If it can't even deter someone who has already been sent back once, I'm not sure it will have much affect on the illegals trying it for the first time.
There was a human rights woman on the news earlier - facial piercings and oversized nerd glasses - making excuses for him.
Apparently, his life in France since being sent back has become 'horrendous', and he just wants to 'feel safe' by coming to the UK.
They are reading from a script that they have got off to a T. They know it works with our wanky woke authorities, so wheel it out every time.
It's all made up codswallop. They come here for the easy life, benefits etc. All paid by us!
I'm so very sick of Starmer, I don't think he's got any intentions of stopping the invaders.
We can't have another 3 years of him, we as a country will cease to exist!
Khan must answer for knowing about the London abuse gangs and covering up, bloody muslims again!
Mags,he CAN'T stop them and nor could any other Prime Minister if their party was governing. It's got nothing to do with being "wank or wokey" , it's the LAW. Since Brexit, we are not allowed to return immigrants. That's why they keep coming here in droves from France ,because France CAN send them back.
Red has always ignored me (except to call me a halfwit or a predator on rare occasions) as if the facts of the situation are a personal affront to him and that's just fine with me. But you and I got on well when I joined so I hope you don't chose to ignore me also just because I am speaking the truth.
I agree this particular asylum seeker does sound like a chancer. If he wanted to remain free from persecution he would remain in France, people genuinely fleeing for their life would be so relieved. But the reason asylum seekers are coming here in droves from France is that due to Brexit, the international law dictates we have to house them whilst their application is being processed. France are under no such obligation.
Starmer is a wet lettuce in many regards but no PM would be able to act any differently to him at this time . Farage and Gove told the concerned public Brexit would lower immigration levels but concealed the Dublin Convention from those who didn't know. Nigel Farage knew that if the UK voted to leave the EU we would be under a legal obligation to house illegal immigrants ergo he KNEW immigration levels would rise. Blatant lies to the public. That's is why I personally don't trust him. That and the fact he still owes the NHS 2 million pound's. Can you imagine if Starmer or Reeves had pledged to pay 2 million to the NHS and then just refused to pay it?? There would be a national outcry! But since Murdoch owns the majority of the Western media Farage 's treachery has been hushed up, no one must mention it so the public forget.
I went off on a tangent there a tad (!) But I just wanted to explain why it is logically unjust and inaccurate to blame Starmer for the rise in small boats. It would be the same no matter who was PM as the increase is a direct result of the change in law since Brexit.
However, I do agree with your last statement Mags. The attempt to cover up the ethnicity of grooming gangs has to stop. By trying to cover it up the Government are actively increasing bigotry because when white men are guilty of these crimes the Government has no problems revealing their ethnicity and the double standard is absurd.
Maybe they fear more racist assaults or riots but I would argue by trying to conceal the groomers ethnicity they are actually increasing the risk of retaliation.And since Starmer stated the Government would be transparent on this issue inevitably the public will trust them even less than they do already. Starmer is handling the optics of the grooming gangs woefully and for no possible justification.
-- Edited by Fluffy on Thursday 23rd of October 2025 09:48:19 AM
Magica said
Oct 23 10:01 AM, 2025
Fluffy wrote:
Magica wrote:
Red Okktober wrote:
Magica wrote:
We knew he would. Starmer's a bloody idiot!
If it can't even deter someone who has already been sent back once, I'm not sure it will have much affect on the illegals trying it for the first time.
There was a human rights woman on the news earlier - facial piercings and oversized nerd glasses - making excuses for him.
Apparently, his life in France since being sent back has become 'horrendous', and he just wants to 'feel safe' by coming to the UK.
They are reading from a script that they have got off to a T. They know it works with our wanky woke authorities, so wheel it out every time.
It's all made up codswallop. They come here for the easy life, benefits etc. All paid by us!
I'm so very sick of Starmer, I don't think he's got any intentions of stopping the invaders.
We can't have another 3 years of him, we as a country will cease to exist!
Khan must answer for knowing about the London abuse gangs and covering up, bloody muslims again!
Mags,he CAN'T stop them and nor could any other Prime Minister if their party was governing. It's got nothing to do with being "wank or wokey" , it's the LAW. Since Brexit, we are not allowed to return immigrants. That's why they keep coming here in droves from France ,because France CAN send them back.
Red has always ignored me (except to call me a halfwit or a predator on rare occasions) as if the facts of the situation are a personal affront to him and that's just fine with me. But you and I got on well when I joined so I hope you don't chose to ignore me also just because I am speaking the truth.
I agree this particular asylum seeker does sound like a chancer. If he wanted to remain free from persecution he would remain in France, people genuinely fleeing for their life would be so relieved. But the reason asylum seekers are coming here in droves from France is that due to Brexit, the international law dictates we have to house them whilst their application is being processed. France are under no such obligation.
Starmer is a wet lettuce in many regards but no PM would be able to act any differently to him at this time . Farage and Gove told the concerned public Brexit would lower immigration levels but concealed the Dublin Convention from those who didn't know. Nigel Farage knew that if the UK voted to leave the EU we would be under a legal obligation to house illegal immigrants ergo he KNEW immigration levels would rise. Blatant lies to the public. That's is why I personally don't trust him. That and the fact he still owes the NHS 2 million pound's. Can you imagine if Starmer or Reeves had pledged to pay 2 million to the NHS and then just refused to pay it?? There would be a national outcry! But since Murdoch owns the majority of the Western media Farage 's treachery has been hushed up, no one must mention it so the public forget.
I went off on a tangent there a tad (!) But I just wanted to explain why it is logically unjust and inaccurate to blame Starmer for the rise in small boats. It would be the same no matter who was PM as the increase is a direct result of the change in law since Brexit.
However, I do agree with your last statement Mags. The attempt to cover up the ethnicity of grooming gangs has to stop. By trying to cover it up the Government are actively increasing bigotry because when white men are guilty of these crimes the Government has no problems revealing their ethnicity and the double standard is absurd.
Maybe they fear more racist assaults or riots but I would argue by trying to conceal the groomers ethnicity they are actually increasing the risk of retaliation.And since Starmer stated the Government would be transparent on this issue inevitably the public will trust them even less than they do already. Starmer is handling the optics of the grooming gangs woefully and for no possible justification.
-- Edited by Fluffy on Thursday 23rd of October 2025 09:48:19 AM
Hi Fluffs,I
Today I read France has reneged on their agreement to stop the dinghys leaving France, in the same token what stops returning them and dumping them there.
They all say we can't do it, well I would, just leave them there.
I'm sick of more and more men arriving here just for all the benefits. We make it too easy and they're all young fighting men.
I really feel there's an agenda here. Conservatives were as bad, bloody ridiculous this is.
Red Okktober said
Oct 23 11:27 AM, 2025
It's good to see survivors of the grooming gangs calling out Labour's bullshit on the inquiry.
Let's not forget that Labour MPs voted against a national inquiry back in January, and in yet another U-turn, Starmer is now saying how 'determined' he is to get to the bottom of it, and the ethnicity and religion of the rapists will be looked into, as if he has been on board with it all the time - the idiot isn't fooling anyone though.
Four of the survivors have resigned from the inquiry panel, and won't return unless Jess Phillips resigns. They want the inquiry 'laser focused' on the grooming gangs, and not to be expanded to include other things beyond the gangs. Labour are also trying to implement tight controls on what they can say and who they can talk to. The survivors say it will dilute their evidence .
They also want a judge to chair the inquiry, and not the ex-policeman or social worker that Labour have proposed so far. It was the police and social workers who turned a blind eye in the first place, so why on earth should anyone from either of those backgrounds oversee the inquiry?
These are tough women and will sniff out Labour's bullshit as and when it happens, and apart from getting the justice they deserve, watching Starmer and co lie and squirm their through it should provide for some interesting viewing.
Syl said
Oct 23 11:59 AM, 2025
Fluffy wrote:
Magica wrote:
Red Okktober wrote:
Magica wrote:
We knew he would. Starmer's a bloody idiot!
If it can't even deter someone who has already been sent back once, I'm not sure it will have much affect on the illegals trying it for the first time.
There was a human rights woman on the news earlier - facial piercings and oversized nerd glasses - making excuses for him.
Apparently, his life in France since being sent back has become 'horrendous', and he just wants to 'feel safe' by coming to the UK.
They are reading from a script that they have got off to a T. They know it works with our wanky woke authorities, so wheel it out every time.
It's all made up codswallop. They come here for the easy life, benefits etc. All paid by us!
I'm so very sick of Starmer, I don't think he's got any intentions of stopping the invaders.
We can't have another 3 years of him, we as a country will cease to exist!
Khan must answer for knowing about the London abuse gangs and covering up, bloody muslims again!
Mags,he CAN'T stop them and nor could any other Prime Minister if their party was governing. It's got nothing to do with being "wank or wokey" , it's the LAW. Since Brexit, we are not allowed to return immigrants. That's why they keep coming here in droves from France ,because France CAN send them back.
Red has always ignored me (except to call me a halfwit or a predator on rare occasions) as if the facts of the situation are a personal affront to him and that's just fine with me. But you and I got on well when I joined so I hope you don't chose to ignore me also just because I am speaking the truth.
I agree this particular asylum seeker does sound like a chancer. If he wanted to remain free from persecution he would remain in France, people genuinely fleeing for their life would be so relieved. But the reason asylum seekers are coming here in droves from France is that due to Brexit, the international law dictates we have to house them whilst their application is being processed. France are under no such obligation.
Starmer is a wet lettuce in many regards but no PM would be able to act any differently to him at this time . Farage and Gove told the concerned public Brexit would lower immigration levels but concealed the Dublin Convention from those who didn't know. Nigel Farage knew that if the UK voted to leave the EU we would be under a legal obligation to house illegal immigrants ergo he KNEW immigration levels would rise. Blatant lies to the public. That's is why I personally don't trust him. That and the fact he still owes the NHS 2 million pound's. Can you imagine if Starmer or Reeves had pledged to pay 2 million to the NHS and then just refused to pay it?? There would be a national outcry! But since Murdoch owns the majority of the Western media Farage 's treachery has been hushed up, no one must mention it so the public forget.
I went off on a tangent there a tad (!) But I just wanted to explain why it is logically unjust and inaccurate to blame Starmer for the rise in small boats. It would be the same no matter who was PM as the increase is a direct result of the change in law since Brexit.
However, I do agree with your last statement Mags. The attempt to cover up the ethnicity of grooming gangs has to stop. By trying to cover it up the Government are actively increasing bigotry because when white men are guilty of these crimes the Government has no problems revealing their ethnicity and the double standard is absurd.
Maybe they fear more racist assaults or riots but I would argue by trying to conceal the groomers ethnicity they are actually increasing the risk of retaliation.And since Starmer stated the Government would be transparent on this issue inevitably the public will trust them even less than they do already. Starmer is handling the optics of the grooming gangs woefully and for no possible justification.
-- Edited by Fluffy on Thursday 23rd of October 2025 09:48:19 AM
From what I have read of the little publicised Dublin Convention, you are pretty accurate in what you have said here.
It IS down to Farage and his lies about Brexit that has made the illegal immigration influx so much worse, ironic that his immigration mantra is what will probably get him elected in 3 years time. But Starmer, with his ridiculous one in one out...ooops, one back again, certainly isn't making the problem better.
As Red said above...The grooming gang cover up, which has been going on for decades now, is going from bad to worse. The latest inquiry, where four of the victims have just resigned because of the way Jess Phillips is handling it, have called this a 'Cover up over a cover up' .
It seems nothing has been learned, nothing has been changed.
-- Edited by Syl on Thursday 23rd of October 2025 12:02:29 PM
Syl said
Oct 23 12:50 PM, 2025
Magica wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Magica wrote:
Red Okktober wrote:
Magica wrote:
We knew he would. Starmer's a bloody idiot!
If it can't even deter someone who has already been sent back once, I'm not sure it will have much affect on the illegals trying it for the first time.
There was a human rights woman on the news earlier - facial piercings and oversized nerd glasses - making excuses for him.
Apparently, his life in France since being sent back has become 'horrendous', and he just wants to 'feel safe' by coming to the UK.
They are reading from a script that they have got off to a T. They know it works with our wanky woke authorities, so wheel it out every time.
It's all made up codswallop. They come here for the easy life, benefits etc. All paid by us!
I'm so very sick of Starmer, I don't think he's got any intentions of stopping the invaders.
We can't have another 3 years of him, we as a country will cease to exist!
Khan must answer for knowing about the London abuse gangs and covering up, bloody muslims again!
Mags,he CAN'T stop them and nor could any other Prime Minister if their party was governing. It's got nothing to do with being "wank or wokey" , it's the LAW. Since Brexit, we are not allowed to return immigrants. That's why they keep coming here in droves from France ,because France CAN send them back.
Red has always ignored me (except to call me a halfwit or a predator on rare occasions) as if the facts of the situation are a personal affront to him and that's just fine with me. But you and I got on well when I joined so I hope you don't chose to ignore me also just because I am speaking the truth.
I agree this particular asylum seeker does sound like a chancer. If he wanted to remain free from persecution he would remain in France, people genuinely fleeing for their life would be so relieved. But the reason asylum seekers are coming here in droves from France is that due to Brexit, the international law dictates we have to house them whilst their application is being processed. France are under no such obligation.
Starmer is a wet lettuce in many regards but no PM would be able to act any differently to him at this time . Farage and Gove told the concerned public Brexit would lower immigration levels but concealed the Dublin Convention from those who didn't know. Nigel Farage knew that if the UK voted to leave the EU we would be under a legal obligation to house illegal immigrants ergo he KNEW immigration levels would rise. Blatant lies to the public. That's is why I personally don't trust him. That and the fact he still owes the NHS 2 million pound's. Can you imagine if Starmer or Reeves had pledged to pay 2 million to the NHS and then just refused to pay it?? There would be a national outcry! But since Murdoch owns the majority of the Western media Farage 's treachery has been hushed up, no one must mention it so the public forget.
I went off on a tangent there a tad (!) But I just wanted to explain why it is logically unjust and inaccurate to blame Starmer for the rise in small boats. It would be the same no matter who was PM as the increase is a direct result of the change in law since Brexit.
However, I do agree with your last statement Mags. The attempt to cover up the ethnicity of grooming gangs has to stop. By trying to cover it up the Government are actively increasing bigotry because when white men are guilty of these crimes the Government has no problems revealing their ethnicity and the double standard is absurd.
Maybe they fear more racist assaults or riots but I would argue by trying to conceal the groomers ethnicity they are actually increasing the risk of retaliation.And since Starmer stated the Government would be transparent on this issue inevitably the public will trust them even less than they do already. Starmer is handling the optics of the grooming gangs woefully and for no possible justification.
-- Edited by Fluffy on Thursday 23rd of October 2025 09:48:19 AM
Hi Fluffs,I
Today I read France has reneged on their agreement to stop the dinghys leaving France, in the same token what stops returning them and dumping them there.
They all say we can't do it, well I would, just leave them there.
I'm sick of more and more men arriving here just for all the benefits. We make it too easy and they're all young fighting men.
I really feel there's an agenda here. Conservatives were as bad, bloody ridiculous this is.
Mags, read this, it may make it ckearer why the boats cant just be returned.
Reform say that it can be done because Belgium has already done it, and they even claim we have in the past.
Both lies.
why the uk cannot return the boat people to france
It is due to leaving the EU that immigration has spiralled out of control in this country due to the Dublin Convention.Many people in the UK who were polled now wish to return to the biggest single market after electing to plunge the county in to poverty. But would Europe have us back is the question?
Possibly that ship has sailed but if it was explained that the electorate did not have all the necessary information about the repercussions of Brexit and were effectively conned by Nigel Farage ,Michael Gove and their cronies concessions might be made. The UK economy will never recover to a feasible extent if bridges with Europe are not rebuilt.
Thankfully the collective media silence surrounding Brexit is finally dispersing. MP's in all parties were fearful of offending Brexit voter's. but as a country we just have to face the facts about why leaving the EU destroyed our economy, eradicated our ability to trade effectively and of course inevitably vastly increased illegal immigration.
End of Dublin Cooperation: With Brexit, the UK is no longer bound by the Dublin Regulation, meaning it can no longer return asylum seekers to EU countries where they first entered. This has led to a higher amount of potential asylum seekers entering the UK which may provide a greater opportunity for staying, as they cannot be sent back to other EU states.
Recent polls indicate that nearly half of Brits believe there should be another EU referendum within the next five years, with only 29% supporting leaving the EU if a vote were held today. This reflects a significant shift in public opinion since the original Brexit vote in 2016.
-- Edited by Fluffy on Wednesday 22nd of October 2025 09:55:26 PM
-- Edited by Fluffy on Thursday 23rd of October 2025 10:04:42 AM
-- Edited by Fluffy on Thursday 23rd of October 2025 10:05:28 AM
Blaming Brexit is too simple and easy. It's much more complicated than that.
Although the UK's withdrawal from the EU has enabled the country to develop new migration policies, deliberate choices by its own government have led to a significant increase in net migration. Its new points based system has made it much easier for non-EU citizens to come to work and study in the UK and, at least initially, bring their partners and children. Education and salary requirements have been lowered compared to the requirements set for non-EU citizens before the UK's withdrawal from the EU.
The UK has also actively tried to attract more foreign students by allowing them to work in the country for two to three years. In the years after 2020, the UK has proved generous in allowing non-EU citizens to stay in the country on humanitarian grounds. Part of the need to attract foreign workers is the labour shortage, particularly in the health and care sector. However, other options are available to the UK government to tackle this issue, such as offering higher salaries for these jobs so that more people already present in the country want to do them. Focusing on attracting labour from abroad is a choice, as it is not the only option.
This is not the first time that decisions by the UK government have led to a major increase in net migration. When 10 countries joined the EU, the UK government decided, unlike most EU countries, not to impose any restrictions, which resulted in a greater than expected influx of migrants. The driver behind the significant increase in net migration therefore seems to be linked to many factors.
The bottom line is we make it way too comfortable for illegals to come here. We'd been warned over and over by other European countries that we offer too much in benefits and are too soft.
Red Okktober said
Oct 23 1:28 PM, 2025
The kiss of death
Starmer has just announced that he has 'confidence' in Jess Phillips
He said exactly the same about Rayner before she resigned, and Mandleson before he was sacked.
Digger said
Oct 23 1:52 PM, 2025
Syl wrote:
Mags, read this, it may make it ckearer why the boats cant just be returned.
Reform say that it can be done because Belgium has already done it, and they even claim we have in the past.
Both lies.
why the uk cannot return the boat people to france
Maritime Law can be changed regarding illegal migrants, and countries are doing so by creating new policies and strengthening maritime powers to deter illegal crossings and facilitate removal.
Governments can pass new laws that give their border forces more authority to intercept and divert boats in both territorial and international waters. This includes the power to take vessels to a non-UK port, such as the country of origin.
So, yes, they can be sent back or stopped but our current Government are too weak to do so. The BBC won't tell you that because they are the BBC.
Australia's "Operation Sovereign Borders" policy intercepted and turned back boats attempting to enter illegally. The decision caused a major stink and was widely condemned by human rights organizations, legal experts, and the United Nations for being cruel, inhumane, and potentially violating international law. Australia were like....we don't care. It's our country, our people don't want it so fuck you. Now they have no illegal immigrant problem and Lo, and Behold! The stink and outrage has all gone by the by.
As for Belgium it has an open border Schengen area, so can only implement temporary border checks in response to specific pressures, as outlined in the Schengen Borders Code. But they have tightened things up a lot.
Germany is stopping all illegals without documentation.
Spain has a policy of automatic expulsion of illegals to Morocco.
Norway stops illegal immigration through a combination of policies including border control, such as a fence on the Russian border, an efficient return policy that encourages voluntary departures, and welfare policies that remove incentives to stay illegally.
Sweden has stopped benefits to migrants.
Finland? You can forget it unless you are a child or disabled
Illegal immigrants do not get free housing in Portugal; they are not entitled to public housing or the full range of social welfare benefits.
Netherlands don't allow free housing or public housing and shelters. They are only allowed 14 Euros a week to live off.
The UK? We give them free everything. Phones. £50 a week. Gym membership. Driving lessons. Free healthcare. Free education. Free dental care. Free housing. Another huge problem and enticement in the UK is that we turn a blind eye to illegal employment.
What needs to change in the UK is our laws. That takes a lot of balls and Starmer has none.
Our country, in particular our cities, are turning into lawless shit holes riddled with illegal migrant gangs and drug runners. We have enough of our own homegrown scumbags and rapists, we don't need the rest of the world's dregs.
So, we have two choices. We either carry on like this and our country will be swamped, turned into a third world midden and our own culture obliterated, or we do what Australia did, and get tough.
Digger said
Oct 23 2:03 PM, 2025
Fluffy wrote:
Mags,he CAN'T stop them and nor could any other Prime Minister if their party was governing. It's got nothing to do with being "wank or wokey" , it's the LAW. Since Brexit, we are not allowed to return immigrants. That's why they keep coming here in droves from France ,because France CAN send them back.
Red has always ignored me (except to call me a halfwit or a predator on rare occasions) as if the facts of the situation are a personal affront to him and that's just fine with me. But you and I got on well when I joined so I hope you don't chose to ignore me also just because I am speaking the truth.
I agree this particular asylum seeker does sound like a chancer. If he wanted to remain free from persecution he would remain in France, people genuinely fleeing for their life would be so relieved. But the reason asylum seekers are coming here in droves from France is that due to Brexit, the international law dictates we have to house them whilst their application is being processed. France are under no such obligation.
Starmer is a wet lettuce in many regards but no PM would be able to act any differently to him at this time . Farage and Gove told the concerned public Brexit would lower immigration levels but concealed the Dublin Convention from those who didn't know. Nigel Farage knew that if the UK voted to leave the EU we would be under a legal obligation to house illegal immigrants ergo he KNEW immigration levels would rise. Blatant lies to the public. That's is why I personally don't trust him. That and the fact he still owes the NHS 2 million pound's. Can you imagine if Starmer or Reeves had pledged to pay 2 million to the NHS and then just refused to pay it?? There would be a national outcry! But since Murdoch owns the majority of the Western media Farage 's treachery has been hushed up, no one must mention it so the public forget.
I went off on a tangent there a tad (!) But I just wanted to explain why it is logically unjust and inaccurate to blame Starmer for the rise in small boats. It would be the same no matter who was PM as the increase is a direct result of the change in law since Brexit.
However, I do agree with your last statement Mags. The attempt to cover up the ethnicity of grooming gangs has to stop. By trying to cover it up the Government are actively increasing bigotry because when white men are guilty of these crimes the Government has no problems revealing their ethnicity and the double standard is absurd.
Maybe they fear more racist assaults or riots but I would argue by trying to conceal the groomers ethnicity they are actually increasing the risk of retaliation.And since Starmer stated the Government would be transparent on this issue inevitably the public will trust them even less than they do already. Starmer is handling the optics of the grooming gangs woefully and for no possible justification.
-- Edited by Fluffy on Thursday 23rd of October 2025 09:48:19 AM
. Can you imagine if Starmer or Reeves had pledged to pay 2 million to the NHS and then just refused to pay it?? There would be a national outcry!
Promises by politicians are notoriously broken. And things change that make those promises no longer feasible. That's par for the course. The WASPI women were promised a pension at 60 and that never came. Each one of us lost £50K because of that. I remember Labour under Jeremy Corbin promising to give that back. It never transpired.
Magica said
Oct 23 3:33 PM, 2025
Digger wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Mags,he CAN'T stop them and nor could any other Prime Minister if their party was governing. It's got nothing to do with being "wank or wokey" , it's the LAW. Since Brexit, we are not allowed to return immigrants. That's why they keep coming here in droves from France ,because France CAN send them back.
Red has always ignored me (except to call me a halfwit or a predator on rare occasions) as if the facts of the situation are a personal affront to him and that's just fine with me. But you and I got on well when I joined so I hope you don't chose to ignore me also just because I am speaking the truth.
I agree this particular asylum seeker does sound like a chancer. If he wanted to remain free from persecution he would remain in France, people genuinely fleeing for their life would be so relieved. But the reason asylum seekers are coming here in droves from France is that due to Brexit, the international law dictates we have to house them whilst their application is being processed. France are under no such obligation.
Starmer is a wet lettuce in many regards but no PM would be able to act any differently to him at this time . Farage and Gove told the concerned public Brexit would lower immigration levels but concealed the Dublin Convention from those who didn't know. Nigel Farage knew that if the UK voted to leave the EU we would be under a legal obligation to house illegal immigrants ergo he KNEW immigration levels would rise. Blatant lies to the public. That's is why I personally don't trust him. That and the fact he still owes the NHS 2 million pound's. Can you imagine if Starmer or Reeves had pledged to pay 2 million to the NHS and then just refused to pay it?? There would be a national outcry! But since Murdoch owns the majority of the Western media Farage 's treachery has been hushed up, no one must mention it so the public forget.
I went off on a tangent there a tad (!) But I just wanted to explain why it is logically unjust and inaccurate to blame Starmer for the rise in small boats. It would be the same no matter who was PM as the increase is a direct result of the change in law since Brexit.
However, I do agree with your last statement Mags. The attempt to cover up the ethnicity of grooming gangs has to stop. By trying to cover it up the Government are actively increasing bigotry because when white men are guilty of these crimes the Government has no problems revealing their ethnicity and the double standard is absurd.
Maybe they fear more racist assaults or riots but I would argue by trying to conceal the groomers ethnicity they are actually increasing the risk of retaliation.And since Starmer stated the Government would be transparent on this issue inevitably the public will trust them even less than they do already. Starmer is handling the optics of the grooming gangs woefully and for no possible justification.
-- Edited by Fluffy on Thursday 23rd of October 2025 09:48:19 AM
. Can you imagine if Starmer or Reeves had pledged to pay 2 million to the NHS and then just refused to pay it?? There would be a national outcry!
Promises by politicians are notoriously broken. And things change that make those promises no longer feasible. That's par for the course. The WASPI women were promised a pension at 60 and that never came. Each one of us lost £50K because of that. I remember Labour under Jeremy Corbin promising to give that back. It never transpired.
So true Digs. I lost out by 5 months as my birthday was September they changed it in the April. . Had to wait til nearly 65, yet paid in since 15. So damn wrong.
Magica said
Oct 23 3:36 PM, 2025
Syl wrote:
Magica wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Magica wrote:
Red Okktober wrote:
Magica wrote:
We knew he would. Starmer's a bloody idiot!
If it can't even deter someone who has already been sent back once, I'm not sure it will have much affect on the illegals trying it for the first time.
There was a human rights woman on the news earlier - facial piercings and oversized nerd glasses - making excuses for him.
Apparently, his life in France since being sent back has become 'horrendous', and he just wants to 'feel safe' by coming to the UK.
They are reading from a script that they have got off to a T. They know it works with our wanky woke authorities, so wheel it out every time.
It's all made up codswallop. They come here for the easy life, benefits etc. All paid by us!
I'm so very sick of Starmer, I don't think he's got any intentions of stopping the invaders.
We can't have another 3 years of him, we as a country will cease to exist!
Khan must answer for knowing about the London abuse gangs and covering up, bloody muslims again!
Mags,he CAN'T stop them and nor could any other Prime Minister if their party was governing. It's got nothing to do with being "wank or wokey" , it's the LAW. Since Brexit, we are not allowed to return immigrants. That's why they keep coming here in droves from France ,because France CAN send them back.
Red has always ignored me (except to call me a halfwit or a predator on rare occasions) as if the facts of the situation are a personal affront to him and that's just fine with me. But you and I got on well when I joined so I hope you don't chose to ignore me also just because I am speaking the truth.
I agree this particular asylum seeker does sound like a chancer. If he wanted to remain free from persecution he would remain in France, people genuinely fleeing for their life would be so relieved. But the reason asylum seekers are coming here in droves from France is that due to Brexit, the international law dictates we have to house them whilst their application is being processed. France are under no such obligation.
Starmer is a wet lettuce in many regards but no PM would be able to act any differently to him at this time . Farage and Gove told the concerned public Brexit would lower immigration levels but concealed the Dublin Convention from those who didn't know. Nigel Farage knew that if the UK voted to leave the EU we would be under a legal obligation to house illegal immigrants ergo he KNEW immigration levels would rise. Blatant lies to the public. That's is why I personally don't trust him. That and the fact he still owes the NHS 2 million pound's. Can you imagine if Starmer or Reeves had pledged to pay 2 million to the NHS and then just refused to pay it?? There would be a national outcry! But since Murdoch owns the majority of the Western media Farage 's treachery has been hushed up, no one must mention it so the public forget.
I went off on a tangent there a tad (!) But I just wanted to explain why it is logically unjust and inaccurate to blame Starmer for the rise in small boats. It would be the same no matter who was PM as the increase is a direct result of the change in law since Brexit.
However, I do agree with your last statement Mags. The attempt to cover up the ethnicity of grooming gangs has to stop. By trying to cover it up the Government are actively increasing bigotry because when white men are guilty of these crimes the Government has no problems revealing their ethnicity and the double standard is absurd.
Maybe they fear more racist assaults or riots but I would argue by trying to conceal the groomers ethnicity they are actually increasing the risk of retaliation.And since Starmer stated the Government would be transparent on this issue inevitably the public will trust them even less than they do already. Starmer is handling the optics of the grooming gangs woefully and for no possible justification.
-- Edited by Fluffy on Thursday 23rd of October 2025 09:48:19 AM
Hi Fluffs,I
Today I read France has reneged on their agreement to stop the dinghys leaving France, in the same token what stops returning them and dumping them there.
They all say we can't do it, well I would, just leave them there.
I'm sick of more and more men arriving here just for all the benefits. We make it too easy and they're all young fighting men.
I really feel there's an agenda here. Conservatives were as bad, bloody ridiculous this is.
Mags, read this, it may make it ckearer why the boats cant just be returned.
Reform say that it can be done because Belgium has already done it, and they even claim we have in the past.
Both lies.
why the uk cannot return the boat people to france
It is all wrong, but like has been said, the laws we have at present work against us.
They should have been changed when the immigrants first started coming here illegally in boats....which didn't really happen till 2014/15, and in small numbers. Nothing was done, a couple of years later it was getting to be a well worn path...and look at it now.
I think we will be paying France around£500 million over a three year period to stop the crossings, but as their police don't enter the water to stop boardings and departures...as usual, Britain are the mugs.
Syl said
Oct 23 5:40 PM, 2025
Digger wrote:
Syl wrote:
Mags, read this, it may make it ckearer why the boats cant just be returned.
Reform say that it can be done because Belgium has already done it, and they even claim we have in the past.
Both lies.
why the uk cannot return the boat people to france
Maritime Law can be changed regarding illegal migrants, and countries are doing so by creating new policies and strengthening maritime powers to deter illegal crossings and facilitate removal.
Governments can pass new laws that give their border forces more authority to intercept and divert boats in both territorial and international waters. This includes the power to take vessels to a non-UK port, such as the country of origin.
So, yes, they can be sent back or stopped but our current Government are too weak to do so. The BBC won't tell you that because they are the BBC.
Australia's "Operation Sovereign Borders" policy intercepted and turned back boats attempting to enter illegally. The decision caused a major stink and was widely condemned by human rights organizations, legal experts, and the United Nations for being cruel, inhumane, and potentially violating international law. Australia were like....we don't care. It's our country, our people don't want it so fuck you. Now they have no illegal immigrant problem and Lo, and Behold! The stink and outrage has all gone by the by.
As for Belgium it has an open border Schengen area, so can only implement temporary border checks in response to specific pressures, as outlined in the Schengen Borders Code. But they have tightened things up a lot.
Germany is stopping all illegals without documentation.
Spain has a policy of automatic expulsion of illegals to Morocco.
Norway stops illegal immigration through a combination of policies including border control, such as a fence on the Russian border, an efficient return policy that encourages voluntary departures, and welfare policies that remove incentives to stay illegally.
Sweden has stopped benefits to migrants.
Finland? You can forget it unless you are a child or disabled
Illegal immigrants do not get free housing in Portugal; they are not entitled to public housing or the full range of social welfare benefits.
Netherlands don't allow free housing or public housing and shelters. They are only allowed 14 Euros a week to live off.
The UK? We give them free everything. Phones. £50 a week. Gym membership. Driving lessons. Free healthcare. Free education. Free dental care. Free housing. Another huge problem and enticement in the UK is that we turn a blind eye to illegal employment.
What needs to change in the UK is our laws. That takes a lot of balls and Starmer has none.
Our country, in particular our cities, are turning into lawless shit holes riddled with illegal migrant gangs and drug runners. We have enough of our own homegrown scumbags and rapists, we don't need the rest of the world's dregs.
So, we have two choices. We either carry on like this and our country will be swamped, turned into a third world midden and our own culture obliterated, or we do what Australia did, and get tough.
All those European countries belong to the EU, apart from Norway, and they are not as pathetic as we are in dealing with illegal immigrants....they get rid of them.
Whilst we put illegals above our own, giving hem everything you say, obviously they will keep on coming. There is an answer, but no one is doing abything about it.
Fluffy said
Oct 23 6:15 PM, 2025
Digger wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
It is due to leaving the EU that immigration has spiralled out of control in this country due to the Dublin Convention.Many people in the UK who were polled now wish to return to the biggest single market after electing to plunge the county in to poverty. But would Europe have us back is the question?
Possibly that ship has sailed but if it was explained that the electorate did not have all the necessary information about the repercussions of Brexit and were effectively conned by Nigel Farage ,Michael Gove and their cronies concessions might be made. The UK economy will never recover to a feasible extent if bridges with Europe are not rebuilt.
Thankfully the collective media silence surrounding Brexit is finally dispersing. MP's in all parties were fearful of offending Brexit voter's. but as a country we just have to face the facts about why leaving the EU destroyed our economy, eradicated our ability to trade effectively and of course inevitably vastly increased illegal immigration.
End of Dublin Cooperation: With Brexit, the UK is no longer bound by the Dublin Regulation, meaning it can no longer return asylum seekers to EU countries where they first entered. This has led to a higher amount of potential asylum seekers entering the UK which may provide a greater opportunity for staying, as they cannot be sent back to other EU states.
Recent polls indicate that nearly half of Brits believe there should be another EU referendum within the next five years, with only 29% supporting leaving the EU if a vote were held today. This reflects a significant shift in public opinion since the original Brexit vote in 2016.
-- Edited by Fluffy on Wednesday 22nd of October 2025 09:55:26 PM
-- Edited by Fluffy on Thursday 23rd of October 2025 10:04:42 AM
-- Edited by Fluffy on Thursday 23rd of October 2025 10:05:28 AM
Brexit is too simple and easy. It's much more complicated than that. Blaming
Although the UK's withdrawal from the EU has enabled the country to develop new migration policies, deliberate choices by its own government have led to a significant increase in net migration. Its new points based system has made it much easier for non-EU citizens to come to work and study in the UK and, at least initially, bring their partners and children. Education and salary requirements have been lowered compared to the requirements set for non-EU citizens before the UK's withdrawal from the EU.
The UK has also actively tried to attract more foreign students by allowing them to work in the country for two to three years. In the years after 2020, the UK has proved generous in allowing non-EU citizens to stay in the country on humanitarian grounds. Part of the need to attract foreign workers is the labour shortage, particularly in the health and care sector. However, other options are available to the UK government to tackle this issue, such as offering higher salaries for these jobs so that more people already present in the country want to do them. Focusing on attracting labour from abroad is a choice, as it is not the only option.
This is not the first time that decisions by the UK government have led to a major increase in net migration. When 10 countries joined the EU, the UK government decided, unlike most EU countries, not to impose any restrictions, which resulted in a greater than expected influx of migrants. The driver behind the significant increase in net migration therefore seems to be linked to many factors.
The bottom line is we make it way too comfortable for illegals to come here. We'd been warned over and over by other European countries that we offer too much in benefits and are too soft.
Regarding BIB, that flies in the face of Occam 's Razor, where the simplest explanation for something is usually the most accurate. I respectfully disagree with you Digs. When it comes to immigration, levels have soared since Brexit because immigrants know that unlike other countries who can send them.back to their country of origin the UK has to house them under international law whilst processing their application. That is simple cause and effect. Hence why before Brexit immigration levels were far lower.
Legal immigration rocketed too especially under the Tories as British people were not filling the many available vacancies in the NHS, caring profession or menial jobs such as cleaners. So the Tories had no choice but to pay for legal migrants to fill these positions. Immigrants will generally work for less money and British companies don't want to pay higher wages than they have to.
However we are far from the most generous country when it comes to benefits.
A list of social welfare spending as a percentage of GDP was compiled by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ("OECD") ,putting countries from first to last .Countries with the highest levels of spending are more likely to be considered welfare states.
We were last but one on the list, America was last.
More significantly still
Countries that provide more generous unemployment benefits than the UK include Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, Sweden, France, Germany, Finland, Austria, and Ireland. Inthese countries, the support for unemployed individuals is significantly higher compared to the UK's benefits system.leftfootforward.orgmigrationwatchuk.org
So frankly, the UK being generous in benefits for those who do not work is a total myth.
It may have been true many years ago but sixteen years of austerity measures under Tory rule have left the billionaires much richer but the poor far poorer still. Immigrants are unable to work in this country until their application has been approved so they would receive far less in monetary benefits here than in most EU countries including France. It's in the best interests of genuine asylum seekers to stay in France.
Those most likely not to be sincere asylum seekers, i.e single men without dependants or documentation are coming here as Brexit dictates we must feed and house them for quite a long time. The statistics are quite transparent in showing it. It is not the fault of Brexit voters, they were conned by Farage and co who were in possession of the facts when the electorate was not.
Red Okktober said
Oct 23 6:49 PM, 2025
Syl wrote:
It is all wrong, but like has been said, the laws we have at present work against us.
Which is why Reform will introduce new laws - ones that work in our favour. The existing laws are not set in stone, and as with any law, are subject to change.
Starmer is not inclined to change things that go against his beliefs, and it wasn't that long ago as a human rights lawyer that he was the one making excuses for illegals so that they could stay here. Which is why he is completely useless in his role as PM in defending our borders. It's like having a pacifist running the country during a time of war.
Farage will kick start leaving the ECHR and stripping illegals of their 'human rights' before he has even unpacked his suitcase in number 10.
All this nonsense about fleeing from danger and not being safe in France has to stop. Remember that old case about the Bolivian man who avoided deportation? Part of his defence to stay here was that he co-owned a cat, which apparently help prove he was 'settled' here and entitled to a family life. How often do we hear about serious offenders who re-offend, who were allowed to stay here due to outrageously flimsy reasons? This is the type of stuff that Farage will bring to an end, and while he is pretty much certain to be the next PM.
As Digger says, we need to get tough like the Aussies did. And we need to get on with it now, and stop passively looking on while our country goes down the toilet.
Fluffy said
Oct 23 7:06 PM, 2025
Syl wrote:
It is all wrong, but like has been said, the laws we have at present work against us. They should have been changed when the immigrants first started coming here illegally in boats....which didn't really happen till 2014/15, and in small numbers. Nothing was done, a couple of years later it was getting to be a well worn path...and look at it now.
I think we will be paying France around£500 million over a three year period to stop the crossings, but as their police don't enter the water to stop boardings and departures...as usual, Britain are the mugs.
Whilst it may well be true that all politicians lie, the same politician that lied by omission to the British public about Brexit is likely to be out next Prime Minister. Why trust him again? His rabble of a party are united by one common passion, getting rid of immigrants, all of them even the legal ones propping up the NHS who have been living here for many years.
Immigrants are not coming here for benefits, we give far less in benefits than many countries as I have stated in my above post. They are coming here ,quite patently , because they know we legally have to house and feed them due to leaving the EU.. It doesn't really make sense to go anywhere else.
Sadly we made ourselves the mugs Syl. It's considered a joke that we left the world's largest most relevant single market , making trade so much harder and more expensive..The way Trump ignored Starmer recently was proof of our irrelevance as a country due to our dire economy. Britain used to be fairly prosperous, and a force to be reckoned with. Due to Brexit we are a joke and we cannot legally stop immigrants from living here.
The next step is to amend the ECHR which is certainly outdated. Yvette Cooper of Labour said they intend to amend it so the UK can finally return immigrants to their country of origin but without leaving the ECHR all together as obviously we need the other rights to stay in.place to protect jobs ,sick pay etc. Essentially it protects our basic freedoms and only Russia had no use for it. (Putin not wanting human rights for his own people. The very idea)
So why is millionaire Farage (who coincidently has expressed his admiration for Putin) not advocating the same? Why does he intend that Britain be just like Russia and allow British people lose all their freedoms and basic rights by leaving the ECHR entirely? We don't have to leave, just amend it so we are able to deal with our immigration problem and align more with the EU because the UK economy needs Europe. That much has been made clear.
If people actively vote for such a travesty I can envisage the catastrophic result and countries may forgive our ignorance once but not leaving the ECHR in its entirety too. That will sever any chance of trade with most countries as they won't be protected. It's farcical like the old adage says "Turkey's voting for Christmas" . Yet the western media positively encourages this madness as the rich and elite own the media and don't want it's workers protected. Because all they care about is profit.
Maddog said
Oct 23 7:35 PM, 2025
Fluffy wrote:
Syl wrote:
It is all wrong, but like has been said, the laws we have at present work against us. They should have been changed when the immigrants first started coming here illegally in boats....which didn't really happen till 2014/15, and in small numbers. Nothing was done, a couple of years later it was getting to be a well worn path...and look at it now.
I think we will be paying France around£500 million over a three year period to stop the crossings, but as their police don't enter the water to stop boardings and departures...as usual, Britain are the mugs.
Whilst it may well be true that all politicians lie, the same politician that lied by omission to the British public about Brexit is likely to be out next Prime Minister. Why trust him again? His rabble of a party are united by one common passion, getting rid of immigrants, all of them even the legal ones propping up the NHS who have been living here for many years.
Immigrants are not coming here for benefits, we give far less in benefits than many countries as I have stated in my above post. They are coming here ,quite patently , because they know we legally have to house and feed them due to leaving the EU.. It doesn't really make sense to go anywhere else.
Sadly we made ourselves the mugs Syl. It's considered a joke that we left the world's largest most relevant single market , making trade so much harder and more expensive..The way Trump ignored Starmer recently was proof of our irrelevance as a country due to our dire economy. Britain used to be fairly prosperous, and a force to be reckoned with. Due to Brexit we are a joke and we cannot legally stop immigrants from living here.
The next step is to amend the ECHR which is certainly outdated. Yvette Cooper of Labour said they intend to amend it so the UK can finally return immigrants to their country of origin but without leaving the ECHR all together as obviously we need the other rights to stay in.place to protect jobs ,sick pay etc. Essentially it protects our basic freedoms and only Russia had no use for it. (Putin not wanting human rights for his own people. The very idea)
So why is millionaire Farage (who coincidently has expressed his admiration for Putin) not advocating the same? Why does he intend that Britain be just like Russia and allow British people lose all their freedoms and basic rights by leaving the ECHR entirely? We don't have to leave, just amend it so we are able to deal with our immigration problem and align more with the EU because the UK economy needs Europe. That much has been made clear.
If people actively vote for such a travesty I can envisage the catastrophic result and countries may forgive our ignorance once but not leaving the ECHR in its entirety too. That will sever any chance of trade with most countries as they won't be protected. It's farcical like the old adage says "Turkey's voting for Christmas" . Yet the western media positively encourages this madness as the rich and elite own the media and don't want it's workers protected. Because all they care about is profit.
Your problem is your government, not Brexit.
Fluffy said
Oct 23 7:35 PM, 2025
Red Okktober wrote:
Syl wrote:
It is all wrong, but like has been said, the laws we have at present work against us.
Which is why Reform will introduce new laws - ones that work in our favour. The existing laws are not set in stone, and as with any law, are subject to change.
Starmer is not inclined to change things that go against his beliefs, and it wasn't that long ago as a human rights lawyer that he was the one making excuses for illegals so that they could stay here. Which is why he is completely useless in his role as PM in defending our borders. It's like having a pacifist running the country during a time of war.
Farage will kick start leaving the ECHR and stripping illegals of their 'human rights' before he has even unpacked his suitcase in number 10.
All this nonsense about fleeing from danger and not being safe in France has to stop. Remember that old case about the Bolivian man who avoided deportation? Part of his defence to stay here was that he co-owned a cat, which apparently help prove he was 'settled' here and entitled to a family life. How often do we hear about serious offenders who re-offend, who were allowed to stay here due to outrageously flimsy reasons? This is the type of stuff that Farage will bring to an end, and while he is pretty much certain to be the next PM.
As Digger says, we need to get tough like the Aussies did. And we need to get on with it now, and stop passively looking on while our country goes down the toilet.
I don't expect you to deign to reply although I never conversed with you prior to here but leaving the ECHR will strip you and everyone else of their rights aswell as immigrants. Yet you don't seem to consider this.
It makes far more logical sense to amend the outdated laws regarding immigrants but remain in the ECHR as Yvette Cooper suggested . Otherwise you can forget free healthcare as the NHS will be nothing but a distant memory. We will become just like America, you may be wealthy enough to afford costly medical bills but not everyone is in such a privileged position.
The ECHR protects our right to a basic minimum wage, the right to sick pay, maternity pay, a healthy workplace environment,most basic financial freedom's. First we vote for Brexit now you intend to vote away our freedom as Putin did since he could not conform to the ECHR. Because he didn't want the Russian people to have so many rights!
If people who do not vote Reform are forced to leave the ECHR against our will and the economy dips to make the rich more wealthy(as it will) and the cost of living worsens I'm sorry but I agree that those who voted to be worse off financially should have that reflected in their tax code. Enough is enough.
You brought the economy to a screeching halt with Brexit due to your immigration concerns and we all just fell in line. If you vote away our universal rights and freedoms(can't you hear how that sounds ffs!) firstly you are unbelievably short sighted if you believe Farage won't use that to the advantage of big business and millionaires like himself and secondly you will not have ignorance as an excuse as you once did. Not all of us are so eager to be in a union of two with Russia. Isolating ourselves as a country is not the answer to our economic woes. You can't keep going the wrong way and dragging the rest of society with you ffs. Admit your mistakes and turn around.
Amend the ECHR laws regarding immigrants as Labour intend to by all means but leaving the ECHR in its entirety will surely be a death knell for this country in too many ways to contemplate.
Fluffy said
Oct 23 8:02 PM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Syl wrote:
It is all wrong, but like has been said, the laws we have at present work against us. They should have been changed when the immigrants first started coming here illegally in boats....which didn't really happen till 2014/15, and in small numbers. Nothing was done, a couple of years later it was getting to be a well worn path...and look at it now.
I think we will be paying France around£500 million over a three year period to stop the crossings, but as their police don't enter the water to stop boardings and departures...as usual, Britain are the mugs.
Whilst it may well be true that all politicians lie, the same politician that lied by omission to the British public about Brexit is likely to be out next Prime Minister. Why trust him again? His rabble of a party are united by one common passion, getting rid of immigrants, all of them even the legal ones propping up the NHS who have been living here for many years.
Immigrants are not coming here for benefits, we give far less in benefits than many countries as I have stated in my above post. They are coming here ,quite patently , because they know we legally have to house and feed them due to leaving the EU.. It doesn't really make sense to go anywhere else.
Sadly we made ourselves the mugs Syl. It's considered a joke that we left the world's largest most relevant single market , making trade so much harder and more expensive..The way Trump ignored Starmer recently was proof of our irrelevance as a country due to our dire economy. Britain used to be fairly prosperous, and a force to be reckoned with. Due to Brexit we are a joke and we cannot legally stop immigrants from living here.
The next step is to amend the ECHR which is certainly outdated. Yvette Cooper of Labour said they intend to amend it so the UK can finally return immigrants to their country of origin but without leaving the ECHR all together as obviously we need the other rights to stay in.place to protect jobs ,sick pay etc. Essentially it protects our basic freedoms and only Russia had no use for it. (Putin not wanting human rights for his own people. The very idea)
So why is millionaire Farage (who coincidently has expressed his admiration for Putin) not advocating the same? Why does he intend that Britain be just like Russia and allow British people lose all their freedoms and basic rights by leaving the ECHR entirely? We don't have to leave, just amend it so we are able to deal with our immigration problem and align more with the EU because the UK economy needs Europe. That much has been made clear.
If people actively vote for such a travesty I can envisage the catastrophic result and countries may forgive our ignorance once but not leaving the ECHR in its entirety too. That will sever any chance of trade with most countries as they won't be protected. It's farcical like the old adage says "Turkey's voting for Christmas" . Yet the western media positively encourages this madness as the rich and elite own the media and don't want it's workers protected. Because all they care about is profit.
Your problem is your government, not Brexit.
Balls. (Lol, sorry !) Although I am curious if you could elaborate how they are doing worse than the previous government.
I agree Labour could have done far better by not trying to appease right wing voters and sticking to grass roots Labour. But the Tories destroyed the economy to the tune of 20 million pounds with their austerity measures for those on lower incomes and tax breaks for the rich. I suppose they weren't the problem? Farage will do exactly the same.
To be in government with our finances in their current state is a poisoned chalice. I'm sure the Tories are relieved to be in opposition. Short of asking to returning to the EU I don't know how any governing party could begin to repair our beyond deprived NHS and public sector. The Tories abandoned funding for schools,all social and essential services, housing..and their austerity programme inevitably led to businesses closing as so many families were on the poverty line and had no disposable income.
The Tories destroyed the economy yet Labour sceptics expect Starmer to fix all that mess in one year. That is irrational. It will take a whole government term, at best. Labour do return two planes full of Immigrants by cover of darkness each week and have introduced other beneficial legislation that the media doesn't let the electorate know about. I am not satisfied with their performance thus far and as it stands, wouldn't vote for them, but I shall post some Labour policies that they have introduced silently for the less well off that are doing rather well.
As for leaving the EU, statistics bares out that Brexit worsened our illegal immigration problem Madders.
Mags,he CAN'T stop them and nor could any other Prime Minister if their party was governing. It's got nothing to do with being "wank or wokey" , it's the LAW. Since Brexit, we are not allowed to return immigrants. That's why they keep coming here in droves from France ,because France CAN send them back.
Red has always ignored me (except to call me a halfwit or a predator on rare occasions) as if the facts of the situation are a personal affront to him and that's just fine with me. But you and I got on well when I joined so I hope you don't chose to ignore me also just because I am speaking the truth.
I agree this particular asylum seeker does sound like a chancer. If he wanted to remain free from persecution he would remain in France, people genuinely fleeing for their life would be so relieved. But the reason asylum seekers are coming here in droves from France is that due to Brexit, the international law dictates we have to house them whilst their application is being processed. France are under no such obligation.
Starmer is a wet lettuce in many regards but no PM would be able to act any differently to him at this time . Farage and Gove told the concerned public Brexit would lower immigration levels but concealed the Dublin Convention from those who didn't know. Nigel Farage knew that if the UK voted to leave the EU we would be under a legal obligation to house illegal immigrants ergo he KNEW immigration levels would rise. Blatant lies to the public. That's is why I personally don't trust him. That and the fact he still owes the NHS 2 million pound's. Can you imagine if Starmer or Reeves had pledged to pay 2 million to the NHS and then just refused to pay it?? There would be a national outcry!
But since Murdoch owns the majority of the Western media Farage 's treachery has been hushed up, no one must mention it so the public forget.
I went off on a tangent there a tad (!) But I just wanted to explain why it is logically unjust and inaccurate to blame Starmer for the rise in small boats. It would be the same no matter who was PM as the increase is a direct result of the change in law since Brexit.
However, I do agree with your last statement Mags. The attempt to cover up the ethnicity of grooming gangs has to stop. By trying to cover it up the Government are actively increasing bigotry because when white men are guilty of these crimes the Government has no problems revealing their ethnicity and the double standard is absurd.
Maybe they fear more racist assaults or riots but I would argue by trying to conceal the groomers ethnicity they are actually increasing the risk of retaliation.And since Starmer stated the Government would be transparent on this issue inevitably the public will trust them even less than they do already. Starmer is handling the optics of the grooming gangs woefully and for no possible justification.
-- Edited by Fluffy on Thursday 23rd of October 2025 09:48:19 AM
Hi Fluffs
,I
Today I read France has reneged on their agreement to stop the dinghys leaving France, in the same token what stops returning them and dumping them there.
They all say we can't do it, well I would, just leave them there.
I'm sick of more and more men arriving here just for all the benefits. We make it too easy and they're all young fighting men.
I really feel there's an agenda here. Conservatives were as bad, bloody ridiculous this is.
Let's not forget that Labour MPs voted against a national inquiry back in January, and in yet another U-turn, Starmer is now saying how 'determined' he is to get to the bottom of it, and the ethnicity and religion of the rapists will be looked into, as if he has been on board with it all the time - the idiot isn't fooling anyone though.
Four of the survivors have resigned from the inquiry panel, and won't return unless Jess Phillips resigns. They want the inquiry 'laser focused' on the grooming gangs, and not to be expanded to include other things beyond the gangs. Labour are also trying to implement tight controls on what they can say and who they can talk to. The survivors say it will dilute their evidence .
They also want a judge to chair the inquiry, and not the ex-policeman or social worker that Labour have proposed so far. It was the police and social workers who turned a blind eye in the first place, so why on earth should anyone from either of those backgrounds oversee the inquiry?
These are tough women and will sniff out Labour's bullshit as and when it happens, and apart from getting the justice they deserve, watching Starmer and co lie and squirm their through it should provide for some interesting viewing.
From what I have read of the little publicised Dublin Convention, you are pretty accurate in what you have said here.
It IS down to Farage and his lies about Brexit that has made the illegal immigration influx so much worse, ironic that his immigration mantra is what will probably get him elected in 3 years time. But Starmer, with his ridiculous one in one out...ooops, one back again, certainly isn't making the problem better.
As Red said above...The grooming gang cover up, which has been going on for decades now, is going from bad to worse. The latest inquiry, where four of the victims have just resigned because of the way Jess Phillips is handling it, have called this a 'Cover up over a cover up' .
It seems nothing has been learned, nothing has been changed.
Four survivors say Jess Phillips must quit for them to rejoin grooming inquiry - BBC News
-- Edited by Syl on Thursday 23rd of October 2025 12:02:29 PM
Mags, read this, it may make it ckearer why the boats cant just be returned.
Reform say that it can be done because Belgium has already done it, and they even claim we have in the past.
Both lies.
why the uk cannot return the boat people to france
Why Britain can't just return migrants to France, as Reform says - BBC News
Blaming Brexit is too simple and easy. It's much more complicated than that.
Although the UK's withdrawal from the EU has enabled the country to develop new migration policies, deliberate choices by its own government have led to a significant increase in net migration. Its new points based system has made it much easier for non-EU citizens to come to work and study in the UK and, at least initially, bring their partners and children. Education and salary requirements have been lowered compared to the requirements set for non-EU citizens before the UK's withdrawal from the EU.
The UK has also actively tried to attract more foreign students by allowing them to work in the country for two to three years. In the years after 2020, the UK has proved generous in allowing non-EU citizens to stay in the country on humanitarian grounds. Part of the need to attract foreign workers is the labour shortage, particularly in the health and care sector. However, other options are available to the UK government to tackle this issue, such as offering higher salaries for these jobs so that more people already present in the country want to do them. Focusing on attracting labour from abroad is a choice, as it is not the only option.
This is not the first time that decisions by the UK government have led to a major increase in net migration. When 10 countries joined the EU, the UK government decided, unlike most EU countries, not to impose any restrictions, which resulted in a greater than expected influx of migrants. The driver behind the significant increase in net migration therefore seems to be linked to many factors.
The bottom line is we make it way too comfortable for illegals to come here. We'd been warned over and over by other European countries that we offer too much in benefits and are too soft.
Starmer has just announced that he has 'confidence' in Jess Phillips
He said exactly the same about Rayner before she resigned, and Mandleson before he was sacked.
Maritime Law can be changed regarding illegal migrants, and countries are doing so by creating new policies and strengthening maritime powers to deter illegal crossings and facilitate removal.
Governments can pass new laws that give their border forces more authority to intercept and divert boats in both territorial and international waters. This includes the power to take vessels to a non-UK port, such as the country of origin.
So, yes, they can be sent back or stopped but our current Government are too weak to do so. The BBC won't tell you that because they are the BBC.
Australia's "Operation Sovereign Borders" policy intercepted and turned back boats attempting to enter illegally. The decision caused a major stink and was widely condemned by human rights organizations, legal experts, and the United Nations for being cruel, inhumane, and potentially violating international law. Australia were like....we don't care. It's our country, our people don't want it so fuck you. Now they have no illegal immigrant problem and Lo, and Behold! The stink and outrage has all gone by the by.
As for Belgium it has an open border Schengen area, so can only implement temporary border checks in response to specific pressures, as outlined in the Schengen Borders Code. But they have tightened things up a lot.
Germany is stopping all illegals without documentation.
Spain has a policy of automatic expulsion of illegals to Morocco.
Norway stops illegal immigration through a combination of policies including border control, such as a fence on the Russian border, an efficient return policy that encourages voluntary departures, and welfare policies that remove incentives to stay illegally.
Sweden has stopped benefits to migrants.
Finland? You can forget it unless you are a child or disabled
Illegal immigrants do not get free housing in Portugal; they are not entitled to public housing or the full range of social welfare benefits.
Netherlands don't allow free housing or public housing and shelters. They are only allowed 14 Euros a week to live off.
The UK? We give them free everything. Phones. £50 a week. Gym membership. Driving lessons. Free healthcare. Free education. Free dental care. Free housing. Another huge problem and enticement in the UK is that we turn a blind eye to illegal employment.
What needs to change in the UK is our laws. That takes a lot of balls and Starmer has none.
Our country, in particular our cities, are turning into lawless shit holes riddled with illegal migrant gangs and drug runners. We have enough of our own homegrown scumbags and rapists, we don't need the rest of the world's dregs.
So, we have two choices. We either carry on like this and our country will be swamped, turned into a third world midden and our own culture obliterated, or we do what Australia did, and get tough.
. Can you imagine if Starmer or Reeves had pledged to pay 2 million to the NHS and then just refused to pay it?? There would be a national outcry!
Promises by politicians are notoriously broken. And things change that make those promises no longer feasible. That's par for the course. The WASPI women were promised a pension at 60 and that never came. Each one of us lost £50K because of that. I remember Labour under Jeremy Corbin promising to give that back. It never transpired.
So true Digs. I lost out by 5 months as my birthday was September they changed it in the April. . Had to wait til nearly 65, yet paid in since 15. So damn wrong.
Thanks, Syl, but it's all wrong imo, but that's sea law. Yet France can send them here. Why do we have to accept them. It's so wrong.
-- Edited by Magica on Thursday 23rd of October 2025 03:40:07 PM
They should have been changed when the immigrants first started coming here illegally in boats....which didn't really happen till 2014/15, and in small numbers. Nothing was done, a couple of years later it was getting to be a well worn path...and look at it now.
I think we will be paying France around£500 million over a three year period to stop the crossings, but as their police don't enter the water to stop boardings and departures...as usual, Britain are the mugs.
All those European countries belong to the EU, apart from Norway, and they are not as pathetic as we are in dealing with illegal immigrants....they get rid of them.
Whilst we put illegals above our own, giving hem everything you say, obviously they will keep on coming. There is an answer, but no one is doing abything about it.
Regarding BIB, that flies in the face of Occam 's Razor, where the simplest explanation for something is usually the most accurate. I respectfully disagree with you Digs. When it comes to immigration, levels have soared since Brexit because immigrants know that unlike other countries who can send them.back to their country of origin the UK has to house them under international law whilst processing their application. That is simple cause and effect. Hence why before Brexit immigration levels were far lower.
Legal immigration rocketed too especially under the Tories as British people were not filling the many available vacancies in the NHS, caring profession or menial jobs such as cleaners. So the Tories had no choice but to pay for legal migrants to fill these positions. Immigrants will generally work for less money and British companies don't want to pay higher wages than they have to.
However we are far from the most generous country when it comes to benefits.
A list of social welfare spending as a percentage of GDP was compiled by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ("OECD") ,putting countries from first to last .Countries with the highest levels of spending are more likely to be considered welfare states.
We were last but one on the list, America was last.
More significantly still
Countries that provide more generous unemployment benefits than the UK include Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, Sweden, France, Germany, Finland, Austria, and Ireland. In these countries, the support for unemployed individuals is significantly higher compared to the UK's benefits system.
leftfootforward.org
migrationwatchuk.org
So frankly, the UK being generous in benefits for those who do not work is a total myth.
It may have been true many years ago but sixteen years of austerity measures under Tory rule have left the billionaires much richer but the poor far poorer still. Immigrants are unable to work in this country until their application has been approved so they would receive far less in monetary benefits here than in most EU countries including France. It's in the best interests of genuine asylum seekers to stay in France.
Those most likely not to be sincere asylum seekers, i.e single men without dependants or documentation are coming here as Brexit dictates we must feed and house them for quite a long time. The statistics are quite transparent in showing it. It is not the fault of Brexit voters, they were conned by Farage and co who were in possession of the facts when the electorate was not.
Which is why Reform will introduce new laws - ones that work in our favour. The existing laws are not set in stone, and as with any law, are subject to change.
Starmer is not inclined to change things that go against his beliefs, and it wasn't that long ago as a human rights lawyer that he was the one making excuses for illegals so that they could stay here. Which is why he is completely useless in his role as PM in defending our borders. It's like having a pacifist running the country during a time of war.
Farage will kick start leaving the ECHR and stripping illegals of their 'human rights' before he has even unpacked his suitcase in number 10.
All this nonsense about fleeing from danger and not being safe in France has to stop. Remember that old case about the Bolivian man who avoided deportation? Part of his defence to stay here was that he co-owned a cat, which apparently help prove he was 'settled' here and entitled to a family life. How often do we hear about serious offenders who re-offend, who were allowed to stay here due to outrageously flimsy reasons? This is the type of stuff that Farage will bring to an end, and while he is pretty much certain to be the next PM.
As Digger says, we need to get tough like the Aussies did. And we need to get on with it now, and stop passively looking on while our country goes down the toilet.
Whilst it may well be true that all politicians lie, the same politician that lied by omission to the British public about Brexit is likely to be out next Prime Minister. Why trust him again? His rabble of a party are united by one common passion, getting rid of immigrants, all of them even the legal ones propping up the NHS who have been living here for many years.
Immigrants are not coming here for benefits, we give far less in benefits than many countries as I have stated in my above post. They are coming here ,quite patently , because they know we legally have to house and feed them due to leaving the EU.. It doesn't really make sense to go anywhere else.
Sadly we made ourselves the mugs Syl. It's considered a joke that we left the world's largest most relevant single market , making trade so much harder and more expensive..The way Trump ignored Starmer recently was proof of our irrelevance as a country due to our dire economy. Britain used to be fairly prosperous, and a force to be reckoned with. Due to Brexit we are a joke and we cannot legally stop immigrants from living here.
The next step is to amend the ECHR which is certainly outdated. Yvette Cooper of Labour said they intend to amend it so the UK can finally return immigrants to their country of origin but without leaving the ECHR all together as obviously we need the other rights to stay in.place to protect jobs ,sick pay etc. Essentially it protects our basic freedoms and only Russia had no use for it. (Putin not wanting human rights for his own people. The very idea
)
So why is millionaire Farage (who coincidently has expressed his admiration for Putin) not advocating the same? Why does he intend that Britain be just like Russia and allow British people lose all their freedoms and basic rights by leaving the ECHR entirely? We don't have to leave, just amend it so we are able to deal with our immigration problem and align more with the EU because the UK economy needs Europe. That much has been made clear.
If people actively vote for such a travesty I can envisage the catastrophic result and countries may forgive our ignorance once but not leaving the ECHR in its entirety too. That will sever any chance of trade with most countries as they won't be protected. It's farcical like the old adage says "Turkey's voting for Christmas" . Yet the western media positively encourages this madness as the rich and elite own the media and don't want it's workers protected. Because all they care about is profit.
Your problem is your government, not Brexit.
I don't expect you to deign to reply although I never conversed with you prior to here but leaving the ECHR will strip you and everyone else of their rights aswell as immigrants. Yet you don't seem to consider this.
It makes far more logical sense to amend the outdated laws regarding immigrants but remain in the ECHR as Yvette Cooper suggested . Otherwise you can forget free healthcare as the NHS will be nothing but a distant memory. We will become just like America, you may be wealthy enough to afford costly medical bills but not everyone is in such a privileged position.
The ECHR protects our right to a basic minimum wage, the right to sick pay, maternity pay, a healthy workplace environment,most basic financial freedom's. First we vote for Brexit now you intend to vote away our freedom as Putin did since he could not conform to the ECHR. Because he didn't want the Russian people to have so many rights!
If people who do not vote Reform are forced to leave the ECHR against our will and the economy dips to make the rich more wealthy(as it will) and the cost of living worsens I'm sorry but I agree that those who voted to be worse off financially should have that reflected in their tax code. Enough is enough.
You brought the economy to a screeching halt with Brexit due to your immigration concerns and we all just fell in line. If you vote away our universal rights and freedoms(can't you hear how that sounds ffs!) firstly you are unbelievably short sighted if you believe Farage won't use that to the advantage of big business and millionaires like himself and secondly you will not have ignorance as an excuse as you once did. Not all of us are so eager to be in a union of two with Russia. Isolating ourselves as a country is not the answer to our economic woes. You can't keep going the wrong way and dragging the rest of society with you ffs. Admit your mistakes and turn around.
Amend the ECHR laws regarding immigrants as Labour intend to by all means but leaving the ECHR in its entirety will surely be a death knell for this country in too many ways to contemplate.
Balls. (Lol, sorry !) Although I am curious if you could elaborate how they are doing worse than the previous government.
I agree Labour could have done far better by not trying to appease right wing voters and sticking to grass roots Labour. But the Tories destroyed the economy to the tune of 20 million pounds with their austerity measures for those on lower incomes and tax breaks for the rich. I suppose they weren't the problem? Farage will do exactly the same.
To be in government with our finances in their current state is a poisoned chalice. I'm sure the Tories are relieved to be in opposition. Short of asking to returning to the EU I don't know how any governing party could begin to repair our beyond deprived NHS and public sector. The Tories abandoned funding for schools,all social and essential services, housing..and their austerity programme inevitably led to businesses closing as so many families were on the poverty line and had no disposable income.
The Tories destroyed the economy yet Labour sceptics expect Starmer to fix all that mess in one year. That is irrational. It will take a whole government term, at best. Labour do return two planes full of Immigrants by cover of darkness each week and have introduced other beneficial legislation that the media doesn't let the electorate know about. I am not satisfied with their performance thus far and as it stands, wouldn't vote for them, but I shall post some Labour policies that they have introduced silently for the less well off that are doing rather well.
As for leaving the EU, statistics bares out that Brexit worsened our illegal immigration problem Madders.