Killing the entire human race would, on the long term, result in a net reduction in loss of life
Sure, the short term cost would be high, but it would mean fewer people dying overall, and it would most certainly stop the small boat problem. You know I'm not wrong.
Hopefully you can see that it would not be a good idea to do so.
(
My Name was saying these words inside your head on, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 9:19,
Reply)
I am worried the AI is scouring our comments
and will be helping to write our species' future.
(
garold you're on mute I SAID YOU'RE ON MUTE, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 9:50,
Reply)
Not an issue whilst we've still got human engineers making sure it doesn't say things people aren't ready to hear.
(, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 10:06, Reply)
What's the answer then?
Because it feels like they're taking the fucking piss of our current immigration policy, going by the link you've posted.
What is it about the UK that makes an already ridiculously hazardous channel crossing so appealing to these individuals? Why not just stay in France, or Germany?
"Oh no, I better not risk crossing the Channel just in case the Government apprehends me, makes sure I'm healthy and safe, gives me food and board for a few weeks, then flies me back over to France so I can do the whole thing over again a few weeks later at absolutely ridiculous cost to tax payers."
It's like some thick cunt hoping that if he feeds the foxes in his back garden then drops them off on the other side of the motorway, they won't come back again.
I don't expect foxes to get the message, regardless of how many you shoot. But I suspect that the majority of these immigrants have significantly more capacity for cognitive thought than a canid does.
(, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 10:00, Reply)
"What is it about the UK that makes an already ridiculously hazardous channel crossing so appealing to these individuals?"
That's simple. It is the very terrible state of the place they came from. Until we step up and fix that, they will keep coming and risking their lives. Just imagine, if you can, just how shit your current existence must be to risk your life being taken over the channel in a dodgy boat by dodgy people to end up living in Slough.
Sorry if the solution isn't as simple as "Just shoot some of them on their way over to put the others off" but this is the real world, and real solutions are often neither simple nor cheap. Of course, we only have to make it so where they are is better than risking your life to get to Slough or Milton Keynes.
In your fox analogy, if you fed the foxes on the other side of the motorway, they wouldn't cross it to get to the shitheap you call a garden...
(
My Name was saying these words inside your head on, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 12:46,
Reply)
You managed to write all that without answering the question.
Why don't they just stay in France, or Germany, or any of the other Western-European countries?
They're already out of the shithole they escaped from. Why further risk their lives in a dinghy crossing the channel when they could just settle in Europe?
(, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 12:56, Reply)
I always think that
Trouble is
- Uk more desirable; people coming over more like to speak English than French, easier to find informal work, more likely they'll be able to stay in the uk longterm, harder to return them to the eu. All this bigged up by the people smugglers so they get more trade.
- not in france's interests to put that much effort in as it gets rid of a problem for them. Also france govt in chaos right now.
All a bit late now. Might have helped if:
Don't have done brexit. Don't have invaded and fucked up afghan and iraq. Don't have toppled assad. Don't have stripped immigration processing capacity to the bone.
I'm sure reform will sort it out.
(, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 13:49, Reply)
I don't think they could possibly make any more of a dogs arse of it than Labour and the Tories have.
I just hope they oust that cunt Farage, first.
(, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 13:59, Reply)
One question, just to clarify
When you complain about immigrants, do you mean only illegal immigrants, or do you include asylum seekers as well?
EDIT : To clarify
Based on the latest data for 2024 (calendar year):
Total small boat arrivals: Approximately 36,649
Total who claimed asylum: Approximately 34,816
Number of illegal migrants entering on small boats: Approximately 1,832
Major spending on "stopping the boats":
Rwanda scheme: £715 million spent in total (2022-June 2024), which resulted in just 4 voluntary relocations. The plan was to spend £10 billion total if it had continued.
Breakdown:
£290 million paid to Rwanda government
£50 million on flights that never took off
£95 million on detention/reception centres
£280 million on IT systems, legal costs, staffing
Other border security spending:
£3.5 billion in contracts to private firms (2017-2024) for surveillance, detention facilities, escorts, etc.
£280 million per year for new Border Security Command (replacing Rwanda scheme)
so billions is spent on stopping under 2000 people a year coming in. I would rather fund the NHS, at least those 2000 people would have a job then and contribute in taxes.
People being outraged at immigrants, like you are, are the ones that mean you have to pay half your income in taxes. You are your own problem.
Regarding "Why didn't they stop in Germany or France?"
Because they don't have to. International law, specifically the 1951 Refugee Convention, does not require an asylum seeker to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, but allows them to apply in any country that has signed the convention. Now, a country can declare a claim inadmissible if the person could have claimed asylum in a "safe third country" they passed through, BUT, implementing the "safe third country" rule is complex in practice. A claim might be denied if the destination country is unlikely to receive an assurance that the person will be accepted back by the third country within a reasonable timeframe BECAUSE many countries have implemented laws that make it difficult to enter the country to claim asylum, and it may not be possible to claim asylum from outside the country.
So again, the reason we have to accept asylum seekers is precisely because of people who are outraged by asylum seekers.
TL;DR you're the cause of the problem you complain about. The only real solution is to stop people leaving their original country by making it nice enough that they won't put their life at risk coming here. Like I said before.
(
My Name was saying these words inside your head on, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 16:08,
Reply)
Just the illegal/illegitimate immigrants.
I'm fine with taking in asylum seekers, assuming they're legitimately seeking asylum/refuge and have gone through the proper, official procedure. Our economy would be absolutely shagged without migration - we're humiliatingly workshy as a nation, and things aren't improving in that respect.
Plus, without immigration, who's going to call me 'boss man' when I take a break from preying on drunken 20-something's on a Saturday night to buy a kebab. I fucking love it when they call me that. "What you having tonight, boss man?", makes me feel 2 inches taller :)
Edit: Your figures are for individuals claiming asylum. That isn't the number of legitimate asylum seekers, it's just the people claiming to be asylum seekers. If I remember correctly, about half of all people claiming asylum are granted asylum on first application.
(, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 16:26, Reply)
Then that's about 1800 people a year, see my edit above. I'm not typing it again.
(
My Name was saying these words inside your head on, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 16:34,
Reply)
I don't want to worry you unduly but there's a new possibility and no mention of border policing
or immigration control
(, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 19:49, Reply)
Lolz
The other meaning of 'Illegal Aliens'
(
My Name was saying these words inside your head on, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 20:17,
Reply)
An asylum seeker who is eventually refused is still an asylum seeker who entered the country legally, not an illegal migrant...
Just because you don't get something doesn't mean you weren't seeking it.
So, 1800 were not seeking asylum i.e. illegal migrants. The rest, like it or not, were in the group you say you have no problem with.
(
My Name was saying these words inside your head on, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 20:15,
Reply)
I'm fine with taking in asylum seekers, assuming they're legitimately seeking asylum/refuge and have gone through the proper, official procedure
"Hello, I'm an Asylum Seeker" does not make you an Asylum Seeker. If the Government says "We don't feel your asylum claim is legitimate", I think it's safe to say that the individual is not, in fact, an actual Asylum Seeker and is, in fact, an illegal immigrant. No?
Unless you know better than the people assigned to make these calls?
(, Fri 24 Oct 2025, 14:32, Reply)
You seem confused as to what consitutes them being illegal
They are going through the proper, official procedure, the legal route, just because they fail does not suddenly make them illegal.
That's like asking a woman if they will have sex with you, but because you are ugly and have no chance, the fact you asked makes you liable for criminal charges and is illegal. I hope even you can see the complete failure of logic that an unsuccessful application gives you illegal status.
Again, asking and then being refused does not make you illegal. The only illegal migrants are the ones not going through the proper, official procedure, and that's about 1800 a year. I fully agree that we should be sending failed applicants back, and any that return are then illegal migrants, but currently that total is 1.
(
My Name was saying these words inside your head on, Fri 24 Oct 2025, 16:31,
Reply)
Arriving on a small boat after being smuggled across the Channel is proper, official procedure, is it?
Righto, then...
(, Fri 24 Oct 2025, 16:58, Reply)
Yes, it is
Because of International law, specifically the 1951 Refugee Convention, which protects refugees regardless of how they arrive.
In practice, this means:
You can arrive by boat, plane, land
You can arrive without documents
You can't be prosecuted simply for the manner of your arrival
The Convention recognizes that people fleeing persecution often have no choice but to breach immigration rules to reach safety.
So "Arriving on a small boat after being smuggled across the Channel is proper, official procedure" according to international law.
(
My Name was saying these words inside your head on, Fri 24 Oct 2025, 20:41,
Reply)
Arriving by small boat doesn't automatically make you an Asylum Seeker.
It may offer you certain protections under the refugee act, but those protections are there in order to protect the legitimate refugees/asylum seekers and not people trying to enter the country illegitimately.
Look, you know as well as I do that the vast majority of people arriving by small boat aren't making a bee line for the nearest immigration office or border control point. You're simply treading water with your gotchas and 'yes, buts', because you're utterly unwilling to accept that you're wrong on this one.
(, Sat 25 Oct 2025, 6:41, Reply)