A friend of mine runs a sea-shanty group which raises money for the RNLI.
He mentioned to me that contributions have fallen off markedly in recent months, with potential contributors saying that they will no longer donate because lifeboats are rescuing illegal immigrants.
And I always thought that ours was a compassionate society!
A friend of mine runs a sea-shanty group which raises money for the RNLI.
He mentioned to me that contributions have fallen off markedly in recent months, with potential contributors saying that they will no longer donate because lifeboats are rescuing illegal immigrants.
And I always thought that ours was a compassionate society!
On 3 Jun 2025 at 18:51:23 BST, "Sir Tim" <[email protected]d> wrote:
A friend of mine runs a sea-shanty group which raises money for the RNLI.
He mentioned to me that contributions have fallen off markedly in recent
months, with potential contributors saying that they will no longer donate >> because lifeboats are rescuing illegal immigrants.
And I always thought that ours was a compassionate society!
You've convinced me that we decent people should contribute more to them. Perhaps regularly.
On 3 Jun 2025 at 18:51:23 BST, "Sir Tim" <[email protected]d>
wrote:
A friend of mine runs a sea-shanty group which raises money for the
RNLI. He mentioned to me that contributions have fallen off markedly in
recent months, with potential contributors saying that they will no
longer donate because lifeboats are rescuing illegal immigrants.
And I always thought that ours was a compassionate society!
You've convinced me that we decent people should contribute more to
them. Perhaps regularly.
On 03/06/2025 22:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Jun 2025 at 18:51:23 BST, "Sir Tim" <[email protected]d> wrote: >>
A friend of mine runs a sea-shanty group which raises money for the RNLI. >>> He mentioned to me that contributions have fallen off markedly in recent >>> months, with potential contributors saying that they will no longer donate >>> because lifeboats are rescuing illegal immigrants.
And I always thought that ours was a compassionate society!
You've convinced me that we decent people should contribute more to them.
Perhaps regularly.
Brexit enthusiasts are supposed to be on the side of our fishermen, our trawler fleets, the small businesses that operate fishing boats on the
coast. They are likely to be in most need of lifeboat services.
A friend of mine runs a sea-shanty group which raises money for the RNLI.
He mentioned to me that contributions have fallen off markedly in recent months, with potential contributors saying that they will no longer donate because lifeboats are rescuing illegal immigrants.
And I always thought that ours was a compassionate society!
For example, RNLI are tasked by HM Coastguard to carry out rescues in
the Channel with only around 1% of RNLI launches relating to rescues in
the Channel and no other rescues have been declined due to a crew being >tasked to a Channel crossing incident.
On 03/06/2025 18:51, Sir Tim wrote:
A friend of mine runs a sea-shanty group which raises money for the RNLI.
He mentioned to me that contributions have fallen off markedly in recent
months, with potential contributors saying that they will no longer
donate
because lifeboats are rescuing illegal immigrants.
And I always thought that ours was a compassionate society!
Sadly, this is such a problem for the RNLI that they have felt it
necessary to produce a FAQ on the subject. :-(
https://rnli.org/footer/faqs/our-work-in-the-channel-faqs
From said FAQ:
Question 3:
<quote>
What proportion of Channel rescues is the RNLI involved in compared to
other agencies such as Border Force?
Of the 36,816 people who were recorded to have crossed the Channel in
small boats during 2024, 1,371 people were rescued by the RNLI. This
equates to 3.7% of the total number of people,
with the rest being aided by other agencies such as Border Force.
<end quote>
Proportionally, the lifeboats aren't even rescuing that many as question
2 shows that only 1.2% of RNLI launches relate to suspected Channel crossings.
If anyone thinking of contributing to the RNLI is concerned about the
RNLI's activity relating to Channel crossings, it would seem fair to
deduct 1.2% from their proposed donation. Better to reduce a £10
donation to £9.88 than donate nothing at all.
Sir Tim wrote:
A friend of mine runs a sea-shanty group which raises money for the RNLI.Interesting. Which part of the country is this?
He mentioned to me that contributions have fallen off markedly in recent
months, with potential contributors saying that they will no longer donate >> because lifeboats are rescuing illegal immigrants.
And I always thought that ours was a compassionate society!
On 03/06/2025 19:31, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/06/2025 18:51, Sir Tim wrote:
A friend of mine runs a sea-shanty group which raises money for the
RNLI.
He mentioned to me that contributions have fallen off markedly in recent >>> months, with potential contributors saying that they will no longer
donate because lifeboats are rescuing illegal immigrants.
And I always thought that ours was a compassionate society!
I always thought the RNLI existed to rescue those in imminent risk of
drowning through misfortune, not to run a ferry service.
Not for the first time, and almost certainly not for the last, you are mistaken.
From the very first question on the RNLI FAQ on Channel crossings [^1]:
<quote>
Why is the RNLI involved?
Our crews are tasked and coordinated in the UK by HM Coastguard to
assist anyone who is in trouble on the water and will go to the aid of
those crossing one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes in small, overcrowded and unseaworthy boats. This is an extremely demanding search
and rescue environment in which our volunteer crews are often confronted
with highly challenging rescue scenarios, involving large numbers of distressed men, women and children in the water. We are incredibly proud
of our crews who continue to respond selflessly to their pagers, day or night, simply to help others. They have responded with continued
dedication and commitment. We are a voluntary lifesaving rescue service,
and will rescue anyone in trouble at sea, as the RNLI has been doing for
more than 200 years, without judgement or preference.
<end quote>
Note: RNLI is "...tasked and coordinated... by HM Coastguard to assist *anyone* who is *in trouble* on the water... without judgement or preference." (emphasis mine)
Compassion has its limits, especially as regards those who knowingly
and illegally self-inflict their predicaments.
I recommend reading the whole of the FAQ, you will almost certainly
learn something.
For example, RNLI are tasked by HM Coastguard to carry out rescues in
the Channel with only around 1% of RNLI launches relating to rescues in
the Channel and no other rescues have been declined due to a crew being tasked to a Channel crossing incident.
Regards
S.P.
[^1] https://rnli.org/footer/faqs/our-work-in-the-channel-faqs
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:03:58 +0100, Simon Parker <[email protected]> wrote:
For example, RNLI are tasked by HM Coastguard to carry out rescues in
the Channel with only around 1% of RNLI launches relating to rescues in
the Channel and no other rescues have been declined due to a crew being
tasked to a Channel crossing incident.
That final statement is, apparently, not entirely accurate. See these recent media reports:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/coastguard-resources-stretched-thin-by-migrant-rescues-as-fishing-boats-urged-to/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/f-b2761353.html
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/c-fznwgmmr3
FWIW, I entirely agree that the role of the RNLI is to assist anyone in need of their help, and it would be utterly, utterly appalling if anyone were to suggest that they should pick and choose who to rescue based on a political opinion.
But, nonetheless, the reality that their resources are being
stretched thin by the number of unseaworthy or overloaded small boats being used to evade immigration checks is deeply concerning. It's not "anti-migrant" to recognise that the people-traffickers are playing fast and loose with people's lives, not only those of their own clients but those of other mariners. The methods of doing so may be the subject of deep disagreement, but the principle of preventing the small boat crossings is
one shared by anyone with concern for human life.
The question that should be answered because it is far more relevant is how many
others, apart from those 1,371, were 'rescued' by the RNLI in the same period in the
same or equivalent way, which I assume means 'taken on board and transported to a UK
port' (though that again is sadly undefined), so that we can work out 'What proportion
of RNLI 'rescues' illegal immigrants in small boats represent? I think it could be a
rather large percentage and certainly far, far higher than the meaningless 3.7% they
present which they expect us to swallow whole. As some clearly do.
FWIW, I entirely agree that the role of the RNLI is to assist anyone in >>need
of their help, and it would be utterly, utterly appalling if anyone were
to
suggest that they should pick and choose who to rescue based on a
political
opinion.
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are self-inflicted. >It's a morality question. Should you always bend over backwards to help
even those who deliberately, even perversely, do risky, dangerous things >because they think you will pick up the pieces? Has there never been a
time in your own life where you've thought to yourself 'stuff you, if
you're going to behave like that, don't come crying to me'?
If we want to discourage illegal migration across the Channel in small
boats, do you not think withdrawal of the RNLI ferry service would be a >disincentive to setting off?
"Norman Wells" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
The question that should be answered because it is far more relevant is how many
others, apart from those 1,371, were 'rescued' by the RNLI in the same period in the
same or equivalent way, which I assume means 'taken on board and transported to a UK
port' (though that again is sadly undefined), so that we can work out 'What proportion
of RNLI 'rescues' illegal immigrants in small boats represent? I think it could be a
rather large percentage and certainly far, far higher than the meaningless 3.7% they
present which they expect us to swallow whole. As some clearly do.
So have you actually tried, asking for your money back ?
On 04/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Norman Wells wrote:
FWIW, I entirely agree that the role of the RNLI is to assist anyone
in need
of their help, and it would be utterly, utterly appalling if anyone
were to
suggest that they should pick and choose who to rescue based on a
political
opinion.
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are self-
inflicted. It's a morality question. Should you always bend over
backwards to help even those who deliberately, even perversely, do
risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the
pieces? Has there never been a time in your own life where you've
thought to yourself 'stuff you, if you're going to behave like that,
don't come crying to me'?
There is an international obligation to rescue those in danger at sea
and no mariner will ignore it. I have no idea if it is written/law/
tradition but nothing will stop mariners going to the assistance of
other mariners.
If we want to discourage illegal migration across the Channel in small
boats, do you not think withdrawal of the RNLI ferry service would be
a disincentive to setting off?
It is not going to happen. We need to look at what these people are
given (which I find really confusing) and set some sort of qualifying conditions. We also need to replace the ECHR with something more modern
to reflect modern conditions.
On 04/06/2025 16:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 04/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Norman
Wells wrote:
FWIW, I entirely agree that the role of the RNLI is to assist anyone
in need
of their help, and it would be utterly, utterly appalling if anyone
were to
suggest that they should pick and choose who to rescue based on a
political
opinion.
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are self-
inflicted. It's a morality question. Should you always bend over
backwards to help even those who deliberately, even perversely, do
risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the
pieces? Has there never been a time in your own life where you've
thought to yourself 'stuff you, if you're going to behave like that,
don't come crying to me'?
There is an international obligation to rescue those in danger at sea
and no mariner will ignore it. I have no idea if it is written/law/
tradition but nothing will stop mariners going to the assistance of
other mariners.
If we want to discourage illegal migration across the Channel in
small boats, do you not think withdrawal of the RNLI ferry service
would be a disincentive to setting off?
It is not going to happen. We need to look at what these people are
given (which I find really confusing) and set some sort of qualifying
conditions. We also need to replace the ECHR with something more
modern to reflect modern conditions.
The people who are rescued at sea and brought to England do not get some
sort of automatic right to live and work here. They don't jump to the
head of the housing queue. Maybe it would reassure certain people if we
could see just what miserable conditions there are in the various
detention centres.
On 04/06/2025 13:02, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:03:58 +0100, Simon Parker
<[email protected]>
wrote:
For example, RNLI are tasked by HM Coastguard to carry out rescues in
the Channel with only around 1% of RNLI launches relating to rescues in
the Channel and no other rescues have been declined due to a crew being
tasked to a Channel crossing incident.
That final statement is, apparently, not entirely accurate. See these
recent
media reports:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/coastguard-resources-stretched-thin-by-
migrant-rescues-as-fishing-boats-urged-to/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/f-b2761353.html
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/c-fznwgmmr3
FWIW, I entirely agree that the role of the RNLI is to assist anyone
in need
of their help, and it would be utterly, utterly appalling if anyone
were to
suggest that they should pick and choose who to rescue based on a
political
opinion.
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are self-
inflicted.
backwards to help even those who deliberately, even perversely, do
risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the pieces?
Has there never been a time in your own life where you've thought to
yourself 'stuff you, if you're going to behave like that, don't come
crying to me'?
If we want to discourage illegal migration across the Channel in small
boats, do you not think withdrawal of the RNLI ferry service would be a disincentive to setting off?
But, nonetheless, the reality that their resources are being
stretched thin by the number of unseaworthy or overloaded small boats
being
used to evade immigration checks is deeply concerning. It's not
"anti-migrant" to recognise that the people-traffickers are playing
fast and
loose with people's lives, not only those of their own clients but
those of
other mariners. The methods of doing so may be the subject of deep
disagreement, but the principle of preventing the small boat crossings is
one shared by anyone with concern for human life.
Everyone appreciates that. No-one knows how.
But the migrants, frankly, need to have rather greater disincentives
than they currently do.
On 04/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Norman Wells wrote:
FWIW, I entirely agree that the role of the RNLI is to assist anyone
in need
of their help, and it would be utterly, utterly appalling if anyone
were to
suggest that they should pick and choose who to rescue based on a
political
opinion.
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are self-
inflicted. It's a morality question. Should you always bend over
backwards to help even those who deliberately, even perversely, do
risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the
pieces? Has there never been a time in your own life where you've
thought to yourself 'stuff you, if you're going to behave like that,
don't come crying to me'?
There is an international obligation to rescue those in danger at sea
and no mariner will ignore it. I have no idea if it is written/law/
tradition but nothing will stop mariners going to the assistance of
other mariners.
If we want to discourage illegal migration across the Channel in small
boats, do you not think withdrawal of the RNLI ferry service would be
a disincentive to setting off?
It is not going to happen.
We need to look at what these people are
given (which I find really confusing) and set some sort of qualifying conditions.
On 04/06/2025 16:26, The Todal wrote:
The people who are rescued at sea and brought to England do not get
some sort of automatic right to live and work here. They don't jump to
the head of the housing queue. Maybe it would reassure certain people
if we could see just what miserable conditions there are in the
various detention centres.
Makes you wonder why they come then, and in such numbers. But they do.
On 04/06/2025 16:28, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 16:26, The Todal wrote:
The people who are rescued at sea and brought to England do not get
some sort of automatic right to live and work here. They don't jump
to the head of the housing queue. Maybe it would reassure certain
people if we could see just what miserable conditions there are in
the various detention centres.
Makes you wonder why they come then, and in such numbers. But they do.
I'm delighted to see that you, at long last, are now beginning to wonder
why people want to come to the UK from other countries.
I've met quite a few people who are in hostels waiting months or years
for the Home Office to give a decision on their refugee status and right
to remain in the UK. And some are suicidal (and I think I hear your
inner Scrooge saying if they want to die, let them die).
The usual scenario is that they have been tortured and/or threatened
with imprisonment without trial or death, by the unscrupulous police and security services in Syria, Afghanistan, Iran etc.
On 04/06/2025 14:25, Norman Wells wrote:
It's a morality question. Should you always bend over
backwards to help even those who deliberately, even perversely, do
risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the
pieces? Has there never been a time in your own life where you've
thought to yourself 'stuff you, if you're going to behave like that,
don't come crying to me'?
No, but do tell. Do your children still speak to you?
If we want to discourage illegal migration across the Channel in small
boats, do you not think withdrawal of the RNLI ferry service would be
a disincentive to setting off?
Why call it a ferry service when obviously it isn't a ferry service?
Maybe you would call an ambulance a form of taxi service. For those who expect a free ride and can't be bothered to pay their way.
But, nonetheless, the reality that their resources are being
stretched thin by the number of unseaworthy or overloaded small boats
being used to evade immigration checks is deeply concerning. It's not
"anti-migrant" to recognise that the people-traffickers are playing
fast and loose with people's lives, not only those of their own clients
but those of other mariners. The methods of doing so may be the subject
of deep disagreement, but the principle of preventing the small boat
crossings is one shared by anyone with concern for human life.
Everyone appreciates that. No-one knows how.
But the migrants, frankly, need to have rather greater disincentives
than they currently do.
The best disincentive would be an easy, accessible means of applying for refugee status in the UK if you happen to be in any other country. Maybe
at the British Embassy or similar.
On 04/06/2025 04:42 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 16:28, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 16:26, The Todal wrote:
The people who are rescued at sea and brought to England do not get
some sort of automatic right to live and work here. They don't jump
to the head of the housing queue. Maybe it would reassure certain
people if we could see just what miserable conditions there are in
the various detention centres.
Makes you wonder why they come then, and in such numbers. But they do.
I'm delighted to see that you, at long last, are now beginning to wonder
why people want to come to the UK from other countries.
I've met quite a few people who are in hostels waiting months or years
for the Home Office to give a decision on their refugee status and right
to remain in the UK. And some are suicidal (and I think I hear your
inner Scrooge saying if they want to die, let them die).
The usual scenario is that they have been tortured and/or threatened
with imprisonment without trial or death, by the unscrupulous police and
security services in Syria, Afghanistan, Iran etc.
The "...usual *scenario*...", you say?
By God, the torture squads must all be working overtime and weekends,
given the numbers seeking to flee by one means or another.
Surely, you meant: "the usual *...story...*" (my emphasis, both times)?
Some of them are no doubt telling the truth.
But they can't all be. Even you will agree with that.
A friend of mine runs a sea-shanty group which raises money for the RNLI.
He mentioned to me that contributions have fallen off markedly in recent >months, with potential contributors saying that they will no longer donate >because lifeboats are rescuing illegal immigrants.
And I always thought that ours was a compassionate society!
On 04/06/2025 14:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 13:02, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:03:58 +0100, Simon Parker
<[email protected]>
wrote:
For example, RNLI are tasked by HM Coastguard to carry out rescues in
the Channel with only around 1% of RNLI launches relating to rescues in >>>> the Channel and no other rescues have been declined due to a crew being >>>> tasked to a Channel crossing incident.
That final statement is, apparently, not entirely accurate. See these
recent
media reports:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/coastguard-resources-stretched-thin-by-
migrant-rescues-as-fishing-boats-urged-to/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/f-b2761353.html
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/c-fznwgmmr3
FWIW, I entirely agree that the role of the RNLI is to assist anyone
in need
of their help, and it would be utterly, utterly appalling if anyone
were to
suggest that they should pick and choose who to rescue based on a
political
opinion.
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are self-
inflicted.
That's you. Your compassion seems to be limited.
Maybe you could give
other examples of your compassion fatigue. If an old lady crashes her
car and is trapped in the driver's seat and loses a leg and a lot of
blood, do you comfort yourself with the thought that it was her own inattention that brought it on herself, and she should have stopped
driving her car years ago?
It's a morality question. Should you always bend over
backwards to help even those who deliberately, even perversely, do
risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the
pieces? Has there never been a time in your own life where you've
thought to yourself 'stuff you, if you're going to behave like that,
don't come crying to me'?
No, but do tell.
Do your children still speak to you?
If we want to discourage illegal migration across the Channel in small
boats, do you not think withdrawal of the RNLI ferry service would be
a disincentive to setting off?
Why call it a ferry service when obviously it isn't a ferry service?
I am absolutely sure that the refugees I have met are telling the truth.
I'm not going to generalise about *all* people who come to the UK on
small boats. Some might be escaping nothing more than poverty.
On 04/06/2025 17:55, The Todal wrote:
I am absolutely sure that the refugees I have met are telling the
truth. I'm not going to generalise about *all* people who come to the
UK on small boats. Some might be escaping nothing more than poverty.
They are what we call economic migrants. Do you think we have any obligation towards them?
On 04/06/2025 16:32, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 14:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 13:02, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:03:58 +0100, Simon Parker
<[email protected]>
wrote:
For example, RNLI are tasked by HM Coastguard to carry out rescues in >>>>> the Channel with only around 1% of RNLI launches relating to rescues in >>>>> the Channel and no other rescues have been declined due to a crew being >>>>> tasked to a Channel crossing incident.
That final statement is, apparently, not entirely accurate. See these
recent
media reports:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/coastguard-resources-stretched-thin-by-
migrant-rescues-as-fishing-boats-urged-to/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/f-b2761353.html
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/c-fznwgmmr3
FWIW, I entirely agree that the role of the RNLI is to assist anyone
in need
of their help, and it would be utterly, utterly appalling if anyone
were to
suggest that they should pick and choose who to rescue based on a
political
opinion.
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are self-
inflicted.
That's you. Your compassion seems to be limited.
I don't think anyone has unlimited compassion.
Maybe you could give
other examples of your compassion fatigue. If an old lady crashes her
car and is trapped in the driver's seat and loses a leg and a lot of
blood, do you comfort yourself with the thought that it was her own
inattention that brought it on herself, and she should have stopped
driving her car years ago?
No, not the first time, because it was an accident caused by inattention
not by deliberate risk-taking. If she did it again, though, especially
if she hurt someone else, it would be deliberate and therefore probably yes.
It's a morality question. Should you always bend over
backwards to help even those who deliberately, even perversely, do
risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the
pieces? Has there never been a time in your own life where you've
thought to yourself 'stuff you, if you're going to behave like that,
don't come crying to me'?
No, but do tell.
Are you sure that's the truth, Mr T?
If so, you are Jesus and I claim my five pounds.
On 04/06/2025 19:06, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 17:55, The Todal wrote:
I am absolutely sure that the refugees I have met are telling the
truth. I'm not going to generalise about *all* people who come to the
UK on small boats. Some might be escaping nothing more than poverty.
They are what we call economic migrants. Do you think we have any
obligation towards them?
Why the obsession with people who cross the channel in boats (formerly,
in lorries) when they represent a very tiny proportion of migrants to
the UK?
The only good reason to stop the boats is out of compassion to those who
risk their lives on boats. You won't cure our housing shortage or
shortage of GP places or shortage of school places by stopping the boats.
If there are economic migrants who can contribute usefully to our
economy then I hope they can stay, but that decision is not mine or
yours. If you want to know if we have any "obligation" to them, I think
you'd need to do the research yourself.
No mail <[email protected]> wrote:
Sir Tim wrote:
A friend of mine runs a sea-shanty group which raises money for the RNLI. >>> He mentioned to me that contributions have fallen off markedly in recent >>> months, with potential contributors saying that they will no longer donate >>> because lifeboats are rescuing illegal immigrants.
And I always thought that ours was a compassionate society!
Interesting. Which part of the country is this?
Mainly south west England.
On 04/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Norman Wells wrote:
FWIW, I entirely agree that the role of the RNLI is to assist anyone in
need
of their help, and it would be utterly, utterly appalling if anyone were >>> to
suggest that they should pick and choose who to rescue based on a
political
opinion.
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are self-inflicted.
It's a morality question. Should you always bend over backwards to help
even those who deliberately, even perversely, do risky, dangerous things
because they think you will pick up the pieces? Has there never been a
time in your own life where you've thought to yourself 'stuff you, if
you're going to behave like that, don't come crying to me'?
There is an international obligation to rescue those in danger at sea and
no mariner will ignore it. I have no idea if it is written/law/tradition
but nothing will stop mariners going to the assistance of other mariners.
If we want to discourage illegal migration across the Channel in small
boats, do you not think withdrawal of the RNLI ferry service would be a
disincentive to setting off?
It is not going to happen. We need to look at what these people are given (which I find really confusing) and set some sort of qualifying
conditions. We also need to replace the ECHR with something more modern to reflect modern conditions.
On 4 Jun 2025 at 19:03:56 BST, "Norman Wells" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 04/06/2025 16:32, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 14:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 13:02, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:03:58 +0100, Simon Parker
<[email protected]>
wrote:
For example, RNLI are tasked by HM Coastguard to carry out rescues in >>>>>> the Channel with only around 1% of RNLI launches relating to rescues in >>>>>> the Channel and no other rescues have been declined due to a crew being >>>>>> tasked to a Channel crossing incident.
That final statement is, apparently, not entirely accurate. See these >>>>> recent
media reports:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/coastguard-resources-stretched-thin-by- >>>>> migrant-rescues-as-fishing-boats-urged-to/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/f-b2761353.html
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/c-fznwgmmr3
FWIW, I entirely agree that the role of the RNLI is to assist anyone >>>>> in need
of their help, and it would be utterly, utterly appalling if anyone
were to
suggest that they should pick and choose who to rescue based on a
political
opinion.
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are self-
inflicted.
That's you. Your compassion seems to be limited.
I don't think anyone has unlimited compassion.
Maybe you could give
other examples of your compassion fatigue. If an old lady crashes her
car and is trapped in the driver's seat and loses a leg and a lot of
blood, do you comfort yourself with the thought that it was her own
inattention that brought it on herself, and she should have stopped
driving her car years ago?
No, not the first time, because it was an accident caused by inattention
not by deliberate risk-taking. If she did it again, though, especially
if she hurt someone else, it would be deliberate and therefore probably yes. >>
It's a morality question. Should you always bend over
backwards to help even those who deliberately, even perversely, do
risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the
pieces? Has there never been a time in your own life where you've
thought to yourself 'stuff you, if you're going to behave like that,
don't come crying to me'?
No, but do tell.
Are you sure that's the truth, Mr T?
If so, you are Jesus and I claim my five pounds.
I've never felt that either; are you sure you are not simply more intolerant than most people?
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are
self-inflicted. It's a morality question. Should you always bend over backwards to help even those who deliberately, even perversely, do
risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the pieces?
On 04/06/2025 14:25, Norman Wells wrote:
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are
self-inflicted. It's a morality question. Should you always bend over
backwards to help even those who deliberately, even perversely, do
risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the pieces?
I suggest you watch a few episodes of "Saving lives at sea" on BBC
iPlayer. It beggars belief the number of morons who set out on small
boats unprepared, or when on foot pay no attention when they're told
they'll be stranded on an ever-decreasing piece of dry land when the
tide comes in if they don't leave when they should. The RNLI are always
there to pick up the pieces - often at extreme danger to themselves.
On 04/06/2025 20:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 Jun 2025 at 19:03:56 BST, "Norman Wells" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 04/06/2025 16:32, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 14:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 13:02, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:03:58 +0100, Simon Parker
<[email protected]>
wrote:
For example, RNLI are tasked by HM Coastguard to carry out
rescues in
the Channel with only around 1% of RNLI launches relating to
rescues in
the Channel and no other rescues have been declined due to a crew >>>>>>> being
tasked to a Channel crossing incident.
That final statement is, apparently, not entirely accurate. See these >>>>>> recent
media reports:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/coastguard-resources-stretched-thin-by- >>>>>> migrant-rescues-as-fishing-boats-urged-to/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/f-b2761353.html
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/c-fznwgmmr3
FWIW, I entirely agree that the role of the RNLI is to assist anyone >>>>>> in need
of their help, and it would be utterly, utterly appalling if anyone >>>>>> were to
suggest that they should pick and choose who to rescue based on a
political
opinion.
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are self-
inflicted.
That's you. Your compassion seems to be limited.
I don't think anyone has unlimited compassion.
Maybe you could give
other examples of your compassion fatigue. If an old lady crashes her
car and is trapped in the driver's seat and loses a leg and a lot of
blood, do you comfort yourself with the thought that it was her own
inattention that brought it on herself, and she should have stopped
driving her car years ago?
No, not the first time, because it was an accident caused by inattention >>> not by deliberate risk-taking. If she did it again, though, especially
if she hurt someone else, it would be deliberate and therefore
probably yes.
It's a morality question. Should you always bend over
backwards to help even those who deliberately, even perversely, do
risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the
pieces? Has there never been a time in your own life where you've
thought to yourself 'stuff you, if you're going to behave like that, >>>>> don't come crying to me'?
No, but do tell.
Are you sure that's the truth, Mr T?
If so, you are Jesus and I claim my five pounds.
I've never felt that either; are you sure you are not simply more
intolerant
than most people?
It's only a matter of where you draw the line. Are you telling me that you'd be compassionate towards someone who, for example, raped your
daughter or murdered your wife? Or wouldn't feel some schadenfreude if
a motorcyclist dangerously cuts you up at 100 mph then crashes into a tree?
On 04/06/2025 21:32, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 20:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 Jun 2025 at 19:03:56 BST, "Norman Wells" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 04/06/2025 16:32, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 14:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 13:02, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:03:58 +0100, Simon Parker
<[email protected]>
wrote:
For example, RNLI are tasked by HM Coastguard to carry out
rescues in
the Channel with only around 1% of RNLI launches relating to
rescues in
the Channel and no other rescues have been declined due to a
crew being
tasked to a Channel crossing incident.
That final statement is, apparently, not entirely accurate. See
these
recent
media reports:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/coastguard-resources-stretched-thin-by- >>>>>>>
migrant-rescues-as-fishing-boats-urged-to/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/f-b2761353.html
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/c-fznwgmmr3
FWIW, I entirely agree that the role of the RNLI is to assist anyone >>>>>>> in need
of their help, and it would be utterly, utterly appalling if anyone >>>>>>> were to
suggest that they should pick and choose who to rescue based on a >>>>>>> political
opinion.
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are self-
inflicted.
That's you. Your compassion seems to be limited.
I don't think anyone has unlimited compassion.
Maybe you could give
other examples of your compassion fatigue. If an old lady crashes her >>>>> car and is trapped in the driver's seat and loses a leg and a lot of >>>>> blood, do you comfort yourself with the thought that it was her own
inattention that brought it on herself, and she should have stopped
driving her car years ago?
No, not the first time, because it was an accident caused by
inattention
not by deliberate risk-taking. If she did it again, though, especially >>>> if she hurt someone else, it would be deliberate and therefore
probably yes.
It's a morality question. Should you always bend over
backwards to help even those who deliberately, even perversely, do >>>>>> risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the
pieces? Has there never been a time in your own life where you've
thought to yourself 'stuff you, if you're going to behave like that, >>>>>> don't come crying to me'?
No, but do tell.
Are you sure that's the truth, Mr T?
If so, you are Jesus and I claim my five pounds.
I've never felt that either; are you sure you are not simply more
intolerant
than most people?
It's only a matter of where you draw the line. Are you telling me
that you'd be compassionate towards someone who, for example, raped
your daughter or murdered your wife? Or wouldn't feel some
schadenfreude if a motorcyclist dangerously cuts you up at 100 mph
then crashes into a tree?
If someone murdered your wife, you'd say "stuff you, if you're going to behave like that, don't come crying to me"?
On 04/06/2025 11:24 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 21:32, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 20:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 Jun 2025 at 19:03:56 BST, "Norman Wells" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>
On 04/06/2025 16:32, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 14:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 13:02, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:03:58 +0100, Simon Parker
<[email protected]>
wrote:
For example, RNLI are tasked by HM Coastguard to carry out
rescues in
the Channel with only around 1% of RNLI launches relating to >>>>>>>>> rescues in
the Channel and no other rescues have been declined due to a >>>>>>>>> crew being
tasked to a Channel crossing incident.
That final statement is, apparently, not entirely accurate. See >>>>>>>> these
recent
media reports:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/coastguard-resources-stretched-
thin-by-
migrant-rescues-as-fishing-boats-urged-to/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/f-b2761353.html >>>>>>>>
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/c-fznwgmmr3
FWIW, I entirely agree that the role of the RNLI is to assist
anyone
in need
of their help, and it would be utterly, utterly appalling if anyone >>>>>>>> were to
suggest that they should pick and choose who to rescue based on a >>>>>>>> political
opinion.
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are self-
inflicted.
That's you. Your compassion seems to be limited.
I don't think anyone has unlimited compassion.
Maybe you could give
other examples of your compassion fatigue. If an old lady crashes her >>>>>> car and is trapped in the driver's seat and loses a leg and a lot of >>>>>> blood, do you comfort yourself with the thought that it was her own >>>>>> inattention that brought it on herself, and she should have stopped >>>>>> driving her car years ago?
No, not the first time, because it was an accident caused by
inattention
not by deliberate risk-taking. If she did it again, though, especially >>>>> if she hurt someone else, it would be deliberate and therefore
probably yes.
It's a morality question. Should you always bend over
backwards to help even those who deliberately, even perversely, do >>>>>>> risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the
pieces? Has there never been a time in your own life where you've >>>>>>> thought to yourself 'stuff you, if you're going to behave like that, >>>>>>> don't come crying to me'?
No, but do tell.
Are you sure that's the truth, Mr T?
If so, you are Jesus and I claim my five pounds.
I've never felt that either; are you sure you are not simply more
intolerant
than most people?
It's only a matter of where you draw the line. Are you telling me
that you'd be compassionate towards someone who, for example, raped
your daughter or murdered your wife? Or wouldn't feel some
schadenfreude if a motorcyclist dangerously cuts you up at 100 mph
then crashes into a tree?
If someone murdered your wife, you'd say "stuff you, if you're going to
behave like that, don't come crying to me"?
In what possible way is that contrived question relevant to the subject
being discussed?
There is an international obligation to rescue those in danger at sea and >>no mariner will ignore it. I have no idea if it is written/law/tradition >>but nothing will stop mariners going to the assistance of other mariners.
Ah! So that’s why the French escort the small boats as far as the >demarcation line, and hand them over to the Brits.
Presumably the French concept of duty of care is also something to do with >the French police standing idly by while the boats load up and set course
for the UK.
What a farce.
On 04/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Spike wrote:
There is an international obligation to rescue those in danger at sea and >>> no mariner will ignore it. I have no idea if it is written/law/tradition >>> but nothing will stop mariners going to the assistance of other mariners. >>Ah! So that’s why the French escort the small boats as far as the
demarcation line, and hand them over to the Brits.
Presumably the French concept of duty of care is also something to do with >> the French police standing idly by while the boats load up and set course
for the UK.
What a farce.
I agree it's a farce but they are not in danger at that point.
On 04/06/2025 21:32, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 20:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 Jun 2025 at 19:03:56 BST, "Norman Wells" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 04/06/2025 16:32, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 14:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 13:02, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:03:58 +0100, Simon Parker
<[email protected]>
wrote:
For example, RNLI are tasked by HM Coastguard to carry out
rescues in
the Channel with only around 1% of RNLI launches relating to
rescues in
the Channel and no other rescues have been declined due to a
crew being
tasked to a Channel crossing incident.
That final statement is, apparently, not entirely accurate. See
these
recent
media reports:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/coastguard-resources-stretched-
thin-by-
migrant-rescues-as-fishing-boats-urged-to/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/f-b2761353.html
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/c-fznwgmmr3
FWIW, I entirely agree that the role of the RNLI is to assist anyone >>>>>>> in need
of their help, and it would be utterly, utterly appalling if anyone >>>>>>> were to
suggest that they should pick and choose who to rescue based on a >>>>>>> political
opinion.
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are self-
inflicted.
That's you. Your compassion seems to be limited.
I don't think anyone has unlimited compassion.
Maybe you could give
other examples of your compassion fatigue. If an old lady crashes her >>>>> car and is trapped in the driver's seat and loses a leg and a lot of >>>>> blood, do you comfort yourself with the thought that it was her own
inattention that brought it on herself, and she should have stopped
driving her car years ago?
No, not the first time, because it was an accident caused by
inattention
not by deliberate risk-taking. If she did it again, though, especially >>>> if she hurt someone else, it would be deliberate and therefore
probably yes.
It's a morality question. Should you always bend over
backwards to help even those who deliberately, even perversely, do >>>>>> risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the
pieces? Has there never been a time in your own life where you've
thought to yourself 'stuff you, if you're going to behave like that, >>>>>> don't come crying to me'?
No, but do tell.
Are you sure that's the truth, Mr T?
If so, you are Jesus and I claim my five pounds.
I've never felt that either; are you sure you are not simply more
intolerant
than most people?
It's only a matter of where you draw the line. Are you telling me
that you'd be compassionate towards someone who, for example, raped
your daughter or murdered your wife? Or wouldn't feel some
schadenfreude if a motorcyclist dangerously cuts you up at 100 mph
then crashes into a tree?
If someone murdered your wife, you'd say "stuff you, if you're going to behave like that, don't come crying to me"?
On 04/06/2025 22:43, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 14:25, Norman Wells wrote:
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are
self-inflicted. It's a morality question. Should you always bend over >>> backwards to help even those who deliberately, even perversely, do
risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the pieces?
I suggest you watch a few episodes of "Saving lives at sea" on BBC
iPlayer. It beggars belief the number of morons who set out on small
boats unprepared, or when on foot pay no attention when they're told
they'll be stranded on an ever-decreasing piece of dry land when the
tide comes in if they don't leave when they should. The RNLI are always
there to pick up the pieces - often at extreme danger to themselves.
And there are of course competent sailors who have the bad luck to be on
a boat when the engine has failed and the weather has turned bad.
On 04/06/2025 14:25, Norman Wells wrote:
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are
self-inflicted. It's a morality question. Should you always bend over
backwards to help even those who deliberately, even perversely, do
risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the pieces?
I suggest you watch a few episodes of "Saving lives at sea" on BBC
iPlayer. It beggars belief the number of morons who set out on small
boats unprepared, or when on foot pay no attention when they're told
they'll be stranded on an ever-decreasing piece of dry land when the
tide comes in if they don't leave when they should. The RNLI are always
there to pick up the pieces - often at extreme danger to themselves.
On 04/06/2025 22:43, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 14:25, Norman Wells wrote:
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are
self-inflicted. It's a morality question. Should you always bend over >>> backwards to help even those who deliberately, even perversely, do
risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the pieces?
I suggest you watch a few episodes of "Saving lives at sea" on BBC
iPlayer. It beggars belief the number of morons who set out on small
boats unprepared, or when on foot pay no attention when they're told
they'll be stranded on an ever-decreasing piece of dry land when the
tide comes in if they don't leave when they should. The RNLI are
always there to pick up the pieces - often at extreme danger to
themselves.
And there are of course competent sailors who have the bad luck to be on
a boat when the engine has failed and the weather has turned bad.
On 04/06/2025 23:25, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 22:43, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 14:25, Norman Wells wrote:
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties areI suggest you watch a few episodes of "Saving lives at sea" on BBC
self-inflicted. It's a morality question. Should you always bend over >>>> backwards to help even those who deliberately, even perversely, do
risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the pieces? >>>
iPlayer. It beggars belief the number of morons who set out on small
boats unprepared, or when on foot pay no attention when they're told
they'll be stranded on an ever-decreasing piece of dry land when the
tide comes in if they don't leave when they should. The RNLI are always
there to pick up the pieces - often at extreme danger to themselves.
And there are of course competent sailors who have the bad luck to be on
a boat when the engine has failed and the weather has turned bad.
Indeed, but Norman was referring to "self-inflicted" difficulties. The
RNLI will be called out to deal with either, but I do wonder if those
with "self-inflicted difficulties" are being denied a possible Darwin
Award!
Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 04/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Spike wrote:
There is an international obligation to rescue those in danger at sea and >>>> no mariner will ignore it. I have no idea if it is written/law/tradition >>>> but nothing will stop mariners going to the assistance of other mariners. >>>Ah! So that’s why the French escort the small boats as far as the
demarcation line, and hand them over to the Brits.
Presumably the French concept of duty of care is also something to do with >>> the French police standing idly by while the boats load up and set course >>> for the UK.
What a farce.
I agree it's a farce but they are not in danger at that point.
I’m not sure that that is correct. There have been instances of people dying in the scramble to get on the boats, including children, and also
when not far out to sea when boats have taken on water or the engine
failed. For all we know, it could be that more economic migrants die in French waters than British, raising concerns about the duty of care being shown by the French.
On 04/06/2025 23:25, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 22:43, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 14:25, Norman Wells wrote:
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are
self-inflicted. It's a morality question. Should you always bend
over backwards to help even those who deliberately, even perversely,
do risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the
pieces?
I suggest you watch a few episodes of "Saving lives at sea" on BBC
iPlayer. It beggars belief the number of morons who set out on small
boats unprepared, or when on foot pay no attention when they're told
they'll be stranded on an ever-decreasing piece of dry land when the
tide comes in if they don't leave when they should. The RNLI are
always there to pick up the pieces - often at extreme danger to
themselves.
And there are of course competent sailors who have the bad luck to be
on a boat when the engine has failed and the weather has turned bad.
Indeed, but Norman was referring to "self-inflicted" difficulties. The
RNLI will be called out to deal with either, but I do wonder if those
with "self-inflicted difficulties" are being denied a possible Darwin
Award!
On 04/06/2025 19:06, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 17:55, The Todal wrote:
I am absolutely sure that the refugees I have met are telling the
truth. I'm not going to generalise about *all* people who come to the
UK on small boats. Some might be escaping nothing more than poverty.
They are what we call economic migrants. Do you think we have any
obligation towards them?
Why the obsession with people who cross the channel in boats (formerly,
in lorries) when they represent a very tiny proportion of migrants to
the UK?
The only good reason to stop the boats is out of compassion to those who
risk their lives on boats. You won't cure our housing shortage or
shortage of GP places or shortage of school places by stopping the boats.
If there are economic migrants who can contribute usefully to our
economy then I hope they can stay, but that decision is not mine or
yours. If you want to know if we have any "obligation" to them, I think
you'd need to do the research yourself.
On 04/06/2025 20:17, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 19:06, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 17:55, The Todal wrote:
I am absolutely sure that the refugees I have met are telling the
truth. I'm not going to generalise about *all* people who come to
the UK on small boats. Some might be escaping nothing more than
poverty.
They are what we call economic migrants. Do you think we have any
obligation towards them?
Why the obsession with people who cross the channel in boats
(formerly, in lorries) when they represent a very tiny proportion of
migrants to the UK?
The only good reason to stop the boats is out of compassion to those
who risk their lives on boats. You won't cure our housing shortage or
shortage of GP places or shortage of school places by stopping the boats.
If there are economic migrants who can contribute usefully to our
economy then I hope they can stay, but that decision is not mine or
yours. If you want to know if we have any "obligation" to them, I
think you'd need to do the research yourself.
I don't know how much we spend on hotels for migrants, but it's said to
be a lot. Clearly (nearly all of) these are illegal/undocumented/
irregular migrants (delete as applicable), not ones who have arranged to
come in a legitimate manner according to the rules.
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 09:11:06 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 23:25, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 22:43, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 14:25, Norman Wells wrote:
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are
self-inflicted. It's a morality question. Should you always bend >>>>> over backwards to help even those who deliberately, even perversely, >>>>> do risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the
pieces?
I suggest you watch a few episodes of "Saving lives at sea" on BBC
iPlayer. It beggars belief the number of morons who set out on small
boats unprepared, or when on foot pay no attention when they're told
they'll be stranded on an ever-decreasing piece of dry land when the
tide comes in if they don't leave when they should. The RNLI are
always there to pick up the pieces - often at extreme danger to
themselves.
And there are of course competent sailors who have the bad luck to be
on a boat when the engine has failed and the weather has turned bad.
Indeed, but Norman was referring to "self-inflicted" difficulties. The
RNLI will be called out to deal with either, but I do wonder if those
with "self-inflicted difficulties" are being denied a possible Darwin
Award!
Maybe ambulances could take a similar approach and refuse to attend
people whose injuries are self inflicted ?
On 05/06/2025 12:11, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 09:11:06 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 23:25, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 22:43, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 14:25, Norman Wells wrote:
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are
self-inflicted. It's a morality question. Should you always bend >>>>>> over backwards to help even those who deliberately, even perversely, >>>>>> do risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the >>>>>> pieces?
I suggest you watch a few episodes of "Saving lives at sea" on BBC
iPlayer. It beggars belief the number of morons who set out on small >>>>> boats unprepared, or when on foot pay no attention when they're told >>>>> they'll be stranded on an ever-decreasing piece of dry land when the >>>>> tide comes in if they don't leave when they should. The RNLI are
always there to pick up the pieces - often at extreme danger to
themselves.
And there are of course competent sailors who have the bad luck to be
on a boat when the engine has failed and the weather has turned bad.
Indeed, but Norman was referring to "self-inflicted" difficulties. The
RNLI will be called out to deal with either, but I do wonder if those
with "self-inflicted difficulties" are being denied a possible Darwin
Award!
Maybe ambulances could take a similar approach and refuse to attend
people whose injuries are self inflicted ?
It's a good question. What's the answer?
If you say it's common humanity, is there any reason why the general
public should have to foot the bill for self-inflicted injuries, rather
than the person concerned?
On 5 Jun 2025 at 14:06:13 BST, "Norman Wells" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 05/06/2025 12:11, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 09:11:06 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 23:25, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 22:43, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 14:25, Norman Wells wrote:
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are
self-inflicted. It's a morality question. Should you always bend >>>>>>> over backwards to help even those who deliberately, even perversely, >>>>>>> do risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the >>>>>>> pieces?
I suggest you watch a few episodes of "Saving lives at sea" on BBC >>>>>> iPlayer. It beggars belief the number of morons who set out on small >>>>>> boats unprepared, or when on foot pay no attention when they're told >>>>>> they'll be stranded on an ever-decreasing piece of dry land when the >>>>>> tide comes in if they don't leave when they should. The RNLI are
always there to pick up the pieces - often at extreme danger to
themselves.
And there are of course competent sailors who have the bad luck to be >>>>> on a boat when the engine has failed and the weather has turned bad.
Indeed, but Norman was referring to "self-inflicted" difficulties. The >>>> RNLI will be called out to deal with either, but I do wonder if those
with "self-inflicted difficulties" are being denied a possible Darwin
Award!
Maybe ambulances could take a similar approach and refuse to attend
people whose injuries are self inflicted ?
It's a good question. What's the answer?
If you say it's common humanity, is there any reason why the general
public should have to foot the bill for self-inflicted injuries, rather
than the person concerned?
What BMI limit, or alcohol intake limit (for information the answer is zero), should be set before virtually any illness counts as self-inflicted?
On 05/06/2025 12:11, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 09:11:06 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 23:25, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 22:43, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 14:25, Norman Wells wrote:And there are of course competent sailors who have the bad luck to be
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are
self-inflicted. It's a morality question. Should you always bend >>>>>> over backwards to help even those who deliberately, even
perversely,
do risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the >>>>>> pieces?
I suggest you watch a few episodes of "Saving lives at sea" on BBC
iPlayer. It beggars belief the number of morons who set out on small >>>>> boats unprepared, or when on foot pay no attention when they're told >>>>> they'll be stranded on an ever-decreasing piece of dry land when the >>>>> tide comes in if they don't leave when they should. The RNLI are
always there to pick up the pieces - often at extreme danger to
themselves.
on a boat when the engine has failed and the weather has turned bad.
Indeed, but Norman was referring to "self-inflicted" difficulties. The
RNLI will be called out to deal with either, but I do wonder if those
with "self-inflicted difficulties" are being denied a possible Darwin
Award!
Maybe ambulances could take a similar approach and refuse to attend
people whose injuries are self inflicted ?
It's a good question. What's the answer?
If you say it's common humanity, is there any reason why the general
public should have to foot the bill for self-inflicted injuries, rather
than the person concerned?
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 09:11:06 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 23:25, The Todal wrote:
And there are of course competent sailors who have the bad luck to be
on a boat when the engine has failed and the weather has turned bad.
Indeed, but Norman was referring to "self-inflicted" difficulties. The
RNLI will be called out to deal with either, but I do wonder if those
with "self-inflicted difficulties" are being denied a possible Darwin
Award!
Maybe ambulances could take a similar approach and refuse to attend
people whose injuries are self inflicted ?
A friend of mine runs a sea-shanty group which raises money for the
RNLI. He mentioned to me that contributions have fallen off markedly in recent months, with potential contributors saying that they will no
longer donate because lifeboats are rescuing illegal immigrants.
And I always thought that ours was a compassionate society!
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:03:58 +0100, Simon Parker <[email protected]> wrote:
For example, RNLI are tasked by HM Coastguard to carry out rescues in
the Channel with only around 1% of RNLI launches relating to rescues in
the Channel and no other rescues have been declined due to a crew being
tasked to a Channel crossing incident.
That final statement is, apparently, not entirely accurate. See these recent media reports:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/coastguard-resources-stretched-thin-by-migrant-rescues-as-fishing-boats-urged-to/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/f-b2761353.html
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/c-fznwgmmr3
FWIW, I entirely agree that the role of the RNLI is to assist anyone in need of their help, and it would be utterly, utterly appalling if anyone were to suggest that they should pick and choose who to rescue based on a political opinion. But, nonetheless, the reality that their resources are being stretched thin by the number of unseaworthy or overloaded small boats being used to evade immigration checks is deeply concerning.
On 04/06/2025 13:02, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:03:58 +0100, Simon Parker
<[email protected]>
wrote:
For example, RNLI are tasked by HM Coastguard to carry out rescues in
the Channel with only around 1% of RNLI launches relating to rescues in
the Channel and no other rescues have been declined due to a crew being
tasked to a Channel crossing incident.
That final statement is, apparently, not entirely accurate. See these
recent
media reports:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/coastguard-resources-stretched-thin-by-
migrant-rescues-as-fishing-boats-urged-to/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/f-b2761353.html
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/c-fznwgmmr3
FWIW, I entirely agree that the role of the RNLI is to assist anyone
in need
of their help, and it would be utterly, utterly appalling if anyone
were to
suggest that they should pick and choose who to rescue based on a
political
opinion.
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are self-
inflicted. It's a morality question.
On 05/06/2025 12:11, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 09:11:06 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 23:25, The Todal wrote:
And there are of course competent sailors who have the bad luck to be
on a boat when the engine has failed and the weather has turned bad.
Indeed, but Norman was referring to "self-inflicted" difficulties. The
RNLI will be called out to deal with either, but I do wonder if those
with "self-inflicted difficulties" are being denied a possible Darwin
Award!
Maybe ambulances could take a similar approach and refuse to attend
people whose injuries are self inflicted ?
All sports injuries could be considered to be self inflicted.
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 14:06:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/06/2025 12:11, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 09:11:06 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 23:25, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 22:43, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 14:25, Norman Wells wrote:And there are of course competent sailors who have the bad luck to be >>>>> on a boat when the engine has failed and the weather has turned bad.
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are
self-inflicted. It's a morality question. Should you always bend >>>>>>> over backwards to help even those who deliberately, even
perversely,
do risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the >>>>>>> pieces?
I suggest you watch a few episodes of "Saving lives at sea" on BBC >>>>>> iPlayer. It beggars belief the number of morons who set out on small >>>>>> boats unprepared, or when on foot pay no attention when they're told >>>>>> they'll be stranded on an ever-decreasing piece of dry land when the >>>>>> tide comes in if they don't leave when they should. The RNLI are
always there to pick up the pieces - often at extreme danger to
themselves.
Indeed, but Norman was referring to "self-inflicted" difficulties. The >>>> RNLI will be called out to deal with either, but I do wonder if those
with "self-inflicted difficulties" are being denied a possible Darwin
Award!
Maybe ambulances could take a similar approach and refuse to attend
people whose injuries are self inflicted ?
It's a good question. What's the answer?
If you say it's common humanity, is there any reason why the general
public should have to foot the bill for self-inflicted injuries, rather
than the person concerned?
I don't have an answer.
However, introducing the suggestion starts to reveal that ultimately this debate has nothing to do with money, or resources, and simple
discrimination trying to sneak in as something else.
You know this, because in the though experiments where the UK has
infinite resources, there are still a contingent who would sink the
boats.
On 05/06/2025 15:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Jun 2025 at 14:06:13 BST, "Norman Wells" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 05/06/2025 12:11, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 09:11:06 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 23:25, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 22:43, Jeff Layman wrote:Indeed, but Norman was referring to "self-inflicted" difficulties. The >>>>> RNLI will be called out to deal with either, but I do wonder if those >>>>> with "self-inflicted difficulties" are being denied a possible Darwin >>>>> Award!
On 04/06/2025 14:25, Norman Wells wrote:
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are
self-inflicted. It's a morality question. Should you always bend >>>>>>>> over backwards to help even those who deliberately, even perversely, >>>>>>>> do risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the >>>>>>>> pieces?
I suggest you watch a few episodes of "Saving lives at sea" on BBC >>>>>>> iPlayer. It beggars belief the number of morons who set out on small >>>>>>> boats unprepared, or when on foot pay no attention when they're told >>>>>>> they'll be stranded on an ever-decreasing piece of dry land when the >>>>>>> tide comes in if they don't leave when they should. The RNLI are >>>>>>> always there to pick up the pieces - often at extreme danger to
themselves.
And there are of course competent sailors who have the bad luck to be >>>>>> on a boat when the engine has failed and the weather has turned bad. >>>>>
Maybe ambulances could take a similar approach and refuse to attend
people whose injuries are self inflicted ?
It's a good question. What's the answer?
If you say it's common humanity, is there any reason why the general
public should have to foot the bill for self-inflicted injuries, rather
than the person concerned?
What BMI limit, or alcohol intake limit (for information the answer is zero),
should be set before virtually any illness counts as self-inflicted?
You're not asking a question that makes any sense. You can't ask what
limit *should* be set but answer it yourself.
On 05/06/2025 13:06, Max Demian wrote:
On 04/06/2025 20:17, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 19:06, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 17:55, The Todal wrote:
I am absolutely sure that the refugees I have met are telling the
truth. I'm not going to generalise about *all* people who come to
the UK on small boats. Some might be escaping nothing more than
poverty.
They are what we call economic migrants. Do you think we have any
obligation towards them?
Why the obsession with people who cross the channel in boats
(formerly, in lorries) when they represent a very tiny proportion of
migrants to the UK?
The only good reason to stop the boats is out of compassion to those
who risk their lives on boats. You won't cure our housing shortage or
shortage of GP places or shortage of school places by stopping the
boats.
If there are economic migrants who can contribute usefully to our
economy then I hope they can stay, but that decision is not mine or
yours. If you want to know if we have any "obligation" to them, I
think you'd need to do the research yourself.
I don't know how much we spend on hotels for migrants, but it's said
to be a lot. Clearly (nearly all of) these are illegal/undocumented/
irregular migrants (delete as applicable), not ones who have arranged
to come in a legitimate manner according to the rules.
The process for the Home Office to reach a decision on someone's
application for asylum is very slow and inefficient. It needs to speed
up. Keeping people in hotels or hostels (grimy, filthy places where they usually don't have a door they can lock, and staff can come and search
them and their possessions at will) is unjust and prevents the migrants getting on with their lives while they are in limbo.
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 14:06:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/06/2025 12:11, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 09:11:06 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 23:25, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 22:43, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 14:25, Norman Wells wrote:And there are of course competent sailors who have the bad luck to be >>>>> on a boat when the engine has failed and the weather has turned bad.
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are
self-inflicted. It's a morality question. Should you always bend >>>>>>> over backwards to help even those who deliberately, even
perversely,
do risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the >>>>>>> pieces?
I suggest you watch a few episodes of "Saving lives at sea" on BBC >>>>>> iPlayer. It beggars belief the number of morons who set out on small >>>>>> boats unprepared, or when on foot pay no attention when they're told >>>>>> they'll be stranded on an ever-decreasing piece of dry land when the >>>>>> tide comes in if they don't leave when they should. The RNLI are
always there to pick up the pieces - often at extreme danger to
themselves.
Indeed, but Norman was referring to "self-inflicted" difficulties. The >>>> RNLI will be called out to deal with either, but I do wonder if those
with "self-inflicted difficulties" are being denied a possible Darwin
Award!
Maybe ambulances could take a similar approach and refuse to attend
people whose injuries are self inflicted ?
It's a good question. What's the answer?
If you say it's common humanity, is there any reason why the general
public should have to foot the bill for self-inflicted injuries, rather
than the person concerned?
I don't have an answer.
However, introducing the suggestion starts to reveal that ultimately this debate has nothing to do with money, or resources, and simple
discrimination trying to sneak in as something else.
You know this, because in the though experiments where the UK has
infinite resources, there are still a contingent who would sink the
boats.
On 04/06/2025 14:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 13:02, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:03:58 +0100, Simon Parker
<[email protected]>
wrote:
For example, RNLI are tasked by HM Coastguard to carry out rescues in
the Channel with only around 1% of RNLI launches relating to rescues in >>>> the Channel and no other rescues have been declined due to a crew being >>>> tasked to a Channel crossing incident.
That final statement is, apparently, not entirely accurate. See these
recent
media reports:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/coastguard-resources-stretched-thin-by-
migrant-rescues-as-fishing-boats-urged-to/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/f-b2761353.html
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/c-fznwgmmr3
FWIW, I entirely agree that the role of the RNLI is to assist anyone
in need
of their help, and it would be utterly, utterly appalling if anyone
were to
suggest that they should pick and choose who to rescue based on a
political
opinion.
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are self-
inflicted. It's a morality question.
Quite, we should treat asylum seekers accordingly. Many have come from
war torn countries and those countries where we have funded terrorism.
It is only too right we should take those fleeing violence.
On 04/06/2025 14:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 13:02, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:03:58 +0100, Simon Parker
<[email protected]>
wrote:
For example, RNLI are tasked by HM Coastguard to carry out rescues in
the Channel with only around 1% of RNLI launches relating to rescues in >>>> the Channel and no other rescues have been declined due to a crew being >>>> tasked to a Channel crossing incident.
That final statement is, apparently, not entirely accurate. See these
recent
media reports:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/coastguard-resources-stretched-thin-by-
migrant-rescues-as-fishing-boats-urged-to/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/f-b2761353.html
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/c-fznwgmmr3
FWIW, I entirely agree that the role of the RNLI is to assist anyone
in need
of their help, and it would be utterly, utterly appalling if anyone
were to
suggest that they should pick and choose who to rescue based on a
political
opinion.
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are self-
inflicted. It's a morality question.
Quite, we should treat asylum seekers accordingly. Many have come from
war torn countries and those countries where we have funded terrorism.
It is only too right we should take those fleeing violence.
Soon it will be Gazans.
On 5 Jun 2025 at 16:10:26 BST, "Norman Wells" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 05/06/2025 15:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Jun 2025 at 14:06:13 BST, "Norman Wells" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 05/06/2025 12:11, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 09:11:06 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 23:25, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 22:43, Jeff Layman wrote:Indeed, but Norman was referring to "self-inflicted" difficulties. The >>>>>> RNLI will be called out to deal with either, but I do wonder if those >>>>>> with "self-inflicted difficulties" are being denied a possible Darwin >>>>>> Award!
On 04/06/2025 14:25, Norman Wells wrote:
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are
self-inflicted. It's a morality question. Should you always bend >>>>>>>>> over backwards to help even those who deliberately, even perversely, >>>>>>>>> do risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the >>>>>>>>> pieces?
I suggest you watch a few episodes of "Saving lives at sea" on BBC >>>>>>>> iPlayer. It beggars belief the number of morons who set out on small >>>>>>>> boats unprepared, or when on foot pay no attention when they're told >>>>>>>> they'll be stranded on an ever-decreasing piece of dry land when the >>>>>>>> tide comes in if they don't leave when they should. The RNLI are >>>>>>>> always there to pick up the pieces - often at extreme danger to >>>>>>>> themselves.
And there are of course competent sailors who have the bad luck to be >>>>>>> on a boat when the engine has failed and the weather has turned bad. >>>>>>
Maybe ambulances could take a similar approach and refuse to attend
people whose injuries are self inflicted ?
It's a good question. What's the answer?
If you say it's common humanity, is there any reason why the general
public should have to foot the bill for self-inflicted injuries, rather >>>> than the person concerned?
What BMI limit, or alcohol intake limit (for information the answer is zero),
should be set before virtually any illness counts as self-inflicted?
You're not asking a question that makes any sense. You can't ask what
limit *should* be set but answer it yourself.
No, that misses the point. The point is that virtually any illness in adults can be regarded as self-inflicted. Anything else is just racial (or other) prejudice against the individual adult, or political prejudice about the particular action that led to the problem being regarded as self-inflicted. I trust you wouldn't rescue anyone sailing a dinghy in the sea or anyone riding a horse cross country. Or anyone playing contact sports. Or are those virtuous
self-inflicted dangers?
On 05/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Norman Wells wrote:
Quite, we should treat asylum seekers accordingly. Many have come from
war torn countries and those countries where we have funded terrorism. It >>> is only too right we should take those fleeing violence.
Is there much of that in France?
That is the absolute pivotal question when considering
refugees/immigration in the 21st century and, to me, the reason why we
should write our own equivalent of the EHCR.
The people in Calais are in a place of safety so don't need to come to the
UK on the grounds their lives are at risk. If they want to come here it
must be for reasons they will obviously know.
In these circumstances there is time for them to visit a British Consulate/Embassy and apply to come here, I'm sure there are suitable premises in Calais we could rent to set one up (if there isn't one already).
Quite, we should treat asylum seekers accordingly. Many have come from
war torn countries and those countries where we have funded terrorism. It >>is only too right we should take those fleeing violence.
Is there much of that in France?
That is the absolute pivotal question when considering refugees/
immigration in the 21st century and, to me, the reason why we should
write our own equivalent of the EHCR.
Jeff Gaines wrote:
That is the absolute pivotal question when considering refugees/
immigration in the 21st century and, to me, the reason why we should
write our own equivalent of the EHCR.
Nicholas Mostyn was on Jon Pienaar's program yesterday saying you can't
pick and choose which parts of the ECHR apply. So it seems to me that
we say none of it applies, and then implement a UKCHR that only applies
the parts we want?
Jeff Gaines wrote:
That is the absolute pivotal question when considering refugees/ >>immigration in the 21st century and, to me, the reason why we should
write our own equivalent of the EHCR.
Nicholas Mostyn was on Jon Pienaar's program yesterday saying you can't
pick and choose which parts of the ECHR apply. So it seems to me that we
say none of it applies, and then implement a UKCHR that only applies the >parts we want?
On 6 Jun 2025 at 12:19:11 BST, "Andy Burns" <[email protected]> wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
That is the absolute pivotal question when considering refugees/ >>>immigration in the 21st century and, to me, the reason why we should >>>write our own equivalent of the EHCR.
Nicholas Mostyn was on Jon Pienaar's program yesterday saying you can't >>pick and choose which parts of the ECHR apply. So it seems to me that
we say none of it applies, and then implement a UKCHR that only applies
the parts we want?
I think the point is that by opting out of the ECHR we are saying there
are at
least some people in the UK to whom we don't want to grant a fairly basic
set
of human rights. Even if we go on to grant some people in this country some >human rights it doesn't change the fact that we have opted out of a fairly >minimal standard of civilisation.
On 05/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Norman Wells wrote:
Quite, we should treat asylum seekers accordingly. Many have come
from war torn countries and those countries where we have funded
terrorism. It is only too right we should take those fleeing violence.
Is there much of that in France?
That is the absolute pivotal question when considering refugees/
immigration in the 21st century and, to me, the reason why we should
write our own equivalent of the EHCR.
The people in Calais are in a place of safety so don't need to come to
the UK on the grounds their lives are at risk. If they want to come here
it must be for reasons they will obviously know.
In these circumstances there is time for them to visit a British Consulate/Embassy and apply to come here, I'm sure there are suitable premises in Calais we could rent to set one up (if there isn't one
already).
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Andy Burns
wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
That is the absolute pivotal question when considering refugees/ >>>immigration in the 21st century and, to me, the reason why we should >>>write our own equivalent of the EHCR.
Nicholas Mostyn was on Jon Pienaar's program yesterday saying you can't >>pick and choose which parts of the ECHR apply. So it seems to me that we >>say none of it applies, and then implement a UKCHR that only applies the >>parts we want?
That would be my choice so we can write it for now rather then 1950 (I
think) when the refugee situation was completely different.
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 6 Jun 2025 at 12:19:11 BST, "Andy Burns" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>Jeff Gaines wrote:
That is the absolute pivotal question when considering refugees/ >>>>immigration in the 21st century and, to me, the reason why we should >>>>write our own equivalent of the EHCR.
Nicholas Mostyn was on Jon Pienaar's program yesterday saying you can't >>>pick and choose which parts of the ECHR apply. So it seems to me that
we say none of it applies, and then implement a UKCHR that only applies >>>the parts we want?
I think the point is that by opting out of the ECHR we are saying there
are at least some people in the UK to whom we don't want to grant a
fairly basic set of human rights. Even if we go on to grant some
people in this country some human rights it doesn't change the fact
that we have opted out of a fairly minimal standard of civilisation.
If my reasoning is correct - that the people in Calais are in a place of safety - what human right have we opted out of?
On 6/6/25 11:26, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 05/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Norman Wells >>wrote:
Quite, we should treat asylum seekers accordingly. Many have come from >>>>war torn countries and those countries where we have funded terrorism. >>>>It is only too right we should take those fleeing violence.
Is there much of that in France?
That is the absolute pivotal question when considering refugees/ >>immigration in the 21st century and, to me, the reason why we should
write our own equivalent of the EHCR.
I think you mean ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights), not the EHCR >(Equality and Human Rights Commission). The EHCR is UK only, probably >deliberately named to be confusing.
The people in Calais are in a place of safety so don't need to come to
the UK on the grounds their lives are at risk. If they want to come here
it must be for reasons they will obviously know.
In these circumstances there is time for them to visit a British >>Consulate/Embassy and apply to come here, I'm sure there are suitable >>premises in Calais we could rent to set one up (if there isn't one >>already).
It seems to me that refugees are an international problem, and the load >should be shared fairly. The UK can't expect other countries to accept and >cooperate with our natural geographical isolation, unless we accept their >concerns, too.
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Andy Burns >>wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
That is the absolute pivotal question when considering refugees/ >>>>immigration in the 21st century and, to me, the reason why we should >>>>write our own equivalent of the EHCR.
Nicholas Mostyn was on Jon Pienaar's program yesterday saying you can't >>>pick and choose which parts of the ECHR apply. So it seems to me that we >>>say none of it applies, and then implement a UKCHR that only applies the >>>parts we want?
That would be my choice so we can write it for now rather then 1950 (I >>think) when the refugee situation was completely different.
The Convention doesn't even mention refugees.
Which parts would you like to change?
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 6 Jun 2025 at 12:19:11 BST, "Andy Burns" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>Jeff Gaines wrote:
That is the absolute pivotal question when considering refugees/ >>>>>immigration in the 21st century and, to me, the reason why we should >>>>>write our own equivalent of the EHCR.
Nicholas Mostyn was on Jon Pienaar's program yesterday saying you can't >>>>pick and choose which parts of the ECHR apply. So it seems to me that >>>>we say none of it applies, and then implement a UKCHR that only applies >>>>the parts we want?
I think the point is that by opting out of the ECHR we are saying there >>>are at least some people in the UK to whom we don't want to grant a >>>fairly basic set of human rights. Even if we go on to grant some
people in this country some human rights it doesn't change the fact
that we have opted out of a fairly minimal standard of civilisation.
If my reasoning is correct - that the people in Calais are in a place of >>safety - what human right have we opted out of?
It sounds to me like you don't want to opt out of the ECHR, you want
to opt out of or amend the United Nations Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees.
On 06/06/2025 in message <101uk5f$27r51$[email protected]> Pancho wrote:
On 6/6/25 11:26, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 05/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Norman Wells >>> wrote:
Quite, we should treat asylum seekers accordingly. Many have come from >>>>> war torn countries and those countries where we have funded terrorism. >>>>> It is only too right we should take those fleeing violence.
Is there much of that in France?
That is the absolute pivotal question when considering refugees/
immigration in the 21st century and, to me, the reason why we should
write our own equivalent of the EHCR.
I think you mean ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights), not the EHCR
(Equality and Human Rights Commission). The EHCR is UK only, probably
deliberately named to be confusing.
The people in Calais are in a place of safety so don't need to come to
the UK on the grounds their lives are at risk. If they want to come here >>> it must be for reasons they will obviously know.
In these circumstances there is time for them to visit a British
Consulate/Embassy and apply to come here, I'm sure there are suitable
premises in Calais we could rent to set one up (if there isn't one
already).
It seems to me that refugees are an international problem, and the load
should be shared fairly. The UK can't expect other countries to accept and >> cooperate with our natural geographical isolation, unless we accept their
concerns, too.
Sorry about ECHR /EHCR, I am left handed and suffer from lateral
inversion! I took a test once that measure my ability to check lists and score 9%.
I agree we need to take a fair share of refugees PROVIDED we can come up
with a modern definition that is based on need and not want.
On 6 Jun 2025 at 14:05:27 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <101uk5f$27r51$[email protected]> Pancho wrote:
On 6/6/25 11:26, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 05/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Norman Wells >>>>wrote:
Quite, we should treat asylum seekers accordingly. Many have come >>>>>>from
war torn countries and those countries where we have funded >>>>>>terrorism.
It is only too right we should take those fleeing violence.
Is there much of that in France?
That is the absolute pivotal question when considering refugees/ >>>>immigration in the 21st century and, to me, the reason why we should >>>>write our own equivalent of the EHCR.
I think you mean ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights), not the EHCR >>>(Equality and Human Rights Commission). The EHCR is UK only, probably >>>deliberately named to be confusing.
The people in Calais are in a place of safety so don't need to come to >>>>the UK on the grounds their lives are at risk. If they want to come here >>>>it must be for reasons they will obviously know.
In these circumstances there is time for them to visit a British >>>>Consulate/Embassy and apply to come here, I'm sure there are suitable >>>>premises in Calais we could rent to set one up (if there isn't one >>>>already).
It seems to me that refugees are an international problem, and the load >>>should be shared fairly. The UK can't expect other countries to accept >>>and
cooperate with our natural geographical isolation, unless we accept their >>>concerns, too.
Sorry about ECHR /EHCR, I am left handed and suffer from lateral
inversion! I took a test once that measure my ability to check lists and >>score 9%.
I agree we need to take a fair share of refugees PROVIDED we can come up >>with a modern definition that is based on need and not want.
You are aware I suppose that many of the people who come here in small
boats
have their refugee applications rejected, once we get round to the >much-delayed process of assessing their claims? What makes you think the >assessment is not based on need? There may be some difficulty in deporting >some of those whose application is rejected, but many are deported after >assessment. Perhaps you believe dishonest propaganda saying that we accept >economic migrants as refugees? Bear in mind some propaganda may be lies by >dishonest people.
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Andy Burns >>>wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
That is the absolute pivotal question when considering refugees/ >>>>>immigration in the 21st century and, to me, the reason why we should >>>>>write our own equivalent of the EHCR.
Nicholas Mostyn was on Jon Pienaar's program yesterday saying you can't >>>>pick and choose which parts of the ECHR apply. So it seems to me that we >>>>say none of it applies, and then implement a UKCHR that only applies the >>>>parts we want?
That would be my choice so we can write it for now rather then 1950 (I >>>think) when the refugee situation was completely different.
The Convention doesn't even mention refugees.
Which parts would you like to change?
Is this caused by my ECHR/EHCR issue?
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Roger >>>Hayter wrote:
You are aware I suppose that many of the people who come here in small >>>>boats have their refugee applications rejected, once we get round to the >>>>much-delayed process of assessing their claims? What makes you think the >>>>assessment is not based on need? There may be some difficulty in >>>>deporting
some of those whose application is rejected, but many are deported after >>>>assessment. Perhaps you believe dishonest propaganda saying that we >>>>accept
economic migrants as refugees? Bear in mind some propaganda may be lies >>>>by
dishonest people.
The people coming here in small boats are not coming here because of need, >>>they are already in a place of safety.
Surely anything that someone does that puts their life in such extreme
risk as crossing the channel in these small boats does is, *by definition*, >>something they "need" to do.
I disagree, it's something they want to do, they must think we are the
land of milk and honey.
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Roger
Hayter wrote:
You are aware I suppose that many of the people who come here in small >>>boats have their refugee applications rejected, once we get round to the >>>much-delayed process of assessing their claims? What makes you think the >>>assessment is not based on need? There may be some difficulty in >>>deporting
some of those whose application is rejected, but many are deported after >>>assessment. Perhaps you believe dishonest propaganda saying that we >>>accept
economic migrants as refugees? Bear in mind some propaganda may be lies >>>by
dishonest people.
The people coming here in small boats are not coming here because of need, >>they are already in a place of safety.
Surely anything that someone does that puts their life in such extreme
risk as crossing the channel in these small boats does is, *by definition*, >something they "need" to do.
On 6 Jun 2025 at 14:05:27 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <101uk5f$27r51$[email protected]> Pancho wrote:
On 6/6/25 11:26, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 05/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Norman Wells >>>> wrote:
Quite, we should treat asylum seekers accordingly. Many have come from >>>>>> war torn countries and those countries where we have funded terrorism. >>>>>> It is only too right we should take those fleeing violence.
Is there much of that in France?
That is the absolute pivotal question when considering refugees/
immigration in the 21st century and, to me, the reason why we should
write our own equivalent of the EHCR.
I think you mean ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights), not the EHCR >>> (Equality and Human Rights Commission). The EHCR is UK only, probably
deliberately named to be confusing.
The people in Calais are in a place of safety so don't need to come to >>>> the UK on the grounds their lives are at risk. If they want to come here >>>> it must be for reasons they will obviously know.
In these circumstances there is time for them to visit a British
Consulate/Embassy and apply to come here, I'm sure there are suitable
premises in Calais we could rent to set one up (if there isn't one
already).
It seems to me that refugees are an international problem, and the load
should be shared fairly. The UK can't expect other countries to accept and >>> cooperate with our natural geographical isolation, unless we accept their >>> concerns, too.
Sorry about ECHR /EHCR, I am left handed and suffer from lateral
inversion! I took a test once that measure my ability to check lists and
score 9%.
I agree we need to take a fair share of refugees PROVIDED we can come up
with a modern definition that is based on need and not want.
You are aware I suppose that many of the people who come here in small boats have their refugee applications rejected, once we get round to the much-delayed process of assessing their claims? What makes you think the assessment is *not* based on need? There may be some difficulty in deporting some of those whose application is rejected, but many are deported after assessment. Perhaps you believe dishonest propaganda saying that we accept economic migrants as refugees? Bear in mind some propaganda may be lies by dishonest people.
On 06/06/2025 in message
<[email protected]> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 6 Jun 2025 at 12:19:11 BST, "Andy Burns" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
That is the absolute pivotal question when considering refugees/
immigration in the 21st century and, to me, the reason why we should >>>>>> write our own equivalent of the EHCR.
Nicholas Mostyn was on Jon Pienaar's program yesterday saying you
can't
pick and choose which parts of the ECHR apply. So it seems to me that >>>>> we say none of it applies, and then implement a UKCHR that only
applies
the parts we want?
I think the point is that by opting out of the ECHR we are saying there >>>> are at least some people in the UK to whom we don't want to grant a
fairly basic set of human rights. Even if we go on to grant some
people in this country some human rights it doesn't change the fact
that we have opted out of a fairly minimal standard of civilisation.
If my reasoning is correct - that the people in Calais are in a place of >>> safety - what human right have we opted out of?
It sounds to me like you don't want to opt out of the ECHR, you want
to opt out of or amend the United Nations Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees.
Perhaps that as well. To me a refugee is somebody who is in danger of
harm not somebody who just wants to live in a different country.
On 6 Jun 2025 at 11:26:07 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <[email protected]> wrote:
The people in Calais are in a place of safety so don't need to come to the >> UK on the grounds their lives are at risk. If they want to come here it
must be for reasons they will obviously know.
In these circumstances there is time for them to visit a British
Consulate/Embassy and apply to come here, I'm sure there are suitable
premises in Calais we could rent to set one up (if there isn't one already).
Indeed. If the British authorities were willing to consider such applications *on the same basis as if they were in Britain* there might be some justification for sending people who didn't succeed in such applications back to France.
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Roger >>>>Hayter wrote:
You are aware I suppose that many of the people who come here in small >>>>>boats have their refugee applications rejected, once we get round to >>>>>the
much-delayed process of assessing their claims? What makes you think >>>>>the
assessment is not based on need? There may be some difficulty in >>>>>deporting
some of those whose application is rejected, but many are deported >>>>>after
assessment. Perhaps you believe dishonest propaganda saying that we >>>>>accept
economic migrants as refugees? Bear in mind some propaganda may be lies >>>>>by
dishonest people.
The people coming here in small boats are not coming here because of >>>>need,
they are already in a place of safety.
Surely anything that someone does that puts their life in such extreme >>>risk as crossing the channel in these small boats does is, *by >>>definition*,
something they "need" to do.
I disagree, it's something they want to do, they must think we are the
land of milk and honey.
Ok, well I think it's reality you're disagreeing with. People don't
generally risk their lives on a whim.
On 06/06/2025 14:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 6 Jun 2025 at 14:05:27 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <[email protected]> wrote: >>
On 06/06/2025 in message <101uk5f$27r51$[email protected]> Pancho wrote:
On 6/6/25 11:26, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 05/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Norman Wells >>>>> wrote:
Quite, we should treat asylum seekers accordingly. Many have come from >>>>>>> war torn countries and those countries where we have funded terrorism. >>>>>>> It is only too right we should take those fleeing violence.
Is there much of that in France?
That is the absolute pivotal question when considering refugees/
immigration in the 21st century and, to me, the reason why we should >>>>> write our own equivalent of the EHCR.
I think you mean ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights), not the EHCR >>>> (Equality and Human Rights Commission). The EHCR is UK only, probably
deliberately named to be confusing.
The people in Calais are in a place of safety so don't need to come to >>>>> the UK on the grounds their lives are at risk. If they want to come here >>>>> it must be for reasons they will obviously know.
In these circumstances there is time for them to visit a British
Consulate/Embassy and apply to come here, I'm sure there are suitable >>>>> premises in Calais we could rent to set one up (if there isn't one
already).
It seems to me that refugees are an international problem, and the load >>>> should be shared fairly. The UK can't expect other countries to accept and >>>> cooperate with our natural geographical isolation, unless we accept their >>>> concerns, too.
Sorry about ECHR /EHCR, I am left handed and suffer from lateral
inversion! I took a test once that measure my ability to check lists and >>> score 9%.
I agree we need to take a fair share of refugees PROVIDED we can come up >>> with a modern definition that is based on need and not want.
You are aware I suppose that many of the people who come here in small boats >> have their refugee applications rejected, once we get round to the
much-delayed process of assessing their claims? What makes you think the
assessment is *not* based on need? There may be some difficulty in deporting >> some of those whose application is rejected, but many are deported after
assessment. Perhaps you believe dishonest propaganda saying that we accept >> economic migrants as refugees? Bear in mind some propaganda may be lies by >> dishonest people.
Since the Labour government came into power on 5 July 2024 to 22 March
2025 there were 6,339 'enforced returns of illegal migrants.
In the same period, 23,242 people arrived on small boats.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyw8jw11jwo
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >>>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Roger >>>>>Hayter wrote:
You are aware I suppose that many of the people who come here in small >>>>>>boats have their refugee applications rejected, once we get round to >>>>>>the
much-delayed process of assessing their claims? What makes you think >>>>>>the
assessment is not based on need? There may be some difficulty in >>>>>>deporting
some of those whose application is rejected, but many are deported >>>>>>after
assessment. Perhaps you believe dishonest propaganda saying that we >>>>>>accept
economic migrants as refugees? Bear in mind some propaganda may be lies >>>>>>by
dishonest people.
The people coming here in small boats are not coming here because of >>>>>need,
they are already in a place of safety.
Surely anything that someone does that puts their life in such extreme >>>>risk as crossing the channel in these small boats does is, *by >>>>definition*, something they "need" to do.
I disagree, it's something they want to do, they must think we are the >>>land of milk and honey.
Ok, well I think it's reality you're disagreeing with. People don't >>generally risk their lives on a whim.
They are obviously not, they must feel there is a worthwhile reward commensurate with the risk.
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message >>>><[email protected]>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Roger >>>>>>Hayter wrote:
You are aware I suppose that many of the people who come here in >>>>>>>small
boats have their refugee applications rejected, once we get round to >>>>>>>the
much-delayed process of assessing their claims? What makes you think >>>>>>>the
assessment is not based on need? There may be some difficulty in >>>>>>>deporting
some of those whose application is rejected, but many are deported >>>>>>>after
assessment. Perhaps you believe dishonest propaganda saying that we >>>>>>>accept
economic migrants as refugees? Bear in mind some propaganda may be >>>>>>>lies
by
dishonest people.
The people coming here in small boats are not coming here because of >>>>>>need,
they are already in a place of safety.
Surely anything that someone does that puts their life in such extreme >>>>>risk as crossing the channel in these small boats does is, *by >>>>>definition*, something they "need" to do.
I disagree, it's something they want to do, they must think we are the >>>>land of milk and honey.
Ok, well I think it's reality you're disagreeing with. People don't >>>generally risk their lives on a whim.
They are obviously not, they must feel there is a worthwhile reward >>commensurate with the risk.
Oh it's "obvious" is it, well that's that then.
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message
<[email protected]>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Roger >>>>>>> Hayter wrote:
You are aware I suppose that many of the people who come here in >>>>>>>> small
boats have their refugee applications rejected, once we get round to >>>>>>>> the
much-delayed process of assessing their claims? What makes you think >>>>>>>> the
assessment is not based on need? There may be some difficulty in >>>>>>>> deporting
some of those whose application is rejected, but many are deported >>>>>>>> after
assessment. Perhaps you believe dishonest propaganda saying that we >>>>>>>> accept
economic migrants as refugees? Bear in mind some propaganda may be >>>>>>>> lies
by
dishonest people.
The people coming here in small boats are not coming here because of >>>>>>> need,
they are already in a place of safety.
Surely anything that someone does that puts their life in such extreme >>>>>> risk as crossing the channel in these small boats does is, *by
definition*, something they "need" to do.
I disagree, it's something they want to do, they must think we are the >>>>> land of milk and honey.
Ok, well I think it's reality you're disagreeing with. People don't
generally risk their lives on a whim.
They are obviously not, they must feel there is a worthwhile reward
commensurate with the risk.
Oh it's "obvious" is it, well that's that then.
Do you have a counter to my suggestion that since there is no necessity
for these people to come here as they are safe in France there must be something else enticing them to risk their lives?
On 6 Jun 2025 at 17:19:35 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message >>>><[email protected]>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message >>>>>><[email protected]>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Roger >>>>>>>>Hayter wrote:
You are aware I suppose that many of the people who come here in >>>>>>>>>small
boats have their refugee applications rejected, once we get round >>>>>>>>>to
the
much-delayed process of assessing their claims? What makes you >>>>>>>>>think
the
assessment is not based on need? There may be some difficulty in >>>>>>>>>deporting
some of those whose application is rejected, but many are deported >>>>>>>>>after
assessment. Perhaps you believe dishonest propaganda saying that we >>>>>>>>>accept
economic migrants as refugees? Bear in mind some propaganda may be >>>>>>>>>lies
by
dishonest people.
The people coming here in small boats are not coming here because of >>>>>>>>need,
they are already in a place of safety.
Surely anything that someone does that puts their life in such >>>>>>>extreme
risk as crossing the channel in these small boats does is, *by >>>>>>>definition*, something they "need" to do.
I disagree, it's something they want to do, they must think we are the >>>>>>land of milk and honey.
Ok, well I think it's reality you're disagreeing with. People don't >>>>>generally risk their lives on a whim.
They are obviously not, they must feel there is a worthwhile reward >>>>commensurate with the risk.
Oh it's "obvious" is it, well that's that then.
Do you have a counter to my suggestion that since there is no necessity
for these people to come here as they are safe in France there must be >>something else enticing them to risk their lives?
They are only conditionally safe in France. They are not resident there and >could be deported at any time. Surely a hope (whether or not misplaced)
that
their asylum status might be more fairly considered in the UK would be a
fair
reason for wanting to apply here? After all, it is only a very small
minority
of refugees in continental countries that want to come here, despite some >peoples' outrage that any at all do so. It is mainly those with social, >family
or language connections with Britain that want to come here. Very few fail
to
realise that living conditions and benefits are actually better in many >continental countries.
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 6 Jun 2025 at 17:19:35 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message
<[email protected]>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message
<[email protected]>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Roger >>>>>>>>> Hayter wrote:
You are aware I suppose that many of the people who come here in >>>>>>>>>> small
boats have their refugee applications rejected, once we get round >>>>>>>>>> to
the
much-delayed process of assessing their claims? What makes you >>>>>>>>>> think
the
assessment is not based on need? There may be some difficulty in >>>>>>>>>> deporting
some of those whose application is rejected, but many are deported >>>>>>>>>> after
assessment. Perhaps you believe dishonest propaganda saying that we >>>>>>>>>> accept
economic migrants as refugees? Bear in mind some propaganda may be >>>>>>>>>> lies
by
dishonest people.
The people coming here in small boats are not coming here because of >>>>>>>>> need,
they are already in a place of safety.
Surely anything that someone does that puts their life in such >>>>>>>> extreme
risk as crossing the channel in these small boats does is, *by >>>>>>>> definition*, something they "need" to do.
I disagree, it's something they want to do, they must think we are the >>>>>>> land of milk and honey.
Ok, well I think it's reality you're disagreeing with. People don't >>>>>> generally risk their lives on a whim.
They are obviously not, they must feel there is a worthwhile reward
commensurate with the risk.
Oh it's "obvious" is it, well that's that then.
Do you have a counter to my suggestion that since there is no necessity
for these people to come here as they are safe in France there must be
something else enticing them to risk their lives?
They are only conditionally safe in France. They are not resident there and >> could be deported at any time. Surely a hope (whether or not misplaced)
that
their asylum status might be more fairly considered in the UK would be a
fair
reason for wanting to apply here? After all, it is only a very small
minority
of refugees in continental countries that want to come here, despite some
peoples' outrage that any at all do so. It is mainly those with social,
family
or language connections with Britain that want to come here. Very few fail >> to
realise that living conditions and benefits are actually better in many
continental countries.
We're back to need -v- want I think. Their lives aren't in danger in
France and there's nothing to stop them applying for asylum there, or we could have a consulate where they can apply. There is absolutely no reason for them to risk their lives (in turn meaning others will risk their lives
to save them) to come here except a "want" or a feeling of commensurate rewards.
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Jon Ribbens wrote:
Oh it's "obvious" is it, well that's that then.
Do you have a counter to my suggestion that since there is no necessity
for these people to come here as they are safe in France there must be something else enticing them to risk their lives?
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
Oh it's "obvious" is it, well that's that then.
Do you have a counter to my suggestion that since there is no necessity
for these people to come here as they are safe in France there must be >>something else enticing them to risk their lives?
Yes, it's that clearly and essentially *by definition* there is a
necessity for them to come here, otherwise they would not be risking
their lives. What else could "necessity" mean?
On 6 Jun 2025 at 14:50:54 BST, "Norman Wells" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 14:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 6 Jun 2025 at 14:05:27 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <101uk5f$27r51$[email protected]> Pancho wrote: >>>>
On 6/6/25 11:26, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 05/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Norman Wells >>>>>> wrote:
Quite, we should treat asylum seekers accordingly. Many have come from
war torn countries and those countries where we have funded terrorism.
It is only too right we should take those fleeing violence.
Is there much of that in France?
That is the absolute pivotal question when considering refugees/
immigration in the 21st century and, to me, the reason why we should >>>>>> write our own equivalent of the EHCR.
I think you mean ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights), not the EHCR >>>>> (Equality and Human Rights Commission). The EHCR is UK only, probably >>>>> deliberately named to be confusing.
The people in Calais are in a place of safety so don't need to come to >>>>>> the UK on the grounds their lives are at risk. If they want to come here >>>>>> it must be for reasons they will obviously know.
In these circumstances there is time for them to visit a British
Consulate/Embassy and apply to come here, I'm sure there are suitable >>>>>> premises in Calais we could rent to set one up (if there isn't one >>>>>> already).
It seems to me that refugees are an international problem, and the load >>>>> should be shared fairly. The UK can't expect other countries to accept and
cooperate with our natural geographical isolation, unless we accept their >>>>> concerns, too.
Sorry about ECHR /EHCR, I am left handed and suffer from lateral
inversion! I took a test once that measure my ability to check lists and >>>> score 9%.
I agree we need to take a fair share of refugees PROVIDED we can come up >>>> with a modern definition that is based on need and not want.
You are aware I suppose that many of the people who come here in small boats
have their refugee applications rejected, once we get round to the
much-delayed process of assessing their claims? What makes you think the >>> assessment is *not* based on need? There may be some difficulty in deporting
some of those whose application is rejected, but many are deported after >>> assessment. Perhaps you believe dishonest propaganda saying that we accept >>> economic migrants as refugees? Bear in mind some propaganda may be lies by >>> dishonest people.
Since the Labour government came into power on 5 July 2024 to 22 March
2025 there were 6,339 'enforced returns of illegal migrants.
In the same period, 23,242 people arrived on small boats.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyw8jw11jwo
And how many of them have simply not been assessed yet?
On 6 Jun 2025 at 12:19:11 BST, "Andy Burns" <[email protected]> wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
That is the absolute pivotal question when considering refugees/
immigration in the 21st century and, to me, the reason why we should
write our own equivalent of the EHCR.
Nicholas Mostyn was on Jon Pienaar's program yesterday saying you can't
pick and choose which parts of the ECHR apply. So it seems to me that
we say none of it applies, and then implement a UKCHR that only applies
the parts we want?
I think the point is that by opting out of the ECHR we are saying there are at
least some people in the UK to whom we don't want to grant a fairly basic set of human rights.
human rights it doesn't change the fact that we have opted out of a fairly minimal standard of civilisation.
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Roger
Hayter wrote:
You are aware I suppose that many of the people who come here in small
boats have their refugee applications rejected, once we get round to the >>> much-delayed process of assessing their claims? What makes you think the >>> assessment is not based on need? There may be some difficulty in deporting >>> some of those whose application is rejected, but many are deported after >>> assessment. Perhaps you believe dishonest propaganda saying that we accept >>> economic migrants as refugees? Bear in mind some propaganda may be lies by >>> dishonest people.
The people coming here in small boats are not coming here because of need, >> they are already in a place of safety.
Surely anything that someone does that puts their life in such extreme
risk as crossing the channel in these small boats does is, *by definition*, something they "need" to do.
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >> Jon Ribbens wrote:
Oh it's "obvious" is it, well that's that then.
Do you have a counter to my suggestion that since there is no necessity
for these people to come here as they are safe in France there must be
something else enticing them to risk their lives?
Yes, it's that clearly and essentially *by definition* there is a
necessity for them to come here, otherwise they would not be risking
their lives. What else could "necessity" mean?
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >>>Jon Ribbens wrote:
Oh it's "obvious" is it, well that's that then.
Do you have a counter to my suggestion that since there is no necessity >>>for these people to come here as they are safe in France there must be >>>something else enticing them to risk their lives?
Yes, it's that clearly and essentially *by definition* there is a
necessity for them to come here, otherwise they would not be risking
their lives. What else could "necessity" mean?
"Necessity" means it is necessary
and clearly it isn't because they are in a place of safety.
On 06/06/2025 12:58 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 6 Jun 2025 at 12:19:11 BST, "Andy Burns" <[email protected]> wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
That is the absolute pivotal question when considering refugees/
immigration in the 21st century and, to me, the reason why we should
write our own equivalent of the EHCR.
Nicholas Mostyn was on Jon Pienaar's program yesterday saying you can't
pick and choose which parts of the ECHR apply. So it seems to me that
we say none of it applies, and then implement a UKCHR that only applies
the parts we want?
I think the point is that by opting out of the ECHR we are saying
there are at
least some people in the UK to whom we don't want to grant a fairly
basic set
of human rights.
Not at all. Se below.
Even if we go on to grant some people in this country some
human rights it doesn't change the fact that we have opted out of a
fairly
minimal standard of civilisation.
What was the matter with Magna Carta? And habeas corpus?
Before 1945 was there any sense that British people did not have
asequate rights within Britain? I don't remember my parents and
grandparents complaining about how terrible it was before the Convention
came into force. Have you ever heard anyone from The Greatest Generation whinging about the lack of human rights in the UK prior to 1945 (or so)?
Was the ECHR necessary for the British? My feeling is that it was not
and that nothing has been gained from it, though it seems that much has
been lost.
Jon Ribbens <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
Oh it's "obvious" is it, well that's that then.
Do you have a counter to my suggestion that since there is no necessity
for these people to come here as they are safe in France there must be
something else enticing them to risk their lives?
Yes, it's that clearly and essentially *by definition* there is a
necessity for them to come here, otherwise they would not be risking
their lives. What else could "necessity" mean?
I am reminded of an account in the media a few years ago, where a reporter interviewed an inhabitant of the notorious camp near Calais: “The English are soft and stupid. They will give me food, clothes, money, and a flat”.
It isn’t hard to work out what was the necessity (sic) of the person’s journey.
I’m not sure that that is correct. There have been instances of people dying in the scramble to get on the boats, including children, and also
when not far out to sea when boats have taken on water or the engine
failed. For all we know, it could be that more economic migrants die in French waters than British, raising concerns about the duty of care being shown by the French.
Jon Ribbens <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
Oh it's "obvious" is it, well that's that then.
Do you have a counter to my suggestion that since there is no necessity
for these people to come here as they are safe in France there must be
something else enticing them to risk their lives?
Yes, it's that clearly and essentially *by definition* there is a
necessity for them to come here, otherwise they would not be risking
their lives. What else could "necessity" mean?
You keep repeating that *by definition* the economic migrants have a *necessity* to come here, and so get the Rolls-Royce treatment, but you can’t seem to define what that *necessity* is that could not be met by the benign social policies of the several countries the economic migrants must have already travelled through. So it might move the discussion along if
you could elaborate both on your *definition* of necessity, and of what
that *necessity* comprises in real terms that is only available in the UK.
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >> Jon Ribbens wrote:
Oh it's "obvious" is it, well that's that then.
Do you have a counter to my suggestion that since there is no necessity
for these people to come here as they are safe in France there must be
something else enticing them to risk their lives?
Yes, it's that clearly and essentially *by definition* there is a
necessity for them to come here, otherwise they would not be risking
their lives. What else could "necessity" mean?
On 07/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Spike <[email protected]> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message >>>>><[email protected]>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Oh it's "obvious" is it, well that's that then.
Do you have a counter to my suggestion that since there is no necessity >>>>>for these people to come here as they are safe in France there must be >>>>>something else enticing them to risk their lives?
Yes, it's that clearly and essentially *by definition* there is a >>>>necessity for them to come here, otherwise they would not be risking >>>>their lives. What else could "necessity" mean?
You keep repeating that *by definition* the economic migrants have a >>>necessity to come here, and so get the Rolls-Royce treatment, but you >>>can’t seem to define what that necessity is that could not be met by the >>>benign social policies of the several countries the economic migrants must >>>have already travelled through. So it might move the discussion along if >>>you could elaborate both on your definition of necessity, and of what >>>that necessity comprises in real terms that is only available in the UK.
You're asking for my definition of "necessity" in response to a post
which contains my definition of "necessity". Try reading it again?
I find it somewhat odd that you say that the proof of the necessity for
these people to come here is proved by the hardship the journey entails.
However, this doesn't explain the necessity, what is it that drives them
to climb into the rickety boats?
On 2025-06-07, Spike <[email protected]> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >>>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
Oh it's "obvious" is it, well that's that then.
Do you have a counter to my suggestion that since there is no necessity >>>> for these people to come here as they are safe in France there must be >>>> something else enticing them to risk their lives?
Yes, it's that clearly and essentially *by definition* there is a
necessity for them to come here, otherwise they would not be risking
their lives. What else could "necessity" mean?
You keep repeating that *by definition* the economic migrants have a
*necessity* to come here, and so get the Rolls-Royce treatment, but you
can’t seem to define what that *necessity* is that could not be met by the >> benign social policies of the several countries the economic migrants must >> have already travelled through. So it might move the discussion along if
you could elaborate both on your *definition* of necessity, and of what
that *necessity* comprises in real terms that is only available in the UK.
You're asking for my definition of "necessity" in response to a post
which contains my definition of "necessity". Try reading it again?
You keep repeating that *by definition* the economic migrants have a >>>>necessity to come here, and so get the Rolls-Royce treatment, but you >>>>can’t seem to define what that necessity is that could not be met by >>>>theYou're asking for my definition of "necessity" in response to a post >>>which contains my definition of "necessity". Try reading it again?
benign social policies of the several countries the economic migrants >>>>must
have already travelled through. So it might move the discussion along if >>>>you could elaborate both on your definition of necessity, and of what >>>>that necessity comprises in real terms that is only available in the UK. >>>
I find it somewhat odd that you say that the proof of the necessity for >>these people to come here is proved by the hardship the journey entails.
I can't help what you find odd.
However, this doesn't explain the necessity, what is it that drives them
to climb into the rickety boats?
Here, you may find this link useful: >https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=portable+goal+posts
On 2025-06-07, Spike <[email protected]> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message >>>><[email protected]>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Oh it's "obvious" is it, well that's that then.
Do you have a counter to my suggestion that since there is no necessity >>>>for these people to come here as they are safe in France there must be >>>>something else enticing them to risk their lives?
Yes, it's that clearly and essentially *by definition* there is a >>>necessity for them to come here, otherwise they would not be risking >>>their lives. What else could "necessity" mean?
You keep repeating that *by definition* the economic migrants have a >>necessity to come here, and so get the Rolls-Royce treatment, but you >>can’t seem to define what that necessity is that could not be met by the >>benign social policies of the several countries the economic migrants must >>have already travelled through. So it might move the discussion along if >>you could elaborate both on your definition of necessity, and of what
that necessity comprises in real terms that is only available in the UK.
You're asking for my definition of "necessity" in response to a post
which contains my definition of "necessity". Try reading it again?
On 07/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Jon Ribbens wrote:
You keep repeating that *by definition* the economic migrants have a >>>>>necessity to come here, and so get the Rolls-Royce treatment, but you >>>>>can’t seem to define what that necessity is that could not be met by >>>>>theYou're asking for my definition of "necessity" in response to a post >>>>which contains my definition of "necessity". Try reading it again?
benign social policies of the several countries the economic migrants >>>>>must
have already travelled through. So it might move the discussion along if >>>>>you could elaborate both on your definition of necessity, and of what >>>>>that necessity comprises in real terms that is only available in the UK. >>>>
I find it somewhat odd that you say that the proof of the necessity for >>>these people to come here is proved by the hardship the journey entails.
I can't help what you find odd.
However, this doesn't explain the necessity, what is it that drives them >>>to climb into the rickety boats?
Here, you may find this link useful: >>https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=portable+goal+posts
Sorry, that's another of your obscure responses that means nothing to me.
However, this doesn't explain the necessity, what is it that drives them >>>>to climb into the rickety boats?
Here, you may find this link useful: >>>https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=portable+goal+posts
Sorry, that's another of your obscure responses that means nothing to me.
You appear to have decided that you're on losing ground with your claim
that the refugees don't regard their dangerous journey as necessary, so
have immediately shifted the goalposts to demand that I explain exactly
why they think it is necessary. I don't know they think that, nor have
I at any point claimed that I do, nor is it necessary (!) for the
purposes of this discussion to know the answer to your new question.
On 07/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Jon Ribbens wrote:
However, this doesn't explain the necessity, what is it that drives them >>>>>to climb into the rickety boats?
Here, you may find this link useful: >>>>https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=portable+goal+posts
Sorry, that's another of your obscure responses that means nothing to me.
You appear to have decided that you're on losing ground with your claim >>that the refugees don't regard their dangerous journey as necessary, so >>have immediately shifted the goalposts to demand that I explain exactly
why they think it is necessary. I don't know they think that, nor have
I at any point claimed that I do, nor is it necessary (!) for the
purposes of this discussion to know the answer to your new question.
You cannot explain what these people think, only they can do that.
However, you have claimed that the fact they are willing to make such a dangerous journey is proof it is necessary and I have asked, several
times, that you clarify/explain that since I find it an odd assertion. It
is not a new question, I have asked it several times.
You then provided a link to a set of goal posts in Amazon which I find puzzling but you, again, seem unable to explain.
On 2025-06-07, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 07/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
However, this doesn't explain the necessity, what is it that drives them >>>>>>
to climb into the rickety boats?
Here, you may find this link useful: >>>>>https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=portable+goal+posts
Sorry, that's another of your obscure responses that means nothing to me. >>>>
You appear to have decided that you're on losing ground with your claim >>>that the refugees don't regard their dangerous journey as necessary, so >>>have immediately shifted the goalposts to demand that I explain exactly >>>why they think it is necessary. I don't know they think that, nor have
I at any point claimed that I do, nor is it necessary (!) for the >>>purposes of this discussion to know the answer to your new question.
You cannot explain what these people think, only they can do that.
However, you have claimed that the fact they are willing to make such a >>dangerous journey is proof it is necessary and I have asked, several
times, that you clarify/explain that since I find it an odd assertion. It >>is not a new question, I have asked it several times.
I cannot help that you find it odd. Try using your brain. What do you
think the word "necessary" even means? (Please do try to move beyond
your previous suggestion that it means something is a "necessity",
which is a tautologous circular definition.)
You then provided a link to a set of goal posts in Amazon which I find >>puzzling but you, again, seem unable to explain.
I just explained it in the post you are responding to?
I recommend reading posts before following-up to them.
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message
<[email protected]> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message >>>><[email protected]> Jon Ribbens
wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >>>>>>Roger Hayter wrote:
You are aware I suppose that many of the people who come here
in small boats have their refugee applications rejected, once
we get round to the much-delayed process of assessing their
claims? What makes you think the assessment is not based on
need? There may be some difficulty in deporting some of those
whose application is rejected, but many are deported after
assessment. Perhaps you believe dishonest propaganda saying
that we accept economic migrants as refugees? Bear in mind some
propaganda may be lies by dishonest people.
The people coming here in small boats are not coming here
because of need, they are already in a place of safety.
Surely anything that someone does that puts their life in such >>>>>extreme risk as crossing the channel in these small boats does is, >>>>>*by definition*, something they "need" to do.
I disagree, it's something they want to do, they must think we are
the land of milk and honey.
Ok, well I think it's reality you're disagreeing with. People don't
generally risk their lives on a whim.
They are obviously not, they must feel there is a worthwhile reward
commensurate with the risk.
Oh it's "obvious" is it, well that's that then.
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Roger
Hayter wrote:
You are aware I suppose that many of the people who come here in
small boats have their refugee applications rejected, once we get
round to the much-delayed process of assessing their claims? What
makes you think the assessment is not based on need? There may be
some difficulty in deporting some of those whose application is
rejected, but many are deported after assessment. Perhaps you
believe dishonest propaganda saying that we accept economic migrants
as refugees? Bear in mind some propaganda may be lies by dishonest >>>people.
The people coming here in small boats are not coming here because of
need, they are already in a place of safety.
Surely anything that someone does that puts their life in such
extreme risk as crossing the channel in these small boats does is,
*by definition*, something they "need" to do.
On 2025-06-07, Spike <[email protected]> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >>>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
Oh it's "obvious" is it, well that's that then.
Do you have a counter to my suggestion that since there is no necessity >>>> for these people to come here as they are safe in France there must be >>>> something else enticing them to risk their lives?
Yes, it's that clearly and essentially *by definition* there is a
necessity for them to come here, otherwise they would not be risking
their lives. What else could "necessity" mean?
You keep repeating that *by definition* the economic migrants have a
*necessity* to come here, and so get the Rolls-Royce treatment, but you
can’t seem to define what that *necessity* is that could not be met by the >> benign social policies of the several countries the economic migrants must >> have already travelled through. So it might move the discussion along if
you could elaborate both on your *definition* of necessity, and of what
that *necessity* comprises in real terms that is only available in the UK.
You're asking for my definition of "necessity" in response to a post
which contains my definition of "necessity". Try reading it again?
On 06/06/2025 19:59, JNugent wrote:
On 06/06/2025 12:58 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Andy Burns" <[email protected]> wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
That is the absolute pivotal question when considering refugees/
immigration in the 21st century and, to me, the reason why we should >>>>> write our own equivalent of the EHCR.
Nicholas Mostyn was on Jon Pienaar's program yesterday saying you can't >>>> pick and choose which parts of the ECHR apply. So it seems to me that >>>> we say none of it applies, and then implement a UKCHR that only applies >>>> the parts we want?
I think the point is that by opting out of the ECHR we are saying
there are at least some people in the UK to whom we don't want to
grant a fairly basic set of human rights.
Not at all. Se below.
Even if we go on to grant some people in this country some
human rights it doesn't change the fact that we have opted out of a
fairly minimal standard of civilisation.
What was the matter with Magna Carta? And habeas corpus?
Before 1945 was there any sense that British people did not have
asequate rights within Britain? I don't remember my parents and
grandparents complaining about how terrible it was before the
Convention came into force. Have you ever heard anyone from The
Greatest Generation whinging about the lack of human rights in the UK
prior to 1945 (or so)?
Was the ECHR necessary for the British? My feeling is that it was not
and that nothing has been gained from it, though it seems that much
has been lost.
How easily you're willing to jettison our civil liberties and our
rights.
On 2025-06-07, Spike <[email protected]> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >>>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
Oh it's "obvious" is it, well that's that then.
Do you have a counter to my suggestion that since there is no necessity >>>> for these people to come here as they are safe in France there must be >>>> something else enticing them to risk their lives?
Yes, it's that clearly and essentially *by definition* there is a
necessity for them to come here, otherwise they would not be risking
their lives. What else could "necessity" mean?
You keep repeating that *by definition* the economic migrants have a
*necessity* to come here, and so get the Rolls-Royce treatment, but you
can’t seem to define what that *necessity* is that could not be met by the >> benign social policies of the several countries the economic migrants must >> have already travelled through. So it might move the discussion along if
you could elaborate both on your *definition* of necessity, and of what
that *necessity* comprises in real terms that is only available in the UK.
You're asking for my definition of "necessity" in response to a post
which contains my definition of "necessity". Try reading it again?
On 2025-06-07, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 07/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >> Jon Ribbens wrote:
I can't help what you find odd.You keep repeating that *by definition* the economic migrants have a >>>>>> necessity to come here, and so get the Rolls-Royce treatment, but you >>>>>> can’t seem to define what that necessity is that could not be met by >>>>>> theYou're asking for my definition of "necessity" in response to a post >>>>> which contains my definition of "necessity". Try reading it again?
benign social policies of the several countries the economic migrants >>>>>> must
have already travelled through. So it might move the discussion along if >>>>>> you could elaborate both on your definition of necessity, and of what >>>>>> that necessity comprises in real terms that is only available in the UK. >>>>>
I find it somewhat odd that you say that the proof of the necessity for >>>> these people to come here is proved by the hardship the journey entails. >>>
However, this doesn't explain the necessity, what is it that drives them >>>> to climb into the rickety boats?
Here, you may find this link useful:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=portable+goal+posts
Sorry, that's another of your obscure responses that means nothing to me.
You appear to have decided that you're on losing ground with your claim
that the refugees don't regard their dangerous journey as necessary, so
have immediately shifted the goalposts to demand that I explain exactly
*why* they think it is necessary. I don't know they think that, nor have
I at any point claimed that I do, nor is it necessary (!) for the
purposes of this discussion to know the answer to your new question.
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >>>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
Oh it's "obvious" is it, well that's that then.
Do you have a counter to my suggestion that since there is no necessity >>>> for these people to come here as they are safe in France there must be >>>> something else enticing them to risk their lives?
Yes, it's that clearly and essentially *by definition* there is a
necessity for them to come here, otherwise they would not be risking
their lives. What else could "necessity" mean?
"Necessity" means it is necessary
That's a tautology.
and clearly it isn't because they are in a place of safety.
Oh, I didn't realise Maslow's hierarchy of needs had only 1.2 layers.
What an idiot he was to think there were more.
On 07/06/2025 09:46 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2025 19:59, JNugent wrote:
On 06/06/2025 12:58 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Andy Burns" <[email protected]> wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
That is the absolute pivotal question when considering refugees/
immigration in the 21st century and, to me, the reason why we should >>>>>> write our own equivalent of the EHCR.
Nicholas Mostyn was on Jon Pienaar's program yesterday saying you
can't
pick and choose which parts of the ECHR apply. So it seems to me that >>>>> we say none of it applies, and then implement a UKCHR that only
applies
the parts we want?
I think the point is that by opting out of the ECHR we are saying
there are at least some people in the UK to whom we don't want to
grant a fairly basic set of human rights.
Not at all. Se below.
Even if we go on to grant some people in this country some
human rights it doesn't change the fact that we have opted out of a
fairly minimal standard of civilisation.
What was the matter with Magna Carta? And habeas corpus?
No response attempted to that? One wonders why.
Before 1945 was there any sense that British people did not have
asequate rights within Britain? I don't remember my parents and
grandparents complaining about how terrible it was before the
Convention came into force. Have you ever heard anyone from The
Greatest Generation whinging about the lack of human rights in the UK
prior to 1945 (or so)?
Was the ECHR necessary for the British? My feeling is that it was not
and that nothing has been gained from it, though it seems that much
has been lost.
How easily you're willing to jettison our civil liberties and our
rights.
I am not willing to sacrifice ANY of the rights due to British citizens within Britain and have said nothing to the contrary. I have no
objection to having the rights my father was born with.
I therefore feel free to snip the rest of your post since it is based
upon an *entirely* *false* premise from the first word.
On 07/06/2025 12:58 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Spike <[email protected]> wrote:
You keep repeating that *by definition* the economic migrants have a
*necessity* to come here, and so get the Rolls-Royce treatment, but you
can’t seem to define what that *necessity* is that could not be met by the
benign social policies of the several countries the economic migrants must >>> have already travelled through. So it might move the discussion along if >>> you could elaborate both on your *definition* of necessity, and of what
that *necessity* comprises in real terms that is only available in the UK.
You're asking for my definition of "necessity" in response to a post
which contains my definition of "necessity". Try reading it again?
Yes... come on, Spike.
He HAS already defined "necessity".
He said it means "necessity".
Jon Ribbens <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Spike <[email protected]> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Oh it's "obvious" is it, well that's that then.
Do you have a counter to my suggestion that since there is no necessity >>>>> for these people to come here as they are safe in France there must be >>>>> something else enticing them to risk their lives?
Yes, it's that clearly and essentially *by definition* there is a
necessity for them to come here, otherwise they would not be risking
their lives. What else could "necessity" mean?
You keep repeating that *by definition* the economic migrants have a
*necessity* to come here, and so get the Rolls-Royce treatment, but you
can’t seem to define what that *necessity* is that could not be met by the
benign social policies of the several countries the economic migrants must >>> have already travelled through. So it might move the discussion along if >>> you could elaborate both on your *definition* of necessity, and of what
that *necessity* comprises in real terms that is only available in the UK.
You're asking for my definition of "necessity" in response to a post
which contains my definition of "necessity". Try reading it again?
That would be so only if you were defining the *necessity* of small-boat economic migrants to come to the UK by using the word *necessity*, since
you have not defined such *necessity* in any other way than by saying the *necessity* exists because of the *necessity*.
On 07/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 07/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >>>Jon Ribbens wrote:
You appear to have decided that you're on losing ground with your claim >>>>that the refugees don't regard their dangerous journey as necessary, so >>>>have immediately shifted the goalposts to demand that I explain exactly >>>>why they think it is necessary. I don't know they think that, nor have >>>>I at any point claimed that I do, nor is it necessary (!) for the >>>>purposes of this discussion to know the answer to your new question.However, this doesn't explain the necessity, what is it that >>>>>>>drives them to climb into the rickety boats?
Here, you may find this link useful: >>>>>>https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=portable+goal+posts
Sorry, that's another of your obscure responses that means nothing to me. >>>>
You cannot explain what these people think, only they can do that.
However, you have claimed that the fact they are willing to make such a >>>dangerous journey is proof it is necessary and I have asked, several >>>times, that you clarify/explain that since I find it an odd assertion. It >>>is not a new question, I have asked it several times.
I cannot help that you find it odd. Try using your brain. What do you
think the word "necessary" even means? (Please do try to move beyond
your previous suggestion that it means something is a "necessity",
which is a tautologous circular definition.)
I am using "necessary" in its normal everyday meaning, if you are unclear
as to its meaning I'm sure your favourite dictionary will help. It is important you can distinguish between a "necessity" and a "want".
You then provided a link to a set of goal posts in Amazon which I find >>>puzzling but you, again, seem unable to explain.
I just explained it in the post you are responding to?
No you didn't.
I recommend reading posts before following-up to them.
Indeed, and perhaps read your own posts so you can be sure what they say?
On 05/06/2025 08:48, Spike wrote:
agree it's a farce but they are not in danger at that point.
I�m not sure that that is correct. There have been instances of people
dying in the scramble to get on the boats, including children, and also
when not far out to sea when boats have taken on water or the engine
failed. For all we know, it could be that more economic migrants die in
French waters than British, raising concerns about the duty of care being
shown by the French.
Out of interest, I've often wondered what those large inflatables were
used for before they became the usual transport method for illegal
migrants to cross the channel.
If they have no currently accepted legal usage in France (which cannot
be filled by some other floating craft), could the French not declare
them illegal? That might allow the French police to confiscate or simply >deflate them. It just seems to me they are a simple, cheap, and very >convenient method of transport for people smugglers, who would have a
more difficult time if those inflatables weren't around.
I am not willing to sacrifice ANY of the rights due to British citizens >>within Britain and have said nothing to the contrary. I have no objection >>to having the rights my father was born with.
That's good of you. But which rights are you keen to abolish? Do you trust >Kemi Badenoch to draw up a bill of rights that strikes the right balance >between government power and the right of the individual to challenge >unreasonable government decisions? She's a lamebrain.
On 2025-06-07, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 07/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 07/06/2025 in message >>>><[email protected]>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
However, this doesn't explain the necessity, what is it that >>>>>>>>drives them to climb into the rickety boats?
Here, you may find this link useful: >>>>>>>https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=portable+goal+posts
Sorry, that's another of your obscure responses that means nothing to >>>>>>me.
You appear to have decided that you're on losing ground with your claim >>>>>that the refugees don't regard their dangerous journey as necessary, so >>>>>have immediately shifted the goalposts to demand that I explain exactly >>>>>why they think it is necessary. I don't know they think that, nor have >>>>>I at any point claimed that I do, nor is it necessary (!) for the >>>>>purposes of this discussion to know the answer to your new question.
You cannot explain what these people think, only they can do that.
However, you have claimed that the fact they are willing to make such a >>>>dangerous journey is proof it is necessary and I have asked, several >>>>times, that you clarify/explain that since I find it an odd assertion. >>>>It
is not a new question, I have asked it several times.
I cannot help that you find it odd. Try using your brain. What do you >>>think the word "necessary" even means? (Please do try to move beyond
your previous suggestion that it means something is a "necessity",
which is a tautologous circular definition.)
I am using "necessary" in its normal everyday meaning, if you are unclear >>as to its meaning I'm sure your favourite dictionary will help. It is >>important you can distinguish between a "necessity" and a "want".
Your condescension would be less misplaced if it wasn't you that
is confused as to the meaning.
You then provided a link to a set of goal posts in Amazon which I find >>>>puzzling but you, again, seem unable to explain.
I just explained it in the post you are responding to?
No you didn't.
Yes, I did. Honestly I am at a loss as to how you can still be failing
to understand the perfectly simple exchange that occurred. You can still
go back and read it again until you do understand it.
I recommend reading posts before following-up to them.
Indeed, and perhaps read your own posts so you can be sure what they say?
You can rest assured that I do, and am.
You can have the last word if you like; you are boring me now.
On 07/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> The Todal
wrote:
I am not willing to sacrifice ANY of the rights due to British
citizens within Britain and have said nothing to the contrary. I have
no objection to having the rights my father was born with.
That's good of you. But which rights are you keen to abolish? Do you
trust Kemi Badenoch to draw up a bill of rights that strikes the right
balance between government power and the right of the individual to
challenge unreasonable government decisions? She's a lamebrain.
A procedural question. How much input would an MP have in any (such) legislation compared to the, hopefully, specialists in
government/parliament?
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >> Jon Ribbens wrote:
Oh it's "obvious" is it, well that's that then.
Do you have a counter to my suggestion that since there is no necessity
for these people to come here as they are safe in France there must be
something else enticing them to risk their lives?
Yes, it's that clearly and essentially *by definition* there is a
necessity for them to come here, otherwise they would not be risking
their lives. What else could "necessity" mean?
On 07/06/2025 14:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/06/2025 09:46 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2025 19:59, JNugent wrote:
On 06/06/2025 12:58 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Andy Burns" <[email protected]> wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
That is the absolute pivotal question when considering refugees/ >>>>>>> immigration in the 21st century and, to me, the reason why we should >>>>>>> write our own equivalent of the EHCR.
Nicholas Mostyn was on Jon Pienaar's program yesterday saying you
can't
pick and choose which parts of the ECHR apply. So it seems to me
that
we say none of it applies, and then implement a UKCHR that only
applies
the parts we want?
I think the point is that by opting out of the ECHR we are saying
there are at least some people in the UK to whom we don't want to
grant a fairly basic set of human rights.
Not at all. Se below.
Even if we go on to grant some people in this country some
human rights it doesn't change the fact that we have opted out of a
fairly minimal standard of civilisation.
What was the matter with Magna Carta? And habeas corpus?
No response attempted to that? One wonders why.
Does one, really?
It's a sign of an amateur barrack room lawyer to cite Magna Carta and
Habeas Corpus as if they were part of a magical spell.
Magna Carta does nothing to protect our civil liberties. It was the King giving various rights to wealthy barons to mollify them and get them on
side. Nothing for the peasants who didn't have the right to vote, didn't
even have a democratic government.
Habeas corpus gives an imprisoned person the right to come before a
court and argue their case, which is usually futile without incurring
the expense of a lawyer and obviously doesn't apply if the prisoner has already exhausted the remedies available. Thus, would you seriously
argue that habeas corpus would help Shamima Begum, bring her back to
Blighty to argue her case? Of course not.
Before 1945 was there any sense that British people did not have
asequate rights within Britain? I don't remember my parents and
grandparents complaining about how terrible it was before the
Convention came into force. Have you ever heard anyone from The
Greatest Generation whinging about the lack of human rights in the UK
prior to 1945 (or so)?
Was the ECHR necessary for the British? My feeling is that it was not
and that nothing has been gained from it, though it seems that much
has been lost.
How easily you're willing to jettison our civil liberties and our
rights.
I am not willing to sacrifice ANY of the rights due to British
citizens within Britain and have said nothing to the contrary. I have
no objection to having the rights my father was born with.
That's good of you. But which rights are you keen to abolish? Do you
trust Kemi Badenoch to draw up a bill of rights that strikes the right balance between government power and the right of the individual to
challenge unreasonable government decisions? She's a lamebrain.
I therefore feel free to snip the rest of your post since it is based
upon an *entirely* *false* premise from the first word.
Ah. "No response attempted". So, adopting a Norman approach, I shall
assume that you agree with everything I've said.
(Just being satirical. I know you don't really)
On 07/06/2025 04:14 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 07/06/2025 14:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/06/2025 09:46 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2025 19:59, JNugent wrote:
On 06/06/2025 12:58 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Andy Burns" <[email protected]> wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
That is the absolute pivotal question when considering refugees/ >>>>>>>> immigration in the 21st century and, to me, the reason why we
should
write our own equivalent of the EHCR.
Nicholas Mostyn was on Jon Pienaar's program yesterday saying you >>>>>>> can't
pick and choose which parts of the ECHR apply. So it seems to me >>>>>>> that
we say none of it applies, and then implement a UKCHR that only
applies
the parts we want?
I think the point is that by opting out of the ECHR we are saying
there are at least some people in the UK to whom we don't want to
grant a fairly basic set of human rights.
Not at all. Se below.
Even if we go on to grant some people in this country some
human rights it doesn't change the fact that we have opted out of a >>>>>> fairly minimal standard of civilisation.
What was the matter with Magna Carta? And habeas corpus?
No response attempted to that? One wonders why.
Does one, really?
No, not really. :-)
It's a sign of an amateur barrack room lawyer to cite Magna Carta and
Habeas Corpus as if they were part of a magical spell.
They were, in effect, all we had before the Second World War.
Were they deficient?
Was there any complaint about them?
Magna Carta does nothing to protect our civil liberties. It was the King
giving various rights to wealthy barons to mollify them and get them on
side. Nothing for the peasants who didn't have the right to vote, didn't
even have a democratic government.
Things developed from there onward.
Habeas corpus gives an imprisoned person the right to come before aShe isn't a British citizen. Perhaps you'd forgotten that.
court and argue their case, which is usually futile without incurring
the expense of a lawyer and obviously doesn't apply if the prisoner has
already exhausted the remedies available. Thus, would you seriously
argue that habeas corpus would help Shamima Begum, bring her back to
Blighty to argue her case? Of course not.
Before 1945 was there any sense that British people did not have
asequate rights within Britain? I don't remember my parents and
grandparents complaining about how terrible it was before the
Convention came into force. Have you ever heard anyone from The
Greatest Generation whinging about the lack of human rights in the UK >>>>> prior to 1945 (or so)?
Was the ECHR necessary for the British? My feeling is that it was not >>>>> and that nothing has been gained from it, though it seems that much
has been lost.
How easily you're willing to jettison our civil liberties and our
rights.
I am not willing to sacrifice ANY of the rights due to British
citizens within Britain and have said nothing to the contrary. I have
no objection to having the rights my father was born with.
That's good of you. But which rights are you keen to abolish? Do you
trust Kemi Badenoch to draw up a bill of rights that strikes the right
balance between government power and the right of the individual to
challenge unreasonable government decisions? She's a lamebrain.
We don't need to "draw up" anything.
Just repeal post-war legislation which degraded the rights of the
British by effectively giving the same rights to non-citizens.
In any country, a citizen *must* have rights that a non-citizen does not have. And not just the right to vote.
I therefore feel free to snip the rest of your post since it is based
upon an *entirely* *false* premise from the first word.
Ah. "No response attempted". So, adopting a Norman approach, I shall
assume that you agree with everything I've said.
Not at all, the rest, which I snipped, was based upon the false premise
in the first few words (which I left in place, but you have now snipped).
(Just being satirical. I know you don't really)
On 6/6/25 19:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
Oh it's "obvious" is it, well that's that then.
Do you have a counter to my suggestion that since there is no necessity
for these people to come here as they are safe in France there must be
something else enticing them to risk their lives?
Yes, it's that clearly and essentially *by definition* there is a
necessity for them to come here, otherwise they would not be risking
their lives. What else could "necessity" mean?
Does that also apply to the drunk at the pub. There is a necessity for
them to drive themselves home, otherwise they wouldn't be risking their
lives driving?
On 5 Jun 2025 at 16:10:26 BST, "Norman Wells" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 05/06/2025 15:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Jun 2025 at 14:06:13 BST, "Norman Wells" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 05/06/2025 12:11, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 09:11:06 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2025 23:25, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 22:43, Jeff Layman wrote:Indeed, but Norman was referring to "self-inflicted" difficulties. The >>>>>> RNLI will be called out to deal with either, but I do wonder if those >>>>>> with "self-inflicted difficulties" are being denied a possible Darwin >>>>>> Award!
On 04/06/2025 14:25, Norman Wells wrote:
There is a limit to compassion where the difficulties are
self-inflicted. It's a morality question. Should you always bend >>>>>>>>> over backwards to help even those who deliberately, even perversely, >>>>>>>>> do risky, dangerous things because they think you will pick up the >>>>>>>>> pieces?
I suggest you watch a few episodes of "Saving lives at sea" on BBC >>>>>>>> iPlayer. It beggars belief the number of morons who set out on small >>>>>>>> boats unprepared, or when on foot pay no attention when they're told >>>>>>>> they'll be stranded on an ever-decreasing piece of dry land when the >>>>>>>> tide comes in if they don't leave when they should. The RNLI are >>>>>>>> always there to pick up the pieces - often at extreme danger to >>>>>>>> themselves.
And there are of course competent sailors who have the bad luck to be >>>>>>> on a boat when the engine has failed and the weather has turned bad. >>>>>>
Maybe ambulances could take a similar approach and refuse to attend
people whose injuries are self inflicted ?
It's a good question. What's the answer?
If you say it's common humanity, is there any reason why the general
public should have to foot the bill for self-inflicted injuries, rather >>>> than the person concerned?
What BMI limit, or alcohol intake limit (for information the answer is zero),
should be set before virtually any illness counts as self-inflicted?
You're not asking a question that makes any sense. You can't ask what
limit *should* be set but answer it yourself.
No, that misses the point. The point is that virtually any illness in adults can be regarded as self-inflicted. Anything else is just racial (or other) prejudice against the individual adult, or political prejudice about the particular action that led to the problem being regarded as self-inflicted. I trust you wouldn't rescue anyone sailing a dinghy in the sea or anyone riding a horse cross country. Or anyone playing contact sports. Or are those virtuous
self-inflicted dangers?
On 6/6/25 19:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Oh it's "obvious" is it, well that's that then.
Do you have a counter to my suggestion that since there is no necessity
for these people to come here as they are safe in France there must be
something else enticing them to risk their lives?
Yes, it's that clearly and essentially *by definition* there is a
necessity for them to come here, otherwise they would not be risking
their lives. What else could "necessity" mean?
Does that also apply to the drunk at the pub. There is a necessity for
them to drive themselves home, otherwise they wouldn't be risking their
lives driving?
On 07/06/2025 20:55, JNugent wrote:
On 07/06/2025 04:14 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 07/06/2025 14:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/06/2025 09:46 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2025 19:59, JNugent wrote:
On 06/06/2025 12:58 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Andy Burns" <[email protected]> wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
That is the absolute pivotal question when considering refugees/ >>>>>>>>> immigration in the 21st century and, to me, the reason why we >>>>>>>>> should
write our own equivalent of the EHCR.
Nicholas Mostyn was on Jon Pienaar's program yesterday saying you >>>>>>>> can't
pick and choose which parts of the ECHR apply. So it seems to me >>>>>>>> that
we say none of it applies, and then implement a UKCHR that only >>>>>>>> applies
the parts we want?
I think the point is that by opting out of the ECHR we are saying >>>>>>> there are at least some people in the UK to whom we don't want to >>>>>>> grant a fairly basic set of human rights.
Not at all. Se below.
Even if we go on to grant some people in this country some
human rights it doesn't change the fact that we have opted out of a >>>>>>> fairly minimal standard of civilisation.
What was the matter with Magna Carta? And habeas corpus?
No response attempted to that? One wonders why.
Does one, really?
No, not really. :-)
It's a sign of an amateur barrack room lawyer to cite Magna Carta and
Habeas Corpus as if they were part of a magical spell.
They were, in effect, all we had before the Second World War.
Were they deficient?
Was there any complaint about them?
Magna Carta does nothing to protect our civil liberties. It was the King >>> giving various rights to wealthy barons to mollify them and get them on
side. Nothing for the peasants who didn't have the right to vote, didn't >>> even have a democratic government.
Things developed from there onward.
Habeas corpus gives an imprisoned person the right to come before aShe isn't a British citizen. Perhaps you'd forgotten that.
court and argue their case, which is usually futile without incurring
the expense of a lawyer and obviously doesn't apply if the prisoner has
already exhausted the remedies available. Thus, would you seriously
argue that habeas corpus would help Shamima Begum, bring her back to
Blighty to argue her case? Of course not.
Before 1945 was there any sense that British people did not have
asequate rights within Britain? I don't remember my parents and
grandparents complaining about how terrible it was before the
Convention came into force. Have you ever heard anyone from The
Greatest Generation whinging about the lack of human rights in the UK >>>>>> prior to 1945 (or so)?
Was the ECHR necessary for the British? My feeling is that it was not >>>>>> and that nothing has been gained from it, though it seems that much >>>>>> has been lost.
How easily you're willing to jettison our civil liberties and our
rights.
I am not willing to sacrifice ANY of the rights due to British
citizens within Britain and have said nothing to the contrary. I have
no objection to having the rights my father was born with.
That's good of you. But which rights are you keen to abolish? Do you
trust Kemi Badenoch to draw up a bill of rights that strikes the right
balance between government power and the right of the individual to
challenge unreasonable government decisions? She's a lamebrain.
We don't need to "draw up" anything.
Perhaps "we" (you, I and the usenet community) don't needd to draw up anything but someone definitely would have to draw up a new Bill of
Rights. That's accepted by all the politicians who want to repeal the
Human Rights Act.
Drawing up a new Bill of Rights might be as tricky as Brexit. There are
all sorts of repercussions, all manner of past court decisions, treaties
with other bodies and other countries, which pre-suppose the Human
Rights Act. It isn't as simple as "now that there's no Human Rights Act,
we can order that this paedophile can be deported to Syria from whence
he came after a decade being tortured in a Syrian prison".
Just repeal post-war legislation which degraded the rights of the
British by effectively giving the same rights to non-citizens.
In any country, a citizen *must* have rights that a non-citizen does
not have. And not just the right to vote.
But the citizen does not have the right to decide who should or should
not be deported, or accepted as a refugee.
The citizen must mind his own
business and leave those decisions to the grownups.
What was the matter with Magna Carta?
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 19:59:12 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
What was the matter with Magna Carta?
Did she die in vain?
Mark
On 2025-06-08, Pancho <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/6/25 19:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >>>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
Oh it's "obvious" is it, well that's that then.
Do you have a counter to my suggestion that since there is no necessity >>>> for these people to come here as they are safe in France there must be >>>> something else enticing them to risk their lives?
Yes, it's that clearly and essentially *by definition* there is a
necessity for them to come here, otherwise they would not be risking
their lives. What else could "necessity" mean?
Does that also apply to the drunk at the pub. There is a necessity for
them to drive themselves home, otherwise they wouldn't be risking their
lives driving?
I have heard it suggested that being drunk impairs one's risk analysis
and decision making capabilities, amongst other things. Do you not
subscribe to this theory?
On 6/8/25 12:17, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-08, Pancho <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/6/25 19:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Oh it's "obvious" is it, well that's that then.
Do you have a counter to my suggestion that since there is no necessity >>>>> for these people to come here as they are safe in France there must be >>>>> something else enticing them to risk their lives?
Yes, it's that clearly and essentially *by definition* there is a
necessity for them to come here, otherwise they would not be risking
their lives. What else could "necessity" mean?
Does that also apply to the drunk at the pub. There is a necessity for
them to drive themselves home, otherwise they wouldn't be risking their
lives driving?
I have heard it suggested that being drunk impairs one's risk analysis
and decision making capabilities, amongst other things. Do you not
subscribe to this theory?
It is irrelevant, the same argument could be made about speeding
motorists. People "risk" their lives all the time, often for relatively trivial concerns, certainly for purely economic reasons. Both risk and necessity are continuous rather than binary.
Accepting we have limited capacity to deal with refugees, it seems
sensible to deal with the most in need first. I doubt the ones in France
are the ones most in need. I also don't see that it is sensible to
reward refugee candidates for choosing to expose themselves to risk in
order to promote themselves up the queue of those seeking refugees status.
We accept a rather small number of refugees compared with most European countries, and we really don't accept many by any other route.
We accept a rather small number of refugees compared with most European countries, and we really don't accept many by any other route.
On 09/06/2025 12:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
We accept a rather small number of refugees compared with most European
countries, and we really don't accept many by any other route.
That is a meaningless statement unless balanced against the land size & resources of 'Most European countries'.
On 2025-06-09, Les. Hayward <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 09/06/2025 12:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
We accept a rather small number of refugees compared with most European
countries, and we really don't accept many by any other route.
That is a meaningless statement unless balanced against the land size &
resources of 'Most European countries'.
Would you like to do that then and let us know your conclusions?
On 09/06/2025 23:05, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-09, Les. Hayward <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 09/06/2025 12:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
We accept a rather small number of refugees compared with most European >>>> countries, and we really don't accept many by any other route.
That is a meaningless statement unless balanced against the land size &
resources of 'Most European countries'.
Would you like to do that then and let us know your conclusions?
Bearing in mind that it is unlikely to make the slightest difference,
I'd think of better ways to use my time!
We accept a rather small number of refugees compared with most European countries, and we really don't accept many by any other route.
On 2025-06-10, Les. Hayward <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 09/06/2025 23:05, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-09, Les. Hayward <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 09/06/2025 12:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
We accept a rather small number of refugees compared with most European >>>>> countries, and we really don't accept many by any other route.
That is a meaningless statement unless balanced against the land size & >>>> resources of 'Most European countries'.
Would you like to do that then and let us know your conclusions?
Bearing in mind that it is unlikely to make the slightest difference,
I'd think of better ways to use my time!
Oh, so you've changed your mind, and you *don't* think it's a
"meaningless statement unless balanced against the land size" etc?
On 2025-06-10, Les. Hayward <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 10/06/2025 09:41, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-10, Les. Hayward <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 09/06/2025 23:05, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-09, Les. Hayward <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 09/06/2025 12:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
We accept a rather small number of refugees compared with most European >>>>>>> countries, and we really don't accept many by any other route.
That is a meaningless statement unless balanced against the land size & >>>>>> resources of 'Most European countries'.
Would you like to do that then and let us know your conclusions?
Bearing in mind that it is unlikely to make the slightest difference,
I'd think of better ways to use my time!
Oh, so you've changed your mind, and you *don't* think it's a
"meaningless statement unless balanced against the land size" etc?
Not at all. It was never my claim that we accepted a 'small' number of
refugees. I was simply trying to make the point that room has to be
found for them, and many of the other countries who have taken a greater
number have far more room to expand.
It's just that you said that if you did look into the land size and
resources it would be "unlikely to make the slightest difference",
despite having immediately before said that these are key issues.
On 10/06/2025 09:41, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-10, Les. Hayward <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 09/06/2025 23:05, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-09, Les. Hayward <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 09/06/2025 12:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
We accept a rather small number of refugees compared with most European >>>>>> countries, and we really don't accept many by any other route.
That is a meaningless statement unless balanced against the land size & >>>>> resources of 'Most European countries'.
Would you like to do that then and let us know your conclusions?
Bearing in mind that it is unlikely to make the slightest difference,
I'd think of better ways to use my time!
Oh, so you've changed your mind, and you *don't* think it's a
"meaningless statement unless balanced against the land size" etc?
Not at all. It was never my claim that we accepted a 'small' number of refugees. I was simply trying to make the point that room has to be
found for them, and many of the other countries who have taken a greater number have far more room to expand.
On 10/06/2025 13:23, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-10, Les. Hayward <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 10/06/2025 09:41, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-10, Les. Hayward <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 09/06/2025 23:05, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-09, Les. Hayward <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 09/06/2025 12:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
We accept a rather small number of refugees compared with most >>>>>>>> European countries, and we really don't accept many by any
other route.
That is a meaningless statement unless balanced against the land >>>>>>> size & resources of 'Most European countries'.
Would you like to do that then and let us know your conclusions?
Bearing in mind that it is unlikely to make the slightest difference, >>>>> I'd think of better ways to use my time!
Oh, so you've changed your mind, and you *don't* think it's a
"meaningless statement unless balanced against the land size" etc?
Not at all. It was never my claim that we accepted a 'small' number of
refugees. I was simply trying to make the point that room has to be
found for them, and many of the other countries who have taken a greater >>> number have far more room to expand.
It's just that you said that if you did look into the land size and
resources it would be "unlikely to make the slightest difference",
despite having immediately before said that these are key issues.
I meant that my opinion however expressed, would make no difference.
On 6 Jun 2025 at 17:19:35 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message
<[email protected]> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message
<[email protected]> Jon Ribbens
wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message
<[email protected]> Jon Ribbens
wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> Roger Hayter wrote:
You are aware I suppose that many of the people who come here >>>>>>>>> in small boats have their refugee applications rejected, once >>>>>>>>> we get round to the much-delayed process of assessing their
claims? What makes you think the assessment is not based on
need? There may be some difficulty in deporting some of those >>>>>>>>> whose application is rejected, but many are deported after
assessment. Perhaps you believe dishonest propaganda saying
that we accept economic migrants as refugees? Bear in mind
some propaganda may be lies by dishonest people.
The people coming here in small boats are not coming here
because of need, they are already in a place of safety.
Surely anything that someone does that puts their life in such
extreme risk as crossing the channel in these small boats does
is, *by definition*, something they "need" to do.
I disagree, it's something they want to do, they must think we
are the land of milk and honey.
Ok, well I think it's reality you're disagreeing with. People
don't generally risk their lives on a whim.
They are obviously not, they must feel there is a worthwhile
reward commensurate with the risk.
Oh it's "obvious" is it, well that's that then.
Do you have a counter to my suggestion that since there is no
necessity for these people to come here as they are safe in France
there must be something else enticing them to risk their lives?
They are only conditionally safe in France. They are not resident
there and could be deported at any time.
Surely a hope (whether or not misplaced) that their asylum status
might be more fairly considered in the UK would be a fair reason for
wanting to apply here?
After all, it is only a very small minority of refugees in
continental countries that want to come here, despite some peoples'
outrage that any at all do so.
It is mainly those with social, family or language connections with
Britain that want to come here. Very few fail to realise that living conditions and benefits are actually better in many continental
countries.
As an aside, I lent my flat to a nice lady from Odessa. She did not stay long, being a
qualified accountant, she soon got a job in Cardiff.
On 2025-06-10, Les. Hayward <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 10/06/2025 09:41, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-10, Les. Hayward <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 09/06/2025 23:05, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-09, Les. Hayward <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 09/06/2025 12:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
We accept a rather small number of refugees compared with most European >>>>>>> countries, and we really don't accept many by any other route.
That is a meaningless statement unless balanced against the land size & >>>>>> resources of 'Most European countries'.
Would you like to do that then and let us know your conclusions?
Bearing in mind that it is unlikely to make the slightest difference,
I'd think of better ways to use my time!
Oh, so you've changed your mind, and you *don't* think it's a
"meaningless statement unless balanced against the land size" etc?
Not at all. It was never my claim that we accepted a 'small' number of
refugees. I was simply trying to make the point that room has to be
found for them, and many of the other countries who have taken a greater
number have far more room to expand.
It's just that you said that if you did look into the land size and
resources it would be "unlikely to make the slightest difference",
despite having immediately before said that these are key issues.
Accepting we have limited capacity to deal with refugees, it seems
sensible to deal with the most in need first. I doubt the ones in France
are the ones most in need. I also don't see that it is sensible to
reward refugee candidates for choosing to expose themselves to risk in
order to promote themselves up the queue of those seeking refugees status.
We accept a rather small number of refugees compared with most European countries, and we really don't accept many by any other route.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 35:47:19 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,355 |