“Refugees Welcome” – two cyclists are creating the world’s biggest piece of GPS art in charity ride across southern England

193 thoughts on ““Refugees Welcome” – two cyclists are creating the world’s biggest piece of GPS art in charity ride across southern England”

1. Are they doing another one
   Are they doing another one next month? To spell out:
   “Fuck the UK’s Homeless, the Government doesn’t care about you”.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • 0-0 wrote:

     Are they doing another one next month? To spell out: “Fuck the UK’s Homeless, the Government doesn’t care about you”.

     — 0-0

     No, they’re doing one for you that spells out “Some people have enough compassion to care about two or more things at one time and BTW what are you doing to help refugees or the homeless?” It’ll take a bit of riding but worth it.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • To be honest, this is a
     To be honest, this is a golden opportunity for the UK to pick up some world class talent. Immigration has always made Great Britain stronger and wealthier. I’d happily swap 10 immigrants for a single Brexiteer.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Mungecrundle wrote:

       To be honest, this is a golden opportunity for the UK to pick up some world class talent. Immigration has always made Great Britain stronger and wealthier. I’d happily swap 10 immigrants for a single Brexiteer.

       — Mungecrundle

       Well, I knew I was valuable but I didn’t realise I was worth as much as 10 other people. You live and learn.

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • Mungecrundle wrote:

       To be honest, this is a golden opportunity for the UK to pick up some world class talent. Immigration has always made Great Britain stronger and wealthier. I’d happily swap 10 immigrants for a single Brexiteer.

       — Mungecrundle

       I’d happily swap a hundred Afghans for a single remainer. Afghans likely have closer values to the UK from the look of it. It’s seriously been 5 years since the vote. Grow the fuck up.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • I’d be worried about the hair

         I’d be worried about the hair getting everywhere and who’s going to be picking up their poop?

          

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Jenova20 wrote:

         To be honest, this is a golden opportunity for the UK to pick up some world class talent. Immigration has always made Great Britain stronger and wealthier. I’d happily swap 10 immigrants for a single Brexiteer.

         — Jenova20

         I’d happily swap a hundred Afghans for a single remainer. Afghans likely have closer values to the UK from the look of it. It’s seriously been 5 years since the vote. Grow the fuck up.— Mungecrundle

         You’re right – I mean, Brexit is working out so well, isn’t it? 

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • It depends on your
           It depends on your perspective really.

           If you’re a warehouse worker or delivery driver or similar then you’re probably pretty happy with the current situation.

           How much of the current labour shortage is attributable to Brexit and how much to the pandemic is, of course, a matter for debate.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           It depends on your perspective really. If you’re a warehouse worker or delivery driver or similar then you’re probably pretty happy with the current situation. How much of the current labour shortage is attributable to Brexit and how much to the pandemic is, of course, a matter for debate.

           — Rich_cb

           It seems there’s more to it than that since Europe has a bigger shortage than us. Some delivery drivers got a 40% pay rise in the UK, so their antisocial jobs should be a little more attractive now. Long term their needs need to be met though, or at least try and replace them with train cargo.

           https://www.globalcoldchainnews.com/driver-shortage-is-pan-european/

       •  It’s seriously been 5 years since the vote. Grow the fuck up.

         — Jenova20It's seriously</strong><br /><p>[quote=Jenova20

         Leavers carried on fighting the overwhelming result of the 1975 referendum to join the EEC for forty years, as was their right and, indeed, their duty if they believed a mistake had been made. But ever since winning the 2016 vote by a miniscule margin – a margin that virtually every poll since has shown would never be attained again – they have insisted on a form of playground “fainites and no returns”, responding with the sort of dummy-spitting fury you exhibit here to the slightest suggestion that the decision has been a mistake. Telling other people to grow up because they won’t let you have your own way without debate or opposition for ever and ever is richly ironic.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

            It’s seriously been 5 years since the vote. Grow the fuck up.

           — Rendel Harris

           Leavers carried on fighting the overwhelming result of the 1975 referendum to join the EEC for forty years, as was their right and, indeed, their duty if they believed a mistake had been made. But ever since winning the 2016 vote by a miniscule margin – a margin that virtually every poll since has shown would never be attained again – they have insisted on a form of playground “fainites and no returns”, responding with the sort of dummy-spitting fury you exhibit here to the slightest suggestion that the decision has been a mistake. Telling other people to grow up because they won’t let you have your own way without debate or opposition for ever and ever is richly ironic.— Jenova20

           Lobbying for a vote is a bit different from: breaking parliamentary rules, meeting the EU in private and discussing ways to obstruct parliament, suing the Government multiple times to frustrate and invalidate the Democratic process, attempting to destabilise the Government to bring it down because you didn’t get your way, and wishing the UK would burn just so you can say you were right. To say the Remainers have been childish is an understatement, some of them have acted disgustingly or even treasonously.

         • Absolutely hysterical, in

           Absolutely hysterical, in both senses of the word.

         • Jenova20 wrote:

            It’s seriously been 5 years since the vote. Grow the fuck up.

           — Jenova20

           Leavers carried on fighting the overwhelming result of the 1975 referendum to join the EEC for forty years, as was their right and, indeed, their duty if they believed a mistake had been made. But ever since winning the 2016 vote by a miniscule margin – a margin that virtually every poll since has shown would never be attained again – they have insisted on a form of playground “fainites and no returns”, responding with the sort of dummy-spitting fury you exhibit here to the slightest suggestion that the decision has been a mistake. Telling other people to grow up because they won’t let you have your own way without debate or opposition for ever and ever is richly ironic.

           — Rendel Harris

           Lobbying for a vote is a bit different from: breaking parliamentary rules, meeting the EU in private and discussing ways to obstruct parliament, suing the Government multiple times to frustrate and invalidate the Democratic process, attempting to destabilise the Government to bring it down because you didn’t get your way, and wishing the UK would burn just so you can say you were right. To say the Remainers have been childish is an understatement, some of them have acted disgustingly or even treasonously.

           — Jenova20

           Not really the site for this debate but…

           … it was Leaver MPs (the ERG) who sought to bring down the (May’s) government

           … it was Johnson’s government which illegally sought to override the democractic process by proroguing Parliament.

           But don’t let facts get in your way.

         • Steve K wrote:

           Not really the site for this debate but…

           … it was Leaver MPs (the ERG) who sought to bring down the (May’s) government

           … it was Johnson’s government which illegally sought to override the democractic process by proroguing Parliament.

           But don’t let facts get in your way.

           — Steve K

           It wasn’t quite that simple.

           The ERG did try (and ultimately succeeded) in bringing down May’s government but they were aided and abetted by the opposition parties.

           This led to the very soft Brexit deal which May had negotiated being replaced by the much harder deal negotiated by Boris.

           This delighted the ERG but presumably did not delight Labour and the Liberal Democrats who helped to bring it about.

           The proroguing of parliament was deemed unlawful but until that ruling prorogation had not been considered justiciable.

           The fact that the Supreme Court ruled it justiciable was a huge constitutional change for the UK.

           Ultimately the prorogation was brought about by another huge constitutional change. This was John Bercow’s decision to allow the amendment of previously un-amendable parliamentary procedures.

           It was this decision by Bercow that allowed the opposition parties and Conservative rebels to essentially take over the running of the government and provoked a constitutional crisis.

           That single act by the Remain supporting speaker did more to undermine parliamentary democracy in the UK than any other, going against, literally, centuries of precedent.

           https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/09/john-bercow-decision-endangers-the-office-of-speaker-and-our-democracy

         • Good luck Rich. Remainers don

           Good luck Rich. Remainers don’t like facts.

         • Jenova20 wrote:

           Good luck Rich. Remainers don’t like facts.

           — Jenova20

           Cough-cough – £350 million per week for the NHS…

         • brooksby wrote:

           Good luck Rich. Remainers don’t like facts.

           — brooksby

           Cough-cough – £350 million per week for the NHS…

           — Jenova20

           That pledge was met by Theresa May if you missed it, to the tune of £600 million a week (second citation), and Boris is handing the NHS even more from 2023. This is on top of the Covid funding, and in addition to the extra funding to clear the backlog. Proving my point – Remainers don’t like facts.

           • https://fullfact.org/health/nhs-england-394-million-more/
           • https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-nhs-funding-boost-is-not-a-brexit-dividend
           • https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nhs-funding-bill-enters-parliament

         • Your first two links

           Your first two links conclusively state that the Leave campaign was lying about the £350M a week we would save from not being in the EU. Yes, the government has increased spending but none of that increased spending has come from savings made from leaving the EU. Your own links state this! Who doesn’t like facts?

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           Your first two links conclusively state that the Leave campaign was lying about the £350M a week we would save from not being in the EU. Yes, the government has increased spending but none of that increased spending has come from savings made from leaving the EU. Your own links state this! Who doesn’t like facts?

           — Rendel Harris

           I think this is referred to as “OwNiNg tHe LiBs WiTh FaCtS aNd LoGiC”

         • The funding announced by May
           The funding announced by May will deliver an extra £394 million per week to the NHS from 2023/24 onwards.

           The vast majority of the Financial Settlement (Divorce Bill) will have been paid by 2023/24. Up until this point the UK will still be contributing to the EU budget.

           From 2023/24 onwards there will, when these payments largely cease, be additional monies available to the UK government to spend.

           This will not cover the entire cost of May’s pledge but will cover the majority.

           The £350m bus claim is therefore not entirely true but nor is it entirely false.

           There were far bigger lies told during the referendum, it baffles me why there is this ongoing obsession with a simple bus advert.

           https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/brexit-deal-financial-settlement

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           The £350m bus claim is therefore not entirely true but nor is it entirely false.

           — Rich_cb

           So if I go into a shop and hand over £10 but then claim I actually handed over £20, am I being “not entirely true but not entirely false” or am I lying through my teeth? And is it OK for me to lie because someone else actually told a bigger lie in the same shop the same day?

         • It was an exaggeration. If
           It was an exaggeration. If you want to be absolutely binary about it then, yes, knowingly exaggerating something is dishonest.

           If the bus had said £250m per week then it would have been accurate.

           Would the bus advert have been less impactful with £250m on the side?

           I doubt it. The exaggeration was therefore entirely inconsequential.

           In the context of political campaigning, cherry picking or exaggerating figures is a pretty common and pretty insignificant occurrence which, as I said earlier, makes the ongoing prominence afforded to the bus advert rather strange.

           Far more worrying was the deliberate deception instigated by the Treasury itself. This barely gets a mention anywhere and certainly never from Remain supporters.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           Far more worrying was the deliberate deception instigated by the Treasury itself. This barely gets a mention anywhere and certainly never from Remain supporters.

           — Rich_cb

           What deception was that?

         • They put out predictions of
           They put out predictions of job losses, house prices etc. in the event of Brexit.

           They were fairly apocalyptic in tone and garnered a huge amount of press coverage.

           What was not readily mentioned was that the predictions were based on the premise that the Bank of England would decline to make any intervention whatsoever.

           This was a ridiculously implausible scenario and it was presented as a realistic prediction. This was obviously hugely beneficial to the Remain campaign.

           The use of a government department to produce deliberately misleading information knowing that such information would have a huge influence on a referendum was incredibly worrying in the context of our democracy.

         • Predictions often involve a

           Predictions often involve a certain amount of guessing, so I’m not sure that’s really deliberate deception. Is there a specific prediction that you’re referring to? I’m not trying to defend the Treasury, but am interested in how disingenuous they’ve been.

         • I accept that predictions do
           I accept that predictions do involve a certain amount of uncertainty but deliberately basing a prediction on a premise you know to be incredibly unlikely is misleading.

           The predictions were mainly about unemployment and house prices. I’ll try and find a link.

           Edit:
           https://amp.ft.com/content/d05c4b60-20d8-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d

         • Sorry, I can’t see that as it
           Sorry, I can’t see that as it’s paywalled

         • https://www.google.com/search
           https://www.google.com/search?q=Fact-checking+the+Treasury%E2%80%99s+latest+Brexit+report&client=ms-android-google&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

           It should load through Amp as it’s quite an old article now

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           https://www.google.com/search?q=Fact-checking+the+Treasury%E2%80%99s+latest+Brexit+report&client=ms-android-google&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 It should load through Amp as it’s quite an old article now

           — Rich_cb

           The first link to the FT is still paywalled – doesn’t seem to work with or without amp.

           The second link (https://theconversation.com/fact-check-do-the-treasurys-brexit-numbers-add-up-58086) has this verdict:

           In short, the Treasury estimates are credible. Yet they are conservative: there are at least two ways in which the estimated losses from Brexit could increase. The report could have factored in the EU reforms being pushed by the UK government into the main numbers. It could also have used a definition of productivity that didn’t flatter the UK (like GDP per hour worked rather than GDP per capita). These are both included in section three, part three of the report, if anyone wanted to look at them. But I think the decision was correct to downplay these, given the uncertainty.

         • I seem to be able to read it,
           I seem to be able to read it, I don’t have a sub to the FT, strange.

           The FT were considerably less impressed by the report.

           “Are the Treasury’s methods convincing?

           No. There appears to be a lot of reverse engineering going on. Politics required lost jobs, a recession and lower house prices and officials chose methods that delivered that outcome — just.

           All parts of the analysis are open to criticism and the Treasury’s reluctance to talk about margins of error or what are the real driving forces behind the results speaks volumes.

           Dave Ramsden, chief economist at the Treasury and lead official on this report, has recently written about how the independent Office for Budget Responsibility “has ended the perception of bias associated with the forecasts that were previously produced by the Treasury”. This report will not escape a perception of bias.”

           “Another questionable element of the Treasury analysis is that it assumes no monetary or fiscal policy response. If the BoE cut interest rates and restarted quantitative easing, it could mitigate some of the negative effects, but it has cautioned that if a sterling fall raised expectations of inflation or if the economy’s capacity to supply goods and services was hit, it might not be able to act. Likewise, the government might respond to a downturn with spending increases or spending cuts.

           Given these complications, the assumption of “no change in policy” is reasonable as a reflection of the choices available, but it is not reasonable as a prediction of the future, which is how David Cameron and George Osborne characterised the work.”

         • Could be something to do with

           Could be something to do with my various script blockers.

           Your quoted bits don’t really strike me as “deliberate deception” – I’d sum up that summary as the Treasury being biased.

         • The FT said it was not
           The FT said it was not reasonable to present the report as a prediction of the future.

           Yet that is how Cameron and Osborne presented it.

           I think that’s deliberate deception.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           The FT said it was not reasonable to present the report as a prediction of the future. Yet that is how Cameron and Osborne presented it. I think that’s deliberate deception.

           — Rich_cb

           Deliberate deception by Cameron and Osborne – quite possibly. This is becoming somewhat nebulous as we’re now comparing FT’s opinion to Cameron/Osborne’s opinion. I don’t have much opinion on the FT, but Cameron and Osborne wouldn’t be high on my list of favourite people.

         • I think the Treasury was
           I think the Treasury was implicated in the deception too.

           Obviously under direction from Osbourne and Cameron but it’s still, IMHO, highly inappropriate.

         • hawkinspeter wrote:

           Predictions often involve a certain amount of guessing, so I’m not sure that’s really deliberate deception. Is there a specific prediction that you’re referring to? I’m not trying to defend the Treasury, but am interested in how disingenuous they’ve been.

           — hawkinspeter

           It was beyond negative predictions: They wheeled out Obama and got him to sign a public statement, written in British English by someone at Downing St, saying that he wouldn’t sign a trade deal with us if we left. David Cameron personally got the head of a trade union sacked for saying that he was pro Brexit (can’t remember the name). George Osborn threatened voters with a punishment budget the day after a leave vote if Remain lost. The Government spent £9 million on propaganda leaflets to everyone which were left out of the financing both sides agreed to stick to. The electoral commission authorised Vote Leave’s spending, then reinterpreted the rules after Leave won and tried to prosecute them for their spending.

           The contest was rigged in Remain’s favour and they still lost. Imagine how many extra Leave votes we’d have had without the interference, threats, and rigging in Remain’s favour.

         • Jenova20 wrote:

           It was beyond negative predictions: They wheeled out Obama and got him to sign a public statement, written in British English by someone at Downing St, saying that he wouldn’t sign a trade deal with us if we left.

           — Jenova20

           ..and has Obama signed a trade deal with us since we’ve left?

           Edit: In the interest of trying to find facts about this, I found this article which I presume is what you’re referring to: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks

           The US president used a keenly awaited press conference with David Cameron, held at the Foreign Office, to explain why he had the “temerity to weigh in” over the high-stakes British question in an intervention that delighted remain campaigners.

           Obama argued that he had a right to respond to the claims of Brexit campaigners that Britain would easily be able to negotiate a fresh trade deal with the US. “They are voicing an opinion about what the United States is going to do, I figured you might want to hear from the president of the United States what I think the United States is going to do.

           “And on that matter, for example, I think it’s fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen any time soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done”.

           He added: “The UK is going to be in the back of the queue.”

           That seems different to how you portrayed it, but anyhow, we do not seem to have signed a trade deal with the U.S. yet and it seems quite reasonable that it wouldn’t be their top priority.

         • hawkinspeter]

           [quote=Jenova20]

           That seems different to how you portrayed it, but anyhow, we do not seem to have signed a trade deal with the U.S. yet and it seems quite reasonable that it wouldn’t be their top priority.

           — hawkinspeter

           Because it’s a lie, and is directly contradicted by both Obama himself, and by David Cameron. Obama was urged by Cameron to interfere in the referendum.

           https://www.politico.eu/article/how-barack-obama-came-to-david-camerons-rescue/

           “Rattled by tighter-than-expected poll numbers, Cameron asked Obama to make the trip during the referendum campaign rather than wait until July when the president was also scheduled to be in Europe.

           White House officials insist the president will not meddle in Britain’s internal debate over Europe, but acknowledged that if he happened to be asked his view, “as a friend, he will offer it.” Cameron aides expect the intervention to be an important moment, particularly in motivating young voters.”

         • Just curious, are you

           Just curious, are you actually interested in cycling at all or do you just come here to bang on about Brexit?

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           Just curious, are you actually interested in cycling at all or do you just come here to bang on about Brexit?

           — Rendel Harris

           I’d be quite happy if people just moved on. Unfortunately the left is largely intolerant of others and incapable of this, just like how they protest for years after losing Democratic elections here and in the US.

         • Jenova20 wrote:

           I’d be quite happy if people just moved on. Unfortunately the left is largely intolerant of others and incapable of this, just like how they protest for years after losing Democratic elections here and in the US.

           — Jenova20

           Is that supposed to be ironic?

           From my recollection, there was a significant storming of the capitol protest just earlier this year and it wasn’t the “left”. Personally, I think this partisan left-v-right is way too simplistic and is a hangover from a far more simplistic, tribal way of thinking. (c.f. football supporters shouting insults at the opposing team supporters)

         • Since the 9/11 attack, far

           Since the 9/11 attack, far-right extremists killed more people in the US than did American-based Islamist fundamentalists

           https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/08/post-911-domestic-terror

            

         • Jenova20 wrote:

           Just curious, are you actually interested in cycling at all or do you just come here to bang on about Brexit?

           — Jenova20

           I’d be quite happy if people just moved on. Unfortunately the left is largely intolerant of others and incapable of this, just like how they protest for years after losing Democratic elections here and in the US.

           — Rendel Harris

           Comedy. Genius.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           Far more worrying was the deliberate deception instigated by the Treasury itself. This barely gets a mention anywhere and certainly never from Remain supporters.

           — Rich_cb

           Correct, as well as the taxpayer-funded propaganda leaflet through every letterbox (while simultaneously accusing leave of overspending), and Osbournes emergency budget/instant interest rate shock/inflation/job losses/recession.

           All nonsense. Nonsense on both sides.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           The funding announced by May will deliver an extra £394 million per week to the NHS from 2023/24 onwards. The vast majority of the Financial Settlement (Divorce Bill) will have been paid by 2023/24. Up until this point the UK will still be contributing to the EU budget. From 2023/24 onwards there will, when these payments largely cease, be additional monies available to the UK government to spend. This will not cover the entire cost of May’s pledge but will cover the majority. The £350m bus claim is therefore not entirely true but nor is it entirely false. There were far bigger lies told during the referendum, it baffles me why there is this ongoing obsession with a simple bus advert. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/brexit-deal-financial-settlement

           — Rich_cb

           An advert which didn’t even state that all of that money would go to the NHS. Remainers are unable to understand basic facts. It’s been 5 years of pointing out to them that saying you can do something, is not the same as saying you will do something.

           If the bus had stated how many biscuits that money could pay for would Remainers still be complaining that the Gov hasn’t bought £350m of biscuits yet? I’m astounded at the stupidity of these people…And they’ll still be arguing over this in 5 years from the look of it because they’re petty vindictive children.

         • Jenova20 wrote:

           An advert which didn’t even state that all of that money would go to the NHS. Remainers are unable to understand basic facts. It’s been 5 years of pointing out to them that saying you can do something, is not the same as saying you will do something.

           If the bus had stated how many biscuits that money could pay for would Remainers still be complaining that the Gov hasn’t bought £350m of biscuits yet? I’m astounded at the stupidity of these people…And they’ll still be arguing over this in 5 years from the look of it because they’re petty vindictive children.

           — Jenova20

           Oh get over it – you won, and this is now all on you 

         • I agree that the advert was
           I agree that the advert was aspirational rather than a promise.

           I’m continually amazed by how much attention such an insignificant advert continues to attract!

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           I agree that the advert was aspirational rather than a promise. I’m continually amazed by how much attention such an insignificant advert continues to attract!

           — Rich_cb

           “an insignificant advert”

         • Significance is all about
           Significance is all about context.

           In the context of a referendum in which both sides spent millions on advertising how is a simple bus advert anything but insignificant?

         • The simple advert Labour Isn

           The simple advert Labour Isn’t Working was credited by multiple people for winning the Election in 79. So was that an insignificant advert?

           The bus was a simple advert but if it persuaded 2-3% of people to change their vote then how is it insignificant? Cummings has even said all the research pointed to it winning it for them, especially with Johnson throwing his full lying personna behind it. 

           So yes, keep on claiming it is insignificant on the amount of money spent on it if you want to use that as your reasoning. But don’t belittle the effect it had at the time. 

            

         • Is there any evidence that
           Is there any evidence that the bus persuaded that many people to vote Leave?

           1979 was a different world in terms of media. 3 tv channels. No internet. A poster was far more significant then.

         • As I mentioned, Cummings is

           As I mentioned, Cummings is adamant it did and he is a very structured numbers / data man so I suspect he does know his stuff on this and has the data to back it up. Of course now he is out of the Government and an enemy of Johnson, I expect he is persona non gratia for convincing you. 

            

           He wrote: “Leave won because 1) three big forces [the immigration crisis, the 2008 financial crisis and the euro crisis] created conditions in which the contest was competitive, AND 2) Vote Leave exploited the situation imperfectly but effectively, AND 3) Cameron/Osborne made big mistakes. If just one of these had been different, it is very likely IN would have won.”

           “Pundits and MPs kept saying ‘why isn’t Leave arguing about the economy and living standards’. They did not realise that for millions of people, £350m/NHS was about the economy and living standards – that’s why it was so effective. It was clearly the most effective argument not only with the crucial swing fifth but with almost every demographic. Even with UKIP voters it was level-pegging with immigration. Would we have won without immigration? No. Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result strongly suggests No.“

           “If Boris, Gove, and Gisela had not supported us and picked up the baseball bat marked ‘Turkey/NHS/£350 million’ with five weeks to go, then 650,000 votes might have been lost.”

         • I actually read that article
           I actually read that article yesterday, he oscillates from the quotes you’ve provided to sentences like this:

           “These three big forces had global impact and had much more effect on people who pay a normal amount of attention to politics than every speech, article, pamphlet and ‘campaign’ about the EU over 15 years, the sum total of which had almost no discernible effect.”

           I’m sceptical of Cummings take the £350m claim because he is essentially crediting his approach for the victory but I will accept that he is very data driven so may well have the polling etc to back that claim up.

           My favourite bit of the very long article was this:

           “The official bill of EU membership is £350 million per week – let’s spend our money on our priorities like the NHS instead.’ (Sometimes we said ‘we send the EU £350m’ to provoke people into argument. This worked much better than I thought it would.”

           If that’s true, and again I’m sceptical of claims after the fact, it’s quite hilarious that all the outraged remainers repeating the £350m claim ad nauseam were doing exactly what Cummings wanted them too!

           If we take Cummings at his word then it’s likely that using the net figure of £250m/week would have been just as impactful on those exposed to it but without the remainer outrage associated with the £350m claim it would never have received so much attention.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           Is there any evidence that the bus persuaded that many people to vote Leave?

           — Rich_cb

           From the Before Times in 2018: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-brexit-lies-eu-pay-money-remain-poll-boris-johnson-a8603646.html

           A new study by King’s College London of attitudes to Brexit found that 42 per cent of people who had heard of the claim still believe it is true, while just 36 per cent thought it was false and 22 per cent were unsure.

           The research, conducted with the help of pollster Ipsos MORI, shows that sustained criticism of the false claim by the UK Statistics Authority and others has had little effect, with perceptions mostly unchanged since before the referendum.

           The sustained belief also comes despite the government having shown no sign of spending the supposed £350m extra a week on the NHS, as the advertisements controversially suggested.

           The official Vote Leave campaign put the claim on the side of a big red bus and ran it in targeted internet adverts aimed at swing voters, turning the Brexit vote into a referendum on austerity.

           The former boss of the Vote Leave campaign, Dominic Cummings, admitted after the referendum that “all our research and the close result strongly suggests” that Remain would have won without the advert.

           “It was clearly the most effective argument, not only with the crucial swing [vote] but with almost every demographic,” he said in 2017.

           I think the report is available here: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/research-analysis/the-publics-brexit-misperceptions

           And here’s a graph

         • Firstly, thank you for the
           Firstly, thank you for the graph!

           Secondly, I was more looking for evidence that it had actually persuaded that many people to change their vote.

           Interestingly, I read a (very) long piece by Cummings in the Spectator yesterday in which he credited a lot of the success of the £350m claim to the fact that it caused so many arguments, he seemed to be claiming that they used the gross figure deliberately to cause a fuss and effectively get free advertising.

           If that’s true (and I’m always sceptical of explanations after the fact) it is quite genius in Machiavellian sort of way.

         • I guess that’d be tricky to

           I guess that’d be tricky to get an accurate figure for as you’d be asking people to remember their decision process and accurately weight what influenced them. It’d be like determining which particular advert persuaded people to buy Nescafe over Douwe Egberts coffee when in reality there’s lots of subconscious cues that people aren’t especially aware of (e.g. product placement on shelves; perceived quality of packaging etc). Instead you survey people about their opinions on aspects of the brands.

           Cummings is obviously very skilled in number crunching and media influencing, but he does seem to be a moral vaccuum. On the one hand I liked his plan to disrupt government/civil service to modernise them, but on the other hand he also seemed very much like an evil dictator in how he tried to run things.

         • I feel much the same way
           I feel much the same way about Cummings.

           He has some good ideas but his ego and his disdain for the political machinations of Westminster combine to make him toxic and, ironically, to prevent his ideas being implemented.

         • hawkinspeter]

           [quote=Rich_cb][quote]The sustained belief also comes despite the government having shown no sign of spending the supposed £350m extra a week on the NHS, as the advertisements controversially suggested.

           — hawkinspeter

           That statement is bullshit, and it’s already been disproved multiple times in this thread, with Remainers refusing to acknowledge reality.

         • Jenova20 wrote:

           That statement is bullshit, and it’s already been disproved multiple times in this thread, with Remainers refusing to acknowledge reality.

           — Jenova20

           I wonder if you suffer from poor reading comprehension?

           That statement was from an article in The Independent from 2018. If you’re going to call bullshit on it, then I’d expect to see some evidence to the contrary.

         • In fairness to Jenova there
           In fairness to Jenova there have been links provided in this thread showing £394m extra for the NHS from 2023/24 which is when our contributions to the EU largely end. The contributions will be approximately £250m/week until that point.

           I perhaps would have phrased my objections more politely though.

         • Yes, but to criticise an

           Yes, but to criticise an article that I specifically stated was from 2018 for not taking the future into account seems bizarre.

           The evidence I’d like to see Jenova20 produce is the extra funding given or announced before that article was printed as I do not believe it to be inaccurate (subject to any evidence that it was indeed bullshit).

         • Ok, I see your point, that is
           Ok, I see your point, that is fair comment.

           On the Left Vs Right thing the Economist recently did a feature on the threat to democracy from the Left. They included the main article on their podcast.

           https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9yc3MuYWNhc3QuY29tL3RoZWVjb25vbWlzdGFsbGF1ZGlv/episode/OGI4MWY2NWYtYTg5OS00NjMxLWIyZjAtMWRhZTVhNWJiMDFj?ep=14

           Summary: Elements on the left do represent a threat to US democracy but the threat from the Right is far greater.

         • Again, I’m not convinced that

           Again, I’m not convinced that left-v-right categorisation is that useful (sorry, I very rarely listen to podcasts, so I’ll just use your summary). It’d be better to compare e.g. rich vs poor as that’d likely highlight significant differences in behaviour. I’d guess that rich people end up doing a lot more harm to the environment than the poor and conversely, the poor are more likely to violently protest.

           Similarly with Brexit, it wasn’t just a left vs right vote as plenty of Labour supporters were Brexiters too. It’s more insightful to look at economic, educational and geographic distributions of voters such as investigated here: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities

           (and another chart for good luck)

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           In fairness to Jenova there have been links provided in this thread showing £394m extra for the NHS from 2023/24 which is when our contributions to the EU largely end. The contributions will be approximately £250m/week until that point. I perhaps would have phrased my objections more politely though.

           — Rich_cb

           Theresa May has already honoured the pledge when she was Prime Minister. 2023 spending is in addition, but the pledge made by Remainers was already met under the May government. There’s a link I provided, which Hawkinspeter has replied too already, with these links below, showing that the NHS will be getting around £600 million a week extra by 2023…This will now be even higher as Boris just chucked billions more at it.

           https://fullfact.org/health/nhs-england-394-million-more/ (link is external)
           https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-nhs-funding-boost-… (link is external)
           https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nhs-funding-bill-enters-parliament (link is external)

         • But isn’t that money going to

           But isn’t that money going to the NHS now because Johnson raised NI/taxes, not because he suddenly had lots of loose change sloshing around because we’re working on becoming an offshore tax haven because we’re not in the EU?

         • Jenova20 wrote:

           Cough-cough – £350 million per week for the NHS…

           — Jenova20

           That pledge was met by Theresa May if you missed it, to the tune of £600 million a week (second citation), and Boris is handing the NHS even more from 2023. This is on top of the Covid funding, and in addition to the extra funding to clear the backlog. Proving my point – Remainers don’t like facts.

           • https://fullfact.org/health/nhs-england-394-million-more/
           • https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-nhs-funding-boost-is-not-a-brexit-dividend
           • https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nhs-funding-bill-enters-parliament

           — brooksby

           I think you’re missing the point. the £350 million per week was advertised (on the side of a bus) as a key benefit of leaving the EU. However, those links you provided are clear that the extra money is not as a benefit of Brexit (from your 2nd link):

           But this week’s announcement – according to Mrs May – will see the NHS better off to the tune of £600 million a week in real terms by 2023-24.

           That’s more than double the more accurate £234 million sum, so it’s hard to see how this can be wholly funded by what we save on EU membership fees by leaving the trade bloc.

           And either way, the money we could have saved has already been earmarked to cover the costs of leaving.

           The divorce bill – the severance fee that the UK has agreed to pay the EU in order to leave the trade bloc – is expected to cost Britain about £40 billion.

         • Jenova20 wrote:

           and Boris is handing the NHS even more from 2023.

           — Jenova20

           I was under the impression that Johnson had pledged to pay extra money to the NHS that the Govt were raising by increasing NI contributions?

         • That’s for social care. This

           That’s for social care. This wasn’t anticipated when Brexit campaigning was happening.

            

           And in response to Hawkinspeter I stated that the £350m has more than been delivered. I’m not bothered where the money is coming from. It wasn’t a promise that it would be given in the first place. It was a statement of what could be done.

         • Jenova20 wrote:

           … I stated that the £350m has more than been delivered. I’m not bothered where the money is coming from. It wasn’t a promise that it would be given in the first place. It was a statement of what could be done.

           — Jenova20

           Those are such weaselly words.  Utter horlicks.

         • brooksby wrote:

           … I stated that the £350m has more than been delivered. I’m not bothered where the money is coming from. It wasn’t a promise that it would be given in the first place. It was a statement of what could be done.

           — brooksby

           Those are such weaselly words.  Utter horlicks.

           — Jenova20

           Not my fault you inferred something that wasn’t said, or wrote on a large bus. You Remainers have spent years complaining and trying to hold the Government to account for a pledge Remainers made. The irony is Theresa May honoured it, and yet you’re still pretending it never happened, and complaining about something else.

           Again. Saying you can do something is not the same as saying you should, or will do something. Kids learn this stuff in phonics…

         • Jenova20 wrote:

           (removed)

         • Meanwhile the labour shortage

           Meanwhile the labour shortage caused by the flight of EU nationals is real and having precisely the impact on care homes, HGV drivers, bricklayers, plumbers, electricians etc. that those pesky experts said it would. The UK remains a nation floating away from reality while Brexiters continue to prove themselves to be sore winners. 

         • Can we all just stop calling

           Can we all just stop calling Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, “Boris”?

           “Boris” is a character/persona he created to seem more likeable.

           We never talked about “Margaret” crushing the miners, or “John”, or “Teresa”.  Although, TBF, people talked about “Tony” a lot, possibly for the same reasons as “Boris”…

         • Interestingly you’re the
           Interestingly you’re the second person who’s complained to me about that.

           I only do it now to annoy the previous (far less polite) requester.

           Apologies if you are collateral damage in this.

           However people did used to call Margaret Thatcher ‘Maggie’ from what I understand.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           Interestingly you’re the second person who’s complained to me about that. I only do it now to annoy the previous (far less polite) requester. Apologies if you are collateral damage in this. However people did used to call Margaret Thatcher ‘Maggie’ from what I understand.

           — Rich_cb

           I think they did call her Maggie Thatcher.  Never just “Maggie”, though (pretty sure she would have taken their throat out for that!).

         • Maggie, Maggie, Maggie. Out !

           Maggie, Maggie, Maggie. Out ! Out! Out !

           Maggie, Out ! Maggie, Out ! Maggie, Out !

           Maggie, Maggie, Maggie. Out ! Out! Out !

         • Jesus. Get a for ken life,

           Jesus. Get a for ken life, will ya?

         • I can only assume with your
           I can only assume with your username, you are far too young to understand the context or the quote.

         • hirsute wrote:

           Maggie, Maggie, Maggie. Out ! Out! Out !

           Maggie, Out ! Maggie, Out ! Maggie, Out !

           Maggie, Maggie, Maggie. Out ! Out! Out !

           — hirsute

           I think that’s a special case: ritual chanting and all that 😉 But I don’t think you’d have ever had a newsreader saying, “And this afternoon, Maggie addressed the Commons…”

         • This is one of my favourites

           This is one of my favourites from back then

       • ‘Grow up’? Remoaners? On a

         ‘Grow up’? Remoaners? On a cycling site?

         How DARE you, sir?!

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • 0-0 wrote:

     Are they doing another one next month? To spell out: “Fuck the UK’s Homeless, the Government doesn’t care about you”.

     — 0-0

     This is of course true, the government doesn’t care about the homeless because they are accepting bribes, sorry, donations that are completely unrelated to house building from people like the pornographer Richard Desmond who want to reduce the amount of affordable housing in the UK. 

     There are of course some idiots out there who insist England is “full” and we “don’t have the space” to accept refugees and asylum seekers even though there are 100,000 hectares of golf courses (roughly) out there that could be turned in to housing to increase our stock by at least 30% – but of course this is far less important than hitting a tiny ball around for a bit. 
      

      

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • I read that there are 600,000
       I read that there are 600,000 unoccupied houses in England alone, many because they need repair and owners can’t afford it.

       Obviously a rising population needs more than housing – schools, healthcare, bicycles etc – but at least part of the solution is staring us in the face. Lots of action needed – new housing for private buyers is subsidised by economically illiterate schemes like Help to Buy / Help to Make the Persimmon CEO Richer, but also repairs attract VAT and there’s a shortage of materials and skilled labour.

       We have 1.6 million unemployed, graduates under employed as they’ve trained in the wrong stuff, and so much that really needs doing / making / delivering. If only the country had some sort of leadership structure that could make decisions and fund changes, rather than some posh boys chasing the gammon vote.

       Log In or Register to post comments

2. I’m glad the article spelled
   I’m glad the article spelled out what they were riding for, because looking at the picture I thought the cyclists were campaigning for Lauren Hill and Wyclef Jean to reunite and do a tour!

   With the fantastic Priti Patel and Dominic Raab at the wheel, both from immigrant refugee families, I’m certain they will continue to push for a compassionate and pragmatic solution for Afghanistan’s refugees, backed with financial and logistical support.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • As Mr Spock never quite said

     As Mr Spock never quite said ‘it’s compassion Nigel, but not as we know it’.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • I’m actually surprised that

       I’m actually surprised that he is obviously taking the piss out of both PP and Raab there considering he normally supports the Tories. 

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • Nigel Garrage wrote:

     With the fantastic Priti Patel and Dominic Raab at the wheel, both from immigrant refugee families, I’m certain they will continue to push for a compassionate and pragmatic solution for Afghanistan’s refugees, backed with financial and logistical support.

     — Nigel Garrage

     Oh come now, I’ll give you a free pass on the basis that it’s Friday night and you’ve probably hoisted a few, but this is such low quality moronic trolling even by your standards. You’re really getting embarrassing now.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Even Nigel can’t possibly

       Even Nigel can’t possibly believe in the statement he posted.

       He just wants attention. Transparent nonsense.

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • Oddly, I thought this was a

       Oddly, I thought this was a rare attempt at humour from Nigel.  Even supporters of Patel wouldn’t suggest compassion as being among her strong points – in fact, her most fervent fans probably see the apparent absence of compassion as one of her more admirable qualities.  Ascribing bizzaro world qualities to Patel alongside the juxtaposition of Raab’s name and the phrase ‘at the wheel’ was pure satire.  So I assumed it was a self-deprocating attempt at humour, where Nigel said the sort of ludicrous comments we expect him to make deliberately to make us laugh.  

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • You’d think that but this is

         You’d think that but this is someone who genuinely said, and confirmed it perfectly seriously a number of times, that he thought Donald Trump the greatest ever President of the USA, so…

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Well you are probably right –

           Well you are probably right – I suppose this comment was so ludicrous that I optimistically attributed it to a rare glimpse of self-awareness, rather than considering the worrying implications for anyone who could type it with a straight face. 

     • Rendel Harris wrote:

       With the fantastic Priti Patel and Dominic Raab at the wheel, both from immigrant refugee families, I’m certain they will continue to push for a compassionate and pragmatic solution for Afghanistan’s refugees, backed with financial and logistical support.

       — Rendel Harris

       …but this is such low quality moronic trolling even by your standards. You’re really getting embarrassing now.— Nigel Garrage

       Is Nigel Garrage a “troll” then? I have seen a few useful posts by them, like the one on avoiding the dreaded bonk.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Big time, changed his

         Big time, changed his username three times (minimum) and been banned for personal abuse. Virtually any story that involves a discussion of whether drivers or cyclists are in the wrong, particularly the Near Miss of the Day series, he leaps in on behalf of drivers. He’s such a bore with his trolling that Jon Stevenson, one of this site’s writers and editors, has started deleting his replies to his (JS’s) comments. He has, since returning from his ban, taken to throwing in a few inoffensive “As a cyclist myself” type posts, possibly as protective camouflage. Surely the post in question here is pretty blatant trolling?

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • It’s interesting that a pro
           It’s interesting that a pro-Conservative post would be “blatant trolling”.

           Anti-Conservative posts are routine on this forum including from road.cc staff.

           Are these trolling too?

         • To be fair, his posts usually

           To be fair, his posts usually make patently false claims about the tories – you could argue that in doing so, they aren’t necessarily pro-Conservative.  They’re made to get a reaction.  This one read as pure comedy.  Surely posting false claims to get a reaction is trolling.

         • You consider it a false claim
           You consider it a false claim/comedy yet, in fact, it merely differs from your opinion.

           You may think that Patel, Raab et al are doing an awful job but there are some people who would disagree with you.

           If posting a different opinion is ‘Trolling’ then we are condemning ourselves to online echo chambers.

         • I didn’t mention whether they

           I didn’t mention whether they are doing a good job or not, nor did Nigel. He made the explicit claim that Patel would “continue to push for a compassionate and pragmatic solution”. This is the opposite of her previous policies on migrants, so it’s nonsensical to say she could possibly ‘continue’ to do so. If he’d said he hoped she would push for one or speculated that she might, it might have made some sort of sense (even if many people wouldn’t share such optimism).

           The part that made it comedy gold was that he included Raab as being ‘at the wheel’ the week after he was on holiday on the most important date of his tenure as secretary of state responsible for foreign affairs.  

           Again, I didn’t specifically say he was trolling here – I intially thought it was an attempt to show some humour for once. I did say that he often makes patently false claims about tories to get a reaction,  which he does. 

         • You’re relying on opinion
           You’re relying on opinion again.

           Whether something is ‘compassionate’ or ‘pragmatic’ is quite subjective.

           If someone believes that Patel’s previous policies have been compassionate and pragmatic then it’s entirely reasonable to state that she would ‘continue’ in a similar vein.

         • You’d be hard-pressed to find

           You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who genuinely believes Patel’s previous policies were compassionate but of course, you can defend anything by claiming it’s subjective. Do you even think that Nigel believes this example or are you just defending the prinicipal of alternative facts?

           Like I said, I thought this post was deliberately funny but we could go on all day with other examples where Nigel has thrown in false claims; often, but not exclusively, they are about tory politicians or policies; often, completely off-topic too. I find it very odd. If someone supports the tories, then surely you’d point to examples where you thought what they have done has been successful instead of continually making false claims on their behalf. Unless you want someone to bite, of course. 

           I get that you think that all opinions are valid, but in cases where they are demonstrably false where do you draw the line?  I tend to think that anyone is free to say what they think but must accept that people will challenge what they say – you are free to say it but you don’t get a free pass from being challenged.

         • I have no idea what NG
           I have no idea what NG actually believes.

           My gut feeling is that he uses deliberately effusive language to describe his beliefs in order to create a reaction.

           There are many people who do so on this forum including staff members of road.cc. The same applies to false claims.

           If we’re going to take a position against such behaviour then it really has to cut both ways.

           Demanding absolute truth from one end of the political spectrum whilst tolerating/encouraging exaggeration and hyperbole from the other seems a tad hypocritical.

           Personally I dislike false claims and will, if I have the patience, try to refute them. I wouldn’t oppose moderators removing patently false claims (this would definitely not include subjective statements) but I have no confidence that this would be done in an even-handed way given the openly stated bias of our most active moderator.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

            Demanding absolute truth from one end of the political spectrum whilst tolerating/encouraging exaggeration and hyperbole from the other seems a tad hypocritical.

           — Rich_cb

           Nothing I’ve said implies I do this.

         • I didn’t say you did.
           I didn’t say you did.

           Apologies if you felt that was what I was implying.

           I was simply calling for an even-handed approach.

         • ‘Cut both ways’? On Road.cc

           ‘Cut both ways’? On Road.cc comments sections?

           How DARE you, sir?!

            

         • Can anyone remind me whether

           Can anyone remind me whether the Patel = Compassionate posts were made before or after she announced legislation to appease the “Let them drown” rabble after the RNLI were rescuing people from clearly unsuitable boats in the channel?

         • Does the current approach
           Does the current approach lead to drownings?

           Yes.

           Would an alternative approach reduce the drownings?

           We don’t know yet but if it did wouldn’t that actually be ‘a good thing’.

         • They were made after Patel

           They were made after Patel announced such legislation but before she instructed Border Force and other authorities to turn boats carrying desperate people back into French waters, contrary to our international obligations and maritime law, as well as our moral duty.  

           But such a sickening lack of compassion can be defended by saying that compassion is merely subjective. It’s the free market of facts.

         • What if there are Afghans on

           What if there are Afghans on the boats?

         • I’m unsure what you mean by

           I’m unsure what you mean by the question.  I don’t think our authorities have been instructed to check nationalities on the boats before illegally turning them around. To me, it’s irrelevant: you save anyone in our waters – having a pyramid of who is and who isn’t allowed to drown or who does and doesn’t have access to international laws based on nationality is immoral. 

         • ktache wrote:

           What if there are Afghans on the boats?

           — ktache

           Clearly the fact that they’re attempting an illegal crossing shows that they’re lying, and they’re not really Afghans at all. If they were, they’d have got all their papers sorted out properly by visiting the British embassy before leaving Afghanistan, and then got a regular flight out of the country to the UK…

         • Given that the status quo is
           Given that the status quo is leading to those same desperate people drowning in the English channel.

           What would your solution be?

         • I know you want to defend the

           I know you want to defend the original post out of some abstract principle and I realise we might have very different politics but thank you for at least abandoning the pretence that the status quo of Patel’s policies are compassionate. I’ll answer in the spirit that it was a genuine question:  you rescue anyone who is drowning or desperate in our waters, then you process them in line with international law. 

         • Please don’t try and twist
           Please don’t try and twist what I post.

           The status quo leads to drownings, if you attempt to pick up every vessel and bring it to the UK for processing all you do is encourage more people to attempt the journey and you get more drownings.

           Personally I don’t want anyone to drown in the channel so I’m not prepared to support a policy that will inevitably lead to just that.

           You may think it’s ‘compassionate’ to operate a policy that leads to innocent people drowning needlessly. I do not.

           If turning back boats leads to fewer deaths then how is it a ‘bad thing’?

         • And if turning boats back

           And if turning boats back lead to more drownings?

           if people are desperately coming out to sea in unsuitable boats in even though people have drowned previously, then why do you think they will stop trying now?

           at least border patrol have learnt what the. Met didn’t and forced the decision to send people back directly on Patels shoulders. Although I’m sure she will be blamimg them if deaths do happen after a decision is made stating they gave her false information about the scenario at the time. 

            

         • If that were the case then
           If that were the case then you would have to reconsider.

           The channel crossings are arranged by organised criminals, once the likelihood of a successful crossing fell then so it would become far less lucrative for them.

           Combine that with a location to claim UK asylum on the European mainland or an agreement to share refugees with the EU and the channel crossings would virtually disappear.

         • I didn’t twist anything. The

           I didn’t twist anything. The status quo is Patel’s policy and you state that the status quo leads to drownings.

           You claim that rescuing people from drowning leads to more people drowning. There is no evidence to support this. 

           You speculate that turning back unsafe boats into dangerous waters leads to fewer deaths. Again, nonsense.

           The fact that you put the word compassionate in inverted commas is very revealing. You want to defend policies that are amoral, endanger lives and contravene our international obligations, and your defence for them is that it’s  other ideas that endanger lives. It’s playground squabbing at best. But it’s on the continuum of: the RNLI are responsible for drownings by saving people from drowning or anti-fascists are the real fascists or footballers saying there should be less racist abuse are Marxists. This is how your argument looks, even if it’s not your intention.

           I answered your previous question in good faith, as I believed you were genuine but for you there was some sort of principle at stake, over which we disagree; however your latest reply has shown I was badly mistaken.  I won’t reply again as seeing someone bend over backwards to defend the indefensible is not top of my weekend priorities. 

           Enjoy your weekend.  Stay safe.

         • It’s a very simple principle.
           It’s a very simple principle.

           If we accept that it’s impossible to save 100% of people crossing the channel from drowning then it it obvious that as the number of people attempting the crossing increases so do the number of drownings.

           If you make the crossing more attractive then more people will engage in it and more people will die.

           The policy of rescuing people from the channel and bringing them to the UK has led to over 300 deaths since 1999.

           This is the policy you support.

           I will not support a policy that leads to hundreds of deaths.

           If that is “immoral” then I suggest you have an unusual set of moral principles.

           If it is possible to safely collect boats and bring them to the UK shoreline then, obviously, it is also possible to safely collect boats and return them to the French shoreline.

           Another part of your argument is therefore proven to be nonsense.

           Once it becomes clear that crossing the channel by boat now has a much lower likelihood of success then the numbers doing so will drop and therefore the number of drownings.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           It’s a very simple principle… Once it becomes clear that crossing the channel by boat now has a much lower likelihood of success then the numbers doing so will drop and therefore the number of drownings.

           — Rich_cb

           I fully support the concepts that (a) people traffickers should be arrested and imprisoned like the ***** that they are and (b) it should be possible to claim asylum easily and not just from within the UK.

           I fully dispute the assertion that it is just as easy to return rescued people to France because this is (a) illegal and (b) a breach of international human rights and I also fully dispute the fact that this would lead to fewer deaths; the Lybian coastguard has rammed and shot at those attempting crossings as well as returning them to the Lybian coastline.

           https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/09/returning-migrant-vessels-violates-maritime-law-and-moral-obligation

           https://theconversation.com/turning-back-migrant-boats-what-does-the-international-law-of-the-sea-say-167679

           https://www.france24.com/en/africa/20210726-at-least-57-europe-bound-migrants-drown-after-boat-capsizes-off-coast-of-libya

           Good day for a bike ride though.

         • How can it be physically more
           How can it be physically more difficult to return a vessel to France than to bring it to the UK?

           If the French were to intercept them in French waters and return them to France that would be even better.

           The status quo leads to hundreds of drownings including children.

           The idea that we’re morally obliged to continue a system that drowns children is preposterous.

           If you don’t think that making it harder to successfully cross will reduce the number of crossings that’s up to you. I think that once it becomes less profitable to the people traffickers they’ll look elsewhere.

           You wouldn’t be denying the people the right to claim asylum, you’d merely be taking them to the asylum centre in Europe to apply so there would be no breach of international human rights law. As you’d be taking them safely to the French shore you also wouldn’t be violating any maritime laws about rendering assistance.

           The only way to stop the drownings is to stop the crossings.

         • Nice straw, man!

           Nice straw, man!

           I didn’t say it was physcially more difficult, I said it was illegal.

           It is no more physically difficult for me to jump on your bike and ride it away than it is mine, but it is still illegal.

           If you can come up with a system that is legal in international law and leads to a better outcome then please go ahead.  Given your last post however, you obviosly do not understand martitime law. 

           I also suspect that to get such a system implemented however you will have to come up with a bit more evidence than imagining in your head that things would be better, despite evidence to the contrary (for which links have been provided for your education).

         • Ok, given you clearly
           Ok, given you clearly understand more about maritime law than I do.

           Please explain, how is it illegal under maritime law to escort a vessel safely to French soil?

           If you support a system that drowns children then you cannot claim the moral high ground.

           It is an absolute imperative to find an alternative. Refusing to try is to be complicit in the ongoing deaths.

         • Rich, why don’t we ask the

           Rich, why don’t we ask the French to escort the refugee boats to British shores?

           Innevitably safer as if they were escorting them back to France then these desperate people would just try again.

           In fact, because it’s all about preventing drownings, especially of the children, why don’t the French use their very safe warships to ferry these refugees straight to UK ports?

         • The bit I don’t understand
           The bit I don’t understand about this is what is so terrible about asylum in any EU country, with possible exceptions such as Hungary. It seems hard to believe that shitey old Blighty is worth risking your life to get to. What is so awful about life for asylum seekers in France?

           Because if we want to stop the trafficking, one way is to make the journey unnecessary.

         • I really, really don’t know.

           I really, really don’t know.

           But they do, and they are willing to properly risk their lives to do it, so they at least do seem quite determined.

         • That is the question.
           That is the question.

           What is it about the UK that makes people willing to risk their lives and their children’s lives just for a chance at claiming asylum here when they are already able to claim asylum in any Schengen country?

         • We aren’t anywhere near the

           We aren’t anywhere near the most popular destination for asylum seekers in Europe. The impression that we are generally comes from nastier elements of the press, right-wing loons in below-the-line comments and politicians pandering to them. The majority don’t come here but for those who decide to risk their lives to, there will be many reasons.

         • markieteeee wrote:

           but for those who decide to risk their lives to, there will be many reasons.

           — markieteeee

           one of which is that there is a thriving business where unscrupulous traffickers will take your money to risk your life, in a bid to get ahead of others who don’t/won’t play with their lives. To be complicit in maintaining that business model is to be complicit in the risk to life it presents.

           You can argue about how to dismantle that business. One way is to defeat its aims – a business that can’t deliver does not survive. Of course you have to do that without increasing the risk to life.

         • I doubt unscrupulous

           I doubt unscrupulous traffickers are anywhere near anyone’s top thousand reasons for seeking refuge in the UK, however once they’ve set their mind on coming, these people will take advantage so they definitely need dismantling. Illegally pushing unsafe boats full of desperate people back into dangerous waters, and ignoring international obligations, does nothing to prevent traffickers; it’s acting just like them. Supporting this is the very definition of being complicit. There’s not much between state-sponsored disregard for human life and criminal disregard for human life – except the expectation that your elected representatives ought to care somehow makes it much harder to stomach. 

           Defeating the aims of traffickers would take international co-operation and, among other measures, the establishment of safe routes for refugees. The details, like you say, can be argued over. Some people on this thread aren’t really concerned about saving lives or defeating criminal gangs though, so will be back again with disingenuous nonsense, so brace yourself. 

         • markieteeee wrote:

           Some people on this thread aren’t really concerned about saving lives or defeating criminal gangs though, so will be back again with disingenuous nonsense,…

           — markieteeee

           No, I don’t think that’s true. Some people set themselves up as the arbiter of good intentions, and impugne the morals of any who disagree with them. I don’t think it helps their argument.

         • It’s odd that you can read

           It’s odd that you can read comments in support of our country abandoning international obligations, supporting pushing desperate people back into dangerous waters from posters who accuse others, who would prefer to save  lives in UK waters, of supporting drownings, but are more upset about the manner of anyone challenging them. I don’t think anyone here holds themselves up as a moral arbiter but as mentioned before: while you’re free to state your views, you’re not free from being challenged. The more extreme, weird or objectionable a post, the more likely that someone will challenge it.  NB I don’t know your views so was not referring to you in my previous comment, if that’s what made you make this post. 

         • Who has supported pushing
           Who has supported pushing people back into dangerous waters?

           If you support the status quo then you support a system that will inevitably lead to more drownings.

           You have to take responsibility for the outcomes of your decisions.

         • I’m unsure why you’ve aimed

           I’m unsure why you’ve aimed this towards me. I questioned how anyone could claim that the status quo, which is Patel’s policy, was compassionate.  I’m sure you remember this, as you defended it. 

           Since then you have been arguing with others that the status quo leads to drownings and accusing anyone who disagrees with you of supporting a policy of drowning.  Alongside this, you’ve come up many suggestions about how to treat desperate people. Turn them back, process them elsewhere, accompany them to another country. I laughed at the idea of a Hastings RNLI boat having to sail to some sort of facility in France because you see no reason why it’s more difficult to go across the channel in an unsuitable boat bring people to shore. 

           You want our country to be international pariahs and of course it’s all because you care and no one else does.  The only thing all of your suggestions have in common is the insistence that under no circumstances should black or brown faces be permitted to arrive on our shores for first-time asylum applications. Maybe if your ideas are adopted, after being dehumanised, the majority, if not all, will weeded out along the way. I’m sure your next disingenuous comment filled with indignation will be hard to read but I won’t. I feel bad for being so blunt but really, you’ve dragged on this nastiness for weeks. It’s time to stop.  Stay safe. 

         • That really is a pathetic
           That really is a pathetic reply.

           We have a situation in which hundreds of people are drowning.

           We have a potential solution to this problem.

           You don’t want to change the current situation and instead of trying to justify your position you simply make lazy accusations of racism.

           By trying to shut down debate on this matter in such a way people like you are directly responsible for the deaths in the channel.

           Despite this you probably consider yourself one of the ‘good guys’.

           Your self delusion would be amusing if the outcomes weren’t quite so tragic.

         • Again, my very starting point

           Again, my very starting point was that I don’t support the status quo. Yet here you go again repeating the same nonsense, accusing other people of supporting drownings. You seem to enjoy false accusations as part of your obfuscation yet can’t take being challenged on genuine things you have said   

           I’m happy to correct it if I summarised any of your policies wrong, but you haven’t pointed anything out. 

            

            

         • Do you support the ongoing
           Do you support the ongoing process of rescuing migrants from the channel and bringing them to the UK?

           If that’s not true then we have had a misunderstanding.

           If it is true then my point remains valid.

           As shown by the Australian experience, shutting down sea crossings dramatically reduces drownings.

           Continuing with the current practice therefore leads to unnecessary drownings.

           If you support the current practice then you bear responsibility for those unnecessary deaths.

           If you look further down the thread I have advocated for safe, legal routes to asylum for those asylum seekers who are in the EU.

           Your insinuations that I wish to exclude ‘black and brown’ people from the UK is therefore baseless and reflects very badly on you.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           Do you support the ongoing process of rescuing migrants from the channel and bringing them to the UK? If that’s not true then we have had a misunderstanding. If it is true then my point remains valid. As shown by the Australian experience, shutting down sea crossings dramatically reduces drownings. Continuing with the current practice therefore leads to unnecessary drownings. If you support the current practice then you bear responsibility for those unnecessary deaths. If you look further down the thread I have advocated for safe, legal routes to asylum for those asylum seekers who are in the EU. Your insinuations that I wish to exclude ‘black and brown’ people from the UK is therefore baseless and reflects very badly on you.

           — Rich_cb

           Rich, I do genuinely applaud your desire to reduce deaths in attempted channel crossings. I think we are almost there. Can we all agree that the ideal solution would be for the UK to create a massive asylum processing center in France (probably near Sangatte) that people could approach BEFORE they get in to the hands of people smugglers?  Such a center would provide good quality accommodation, free legal advice, food, etc and avoid the need for anyone to attempt to cross the channel in an unsafe boat. I think the French government would go for such an option. How about you?

         • I have previously suggested
           I have previously suggested something very similar to this.

           Personally I think it may be wiser to locate it further from the channel tunnel and ferry ports otherwise it may exacerbate the problem (as the previous Sangatte camp did) and it may be best to have several smaller centres rather than one large centre.

           According to the papers today we are currently in negotiations with the French to build a network of smaller centres based a long way from the coast which will hopefully give refugees an alternative to the people smugglers.

           Even if all genuine refugees could be given an alternative safe route to the UK we’d still require a strategy to deal with boats as the people smugglers smuggle economic migrants too, as seen with that horrendous tragedy in the refrigerated lorry.

         • First of all, your question

           First of all, your question is based on a false premise.  Nobody rescues migrants and brings them to the UK. The question assumes that they are being brought into UK waters by rescue boats or border force.  It’s simply not happening.  We do, however, have an obligation to rescue anyone in trouble in  UK waters, regardless of their status. UK waters are part of the UK, so they are already here – not being brought here. It’s been a long-standing duty of seafarers to rescue drowning people and they take this to be a moral imperative but now it’s also enshrined in international law too.

           If you had maybe asked something along the lines of: should we rescue people in trouble in UK waters, then the answer is of course yes.  It’s a legal as well as moral obligation. And it doesn’t matter how many times that you say it, there is no evidence that rescuing drowning people leads to more people drowning. 

           I believe someone has already pointed you to the fact that you are mistaken about the Australian model – turning boats around does not cut drownings or save lives. I suppose that the best you could argue that there are less drownings close to the Australian coast (although unclear figures and lack of openness throws this into question), however there aren’t less drownings overall – they’re just happening in Sri Lankan, Indonesian, Cambodian and other waters instead. Also many of the boats return to places where the occupants are tortured, imprisoned or killed.  It’s NIMBYism of the worst kind – let them die elsewhere, get them off our stats.  

           If you care about lives, it’s impossible to justify Australia’s method as the way forward – and as you keep saying you refuse to be complicit in drownings you will surely reconsider this as your favoured example of something that works. Their off-shore processing has also been disastrous for human rights – it shows up the problems in this as a solution too.   

           As you seem to follow my replies to others,  you’ll have seen that my opinion is that we need international co-operation and safe routes (this is additional and should never mean we abandon rescuing drowning people in our waters). I hadn’t seen you mention safe, legal routes but I’m pleasantly surprised that you support them. Priti Patel is bringing forward the Nationality and Borders Bill which will make how people arrive in the UK have a bearing on asylum seeker’s claims.  Without safe routes, all ways for refugees to enter the UK are illegal. Patel has designed a policy contrary to international law that criminalises refugees, so I presume you’ll be against her bill.

           I will accept that maybe your insistence that no-one should be permitted to arrive on our shores for first-time asylum applications is equal opportunities; although you haven’t said what you find so terrible about proessing people with dignity in our country, nor that I got anything wrong in summing up the outcome. But you seem to be a clever bloke, so I’m sure that you can see the direct effect of the combinations of your preferred policies upon refugees mean that, the races and nationalities who make up the majority of refugess are kept away by them. Maybe it’s an unintended outcome rather than your intentions but not noticing it probably reflects far more badly upon yourself than those who do, particularly when you spend the time patronising, obfuscating and accusing them of all kinds. You can’t have it both ways – you continually sneer at anyone who disagrees with you yet no-one is allowed to mention the obvious effect of your ideas (and when they do, imply somehow you’ve been silenced…)

           Anyway, this thread is weeks old now and I feel silly for allowing you and others to drag me back into it. Stay safe

         • You will need to provide some
           That’s a nice use of semantics to avoid the question.

           I’ll reword it just so there’s no misunderstanding…

           Do you support the ongoing process of intercepting migrants in the English Channel and bringing them to the UK mainland?

           You will need to provide some proof for your assertion that the Australian approach has not reduced drownings.

           I’ve provided several links which assert that it has reduced drownings.

           If we accept that the Australian approach has reduced drownings, as all the statistics I have seen suggest, then it follows, logically, that other approaches produce higher rates of drownings.

           You can’t say there is no proof that the current UK practice increases drownings because that is exactly what the Australian approach proves.

           The rest of the Australian policy is irrelevant to this discussion. I have said before I don’t wish to emulate any other aspect of their approach apart from the turning back of boats. I would add that the people in the boats should be safely escorted to shore either in their vessel if seaworthy or in an alternative vessel if not.

           The geo-political climate is also completely different in this case to that of Australia and Italy. We will not be turning people back to a dangerous country.

           I have no problem with people having their asylum claims processed in this country. I merely wish to ensure the safety of those seeking asylum.

           The relatively small number of people arriving by boat produce an unacceptably large number of casualties.

           The only proven way to stop this is to turn back the boats.

           Here’s a link which uses language remarkably similar to that used in your post and which concludes that the Australian approach has reduced drownings.

           https://theconversation.com/operation-sovereign-borders-offshore-detention-and-the-drownings-argument-45095

         • If you look further down the
           If you look further down the thread I’ve suggested opening an asylum centre in Europe so people can apply for UK asylum without any need to engage in further risky journeys.

           I’m in no way opposed to refugees being granted asylum.

           If you ran your own ships you’d still have to vet people before allowing them on board so there’d be no real benefit over just processing their full application before letting them on board.

         • There was a discussion about
           There was a discussion about this on BBC R4 Today on 10 Sept. It starts about 1:51:51. They discussed the particular issue of turning back boats.
           https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000zfdx

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           Ok, given you clearly understand more about maritime law than I do. Please explain, how is it illegal under maritime law to escort a vessel safely to French soil? If you support a system that drowns children then you cannot claim the moral high ground. It is an absolute imperative to find an alternative. Refusing to try is to be complicit in the ongoing deaths.

           — Rich_cb

           Read the links.  Or are you content in your ignorance?

           The system I support is the best legal approach at the moment.  Your ideas will drown more children as the evidence from Lybia shows.

           Please enlighten us as to the efforts you are making in this area to avoid complicity in ongoing deaths  Other than, erm, wittering nonsense on a cycling forum…

            

         • I have asked for you to
           I have asked for you to explain so I’m clearly not content in my ignorance.

           From my understanding of the links you’ve posted it would be entirely legal to safely return a boat to French soil.

           Please explain why this is not the case?

           If the fact that the current system is ‘legal’ helps to assuage your conscience so be it. I refuse to support a system that results in the unnecessary deaths of children. You clearly have no such qualms.

         • I haven’t listened to the

           I haven’t listened to the Podcast li9nks from later, but from what I gather we can only send them back to the French half of the channel and our boats wouldn’t be going to the ports with them to ensure safe return. So at the narrowest points we would be stopping people 10-11 miles out to see and telling them to turn around. I expect they will also be alerting French ships to come and pick them up instead. 

           I believe the idea of having a place in Europe to apply for sanctuary is the idea wanted by opponents of this new “compasionate” Patel plan all along. Unfortunately I expect though there is alot of Politics in having such a place on foreign soil including who will be paying for housing and feeding whilst they will be processed AND what happens when inevitably the claim fails. 

           As for why come to UK instead of elsewhere, maybe with some of it the issue is language. English is the most spoken language in the world (Mandarin is first / second depending where you look but I expect as a second language, English tops that). So I expect most can already communicate well enough and with most of the other native speaking English countries too far away to get to, due to the size of the Oceans, the UK is the target. 

         • I can appreciate that the
           I can appreciate that the language provides an additional factor but, honestly, if I had a choice between learning to speak French fluently or loading my children onto a dinghy and setting off across the channel I know which I’d choose.

           Realistically, we can only end the channel crossings completely by cooperating with France and other EU nations.

           It’s in the best interests of everybody involved, especially the refugees, but it hasn’t happened so far and I’m sceptical it will anytime soon.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           I have asked for you to explain so I’m clearly not content in my ignorance. From my understanding of the links you’ve posted it would be entirely legal to safely return a boat to French soil. Please explain why this is not the case? If the fact that the current system is ‘legal’ helps to assuage your conscience so be it. I refuse to support a system that results in the unnecessary deaths of children. You clearly have no such qualms.

           — Rich_cb

           Ah dear. Hopefully others have helped to educate you.

           I still haven’t seen an explanation of how you are trying to prevent the deaths of the children you are convinced are happening other than just posting on a cycling forum. 

           Surely it could not be the case that you don’t actually care, haven’t done anything about the issue and have just dug yourself into such a counterfactual rhetorical hole you have no way of getting out and can only flail wildly while repeating “you don’t care about drowning children?”

         • Maybe I’m a cynic but I
           Maybe I’m a cynic but I generally find that when somebody won’t provide the evidence/explanation for their position it’s usually because they can’t.

           I’d be delighted to have my cynicism challenged of course.

           As for your ludicrous question, as I’m not a member of the Coastguard/Navy/RNLI/Government I’m not sure what I can directly do to prevent drownings.

           I can argue in favour of a political solution that will reduce the drownings and that’s what I’m doing.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           Maybe I’m a cynic but I generally find that when somebody won’t provide the evidence/explanation for their position it’s usually because they can’t. I’d be delighted to have my cynicism challenged of course. As for your ludicrous question, as I’m not a member of the Coastguard/Navy/RNLI/Government I’m not sure what I can directly do to prevent drownings. I can argue in favour of a political solution that will reduce the drownings and that’s what I’m doing.

           — Rich_cb

           I too may be a cynic but when I provide 3 links to articles explaining the legal situation your wilful ignorance is at this point tiresome.  The fact that you can’t understand them is not my problem. The fact is you that have a different opinion to even the governments own lawyers – that it would only be possible to send boats back under an extremely limited set of circumstances. This is because most of the vessels crossing are not seaworthy and pushing them back rather than rescuing those on board would, shock horror, lead to more children drowning, which I believe you are opposed to, yes?

         • You seem to be ignoring my
           You seem to be ignoring my specific question.

           Would it be illegal to escort the (seaworthy) vessels to French soil?

           Your links suggest it would not be.

           You seem determined not to answer my question. My cynicism remains strong.

           If the vessels are not seaworthy then the best response would be for the French to intercept them as soon as possible and return them to French soil thereby shortening the time they are at risk. Alternatively they could be loaded on to a seaworthy vessel and then escorted to French soil. Would this be illegal?

           The evidence from Australia seems to suggest that turning ships back massively reduces drownings. They also practice the reloading of people onto seaworthy vessels if there’s an imminent risk of sinking.

           I hope we get the same reduction in unnecessary deaths in the channel.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           You seem to be ignoring my specific question. Would it be illegal to escort the (seaworthy) vessels to French soil? Your links suggest it would not be. You seem determined not to answer my question. My cynicism remains strong. If the vessels are not seaworthy then the best response would be for the French to intercept them as soon as possible and return them to French soil thereby shortening the time they are at risk. Alternatively they could be loaded on to a seaworthy vessel and then escorted to French soil. Would this be illegal? The evidence from Australia seems to suggest that turning ships back massively reduces drownings. They also practice the reloading of people onto seaworthy vessels if there’s an imminent risk of sinking. I hope we get the same reduction in unnecessary deaths in the channel.

           — Rich_cb

           https://theconversation.com/turning-back-migrant-boats-what-does-the-international-law-of-the-sea-say-167679
            

           I’ve posted this before and it explains the legalities.  Everyone reading this thread can read this article and see that you are wrong.  At this point you are just embarrassing yourself. 
            

            

         • The articles don’t answer my
           The articles don’t answer my question.

           The articles talk about turning a ship around and leaving it return to land under its own power.

           That is not my question.

           My question is: Is it legal to escort a (seaworthy) ship back to French soil?

           Anyone on this thread can see that I have asked this question multiple times.

           You have consistently refused to answer it.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           The articles don’t answer my question. The articles talk about turning a ship around and leaving it return to land under its own power. That is not my question. My question is: Is it legal to escort a (seaworthy) ship back to French soil? Anyone on this thread can see that I have asked this question multiple times. You have consistently refused to answer it.

           — Rich_cb

           From the article 

           “Beyond the law of the sea, when officials start to exercise effective control over another vessel at sea, by rescuing or physically towing boats back, human rights obligations come into play. 

           Hirsi Jamaa v Italy, a case considered by the European Court of Human Rights, involved Italian authorities’ interception of migrants at sea, forcibly returning them to Libya. The court concluded that the applicants were under the “continuous and exclusive de jure and de facto control of the Italian authorities” during the transfer, meaning Italy had an obligation to protect their human rights. 

           Human rights at sea expert Sofia Galani also affirms that people in the territorial waters of a state are within its jurisdiction for the purposes of human rights, which the state must respect and protect.

           Such rights would include giving people access to a procedure that determines their refugee status, and ensuring that there is no collective expulsion of people. In the Hirsi case, the court held that Italian authorities violated the European Convention on Human Rights by not examining each applicant’s individual situation.”

         • Which doesn’t answer the
           Which doesn’t answer the question?

           From my very first reply to you:

           “You wouldn’t be denying the people the right to claim asylum, you’d merely be taking them to the asylum centre in Europe to apply so there would be no breach of international human rights law. As you’d be taking them safely to the French shore you also wouldn’t be violating any maritime laws about rendering assistance.”

           In that situation, would it be legal to transfer a (seaworthy) vessel to French soil?

         • Yes it does. If someone

           Yes it does. If someone claims asylum you are not allowed to say “oh ok but we are going to deport you to a different country first lol”  If you were do you seriously think this government would have not tried that by now?

            

         • That’s not what the article
           That’s not what the article says. It says you cannot deny them asylum without assessing their case. You wouldn’t be doing that.

           If you established an asylum centre in another country then you’d be giving them the exact same rights of applying for asylum as if they were in the UK.

         • So how are you going to

           So how are you going to assess their case fully in the middle of the ocean before deperting them to another country? Because that is what you are doing. Once they are picked up by a UK vessel they are subject to UK law. You cannot deport an asylum seeker without due process. 

         • No, that is not what you are
           No, that is not what you are doing.

           You are taking them to a UK asylum centre based in another country where they are eligible to apply for UK asylum.

           You are required to assess each asylum case individually, there is no requirement for that to take place on the UK mainland.

           You are also legally able to remove an asylum seeker to another country which has agreed to process their application.

           https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/top-10-facts-about-refugees-and-people-seeking-asylum/

         • Lolz

           Lolz

           so how many of these “UK asylum seeker centers” in another country exist right now?  How, in international law, do you establish UK jurisdiction in France ?  Has France agreed to process these applications?  How is Dublin III looking right now?

           The assessment of asylum seeker status HAS to take place before deportation. This is the law. You can’t just make this stuff up Rich. 
            

           P.S. Given your complete lack of knowledge of international law, disregard for human rights and approval of the Australian practice of paying human traffickers, you are Priti Patel in sock puppet form and I claim my £5

         • Australia runs asylum seeker
           Australia runs asylum seeker processing centres in other countries.

           It is perfectly possible to do so.

           As long as each applicant is considered individually then it is legal.

           You don’t necessarily have to set up UK jurisdiction, you could reach an agreement with France to process a certain number of their asylum seekers through the UK system including any intercepted in the channel.

           If you did want specific UK jurisdiction that again is possible. The channel tunnel being a prime example.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           Australia runs asylum seeker processing centres in other countries.

           — Rich_cb

           The ones where no journalist is allowed to visit, where Salvation Army workers have claimed that racism, beatings and sexual violence against inmates is commonplace, that have been condemned by the UN, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch and Australia’s own official Human Rights Commission, where suicide and self harm is so endemic that paramilitary police have had to be deployed in an attempt to prevent it? Not sure that really boosts your case…

         • It does if you understand the
           It does if you understand the point that’s being debated.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           It does if you understand the point that’s being debated.

           — Rich_cb

           https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/02/australias-offshore-asylum-centres-have-been-a-cruel-disaster-they-must-not-be-replicated-by-the-uk

           I know you have issues with reading links, so I’ve quoted the most relevant part:

           “Australia has “gotten away” with successive and continuing human rights violations because it has no constitutionally guaranteed charter of rights, nor any regional human rights treaty or court against or by which its conduct can be assessed. The UK, as a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, would not be able to evade its legal responsibilities in the same way.”

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           Australia runs asylum seeker processing centres in other countries. It is perfectly possible to do so. As long as each applicant is considered individually then it is legal. You don’t necessarily have to set up UK jurisdiction, you could reach an agreement with France to process a certain number of their asylum seekers through the UK system including any intercepted in the channel. If you did want specific UK jurisdiction that again is possible. The channel tunnel being a prime example.

           — Rich_cb

           So you original question was why we could’t just turn back boats with people on board in the English Channel.

           This has been explained to you in terms of maritime and international law.

           You have persisted with the idea that it is possible, but in order to justify your stance you have had to go to increasing more inventive imaginary solutions.

           Just so we are clear, you agree that it is currently not possible, as things stand, to legally return the vast majority of people crossing the channel?

           Even if the border force dress as clowns.  Or ninjas.  Or people are rescued by a spaceship.

           Actually, I’m not sure about the spaceship.  You can have that one.  

            

         • Here’s what we’ve established
           Here’s what we’ve established so far.

           As confirmed by your most recent link, it is entirely legal to process asylum seekers ‘off shore’.

           Australia does just this. Among the criticisms of these camps (of which there are many) I’ve yet to see an argument that the actual processing of asylum claims offshore is illegal.

           The criticisms of Australia’s system relate to the treatment of asylum seekers in the centres and the refusal to accommodate those people with accepted claims as well as the return of failed asylum seekers to countries which are dangerous.

           To be clear, I am not proposing that we emulate Australia in any of these areas. I am merely proposing that we process asylum seekers intercepted in the channel offshore.

           This appears to be entirely compliant with the relevant international laws.

           You have consistently failed to provide any evidence to the contrary which leads me to believe you don’t have any and are simply refusing to admit this.

           In the context of established off shore processing I asked if it was legal to safely return asylum seekers to French soil.

           You have, again, failed to provide any evidence that this would be illegal.

           All the links that you have provided state that an asylum seeker’s case must be considered on an individual basis. None state that this consideration must take place in a specific location.

           We know from the Australian experience that intercepting boats and either returning them to the country of origin or moving the occupants to an offshore facility leads to a dramatic reduction in drownings.

           If we could ensure good conditions in the offshore facilities, that all accepted claims were immediately transferred to the UK and that no person would be returned to a dangerous country then, as far as I can see, such a system would be entirely compliant with international law.

           We therefore have a viable alternative to the status quo which has the potential to save hundreds of people from drowning in the channel.

           My question and my position has not changed since my very first reply to you (with the exception of clarifying that only seaworthy vessels would be returned).

           Your continued avoidance of the question and desperate attempts to deflect (clowns/ninjas etc) merely confirm my initial cynicism about your motives.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           Here’s what we’ve established so far. As confirmed by your most recent link, it is entirely legal to process asylum seekers ‘off shore’. Australia does just this. Among the criticisms of these camps (of which there are many) I’ve yet to see an argument that the actual processing of asylum claims offshore is illegal. The criticisms of Australia’s system relate to the treatment of asylum seekers in the centres and the refusal to accommodate those people with accepted claims as well as the return of failed asylum seekers to countries which are dangerous. To be clear, I am not proposing that we emulate Australia in any of these areas. I am merely proposing that we process asylum seekers intercepted in the channel offshore. This appears to be entirely compliant with the relevant international laws. You have consistently failed to provide any evidence to the contrary which leads me to believe you don’t have any and are simply refusing to admit this. In the context of established off shore processing I asked if it was legal to safely return asylum seekers to French soil. You have, again, failed to provide any evidence that this would be illegal. All the links that you have provided state that an asylum seeker’s case must be considered on an individual basis. None state that this consideration must take place in a specific location. We know from the Australian experience that intercepting boats and either returning them to the country of origin or moving the occupants to an offshore facility leads to a dramatic reduction in drownings. If we could ensure good conditions in the offshore facilities, that all accepted claims were immediately transferred to the UK and that no person would be returned to a dangerous country then, as far as I can see, such a system would be entirely compliant with international law. We therefore have a viable alternative to the status quo which has the potential to save hundreds of people from drowning in the channel. My question and my position has not changed since my very first reply to you (with the exception of clarifying that only seaworthy vessels would be returned). Your continued avoidance of the question and desperate attempts to deflect (clowns/ninjas etc) merely confirm my initial cynicism about your motives.

           — Rich_cb

           https://theconversation.com/uk-offshore-asylum-plan-is-just-another-way-of-imposing-forced-movement-on-vulnerable-people-164031

           edit – sorry I forgot you have an issue with reading articles – “At any rate, these plans are not compatible with international law and have been widely condemned by civil society and international organisations, including the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR).”

           If you have evidence to the contrary please supply it. 

         • Your own link provided
           Your own link provided earlier in the thread makes it clear it is possible to process asylum seekers offshore in a lawful way.

           “For any offshore processing scheme to be lawful, the human rights and protection needs of all asylum seekers, refugees and migrants who encounter it must be respected.”

           From: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/02/australias-offshore-asylum-centres-have-been-a-cruel-disaster-they-must-not-be-replicated-by-the-uk

           From a link within your most recent link:
           “They may be returned to where they have, or could have, sought asylum and could still access a fair procedure and receive humane treatment but doing so requires important safeguards”

           Given your continual lectures about reading links it seems odd that you missed those important details.

           In summary it is entirely legal to process asylum claims ‘off shore’.

           There will, of course, need to be safeguards in place but the policy of off shore processing together with plentiful safe, legal routes to UK asylum (as I advocated much earlier in the thread) can dramatically reduce channel crossings and therefore unnecessary deaths.

         • hi Priti, sorry, Rich

           hi Priti, sorry, Rich

           1.  If it is possible to process offshore asylum seekers legally, please name a case where this has been done successfully citing  the court judgement?

           2.  Remind again which countries have agree to house your mythical processing centers where asylum seekers will be deported to?

           3.  Remind me again whether you support the Australian model of paying people smugglers to participate in the return of asylum seekers?

           4.  Remind me again what you think should happen to the majority of people on children crossing the channel in boats at the present time with regard to international and maritime law as it stands today?

           Thanks

         • Nice deflections.
           Nice deflections.

           You’ve been proved wrong by your own links.

           Accept it and move on.

         • Glad we agree on the centers

           Glad we agree on the centers that avoid the need for anyone even attempting to cross.

           Well done on dogding the difficult questions.

           Currently it would be illegal to return people to France on boats.

           I will concede this could be done if:

           1.  France agrees to build appropriate centers (not going to happen anytime soon)

           2. Parliament agrees to build and finance them (this costs 50x more than processing the UK as per the Australian experience)

           3.  The boats are seaworthy

           4.   No human rights abuses occur at the hypothetical centers that have not been agreed to or built at the present time (unlikely considering the experience in Yarswood etc)

           So the answer to your original question

           Would it be illegal to escort the (seaworthy) vessels to French soil?

           Is still no.  Until all of the criteria above are fulfilled.

         • As I said in my earlier reply
           As I said in my earlier reply the UK government are currently in negotiations with France to fund the construction of migration centres.

           What the outcome of these negotiations will be is obviously unclear at the moment but from what the papers are discussing they don’t seem far off what I’m advocating.

           If the boats are not seaworthy then a seaworthy vessel could be supplied, the Australians do just this.

           I guess we now just have to wait and see.

           Let’s hope for an outcome that delivers far fewer drownings and a safer route to asylum for those in need.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           The evidence from Australia seems to suggest that turning ships back massively reduces drownings. They also practice the reloading of people onto seaworthy vessels if there’s an imminent risk of sinking. I hope we get the same reduction in unnecessary deaths in the channel.

           — Rich_cb

           https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/08/un-human-rights-expert-decries-boat-turnbacks-as-australia-criticised-for-secrecy-of-on-water-matters

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           It’s a very simple principle.

           If we accept that it’s impossible to save 100% of people crossing the channel from drowning then it it obvious that as the number of people attempting the crossing increases so do the number of drownings.

           If you make the crossing more attractive then more people will engage in it and more people will die.

           The policy of rescuing people from the channel and bringing them to the UK has led to over 300 deaths since 1999.

           This is the policy you support.

           I will not support a policy that leads to hundreds of deaths.

           If that is “immoral” then I suggest you have an unusual set of moral principles.

           If it is possible to safely collect boats and bring them to the UK shoreline then, obviously, it is also possible to safely collect boats and return them to the French shoreline.

           Another part of your argument is therefore proven to be nonsense.

           Once it becomes clear that crossing the channel by boat now has a much lower likelihood of success then the numbers doing so will drop and therefore the number of drownings.

           — Rich_cb

           This argument was examined on BBC R4 Today programme on 10 Sept. On their podcast it starts just after 1:51:51

         • I’ve just listened to it,
           I’ve just listened to it, very interesting, thanks for the link.

           From what I can gather the Australian approach also drastically reduced drownings.

           https://theconversation.com/operation-sovereign-borders-offshore-detention-and-the-drownings-argument-45095

         • What is the process for

           What is the process for dealing with people rescued at sea? I’m assuming that their medical, physical and mental needs are addressed – what then? Repatriated  to the country of origin?

         • If you are clever enough to

           If you are clever enough to create user profiles online, you are clever enough to look it up. 

         • What a bundle of joy you are.

           What a bundle of joy you are. Could have answered my question in the time it to took you to write that nasty little post. 

         • I was being defensive

           I was being defensive thinking that you were asking just so you could throw bile at the answer.  Scroll up and you’ll understand why – there’s a few nasty people on here. Plus jumping so quickly to repatriation is the kind of thing that sets off alarm bells. My answer was hardly nasty though – and it’s not like I’m an expert either, so in all honesty  you would genuinely be better off looking it up. It would definitely take longer than the three seconds my reply took.  But if you were asking in earnest Ernie, I apologise   

            

         • Yup, Road.cc – some good

           Yup, Road.cc – some good articles, but the comments sections are deffo.  anti-Conservative, anti-car echo chambers.

            

         • Anyone who states that Priti

           Anyone who states that Priti Patel and Dominic Raab are brilliant and will be finding a compassionate solution to the Afghan refugee crisis is either a troll or in need of serious medical intervention.

           Troll: In internet slang, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.), a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog), with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses.

           Apart from “insincere”, which I really hope for his sake and those who are forced to come into contact with him Nigel is, that description fits him like a glove.

         • By your definition posts
           By your definition posts containing the words “Tory Scum”, “Right Wing Nut Jobs/RWNJ” or that refer to Leave voters as “Stupid” would all be examples of trolling?

         • If they were totally

           If they were totally irrelevant to the matter under discussion and on a site whose members were predominantly rightwing, yes.

           I know you’re a fellow rightist but stop trying to defend the indefensible. On Friday there was an article about which towns allegedly had the worst drivers; straight away, first comment was NG saying oh look, they’re all Remainer towns. If that’s not “inflammatory, digressive, extraneous, [and] off-topic…with the intent of provoking readers” I’m the Archbishop of Canterbury.

         • I’m intrigued by your caveat
           I’m intrigued by your caveat about members being ‘predominantly right wing’.

           You seem to be implying that it’s ok to make “inflammatory, digressive, extraneous, [and] off-topic” comments as long as they are directed towards a minority of readers?

           That doesn’t seem like a particularly inclusive approach.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           By your definition posts containing the words “Tory Scum”, “Right Wing Nut Jobs/RWNJ” or that refer to Leave voters as “Stupid” would all be examples of trolling?

           — Rich_cb

           I just ignore them if they are abusive – stops these things getting out of hand.

           You are of course correct, but as you’ve noted yourself in the past the forum moderation here appears to be “one-sided”, and that’s putting it mildly. I’m not going to justify what I’ve written here – it’s completely straightforward and an honest opinion. People are free to disagree of course, and if they want to blame Dominic Raab for the fall of Afghanistan rather than Joe Biden’s and the Democrat’s shambolic withdrawal, that’s their look-out.

           You are perhaps the singularly most polite person I’ve ever seen comment on an internet forum rich_cb, and you are a credit to conservatism.

           In answer to another comment, I do try to help people out in cycling matters, and hope you find what I write useful.

         • Nigel Garrage wrote:

           I just ignore them if they are abusive – stops these things getting out of hand.

           — Nigel Garrage

           No you don’t, it’s not two months since you changed your username to “You all are cyberbullies” and said, and I quote, “Anyway I’m off this website, you lot deserve each other.” If only you’d kept your word…

           You are of course correct, but as you’ve noted yourself in the past the forum moderation here appears to be “one-sided”, and that’s putting it mildly.

           — Nigel Garrage

           Clearly someone who has been banned by the moderators for personal abuse would think that.

            You are perhaps the singularly most polite person I’ve ever seen comment on an internet forum rich_cb, and you are a credit to conservatism.

           — Nigel Garrage

           Get a room.

         • Yes, I’m afraid so.

           Yes, I’m afraid so.

           As indeed are any comments whatsoever which dare to even infer that a cyclist might just, just have been in the wrong on the very odd occasion.

         • Well, I asked because most of
           Well, I asked because most of the time I do not agree with his point of view, but the phrase “troll” can be abused when you want to discredit someone. Wasn’t sure if he doing it on purpose or not. Also, there is a ‘nic mason’ user that I see sometimes…. Could there be undercover officers here?

           edit: oops, just realised the troll issue had already been mentioned

         • Nicmason defends any police
           Nicmason defends any police behaviour which is questionable to the point of absurdity. He has denied being a policeman.
           He’s always taken a minority stance which is fine and sometimes I agree with his posts but he now has a blind spot about the police.

         • hirsute wrote:

           Nicmason defends any police behaviour which is questionable to the point of absurdity. He has denied being a policeman.

           — hirsute

           Of all the code names for a police officer, nic mason… What else did they consider? Sweeney Cop? Juliet Bravo? The Bill… (oh bugger, my cover is blown).

       • More a WUM really. He will

         More a WUM really. He will seize on some sentence you make in a post loosely related  to the subject and try and leverage that into some stupid argument. Classic baiting posts.

         Any other forum he would have been perma-banned by now. If he carried on on AV forums the way he does here, he would not last more than 2 days.

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • Top trolling, Nige. Love the
     Top trolling, Nige. Love the piss-take about Raab. If anyone wants objective evidence that this clown is completely out of his depth, you can’t do better than his appearance in front of the Commons FASC recently.

     My favourite exchange:
     Raab: “I’m sorry; what’s the source for that?”
     Tugendhat: “It’s your principal risk report”.
     ????

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • And he still makes a better

       And he still makes a better foreign secretary than the incompetent Johnson.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Yup, this is why I log on to

         Yup, this is why I log on to a cycling site.

         Thanks for the valuable input.

         Log In or Register to post comments

3. I’ve just read every comment

   I’ve just read every comment on this topic (retired and on holiday and in a lounger in the sun). I had to scroll back to the top to remind myself what the topic was about. Don’t any of you people work? Where do you find the time? 

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • efail wrote:

     I’ve just read every comment on this topic (retired and on holiday and in a lounger in the sun). I had to scroll back to the top to remind myself what the topic was about. Don’t any of you people work? Where do you find the time? 

     — efail

     Presumably once you’d reminded yourself what it was about, your question was put in to perspective…

     Log In or Register to post comments

4. Lazy cyclists!  If only they

   Lazy cyclists!  If only they’d taken the time to make it “Genuine refugees welcome (no economic migrants) subject to confirmation of (a) general eligibility for asylum (b) not having previously passed through a ‘safe country’ and (c) willingness to work toward cultural understanding”

   …then none of this debate would have been necessary.

   Log In or Register to post comments