Posts by codejunky 7119 publicly visible posts • joined 24 Oct 2011
@Warm Braw
"Funny how it was only when we left, despite being a net contributor, that taxes went up to their highest ever proportion of GDP."
Almost as if there was a massive blow out of spending when the gov put a large chunk of the economy on hold while panicking over a virus. And the rise in the so called 'divorce bill' where the UK now must pay more for the EU pensions because we were in it.
@John Smith 19
"But I find myself reading his comments and thinking "So that's how Vlad wants the discussion to go.""
Ok but why? Its not like my comments support Putin at all nor do my opinions support his goals nor would help his actions.
If you look around the room is Vlad there with you now? Look out of the window, do you see him in the clouds looking at you? Or has your obsession brought him closer and have his bare chested physique staring at you from your computers wallpaper?
Actually you can skip all those questions except the first. Why?
@Nifty
"Nuclear provides an utterly stable baseload. It's a mismatch until magical fast-reaction storage of country-sized proportions exists."
Stable yes but can also be adjusted. Not as fast as maybe gas but while it is more efficient to run them full on and more cost effective so probably worth more as baseload.
Btw I agree about the storage technology not existing yet
@Richard 12
"The coal plants need shutting down immediately, if not sooner. We genuinely cannot afford to burn any more coal at all."
Why? Of course we can still burn coal, we have plenty of it and we can build much cleaner ones than the brown coal plants powering Germany. Coal is cheap and we know how to make it work easily plus when we need power over winter they get turned back on because they are reliable.
"The trouble is that we're increasing the base load (electric transport, heating) but refusing to build anything to actually generate that base load."
Very true. I have been saying this for a while as a lot of money in tax and rising consumer bills has gone into mass deploying technology that is not ready to be deployed for energy generation. Yet plans for nukes have been made and scrapped for decades now.
@elsergiovolador
This is where mothballing existing power plants (coal) makes little sense. Run them to the end of their lives and phase in the new technology as it matures if it works. In the meantime build something that does work to provide the power (coal/gas/nuke). I like many dont really care where my energy comes from as long as its cheap and plentiful.
This has got so out of hand that schools are considering 3 day weeks due to the costs. The NHS cant switch off and the gov will be the last to have their lights go out. All of this adds to the tax bill as well as our consumer costs for something we have been able to produce reliably for some considerable time. Cheaper energy also cheapens the research costs of new technologies.
@DS999
"Except plenty of republicans have already said that's EXACTLY what they plan to do if they take back control of the government."
And how would they do it? Legally. They would have to achieve it legally. Not by abusing the constitution but by having to meet the legal requirements to make a federal law. If there was sufficient support they could amend the constitution which then the supreme court should try to protect.
"And I don't think anyone on either side doubts judges appointed with the specific qualification that they would overturn Roe would block that law from taking effect nationwide."
Starts to become obvious why the whole point of the US systems design was to limit the overreach of a central government and to limit its people. The reason people were taught to fear and distrust their government not to pander to it and become reliant on them.
@Benegesserict Cumbersomberbatch
"The debate is about what right the state has to put itself in between the decision a woman makes about her body and its implementation."
Rule of law such as murder. A US state is pretty much a country in European terms and each have their own set of rules under a federal group (that is increasingly intrusive). Medical experts cant define a point in which a clump of cells becomes a human which is why there are so many versions of when it is treated as such.
So what right does the federal rule have to put itself between the decision of what is murder and its implementations?
"Even if a majority of women were anti abortion, they still have to make a very compelling case to justify their moral outrage overriding the considered choice of a stranger who doesn't share their view of morality."
That is a very good argument for the roe v wade being overturned (misapplying the constitution) and not allowing the federal government from overriding the considered choice of people in the states.
"The will of a vocal minority compelling other people to live the way they like is usually called tyranny. The people of Kansas don't seem to like tyranny, for all that they're a "red", and "pro-life" state."
Isnt it tyranny that a minority twisted the constitution to enforce a view that cannot pass legally due to lack of support? Just as if the pro life view was enforced from the federal level imposing it on all states.
@Roland6
"From memory, the hard-line Brexiteers in the conservative party proposed the arrangement"
From memory the hard line brexiteers wouldnt budge on the border to the vast frustration of the EU. As a result May stepped in and didnt want a complete brexit (trying to appease both sides pleasing none).
"Not sure how this counts as wanting to scrap the arrangement..."
The border being overly aggressively enforced by the EU to punish NI thankfully gives the UK plenty reason to rip up the agreement. Along with the EU forgetting about the arrangement during covidpanic.
"I also note the Brexit Conservatives are still in power and have a sufficient majority to "take back control" and scrap the 'unworkable' arrangement if they so desired; which raises the question as to why they haven't..."
I agree. They have been terribly slow moving at taking advantage of brexit. The good news is we are officially out, something voted for in 2016 yet was a long drawn out fight to actually get done in any form.
@Paul Crawford
"They are also a big trading partner, and if "hard Brexit" comes then many automotive industries will leave UK double-quick. At least those who have not already gone..."
I dont know if that was said during the Euro debate but sounds familiar from the brexit debate and resurrected now I assume in hope it might eventually prove true?
@Doctor Syntax
"Why on Earth would the EU want to fence of part of itself?"
Excellent, so why would the UK want to fence part of itself? So the EU is not responsible for UK borders and the UK is not responsible for EU borders. If the UK lets the border be where it is (in Ireland) then the EU can either come to some agreement or its not the UK's problem.
"They didn't instigate this, the Brexiteers"
Thats toys out of pram, nappy got wet, we dont care territory. If the EU is to be taken seriously in the world (as they wish they would be) then they need to put on their big boy pants and internally resolve the issue.
"the Brexiteers did and obviously considered that fencing off part of the UK as their logical solution was an acceptable price to pay."
Last I saw its the brexiteers wanting to scrap the unworkable arrangement while the Bino's made the situation and want it to continue.
"What sort of referendum in N Ireland could solve the problem of a border with "The South" ?"
Unification of course
"For extra bonus points the unionists could then all move to Scotland and we could get that lot to go independent."
Why would the unionists want Scotland to leave the UK? Or even want NI to split? There is also no reason for a neverendum with Scotland.
"Then it only leaves southern England to melt / sink into the waves / fall victim to a plague of zombie estate agents (delete as appropriate) and "Global Yorkshire" will be free."
That sounds almost as bad as what 'little England' was supposed to be when we didnt join the Euro and more recently from brexit.
Btw I do appreciate your humorous posts. Dunno who downvoted you previously so balanced it out
@Yet Another Anonymous coward
"They could have a referendum"
The question is who. The UK had one and so brexit. NI could have one if they can muster support to then ask the people. So that leaves ROI who realistically could without leaving the EU and keeping trade open, or the EU who for the most part dont care (even their politicians who negotiated the Irish border during brexit 'forgot' about the border during the covid 'crisis').
@Paul Crawford
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1Yv24cM2os"
There is a mistake in this video. It claims 3 options (the trinity) but actually there is a 4th option. The border wall is between the EU and Ireland where Ireland gets another 'oddity' orbit (as the EU is used to with ALL its other various 'orbits' see your first video) as a flipped version of the UK internal border wall (which is very odd for us).
The problem with the explanations is they dont seem to follow that the UK's border ends at NI but the EU border ends at ROI. What happens on the other side is not the 'right' of the other to dictate. This is where the EU can come to some agreement or not as is their choice but same for the UK.
Having that border practically open is not really a problem for the UK but is a serious problem for the EU who dont want holes in their 'wall'.
"It won't matter to the government. Governments work on the principle that the slogan is the product and better an empty one than none at all."
Also depending on how long they will be in government (or expect to remain). We have had the tories for a while but varying governments from Cameron to Boris.
@John Smith 19
"Thanks for sharing the Russian PoV, comrade"
You actually do need to consider their PoV which the EU didnt and so sparked the problem in the first place. Those countries were a buffer between Russia and the west so when the EU was talking association agreements with Ukraine which led to the pro-Russian president being ousted it sparked a problem. Dont you remember the EU running away with its tail between its legs while the US had to step in to try and deal with the Russians?
"I wondered when you'd crawl out of the woodwork."
Why? Have I had to correct you about this before?
@John Smith 19
"It got a G7 nation to withdraw from the largest power block on the planet."
The US?
"The goal is always maximum chaos in order to destabilise a (potential) enemy."
When the Russians invaded the UK provided equipment and support while the Union was infighting over gas and differing opinions of Russia.
"Both Putin and Trump supported Brexit (insofar as Trump knew anything about the subject at all)
That alone should have given people pause for thought."
And it still turned out to be a good idea. Putin might have considered brexit a good idea because the EU was trying to influence Ukraine (starting a lot of this tension). And in retrospect are you trying to say Trump was a bad president? Go on take a quick look at Biden and say it. Make me laugh.
@Headley_Grange
"Germany has fallen back to coal because Putin's turned the gas off."
If I remember right Germany fell back to coal when they shut down the nukes too. But yes Germany is highly reliant on gas due to green madness. Using technology that works isnt an issue but unreliables are obviously not reliable and need gas as a backup. Without it the illusion of unreliables being viable vanishes, the lights go out.
"They turned away from nuclear because of Fukishama, for which I would call them many things, but "Luddites" isn't one of them."
Personally I go with 'nuts' but its up to them.
"Google in it's early days was fantastic with loads of free stuff and loved by many as an example of the free market, but now they are seen as much as a problem as they are a solution"
But are google seen as a problem? I know the governments and their green eyes are all over google but for the rest of us is it an issue? Google is highly popular and their products chosen over rivals. Not that there wont be bad actors out there I agree, but again the market provides the solutions.
"*I suspect the Germans had a major hand in the EU classifying Gas as "sustainable" for investment purposes."
That is a fairly safe bet. Their attempt to get the rest of the EU to conserve gas to help them out didnt go down well though.
@gandalfcn
"It ran head in sand away from nuclear. If Germany had not abandoned nuclear there would have been no problem"
Germany ran away from nuclear after Fukushima. And I agree that was a bad idea, I like nuclear as an energy solution. But even before that Germany subsidised lots of green projects and then had to subsidise fossil fuels to keep the power flowing. Knocking off the nukes was a bad idea but problems were showing before that.
"Your responses were not only irrelevant but prove what you are."
Thats a very quick deflection with no substance.
"Of we had more nuclear, wind and solar we wouldn't be dependant on FF. Very simple to those capable of critical thinking."
I think you are part right. Solar in certain parts of the world can work (Spain lost on a huge solar plant so its not easy) and nuclear obviously works. Wind doesnt have a good track record. Either way wind and solar require a lot of land for unreliable energy while a power plant (nuke or FF) occupies less and works.
""Germany fell back to relying on the dirtiest coal because they" abandoned nuclear"
How much fighting has it taken to consider nuclear as green? The EU has only recently accepted nuclear and gas as green. Gas is needed to back up the unreliables. Germany could even consider fracking but they dont consider it green enough but want the gas.
In the end people want reliable cheap energy.
@gandalfcn
"Germany is suffering from Luddites, i.e. the rejection of nuclear and regression to coal. Thanks for proving my point."
I do agree with this. Panic over nuclear was unfounded and this is a time when diversified energy or at least a secure supply of fuel can make a massive difference to a country.
I am wondering if we will see a correction or likely over correction in Germany however as they were the opposite of Luddite. They ran head first into green energy and found themselves subsidising both 'green' and fossil fuel just to keep the lights on and that was before the invasion. Instead of diversifying energy supply they (and us) were increasing dependence on gas while playing with these monuments to a sky god.
""I see people complaining about the deployment of stuff that doesnt work" Pray elaborate?"
Gonna answer both of your comments in this one. Do you remember the push for low energy light bulbs? Government picked the winner, the CFL slow to warm up bulb. The one worth having as we now know is LED but the gov poured money into subsidising the other product. The French restricted orders of EU vaccine based on what the EU ordered from Sanofi, theirs didnt work and was abandoned.
Governments suck at picking winners just as the majority of us do, the market provides the solutions. So R&D is good and gov supporting some is acceptable but the deployment of technology that doesnt work in a critical part of our lives is a problem. Germany was the prize of going green, and now its the example used as a warning against the technology. The UK needed energy in winter and so had to go back to coal.
So after vast investment, huge cost to the tax payer, large increases in energy costs (before the invasion) energy insecurity (after the invasion) what we have discovered is the technology is not ready for prime time. In the UK the temporary 'patch' was fracking to hide the costs of green madness. We would also have had energy security if we kept it domestic but it upset greenies to frack.
Germany fell back to relying on the dirtiest coal because they had the green madness. They feared the lights going out in a few years anyway because of the green madness. They fear the lights going out this winter because of the green madness.
"Luddites trying to spread spread alarm and despondency and discourage R&D."
I dont see people trying to discourage R&D. I see people complaining about the deployment of stuff that doesnt work and isnt ready for deployment in critical areas of peoples lives. Germany is suffering this currently.
@jake
"Has it occurred to you that when only the ACs are conversing with you, it's because only you are feeding the trolls?"
I try to give the benefit of the doubt if it looks like they can string a sentence together. I think I can usually identify my pet troll by their lack of many words. but yes I know I risk collecting strays.
@AC
"Codejunky once again demonstrating the ability to regurgitate what his lobbyists have told him to say"
Lobbyists? Who the hell do you think I am?
"Nukes don't connect to distro networks"..."The touted "SMR" designs I can assure you, will not be connecting at DNO level; not least due to the regulations around provision of connections of nuclear sites to the UK grid."
I like how you say no but yes except regulation would need updating. Not that I am advocating SMR nuke power (or rejecting it, fairly agnostic) but it would be more reliable than solar and wind and could be a way to move the data centres off the normal grid.
"Embedded generators, i.e. mostly solar panels and windmills within distro networks reduce demand that has to be carried over the capacity of the DNO. Thus aiding in capacity. (Though, not without other well documented and understood issues)."
Fairly painful and expensive issues, especially around wind but affecting unreliables in general. A sudden increase in demand because the sun stops shining or the wind is/nt blowing.
"Blaming the green lobby for this particular problem is both counterproductive and incorrect."
Ok so lets look at the issue. We have an under invested grid which is not gonna be cheap nor quick to fix. We have falling power capacity in general and a serious reliance on gas. At the same time we have invested loads into monuments to a sky god that increases our reliance on gas, requires large areas of land to produce very little energy, increases all of our bills ridiculously (used to be 25% of an energy bill was green subsidies before the gas price shot up) and produces little.
Imagine investing that money into a working power grid to provide enough power and replace ageing infrastructure!
@AC
"The data centre is agnostic to the source of its power."
As long as it gets power. The price of power being very much related to the cost of generating it and its availability/reliability.
"Distro networks being choked to breaking point by chronic underinvestment is nothing to do with the generation source in question."
Sure, so thats the EV pushing out of the window then? Holding off the EV chargers until the infrastructure can be upgraded?
"In fact any power installed within the distro network would help to alleviate demand, thus freeing up capacity. There's a reason there are incentives and penalties concerning disparity of supply and demand."
Maybe set the networks up with nukes? They do need reliable power.
"But it's all the green lobbies fault. Riiiight. Eejit."
Your saying it isnt? Assuming your in the UK look at your gas and electric bill. Unreliables have been creeping it up and rely on gas as a backup. Eejit.
"electricity grid can't supply enough power and datacenters are being blamed for using up all the capacity"
Because it cant be blamed on the green madness. The loonies will scream if you do that. So lets keep making monuments to a sky god in hope that he farts and make driving too expensive for those plebs who cant afford a leccy car.
What is the glorious success of green madness? Higher bills and less energy. Who could have seen that coming (everyone paying any attention)
@GNU SedGawk
"Oh right. all the lorries cleared now have they, right my mistake."
That is what you got from my comment (bold for emphasis)-
Except they have and the problem is reducing.
Or look at the problem being resolved
"my mistake."
Quick search-
https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/travel/dover-port-traffic-chaos-critical-incident-queues-hour-passport-control-1759672
Mistakes happen, you are forgiven
@Loyal Commenter
I am not sure if you are trolling or honestly consider these things badges of honour, so I will assume you are being honest.
"As for "woke" being "socially accepted as an insult", I think you might be suffering a little from the "echo-chamber-effect" here"
Nope. Seriously no. You are just as likely to be in an echo chamber with your interpretation-
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/public-split-on-whether-woke-is-compliment-or-insult-and-unsure-what-culture-wars-means-despite-huge-surge-in-media-coverage
Simple fact is it is used both as a label of pride and an insult. I am assuming you interpret it as a positive and you probably think the bits of it you agree with are fluffy and nice. I interpret it as a negative considering it is a world view at complete odds with reality.
To make my point you instantly jump to Do you yearn for a time when you could put up a sign saying "No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs" as if you would have to be woke to disagree with that. That kind of thinking leads to the fascist groups who are right and everyone else is wrong, no debate, no discussion, no questioning. Shockingly those are very actions being associated with SJW/woke terms.
I am not trying to exaggerate saying fascist it is literally the cancelling of views different to a few people (in universities too! Places where views should be challenged). I was amused to find even the urban dictionary has this- https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Woke%20Fascism
"And no, I'm pointedly not insulting you, I'm pointing out that your very own language damns you."
Unfortunately when you think your 'in-group' is the only 'right thinking group' then you may believe what you say. And would also explain why you have some strange narrative that the only people who would consider your 'in-group' as 'not good' must be bad people.
@GNU SedGawk
"You can't add enough people to the booths to make this work, due to requirements to enforce limited time in the EU."
Except they have and the problem is reducing. The solution apparently being for more French to man their border controls at Dover.
"Google queuing theory, and perhaps you might understand why this is unfixable outside of the single market."
Or look at the problem being resolved and see that whatever theories may not apply since the solution was more manpower. Then look at the rest of the world and see how many are in the Schengen zone. And then check the reality against your proposed only solution which is an unusual arrangement recently being tested by a few countries in the world.
@GNU SedGawk
"It's perfectly legal to sail from France to England. You don't seem to understand that, it's fine and dandy, no offence has been committed."
Assuming a vessel that is capable of safely transporting people. However entering the country without permission is illegal.
"Assuming you are a refugee"
Fleeing the third world hell hole- France. France being the last jump of a journey through that third world hell hole of continental Europe. Fleeing for their lives from the barbarian Western Europeans.
"But assuming you land on the beach and within a day or so walk into the police station and declare yourself, you have committed no crime."
And then we send them somewhere suitable while they wait to be processed. Such as Rwanda. The same place the EU and Denmark looked at for the same purpose.
@Loyal Commenter
""woke" is only an insult when used"
As an insult. As a good portion of the UK also seems to understand it (a similar size see it as a positive).
"I expect that you're going to revert to using that other old twattish insult of "SJW" next."
So you understand that one is an insult. Even though some people wear that as a badge of pride.
"Just because you think that "woke" is an insult, does not make it so"
However as it is socially accepted as an insult that does make it so.
"but it does make you a nasty, vicious, venal, self important, selfish, bigoted piece of middle-Englander trash"
Oh you seem such a nice person. Just because I do not qualify for the insult somehow makes me qualify for your insults. idiot..
"Again, anyone with a modicum of brain-matter in their skull would shorten this to one of several commonly used Anglo-Saxon four-letter words. Incidentally, the one I'm thinking of has only been considered rude for a couple of centuries, and before that it referred (positively) to a strong-willed and forthright woman."
I have no idea what word you are shooting for there but just checking, do you consider yourself woke? Even if its the positive connotation not the negative?
@AC
"If three French people turning up to start work a little late at 8:45am is enough to bring the entire system to a halt over the weekend, there's a problem with the system."
I agree. Something seems a little off if the French undermanned by 3 people for a short time can cause such a huge problem but when they get their thumb out and staff appropriately the backlog eases.
@GNU SedGawk
"The sea crossings have no bearing on legality or an application."
Illegally entering a country has no legal bearing on an application? Ok so off they go to Rwanda while their application is processed. Alternatively they could legally enter the country and apply.
"The sea crossings only happen because we insist on a physical presence."
You are saying illegal things happen because they are illegal? Sounds like illegal activity needs deterring.
"You understand this but don't care what happens to these people.
It's fine, if contemptible to hold such views"
Criminals? Illegals intentionally illegally crossing to try and push in front of legal applications? You are right I dont really care what happens and I find it odd you consider it contemptible to be against illegal behaviour.
"Immigration and refugees are not the same issue."
Ok. Happen legally applying for immigration should be done and happen refugees should be handled legally. So whats wrong?
"Immigration is not relevant to boat crossings."
Do I assume you are now running away with goal posts and talking about something other than the posts of mine you have been responding to? Illegal crossings by boat (which is what I have been talking about) is illegal and I am against illegal (criminals) crossings into the country. You sound pro-illegal (criminal) crossings which you keep trying to justify then accusing me of contemptible views.
"it's tedious that you won't openly defend the, "I don't care, don't want them position openly"."
So you say its tedious that I wont say what you want me to say that is nothing to do with my views? Do you not think it tedious to read you argue with a figment of your imagination and attributing it to me? Maybe you should consider the possibility that I dont say the garbage you want me to say because I dont believe it? if you want to argue with someone who thinks like that you will need to go find someone else.
"Immigration and refugees are not the same issue. Immigration is not relevant to boat crossings."
So why are you changing the subject to immigration and refugees instead of what we have been talking about which was the illegal boat crossings?
"A fan of Brexit, you don't say, never would have put those two inward looking and ahistorical positions together."
I wouldnt trust you to put 2 magnets together.
"It may surprise you to learn that England is rather good at Foreign languages, however if you speak little or no English, and cannot read/write English well, life will be difficult for you in England."
You just replied twice to my comment but this response has absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about. I assume it was to someone else.
@Fred Dibnah
"You can continue to reply in your patronising tone ("hard of reading" etc) if you like, but as I already said, this discussion is about people migrating of their own free will."
Read part 1 of your sentence then read part 2. Part 2 explains part 1. I am also talking about people willingly coming to the UK illegally. Are you unaware they pay smugglers to help them cross?
"In most respects el Reg is a much more civilised forum than Twitter, but now and again I dearly wish it had a block button."
I am sure you do. Yet you keep replying as though you have no idea what the comment you are responding to said. I have disagreed with you, I have posted links and I have copied quotes from the link for you and yet you consistently either dont read what is there or somehow miss the point, so yes I get sarcastic and take you less seriously. If you dont like that then read the comment and dont pretend its not what we are talking about or stop responding. I dunno if thats behaviour you would get on Twitter (dont use it) but I cant make it much simpler for you.
@Fred Dibnah
"It's an article about people-trafficking and not refugees or other migrants coming here of their own free will, so it's irrelevant to this discussion."
It was the first link I ran into from a very simple search. But for those hard of reading at the start of the article-
"Smuggling is entering a country illegally, a crime against the state, so it would be the person involved who is criminalized,"
Or a little further-
For smuggling, he says, there would be a number of offences under the Immigration Act 1971: "the main one would be assisting unlawful immigration to a member state (facilitation)."
Do I have to highlight words specifically or can you read the point there?
Or even the risk of being caught-
Brewer agrees: while the fear of deportation tops his list of reasons that victims don't come forward
Why would they be deported? Possibly because they are illegally in the country?
@GNU SedGawk
"Fundamentally your objection is just nonsense, you don't want people coming here."
So your perception of wanting people to legally come here but not illegally come here is that I dont want people coming here? While you seem to be supportive of criminals illegally crossing. Congrats.
"Short term fix if you don't want them coming here, let the application be processed without them coming here."
Why? There is a process that can legally be followed so why must the UK do that? Not saying its good or bad to do so but its up to the UK if it wished to offer such, not criminals.
"Long term fix, stop creating the problem they are fleeing in the first place."
Poverty? And yes we can point fingers at blowing up dictators and interfering in other countries. I recall the trigger being a plane crashing into 2 buildings in the US which does not justify what came after but didnt make the world a better place.
"Unless you can do both of those things, sit down, and read the above again until it sinks in."
You dont seem to be sinking much in. Your still arguing against legal immigration in favour of illegal with splashings of woke nonsense to justify it.
"Oh and please take your pith helmet and try to work in Germany or Holland without professional written fluency in those languages"
I dont know about Germany but Holland is very good at English.
"It's a joke, yes they speak six languages but the official forms need filling in the correct language"
Dutch or English. They actually send out their official forms to you in Dutch and English. I was impressed
@GNU SedGawk
"Allowing such applications to be made remotely would largely eliminate the requirement for the crossings, making the processing and acceptance of such requests, considerably more efficient."
Assuming the UK wants to do such. The UK could allow remote applications, if the UK wanted to do so.
"As you make clear, your interest is that a few people as possible should exercise the rights our country negotiated to offer them."
Eh? What garbage are you spouting here? Because I dont like people travelling via dangerous routes to breach the UK borders and abuse the people and country? Because I am more supportive of those who use the legal routes and dont think they should be pushed out to accommodate criminals.
"Given the history of the British Empire, simply, we don't get to whine about immigration or refugees."
Go 'woke'! No thanks.
"I speak English - if I took refuge from the Fascist Dystopia that the Tories/Starmer Axis are leading us towards, and I got to France, I'd be moving on as I don't speak French."
Not pretty much any country where English is spoken and landlocked to Europe so not a dangerous crossing? Why?
@AC
"The overwhelming vast majority of 'illegal immigrants' in the UK arrive by plane."
So they legally enter the country and become illegal immigrants by not leaving? That somehow has what to do with illegal immigrants breaching the border illegally?
"But this does nothing to hide that even now, after a glorious Brexit, the UK is unable to control its borders, is unable to track who is in country and unable to control and remove people with irregular immigration status."
Brexit has little to do with it since the problem existed while in the EU. And I am not disagreeing with this, but it has little to do with the post you are replying to nor seemingly the conversation.
@NeilPost
"I’m not sure what Illegal Immigration the Dastardly Frenchies are involved in perpetuating."
Really? I am not sure what is right with that line at all which kinda makes an irrelevance of the rest of your comment.
Illegal migration to the UK is real. They travel from France. The UK and the French agree to work together to stop it from happening.
@NeilPost
"It’s still morally bankrupt."
To illegally enter a country, often by means of putting lives at risk and trying to jump the immigration queue? Or not outright rejecting such asylum requests and instead being willing to actually process their claim even though at our expense we have to put them somewhere while we process the claim?
Which part?
@AC
"Withdraw your accusation of lying, please."
You just had to clarify your entire comment to accept that the UK has allowed Ukrainian refugees into the UK. You claimed they were treated like every day tourists. There are two routes for Ukrainian refugees to apply to come to the UK, the Ukraine family scheme and the homes for Ukraine scheme which are specific to Ukrainians. They can be extended after the 3 years, all of this for free.
Ukrainians have visa free access to Schengen states which just so happen to be safe countries a hell of a lot nearer than the UK and can apply to come to the UK from those safe countries as well! This is on top of the normal legal routes to enter the UK.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-information-for-ukrainians-in-the-uk-british-nationals-and-their-family-members/immigration-information-for-ukrainians-in-the-uk-british-nationals-and-their-family-members
"They were not allowed into the UK as refugees"
I guess they could take similar routes as other asylum seekers but the Ukraine systems are specific to supporting Ukrainian refugees. What is the problem with that?
@AC
"the UK did not grant refugee status to any Ukrainians"
Are you claiming the UK didnt take in any Ukrainians? Guess this didnt happen-
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ukrainian-refugee-who-ran-dad-27035791
But yes Ukrainian refugees are in the UK so you are lying.
"That's how toxic the UK is now."
Since you are wrong in your claim I guess that makes you wrong in your conclusions too.
"Commissioning new IT is no more than re-arranging the chairs on the deck of this once great unsinkable ship."
Ok I guess your comment has something right.
@GNU SedGawk
"The premise of using another country as a "deterrent" is racist."
How is it racist to expect our borders to be respected? That our immigration process be respected? It doesnt matter where they are from if they are criminal aka illegally breaching the borders. We dont have an open borders policy.
"That it happens to be a poorer blacker country"
That agrees, shockingly for money. They are willing to do so which is possibly why Denmark and the EU looked at Rwanda too for the same purposes.
"which feeds into the colonial mindset of seeing poorer blacker countries as resources to be exploited"
That is where it seems to fall into the woke rabbit hole of uselessness. Should we not be willing to do business with poor black countries because *woke*? That sounds kinds racist just because they are poorer and darker than we are. I'm sure is entirely coincidental /s.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
