The local news is a that a former army barracks in Folkestone is to house migrants.

1. France is a developed democratic country, what they fleeing?

There is no war there.

2. A small naval fast boat can do 60 knots.

Just one in the channel could easily mop up all this trouble, by picking them up, destroying their crafts and landing them back in France in half an hour.

... No more migrant crisis.

3. Instead, think of the cost to the nation of this farce and the cheap solution (point 2.)

4. That shows it's a political hoax, with no intention to stop the farce.

Stop getting yourself worked up about problems invented by Murdoch's press, you'll live a much happier life.

Drugs don't work, kids.

it's our crisis surely most people have seen all the luxury hotels full of migrants, not cheap last night on Granada news there was an article about 2 12 month old 86 bed dementia centres on merseyside due to close how convenient can't see them being demolished.

The current birth rate in the UK is around 1.65 children per mother. In fact 25% of children born in the UK are born to mothers who were not born in the UK. Otherwise the birthrate would be down to around 1.3. In order to maintain a population you need a birthrate of 2.1 children per mother.

The UK population will decline significantly in the next 40 years if there is no immigration. The consequence would be a very significant increase in the percentage of old people and a significantly smaller number of people of working age. So you end up with few tax contributors and a greater number of people requiring care and dependent on benefits or pensions.

For the UK to have a vibrant economy it is essential that immigration continues. Unfortunately the UK has decided that it doesn't want EU migrants so don't expect the government to be too aggressive in keeping out those who do want to come.

The population of the UK rose by 6.6 million between 2001 and 2016. 80% of this increase is down to immigration ( immigrants and their children). By 2010 top 5 counties of birth were ROI, India, Pakistan, Germany and Poland.

The UK needs 200.000 new homes per year to meet demand. An extra 750,000 extra school places will be needed by 2025.

At 426 people per square km England is the most overcrowded large nation in Europe.

It needs dealing with.

dibraidio are you questioning my balls and every other English man?

Italy is set to have its population down from 50 to 21 million by 2100, the UK's population is forecast to peak at 73 million by 2050.

What's wrong with a 21 million UK population by 2100?

THE MONEY all this is costing and the silly debates it's engendered, poster on here thinks Murdoch has sponsored it, to sell papers.

Fidelcastro is on the wrong thread. Keep off the wacky-backy, FC... It doesn't suit you.

Any extra folk OK, especially animists yah...

Let's have 30 million Syrians and call the UK what for the sake of more people.

Let's put a 7-litre engine in a Mini to use more petrol. Makes economic sense according to your ideology because more money is being spent.

We live a 30 minute drive from Dover and you can see the immigrant vessels approaching so it is definitely a problem. Even though the number of ferries operating has been reduced it still is a huge risk trying to cross the Channel. Not sure what the answer is as there is a big financial cost in providing food and shelter to those that do make it in but to send them all back also costs money and we are a humanitarian nation.

Boss Hogg wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:05 pm

The population of the UK rose by 6.6 million between 2001 and 2016. 80% of this increase is down to immigration ( immigrants and their children). By 2010 top 5 counties of birth were ROI, India, Pakistan, Germany and Poland.

The UK needs 200.000 new homes per year to meet demand. An extra 750,000 extra school places will be needed by 2025.

At 426 people per square km England is the most overcrowded large nation in Europe.

It needs dealing with.

Quite right.

It's the year 1921, you've just read the census results of that year (ignore the delay in publishing, you're a bureaucrat and have sneaked a peek) and you find out there are 37m people in England and Wales. You're told by a traveller from the future that within 100 years - your grandchildren's lifetime - there'll be another 30m living here on top of that. You've somehow managed to gloss over the fact there's a time-traveller stood right in front of you because you're too petty and small to get over that really, really big number which frightens you, and you completely $hit yourself, and demand we pull up the draw-bridge and sterilise certain undesirables because the 1930's haven't happened yet and it's yet to be demonstrated to you that you're on completely the wrong side of history - the side labelled 'hysterical' - yet here we are, almost exactly 100 years later, alive, and with a better quality of life for almost everybody in the land according to just about every single metric you could conceivably use to measure quality of life.

The idea that the country is “full” is complete and utter nonsense, spouted by the gullible and wilfully ignorant.

What the country needs is proper investment in infrastructure, healthcare and jobs, with less of a focus on London.

Did points 1 and 2 pass your brain by?

What this country needs is a climate extinction kick to folk like you.

Bird population down by 30 million since 2000.

Anxiety up by 40% since 2008.

Teachers struggled to educate children in one language never mind 10, whatever.

To try and build the UK based on USA is ridiculous.

Pstotto wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:29 pm

Did points 1 and 2 pass your brain by?

What this country needs is a climate extinction kick to folk like you.

Bird population down by 30 million since 2000.

Anxiety up by 40% since 2008.

Drug use by Pstotto up 1250% since lockdown.

Seriously feller there are people out there who can help you.....

claret2018 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:26 pm

The idea that the country is “full” is complete and utter nonsense, spouted by the gullible and wilfully ignorant.

What the country needs is proper investment in infrastructure, healthcare and jobs, with less of a focus on London.

The country is full though, basic public ally available information tells you this. More people means more stress on public services.

Adding more people creates more problems.

Luckily there's a cool head like Bosscat to steer the fast naval response to the Dunkirk Muslims escaping the Stuka bombers and Nazi France.

Right_winger wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:34 pm

The country is full though, basic public ally available information tells you this. More people means more stress on public services.

Adding more people creates more problems.

About twice as many folks here today than a century ago. No public health care back then, lots of folks were living in squalor (certainly more than today), lower economic mobility back then. What's changed between then and now, aside from the population almost doubling and life now being much better? How'd you explain it? How do you square better living conditions today with the idea that more people = intrinsically bad.

Right_winger wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:34 pm

The country is full though, basic public ally available information tells you this. More people means more stress on public services.

Adding more people creates more problems.

You carry on believing that, I’m not going to change your mind am I.

Spiral wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:42 pm

About twice as many folks here today than a century ago. No public health care back then, lots of folks were living in squalor (certainly more than today), lower economic mobility back then. What's changed between then and now, aside from the population almost doubling and life now being much better? How'd you explain it? How do you square better living conditions today with the idea that more people = intrinsically bad.

You really have no argument do you.

Are you seriously trying to compare living standards today than 100 years ago? Basic things like hot water, electricity, central heating are a start before you look at the rapid technological advances.

More people = more resources required it’s not difficult to understand.

Right_winger wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:50 pm

You really have no argument do you.

Are you seriously trying to compare living standards today than 100 years ago? Basic things like hot water, electricity, central heating are a start before you look at the rapid technological advances.

More people = more resources required it’s not difficult to understand.

Not an argument, it's a question. How can you square the idea of a increasing population being a bad thing with the fact there are way, way more public services today than there were a century ago. Did roads and schools and hospitals and houses and electricity grids and waste treatment centres and pipeworks and communication infrastructure and police forces and parks and rail networks and everything else that needs a govt to sign-off on all just magic out of thin air? Where did it come from?

Spiral wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:59 pm

Not an argument, it's a question. How can you square the idea of a increasing population being a bad thing with the fact there are way, way more public services today than there were a century ago. Did roads and schools and hospitals and houses and electricity grids and waste treatment centres and pipeworks and communication infrastructure and police forces and parks and rail networks and everything else that needs a govt to sign-off on all just magic out of thin air? Where did it come from?

I know it’s not an argument because you have none.

Can square it off quite easily. More people = more demand and therefore pressure on the said services of which some are beyond capacity already.

Right_winger wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 7:09 pm

I know it’s not an argument because you have none.

Can square it off quite easily. More people = more demand and therefore pressure on the said services of which some are beyond capacity already.

What to do about the capacity problem, though? We've roughly doubled the population in a century. Our public services which I can only assume are utterly unchanged since 1921 must now be really, really stretched.

Spiral wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 7:13 pm

What to do about the capacity problem, though? We've roughly doubled the population in a century. Our public services which I can only assume are utterly unchanged since 1921 must now be really, really stretched.

Your not very good at this are you. The point you are trying to make is a clear contradiction to what you said in your previous post reg public services. So which is it? Way way more services today than 100 years ago or utterly unchanged since 1921?

Bit of an overreaction from some on here. Britain isn't full, just at breaking point.

Right_winger wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 7:32 pm

Your not very good at this are you. The point you are trying to make is a clear contradiction to what you said in your previous post reg public services. So which is it? Way way more services today than 100 years ago or utterly unchanged since 1921?

Oh I'm beyond useless, mate. Dumb as f'k. You're much cleverer, maybe you can help me out. Do we got more public services now than a century ago?

dibraidio wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 4:13 pm

The current birth rate in the UK is around 1.65 children per mother. In fact 25% of children born in the UK are born to mothers who were not born in the UK. Otherwise the birthrate would be down to around 1.3. In order to maintain a population you need a birthrate of 2.1 children per mother.

The UK population will decline significantly in the next 40 years if there is no immigration. The consequence would be a very significant increase in the percentage of old people and a significantly smaller number of people of working age. So you end up with few tax contributors and a greater number of people requiring care and dependent on benefits or pensions.

For the UK to have a vibrant economy it is essential that immigration continues. Unfortunately the UK has decided that it doesn't want EU migrants so don't expect the government to be too aggressive in keeping out those who do want to come.

European countries have an ageing population. Its disconnected political elites said

" have more immigration rammed down your throat "

China , too , had an ageing population. Its political class said,

"Have more babies"

claret2018 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:26 pm

The idea that the country is “full” is complete and utter nonsense, spouted by the gullible and wilfully ignorant.

What the country needs is proper investment in infrastructure, healthcare and jobs, with less of a focus on London.

We're way too densely populated.

Try commuting on the m62 for more than a few months, its painful.

I for one am also sick of greenland going to generic new build housing estates!

CoolClaret wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 7:54 pm

We're way too densely populated.

Try commuting on the m62 for more than a few months, its painful.

I for one am also sick of greenland going to generic new build housing estates!

Are all the illegal immigrants spending their days driving from Liverpool to Leeds and back?

1971 population: 56m
2019 population: 66m

1971 number of cars in: 13m
2019 number of cars in uk: 38m

I think I know why the M62 is so busy.

100 years ago there was a much better rail network, Spiral.

Pstotto wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:43 pm

100 years ago there was a much better rail network, Spiral.

You need to factor in urban rail, but that's not really too important to the point. It's a shame Right_Winger has scuttled off but I think it would pain him to actually answer my questions because it would mean him admitting the solution to stretched public services is to build the stuff we need. School shortage? Build the things. No police? Hire some. Overcrowded roads? Put on a f'king train that runs on time. Nurse shortage? Train some. Council house shortage? Build some. We've somehow managed to double the population in a century without the sky falling in and it's because services were built up. This 'do nowt, blame foreigners' approach we've had for a decade is why things are stretched.

TheFamilyCat wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:05 pm

1971 population: 56m
2019 population: 66m

1971 number of cars in: 13m
2019 number of cars in uk: 38m

I think I know why the M62 is so busy.

M62 obviously just one example.

More cars on the roads because people aren't living where they work where they've been priced out of any half decent living quarters in cities!

Plethora of factors involved there but I digress.

66 million is a hell of a lot for an island this size.

Pstotto wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 9:44 pm

Tony Blair's solution to the Blitz would have been to build more hospitals.

That's your mentality.

Bet you hated the Nightingale hospitals we built this year

D.A., poor political form from you.

Right_winger wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 7:09 pm

I know it’s not an argument because you have none.

Can square it off quite easily. More people = more demand and therefore pressure on the said services of which some are beyond capacity already.

Which is the responsibility of the government to provide.

Up until the Covid crisis, most people coming here arrived as adults, so they were already educated, which is a savings for us. If they came from the EU they weren’t allowed to claim out of work benefits for five years. If they came from outside of the EU they had to pay visa fees and extremely high surcharges in case they use the NHS.

Refugees aren’t allowed to work in the U.K. until their status is settled. That’s the law.

So are you having a go at people who come here and work, with fewer rights than British people, and effectively pay more tax, or are you having a go at people who’ve fled danger, and aren’t allowed to work?

Pstotto wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:26 pm

The local news is a that a former army barracks in Folkestone is to house migrants.

1. France is a developed democratic country, what they fleeing?

There is no war there.

2. A small naval fast boat can do 60 knots.

Just one in the channel could easily mop up all this trouble, by picking them up, destroying their crafts and landing them back in France in half an hour.

... No more migrant crisis.

3. Instead, think of the cost to the nation of this farce and the cheap solution (point 2.)

4. That shows it's a political hoax, with no intention to stop the farce.

I preferred you on the art thread

AndrewJB wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 10:32 pm

Which is the responsibility of the government to provide.

Up until the Covid crisis, most people coming here arrived as adults, so they were already educated, which is a savings for us. If they came from the EU they weren’t allowed to claim out of work benefits for five years. If they came from outside of the EU they had to pay visa fees and extremely high surcharges in case they use the NHS.

Refugees aren’t allowed to work in the U.K. until their status is settled. That’s the law.

So are you having a go at people who come here and work, with fewer rights than British people, and effectively pay more tax, or are you having a go at people who’ve fled danger, and aren’t allowed to work?

People work here illegally in there droves, we've currently got the UK border force stretched to the maximum & working flat out in detection & determining whether they have the right to work within the UK the problem is so gigantic, you only need to cruise within the cities & towns where the restaurants & takeaways are & you'll see the vans parked up ready to transport.

This is weird


We are having a migrant crisis which the daily mail tells me is probably a labour problem. It’s an issue created by the snowflakes. It’s a left wing issue.


Yet we have the most batsh*t crazy right wing Tory prime minister.



Weird isn’t it

Cloth ears...

It's good cop bad cop same dynasty, the bru-ha-ha between them you will never separate because it's the same company fix.

Remember they are cleverer than us, so factor that in.

AndrewJB wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 10:32 pm

Refugees aren’t allowed to work in the U.K. until their status is settled. That’s the law.
So are you having a go at people who come here and work, with fewer rights than British people, and effectively pay more tax, or are you having a go at people who’ve fled danger, and aren’t allowed to work?

That's why people claiming refugee status are low economic value migrants - because they aren't allowed to work. Therefore they pay no tax, therefore their costs are not offset by any earnings.

I don't know how you can claim they "effectively pay more tax"?

And if they arrive from France, in what way have they "fled danger" to get from France to England?

Point 1 of the OP... Andrew JB-erish...

Point 2, if they don't get here, there's no problem. SOLVED.

CoolClaret wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 9:40 pm

More cars on the roads because people aren't living where they work where they've been priced out of any half decent living quarters in cities!

Are illegal immigrants buying up all the city centre houses?

France has become the departure lounge for treasure island.

dibraidio wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 15, 2020 4:13 pm

The current birth rate in the UK is around 1.65 children per mother. In fact 25% of children born in the UK are born to mothers who were not born in the UK. Otherwise the birthrate would be down to around 1.3. In order to maintain a population you need a birthrate of 2.1 children per mother.

The UK population will decline significantly in the next 40 years if there is no immigration. The consequence would be a very significant increase in the percentage of old people and a significantly smaller number of people of working age. So you end up with few tax contributors and a greater number of people requiring care and dependent on benefits or pensions.

For the UK to have a vibrant economy it is essential that immigration continues. Unfortunately the UK has decided that it doesn't want EU migrants so don't expect the government to be too aggressive in keeping out those who do want to come.

Here's a radical idea for you. Encourage the current population to have more children by giving tax breaks and other incentives for people to get married and have children. Just saying.

Uwe Noble wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 8:31 am

Here's a radical idea for you. Encourage the current population to have more children by giving tax breaks and other incentives for people to get married and have children. Just saying.

What we need is a breeding program so that we can have a ready supply of people prepared to do the low paid jobs that immigrants do. Give parents tax breaks to have children that will pick crops, clean offices etc.

It would probably help if the parents attracted to a scheme that gives them more money per child also had to take lessons in how to look after a child.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:17 am

That's why people claiming refugee status are low economic value migrants - because they aren't allowed to work. Therefore they pay no tax, therefore their costs are not offset by any earnings.

I don't know how you can claim they "effectively pay more tax"?

And if they arrive from France, in what way have they "fled danger" to get from France to England?

People who come here legally to work pay more. They pay an NHS surcharge in addition to paying tax.

As for refugees, we have an obligation under international law to accept them. I know it’s fashionable among some in your cult to disregard laws, but the rest of us live in the real connected world.

IT IS A CRISIS when innocent people are drowning daily out of desperation.

The problem has to be dealt with at source. Human Traffickers, the controls on the French side and the desirability to get here instead of other closer countries.

Air... Poor Iraqi Al Queda and their families.

Tax breaks for couples excludes those alone.

Have a national gov. free-dating agency rather than usury via P o F or whoever, who keep folk apart in the name of getting them together for financial gain.

Rubstuds, the French should police their coast and POINT 2.

France is not Syria, Rubstuds.

One has to ask the question 'Why is this happening?'

Why are the British and French governments colluding to create and encourage this farce?