comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Just go already (U21166)
posted 8 seconds ago
TopForm

So target the gangs, not the victims of the gangs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you do that on someone elses soil?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority of the criminal gangs trafficking the asylum seekers are based in the South of England according to the NCA. Who are exploiting migrants for their criminal enterprises. Nothing tangible from the government on tackling this criminality.

https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2022/12/12/uk-police-warn-gangs-are-recruiting-migrants-from-asylum-hotels-and-childrens-homes/

Clue, the government has no interest whatsoever in "tackling criminal gangs" and human traffickerers. 200 children went missing from government acquired locations, thought to be to criminal gangs, and nothing was done.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64389249

As noted above this whole situation has been created by the government to pander to their 'Bluekip' base as fighting upcoming elections on domestic issues would kill them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you read the article? It says that criminal gangs are recruiting asylum seekers once they've landed here.

Where does it say that the majority of criminal gangs in the south east are arranging boat crossings in other Countries exactly?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidentally I'm having a shocker on here but the level of debate is unable to read an article I'm claiming says something doesn't.

Wayyyyycist.

Where does it say that the majority of criminal gangs in the south east are arranging boat crossings in other Countries exactly?
———
Maybe you shouldn’t rearrange the words in the sentence, then you wouldn’t get a different meaning to what was said.

TopForm

Where does it say that the majority of criminal gangs in the south east are arranging boat crossings in other Countries exactly?

_____

It says if that information is correct we should focus on those gangs. If we have that information we must know who they are, so way focus on the trafficked and not the traffickers?

comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 10 seconds ago
Where does it say that the majority of criminal gangs in the south east are arranging boat crossings in other Countries exactly?
———
Maybe you shouldn’t rearrange the words in the sentence, then you wouldn’t get a different meaning to what was said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if I rearrange the words to what he originally said the article doesn't say this either. Are you this dumb also?

comment by Just go already (U21166)
posted 10 seconds ago
TopForm

Where does it say that the majority of criminal gangs in the south east are arranging boat crossings in other Countries exactly?

_____

It says if that information is correct we should focus on those gangs. If we have that information we must know who they are, so way focus on the trafficked and not the traffickers?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not correct. He posted an article that doesn't say what he claimed. People on here can't even read.

I'll ask again, how do you target gangs on foreign soil?

Why is it people want to encourage asylum seekers to be exploited by criminal gangs profiteering from their situation?

comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Just go already (U21166)
posted 10 seconds ago
TopForm

Where does it say that the majority of criminal gangs in the south east are arranging boat crossings in other Countries exactly?

_____

It says if that information is correct we should focus on those gangs. If we have that information we must know who they are, so way focus on the trafficked and not the traffickers?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not correct. He posted an article that doesn't say what he claimed. People on here can't even read.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From the first article:

The discovery was made as part of an investigation into the gangs behind Britain's biggest counterfeit crime network, run from Manchester, north-west England.

The groups, also linked to people-trafficking and drugs, are believed to account for more than half of the UK's £8.6 billion-a-year ($10.57 billion) counterfeit goods trade.

You should really stop doubling down.

comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago

Yes they did, they offered and wanted it at their ports.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/e79f74a3-be2b-432d-b6c9-adfd65299a26

Paris is clear that it does not want an asylum application centre on its soil. Such a processing centre “would create a huge pull factor to France”, said one government official. Other nations and territories have also expressed reluctance to participate.

https://www.ft.com/content/e79f74a3-be2b-432d-b6c9-adfd65299a26

They may have changed their minds?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I doubt it, Macron and Darmanin have both advocates for it. They’re right in that article though that we should be doing more anyway so there’s options that don’t involve them travelling all the way to France in the first place.

I’m assuming you realise now why the Spain Morocco one is a non comparable…?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope see it the same. Migrants show up ‘illegally’ and claim asylum and are deported next day. Sounds pretty similar?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Then I’ll go back to my previous comment that you’re being very stupid then!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or maybe you are just being obtuse?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am tbh, one of your previous comments deserved it.

The difference is that Spanish law means they had the right to walk up to the border and request asylum, that’s why the ECHR backed Spain from being able to kick them out if they were trying to get into the country via other means as they had a safe route available to them.

We currently allow refugees to claim asylum if they’re picked up on a boat which is our equivalent to Spain accepting them at border control, not them climbing over a fence, as we haven’t provided alternative safe routes for the majority of them.

TopForm

"foreign soil"

Really? You mean another country, this isn't remembrance day.

We do you know have international policing agreements; admittedly they are know weaker post Brexit, something I suspect you supported.

comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Just go already (U21166)
posted 10 seconds ago
TopForm

Where does it say that the majority of criminal gangs in the south east are arranging boat crossings in other Countries exactly?

_____

It says if that information is correct we should focus on those gangs. If we have that information we must know who they are, so way focus on the trafficked and not the traffickers?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not correct. He posted an article that doesn't say what he claimed. People on here can't even read.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From the first article:

The discovery was made as part of an investigation into the gangs behind Britain's biggest counterfeit crime network, run from Manchester, north-west England.

The groups, also linked to people-trafficking and drugs, are believed to account for more than half of the UK's £8.6 billion-a-year ($10.57 billion) counterfeit goods trade.

You should really stop doubling down.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Also linked to trafficking"

Trafficking what where to who?

Does it say "Majority of the criminal gangs trafficking the asylum seekers are based in the South of England according to the NCA."

Good job doubling down

comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Just go already (U21166)
posted 10 seconds ago
TopForm

Where does it say that the majority of criminal gangs in the south east are arranging boat crossings in other Countries exactly?

_____

It says if that information is correct we should focus on those gangs. If we have that information we must know who they are, so way focus on the trafficked and not the traffickers?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not correct. He posted an article that doesn't say what he claimed. People on here can't even read.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From the first article:

The discovery was made as part of an investigation into the gangs behind Britain's biggest counterfeit crime network, run from Manchester, north-west England.

The groups, also linked to people-trafficking and drugs, are believed to account for more than half of the UK's £8.6 billion-a-year ($10.57 billion) counterfeit goods trade.

You should really stop doubling down.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Also linked to trafficking"

Trafficking what where to who?

Does it say "Majority of the criminal gangs trafficking the asylum seekers are based in the South of England according to the NCA."

Good job doubling down
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not doubling down on anything. That was my first down.

Point being, trafficking does not have to equal putting people on boats as you've misinterpreted. I'll let you off if you learn a lesson

Also the word was people-trafficking.

Cripes man. Stop telling people they can't read.

comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Just go already (U21166)
posted 10 seconds ago
TopForm

Where does it say that the majority of criminal gangs in the south east are arranging boat crossings in other Countries exactly?

_____

It says if that information is correct we should focus on those gangs. If we have that information we must know who they are, so way focus on the trafficked and not the traffickers?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not correct. He posted an article that doesn't say what he claimed. People on here can't even read.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From the first article:

The discovery was made as part of an investigation into the gangs behind Britain's biggest counterfeit crime network, run from Manchester, north-west England.

The groups, also linked to people-trafficking and drugs, are believed to account for more than half of the UK's £8.6 billion-a-year ($10.57 billion) counterfeit goods trade.

You should really stop doubling down.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Also linked to trafficking"

Trafficking what where to who?

Does it say "Majority of the criminal gangs trafficking the asylum seekers are based in the South of England according to the NCA."

Good job doubling down
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not doubling down on anything. That was my first down.

Point being, trafficking does not have to equal putting people on boats as you've misinterpreted. I'll let you off if you learn a lesson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear oh dear I asked a simple question how do you target gangs on foreign soil?

Germany is a hub of gang activity that puts people on boats.

Is this all you've got as an answer. You think Gangs in the South East of England are physically putting people on boats and sending them here?

Again what's your idea on moral hazard. We let them in, we cause more suffering. What's the equation ideas man? Did Lineker have anything to say on that?

You think Gangs in the South East of England are physically putting people on boats and sending them here?
---

I literally just said that's not what is being said

Fair play. Not sure if you're trolling me or yourself at this point but you're having a good old go

comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 1 second ago
You think Gangs in the South East of England are physically putting people on boats and sending them here?
---

I literally just said that's not what is being said
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great. So show me something which demonstrates that letting them in causes less suffering than not letting them in. It should be simple if you've deeply thought about this issue beyond anyone that disagrees with me is a wayyycist.

Ok definitely yourself then, cos you seem upset about someone else calling you a racist.

I'm not claiming that letting them in causes less suffering than not letting them in so why would I do that?

comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 20 seconds ago
Ok definitely yourself then, cos you seem upset about someone else calling you a racist.

I'm not claiming that letting them in causes less suffering than not letting them in so why would I do that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't know that how can you think it's warranted for a bbc presenter to compare 1930s Germany to a complex situation involving moral hazard in which people suffer whichever action you take?

comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 20 seconds ago
Ok definitely yourself then, cos you seem upset about someone else calling you a racist.

I'm not claiming that letting them in causes less suffering than not letting them in so why would I do that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't know that how can you think it's warranted for a bbc presenter to compare 1930s Germany to a complex situation involving moral hazard in which people suffer whichever action you take?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I can agree or disagree with something and agree or disagree with the proposed solution.

Let's take an example I'm familiar with. I don't like how hard it is to balance on my unicycle. I don't bully small children into running alongside me to catch me when I fall. I figured out a way to stay up on my own. It was tricky and I got a couple of grazed knees, but I got there.

This is why I'm on the thread at all. Your approach to this debate is inherently flawed. I poked fun at it, then I argued with you for a bit, now I just feel a bit bad for carrying it on

comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 20 seconds ago
Ok definitely yourself then, cos you seem upset about someone else calling you a racist.

I'm not claiming that letting them in causes less suffering than not letting them in so why would I do that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't know that how can you think it's warranted for a bbc presenter to compare 1930s Germany to a complex situation involving moral hazard in which people suffer whichever action you take?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He was comparing the language used by the Tories.

comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 20 seconds ago
Ok definitely yourself then, cos you seem upset about someone else calling you a racist.

I'm not claiming that letting them in causes less suffering than not letting them in so why would I do that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't know that how can you think it's warranted for a bbc presenter to compare 1930s Germany to a complex situation involving moral hazard in which people suffer whichever action you take?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I can agree or disagree with something and agree or disagree with the proposed solution.

Let's take an example I'm familiar with. I don't like how hard it is to balance on my unicycle. I don't bully small children into running alongside me to catch me when I fall. I figured out a way to stay up on my own. It was tricky and I got a couple of grazed knees, but I got there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Basically I know nothing about this issue and what I'm talking about but Gary Linker is gr8." - Bãleš left boot

"moral hazard"

You mean some people may get a little ouchy?

We are talking about desperate people, I'll repeat PEOPLE. Who feel they have no better alternative.

Do you know that the vast majority of Afghans who have gained asylum under the rules to give those in danger who supported us over there did not come via UK evacuation but made it here on there own? I'm guessing a great many of them came in small boats. So that was a bad thing.

I've actually made my position on this issue and Gary Lineker pretty clear for you to read and respond to properly but ok

Am I the only one who thinks "moral hazard" translates as "I don't want to change the ethnic makeup" which translates as "I'm a racist".