RNLI Criticised For Saving Refugees At Sea - Public Responds To Criticisms By Increasing Donations To RNLI

Please treat other members in a constructive manner and abide by our Forum Rules at all times.
  • Of course France are a member of NATO and one of the founding members. I'm surprised Jenny got that wrong unless it was a deliberate mislead.

    Its the why let facts get in the way of a good rant train of thought. ;)

    Young boys in the park jumpers for goalpost that's what footballs all about isn't it.

  • Not really. It’s French territorial water they commence their seaborne journey in and we pay France to prevent this from happening. Theoretically….

    Once they are in the water the French just happily wave them goodbye . They insist they have no right to detain them in France.

  • Once they are in the water the French just happily wave them goodbye . They insist they have no right to detain them in France.

    You are perfectly correct Jack.. The French are doing quite nicely from the evils of people smuggling. Macron is not to be trusted, the sooner he goes the better for western Europe.

  • That's easy to answer. It makes it look like the government is doing something about the situation and wins them votes. It's a waste of money. On average we have 100,000 immigrants come here per year. That's just the numbers they know of and can count. Note they are all immigrants until they have been processed and those who are genuine can be classed as migrants and claim political asylum. And why are we paying millions to hotels at seaside resorts to hold immigrants on top of what we pay the private companies to hold them in detention centres.

  • Sorry to correct you Jenny, but France is, in fact, a member of NATO.

    Sorry to correct you, OB, but France withdrew from NATO's command structure in 1966 but continued to commit to the collective defence of the alliance. In effect, they left NATO.....only, without "leaving" NATO. I didn't realise you were so unaware of the political circumstances, being an elderly person who would have been alive when it happened and could therefore reasonably be expected to have at least some awareness of such matters.... seeing as you feel so free to comment on them in your usual smug and lofty manner. Silly me for assuming a certain level of knowledge, in a discussion where some feel free to propose what would, in effect, be illegal incursions into another nation's sovereign territory.


    France And NATO


    Snip


    France was a founding member of NATO and fully participated in the Alliance from its outset. Paris was home to its first permanent Headquarters in the 1950s and 60s.


    In 1966, France decided to withdraw from the NATO Integrated Military Command Structures. That decision in no way undermined France’s commitment to contribute to the collective defence of the Alliance. Instead, it aimed, in the words of General de Gaulle, to “modify the form of our Alliance, without altering its substance.”


    This in effect, withdrew France from many aspects of the rules and regulations of the Treaty, one of them being that it gave them a greater level of flexibility over the control of their own territories, coasts and waters which was necessary at the time because it enabled de Gaulle to order American troops off French soil. He famously told the American Ambassador at the time "I don't want there to be a single American soldier left on French soil", to which the Ambassador replied "Does that include the ones buried in it..?"


    Ouch.


    The 1966 departure was also one of the factors that enabled France to refuse to commit to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as a NATO member, that so angered the Americans. ("Freedom Fries"....? Really...?)




    This in effect, withdrew France from many aspects of the rules and regulations of the Treaty, one of them being that it gave them a greater level of flexibility over the control of their own territories, coasts and waters.


    However...........


    France have since returned to the Command structure voluntarily in recent years, but with a number of conditions attached, some of which are listed in the article.



    Actually........ the way the French conducted both their departure and their return to the NATO command structure is a lesson in diplomacy that Britain would do well to learn from. They left NATO's Command Structure without trying to destroy the alliance, and returned to it in a way that suited them. They obtained concessions, agreed by all members and the whole move was conducted smoothly and seamlessly.


    Europeans negotiating sensibly and like grown ups between each other and coming to an agreement that is satisfactory to all concerned parties. Who'd have thunk it, eh..?

  • That's easy to answer. It makes it look like the government is doing something about the situation and wins them votes. It's a waste of money. On average we have 100,000 immigrants come here per year. That's just the numbers they know of and can count. Note they are all immigrants until they have been processed and those who are genuine can be classed as migrants and claim political asylum. And why are we paying millions to hotels at seaside resorts to hold immigrants on top of what we pay the private companies to hold them in detention centres.

    Minor point, Norra. They're all REFUGEES (if they claim that status) or Asylum Seekers until their claims are either proven or found to be without substance.


    It's the refugee status that enables them to a) come here, and b) stay here.


    UNHCR - Asylum In UK.


    There are some interesting stats at the link: snip:


    According to UNHCR statistics, at the end of 2020 there were  132,349  refugees, 77,245 pending asylum cases  and 4662  stateless persons  in the UK. The vast majority of refugees – 4 out of 5 – stay in their region of displacement, and consequently are hosted by  developing countries. Turkey now hosts the highest number of refugees with 3.7  million, followed by Colombia with 1.7 million.


    Another interesting little clippet:


    What benefits do asylum-seekers receive in the UK?


    The majority of asylum-seekers do not have the right to work in the United Kingdom and so must rely on state support.


    Housing is provided, but asylum-seekers cannot choose where it is, and it is often ‘hard to let’ properties which Council tenants do not want to live in.


    Cash support is available, and is currently set at £39.63 per person, per week, which makes it £5.64 a day for food, sanitation and clothing.



    So........ Refugees are not allowed to work, so have no means by which they can support themselves....... the state gives them less than £40 a week to live on. I don't think after food, clothing, heating, lighting, etc, etc, that there is a lot left for the 50" plasma TV's and other luxury goods that the Rabid Right claims they are wallowing in at taxpayers expense.


    But why not let them work...? If they worked, they could provide for themselves and would be contributing to the economy and be less of a burden to the taxpayer.


    The truth is, that this government doesn't want them to work. In this way, refugees can be demonised as "scroungers" ..... "Parasites, bleeding the country white."


    And oh, don't you all just love to do it.



    Refugee Facts


    Read this if you want some of your prejudices challenged:


    Snip

    In proportion to its population, the UK ranks 16th in Europe for asylum applications

    There were 676,300 first-time asylum applications in the EU in 2019, with Germany and France receiving the most.


    Well, well, well............ France and Germany take the most asylum seekers. Well, waddya know, eh..?


    Will knowing that Britain takes less refugees than 15 other European nations make any difference whatsoever to the mindset of the Rabid Right...? To be informed that actually, the problems being encountered by Britain are minimal in relation to that of other European nations..?


    Of course it won't.

    • Official Post

    I fail to understand why you are arguing, Jenny. You said

    The Royal Navy can't do it because France is not a member of NATO so any NATO warship entering French waters without permission would be committing an act of aggression

    I said:


    Sorry to correct you Jenny, but France is, in fact, a member of NATO.

    Your response then was:


    Sorry to correct you, OB, but France withdrew from NATO's command structure in 1966 but continued to commit to the collective defence of the alliance. In effect, they left NATO.....only, without "leaving" NATO. I didn't realise you were so unaware of the political circumstances, being an elderly person who would have been alive when it happened and could therefore reasonably be expected to have at least some awareness of such matters.... seeing as you feel so free to comment on them in your usual smug and lofty manner. Silly me for assuming a certain level of knowledge, in a discussion where some feel free to propose what would, in effect, be illegal incursions into another nation's sovereign territory.

    But later in the same post, you said:


    France have since returned to the Command structure voluntarily in recent years, but with a number of conditions attached, some of which are listed in the article.

    So we are in agreement after all. France is a member of NATO.


    You do enjoy picking nonsense argumentative points, don't you?

  • Use thise forts in the English channel as detention centres, and if they are left in the state of disrepair they are in it might dissuade them fro coming here. If we are lucky.

    Young boys in the park jumpers for goalpost that's what footballs all about isn't it.

    • Official Post

    There's a Parliamentary petition currently on the net . "Process all Asylum seekers Off-Shore using Foreign Aid budget.". What a brilliant idea :thumbup:

    I completely agree, but there should also be an efficient means of claiming asylum through our embassies.

  • Use thise forts in the English channel as detention centres

    Nice idea but I don't think they are big enough. We could put them all on Jersey the UK's tax haven. The Germans had a concentration camp on there for Jews during the war so it's big enough :whistling: I honestly don't know what the answer it but it's a huge problem. Our land is not the size of European countries so the argument that other counties take more than us does not work. It's sad that we are having to treat humans like this but what other option do we have. To put it bluntly it's kill or be killed. Sometimes being nice does no favours and is more a detriment to ourselves. The fact is we should not have bombed their homes in the middle east so they have good reason to come here and destroy us. If I had a choice I would send them all packing to the US. Let them deal with the mess they created.

  • Nice idea but I don't think they are big enough

    Well the idea would be not to keep them there too long just the time it takes to arrange to have them sent back to where they came from.

    Young boys in the park jumpers for goalpost that's what footballs all about isn't it.

  • It seems that the French do’t understand the concept of ‘payment by results’.


    We shouldn’t be paying them a penny unless they stop this migration wave from their country. If they are incapable of that, what are we paying them for?


    France accuses UK of failing to pay £54m it promised to tackle migrant crossings
    More than 17,000 people thought to have successfully crossed the Dover Strait aboard small boats in 2021
    www.independent.co.uk


    [EXTRACT]


    Not one euro” has been paid by the UK to tackle migrant crossings in the Channel, France has claimed.


    “We are asking the British to keep their promises of financing because we are holding the border for them,” he said


    Who do they think they are kidding?

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • France is doing a really good job, isn’t it?


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/10/1000-migrants-reach-uk-two-days-good-weather-sees-channel-crossings/


    [EXTRACT]


    More than 1,000 migrants arrived in Britain over two days this weekend as good weather saw the return of small boat crossings.


    After 10 days in which no crossings were made because of bad conditions, at least 40 boats managed to reach Britain on Friday and Saturday. Since the start of the year, more than 18,000 people have reached the UK in small boats.


    A flurry of crossings on Friday saw 624 people arrive in Britain – the fourth highest daily tally on record during the current wave of arrivals. Crossings continued on Saturday with at least 491 people, including children, arriving in Britain.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • That money we are paying them is most likely a way for the gov to launder some tax payers money out to someone in France where they are indirect beneficiaries and someone in France gets a cut of it.

  • We haven’t paid France a penny yet, according to them!


    I’d love to seethe KPIs!

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • What are KPIs? So it's all talk then much like these new laws for protesters. A government that talks the talk but can't walk the walk and full of bluffs to blag their way out things. In other words a bunch of lying c***s who can't be trusted to wipe their own arse let alone run a country. Put another party in power and we get worse so what worth is our political system. It needs scrapping. Filth the lot of them.

  • Not one Euro should be paid to France. They are allowing hundreds of undesirables to set sail across the English Channel. They are even escorting them into British waters. --- Only when the French stop working with the people smugglers should there be any payments made. The French have been terrible at sticking to agreements.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!