Labour to Permit 100,000 Migrants to Apply for Asylum

[James105]

5 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

 

I don't live in a parallel universe and the Supreme Court which ruled the government's plans unlawful is an important part of a functioning democracy. Unless your democracy does not include the rule of law.

 

That it would serve as a deterrent is speculation and to be perfectly honest there's little evidence based support. The Home Office itself (under the former Conservative Government) wrote in their 'Impact Assessment of the Illegal Migration Bill, 2023 (linked to previously):

 

'the consensus is that there is little to no evidence that changes to a country's policies have an impact on deterring people without valid permission' to travel.

 

I can quite understand the theory of the Rwanda plan and why it looks attractive to some on the surface. But ignoring the real issues, you then have to resort to writing about speculation and parallel universes. 

 

It's not surprising there is little evidence based support (for Rwanda specifically) as that would require implementing the policy to gather the evidence.  The supreme court was invented by Labour in 2009 and the UK seemed to have a (better) functioning democracy before then (some would say the mother of all parliamentary democracies even), so that argument doesn't really work.   There is however evidence to support that if an effective deterrent is put in place, then it stops people making the crossings.   Australia have proven this.   

 

The home office suffer from the same short term thinking ability as most people.   You yourself seem to think that if the policy was implemented then the number of illegal migrants would not change and it would therefore cost more than putting up migrants in hotels, but neglect to factor in that a working deterrent would remove the pull factor that brings the migrants in.   It seems fairly obvious to me that if the migrants currently paying people smugglers thousands of pounds to risk their lives on a dangerous crossing, would not do so if they knew with some certainty that they would be flown directly to Rwanda the moment they land at dover.   

[Pickwick]

3 minutes ago, James105 said:

The supreme court was invented by Labour in 2009 and the UK

 

I am not sure if you are serious here. The Supreme Court was created to afford even greater separation between parliament and the courts. Are you implying the Supreme Court in 2023 was controlled by the Labour Party? 

 

Even if you believed such a thing, the Court of Appeal ruled it unlawful before it went to the Supreme Court. Are you implying that the judiciary and courts of law in the UK were controlled by the Labour opposition in 2023?

 

9 minutes ago, James105 said:

There is however evidence to support that if an effective deterrent is put in place, then it stops people making the crossings.   Australia have proven this. 

 

I wrote at length about Australia after you claimed this before - and you failed to reply. Now you are just repeating the same claim again. Have you read the Impact Assessment by the Home Office (under the former Conservative government?) I am doubtful because it also specifically mentions Australia. It states that stopping the boats has been successful on the surface but has come at great cost. It has also not stopped the migrants - the criminal gangs have found other ways of getting people in, including providing fraudulent documents and providing employment for those to overstay. So the boats have stopped, the people are still coming. You can ignore that too if you want to.

 

In 2018 (the last I can find data and some six years after 'stopping the boats') Australia had 62,000 illegal overstayers and a separate 27,000 claims in country for protection visas. You will recall they also 'let in' much of the backlog they had when implementing their policy change (bigger than the UK) - given the title and topic of this thread - would you be happy for the Labour government to do the same?

 

22 minutes ago, James105 said:

The home office suffer from the same short term thinking ability as most people.

 

The Home Office was the Conservative government's department that directly deals with immigration. Governments also have short-term thinking and try and sell things to the electorate just for their votes.

 

25 minutes ago, James105 said:

would not do so if they knew with some certainty that they would be flown directly to Rwanda the moment they land at dover

 

There was no certainty. I have given you links directly from the Home Office; I have given you quotes from high-ranking government officials including the Deputy Prime Minister; I have included in my links media from the right - including the Daily Telegraph.

 

I appreciate some things seem obvious to you but that does not make them fact. I am happy to look at any new evidence as you present it and I appreciate the diverse opinions. As of yet, however, you have failed to convince me, so I am happy just to agree to disagree.

 

 

 

[James105]

23 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

Are you implying the Supreme Court in 2023 was controlled by the Labour Party? 

 

No, where did I imply that?  I said Labour implemented it in 2009 which is just a simple fact as they were in government at the time.  You stated a supreme court is required for a functioning democracy, but the UK has only had one from 2009.  Are you implying the UK's democracy was not functional before 2009?  Without a "supreme court" the UK was able to pass legislation such as the Slavery Abolition Act which would be quite a feat for a non functioning democracy no?  

 

24 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

It states that stopping the boats has been successful on the surface but has come at great cost

 

Yes, as I said it was successful - we agree on something then.   How many people have died making the crossing since they successfully stopped the boats since that is what we are talking about here?  I'd guess none, but I could be wrong on that.   

  

25 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

the criminal gangs have found other ways of getting people in, including providing fraudulent documents and providing employment for those to overstay.

 

So then legislation can be used to deal with that, but visa overstayers do not get free hotels so it is a bit cheaper and less people die when entering the country by legal or fraudulent means.  Example legislation can be to disproportionately fine employers for employing illegals so they don't take the risk of trying to save money by using cheap illegal labour.    Tony Blair wants his puppet Keir Starmer to implement Digital Id cards so no doubt that would also help mitigate the issue when Labour implements them.  

 

So in summary, you agree that a deterrent would stop the boats.   

[Pickwick]

1 minute ago, James105 said:

No, where did I imply that?  I said Labour implemented it in 2009 which is just a simple fact as they were in government at the time. 

I'll take your word for it, but given your obvious bias I am far from convinced.

2 minutes ago, James105 said:

You stated a supreme court is required for a functioning democracy,

 

I stated no such thing, I said it is 'important' - which is why it was implemented in the first place, as a further separation of parliament. You are misrepresenting what I wrote. You are also ignoring the Court of Appeal, which I mentioned. Cherry-picking does not do your argument any favours.

4 minutes ago, James105 said:

How many people have died making the crossing since they successfully stopped the boats since that is what we are talking about here?

 

You are changing the argument. People dying was not the main thrust of this thread - it was the number of asylum seekers 'getting hotel rooms, free healthcare, mobile phones etc'. You're right overstayers in Australia do not get accommodation,  but nor do they pay tax when they take the jobs of Australian citizens. The 27,000 people applying for protection visas get accommodation though.

 

7 minutes ago, James105 said:

Tony Blair wants his puppet Keir Starmer

 

Right there is a betrayal of your own personal agenda. Personal bias against the newly elected government was the main topic of this thread at the start and why I responded in the first place. There was a ridiculous misrepresentation of the OP and  anunbelievable display of prejudice and individual bias against a government that was only days old.

9 minutes ago, James105 said:

So in summary, you agree that a deterrent would stop the boats. 

I haven't agreed that, if you read what I have written (try it) instead of trying to score childish points you would have known that. In reference to the UK, it would most likely not stop the boats. I have written that three times and backed it up with links all through this thread. I have also written extensively about how Australia is not the UK and the Timor Sea is not the English channel - which you have disingenuously ignored.

[Tiger1980]

What Labour actually mean when they say they will be processed through the asylum system,is that they will be granted  asylum, even though the majority of them will be unable to prove that they are genuine applicants.

Edited July 14 by Tiger1980

[josephbloggs]

4 hours ago, Tiger1980 said:

What Labour actually mean when they say they will be processed through the asylum system,is that they will be granted  asylum, even though the majority of them will be unable to prove that they are genuine applicants.

You literally just made all of that up.

Boring!

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, Pickwick said:

I previously provided you with a direct link to the Home Office (during the Tory government) that confirmed sending asylum seekers to Rwanda would cost more per person than the current unacceptable situation of putting them up in hotels.

I guess you missed the point that once the illegals realise they ain't going to be staying in Britain they will stop paying criminals to transport them to Britain.

Australia spends a lot keeping illegals overseas, but the boats stopped because of it, so cheaper in the long run.

 

No one is going to pay criminals if they end up in Rwanda.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, Pickwick said:

In reference to the UK, it would most likely not stop the boats. I have written that three times and backed it up with links all through this thread.

It only works if every illegal that turns up a boat is sent to Rwanda straight away, but that will work if they did it.

The number of those trying will be zero if the word gets out there is no refuge in Britain and it is a fact.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, Pickwick said:

There was no certainty. I have given you links directly from the Home Office; I have given you quotes from high-ranking government officials including the Deputy Prime Minister; I have included in my links media from the right - including the Daily Telegraph.

Perhaps that is part of the reason they are no longer in power- just too incompetent.

[stoner]

On 7/13/2024 at 12:04 PM, GammaGlobulin said:

We need to raise the drawbridge....

NOW!

 

the pinata has already been cracked. 

[Pickwick]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I guess you missed the point that once the illegals realise they ain't going to be staying in Britain

 

I didn't miss any point. I have supplied direct sources - including a document directly from the Home Office, the government department responsible for immigration  - when it was under Conservative control - that casts doubt on the plan being a deterrent. Furthermore, at a huge cost for at least several years there is going to be a removal rate of barely 0.4% of asylum seekers - backed up with quotes from the then Deputy Prime Minister; more official government documents and even the right wing press. 

 

I believe I have made a strong argument that the Rwanda plan is not and never was an effective one, backed up by direct sources. I haven't heard anything to convince me otherwise. What *you think* - especially when you ignore the actual data - is not fact.

 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Australia spends a lot keeping illegals overseas, but the boats stopped because of it, so cheaper in the long run.

 

Where is the data that confirms this? I cannot find it.

 

This thread began with anger caused by an erroneous assumption that the Labour Government would let in 100,000 asylum seekers. Did you read my links about Australia that I provided? If so, you will have noted that Australia, with more processing capacity than Rwanda and with half the numbers of boats, has a backlog higher than the UK - 130,000. How is it cheaper in the long run? They have had 11 years.

 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It only works if every illegal that turns up a boat is sent to Rwanda straight away,

You have not read any of the data or direct sources I have supplied, as such your arguments are based on supposition and you sound like a politician repeating a soundbite.

 

57 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps that is part of the reason they are no longer in power- just too incompetent.

 

I agree with this, which was the actual point of this thread - a new government, only days old, being blamed for the incompetence of the previous one. 

Edited July 15 by Pickwick
typo

[BobBKK]

On 7/13/2024 at 11:53 AM, Pickwick said:

 

I wanted to highlight this post separately because I think it is important to the entirety of this thread. That you added 'IMHO' clearly shows it is your opinion and as such is valid and I respect it, even if I doubt the new government can be any worse than the last one.

 

Unfortunately, this thread is full of IMHO dressed up as incontrovertible fact, and that I have an issue with.

 Yes, I agree - it is only my opinion that is worth no more than others. Let's see.

[Pickwick]

33 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Yes, I agree - it is only my opinion that is worth no more than others. Let's see.

 

I have given you a thank you emoji for this - because I welcome your opinion and it's as valid and as valuable as any other. 

[Will B Good]

23 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  It was a genuine attempt to stop illegal immigrants  sailing across the Channel to get to the UK , they would be discouraged from making the journey if they knew that they would be sent straight to Rwanda .

   How will Labour deal with the issue ?

Provide legal routes through which they will be assessed........... then either accepted or rejected.

[georgegeorgia]

On 7/15/2024 at 7:05 AM, josephbloggs said:

You literally just made all of that up.

Boring!

Joseph I think you must be leading a boring life ,you claim your a young 28yo guy running a multi million dollar business but your on this forum every hour ????

 

How do you fit all that into your day ?

 

JosephBloggs my Son, I think your pulling the wool over our eyes 😦 👀 

 

I feel sorry for you mate ,your life must be bloody boring as hell.

I love you JosephBloggs 

 

Edited July 16 by georgegeorgia

[josephbloggs]

7 hours ago, georgegeorgia said:

Joseph I think you must be leading a boring life ,you claim your a young 28yo guy running a multi million dollar business but your on this forum every hour ????

 

 

You had your post deleted in a different thread where you fantasied I ran a factory in the UK. I don't. I never have. Now you're fantasising again.

I'll say it once again, I left the UK when I was 21, I have worked here ever since for various companies (including two of my own),  I have never had a factory in the UK or anywhere else as you claimed in another thread before it got deleted. I have never claimed I run a multi million dollar empire as I don't.  I haven't claimed I am 28 years old as I am actually 50. You are deluded and I honestly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about at all. If you are deliberately trolling then please stop as it is tiresome you continually repeating this nonsense across multiple threads. You need to stop this fantasy and I don't why know I am taking the time to respond as it is delusional nonsense. Repeat this nonsense in another thread and I'll just report you for trolling.

 

Quote

 but your on this forum every hour ????

 

How do you fit all that into your day ?

 

JosephBloggs my Son, I think your pulling the wool over our eyes 😦 👀 

 

I feel sorry for you mate ,your life must be bloody boring as hell.

.....says the man with a far far higher posting average than me. I would say I am probably one of the most infrequent posters out of all the regulars. 4,800-something posts in over 15 years of being an active member: an average of less than one post per day. It isn't difficult to fit that in, and it wouldn't be even if I was running a multi million dollar factory in the UK.

I won't be responding to you any more, only reporting, unless you admit you are continually and deliberately confusing me with someone else (although I can't think of any other poster who has made the claims you come out with, but then I only skim through 3-4 threads a day at best).

Can we drop the fantasies now please.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 7/15/2024 at 12:01 PM, Pickwick said:

 

I didn't miss any point. I have supplied direct sources - including a document directly from the Home Office, the government department responsible for immigration  - when it was under Conservative control - that casts doubt on the plan being a deterrent. Furthermore, at a huge cost for at least several years there is going to be a removal rate of barely 0.4% of asylum seekers - backed up with quotes from the then Deputy Prime Minister; more official government documents and even the right wing press. 

 

I believe I have made a strong argument that the Rwanda plan is not and never was an effective one, backed up by direct sources. I haven't heard anything to convince me otherwise. What *you think* - especially when you ignore the actual data - is not fact.

 

 

Where is the data that confirms this? I cannot find it.

 

This thread began with anger caused by an erroneous assumption that the Labour Government would let in 100,000 asylum seekers. Did you read my links about Australia that I provided? If so, you will have noted that Australia, with more processing capacity than Rwanda and with half the numbers of boats, has a backlog higher than the UK - 130,000. How is it cheaper in the long run? They have had 11 years.

 

You have not read any of the data or direct sources I have supplied, as such your arguments are based on supposition and you sound like a politician repeating a soundbite.

 

 

I agree with this, which was the actual point of this thread - a new government, only days old, being blamed for the incompetence of the previous one. 

You can jump up and down as much as you like, but IMO it would work if every illegal was immediately removed to Rwanda. That the previous government was too incompetent/ stupid/ woke/ cowardly ( or pick your own adjective ) to be serious about it isn't my fault.

I wouldn't even bother with Rwanda- I'd just get the navy to block them from crossing the sea border, and give the finger salute to the wokists melting down over it. Of course I'd never be in a position to do so, as not woke enough in these sad days to be elected.

Edited July 17 by thaibeachlovers

[Pickwick]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You can jump up and down as much as you like

 

I am not jumping up and down. The only people jumping up and down are those who throw low-level and meaningless terms like 'woke' around. They normally also throw words like snowflake around, only to then exhibit enough snowflakery to freeze the tits of a penguin. The people at the start of this thread hysterically overreacting to a misrepresentation of the OP used words like 'woke'.

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That the previous government was too incompetent/ stupid/ woke/ cowardly ( or pick your own adjective ) to be serious about it isn't my fault.

 

I'm not sure I follow - who blamed you for the previous government? Unless you are British and voted for them. However, another characteristic of people with entrenched political bias is they rarely take any accountability for their actions; it is always someone else's fault. So even if you did vote for them, I'm sure it wouldn't be your fault.

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I wouldn't even bother with Rwanda

 

We at least agree on something.

 

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'd just get the navy to block them from crossing the sea border,

 

As already posted previously, the Royal Navy itself said this was not feasible but I suppose you know better than them. Please note I am not the Royal Navy and it was not my statement.

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course I'd never be in a position to do so, as not woke enough in these sad days.

 

Given that we are talking about the previous government - a right-wing Tory government - now I am not even sure who you are describing as woke? Simply anyone who disagrees with you? Sad days, indeed.

[James105]

30 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

As already posted previously, the Royal Navy itself said this was not feasible but I suppose you know better than them. Please note I am not the Royal Navy and it was not my statement.

 

How would the Navy even know this without actually giving it a go?   I've met many people over the years that suck the air through their teeth shaking their heads when given a task they don't particularly want to do saying it is not possible, but miraculously when told to do it anyway it gets done.  

 

Anyway current totals since Labour took office: 

 

1185 illegals successfully crossed.  

4 dead trying to cross.  

 

Wonder when Labour are going to start work on this.     

[Pickwick]

5 minutes ago, James105 said:

How would the Navy even know this without actually giving it a go? 

 

This is getting tiresome. I am not just parroting my opinion, I am reporting what the Royal Navy stated. If you know better than them, please feel free to tell them so.

 

7 minutes ago, James105 said:

Wonder when Labour are going to start work on this.     

 

They have started work on it. That you expect a decades long problem to be solved in less than two weeks sums up your position succinctly.

 

11 minutes ago, James105 said:

4 dead trying to cross.  

 

4 people died off the coast of France in French waters. I suppose we can blame Lammy because he's the foreign secretary.

 

Now we are just going round in circles. I appreciate your time but I'll just agree to disagree and move on to other threads. 

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Pickwick said:

 

I am not jumping up and down. The only people jumping up and down are those who throw low-level and meaningless terms like 'woke' around. They normally also throw words like snowflake around, only to then exhibit enough snowflakery to freeze the tits of a penguin. The people at the start of this thread hysterically overreacting to a misrepresentation of the OP used words like 'woke'.

 

I'm not sure I follow - who blamed you for the previous government? Unless you are British and voted for them. However, another characteristic of people with entrenched political bias is they rarely take any accountability for their actions; it is always someone else's fault. So even if you did vote for them, I'm sure it wouldn't be your fault.

 

We at least agree on something.

 

 

As already posted previously, the Royal Navy itself said this was not feasible but I suppose you know better than them. Please note I am not the Royal Navy and it was not my statement.

 

Given that we are talking about the previous government - a right-wing Tory government - now I am not even sure who you are describing as woke? Simply anyone who disagrees with you? Sad days, indeed.

low-level and meaningless terms like 'woke'

 

Of course it's not meaningless, unless one wants to to pretend it is. It's a great word to sum up a certain political demographic in one word, and most understand which demographic that is and what it means.

 

The "Royal Navy", LOL. The "Royal Navy" apparently told Thatcher that her plan to take back the Falklands would not work, and how did that work out?

 

Perhaps what they meant was that the navy that once kept Pax Britannica around the planet is no longer capable of stopping a rubber boat from crossing the sea border. Perhaps that is because none of the ships work any more, or they don't have enough sailors to man one.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

They have started work on it. That you expect a decades long problem to be solved in less than two weeks sums up your position succinctly.

Shock horror!!!!! You mean to tell me that the Labour party had no plan at all as to what they would do with illegals if they became the government and only started working on it AFTER they got elected? Do tell us if that is the case.

I'm not even a politician and I had a plan of what to do with illegals years and years ago.

If they don't know what to do, they could always ring up the Oz government and ask to borrow someone that runs their very successful operation to stop the boats.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Pickwick said:

As already posted previously, the Royal Navy itself said this was not feasible but I suppose you know better than them. Please note I am not the Royal Navy and it was not my statement.

The Navy didn't want to rescue the Falklands either but Thatcher gave them a kick up the bum and they went and did the job.

Of course it may be that the Navy now dictates to the government what it does or does not want to do, or Sunak just accepted it so he could say it was the Navy's fault he couldn't stop the boats.

In any event, if the Navy can't stop a rubber boat crossing the sea border, how's it going to handle a navy that can shoot back?

Sounds like a right mess to me, but then, IMO, Britain's a mess.

[thaibeachlovers]

42 minutes ago, James105 said:

How would the Navy even know this without actually giving it a go?   I've met many people over the years that suck the air through their teeth shaking their heads when given a task they don't particularly want to do saying it is not possible, but miraculously when told to do it anyway it gets done. 

I've known a few people like that too. If given the right incentive they usually can do it after all.

I can understand the navy not wanting to do it- the publicity would be horrendeous, but it's their job to do what the government tells them to do, not to tell the government that they won't do it. If the admirals can't stop a rubber boat they should be sacked.

[Yellowtail]

21 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

low-level and meaningless terms like 'woke'

 

Of course it's not meaningless, unless one wants to to pretend it is. It's a great word to sum up a certain political demographic in one word, and most understand which demographic that is and what it means.

 

The "Royal Navy", LOL. The "Royal Navy" apparently told Thatcher that her plan to take back the Falklands would not work, and how did that work out?

 

Perhaps what they meant was that the navy that once kept Pax Britannica around the planet is no longer capable of stopping a rubber boat from crossing the sea border. Perhaps that is because none of the ships work any more, or they don't have enough sailors to man one.

The left is always changing language. Remember they were all proud to be "woke", but then once people figured out what it meant, the left runs away from it. 

 

 

[Pickwick]

25 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course it's not meaningless, unless one wants to to pretend it is. It's a great word to sum up a certain political demographic in one word, and most understand which demographic that is and what it means.

 

It's meaningless when you start labelling all who disagree with you as woke. I am not in the demographic you are talking about, yet your reaction(s) to my posts seem to imply you think I am. That I am trying to dig deeper than the spin is met with disdain here, only because people assumed I was in that demographic. You can see my posts on other AN threads about my dislike of the current left/right polarisation.

29 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The "Royal Navy", LOL

 

It was not me who suggested using the Royal Navy. Why did you not LOL at the person who did?

 

16 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The Navy didn't want to rescue the Falklands either but Thatcher gave them a kick up the bum and they went and did the job.

 

I have never heard of this before. I'm not really sure why it is directed at me when all I did was report what the Royal Navy had stated. Maybe it was just bluff, I don't know. Why don't you ask them, and while your at it make sure to LOL in their woke faces.

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The left is always changing language

 

I am not 'on the left'. All I have done and tried to do is point out the hysterical and erroneous overreaction to the OP; the myriad problems with the Rwanda plan;  and the complexity of the decades old problem at hand. All I have been met with is a barrage of entrenched bias against a political demographic I do not even belong to. Which sums up the current self-defeating political divide perfectly (imho).

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

It's meaningless when you start labelling all who disagree with you as woke. I am not in the demographic you are talking about, yet your reaction(s) to my posts seem to imply you think I am. That I am trying to dig deeper than the spin is met with disdain here, only because people assumed I was in that demographic. You can see my posts on other AN threads about my dislike of the current left/right polarisation.

If you think I'm accusing you of being woke I apologise but I wasn't.

 

If you mention Royal Navy then I can comment on it and the LOL was about the navy not you. A navy that spends all the money on 2 huge targets in an age of hypersonic missiles is IMO incompetent. 2 huge targets that don't even work when brand new doesn't improve the situation.

6 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

I have never heard of this before. I'm not really sure why it is directed at me when all I did was report what the Royal Navy had stated. Maybe it was just bluff, I don't know. Why don't you ask them, and while your at it make sure to LOL in their woke faces.

It was pretty well reported at the time, though U Tube did not exist to record it, in fact there was no such thing as the "internet".

I will be sure to LOL in their faces next time I see the admirals down the pub.

[Pickwick]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If you think I'm accusing you of being woke I apologise but I wasn't.

Fairly play and I both appreciate and respect you saying so.

 

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If you mention Royal Navy then I can comment on it and the LOL was about the navy not you

 

I get the point, but I was not the first to mention the navy - I was merely reporting the reality of what they said. I do not know enough to judge if the Royal Navy is efficient and effective or not. I would trust their opinion on the matter more than my own though.

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It was pretty well reported at the time,

 

I will genuinely take your word for it. I was only six years old at the time so have no idea. It is the first I have heard of it though, which makes it surprising (but does not mean it is not true of course).

 

Again, I appreciate your first comment. Cheers.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

Fairly play and I both appreciate and respect you saying so.

 

 

I get the point, but I was not the first to mention the navy - I was merely reporting the reality of what they said. I do not know enough to judge if the Royal Navy is efficient and effective or not. I would trust their opinion on the matter more than my own though.

 

I will genuinely take your word for it. I was only six years old at the time so have no idea. It is the first I have heard of it though, which makes it surprising (but does not mean it is not true of course).

 

Again, I appreciate your first comment. Cheers.

You are welcome.

 

I was almost middle aged at the time of the Falklands, and the first thing I did when I woke up was turn on the news.

Apparently all the admirals and generals told Thatcher it was not a good idea ( to be polite ) but she wasn't called "the iron lady" for nothing, and she had an election to win.

In the event, the Harriers won it, but it was a close thing and she was just lucky it didn't end in catastrophe. Those Paras were hard men back then too- respect for them was immense. I bet they didn't have to pay for a drink down pub for a long time.

[Nick Carter icp]

Another migrant died today after the boat sank in the English channel , although 71 holiday makers were rescued and taken to the UK 

 

 

https://news.sky.com/story/migrant-dies-and-dozens-rescued-after-boat-deflates-in-english-channel-13180477

 

A migrant has died and 71 others were saved after a boat deflated in the English Channel.