[Politics] Small boats, smashing the criminal gangs and the UK job market

[BadFish]

The usual sly/emotive use of 'loaded' terms - the Right do love dog-whistling to whip-up fear and prejudice.

This is how you end up with people advocating for killing them.

Language is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands.

 

[Zeberdi]

If an individual who lands on our shores, does not have an identity document, we have no official way of knowing who they are, or where they are from. That is a security threat.

It is probably less than you fear - anyone arriving ‘illegally’ ie without a legitimate asylum claim will be detained and deported under the Illegal Immigration Act.

The very small minority that are found to have connections/affiliations to terrorist groups are put on watchlists and monitored.

The even smaller number that allegedly slip through the net are unlikely to perpetrate terrorist attacks themselves but influence/help channel funds for radicalised UK nationals.

The security risk thus most likely to materialise as a terror attack in the UK is from the radicalisation of British subjects - especially those in prisons- through online links to global networks and like-minded individuals.

I would suggest the following would be far better than where we are at currently:

• Better cyber-monitoring of those on watch lists regardless of their residential status
• Much more stringent de-radicalisation process of political prisoners and prevention for those most at risk of radicalisation:
• a more ethical and proactively humanitarian approach in foreign policy when it comes to responding/getting involved with conflicts in the Middle East (especially where there is evidence of genocide)
• less fear-mongering and hyperbolic language when it comes to debating immigration in the context of terrorism.

On the cultural issues, don’t be so naive to assume its to do with individuals skin colour. More that they bring their own cultures with them. Which will in turn, over time, will change the culture of our country. I rather like our culture the way it is.
Demographics is our future

Ah the Great Displacement theory - gotcha

 

[nevergoagain]

It is probably less than you fear - anyone arriving ‘illegally’ ie without a legitimate asylum claim will be detained and deported under the Illegal Immigration Act.

The very small minority that are found to have connections/affiliations to terrorist groups are put on watchlists and monitored.

The even smaller number that allegedly slip through the net are unlikely to perpetrate terrorist attacks themselves but influence/help channel funds for radicalised UK nationals.

The security risk thus most likely to materialise as a terror attack in the UK is from the radicalisation of British subjects - especially those in prisons- through online links to global networks and like-minded individuals.

I would suggest the following would be far better than where we are at currently:

• Better cyber-monitoring of those on watch lists regardless of their residential status
• Much more stringent de-radicalisation process of political prisoners and prevention for those most at risk of radicalisation:
• a more ethical and proactively humanitarian approach in foreign policy when it comes to responding/getting involved with conflicts in the Middle East (especially where there is evidence of genocide)
• less fear-mongering and hyperbolic language when it comes to debating immigration in the context of terrorism.

Ah the Great Displacement theory - gotcha

How long does it take for an asylum claim to be assessed and actioned and are they detained whilst that process is undertaken ?. If they are housed in the community whilst those assessments are being actioned how is that anything but a security risk ?.

 

[Zeberdi]

How long does it take for an asylum claim to be assessed and actioned and are they detained whilst that process is undertaken ?. If they are housed in the community whilst those assessments are being actioned how is that anything but a security risk ?.

You are perhaps getting confused between the process of applying for Asylum and the monitoring/screening process for security risks on arrival - I was talking about the latter and I didn’t say people arriving in small boats wasn’t a security risk, just not as large as some are suggesting:

• “People arriving by small boats across the Channel are subject to stringent checks on arrival in the UK and again as they are processed into the asylum system.
• Immediately on arrival, initial identity checks are undertaken for all individuals over the age of five, based on the name given and fingerprints are checked against immigration and Police criminal databases.
• Once triaged and moved to appropriate accommodation, arrivals will be subject to additional checks as part of the asylum intake process. This will include identity and biometric enrolment based on fingerprints taken, with details checked against law enforcement, immigration, Police and security databases.
• There may be some individual cases where these checks are not conducted. It is not possible to check these details against the EU systems to which the UK has access under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement because use of those systems is only permitted for law enforcement, not immigration purposes.”

Don’t bother replying - I’m bailing out of this thread now - I have put forward my POV and others have the time to argue in more depth - you can’t win the internet and I’m not wasting time just for posters (not directed at you necessarily! ) who can not do anything more than respond to common sense posts or political POVs they disagree with, with puerile laughing emojis or repeating the same tired stereotypical tropes to illustrate their POVs.

 

[Chicken Run]

This picture demonstrates exactly the calibre of young men arriving on the shores who will collectively go on to drain millions of tax payers money

The men are all loaded three females still in the water, disgusting

Bozza edit; Photo removed.

The image appeared to be a professionally shot photo that will belong to a photo agency or media company. The usage rights for such photos is generally many hundreds of pounds per photo - a sum NSC simply can not afford. Indeed, left unchecked, the posting of these photos could bankrupt the site. Please DO NOT post photos that appear to be professionally shot, are taken from other media sites or are watermarked.

 

[Hiheidi]

The security risk thus most likely to materialise as a terror attack in the UK is from the radicalisation of British subjects - especially those in prisons- through online links to global networks and like-minded individuals.

Are you referring to incidents like the 2005 London Underground bombings and the Manchester arena bombing, which were committed by second generation immigrants? Because continued increased immigration, might increase the pool of people targeted with radicalisation?

 

[BadFish]

You are perhaps getting confused between the process of applying for Asylum and the monitoring/screening process for security risks on arrival - I was talking about the latter and I didn’t say people arriving in small boats wasn’t a security risk, just not as large as some are suggesting:

• “People arriving by small boats across the Channel are subject to stringent checks on arrival in the UK and again as they are processed into the asylum system.
• Immediately on arrival, initial identity checks are undertaken for all individuals over the age of five, based on the name given and fingerprints are checked against immigration and Police criminal databases.
• Once triaged and moved to appropriate accommodation, arrivals will be subject to additional checks as part of the asylum intake process. This will include identity and biometric enrolment based on fingerprints taken, with details checked against law enforcement, immigration, Police and security databases.
• There may be some individual cases where these checks are not conducted. It is not possible to check these details against the EU systems to which the UK has access under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement because use of those systems is only permitted for law enforcement, not immigration purposes.”

Don’t bother replying - I’m bailing out of this thread now - I have put forward my POV and others have the time to argue in more depth - you can’t win the internet and I’m not wasting time just for posters (not directed at you necessarily! ) who can not do anything more than respond to common sense posts or political POVs they disagree with, with puerile laughing emojis or repeating the same tired stereotypical tropes to illustrate their POVs.

Probably for the best, undoing the grift that leads to advocating for killing people can only be done with a lot of self reflection and learning. Its unlikely to happen in this environment.

 

[Zeberdi]

Probably for the best, undoing the grift that leads to advocating for killing people can only be done with a lot of self reflection and learning. Its unlikely to happen in this environment.

Hasn’t stopped you making 36 posts to the thread though cf to my 3 poor attempts - so as Harry likes to say, I admire your indefatigably in continually knocking your head against the brick wall

 

[nevergoagain]

You are perhaps getting confused between the process of applying for Asylum and the monitoring/screening process for security risks on arrival - I was talking about the latter:

“People arriving by small boats across the Channel are subject to stringent checks on arrival in the UK and again as they are processed into the asylum system.

Immediately on arrival, initial identity checks are undertaken for all individuals over the age of five, based on the name given and fingerprints are checked against immigration and Police criminal databases.

Once triaged and moved to appropriate accommodation, arrivals will be subject to additional checks as part of the asylum intake process. This will include identity and biometric enrolment based on fingerprints taken, with details checked against law enforcement, immigration, Police and security databases. There may be some individual cases where these checks are not conducted. It is not possible to check these details against the EU systems to which the UK has access under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement because use of those systems is only permitted for law enforcement, not immigration purposes.”

Don’t bother replying - I’m bailing out of this thread now - I have put forward my POV and others have the time to argue in more depth - you can’t win the internet and I’m not wasting time just for posters (not directed at you necessarily! ) who can not do anything more than respond to common sense posts with laughing emojis or repeating the same tired stereotypical tropes to illustrate their POVs.

I'll reply to anything I like.

I would like to understand what "stringent" checks are. You've quoted that from somewhere, can you provide the link?

Fingerprints, photos are taken and they are checked against known databases. All good there but you think that the majority will be on those databases, given only circa 8m UK citizens have their prints recorded? https://www.biometricupdate.com/202... this year,forms from 8.7 million individuals.

It takes several weeks for the 2nd detailed interview takes place so they will be in the community for that duration. Then of course you have those that abscond whilst being processed, The Guardian puts this at 17k https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...es-17000-asylum-seekers-registered-in-britain. Whether you like it or not, it IS a security risk.

 

[Greenbag50]

It is probably less than you fear - anyone arriving ‘illegally’ ie without a legitimate asylum claim will be detained and deported under the Illegal Immigration Act.

The very small minority that are found to have connections/affiliations to terrorist groups are put on watchlists and monitored.

The even smaller number that allegedly slip through the net are unlikely to perpetrate terrorist attacks themselves but influence/help channel funds for radicalised UK nationals.

The security risk thus most likely to materialise as a terror attack in the UK is from the radicalisation of British subjects - especially those in prisons- through online links to global networks and like-minded individuals.

I would suggest the following would be far better than where we are at currently:

• Better cyber-monitoring of those on watch lists regardless of their residential status
• Much more stringent de-radicalisation process of political prisoners and prevention for those most at risk of radicalisation:
• a more ethical and proactively humanitarian approach in foreign policy when it comes to responding/getting involved with conflicts in the Middle East (especially where there is evidence of genocide)
• less fear-mongering and hyperbolic language when it comes to debating immigration in the context of terrorism.

Ah the Great Displacement theory - gotcha

An assumption on your part, that I know or even agree to the great displacement theory you mention, which incidentally I’ve never heard of.
Bottom line is the more people live here and don’t integrate into our culture and bring their own, the more our own culture is pushed aside.
Don’t be so sneering to assume you are on the moral high ground on this.
It’s that attitude which has Reform on 30% by dismissing the legitimate concerns of people living in communities that have changed hugely in 20 years, which has been caused by immigration

 

[BadFish]

Hasn’t stopped you making 36 posts to the thread though so as Harry likes to say, I admire your indefatigably in continually knocking your head against the brick wall

Yeah I know. But that was me admitting defeat, Chicken Run calling for people to die on the channel is a step to far for me.

I don't want any further part in a discussion with people who would suggest such a thing.

Too far gone.

 

[Zeberdi]

Yeah I know. But that was me admitting defeat, Chicken Run calling for people to die on the channel is a step to far for me.

I don't want any further part in a discussion with people who would suggest such a thing.

Too far gone.

Agreed.

Unfortunately his comment was symptomatic of a deeper malcontent I see from some posters here that for me makes this thread generally unpleasant reading.

 

[Greenbag50]

Some more context from the horses mouth

 

[Bozza]

I'm closing this for a few days. Maybe longer.

I don't run this site to see people engage with such vitriol with one another. It's just so unpleasant and unnecessary.

I'll also issue this warning: if you think you are tiptoeing up to, but not over, where you believe the racist line is, do not be surprised if I lose patience with you very, very quickly.