I think it's to see if they are successful. If yes, I'd imagine they'd want to bring their dependants here to join them

The reason there are few children is because of the high risk of death, the reason there are no elderly is because A) They would probably die and B) the elderly are far less likely to be on a quest for a new/better life in the first place. The reason for it being mostly males is probably cultural; usually the idea (realistic though it may not be) is that the men will go and set up a life / make money with an aim of either getting the rest of the family over to join later, or to send money back to the family.

Though the most basic reason is that it's dangerous and young males are inclined to recklessness / feel like they are stronger and tougher than they are realistically and thus have a higher belief that heading across the sea in a small boat in winter is a viable plan.

There are a few reasons; men are better suited to a long and dangerous trip across to Europe (especially by boats), so there are naturally more women and children in refugee camps.

More women and children actually die making the journey, and the logistics of getting a whole family somewhere together is a lot more difficult than men making the trip on their own and getting past border controls etc.

It's a bit of a right wing trope to only bring up the men making the journey as though they're just desperate to get UK benefits and more rapeable women. I know you were only asking the question, so that wasn't aimed at you.

A question they cannot/will not answer Cherie because the answer is painfully obvious, so they just try to ignore it and imply the problem lies with those that dare to question!

Why won't they answer the blummin' questions?!

Ahh Micky you're so blind, pushing all those right-wing lies. Hey Micky (clap, clap, clap) Hey micky (Clap, clap clap)

tbf the question was answered and I reread the articles again,there were actually 5 kids in different vessels

The only acceptable answer is "For rape and terrorism" and apparently anything else is invisible ink.

That’s rather funny given that, as already mentioned, I had to insist. It is also why I, and others, repeatedly felt there were double-standards being practiced and an imbalance in the infraction system. Hey-ho you were on the ‘right side’ of that so are unlikely to have had the same experiences.

Anyway happy new year to you and to those that do understand where I was coming from. I have said my piece and will leave you to it. Have fun.

I still don't agree with people 'fleeing' France though, or passing safe countries :nono:

How "safe" is it if you don't have access to adequate food or, in the middle of winter, shelter? And little to no prospect of that situation improving? Are people supposed to huddle in their tents and accept their fate because they're not being bombed or shot at? Would you accept it for you or your own family?

Obviously, no, we can't take in all of the world's poor and oppressed; it's not logistically possible, it would destroy our economy, and there have to be sensible policies in place. I think, in general, people understand that. But trying to pass the buck to the people who are living existences that you can't even imagine, as if they have some sort of moral responsibility to "stay where they are because it's safe", is a bit much. It's just disingenuous too because I think deep down everyone knows that in the same desperate situation the vast majority of people would do the exact same thing and try to "find something better".

Also, yes, often they HAVE been mislead to believe that the UK is a "land of milk and honey" and have unrealistic expectations of what life will be like for them here, but that's not their fault either! It's a myth that's spread deliberately by the people who are taking money (often, everything people have) to get them in. And of course as that idea spreads, more and more people decide to take matters into their own hands and make the crossing in small groups in boats that can't actually make the journey, and those people end up needing rescued. The idea that they "deserve everything they get" for daring to try to enter precious Britain is just abhorrent.

I never said they deserve everything they get, my point is these are not refugees but economic migrants so calling them refugees is incorrect as often they do leave a safe countryto get here, obviously if they want to swap a tent in France or some other EU country for the UK then there must be better options here?

Your argument about they wanting a better life is solid, however if you turn that around and say people currently in the UK want a better quality of life by it not being over populated you call them racists :idc: so migrants are allowed to aim for better but people born in the UK must put up and shut up?

I've repeatedly said (in multiple posts in this thread alone, including the one you're replying to) that logistically it's impossible for a country to take in unlimited refugees and that sensible policies are required :shrug:. My problem is when people (not you, people like arr Micky) express that opinion by demonising / being hateful towards / wishing ill (or death) on those trying to get in. There's a difference between "Sorry, for the good of our own citizens, we have to have limits" and "BLAAARRR FECK OFF AND DROWN WHY U EVEN TRYING TO GET HERE SCUM!!". No?

Of course!

[A child was among 12 Iranian migrants
detained after their dinghy landed
in Kent on New Year's Eve.]

https://news.sky.com/story/sajid-jav...sings-11595381

just round them up and get rid, we dont want illegal anyone. we provide the means for legal migration. end of.

Thank you tibb, this is my best xmas present this year.

I wonder tho why Iranians...?
Iran is not lawless or in a state of war. Economically it's not one of the struggling countries.
The only thing that comes to mind is lack of political freedom and hostility to homosexuality.
Hope we're told what these people claim.

Yes this is why; Iran was very modern / prgressive for several years and then did a huge "backwards step" into religious government. As a result, there are a lot of "Westernised" people stuck there living with a culture they don't recognise as theirs or agree with in any way.

[Home Secretary Sajid Javid
questions whether cross-Channel migrants
are 'genuine' asylum seekers
On a visit to Dover, the home secretary
suggests those picked up by
the UK authorities could have
their asylum requests denied.]

https://news.sky.com/story/sajid-jav...ekers-11596891


He has a point.

Lets be honest here most are economic migrants

Yes as some know there
is illegal jobs they can
do.


Is costing the nation
is many ways.
Worse is housing shortage for everyone
then some Illegals get homes.

Have I missed your thread on the amount that the extreme wealthy and corporations avoiding taxes is costing the nation, in many ways?

:laugh: good point, SR

That has nothing to do with this

it has plenty to do with your argument how illegals make us poorer
when you're silent on a much bigger issue that makes us poorer, tax avoidance and evasion
if you just reported the facts of the matter then fine, but venturing into opinions betrays your right wing bias where the rich are never criticised only the poor and dispossessed.

Facts
Tax is paid under Current UK Tax Laws.

I do not Control who is in power
New Labour never did feck all to
update the tax laws, for example

Pretty sure they at least upped the top tax bracket that Osbourne undid as soon as he got the power to do so.

A major part of the way you view these issues is in monetary terms, so why is it ok to say that these "illegals" are costing us money, but actual criminals never get a mention from you?

Why is it ok for people and corporations to ignore tax laws, and you only say "tax is paid under UK tax laws. I do not control who is in power" but when immigration is a law being ignored then you're all over it, hand wringing about the cost to the country, won't somebody think of the children...

The Criminal Gangs
are all over my posts.

Children get looked after.

I am not all over this, as you say
Its on Ever Fecking news and radio debate
Every Day.

bc right wing controls the news agenda
why we don't hear every day about tax avoidance? about who should really pay for austerity and economic crisis?
and who wants open borders? it's big business bc they profit from it through cheap labour
we'll see who post-brexit government will listen to, people who voted for brexit or big business; so don't expect the immigration numbers to go down an awful lot

I find it deeply amusing that immigration numbers will stay the same (or go up) and the same people who voted for Brexit will be bawling about it being worse than ever, because an increased percentage of immigrants will be the "foreign looking" ones from outside the EU... Exactly the ones that Brexiteers are afraid of... And only white European migration (the sort they didn't mind in the first place) will decrease.

Of Course
it's been that way for over 30 years or so.
This thread is about criminal gangs
sending illegals across the dangerous sea from France.

exactly

little do they know what the real agenda of those behind brexit is
less "inconvenient" regulation from the EU like labour or environment protections
not to mention financial services and tax laws :D

TS not every Brexit voter
is on about immigration.
it is about being Sovereign, for many.

Migrants from outside of the EU are also more likely to accept low pay and poor working conditions / fewer rights.

What does that mean? We're already sovereign.

Meaning not under any Control from the EU

nobody is fully sovereign these days,
any international treaty and law reduces sovereignty

so let's watch UK extracting itself from the EU and binding itself to some new treaties like free trade agreements etc

the fact that you can't exist fully sovereign is well illustrated by the apparent necessity of keeping many arrangements with the EU and others

Sure
its a mess.

Back on topic
there are now 2 boat cutters in the waters.
Trying to send back the illegals.