To absolutely hate this government, and what they are doing to our country? PART 2

Yes perhaps Wales and Scotland but England has one of the highest population density figures in Europe, bar micro states.

The birth rate is falling and the biggest generation will be gone in the next 20/25 years. I won’t be here to see it but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the welcome mat is out for immigrants at that point.

And there won't be much anyone will be able to do about anything if they take us out of ECHR, as many do.

Nobody will have a right to.

@LakieLady - Not all land is suitable for building on. Plus you have to look at the effect that building more and more houses plus extra schools, roads, hospitals, GP surgeries etc has on wildlife and our eco system.

There are already 69-70 million people in this country. When do you say enough? 80 million, 90 million, 100 million?

Well no. I did say " Who do you think the "some" are that is a game to?",

and then I hypothesized. You could just answer the question I asked. Or perhaps when you post "it's all a game to them" you could have expanded in that just a little to say who it is a game to.

It is a theme in this thread after all. The whole thing of mistruths, and understanding what people are saying.

From what I understood, I thought naval commanders were of the opinion that manoeuvring fragile, crowded dinghies on the rough, crowded seas of the channel was likely to cause capsizing and mass casualties. But if that has changed, then perhaps there is a sensible, pragmatic conversation to be had about the safest way to turn boats back in a way that protects, rather than costs lives.

But you must understand how hard it is to have any pragmatic, compassionate discussion about this when people are minimising a man convicted of knife crimes bringing a knife to a mass gathering as if it’s legitimate protest; and arguing that government statistics are made up; and spouting bizarre conspiracy theories that the government are somehow, for some unspecified reason deliberately letting the people trafficking continue.

In real life, I find people are not preoccupied with this issue, and certainly the protests are not well attended. So perhaps this would be disproportionate.

I wish I could say the same, @5128gap . A (previously apolitical) in-law has become utterly obsessed with it following the opening of asylum seeker accommodation close to where she lives and goes on marches and everything. MIL is always going on about it, too (the "country's full up", apparently, despite there being 30 miles of mostly open countryside between our homes), my NDN was unhappy that a couple from Senegal had moved into the house backing onto ours and one BIL & SIL moved away from south London to somewhere semi-rural because "immigrants".

A family member blames immigrants for the fact that their daughter can't get a council house, when the actual reasons are that she's in a perfectly fine private rental and she hasn't lived in the same borough for long enough to go on the housing register.

Thankfully, none of my friends are like that.

Yes. And this is the thing about preventative action. For so many things, its is just really difficult to measure. If not impossible.

And the only way to really know if preventative measures work, is to not do them. I wonder how that would work out if the government do nothing ? Would small boat crossings go up ? I would casually say yes. Based on the data and news.

And as you say, if the preventative measures that can legally be done do not get the results you want, look at other options.

As an example of impossible to measure. Teen DD went to a birthday party earlier. She is a bit sick with sniffles, so she decided to wear a mask, to try not to spread it. A preventative measure. Did it work ? Impossible to tell if none of her pals also come down sick.

Measuring prevention can be really difficult.

Can you say more about the distance of the recent crossings and those to Australia

People have a misconception it’s much further.

The reason isn’t what you say, it’s that they have their own court system.

If the Australia system is working so well, why is it not used in the UK or Europe?

A quick look at a map would give some clues.

Most people would not vote to go back to what we have now if Australia’s system was used. Incidentally it has been said the crossing distance was further but now with Channel crossings from much further away it’s about the same.

The boat last week was in the sea for 30 hours.

I personally will not be celebrating if a party founded by neo-fascists and former members of the SS rises to power in modern Europe, and I find the image of Farage sharing a stage with Bardella grotesque.

On Australia, clearly geographically their circumstances are very different to ours - any push back operations there are happening in vast open water, not a congested shipping channel. But if lives at sea could genuinely be saved, then maybe it should be explored. But mobs of protestors shouting 'let them drown' makes it hard to imagine that that is what those advocating for 'push back' policies over here really care about.

Instead of just saying I am looking at the wrong things, why not consider my proposal and answer the question. Would it help ? Yes or no ?

We have to explore things to get to the root cause, or significant contributors to it.

I think Farage and pals yelling " FREE THINGS" is a significant draw. Do you agree with that?

And if you disagree, then why do you disagree with it.

What are they?

Watching France - with interest.

They can stay on their perch for now. It won't be happening under this government, that's for sure.

I notice you asked for my response to your 'cold hard' facts. @Brudffaa, but now have nothing to say.

It’s difficult but not impossible, although the French elections could be a factor. If Bardella does agree with his party, if they get, in returning the people to France would stop crossings.

Outside that it’s difficult but doable. Australia had similar objections to those out here but after putting in policy no party will run on changing it. The centre left is in now with that same policy.

They can react to it all they want. If we pass primary legislation taking us out of it, there's not much they can do

You read all that from one simple sentence?

Who do you think the "some" are that is a game to?

Now me for example. I am atheist, and I do have a moral code that includes such concepts as compassion, equality, right to life and so on. Pretty much along the lines of the various UN charters. I choose to stand up for what think is right and stand against what I think is wrong.

It's not a game to me.

Why do I mention I am atheist? Well consider a Christian. And I am sure there are plenty on this board. For them, this subject is far from a game. This could be about their eternal life. To follow the teachings of their Christ or not. ( I am aware of this because I was a Christian. now ex.

It's deffo not a game for them. It is potentially well beyond that for them.

So, who does that leave ?

But hang on. I made a claim above without evidence. That there will be plenty of Christians on this board. I really should evidence that. How about I quote Rupert Lowe. Is that ok ?

"Rupert Lowe launches Restore Britain with an unapologetically Christian platform, vowing cultural restoration, mass deportations and bold defence of Western values — even at political cost.
The United Kingdom’s newest political party is asserting an unapologetic Christian position.
Rupert Lowe officially launched Restore Britain on February 13, asserting that,
“Britain is a Christian country, and under a Restore Britain Government, it will remain a Christian country.”"

Source :

Restore Britain’s Rupert Lowe: “Britain Is a Christian Country, and It Will Remain So.” - The Daily Declaration

Oh wait. Now I am confused. He said that ? And what is with all these Tommah fans with crosses and all that. ?

Well, I suppose, if we say those folk can't really be Christian, because they are not being very.... Christian... then perhaps it is a game for them ?

Bit of a leap I know. But Occam's razor and all that.

I would be very happy for there to be zero dangerous small boats crossings - as I’m sure the Labour government be, as I’m also sure the Conservative government would have been too. The difficulty is over how to achieve that.

I personally am incredibly wary of any politicians - be they on the left or the right - who pretend there are easy solutions to incredibly difficult problems. And in particular those who weaponise those problems to whip up hatred and division.

What’s wrong with zero? It would mean zero deaths at sea for a start.

There’s other ways to give refuge if people still want to. Which doesn’t involve traffickers, violence and risk.

"Let's remove us from the convention"

That says it all.

As regards the question why migrants don't just stay in France, well, obviously a lot do. I've never been to the migrant camps myself, but all my kids spent at least 3 days over there because this was routine at their school in sixth form (the last time one of them went was about 4 or 5 years ago, however). My DS actually went back twice. All the girls in the school went and there was never a mention of anyone feeling threatened or sexually harassed - these are London kids who are used to coming to and from school by tube and then walking up through Hammersmith etc and you are rubbing shoulders with anyone and everyone every day of the week. They asked the people there this precise question - "Why not just stay in France?" The answer was always that they only understood English; or that they had family already here that they wanted to be reunited with; or that they thought they had some U.K. contact who could find them a job. So I don't know. Maybe the traffickers persuade them that there's something here that's not available in France?