ChatterBank5 mins ago
More Dosh To Do Nothing....
40 Answers
https:/
What will extra dosh do? We need ideas and action to stop the hostile invasion. We'll end up with the border farce getting new boats so they can transport them here quicker.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
TTT 20.14
20:10: "Meaning of trobbery please TTT. I think I must be one of the thick ABers. Thank you." - way above your comprehension me old china.
TTT, I'm not your old china! I'm not a Cockney born within the sound of Bow Bells, so please refrain from using that terminology when you address me. Or should I start using some West Country phrases that will leave you stumped.
Thank you.
"Meaning of trobbery please TTT.”
I’ll try to help (I’m sure Tora won’t mind – I hate to see fellow ABers at a disadvantage)
TROB = The Right On Brigade.
Trobbery = The philosophy, attitude, schemes and activities adopted by members of that brigade.
"...we should have agents crawling all over, bumping off the smugglers and slashing the boats before they get anywhere near the sea."
Indeed, Tora.
The trouble is the "global partners" (well one in particular) with whom we will be attempting to strengthen our partnerships (a task which seemingly needs 300 people) will not hear of it. There’s one very good reason for that. They cannot control who gets into their country because of the ridiculous Schengen Agreement (and their recent reintroduction of border controls is scarcely likely to influence that). So they don’t see any reason to control those people seeking to get out.
So with that in mind Mr Starmer should abandon his pretentions of “global partnerships” with people who have no interest in this country’s wellbeing. Instead he should concentrate on preventing people arriving here without leave to do so.
If bumping off the smugglers doesn't work, why don't we just bomb the hell out of the rubber boats as soon as they enter our waters? Once we've done that 3 or 4 times, no-one will want to risk crossing and the amugglers will be out of business before you can say "BOOOOOMMMM!"
Of course there will be many deaths, but what's a little collateral damage in the great big scheme of things, eh? :-J
“Why[won’t they stop it]?”
Because they have the ability to stop it, they know it is the country’s best interests to stop it and they know it is what a large number of the electorate (probably the majority) want. They also make noises that they will stop it (so tacitly agreeing with those who want it stopped). But they won’t. What other explanation do you have?
“I want strong borders and i don't want to pay for it”
As I’ve explained, we already have virtually all that is necessary in place and paid for to protect our borders properly. There would be little more to pay for. Coupled with that, the savings (in no longer having to accommodate people who arrive without leave, currently running at £8m per day and obviously rising) would more than cover any small additional costs. We’re already paying for “strong borders” and they are not being delivered.
"...you can explain until you are blue in the face but it's quite obvious you are wrong about something."
What would that something be, then?
There's little point in making a suggestion (that the electorate wants something for nothing) if you're not prepared to enter into discussion other than saying "you're wrong". I've explained my argument, so tell me where I'm going wrong.
08:11 as I have said 1000 times the French could solve this in 5 minutes if they wanted to help themselves slightly more than they want to hinder us. If France agree we ship them straight back they'd stop even bothering to go to France, the jungle would clear in a week and the people of Calais can have their town back. Problem solved for us both. Why is that so difficult to understand? Why won't the French help us to solve their problem as well as ours?
'None of Starmer’s activity addresses the key driver of the illicit Channel traffic: the fact that people who illegally gatecrash their way into our country are rarely detained in jail-like conditions and almost never removed. Instead, the bulk are put up in hotels, given spending money, allowed to come and go as they please and thus able to work in the cash-in-hand economy. Ultimately they can expect to win formal permission to stay and unlock for themselves permanent access to the British welfare state and possibly the right to bring family members to join them. Such access for a young man could easily be worth £1 million over a lifetime – truly a golden ticket.
Yet Starmer and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper continue to peddle an approach to the issue which focuses exclusively on an alleged mission to destroy the very profitable people-moving gangs: all of them. The purported aim is to make sure there are no rubber dinghies available to take illegal migrants across the Channel (or more precisely, take migrants to the mid-point of the Channel from where UK Border Force or RNLI vessels provide a water taxi service into Dover).
Unsurprisingly the strategy has yet to bear any fruit: no gang has been smashed. The numbers crossing have accelerated upwards too since Starmer and Cooper took over and pulled the plug on the Rwanda removals policy, having connived in its frustration for the previous two years. The BBC today reports that in October alone there were more than 5,000 arrivals.'
