Calais port locked down as migrants break fences and board British ferry

originally posted by: pavil
I honestly don't know what you are doing Europe. Why do you continue to just let EVERYBODY come into your countries? It's pretty obvious to everyone that you are letting some pretty scummy people in who want no part of integrating into European Society, yet you think it's your duty to let them in? You better start getting selective about who you let in. The problem is only going to get worse if you ignore it.

The UK isnt letting everybody in. Dont confuse us with the Eurotards on the mainland.

This whole incident was due to the fact our borders are closed and some crminals decided to brak through by jumping on a ferry.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Scouse100
So do you support UK financial assistance to France in order to improve conditions for these mostly single men in situ, and keeping them out of the UK?
Such an approach seems reasonable and humane to me.
*edit*
I'd be happy to pay an extra 1% in my income tax to assist these people in France, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and elsewhere. No need for them to come to the UK.

Yes I support the financial assistance. I do not support encouraging them to use violence/risk their lives to get here but I do think there should be means to apply for asylum in the UK from Calais, this would be particularly useful when trying to reunite families. And I think enormous pressure is being out on a few countries who surround war torn countries and we should take in more refugees to relieve that as well as providing support for them. We have only taken 1000 so far.

I have absolutely no problem with letting in orphaned children, women, elderly, sick people or maybe a few proven families.

However I think it would be a terrible idea to do what Germany has done and allow HUGE groups of 20-40 year old, sexually frustrated, culturally ignorant men. Especially if these men are swapping ID's or operating on fake passports. And especially if these men are groping women, beating up people and robbing them.

That said the UK is still under Tory rule and life is hard enough for the poorest of British citizens and I think our homeless, our sick, our unemployed should be given priority. As tough and horrible as that sounds, I can't imagine how it would feel to be homeless in the winter and being unable to find accomodation and then being aware that a gang of 20-40 year old men are suddenly given a home.

It's a very frustrating situation for all involved.

If Germany and Greece could have employed a better vetting system and provided better living conditions for the refugees in the first place, maybe set up an education centre, a medical centre and maybe taken fingerprints or another form of verified ID'ing system we would now be having less problems.

originally posted by: Scouse100


Who said anything about providing for them for life? Most immigrants/refugees come here to work and make a better life for themselves, the least we/France can do is offer asylum seekers even basic shelter and support while they are settling and their applications are being processed. Immigrants and asylum seekers can and do become valuable members of society, take my friend at school for example, a refugee from Iraq who is now a Dr and contributing more to this country (not just in tax) than I ever will.

But them were? The UK has a housing crsis!

Our Hospitals are overflowing and strained to the point of crumbling.

Our public school system is sinking and will soon be as bad as the USA.
We just don’t have the infrastructure!

Yes I want to help as many as "responsibly" possible. But to the detriment of the UK standard of living, not at the expense of my local NHS failing even more, the schools overflowing and the underfunded police unable to deal with the social problems they could cause or at the expense of British people no able to get on the housing lists.

Let those with young children in, let those who are highly qualified in, let in a few hundred, MAYBE a thousand or two.

But tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands? But look at the catastrophe open borders have caused in Germany? Add those problems with our overloaded infrastructure and you would see the UK face its biggest crisis since WW2.

originally posted by: Scouse100

I agree about infrastructure by the way, we are seeing too many cuts in the way of public spending in the name of austerity, which is a means to a political ideology - shrinking then state in my opinion, not a necessity.

Well both labour and the conservatives can be blamed for that.
Problem is hospitals and schools don’t spring up overnight. To reverse that it will take decades so there is no short term solution.

originally posted by: Scouse100
If every town/city/borough/county council took just 10 families we can help 10,000 people, when you look at it that way it hardly seems a stretch does it?

Which I agree with.

UK could manage to take 1000 or 2000 people (max) a year over ten years. Long as those people are vetted and they are the most vulnerable or skilled. Not uncivilized young single barbarians who just want to cause trouble.

Though Corbyn if he really wants to help should make every Labour MP that served under his Blairness and voted for ME action sell there houses or donate ther houses and there cars and all there savings to help the Refugees and Camron should do the same with the Torys. They caused the mess they should GD pay for it.

originally posted by: Scouse100
Neither do I condone encouraging people use violence/risk their lives to get over here as we are doing at present with our policy of asylum only for those who reach the shore.

Those that use criminal acts to get over should be barred from UK entry full stop.
Though maybe a temporary consulate in Calais may be in order so those there can file for refugee status safely and we can filter our the true refugees from the economic migrants and the trouble makers.

originally posted by: Scouse100
Short term action that needs to be taken in my opinion includes improving conditions and ensuring there is space in refugee camps all over, greater support for countries taking the brunt of the crisis,

I agree with that.

originally posted by: Scouse100
taking a larger number of refugees to 'share the burden',

No. I agree with the current policy of taking 10-20,000 in over the next 5 years. We cant let in more without overloading our weak infrastructure.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Scouse100
So do you support UK financial assistance to France in order to improve conditions for these mostly single men in situ, and keeping them out of the UK?
Such an approach seems reasonable and humane to me.
*edit*
I'd be happy to pay an extra 1% in my income tax to assist these people in France, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and elsewhere. No need for them to come to the UK.

I would much rather see Blair, Brown and evry MP who has voted for ME action stripped of there homes, cars, savings and pensions to pay for the crsis first before I pay a single penny.

They broke they brought it.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Scouse100
Stop the Corbyn fear mongering, ...

Criticising Corbyn is not "fear mongering".

Corbyn's public view is that the current initiative to take refugees direct from camps and NOT participate in quotas is wrong. If the UK joined the quota scheme then the UK would have to take 100,000 plus migrants, mostly young men. Corbyn thinks we should "take our share".

The public don't want this. The country would not be able to cope.

^^^ This.

Current UK policy is the best for the UK future. Though I would argue a tempory consulate in Calais be set up so people can apply (though not automaticaly get) for UK refuge status.

The UK simply can not take hundreds and thousands of refugees in with the current state of our housing and infrastruture.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Scouse100
Stop the Corbyn fear mongering, ...

Criticising Corbyn is not "fear mongering".

Corbyn's public view is that the current initiative to take refugees direct from camps and NOT participate in quotas is wrong. If the UK joined the quota scheme then the UK would have to take 100,000 plus migrants, mostly young men. Corbyn thinks we should "take our share".

The public don't want this. The country would not be able to cope.

OK well 'opening the door' is not the same as 'taking our share' to me.

I actually agree with Cameron on taking refugees direct from camps (and that's about the only thing I do agree with him on!!) I think it discourages people risking their lives trying to make it to Europe.

I think a bit of perspective is important on numbers too. 100,000 people if distributed evenly means only 2 people per town/village/city.

And I'll say it again it's important to remember this is a short term solution, more efforts are needed to tackle the root cause, at present I believe we are making matters worse (for our own gain no doubt).

originally posted by: crazyewok
Though I would argue a tempory consulate in Calais be set up so people can apply (though not automaticaly get) for UK refuge status.

Anything like that would just act as a magnet.

What is required is for France to close the camps and disperse the migrants, including rounding them up and finding out who they are and get their applications for asylum. If they don't want asylum then they need to be deported.

The last time I looked, France was a safe place.

originally posted by: Scouse100


I think a bit of perspective is important on numbers too. 100,000 people if distributed evenly means only 2 people per town/village/city.

Simply no.

100,000 is far to much.

Just no.

We dont have the schools, Hospital beds or houseing.

originally posted by: Scouse100
I think a bit of perspective is important on numbers too. 100,000 people if distributed evenly means only 2 people per town/village/city.

But that's not how it happens. These people will gavitate towards, and be placed in, communities that can ill afford to accommodate them. They need access to Mosques, people who speak their language, Halal butchers, schools etc... It's just not simple. It costs money. It bumps my fellow Briton further down the queue.

My local rag reported that the 23 refugess (from the camps, so not complaining) were being supported by an "army" to help them fit in, and all that. While the "army" is helping them, they are not helping other people.

I think the government are playing this well. They are taking vulnerable people/families from the camps in situ. They have offered to take a manageable number. Merkel is playing it badly as she actually invited people over. Had she kept her mouth shut and offered to help refugees in situ we would not have a million perople risking their lives to travel.

More and more, we see how Gadhafi was right all along, and maybe soon enough, even Breivik might be right...

originally posted by: Substracto
More and more, we see how Gadhafi was right all along, and maybe soon enough, even Breivik might be right...

It's like The Camp of the Saints turned into real life:

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: stormcell

Too close for comfort! very interesting.

im up for taking these 'activists' to school.
its like the borderline of stupid.
they are destroying their kids future.
effin leftist feminists.

a reply to: yeahsurexxx

Have you read this? www.abovetopsecret.com...

On topic. In this video there is a lot of rapid hand signalling similar to that which was seen between spooks and traitors involved in the fake Occupy nonsense. Also in other videos we see a lot of smiling from faketavists who appear to be turned on by violence and mass unrest. There's some very unhealthy stuff going on here and a lot of it is the result of training and brainwashing.

There is more to the reason why the West is allowing mass immigration from middle east. They are expecting an alien invasion soon. World leaders are planning to populate europe and america with able men, who can fight the aliens when the attack begins. The aliens are expected to attack major cities in europe.
It is also one of the reason, why the countries are trying to unite. They have bought iran into the loop, only non friendly country is n.korea. Elites are planning to seek shelter in oklahoma tunnel city, and wuwei in china. Do remember in all invasions, the elites are first to stab others on the back.
Be alert, be warned.

a reply to: diabloman
WTF?!! Have you got any links, sources, or even a scrap of evidence to support such a wild claim?
...and why would western governments want these migrants when they won't even defend their own communities? They are hardly likely to fight for the EU when they've abandoned their own women and children in their homelands.

a reply to: grainofsand

1. US elections are a no contest, republicans and dems are not interested in the elections any more, there is no serious contender. Trump is a distraction.
2. Too many meets, where all global leaders attend.
3. Landslide of debris in China, is actually from underground city. Not construction waste as claimed.
4. Oil Markets, gold, stocks are crashing. Elites are no longer interested in making money. Its a no brainer.
5. Government trying to arm everyone in US, by misdirection. Obama's speech on gun control has actually increased people arming themselves. What better way, than to say please buy guns and be ready. This way, government can make sure that 90% of homes are armed.
6. During foreseen stock crashes, you will see shorting. This is not happening. Why ?
7. When main stream media is distracting, you will have to be plain aware of happenings in the surroundings. Start noticing never seen anomalies, however minute.

Be prepared, exercise, practise breath control. Know your locality, so you can find easy hideouts. Internet is going to fry, communication will be gone. Electricity and Gas will be gone.

a reply to: Kester

I guess all the women and children were out shopping that day.