Migrants

A place to discuss politics and things related to Govts
Message
Author
1DC
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:06 am
Location: Retired guy from the UK East Coast
Gender:
Age: 83

Re: Migrants

#301 Post by 1DC » Thu Jul 29, 2021 8:18 pm

SEND IN THE NAVY

The Royal Navy is proud of its new fleet of Type 45 destroyers.
Having initially named the first two ships HMS Daring and HMS
Dauntless, the Naming Committee has, after intensive pressure
from Brussels, renamed them HMS Cautious and HMS Prudence.
The next five ships are to be named HMS Empathy, HMS
Circumspect, HMS Nervous, HMS Timorous and HMS Apologist.

Costing £850 million each, they meet the needs of the 21st
century and comply with the very latest employment, equality,
health & safety and human rights laws.

The new user-friendly crow's nest comes equipped with
wheelchair access.

Live ammunition has been replaced with paintballs to reduce
the risk of anyone getting hurt and to cut down on the number
of compensation claims.

Stress counsellors and lawyers will be on duty 24hrs a day
and each ship will have its on-board industrial tribunal.

The crew will be 50/50 men and women, and balanced in
accordance with the latest Home Office directives on race,
gender, sexuality and disability.

Sailors will only have to work a maximum of 37hrs per week in
line with Health & Safety rules, even in wartime! All
the vessels will come equipped with a maternity ward and
nursery, situated on the same deck as the Gay Disco.

Tobacco will be banned throughout the ship, but cannabis will be
allowed in the wardroom and messes. The Royal Navy is eager
to shed its traditional reputation for; "Rum, sodomy and the lash";
so out has gone the occasional rum ration which is to be replaced
by sparkling water.

Although sodomy remains, it has now been extended to include
all ratings under 18. The lash will still be available but only on
request. Condoms can be obtained from the Bosun in a variety of
flavours, except Capstan Full Strength.


Saluting officers has been abolished because it is deemed elitist
and is to be replaced by the more informal, "Hello Sailor". All
information on notices boards will be printed in 37 different
languages and Braille. Crew members will now no longer be
required to ask permission to grow beards or moustaches - this
applies equally to women crew members.

The MoD is working on a new "non-specific" flag because the
White Ensign is considered to be offensive to minorities. The
Union Flag had already been discarded.

The newly re-named HMS Cautious is due to be commissioned
soon in a ceremony conducted by Captain Hook from the Finsbury
Park Mosque who will break a petrol bomb over the hull. She
will gently slide into the water as the Royal Marines Band plays "In the Navy" by the Village People.

Her first deployment will be to escort boat loads of illegal
immigrants across the channel to ports on England's south
coast.

The Prime Minister said, "While these ships reflect the very latest
in modern thinking, they are also capable of being up-graded to
comply with any new legislation coming out of the International court on Human Rights"


His final words were, "Britannia waives the rules!"

User avatar
OFSO
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 18600
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 6:39 pm
Location: Teddington UK and Roses Catalunia
Gender:
Age: 80

Re: Migrants

#302 Post by OFSO » Thu Jul 29, 2021 8:41 pm

Brilliant!

User avatar
Undried Plum
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 7308
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 8:45 pm
Location: 56°N 4°W

Re: Migrants

#303 Post by Undried Plum » Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:02 pm

John Hill wrote:
Wed Jul 28, 2021 5:05 am
It is with wry amusement that I view the anti-migrant comments by people of the soggy islands.
I can't speak for others, but I'm not at all anti-migrant. Perhaps it's because I am a third generation descendant of immigrants, but I don't think so.

What I vehemently oppose is criminal immigration. Illegal immigrants are, by definition, criminals.

Those criminals have ample scope to apply for political asylum in the UK from elsewhere in Europe if they believe they have a legitimate claim. The ones who invest £5k or whatever in paying smugglers to get them to the shores of Kent and Sussex do so for economic reasons. It's a hugely profitable business for the gangs who run these schemes. It's estimated that there will be somewhere between ten and twenty thousand of the bastards this year alone. That's pretty big business and it's all being encouraged by the actions and inactions of the ffrench and British governments.

John Hill
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5695
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 7:40 pm
Location: Aotearoa

Re: Migrants

#304 Post by John Hill » Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:27 pm

Undried Plum wrote:
Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:02 pm

What I vehemently oppose is criminal immigration. Illegal immigrants are, by definition, criminals.

Those criminals have ample scope to apply for political asylum in the UK from elsewhere in Europe if they believe they have a legitimate claim. The ones who invest £5k or whatever in paying smugglers to get them to the shores of Kent and Sussex do so for economic reasons. It's a hugely profitable business for the gangs who run these schemes. It's estimated that there will be somewhere between ten and twenty thousand of the bastards this year alone. That's pretty big business and it's all being encouraged by the actions and inactions of the ffrench and British governments.
They are firstly migrants and only secondly criminals because legal obstacles have been put in their way.

There would be no opportunities for the smuggler gangs if there were opportunities for legal migration from their point of departure.
Been in data comm since we formed the bits individually with a Morse key.

User avatar
Undried Plum
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 7308
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 8:45 pm
Location: 56°N 4°W

Re: Migrants

#305 Post by Undried Plum » Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:28 pm

No. The point of departure isn't necessarily where genuine political asylum seekers should file an application. By international agreement, they should file such an application from the first safe country of their journey. That may or may not be ffrance, but in any event they should file an application in ffrance before attempting an illegal entry into Britain.

They are not political refugees. They're just criminals, that's all. Genuine political refugees, and there are such people, know how to file a legal application for asylum.

The word on the street in ****-hole countries is that if you make it onto British territory you've got it made. A free meal-ticket for life. Free everything.

Neither ffrance nor Britain is sending any kind of signal to the ****-hole countries that up with this **** we will not put.

Britain needs to ship thousands of the buggers back to where they came from and record videos of them being herded onto C-17s in plasticuffs and transmit that imagery on BBC World Service so that the next hundred thousand chancers understand that the game isn't worth the candle.

I think the Australian model is the one we should follow. Make clear at the source of origin of the traffic flow that even if you somehow make it to Australian waters illegally, you will be deported.

John Hill
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5695
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 7:40 pm
Location: Aotearoa

Re: Migrants

#306 Post by John Hill » Fri Jul 30, 2021 12:00 am

Few, if any, are political asylum seekers, most are just migrants hoping for a better life.

I notice that most of the countries where these people come from have in the past, for better or worse, been under the heel of the hated Red Coats or their later equivalents.

The Red Coats et al went where I doubt they were invited, they plundered, killed and destroyed to eventually leave the countries to become the ****-holes you see today.

Chickens are coming home to roost which is only fair so you best make the best of it.
Been in data comm since we formed the bits individually with a Morse key.

John Hill
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5695
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 7:40 pm
Location: Aotearoa

Re: Migrants

#307 Post by John Hill » Fri Jul 30, 2021 12:02 am

Undried Plum wrote:
Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:28 pm
I think the Australian model is the one we should follow.
I did not think I would live to see the day.......
Been in data comm since we formed the bits individually with a Morse key.

User avatar
om15
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 7756
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Dorset
Age: 71

Re: Migrants

#308 Post by om15 » Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:00 am

The Red Coats et al went where I doubt they were invited, they plundered, killed and destroyed to eventually leave the countries to become the ****-holes you see today.

John, are you a maori? or did you arrive with the red coats.

John Hill
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5695
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 7:40 pm
Location: Aotearoa

Re: Migrants

#309 Post by John Hill » Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:39 am

om15 wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:00 am
John, are you a maori? or did you arrive with the red coats.
A nice diversion attempt but not relevant to this discussion.
Been in data comm since we formed the bits individually with a Morse key.

User avatar
Rwy in Sight
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 6740
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:04 pm
Location: Lost in an FIR somewhere
Gender:

Re: Migrants

#310 Post by Rwy in Sight » Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:00 am

John Hill wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 12:00 am
Few, if any, are political asylum seekers, most are just migrants hoping for a better life.

I notice that most of the countries where these people come from have in the past, for better or worse, been under the heel of the hated Red Coats or their later equivalents.

The Red Coats et al went where I doubt they were invited, they plundered, killed and destroyed to eventually leave the countries to become the ****-holes you see today.

Chickens are coming home to roost which is only fair so you best make the best of it.
Thank you for teaching me the term "Red Coats". However I think it is time to drop those issues of colonialism behind and see how this countries do perform horribly for reasons associated with their own people.

Also as a citizen of a country with limited if not no-existent recent colonial history and definitely not in the areas generating the illegal immigration of present time, I fail to see why I have to fund the better life those uninvited guests seek. I would feel pretty happy if Western governments render their aspiration impossible with harsh penitentiary conditions in Europe while they wait their deportation as to send a clear "stay at home message you are not welcome" message to those countries.

John Hill
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5695
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 7:40 pm
Location: Aotearoa

Re: Migrants

#311 Post by John Hill » Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:13 am

Rwy in Sight wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:00 am
However I think it is time to drop those issues of colonialism behind and see how this countries do perform horribly for reasons associated with their own people.
Just how soon after the damage is done to a country before you can write it off as 'too long ago'?
Been in data comm since we formed the bits individually with a Morse key.

User avatar
barkingmad
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
Location: Another Planet
Gender:
Age: 75

Re: Migrants

#312 Post by barkingmad » Fri Jul 30, 2021 10:08 am

The first 25 minutes of this "Migrant crisis &..." video shows the wonderful Douglas Murray sparring and even displaying some irritation with a rude dork, who is the CEO of the Refugee Council, who constantly interrupts D M and repeatedly calls him "Charles".

Maybe this so-called 'Solomon' wishes he was having an audience with the heir to the English throne but displays a lamentable lack of awareness in his utterances and hopefully will never surface again.

The next 12 minutes are filled in by a "refugee" who has managed to avoid the jungles and oceans between Syria and England and is touting her experience as some sort of success story whilst a large dog heavily breathes around her chair just out of picture.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJMC-4 ... ra5iemDPiA ~X(

Edited to add: It's good to know our Border Farce officials are being given respectable pay rises which must inevitably lead to the Channel migrant crisis finally being resolved;



Yes, it's our favourite taxi-driver, but when will MSM start to trumpet this item? Thanks, Jeff, you always seem to be ahead of the pack. I might even consider buying a mug... :-?

User avatar
Rwy in Sight
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 6740
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:04 pm
Location: Lost in an FIR somewhere
Gender:

Re: Migrants

#313 Post by Rwy in Sight » Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:26 pm

John Hill wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:13 am
Rwy in Sight wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:00 am
However I think it is time to drop those issues of colonialism behind and see how this countries do perform horribly for reasons associated with their own people.
Just how soon after the damage is done to a country before you can write it off as 'too long ago'?
Maybe 30 years at least. Most countries with citizens feeling entitled to enjoy a high standard of living at the expense of the European tax-payer have been independent since the 1970s - so they had more a couple of decades to sort out themselves then another extension. And honestly I can't see we should offer people from Magreb refugees status when European countries pump their economies with tourism (for Morocco and Tunisia and gas for Algeria).

User avatar
Undried Plum
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 7308
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 8:45 pm
Location: 56°N 4°W

Re: Migrants

#314 Post by Undried Plum » Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:57 pm

We certainly owe Libya an apology, but that will never be forthcoming.

Morocco, certainly not. That a ffrench thing to do. And they do not dat ting.

Similarly, Tunisia. Ever so so slightly, and very stinkily, ffrench.

Libya: a massive embarrassment. An almost entirely British ****.

The Septics simply got swept up in the stream of their dream that Africa Command could be be sustained inside Africa.

Fools.

Africa Command is still based in a US occupied military base in "West" Germany, having been so ignominiously booted out of Wheelus AFB in their hoped-for toe-hold in Africa.

John Hill
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5695
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 7:40 pm
Location: Aotearoa

Re: Migrants

#315 Post by John Hill » Fri Jul 30, 2021 7:54 pm

Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, do not forget about them.
Been in data comm since we formed the bits individually with a Morse key.

1DC
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:06 am
Location: Retired guy from the UK East Coast
Gender:
Age: 83

Re: Migrants

#316 Post by 1DC » Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:49 pm

Crikey, you've got a long way to go John they weren't even in the Empire.

User avatar
Undried Plum
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 7308
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 8:45 pm
Location: 56°N 4°W

Re: Migrants

#317 Post by Undried Plum » Fri Jul 30, 2021 10:06 pm

1DC wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:49 pm
Crikey, you've got a long way to go John they weren't even in the Empire.
Read History, ferfuxake!

John Hill
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5695
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 7:40 pm
Location: Aotearoa

Re: Migrants

#318 Post by John Hill » Sat Jul 31, 2021 4:11 am

1DC wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:49 pm
Crikey, you've got a long way to go John they weren't even in the Empire.
IRAN
Mosaddegh and The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (1951–1952)
Main articles: Mohammad Mosaddegh and Anglo-Persian Oil Company
From 1901 on, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (renamed the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1931), a British oil company, enjoyed a monopoly on sale and production of Iranian oil. It was the most profitable British business in the world.[51] Most Iranians lived in poverty while the wealth generated from Iranian oil played a decisive role in maintaining Britain at the top of the world. In 1951, Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh pledged to throw the company out of Iran, reclaim the petroleum reserves and free Iran from foreign powers.

In 1952, Mosaddegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and became a national hero. The British, however, were outraged and accused him of stealing. The British demanded punishment from the World Court and the United Nations, sent warships to the Persian Gulf, and finally imposed a crushing embargo. Mosaddegh was unmoved by Britain's campaign against him. One European newspaper, the Frankfurter Neue Presse, reported that Mosaddegh "would rather be fried in Persian oil than make the slightest concession to the British." The British considered an armed invasion, but UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill decided on a coup after being refused American military support by U.S. President Harry S. Truman, who sympathized with nationalist movements like Mosaddegh's and had nothing but contempt for old-style imperialists like those who ran the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Mosaddegh, however, learned of Churchill's plans and ordered the British embassy to be closed in October 1952, forcing all British diplomats and agents to leave the country.

Although the British were initially turned down in their request for American support by President Truman, the election of Dwight D. Eisenhower as U.S. president in November 1952 changed the American stance toward the conflict. On 20 January 1953, U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother, C.I.A. Director Allen Dulles, told their British counterparts that they were ready to move against Mosaddegh. In their eyes, any country not decisively allied with the United States was a potential enemy. Iran had immense oil wealth, a long border with the Soviet Union, and a nationalist prime minister. The prospect of a fall into communism and a "second China" (after Mao Zedong won the Chinese Civil War) terrified the Dulles brothers. Operation Ajax was born, in which the only democratic government Iran ever had was deposed.[52]

Iranian coup d'état (1953)
Main article: 1953 Iranian coup d'état
In 1941, Reza Shah was deposed, and his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was installed by an invasion of allied British and Soviet troops. In 1953, foreign powers (American and British) again came to the Shah's aid. After the young Shah fled to Italy, the British MI6 aided an American CIA operative in organizing a military coup d'état to oust the nationalist and democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh.[53]

Pahlavi maintained a close relationship with the U.S. government, as both regimes shared opposition to the expansion of the Soviet Union, Iran's powerful northern neighbor. Like his father, the Shah's government was known for its autocracy, its focus on modernization and Westernization, and for its disregard for religious[citation needed] and democratic measures in Iran's constitution. Leftist and Islamist groups attacked his government (often from outside Iran as they were suppressed within) for violating the Iranian constitution, political corruption, and the political oppression by the SAVAK secret police.
IRAQ
The modern nation-state of Iraq was created following World War I (1914–18) from the Ottoman provinces of Baghdad, Basra, and Mosul and derives its name from the Arabic term used in the premodern period to describe a region that roughly corresponded to Mesopotamia (ʿIrāq ʿArabī, “Arabian Iraq”) and modern northwestern Iran (ʿIrāq ʿAjamī, “foreign [i.e., Persian] Iraq”).
Iraq gained formal independence in 1932 but remained subject to British imperial influence during the next quarter century of turbulent monarchical rule. Political instability on an even greater scale followed the overthrow of the monarchy in 1958, but the installation of an Arab nationalist and socialist regime—the Baʿath Party—in a bloodless coup 10 years later brought new stability. With proven oil reserves second in the world only to those of Saudi Arabia, the regime was able to finance ambitious projects and development plans throughout the 1970s and to build one of the largest and best-equipped armed forces in the Arab world. The party’s leadership, however, was quickly assumed by Saddam Hussein, a flamboyant and ruthless autocrat who led the country into disastrous military adventures—the Iran-Iraq War (1980–88) and the Persian Gulf War (1990–91). These conflicts left the country isolated from the international community and financially and socially drained, but—through unprecedented coercion directed at major sections of the population, particularly the country’s disfranchised Kurdish minority and the Shiʿi majority—Saddam himself was able to maintain a firm hold on power into the 21st century. He and his regime were toppled in 2003 during the Iraq War.

Margaret Thatcher’s government was covertly supplying military equipment to Iraq as early as 1981, according to newly released government documents.

Secret files made public on Friday contain an exhaustive list of equipment from Hawk fighter jets to military air and naval bases that the government was attempting to sell Saddam Hussein’s regime.

This came despite the fact that the UK was officially neutral in the Iran-Iraq war, which begun in late 1980. Britain had also signed up to a UN Security Council resolution calling on its members to “refrain from any act which may lead to a further escalation and widening of the conflict”.

The list shows 78 different types of military equipment including Land Rovers, tank recovery vehicles, terrain-following radar and spare tank parts that were in the process of being sold. Not all the sales on the list were completed.

All the equipment on the sales list was technically “non-lethal”, although equipment such as tank parts stretched the definition.

One prime-ministerial brief recommended that the best way to avoid public condemnation but to still make money from Iraq was to sell only non-lethal equipment but to “define this narrowly”.

“Contracts worth over £150m have been concluded [with Iraq] in the last six months including one for £34m (for armoured recovery vehicles through Jordan),” writes Thomas Trenchard, a junior minister, in a secret letter to Mrs Thatcher in March 1981.

The letter also says that a meeting with Saddam Hussein “represent a significant step forward in establishing a working relationship with Iraq which …should produce both political and major commercial benefits”.

Mrs Thatcher wrote by hand at the top of the letter that she was “very pleased” by the progress being made.
AFGHANISTAN
Anglo-Afghan Wars, also called Afghan Wars, three conflicts (1839–42; 1878–80; 1919) in which Great Britain, from its base in India, sought to extend its control over neighbouring Afghanistan and to oppose Russian influence there.
UK troops invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and have only recently left.
Been in data comm since we formed the bits individually with a Morse key.

User avatar
Rwy in Sight
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 6740
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:04 pm
Location: Lost in an FIR somewhere
Gender:

Re: Migrants

#319 Post by Rwy in Sight » Sat Jul 31, 2021 4:44 am

I was talking about those issues with a liberal friend just the day before yesterday. It seems Western democracy can't operate well between the Atlantic and Indochina save some particular cases like Israel and maybe Jordan. Maybe the largest mistake of the EU/US in recent times was to encourage the Arab Spring series of uprisings given how it turned in most areas for the citizens.

For Afghanistan the disrespect of human life by the Talibans make the situation particularly difficult.

User avatar
OFSO
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 18600
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 6:39 pm
Location: Teddington UK and Roses Catalunia
Gender:
Age: 80

Re: Migrants

#320 Post by OFSO » Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:13 am

The Mediterranean is full of migrants - and the bodies of migrants - from Turkey in the east to Spain in the West and further out to the Canaries, all heading north. No solution, or no solution that the governments are sensible enough to implement.

Post Reply