"This is the one thing we didn't want to happen"
but expected, if you think about it for just a minute.
(
My Name was saying these words inside your head on, Wed 22 Oct 2025, 16:16,
Reply)
If we had started routinely shooting these boats as they came into range, they'd have probably got the message by now.
(, Wed 22 Oct 2025, 16:57, Reply)
I do so love your "LOL fascism!!!" schtick
(
Invisible Wizard - 12th Level Errorer, Wed 22 Oct 2025, 18:42,
Reply)
You know I'm not wrong, though.
They're using boats to cross the channel because they know that we won't stop them once they're in the water, and we'll be soft on them once they land. It makes the potentially perilous journey a lot more palatable, because there's only really one risk assessment to make.
If they knew that the boats would be getting sunk by the coastguard/navy on sight, there would be significantly fewer willing to chance it.
The Government would need to sink two or three boats initially, in order to show that it wasn't a bluff. But it would undoubtedly result in a net reduction in loss of life long-term compared to the absolute shit show that's going on currently.
You come across as blindingly idealistic, though. So maybe you're just incapable of psychologically processing these kinds of difficult scenarios.
(, Wed 22 Oct 2025, 19:38, Reply)
Another radical idea. We could try helping to make other countries considerably less shit to live in. Reduce the impetus to leave by putting money into their healthcare systems, food production, infrastructure, security, or the like - it would be far cheaper to do at that end.
We could call it something snappy like "International Aid".
Who knows, if we did it enough, other countries might start to like us again.
(
evil_andy Stick stick stick stick sticky sticky stick stick, Wed 22 Oct 2025, 20:58,
Reply)
They're already taking half of my earnings.
Fuck knows what they've done with it, though.
(, Wed 22 Oct 2025, 21:23, Reply)
HALF YOUR EARNINGS?
You're being had mate. You're supposed to have allowances and shit. Fucking fire your accountant.
(
Invisible Wizard - 12th Level Errorer, Wed 22 Oct 2025, 22:00,
Reply)
If you’re being taxed that much then I’m sure you can afford it.
(
wheresthefish Partly filled with wrong, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 7:11,
Reply)
Affordability isn't the issue. I'm fine with them taking half, I just wish they wouldn't piss it away on bollocks.
(, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 7:37, Reply)
If we could stop the need for them coming, we could fund it from reducing border control processes that are clearly just for show, and there's sure to be savings in immigrant processing/housing/welfare/repatriation costs that everyone seems so flag wavy about.
It's called soft power. It's a hell of a lot cheaper in the long run, but it's clearly a hard sell to people who think every problem can be solved with a 20mm cannon.
(
evil_andy Stick stick stick stick sticky sticky stick stick, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 10:26,
Reply)
being against extra-judicial executions is blindingly idealistic is it?
We can't all be b3ta's resident mosely, I guess, willing to ditch the rule of law without a second thought if it means terrorising brown people
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Wed 22 Oct 2025, 21:37,
Reply)
*taps nose*
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Wed 22 Oct 2025, 21:50,
Reply)
come now, you were just advocating the murdering of immigrants in onder to send a message to others
bit late to get all coy and defensive. That ship has sailed. Unless that's another one you're out to sink
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Wed 22 Oct 2025, 23:10,
Reply)
Making it into an argument about race is a lazy strawman at best.
And likely says more about your own prejudices than anyone elses.
All critics of Israel are anti-semitic too, yes?
(, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 5:53, Reply)
Ah, you’re saying you’re one of those “I want to murder immigrants to scare away other immigrants but I’m not a racist, honest” types?
Well, you’ll certainly be the maverick at your next “Free Tommy Robinson” rally
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 6:40,
Reply)
you thought you were a "I want to murder immigrants to scare away other immigrants but I’m not a racist, honest” type?
your reply is somewhat ambiguous.
To clear it up, do you consider yourself a racist person who wants to murder immigrants to scare away other immigrants, or a non-racist person who wants to murder immigrants to scare away other immigrants?
This is more about how you view yourself, not how others might view what is blindingly obvious, so be candid
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 12:27,
Reply)
You seem to be confusing nationality with race. I couldn't give a fuck what colour or ethnicity the people crossing the channel are.
I don't actually give a fuck what nationality they are, either. 'OmG, yOu MuSt Be RaCisT bEcAuSe ThEy ArEn'T fRoM hErE' is a lazy gotcha for people that don't have any kind of legitimate argument.
I don't want to 'murder immigrants', either. I'm absolutely fine with immigrants. I want to give individuals who are attempting to gain entry to and settle in the country illegally a compelling reason to maybe fuck off and stay in France. I can't think of anything more compelling than "I better not try that, because they're highly likely to shoot me." I couldn't give a rat-fuck whether they're Albanian, Swedish, Iranian, Czech or German, just fuck off.
Don't try and cross the Channel illegally, don't get shot (or 'murdered', if you want to be alarmist in order to grant your weak "muh human rights!" argument more credence). It's a deterrent, not an excuse to shoot people.
(, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 12:53, Reply)
yes. we understand you want to murder some immigrants in order to scare others away.
Restating that doesn't really add much. Nobody's suggesting you want to murder ALL the immigrants. Think of the logistics
But it's heartening to hear that you're, let me quote you, "absolutely fine with immigrants". No doubt it's just the lawbreaking nature of these immigrants that upsets you. When it came to your attentiion that those attempting to live here weren't following due lawful process, your natural response was to advocate drowning some of them without trial in order to show others that this flaunting of legal norms won't be tolerated. This sounds like an intelligent and ethically consistent position, rather than the blatherings of some racist cabbie
I wonder if your whole "forcing compliance through fear of state sanctioned murder and violence" jam extends to other crimes and misdemeaners and trouble making groups, not just these bad eggs among your loveable immigrants. There are plenty of organisations that share such views, you're not alone, tweeting into the void for validation. Some of them you even get a uniform if you join,
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 13:51,
Reply)
God, you can be a right dullard when you've got your back up, can't you?
(, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 13:56, Reply)
as opposed to you feelng compelled to share your "lets shoot em all" essential and insightful opinions as if b3ta is some daily mail comments section?
at least you get a reaction here. On most of the corners of the internet you frequent I bet they're so commonplace you hardly get a like
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 14:17,
Reply)
no, I think I understand your views pretty well.
If they knew that the boats would be getting sunk by the coastguard/navy on sight, there would be significantly fewer willing to chance it is remarkably unambiguous.
I'd imagine even this is toned down for b3ta compared to what you say when you think you're among fellow travellers. I'm right, aren't I?
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 15:14,
Reply)
This is basically 'the trolley problem' isn't it?
Or a variation thereof.
(
FeralCatMan Unusual disease collector., Thu 23 Oct 2025, 3:44,
Reply)
You could be colour blind about it and shoot at ALL boats
which would make the Henley regata infinitely more fun to watch.
Squiddy squiddy squid games
(
garold you're on mute I SAID YOU'RE ON MUTE, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 9:09,
Reply)
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)
I've been referencing actual law that supports what I am saying
I'll accept your viewpoint if you can at least do the same
(
My Name was saying these words inside your head on, Sat 25 Oct 2025, 11:40,
Reply)
It's getting boring now... it does not matter who you vote for as nothing will change. They need civil unrest to lead to civil war so they can implement the controls for agenda 2030. (digital id, cbdcs, 'smart' everything etc). They use many ways to divide you funts... left/right politics, gender bollocks, young/old, climate bollocks, flags, the bloody immigrants, turning your towns and cities into shitholes, trump, putin, islamofacists, pakistani rape gangs, and many many more.
Anyone too thick to see this by now deserves to live in a digital prison.
Call people fascists and post funny things on the internet all you want... it's not going to save you. :D
(, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 10:39, Reply)
Some say at the top level it's 13 bloodlines. I don't have all the answers.
I just listen to music
(, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 11:36, Reply)
This is clearly a false flag post by Big /Links to make 'Tony Hayers' look reasonable
(, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 11:07, Reply)
I absolutely love the multicultural melting-pot the UK has become thanks to immigration.
I can walk 100 yards out my front door and be transported to the other side of the world!
(, Thu 23 Oct 2025, 13:15, Reply)
I like the cut of your jib Hayers
(
After you my dear Alfonse No. After you., Thu 23 Oct 2025, 16:59,
Reply)