Sky reports on migrant crossings

“Ill informed moaning”?

You jest Beau!

858 of them who have arrived since Christmas Day x
£400 per day (each) x
365 days = £125 million per annum.

It’s a phenomenal sum!
Unsustainable.
Now thats what I find depressing.

I agree keepingquiet, the same old ill informed moaning, harping back to the good old days when local authority employees, apparently, didn't get a pension, people didn't seek sanctuary, there were no dictators, no people trying to improve their lives. Frankly, I find it depressing.

Oh dear- what a deeply depressing thread.

We left the EU because it was claimed we could then stop the immingration issue- it has just got worse. Lesson learned? Nil.

We now have references to sovereignty again? We never lost it in the first place! Lesson learned? Nil.

Now we are talking about the EHCR! Changing it? Surely you have to be part of the joint effort in order to do that. It is about human rights, not my rights!

Leaving the EHCR will change nothing dear people, except make life far more difficult for those who are used to having their rights protected as opposed to being taken away, as in North Korea for example. Is that what you really want, really?

The migration issue will not be solved unless people wake up to the reality of the world they are living in, and not keep harking back to a golden, pre-EU kind of perfect paradise where everyone was 'normal' like us.

It makes me want to get in a boat and leave...

It is widely believed among the elite, that ordinary folk can be persuaded to believe anything that they are told. It has always been the case.
They also believe that ordinary folk are unable to organise themselves in revolt.
They will continue in that belief until proved otherwise.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

858 channel migrants over just 2 days of Christmas.

At £400 each per day they will cost us:
£400 x 858 x 365 days = £125 million per annum.

This is untenable
And unacceptable to the British taxpayer.

“Smash the gangs” eh?

That is shocking FriedGreenTomatoes2.

A few days ago I read the figures for how many houses need to be built every day to house people who come here in rubber dinghies.

The figures were ridiculous and completely unachievable and now I can’t find them! Will keep looking.

petra

Fancythat
Yesterday you said that we need to get out of the ECHR for anything to permanently change
Now today you post i didn’t even say if I wanted that to happen. But actually i do, I think
Can you explain what immigration problem we had in 1975?
^it wasn’t an issue prior to that time for 20 years^

Personally I dont think we had an immigration problem in 1975.

But some, like Enoch Powell, or whatever he was called, did.

FriedGreenTomatoes2 - thanks for explaining that. I was wondering where my perfectly innocuous/perfectly legal post went. Victim of 21st century political correctness then...LOL

One does wonder how to verbally differentiate between official and "others".

There's one thing about living in the 21st century - one seems to have to have several different words for something where previously one word got used throughout the country and by everyone. I'll be multilingual by the time I've got through the rest of this life - even though I make the standing joke "I speak two languages - English and American".

It was so useful for the first 50 years of my life to be able to use that exact same one word throughout the country (explains these days - when I say "country" I mean Britain and not the part of it I'm living in).

Does your head in thinking "What word can I say here to denote exactly what I mean instead of the normal word?". Then if one tries moving from England to anywhere else in the country (Britain) there's translation to be done - as people automatically assume a different meaning, rather than the normal meaning, for something. Agh! my head hurts....always having to translate for people who are looking to take offence...

Come back 20th century - all is forgiven....you were so much easier to live in without all these people looking to take offence....

Am I still allowed to say I'm a "woman" LOL? Yep...born a woman.....okay with that (apart from the bits of sex discrimination that still apply)....still a "woman"....

CariadAgain you can’t call them ‘illegals’ on here. Even though that term IS used on the tv and in the newspapers! But on here?is a no-no.

As these migrants arrive on rubber boats, often ditching their passports, paying gang masters thousands of ££s to get them here I’m using the term ‘irregular migrants’ nowadays. It acknowledges the fact that some may be economic migrants and stops some posters on here throwing a hissy fit.

Fancythat
Yesterday you said that we need to get out of the ECHR for anything to permanently change
Now today you post i didn’t even say if I wanted that to happen. But actually i do, I think
Can you explain what immigration problem we had in 1975?
it wasn’t an issue prior to that time for 20 years

Maremia

It's all very upsetting, and lots of political point scoring goes on. It has become worse, since we no longer have the automatic co-operation of our European neighbours since BREXIT. Not sure why some GNs think that leaving the EHCR will help. It's almost like an automatic response.
People fleeing wars and persecution will continue to attempt the crossings. Global warming will make some regions uninhabitable, and so create more migrations.
How do we actually think it can be resolved? Can it be?

Far from automatic. Very far from it.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Did Tony Blair introduce the Human Rights Act?
The Human Rights Act 1998 was enacted by the UK Parliament and came into force in October 2000. It was a significant reform introduced by the Labour government under Prime Minister Tony Blair following their 1997 election victory.

I have started to blame him specifically for many of the problems the Uk now has. Very much him.

To even ask the question means we have gone a long long way in another direction completely.

Hence many problems.
Many people upset.
I could go down a tunnel of some peoples' dismay in this Country.

Jeanathome

What is National Sovereignty?

When Uk voters vote for a Government, and they make the rules and laws.

Nothing like we have now. Very sadly.

I despaired when I started a thread or asked about how many people were happy with £100 million bat tunnels and other "projects".
Most seemed to be.
No hope of getting Uk finances straight again if that is peoples' priorities.

Read today that 1/4 of Council Tax goes into Local government Pensions.
Dont think that was even a thing in 1990? Could be wrong.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

We will be poorer that’s for sure!

FriedGreenTomatoes2

858 channel migrants over just 2 days of Christmas.

At £400 each per day they will cost us:
£400 x 858 x 365 days = £125 million per annum.

This is untenable
And unacceptable to the British taxpayer.

“Smash the gangs” eh?

When and how are the gangs to be smashed? Before long this country will be totally different to the one most of us grew up in.

What is National Sovereignty?

858 channel migrants over just 2 days of Christmas.

At £400 each per day they will cost us:
£400 x 858 x 365 days = £125 million per annum.

This is untenable
And unacceptable to the British taxpayer.

“Smash the gangs” eh?

www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-trouble-with-the-human-rights-act/#:~:text=While%20securing%20the%20rights%20of,rule%20of%20law%20in%20doubt.

the ECHR remains controversial as some see it as an erosion of national sovereignty.
In one.

Did Tony Blair introduce the Human Rights Act?
The Human Rights Act 1998 was enacted by the UK Parliament and came into force in October 2000. It was a significant reform introduced by the Labour government under Prime Minister Tony Blair following their 1997 election victory.

Not withdraw completely HPQ. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water here. I’m pretty certain it was Churchill who drew up the ECHR or the framework of it in 1945 or thereabouts. It was something the UK and our democracy wanted to ensure less humane states toed the line with regard to personal freedoms. Quite an admirable achievement.

Then Blair got involved. Tinkered around the edges of it all with his wife and eminent human rights lawyer Cherie.

Certain aspects of the ECHR became problematic (cough) and we’ve tied ourselves in knots ever since. It’s a human rights/legal aid nightmare.

It needs changing back to what it was or simplifying or at the least, making it fit for purpose within our democracy. We can hold our heads high. We devised it and now it’s not what we need to sort out the Gordian knot of irregular immigration. The ECHR is being used to tie our hands. It’s time to give it another coat of looking at. Blair ought not just to have the last say on it.

Who are you asking that question to? I am assuming FGT2

FriedGreenTomatoes2

I’m with you on this fancythat.

Why? Which of the 16 conditions of the ECHR do you disagree with?

Real ones, nor Farage fantasies. Please do not quote T May and the case of a right to family life involving a cat. That was untrue.

I truly am mystified why people living in what is still a safe democracy would wish to withdraw from the rules which keep it so, would like to be with Russia and Belarus.