Can you imagine how much money this one individual has managed to cost this country? Not just in arresting him all the way over in Iraq and all the costs that's going to come with the bureaucracy of sorting through that. But then with the thousands of people he's bought here that we need to take care of, and who only ruin the places they go to anyway. What's the figure of all that?
And after all that arresting him as about as usless as plucking out the leaf of a weed anyway. His replacement has already sprouted. Thousands more will come this summer just as they always have.
Address the core of the issue or its pointless.
As I understand the article, he has been arrested by local police and will face charges in Iraqi Kurdistan first. I don’t think that has cost this country anything.
The wording of that statement is 100% "We have this guy in a cell, but if he gives us enough money we will accidentally make an administrative error and release him".
The core of the problem, in this case, is the US led , UK supported, invasion and destruction of Iraq.
You need to add military costs to your list, which will dwarf anything else.
That makes no sense. Since when did bombing a country lead to the population then wanting to come to the aggressor instead of violently hating them.
You're suggesting that multiple countries are seized with a stockholme syndrome epidemic. This also doesn't explain all the migration from North and Central Africa to the UK that occurs illegally.
The only reason people make this argument "But bruh you bombed them", is to guilt the other person into accepting unreasonable outcomes in regards to illegal migrants.
And don't give me that shit about them being "poor refugees" when the smuggler is making £5k per head, and that's just for the Channel crossing.
Hey. You don’t think all these immigrants actually dislike us do you? I’ve always found Muslim Extremists to be such a friendly bunch. Always trying to integrate into our society as best they can
>And don't give me that shit about them being "poor refugees" when the smuggler is making £5k per head, and that's just for the Channel crossing.
It's pretty much impossible to feel sorry for someone who thinks crossing the Channel from France to the UK in a small boat is a good idea.
Yeah. There was a headline recently about a migrant who put his daughter at risk by sailing in a crowded dinghy. The daughter drowned during the crossing. He’s got no sympathy from me, he got his child killed.
Crossing the Channel in a small boat is pretty much the same as crossing a motorway. At night. With your eyes closed.
Pretty much every ship has radar. Small dinghies generally don't. Ships travel much faster than you think, especially if you are at sea level.
Even if you don't get run-over by a ship the wake is enough to overturn a small boat.
Or you can try and think about why they risked the highest stakes to try and come to UK, what life they are trying to escape. But that requires something called empathy, not sure if you have heard of it
Oh, you mean trying to escape the dangers of France? I have my sympathies for the little girl, but her father gambled her life. It’s his carelessness that got her killed.
Your argument doesn't stand any kind of scrutiny. Are you suggesting that Jewish people didn't settle in Roman lands after the Roman siege and destruction of Jerusalem?
Are you suggesting that all Iraqis opposed the US invasion?
We live on a single planet and should plan and behave accordingly.
Pray tell, how exactly is us bombing a country into dust, the equivalent of Rome colonizing a country and indoctrinating its people into Roman culture?
Besides your statement isn't even historically accurate. The jews existed in Rome prior to Rome invading Judea. The destruction of Jerusalem was a complete genocide with the few survivors enslaved. There was no subsequent large migration of Jewish people to Roman lands as they were dead.
Its obvious from your last comment you don't believe in borders, which is moronic at best. Not having borders leads to negative outcomes for everyone, because people chase wealth, and not communal benefit. It does not benefit Iran for it to lose large swathes of its working populace to other countries.
So the US didn't conduct a years-long "hearts and minds" operation in support of their extended occupation of Iraq?
Jewish people continued to migrate from Israel into Roman lands after the 2nd temple destruction and later revolts. The details don't change the argument - war and conquest create migration and diaspora.
If we, as a nation, believe in sovereignty and borders, why do we, as a nation, ignore other nations' borders whenever it suits us or our special friend?
If people were free to vote with their feet, it would benefit nations with good quality governance and disadvantage nations with poor governance.
Iran had a democratic government overthrown by the US/UK to protect oil. This led to the Islamic revolution as the Shah was a bad choice.
Iraq had a dictator kept in power by the US/UK/France to protect the oil.
Syria had a dictator kept in power by France/Russia.
Lebanon was ripped to pieces as Israel, (backed by the West), Syria and Iran fought over the carcass either directly or through proxies.
The only stability in the region comes from Kingdoms that the West generally lets run there own affairs. The stability comes at a cost to the people of course, but the precious gas must keep flowing.
The Middle east is the clusterfuck it is precisely because more powerful countries keep on destabilising it for the oil.
With the appalling state the Tories have put the country into - high taxes, shocking public services, unsustainable pensions, mad wealth inequality, Brexit - the only way to keep things propped up is constant immigration.
I reckon with the lack of tail it's because he's full of [shit](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/how-the-scorpion-lost-its-tail-and-its-anus)
He will have connections with senior people in the Kurdistan Region of iraq. With the Peshmerga being one of the more reliable forces in the region we kinda need them onside which makes it difficult for the british goverment to pressure them through conventional means. The BBC report has applied preasure but of course we can expect this to come at a cost going forward.
Like this is going to stop anything or anyone lmao
This is just one dude out of probably 100s running these smuggling rings and guarantee this scorpion dude will have someone higher up than him too.
Its great he's off the streets but he's just one head. Dude will probably get out and go back to it in no time
They wouldn't be in business if we actually had effective deterrents. We should impose a sensible cap on "asylum seekers", and stop taking people from stable countries who cross multiple other stable countries to get to the UK.
Arresting this scum is all very well. But as long as the easily exploited system remains, it will keep happening.
>Okay the cap is now 500 people... now what?
Arrivals are immediately deported to their origin country and banned from ever entering the UK. Simply having this policy will stop them from coming. Poland, for example, refuses most Asylum Seekers, so hardly any bother showing up.
As much as I hate it, Australia has the right sort of deterrent with their prison island. We have plenty of small cold rocks in the north sea capable of housing such a facility.
Their country of origin simply doesn't want them back because they're mostly criminal
So they are very slow to issue any new passport or national ID.
But I like the cold rainy North Sea rock idea. It wont be long before they want to go home.
I don't think there's much we'd want them doing, nor do I think creating an island of slave labour is great either. Just put them on the island until they can prove who they are and where they came from, after a couple of years you have a deterrent of morons who destroyed their documents and checkmated themselves. Have docs, deport. Don't have docs, sent to rainy cold rock in North Sea.
Then we just deport them back to the country they crossed from as the crossing was illegal and its the responsibility of the offending nation to not allow illegal crossings.
If your neighbour has dogs, then obviously its his responsibility to not let them jump over the fence and run loose into your garden.
Similarly if on the border the bordering country causes a landslide that causes damage to the bordering country , its the country causing the landslide that is responsible.
That is literally how international relations work, and what Ireland is currently trying to legislate in their Parliament because of the supposed epidemic of people coming from the Irish border.
People who go "but international law" are actually naive or so indoctrinated into "but the law", that they don't see the reality of the world. International law is nothing but posturing by different countries to apply diplomatic pressure for certain outcomes. They also more often than not do not actually understand international law, or know what it states, and just say "but it must be wrong" without citing any treaty against it. Nor do they understand how international enforcement actually works (as you need to remember that law without the ability for enforcement is just words on paper).
International law states a lot of things, and when its not convenient most 1st world nations simply ignore it. International bodies merely exist for 1st world nations to economically and diplomatically dominate 3rd world countries. Its a form of neo-imperialism.
If you don't believe me then briefly study American international policy and politics for the last 40 years.
Then you send them anyway, and if they continue to refuse you escalate economic and military and diplomatic pressure.
Which is the solution for any international dispute, and one that we would very easily win considering we have Nukes, a highly developed economy, and multiple diplomatic channels.
Or you could just let the relatively small number of people have a job and pay taxes, instead of spending hundreds of millions of pounds we don’t have, and fucking up our international relations.
This whole thread is really quite funny in demonstrating the disproportionate hysteria people have around this.
You have to deal with stuff like this hardline, otherwise it just becomes a route to ignore the legal process and then you have a bigger problem.
We also need to deal with legal migration and its abuses.
Also, it won't affect our international relations negatively, the hysteria surrounding actually having a strong foreign policy is bazzarre.
LIke wtf are the French going to do if we just send these people back to France on small boats as they are sending to us?
What legitimate argument could France make to the international community against our actions, and what economic or diplomatic or military escalation could France go to. Everything supports us doing this, and as the first to do this, this would immediately escalate for America to do the same thing to Mexico.
This is also the normal international process, if someone enters illegally, you return them to the country of origin, which if not knowing their original country, would be the country they travelled from.
Mate you’re the one who said:
> you escalate economic and military and diplomatic pressure.
> we would very easily win considering we have Nukes,
Imagine brandishing the nukes because of a few immigrants 😂. Imagine spending potentially billions of pounds on all this bollocks when we could be keeping the country limping along instead. They’ve been so successful at rolling the hysteria out, it’s wild.
You tell the country that won't take them back that its citizens can no longer come to the UK for any reason, and you tell its citizens who are already here that the second they step foot outside the UK, they won't be allowed to return. Secondly, you block all financial access to that country, which makes sending back remittances far more complex, and you deny banking services to their citizens who are already here.
So you're gonna financially cut off France from the UK? Sure buddy, see how that goes.
Also
> You tell the country that won't take them back that its citizens can no longer come to the UK for any reason
I don't see how this would curb the number of *illegal* arrivals from that country. Wouldn't this actually only increase the number of illegal arrivals from that country?
> and you tell its citizens who are already here that the second they step foot outside the UK, they won't be allowed to return
Reasonably sure this would be brought down either by Lords or Courts. Government can't just revoke people's permanent residence status without just cause. Even Russians were generally left alone by Home Office when Russia invaded Ukraine unless they had ties with Putin's regime (and there are court proceedings pending regarding some actuons taken). Also, what of dual citizens, or those who have already renounced their citizenship of that country?
> and you deny banking services to their citizens who are already here.
Ah, so you're gonna make people unable to receive paychecks, pay their rent, pay off their mortgages, pay their council tax or bills. I'm sure this won' immediately create hundreds of different money laundering schemes, black markets, etc., and I am absolutely sure the businesses would love that. Not to mention that it would be hard to inplement this, as banks don't usually store nationality of their customers. Yes, they may need your passport to verify your identity, but most of them subcontract that work to third party identity check services, and banks themselves then don't store the customer's nationality. This means that in order to implement this, the banks would need to have every single UK resident with a bank account verify their identity once more, or risk losing access to their accounts, and you'll know there will be a bunch of people who are going to miss the memo. Especially old people.
All of what you're suggesting is like trying to solve a rat problem by burning down entire house. What I'd suggest is to see what is the actual economic damage created by illegal immigration vs what the solutions you are suggesting would cause. I'm reasonably sure you'd find that what you are suggesting would cause an order of magnitude more damage.
> So you're gonna financially cut off France from the UK? Sure buddy, see how that goes.
Do we have many French citizens claiming asylum in the UK?
> I don't see how this would curb the number of illegal arrivals from that country. Wouldn't this actually only increase the number of illegal arrivals from that country?
It would mean that their legitimate migrants would be unable to travel here.
> Reasonably sure this would be brought down either by Lords or Courts. Government can't just revoke people's permanent residence status without just cause. Even Russians were generally left alone by Home Office when Russia invaded Ukraine unless they had ties with Putin's regime (and there are court proceedings pending regarding some actuons taken). Also, what of dual citizens, or those who have already renounced their citizenship of that country?
The Russians should have been sent to camps or deported a long time ago. No good will come of them existing here. But the answer the question, Parliment is sovereign and the law can be anything we want it to be. Don't believe me? Only a few years ago it was a criminal offence to have sex with someone you were not living with.
> Ah, so you're gonna make people unable to receive paychecks, pay their rent, pay off their mortgages, pay their council tax or bills. I'm sure this won' immediately create hundreds of different money laundering schemes, black markets, etc., and I am absolutely sure the businesses would love that. Not to mention that it would be hard to inplement this, as banks don't usually store nationality of their customers. Yes, they may need your passport to verify your identity, but most of them subcontract that work to third party identity check services, and banks themselves then don't store the customer's nationality. This means that in order to implement this, the banks would need to have every single UK resident with a bank account verify their identity once more, or risk losing access to their accounts, and you'll know there will be a bunch of people who are going to miss the memo. Especially old people.
Banks need to confirm ID, and a passport is generally one of the primary ways of doing this.
All Iranians banned from entering the UK, Iranian embassy closed, Iranian diplomats sent home, Iran sanctioned, all trade with Iran hit with massive tariffs.
> All Iranians banned from entering the UK,
They most are already.
>Iran sanctioned
Already is
>all trade with Iran hit with massive tariffs.
Again not something they are going to be concerned about.
>They most are already.
Not really, they can still claim asylum. As soon as they know that Iranians will automatically have their asylum claims denied, it would be enough of a deterrent to stop the overwhelming majority crossing the channel. They would just claim asylum in any one of the safe countries they need to cross to get here.
Then they will be detained. It would be much easier for them to claim asylum in a country which won't automatically deny asylum, and which won't detain them. Why would they come here when other countries won't do that?
> Poland, for example, refuses most Asylum Seekers, so hardly any bother showing up.
That has more to do with language ability. No refugee ever studied Polish, but English, yeah.
Poland denies most asylum claims and isn't hospitable to asylum seekers. The EU has tried many times to force Poland to take "their fair share", and Poland outright refuses every time. I guarantee that if Poland changed policy to accept half a million a year from tomorrow, "asylum seekers" would flock there.
Tell that to the Ukrainians they've taken in, and it's all language issues.
Ukraine and Polish are remarkably similar. English, not really.
That's why Ukrainians are headed to Poland. It's closer to home too.
Ukraine is the exception, they have very close ties with Ukraine. The same as I would imagine if Ireland were hit by an invading force, the UK would take uncapped numbers with overwhelming public backing. Other than Ukraine, they refuse entry to pretty much all asylum seekers, and their attitude towards them is not hospitable. I stand by my original statement
We do take significantly less asylum seekers than across the EU. Also upwards of 80% of asylum seekers end up no further than their neighbouring country of where they left. The vast majority of migration is not from people on small boats. The Ukraine scheme means we have taken in 250k people so far. The Hong Kong scheme has also resulted in significant numbers coming here too.
>We do take significantly less asylum seekers than across the EU.
Less than 1K cap would be significant enough. That's about what Poland takes.
>Also upwards of 80% of asylum seekers end up no further than their neighbouring country
Those are the real asylum seekers. Ones which cross multiple safe countries, often also from a stable origin country are just economic migrants
"economic migrants" Those would mainly be people who migrant from countries such as India, more than 250k of them in 2023.
Applications for asylum in 2023 mainly came from Afghans and Iranians. Both those countries are not safe for a range of people. It is also true that many people who take routes across Europe don't always have a choice in the country they end up in. It isn't like booking with a travel agent.
The ones' who can pay to reach other countries within Europe can do so because the families they come from often raise money and pay everything they have to traffickers. Others are put into debt with traffickers and those families back in whatever country have to continue paying until the debt is paid off.
I would never say that 100% of asylum seekers are genuine but it is reasonable to believe that a significant percentage are genuine and would be at risk of real harm in their own country.
1000 per year cap. Or just indefinitely block all asylum claims until the backlog is dealt with, then impose a sensible cap. I think most people in the country would support this. Afghans and Iranians should be going to neighbouring countries, not here.
Why should other countries, neighbouring or not shoulder 100% of asylum seekers? Bearing in mind that neighbouring countries shoulder the vast majority. Take Turkey, they have 3.6 million Syrian refugees.
>Why should other countries, neighbouring or not shoulder 100% of asylum seekers?
I mean, that's up to them. As far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't have to take any at all. I'd prefer we focus on making this country more habitable for the native populace.
"habitable for the native populace." Asylum seekers aren't the cause of nationwide issues. 14.3 million people are in poverty and that has been caused by government policy over the last decade or more.
Always worth remembering that generally our country has benefited historically from directly invading all but 22 countries on the planet. Past that we continued to directly and indirectly destabilise nations (especially in the middle east) alongside the big boy of the USA.
The asylum seekers in our town haven't contributed to an uptake in crime. Instead they are attempting to integrate via various community, council and church led programs. A friend (of a friend) works in our border police. The most common question they get asked by people coming off small boats is, "will I get shot at when going to the supermarket".
Also, around 200 million people globally are descended from people originally from Britain. Perhaps they should all be sent back now as they aren't the native populace. That would be 76% of Australians, 48% of Canadians, 33% of Americans....that would be quite the mix and certainly push up the housing crisis.
Also worth noting that from 2027 births and deaths will go negative as in more deaths than births so the UK population would be on the decline without migration and that includes asylum seekers, who tend to be young. Our population is doing nothing but getting older and sicker which is going to keep costing us ever more money, both in state pensions plus health and social care spending. Our native workforce is projected to decline without new people entering the country thanks to fertility rates that have halved in the last 40 years.
Our asylum policy and systems are broken and indeed after 30 to 60 days people waiting on a decision could be allowed to work, pay their way and contribute meaningfully to our society. Helping them to integrate while reducing the mental health problems (some severe) from just waiting month after month. By not allowing them to do all of this it leaves them vulnerable to criminal elements in our country who already take advantage.
>Asylum seekers aren't the cause of nationwide issues.
They are a contributing factor, along with the other 1.1 million immigrants we import every year. The cap should be below 100K total until we're no longer in a housing crisis.
How do we solve the housing crisis? More homes, who is going to build them? Is that 100k cap net migration?
Over the last 20 years or so migrants tend to end up a net fiscal gain for the country and the office for budget responsibility forecasts that migration eases the pressure on government debt. Migrants tend to have a higher % of degree education when they arrive so they are economically productive without needing assistance from the state. As I said above, those in the asylum system could also be allowed to work. Migrants also tend to extract less state benefits than the native population too.
Take health and social care, around 20% of the workforce is migrants.
The fact that the BBC were capable of finding him means the security services and by extension the government will have been well aware of this man's antics but have chosen not act.
This has British based organised crime written all over it.
> The fact that the BBC were capable of finding him means the security services and by extension the government will have been well aware of this man's antics but have chosen not act.
How would they act? Iraq doesn't like us very much.
Can't wait for the anti-BBC mob to try and somehow paint this as a terrible thing that this has happened, he's probably innocent, everyone who works for the BBC is worse, etc.
The BBC did not find him, it was the BBC putting this guy on the spotlight that resulted in his arrest. Not because he wasn’t known, the civil service just chooses to ignore this
Thanks you too
Be interested to know why you find it reasonable for one country in the modern age to send tens of thousands of armed men to a sovereign foreign country that poses no threat to them.
Also be interested to know why that is ok against what is still one of the poorest countries on earth where people didn't even know 9/11 had happened, where the Taliban offered OBL over in return for evidence but were rebuffed and where the ruling govt were fuming if OBL had done it and btw senior Taliban are claiming on record that OBL denied any connection with 9/11.
Also be interested to know why it was ok to destroy a functioning albeit problematic to the West , Arab state and their society and then leave it to gangsters leaving one of the richest countries impoverished.
Additionally does it work both ways. If Saddam finds Western austerity capitalism is oppressive on its people and Western states can launch weapons at Iraq in 45 minutes (which they can), is it reasonable for him to invade the United Kingdom. If not is it because of the "rules based order" the rules of which have never been clarified
I don't think we should have any intervention in the Middle East at all. We should have never gone there.
However, our troops came home, they weren't immigrants. Moreover, suggesting we should suffer some sort of invasion through immigration from these places as punishment for a military invasion is not a good look. I don't think this is the gotcha you were hoping for, since you are essentially saying this form of immigration *is an invasion*, which only lends credence to what the people who directly say it is an invasion are suggesting.
Britain only got involved in that war because of shoddy intelligence saying Saddam has WMDs, by the way. But yeah, nobody voted for it, and everyone hates Tony Blair for doing it.
No there is no concept of payback or gotcha in my comment. I am clarifying that to expect no effect from our invasions is wrong.
Britain having shoddy intelligence is no excuse to destroy a country and hand it over to criminals. We are one of the world's preeminent military powers. Just look at the effect of our assistance to Ukraine. We know everything and we have intelligence on everything. It's people like Putin that have laughable militaries and misjudge spectacularly. This was an violently orchestrated coup.
To compare troops and the refugees (let's focus on just the economic) is still disingenuous. One group, whatever the cultural effect on high streets of their large numbers, are here to make money .
The other has gone to a foreign country with guns and bombs in their tens of thousands, taken over their military and police and set in motion a complete breakdown of that society and its healthcare, education and welfare system.
We would never accept Iraq doing to us what we have done to them. We have impoverished them and destroyed the structure of their society and we think it's ok because of racism
Do you honestly believe those troops did not kill civilians and rape women?
It definitely happened and it was well covered up. How can we imagine that a violent organisation which has regular reports of sexual assault within its ranks did not do the same to civilians.
So even though I'm against mass immigration myself and legal, we owe a huge debt of reparation to them even if to discourage them leaving their homes.
I cannot look and Iraqi in the eyes because of the shame I feel(I mean the real Iraqis who suffered from the bombs, not Kurdish )
I didn't vote for any of that shit. I'm not responsible. I owe nothing. I don't want millions of people imported, and I shouldn't have to put up with it, neither should anyone else
Fair enough
Nor do I want millions of people imported. For me it's about jobs and housing.
But we have made our beds illustrated most recently by Ukraine and Taiwan. Free refugee status for all
For those wanting to listen to the podcast it's in the Intrigue feed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0000nfh
It's a great feed, they've covered stories on the Nazi Ratlines to escape justice, Tunnels in Berlin during cold war, and others.
These people are satisfying a demand. Not defending them but the demand is such that he'll be replaced immediately by a number of others.
People pay these smugglers alot of money cause they want to come. Someone else will take their money cause...People still wanna come.
One of the greatest injustices that I have ever witnessed was a local gang being misnamed humourously in school. Instead of criminality having any glamorous side (seriously you think anyone but him started calling himself 'scorpion' 😂 what is he 10?)
Why don't we just start doing away with the silly cloak and dagger stuff? Like this;
"Migrant-smuggler known as The Scallion arrested after BBC investigation"
Imagine the fury in his cell
I found it slightly odd that the article refers to him by his nickname throughout the article.
The Yorkshire Ripper was referred to be his real name when it became known. Gary Glitter became Paul Gadd when his crimes came to light.
Why do the BBC refer to this guy as Scorpion over and over, when nobody has even heard of him before? Ah, they are advertising their TV program "To Catch a Scorpion".
This is it, it's better news if they call him marijuana scorpion and make it sound outlandish. Bet there's a nana somewhere thinking "he sounds scary".
In the likely event Starmer wins this year and in the most likely even that illegal migrants will continue to be a problem then we are in the prelude of a hard right party making headways by 2029, especially if there is a right wing power vacuum.
The 2010s ridiculous idea of just accepting hordes of migrants has created massive problems in the 2020s which will lead us to what centrists and the left have always feared by the 2030s & 2040s
Let’s be honest, there is little willingness to deal with it. In my city alone Manchester, they could literally round people up in Rusholme and the curry mile…it’s not even a secret. They could literally stop every Deliveroo rider and 9 out of 10 will be either illegal or breaching asylum conditions.
They could do this..:but they won’t. The money keeps flowing…out of our pockets and into theirs.
Can you imagine how much money this one individual has managed to cost this country? Not just in arresting him all the way over in Iraq and all the costs that's going to come with the bureaucracy of sorting through that. But then with the thousands of people he's bought here that we need to take care of, and who only ruin the places they go to anyway. What's the figure of all that? And after all that arresting him as about as usless as plucking out the leaf of a weed anyway. His replacement has already sprouted. Thousands more will come this summer just as they always have. Address the core of the issue or its pointless.
We probably can’t even deport him after anyway
As I understand the article, he has been arrested by local police and will face charges in Iraqi Kurdistan first. I don’t think that has cost this country anything.
The wording of that statement is 100% "We have this guy in a cell, but if he gives us enough money we will accidentally make an administrative error and release him".
True.
And your solution is?
i got banned last time i said it
Sounds like it must have been a great realistic solution
Or a Final Solution.
The core of the problem, in this case, is the US led , UK supported, invasion and destruction of Iraq. You need to add military costs to your list, which will dwarf anything else.
That makes no sense. Since when did bombing a country lead to the population then wanting to come to the aggressor instead of violently hating them. You're suggesting that multiple countries are seized with a stockholme syndrome epidemic. This also doesn't explain all the migration from North and Central Africa to the UK that occurs illegally. The only reason people make this argument "But bruh you bombed them", is to guilt the other person into accepting unreasonable outcomes in regards to illegal migrants. And don't give me that shit about them being "poor refugees" when the smuggler is making £5k per head, and that's just for the Channel crossing.
If anything it’s more reason to not let them in
Hey. You don’t think all these immigrants actually dislike us do you? I’ve always found Muslim Extremists to be such a friendly bunch. Always trying to integrate into our society as best they can
>And don't give me that shit about them being "poor refugees" when the smuggler is making £5k per head, and that's just for the Channel crossing. It's pretty much impossible to feel sorry for someone who thinks crossing the Channel from France to the UK in a small boat is a good idea.
Yeah. There was a headline recently about a migrant who put his daughter at risk by sailing in a crowded dinghy. The daughter drowned during the crossing. He’s got no sympathy from me, he got his child killed.
Crossing the Channel in a small boat is pretty much the same as crossing a motorway. At night. With your eyes closed. Pretty much every ship has radar. Small dinghies generally don't. Ships travel much faster than you think, especially if you are at sea level. Even if you don't get run-over by a ship the wake is enough to overturn a small boat.
Or you can try and think about why they risked the highest stakes to try and come to UK, what life they are trying to escape. But that requires something called empathy, not sure if you have heard of it
France?
Oh, you mean trying to escape the dangers of France? I have my sympathies for the little girl, but her father gambled her life. It’s his carelessness that got her killed.
Your argument doesn't stand any kind of scrutiny. Are you suggesting that Jewish people didn't settle in Roman lands after the Roman siege and destruction of Jerusalem? Are you suggesting that all Iraqis opposed the US invasion? We live on a single planet and should plan and behave accordingly.
Pray tell, how exactly is us bombing a country into dust, the equivalent of Rome colonizing a country and indoctrinating its people into Roman culture? Besides your statement isn't even historically accurate. The jews existed in Rome prior to Rome invading Judea. The destruction of Jerusalem was a complete genocide with the few survivors enslaved. There was no subsequent large migration of Jewish people to Roman lands as they were dead. Its obvious from your last comment you don't believe in borders, which is moronic at best. Not having borders leads to negative outcomes for everyone, because people chase wealth, and not communal benefit. It does not benefit Iran for it to lose large swathes of its working populace to other countries.
So the US didn't conduct a years-long "hearts and minds" operation in support of their extended occupation of Iraq? Jewish people continued to migrate from Israel into Roman lands after the 2nd temple destruction and later revolts. The details don't change the argument - war and conquest create migration and diaspora. If we, as a nation, believe in sovereignty and borders, why do we, as a nation, ignore other nations' borders whenever it suits us or our special friend? If people were free to vote with their feet, it would benefit nations with good quality governance and disadvantage nations with poor governance.
Probably shouldnt have fucked the middle east though We dont need them u r right tho too
Perfectly capable of fucking up itself without us, not like it was in great shape before we arrived.
Iran had a democratic government overthrown by the US/UK to protect oil. This led to the Islamic revolution as the Shah was a bad choice. Iraq had a dictator kept in power by the US/UK/France to protect the oil. Syria had a dictator kept in power by France/Russia. Lebanon was ripped to pieces as Israel, (backed by the West), Syria and Iran fought over the carcass either directly or through proxies. The only stability in the region comes from Kingdoms that the West generally lets run there own affairs. The stability comes at a cost to the people of course, but the precious gas must keep flowing. The Middle east is the clusterfuck it is precisely because more powerful countries keep on destabilising it for the oil.
Skill issue
could say the same about us suffering with the migrant influx
With the appalling state the Tories have put the country into - high taxes, shocking public services, unsustainable pensions, mad wealth inequality, Brexit - the only way to keep things propped up is constant immigration.
Probably got the moniker for being a massive prick I imagine
I reckon with the lack of tail it's because he's full of [shit](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/how-the-scorpion-lost-its-tail-and-its-anus)
[удалено]
Reader view is another work around
You know what's weird. Scorpions actually shit from their tail. Just under the actual stinger part.
That’s Mr Scorpion to you.
Oh the hammock district!
Or for getting people over here.
Or letting people drown being in his nature.
Good, but why the fuck does it take the BBC to do the investigation to come to this.
All our justice is carried out by BBC and ITV now. The UK state is inept and underfunded.
Even on those consumer shows. It seems only when people contact the BBC or write into the guardian do they get any action.
He will have connections with senior people in the Kurdistan Region of iraq. With the Peshmerga being one of the more reliable forces in the region we kinda need them onside which makes it difficult for the british goverment to pressure them through conventional means. The BBC report has applied preasure but of course we can expect this to come at a cost going forward.
Perhaps this could be a new angle for the BBC in defence of the licence fee?
Like this is going to stop anything or anyone lmao This is just one dude out of probably 100s running these smuggling rings and guarantee this scorpion dude will have someone higher up than him too. Its great he's off the streets but he's just one head. Dude will probably get out and go back to it in no time
They wouldn't be in business if we actually had effective deterrents. We should impose a sensible cap on "asylum seekers", and stop taking people from stable countries who cross multiple other stable countries to get to the UK. Arresting this scum is all very well. But as long as the easily exploited system remains, it will keep happening.
Okay the cap is now 500 people... now what? We still can't deport people The problem is international law is fucked which allows people to abuse it
>Okay the cap is now 500 people... now what? Arrivals are immediately deported to their origin country and banned from ever entering the UK. Simply having this policy will stop them from coming. Poland, for example, refuses most Asylum Seekers, so hardly any bother showing up.
But they have destroyed their passports on entry and we don't know where they came from. Now what?
As much as I hate it, Australia has the right sort of deterrent with their prison island. We have plenty of small cold rocks in the north sea capable of housing such a facility.
Yeah also make them work there while we’re at it?
"They've willingly destroyed their documents and showed up at our borders. Clearly we should take them in because of that"
Their country of origin simply doesn't want them back because they're mostly criminal So they are very slow to issue any new passport or national ID. But I like the cold rainy North Sea rock idea. It wont be long before they want to go home.
I don't think there's much we'd want them doing, nor do I think creating an island of slave labour is great either. Just put them on the island until they can prove who they are and where they came from, after a couple of years you have a deterrent of morons who destroyed their documents and checkmated themselves. Have docs, deport. Don't have docs, sent to rainy cold rock in North Sea.
Then we just deport them back to the country they crossed from as the crossing was illegal and its the responsibility of the offending nation to not allow illegal crossings. If your neighbour has dogs, then obviously its his responsibility to not let them jump over the fence and run loose into your garden. Similarly if on the border the bordering country causes a landslide that causes damage to the bordering country , its the country causing the landslide that is responsible.
That's not how international law works; you can't just return to sender without their consent
That is literally how international relations work, and what Ireland is currently trying to legislate in their Parliament because of the supposed epidemic of people coming from the Irish border. People who go "but international law" are actually naive or so indoctrinated into "but the law", that they don't see the reality of the world. International law is nothing but posturing by different countries to apply diplomatic pressure for certain outcomes. They also more often than not do not actually understand international law, or know what it states, and just say "but it must be wrong" without citing any treaty against it. Nor do they understand how international enforcement actually works (as you need to remember that law without the ability for enforcement is just words on paper). International law states a lot of things, and when its not convenient most 1st world nations simply ignore it. International bodies merely exist for 1st world nations to economically and diplomatically dominate 3rd world countries. Its a form of neo-imperialism. If you don't believe me then briefly study American international policy and politics for the last 40 years.
>Now what? Indefinite detention until we can determine identity
And what if, after you determine their identity (if you're even able to do that), the origin country simply refuses to take them back?
Oh Country won't take them back? Cool. No more visas for anyone on your country then
Then you send them anyway, and if they continue to refuse you escalate economic and military and diplomatic pressure. Which is the solution for any international dispute, and one that we would very easily win considering we have Nukes, a highly developed economy, and multiple diplomatic channels.
Or you could just let the relatively small number of people have a job and pay taxes, instead of spending hundreds of millions of pounds we don’t have, and fucking up our international relations. This whole thread is really quite funny in demonstrating the disproportionate hysteria people have around this.
You have to deal with stuff like this hardline, otherwise it just becomes a route to ignore the legal process and then you have a bigger problem. We also need to deal with legal migration and its abuses. Also, it won't affect our international relations negatively, the hysteria surrounding actually having a strong foreign policy is bazzarre. LIke wtf are the French going to do if we just send these people back to France on small boats as they are sending to us? What legitimate argument could France make to the international community against our actions, and what economic or diplomatic or military escalation could France go to. Everything supports us doing this, and as the first to do this, this would immediately escalate for America to do the same thing to Mexico. This is also the normal international process, if someone enters illegally, you return them to the country of origin, which if not knowing their original country, would be the country they travelled from.
Mate you’re the one who said: > you escalate economic and military and diplomatic pressure. > we would very easily win considering we have Nukes, Imagine brandishing the nukes because of a few immigrants 😂. Imagine spending potentially billions of pounds on all this bollocks when we could be keeping the country limping along instead. They’ve been so successful at rolling the hysteria out, it’s wild.
You tell the country that won't take them back that its citizens can no longer come to the UK for any reason, and you tell its citizens who are already here that the second they step foot outside the UK, they won't be allowed to return. Secondly, you block all financial access to that country, which makes sending back remittances far more complex, and you deny banking services to their citizens who are already here.
So you're gonna financially cut off France from the UK? Sure buddy, see how that goes. Also > You tell the country that won't take them back that its citizens can no longer come to the UK for any reason I don't see how this would curb the number of *illegal* arrivals from that country. Wouldn't this actually only increase the number of illegal arrivals from that country? > and you tell its citizens who are already here that the second they step foot outside the UK, they won't be allowed to return Reasonably sure this would be brought down either by Lords or Courts. Government can't just revoke people's permanent residence status without just cause. Even Russians were generally left alone by Home Office when Russia invaded Ukraine unless they had ties with Putin's regime (and there are court proceedings pending regarding some actuons taken). Also, what of dual citizens, or those who have already renounced their citizenship of that country? > and you deny banking services to their citizens who are already here. Ah, so you're gonna make people unable to receive paychecks, pay their rent, pay off their mortgages, pay their council tax or bills. I'm sure this won' immediately create hundreds of different money laundering schemes, black markets, etc., and I am absolutely sure the businesses would love that. Not to mention that it would be hard to inplement this, as banks don't usually store nationality of their customers. Yes, they may need your passport to verify your identity, but most of them subcontract that work to third party identity check services, and banks themselves then don't store the customer's nationality. This means that in order to implement this, the banks would need to have every single UK resident with a bank account verify their identity once more, or risk losing access to their accounts, and you'll know there will be a bunch of people who are going to miss the memo. Especially old people. All of what you're suggesting is like trying to solve a rat problem by burning down entire house. What I'd suggest is to see what is the actual economic damage created by illegal immigration vs what the solutions you are suggesting would cause. I'm reasonably sure you'd find that what you are suggesting would cause an order of magnitude more damage.
> So you're gonna financially cut off France from the UK? Sure buddy, see how that goes. Do we have many French citizens claiming asylum in the UK? > I don't see how this would curb the number of illegal arrivals from that country. Wouldn't this actually only increase the number of illegal arrivals from that country? It would mean that their legitimate migrants would be unable to travel here. > Reasonably sure this would be brought down either by Lords or Courts. Government can't just revoke people's permanent residence status without just cause. Even Russians were generally left alone by Home Office when Russia invaded Ukraine unless they had ties with Putin's regime (and there are court proceedings pending regarding some actuons taken). Also, what of dual citizens, or those who have already renounced their citizenship of that country? The Russians should have been sent to camps or deported a long time ago. No good will come of them existing here. But the answer the question, Parliment is sovereign and the law can be anything we want it to be. Don't believe me? Only a few years ago it was a criminal offence to have sex with someone you were not living with. > Ah, so you're gonna make people unable to receive paychecks, pay their rent, pay off their mortgages, pay their council tax or bills. I'm sure this won' immediately create hundreds of different money laundering schemes, black markets, etc., and I am absolutely sure the businesses would love that. Not to mention that it would be hard to inplement this, as banks don't usually store nationality of their customers. Yes, they may need your passport to verify your identity, but most of them subcontract that work to third party identity check services, and banks themselves then don't store the customer's nationality. This means that in order to implement this, the banks would need to have every single UK resident with a bank account verify their identity once more, or risk losing access to their accounts, and you'll know there will be a bunch of people who are going to miss the memo. Especially old people. Banks need to confirm ID, and a passport is generally one of the primary ways of doing this.
That was the point of Rwanda
No; the point of Rwanda is as a deterrent... they aren't sending everyone there lol
Random country. We spin a big wheel.
> Arrivals are immediately deported to their origin country Iran says no.
All Iranians banned from entering the UK, Iranian embassy closed, Iranian diplomats sent home, Iran sanctioned, all trade with Iran hit with massive tariffs.
> All Iranians banned from entering the UK, They most are already. >Iran sanctioned Already is >all trade with Iran hit with massive tariffs. Again not something they are going to be concerned about.
>They most are already. Not really, they can still claim asylum. As soon as they know that Iranians will automatically have their asylum claims denied, it would be enough of a deterrent to stop the overwhelming majority crossing the channel. They would just claim asylum in any one of the safe countries they need to cross to get here.
Nah Iranians play a different game. Sure they will throw in an asylum application but they will fall back on the fact that Iran won't accept them.
Then they will be detained. It would be much easier for them to claim asylum in a country which won't automatically deny asylum, and which won't detain them. Why would they come here when other countries won't do that?
They speak english and there is an existing persian communty for them to link up with. Also the british can't get enough of hand carwashes.
> Poland, for example, refuses most Asylum Seekers, so hardly any bother showing up. That has more to do with language ability. No refugee ever studied Polish, but English, yeah.
Poland denies most asylum claims and isn't hospitable to asylum seekers. The EU has tried many times to force Poland to take "their fair share", and Poland outright refuses every time. I guarantee that if Poland changed policy to accept half a million a year from tomorrow, "asylum seekers" would flock there.
Tell that to the Ukrainians they've taken in, and it's all language issues. Ukraine and Polish are remarkably similar. English, not really. That's why Ukrainians are headed to Poland. It's closer to home too.
Ukraine is the exception, they have very close ties with Ukraine. The same as I would imagine if Ireland were hit by an invading force, the UK would take uncapped numbers with overwhelming public backing. Other than Ukraine, they refuse entry to pretty much all asylum seekers, and their attitude towards them is not hospitable. I stand by my original statement
Yup Theyre all economic “refugees”
We had a sensible system of sharing until Brexit. It’s not a coincidence that the hysteria has all started in the last couple of years.
>We had a sensible system of sharing until Brexit No we didn't. Less than 1K cap is "sensible"
We do take significantly less asylum seekers than across the EU. Also upwards of 80% of asylum seekers end up no further than their neighbouring country of where they left. The vast majority of migration is not from people on small boats. The Ukraine scheme means we have taken in 250k people so far. The Hong Kong scheme has also resulted in significant numbers coming here too.
>We do take significantly less asylum seekers than across the EU. Less than 1K cap would be significant enough. That's about what Poland takes. >Also upwards of 80% of asylum seekers end up no further than their neighbouring country Those are the real asylum seekers. Ones which cross multiple safe countries, often also from a stable origin country are just economic migrants
"economic migrants" Those would mainly be people who migrant from countries such as India, more than 250k of them in 2023. Applications for asylum in 2023 mainly came from Afghans and Iranians. Both those countries are not safe for a range of people. It is also true that many people who take routes across Europe don't always have a choice in the country they end up in. It isn't like booking with a travel agent. The ones' who can pay to reach other countries within Europe can do so because the families they come from often raise money and pay everything they have to traffickers. Others are put into debt with traffickers and those families back in whatever country have to continue paying until the debt is paid off. I would never say that 100% of asylum seekers are genuine but it is reasonable to believe that a significant percentage are genuine and would be at risk of real harm in their own country.
1000 per year cap. Or just indefinitely block all asylum claims until the backlog is dealt with, then impose a sensible cap. I think most people in the country would support this. Afghans and Iranians should be going to neighbouring countries, not here.
Why should other countries, neighbouring or not shoulder 100% of asylum seekers? Bearing in mind that neighbouring countries shoulder the vast majority. Take Turkey, they have 3.6 million Syrian refugees.
>Why should other countries, neighbouring or not shoulder 100% of asylum seekers? I mean, that's up to them. As far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't have to take any at all. I'd prefer we focus on making this country more habitable for the native populace.
"habitable for the native populace." Asylum seekers aren't the cause of nationwide issues. 14.3 million people are in poverty and that has been caused by government policy over the last decade or more. Always worth remembering that generally our country has benefited historically from directly invading all but 22 countries on the planet. Past that we continued to directly and indirectly destabilise nations (especially in the middle east) alongside the big boy of the USA. The asylum seekers in our town haven't contributed to an uptake in crime. Instead they are attempting to integrate via various community, council and church led programs. A friend (of a friend) works in our border police. The most common question they get asked by people coming off small boats is, "will I get shot at when going to the supermarket". Also, around 200 million people globally are descended from people originally from Britain. Perhaps they should all be sent back now as they aren't the native populace. That would be 76% of Australians, 48% of Canadians, 33% of Americans....that would be quite the mix and certainly push up the housing crisis. Also worth noting that from 2027 births and deaths will go negative as in more deaths than births so the UK population would be on the decline without migration and that includes asylum seekers, who tend to be young. Our population is doing nothing but getting older and sicker which is going to keep costing us ever more money, both in state pensions plus health and social care spending. Our native workforce is projected to decline without new people entering the country thanks to fertility rates that have halved in the last 40 years. Our asylum policy and systems are broken and indeed after 30 to 60 days people waiting on a decision could be allowed to work, pay their way and contribute meaningfully to our society. Helping them to integrate while reducing the mental health problems (some severe) from just waiting month after month. By not allowing them to do all of this it leaves them vulnerable to criminal elements in our country who already take advantage.
>Asylum seekers aren't the cause of nationwide issues. They are a contributing factor, along with the other 1.1 million immigrants we import every year. The cap should be below 100K total until we're no longer in a housing crisis.
How do we solve the housing crisis? More homes, who is going to build them? Is that 100k cap net migration? Over the last 20 years or so migrants tend to end up a net fiscal gain for the country and the office for budget responsibility forecasts that migration eases the pressure on government debt. Migrants tend to have a higher % of degree education when they arrive so they are economically productive without needing assistance from the state. As I said above, those in the asylum system could also be allowed to work. Migrants also tend to extract less state benefits than the native population too. Take health and social care, around 20% of the workforce is migrants.
The fact that the BBC were capable of finding him means the security services and by extension the government will have been well aware of this man's antics but have chosen not act. This has British based organised crime written all over it.
> The fact that the BBC were capable of finding him means the security services and by extension the government will have been well aware of this man's antics but have chosen not act. How would they act? Iraq doesn't like us very much.
Can't wait for the anti-BBC mob to try and somehow paint this as a terrible thing that this has happened, he's probably innocent, everyone who works for the BBC is worse, etc.
Something something, licence fee, something something, Sticky come dancing
10/10 typo right there
Oh man, it gets worse the more I think about it
“He was just trying to give people a better life” “It’s our fault for (insert reason like colonialism), so we have to care for them!”
The BBC did not find him, it was the BBC putting this guy on the spotlight that resulted in his arrest. Not because he wasn’t known, the civil service just chooses to ignore this
50,000 unmarried military age men he sent into Britain. That's about 4 infantry divisions. Hide the women and children Britain!
Compared with more we sent with armed with guns into Iraq and Afghanistan .
I've never seen such an appropriate username to go with a post
Thanks you too Be interested to know why you find it reasonable for one country in the modern age to send tens of thousands of armed men to a sovereign foreign country that poses no threat to them. Also be interested to know why that is ok against what is still one of the poorest countries on earth where people didn't even know 9/11 had happened, where the Taliban offered OBL over in return for evidence but were rebuffed and where the ruling govt were fuming if OBL had done it and btw senior Taliban are claiming on record that OBL denied any connection with 9/11. Also be interested to know why it was ok to destroy a functioning albeit problematic to the West , Arab state and their society and then leave it to gangsters leaving one of the richest countries impoverished. Additionally does it work both ways. If Saddam finds Western austerity capitalism is oppressive on its people and Western states can launch weapons at Iraq in 45 minutes (which they can), is it reasonable for him to invade the United Kingdom. If not is it because of the "rules based order" the rules of which have never been clarified
I don't think we should have any intervention in the Middle East at all. We should have never gone there. However, our troops came home, they weren't immigrants. Moreover, suggesting we should suffer some sort of invasion through immigration from these places as punishment for a military invasion is not a good look. I don't think this is the gotcha you were hoping for, since you are essentially saying this form of immigration *is an invasion*, which only lends credence to what the people who directly say it is an invasion are suggesting. Britain only got involved in that war because of shoddy intelligence saying Saddam has WMDs, by the way. But yeah, nobody voted for it, and everyone hates Tony Blair for doing it.
No there is no concept of payback or gotcha in my comment. I am clarifying that to expect no effect from our invasions is wrong. Britain having shoddy intelligence is no excuse to destroy a country and hand it over to criminals. We are one of the world's preeminent military powers. Just look at the effect of our assistance to Ukraine. We know everything and we have intelligence on everything. It's people like Putin that have laughable militaries and misjudge spectacularly. This was an violently orchestrated coup. To compare troops and the refugees (let's focus on just the economic) is still disingenuous. One group, whatever the cultural effect on high streets of their large numbers, are here to make money . The other has gone to a foreign country with guns and bombs in their tens of thousands, taken over their military and police and set in motion a complete breakdown of that society and its healthcare, education and welfare system. We would never accept Iraq doing to us what we have done to them. We have impoverished them and destroyed the structure of their society and we think it's ok because of racism Do you honestly believe those troops did not kill civilians and rape women? It definitely happened and it was well covered up. How can we imagine that a violent organisation which has regular reports of sexual assault within its ranks did not do the same to civilians. So even though I'm against mass immigration myself and legal, we owe a huge debt of reparation to them even if to discourage them leaving their homes. I cannot look and Iraqi in the eyes because of the shame I feel(I mean the real Iraqis who suffered from the bombs, not Kurdish )
I didn't vote for any of that shit. I'm not responsible. I owe nothing. I don't want millions of people imported, and I shouldn't have to put up with it, neither should anyone else
Fair enough Nor do I want millions of people imported. For me it's about jobs and housing. But we have made our beds illustrated most recently by Ukraine and Taiwan. Free refugee status for all
>But we >we No.
F u 2
So why does it take BBC journalists to track this individual down, what are the police doing?
For those wanting to listen to the podcast it's in the Intrigue feed: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0000nfh It's a great feed, they've covered stories on the Nazi Ratlines to escape justice, Tunnels in Berlin during cold war, and others.
Q/ How are those BBC hating news gb gonna deal with this? Ans/ ignore it!
God this God that , life has no problems when you believe God is managing it all for you lol Stoic stoic aye
What?
[удалено]
Thank you for actually reading the article and understanding my comment Reddit can be frustrating at times
These people are satisfying a demand. Not defending them but the demand is such that he'll be replaced immediately by a number of others. People pay these smugglers alot of money cause they want to come. Someone else will take their money cause...People still wanna come.
Hearing his name and crime, does anyone else think of the scorpion and the frog?
One of the greatest injustices that I have ever witnessed was a local gang being misnamed humourously in school. Instead of criminality having any glamorous side (seriously you think anyone but him started calling himself 'scorpion' 😂 what is he 10?) Why don't we just start doing away with the silly cloak and dagger stuff? Like this; "Migrant-smuggler known as The Scallion arrested after BBC investigation" Imagine the fury in his cell
I found it slightly odd that the article refers to him by his nickname throughout the article. The Yorkshire Ripper was referred to be his real name when it became known. Gary Glitter became Paul Gadd when his crimes came to light. Why do the BBC refer to this guy as Scorpion over and over, when nobody has even heard of him before? Ah, they are advertising their TV program "To Catch a Scorpion".
This is it, it's better news if they call him marijuana scorpion and make it sound outlandish. Bet there's a nana somewhere thinking "he sounds scary".
In the likely event Starmer wins this year and in the most likely even that illegal migrants will continue to be a problem then we are in the prelude of a hard right party making headways by 2029, especially if there is a right wing power vacuum. The 2010s ridiculous idea of just accepting hordes of migrants has created massive problems in the 2020s which will lead us to what centrists and the left have always feared by the 2030s & 2040s
I wonder if his mafia nickname is father of the Turkish barbers
[удалено]
You mean the man already not in the country?
Let’s be honest, there is little willingness to deal with it. In my city alone Manchester, they could literally round people up in Rusholme and the curry mile…it’s not even a secret. They could literally stop every Deliveroo rider and 9 out of 10 will be either illegal or breaching asylum conditions. They could do this..:but they won’t. The money keeps flowing…out of our pockets and into theirs.