the crossing is an illegal immigrant. No need for an inane response.

Carl Wynne ● 1763d

Well, unless I've been asleep haven't Prime Minsters, among others, from Theresa May onwards promised to sort out the cladding scandal? Only the government have the muscle to take on the big developers responsible for this mess, It is up to the government to pay in the first instance - and then - if need be - take these developers to court to get the money back. One tiny thing is quite possibly stopping that - how many of these big, greedy developers are massive donors to said government? If you seriously think that these developers are going to take any notice of the many people trapped in these homes then you're on a different planet.

Vanessa Smith ● 1763d

Jayne, it is up to the asylum seeker to determine which country they regard as safe. That is the law. France and Germany take so many more asylum seekers than the UK.

Stewart Jones ● 1763d

Steve, please explain what you mean by ‘ generous handouts’?  Are you aware of the huge increase in poverty, the proliferation of foodbanks or has it all passed you by?

Stewart Jones ● 1763d

What correct channels?You cannot apply for asylum without being in the UK. There is no queue to jump. You can't apply online, nor at an embassy, consulate, port or airport. You have to get here first.Carriers are fined if they let on people without visas.Doctors and nurses are no different. They too have to claim asylum if they are fleeing war or oppression. And asylum-seekers are banned from working while they wait, although a few can apply for permission to work in "shortage occupations' once they have been here a year. So your doctor might be able to - but only as a doctor and accredited by the GMC, not as a health care assistant for instance to earn some money while they qualify.And while France may seem safe to you - and indeed many, many more asylum-seekers stay there than try to come here, the police and authorities are often brutal to refugees (one of my guests was beaten up and tear gassed by the French police and swore he would never claim asylum there after that) Plus people have the right to choose where they claim asylum...usually they choose where they feel safe, have family or community or speak the language. Under the 1951 Refugee Convention, there is no  "first safe country" rule.Finally, we have left the EU. Why should it in general - or France in particular - make any attempt to retain people who clearly don't want to stay there? Or indeed accept any returns just in order to benefit a nation that has decided it doesnt want to be part of it and which has given up its Dublin3 treaty rights?

Sara Nathan ● 1762d

Well said, Sara

Stewart Jones ● 1762d

Ditto

Janice Evans ● 1762d

Asylum seeker rules seem to state that if you made it to France, that is where you should seek asylum rather than attempt to continue to the UK. If you do continue to the UK you are an illegal immigrant!“When your claim might not be consideredYour claim might not be considered if you:are from an EU countrytravelled to the UK through a ‘safe third country’have a connection to a safe third country where you could claim asylumGenerally, a safe third country is one that:you’re not a citizen ofyou would not be harmed inwould not send you on to another country where you would be harmed”

Steve Taylor ● 1762d

Skilled people can apply for a visa, as someone has said we struggle to look after everyone in this country so we can not have uncontrolled immigration. Why anyone in France, Germany etc, would want to take chance on a very dangerous channel crossing, pay 2K euros and be potentially threatened is just crazy. France and Germany are safe countries they can apply for a work visa if they are skilled, apply for asylum in these countries etc, there is no reason to risk their lives and pay money most can not afford.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1762d

It used to be that if you were deemed to have applied for asylum in any EU state - even by having your finger-prints taken - then another member state could return you, under the Dublin 3 protocol, to that state.But Dublin 3 fell with Brexit. And nothing, no bi-laterals have replaced it.And the 1951 Refugee Convention, which the UK helped draft and to which it was an early signatory, makes no mention of any "first safe country" rule. And in fact, there is no such rule: the person claiming asylum decides where they feel safe - which may not be where you or I might. So I might feel safe in France, Egypt or Baluchistan, but people either beaten up by the police, or active in local politics might not. And it's their choice, not yours or mine.There are some interesting sources such as the Right to Remain toolkit or Colin Yeo's "Welcome to Britain" or the freemovement blog, if you want more background.

Sara Nathan ● 1761d

The joy (problem) of social media is the frequency of people posting claims founded on ignorance and bias. Thank you, Sara, for doing the opposite : providing facts.I suspect those who were posting false info will suddenly go quiet. You gave them facts they did not want. Or like.

Alan Clark ● 1761d

I guess that people who want to return these refugees/asylum seekers or whatever label you want to attach to them (human beings is a good enough label for me) back to France and who also happen to have voted for Brexit have to 'own' the situation that exists now.For once they won't be able to blame the 'remoaners'.

Andrew Jones ● 1761d

This is about blame, there is not blame no country can have open borders to whomever wishes to live there. There are systems in place which everyone should abide by…..is people are genuine refugees through war, politics etc, then the world should help and provide ‘safe’ passage. Ruthless people smugglers who are only interested in financial reward are criminals and should be dealt with accordingly in the country they operate. France is not handling the criminal elements and aiding and abetting human misery and suffering. This has to stop.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1761d

Jayne, neither you, Johnson, Patel or Farage decide which country is safe fior an asylum seeker. Your position is that people who want to come here in a dinghy are simply crazy. The UK is 17th in the list of final destinations for asylum seekers. Yet we think they all want to come here which is simply not true.

Stewart Jones ● 1761d

And yet our own government had closed all legal routes and proposes that  no one will be held accountable if people drown in the Channel.

Stewart Jones ● 1761d

Returning to the OP. These people are asylum seekers. In dinghys.

Stewart Jones ● 1761d

Asylum seekers in dinghies in fact

Alastair Banton ● 1761d

Blast! The apostrophe threw me. At least I didn’t write dingies !

Stewart Jones ● 1761d

I am saying people smuggling is a crime, the french should be addressing it ……yes crazy to risk their lives from a safe country which France is….. people smugglers have no interest in their safety and crossing the channel is dangerous, tragically more people will die. There are systems in place we can’t allow everyone in without knowing how they are….how many illegal immigrants do we currently have in this country? No one really know….I am all for legal immigration.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1761d

Why are these people paying £2K to smugglers to get on a rubber boat when they can pay £50 or £100 to fly or ferry or Eurostar to come to the UK and then simply claim asylum at Passport Control on arrival?

Steve Taylor ● 1761d

Do they have British Passport Control on the French side?Also, I think carriers are liable to heavy fines for anyone they bring into the country who doesn't have an automatic right to be here.I might be wrong though.

Andrew Jones ● 1760d

They pay the smugglers because they CANNOT buy tickets for boat or plane. For that you need a visa. And the carriers get fined if they allow someone to travel without a visa - and have to pay to take them away again. So it doesn't happen. A few people fly here for work or study (on a visa to do that) and then claim asylum. Most fleeing war or oppression can't do that.And in answer to "There are systems in place which everyone should abide by….."If only there were! But there is no system and no queue. You cannot claim asylum at an embassy, consulate, port or online. NONE of the resettlement schemes are open. Even the Dubs scheme for separated children is closed. People fleeing Afghanistan (apart from those on ARAP) have no scheme either - the government said it would introduce one but hasn't. So some of those now crossing by little boat have fled the Taliban since August. Some have worked alongside British forces, diplomats and companies and are thus targets now.

Sara Nathan ● 1758d

Sara, your details concerning asylum are concise and interesting, clearing several blurred and ignorant details on the subject.Thank you, you certainly know your stuff.

Denis I. Fox ● 1758d

https://www.rescue-uk.org/article/what-dubs-amendment?Former MP Lord Alf Dubs campaigns for refugees and in particular unaccompanied child refugees of which he was one during WW2 with the kindertransport.

Philippa Bond ● 1758d

We have thousands arriving on planes every day with holiday visas. If they have £2k for a Dinghy ticket can’t they pay £100 for a plane ticket and 250 for a holiday visa and then claim asylum when they arrive?  Or are you saying that everyone granted asylum here actually arrived illegally on a smuggler operated dinghy?

Steve Taylor ● 1758d

On Beeb news few days back they did say most who cross the channelwere allowed to stay and 5 return they never said the reasons for the 5returned.

Janice Evans ● 1758d

Thousands of people arriving with "holiday visas" from where? Have you any idea of the difficulty of obtaining either a tourist or a family visa in places such as Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria? Applications are rejected for the most insubstantial reasons. Even genuine tourists from non-visa countries are often sent straight back where they came from, because of suspicions that they may look for work in this country. I know personally of several cases of genuine visitors who were unfairly refused entry and detained on arrival.

Robert Fish ● 1758d

Sara is spot on, they are targets now so they destroy passports they do have (ID) and are left in a desperate situation, short on cash by the time they get here and that's if they survive the journey.

Janice Evans ● 1758d

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/nationality-borders-bill-truth-behind-claims?What Amnesty says on the new Nationality & Borders Bill.  It is an interesting read:  8 ways it will make the UK's asylum system worse.

Philippa Bond ● 1758d

“ I know personally of several cases of genuine visitors who were unfairly refused entry and detained on arrival.”Yes, but that is my point. They have to claim asylum at the point of arrival. Then they cannot be refused entry whilst their asylum application is being processed.  I assume that the several cases, of people you know personally,  didn’t claim asylum upon arrival. They were trying to enter the UK for other reasons??

Steve Taylor ● 1758d

Of course they didn't claim asylum on arrival - they weren't refugees, but genuine visitors from non-visa countries. So they were able to fly to the UK, for the privilege of being detained on arrival. But nationals of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ethiopia or almost any of the world's most benighted countries can't just hop on a plane without a visa. The carrier would be fined.One other point: if they can get here, refugees may eventually be granted asylum, but the system is designed to discourage them. They can't even work until at lest twelve months of waiting for a decision on their asylum application.

Robert Fish ● 1758d

“But nationals of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ethiopia or almost any of the world's most benighted countries can't just hop on a plane without a visa. The carrier would be fined.”So how the hell are these poor people supposed to get here legally to claim asylum?  Does the UK government not issue visas for asylum seekers? If not, is it UK Policy to simply assume and accept that all asylum seekers will arrive here illegally with the help of people smugglers?

Steve Taylor ● 1758d

With some of the oldest cities in the world with the most wonderful buildings it is desperately sad to see the difference since the war.  You can see before and after pictures.It's no wonder that so many of the population have left looking for somewhere else to live - ie undamaged homes, no more bombing and working electricity.  A most beautiful country before the war that many will want to go home again to when it is safer.

Philippa Bond ● 1758d

"So how the hell are these poor people supposed to get here legally to claim asylum?". A very good question, Steve.

Robert Fish ● 1758d

It’s estimated that 70% of asylum seekers arriving in the dinghies have a genuine reason to seek asylum and are successful. Yet, the UK denies safe routes and effectively colludes with people smugglers to force genuine asylum seekers into unsafe routes to get here. And to add a little perspective the UK is the 17th preferred destination of asylum seekers not the first as one could easily think listening to the likes of Farage, Patel etc.And France last year took 150,000 asylum seekers whereas the UK took 30,000.

Stewart Jones ● 1757d

Took is not the same as asylum requests and appeal cases. Allso numbers carry over from previous years on appeals. France 2020 acceptance rate on request and appeals is 32.3% from 87,659 new applications and 54,730 on appleals. If you take afghanistan as one country then 10,191 applied in 2020 of which 3,158 were processed and 2,632 were rejected. On appeals for which the number was 2,872 in total for 2020 the number processed was 501 accepted and 584 rejected. Obviously the gap is where first and appeals have not been processed but the overal acceptance rate in 2020 from afghanistan is 62.9 percent. Take every appliaction from all countries and its 32.3% acceptance rate on first application and appeal. That includes from outstanding applications and appeals from other years carried over and processed in 2020. That may change in 2021 given the circumstances like afghanistan but to say "they took 150k" is not exactly true but it is 142,389 on first application and appeal with 32.3% successful. Clearly the rejected will be in the 2021 numbers on appeal and going on 2020 and the top 5 countries the success rate is around half so the real total could be around 90k if all rejected appeal based on previous success rates My maths make france taking 45.991 in 2020 and rejecting 96,398 The stats are published in france and widely available "70% of asylum seekers arriving in the dinghies have a genuine reason to seek asylum " Well that may tally with the 62.9 percent acceptance from afghanistan and the top 5 other countries but not overal so the 70% must all be from the top 5 otherwise the percentage drops by some way.  So clearly the goverment does have a question to answer with clear data.                                  Just making the point that numbers and headlines are not exactly what they seem to be from my understanding and numbers published.

Julian Pavey ● 1757d

The narrative is that we are facing a ‘migrant crisis’ and that the UK is being overwhelmed, neither of which is true.

Stewart Jones ● 1757d

“ A very good question, Steve.”Has this question ever been raised in parliament?  I am shocked that there seems to be no safe passage for asylum seekers to come to the UK to make their claim.  Surely Priti Patal should be held accountable for these deaths?

Steve Taylor ● 1757d

I am sure your figures are correct but as far as I am concerned "asylum seekers" who had an opportunity to make an asylum case in multiple foreign safe countries (and despite some comments to the contrary most of the EU is safe for asylum seekers within the legal definition of safe, although that is probably not true for notoriously anti-immigration countries such as Hungary) are economic migrants not asylum seekers.  In most cases they are fleeing France by the time they decide to escape to the UK.The problem is of course that the UK is long way from where the migrants originally started to flee.  It is inevitable that they have to come through EU countries.  The moral case for taking a proportion of the asylum seekers who flee to the EU is clear.  That does require that we reach an agreement with the EU to allow the decision on whether someone is or is not an asylum seeker to be made at the first country they arrive at and for us to take an agreed proportion of all such approved asylum seekers.Of course such an agreement would be a lot easier to achieve if we were still part of the EU!

Justin Stephenson ● 1757d

Well, of course, there was an agreement which we threw away when we accepted the dreadful oven ready deal that Johnson lied about.Whatever you think it is the asylum seeker who decides which is his or herb safe country. 27 people died last week trying to get to the UK.  They are desperate.

Stewart Jones ● 1757d

"please explain what you mean by ‘ generous handouts’?  Are you aware of the huge increase in poverty, the proliferation of foodbanks or has it all passed you by?"The handouts must be generous when I witness almost daily Macdonalds breakfasts and other Uber Eats and deliveroo  takeaways being delivered to someone in social housing on benefits. Not to mention the weekly drug drops and cash being handed over. Said person rarely appears without fag in mouth and appears to have bundles of money to spend on make up and hair extensions whilst her child gets fatter and fatter due to all the junk food. Shameful!

Steve Taylor ● 1754d

Following my posting on the 25th November...enquiring about the response from Church Leaders...I note that the Pope has now spoken.He's displeased with the treatment of those seeking refuge.

Jim Lawes ● 1754d

Great news today to see the Pope visiting Lesbos and commenting on the selfishness of some European countries.

Philippa Bond ● 1753d

They may not consider that the countries they have passed through are safe.  What they consider safe is their decision not ours.https://theconversation.com/debunking-key-myths-about-britains-broken-asylum-system-172794

Philippa Bond ● 1753d

And surely we have taken back control of our borders since we left the EU?Except , as it turns out, we have less control than before and we blame the French anyway. Btw, is anyone ‘prospering mightily’ as we were promised? Obviously, the mates of the government have raided the public purse ands have made huge profits - £37 billion to Serco, millions to a public landlord, some MPs on the take, millions to friends of the government etc .

Stewart Jones ● 1752d

Sure you have mentioned this a few times before?

Paul Fisher ● 1752d

Many on benefits seem to be prospering mightily. Strange that they refuse to take all the jobs left behind by all the EU citizens who were kicked out.

Steve Taylor ● 1752d

And not surprisingly many workers have refised to come back on Govt terms.  So not enough butchers meaning that carefully reared animals end up slaughtered but not eaten.  And there fwe are encouraged to waste not want not.

Philippa Bond ● 1752d

The people smugglers across Europe?

peter king ● 1752d

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2021/12/06/bodies-at-borders-why-it-is-vital-to-humanise-migrants/

Philippa Bond ● 1752d

I’ve not before  quoted Johnson who said that we would prosper mightily with the oven ready deal. Another lie.People repeat their points on the forum. I can live with it.

Stewart Jones ● 1752d

“ And not surprisingly many workers have refised to come back on Govt terms. “Agreed. Why would they want to come back here to Mud Island when they were made to feel so unwelcome by the majority of Brits?

Steve Taylor ● 1752d