General Chat

It is an absolute myth that our benefit system is the big attraction. It is pathetic compared with the Scandinavian countries and Germany. The main reasons they want to come is because they have relations already here or because they know English.

As for being a drain on our resources, they are mostly young and fit and likely to perform the jobs that we are having difficulty doing. Since they will be working if accepted the tax will not have to increase to support them as they will be paying their share.

Another question which I don't claim to have the answer to is so far how many people who have come across the channel illegally have gone on to commit a crime? I know from the press there have been some who are known criminals in their own countries. As JoyLouise says if they've nothing to hide and are genuine refugees why not stop in the first safe place and then look to move on to the UK or wherever?
Let us not forget I'm sure there's more coming over on boats than even the authorities know about, little boats can land on the south coast and not be detected if they're off the beaten track.

We do have border control in France - two that I can think of. We also pay towards the French policing the border too.

The problem is that those arriving in small boats deliberately dodge the control - and those who do so are probably aware that they would either never be granted entry into Britain anyway or choose not to ‘form an orderly queue’ and wait in safe France for whatever reason.

Once someone reaches a safe country it is difficult to comprehend why they cannot settle or even wait for asylum elsewhere unless they know of a reason why their application will be refused - and I think many of those young male Albanians will fall into that last category as they are economic migrants from a safe country.

And we don't have enough GPS and dentists for the population as it is without keep adding to the problem. OK maybe, just maybe among the people coming here there may be doctors, nurses dentists but I don't think they will be among the boat immigrants. Nobody is saying don't take any immigrants at all. What we don't want are the boatloads of people landing on our shores and fleeing into the countryside unaccounted for. Besides all the rescue services that have to save them from drowning.

Maggie has the right idea when she says we should have border control where they are fleeing from to prevent the illegal boats and the people traffickers.

I think it may have dawned on the BBC that each unasked-for politically biased comment is one more step to losing income from the TV licence.

Belle is right.

Imagine this scenario.

We let our emotions override our common sense and allow millions more boat people to land on our shores and stay. They need housing, health care, schooling, water, energy, food. We could end up with those already on housing lists waiting even longer, energy resources being unable to cope resulting in switch-offs around the country, water shortages similarly, loss of arable land so more food imports and higher prices for all as well as firms closing periodically due to lack of energy resource with the resultant loss of income for their employees.

Taxes for all will rise and benefits for many will freeze or even come to a halt as government grapples with rises in health and educational need, for example. Every single penny, whether it be earned or obtained in benefits, will then be taxed - out of necessity.

If you’re a tv presenter on £1m+ it will not affect you as much as it will for those on, say, £20k. What it could mean for you, though, is that you may not be able to buy all of your children houses, new cars, high-cost private schooling and everything such as that, particularly if you have several children.

But, if your millions come from sources such as construction, energy, water and shares etc., the poor will pick up the tab as they will have to pay more from their income than they do now in order to eat, drink, have a roof over their heads etc - and this, just to keep millionaires and their children in the way they have become accustomed to.

Our nation’s biggest earner is the food industry so it will produce more income for shareholders as it imports more. Will it result in higher incomes for own food producers? Ask yourself if you’re head of one of the food companies would you pay local food producers more if you can ship in produce from overseas at a squeezed-down cost because producers in other countries need the income just as much as ours and they have more hectares of arable land so production costs are likely to be cheaper overall.

So, when you’re taking in someone from some nations, housing, feeding and generally sustaining them, those same nations are profiting from it - at the expense of our capable home-grown workforce and producers of almost everything.

It’s not beyond anyone’s ability to imagine that more crime will be committed as parents struggle to keep their families’ heads above water. It gathers pace … more crimes, more prisons, more construction, more money for shareholders … and so it rumbles on.

Ah right, Caroline.....I couldn't understand why asylum seekers/refugees would travel through so many 'safe' countries but we're still insistent on getting to the UK :-0

The UK is so attractive because of the benefit system amongst other things, and many believe the streets are literally paved with gold still.
Free health care is big draw for some.

When you look at the size of the UK and its population of around 67m and compare it with say France that has a similar size population but is 2.5 times the size, something has to give. With the best will in the world we cannot afford to continue allowing these people to illegally come into our country. They need to be deterred from making the treacherous journey across the channel.

Why is the UK so attractive?

Why did the BBC initially say that no further action would be taken and the next day U-turned? Obviously because external pressure had been applied, presumably by some government department.

The argument that it has been compromised by Lineker is complete nonsense as other freelance broadcasters have made political statements without ay action being taken against them, examples being Jeremy Clarkson, Alan Sugar and Andrew O'Neil. The guidelines allow it except for news presenters and journalists.

It is well known that extreme right wingers are keen to have the BBC sold off. If that happens it will no doubt end up in the hands of another foreign billionaire.

The idea that the thirties Germany comparison was just about immigration is wrong, it was also about creating a one party state and controlling the media.

At the end of the day it has to be agreed by all that the UK can not carry on taking in so many people no matter where they've come from or for what reason they're coming. Saying as I believe he did that the UK isn't taking in as many people as other countries is too basic a comment. I have no idea how many people each country is taking in nor how well they can afford to do it. It is clear though that the UK can not carry on taking in anyone that wants to go there. To take in every one your taxes would keep on rising and your services for everyone would decrease it's not a bottomless pit. Yes it would be nice to be able to help everyone but in the real world.....
People coming across the channel are illegal no matter where they come from, instead they should be processed in the first safe country then apply to go to the UK, maybe the UK would help in the processing cost in that country.
Albanians coming across the channel are illegal full stop their country is safe but poor but they're not starving there or being attacked.
There's no easy solution but the current situation can not go on for the UK you can't afford it. You're making so many cuts to services already.
Overpaid TV stars; and he's not alone; no matter who they work for are not spokespeople or politicians. He's welcome to his opinion but just remember you have no choice but buy a BBC license even seniors again, to pay the massive pay cheque for people like him.

At our family get-together yesterday, some felt that Ian Wright was better than Lineker on MOTD, but sadly he has come out in sympathy with Lineker.

Someone who said he was a friend of GL appeared on the news this morning saying that, effectively, football managers ought to be the ‘panel’ commenting on MOTD because they would have a better grasp on play than GL - he went on to say that he hoped GL would still be a friend. (What!)

I don’t watch much footy but (like the guy said this morning) I would like to see managers, retired and older, being given the chance of commenting in place of the current ‘on-strike’ trinity because I believe they would have a broader knowledge and insight into tactics and the game. But my knowledge of the game is not good - especially when compared with the players and coach in my family.

Will that happen? Who knows? But one thing for certain is that if the Beeb back down, the TV Licence ought to be abolished because its impartiality has become compromised. This was mentioned on yesterday’s news (see my post 23:46 on 10 March) and it has just been mentioned by another person this morning.

I can’t find the report/ article I read yesterday. But it was about people in the Calais camp putting off their ‘journey’. One was referring to his British lawyer. How does he a,ready have one of those?

I thought the UK had taken in some Syrian refugees :-)

I’ve not read the original speech so can’t comment on the
rights or wrongs. BUT Lineker has had complaints about his comments before and he doesn’t seem to give two hoots. Is it because he believes himself to be untouchable ?

I's certainly not fair to allow illegal immigrants into the country - but we should be allowing refugees into the country.

The way to stop illegal immigrants is to process them before they get here - not stick them, along with legal refugees in hotels at a vast cost to us, while the government sits on it's hands moaning about it all.

If illegal immigrants were weeded out, and refugees were processed before arriving here - via border controls set up in countries they pass through, when they got here, they could start work.
This would also stop the slavery and people traffiking that's being built up in this country.

I'd also ask the question - why are the government happily housing Ukranians who are escaping war, but not those from Syria?

I should think our infrastructure would be closer to breaking point if we took more immigrants into this country than we can cope with. Without a decent and fair policy we would see an even heavier burden on our NHS, more homelessness, more calls on energy, water and schools. It is not fair to allow illegal immigrants coming in on small boats to jump the queue as others more needy will then suffer, including citizens and immigrants alike.

Shareholders are indeed pocketing more but those are with shares in private companies and, as much as we may be repelled by it, our hands are tied because if government ups the company tax firms will relocate in a flash of the eye, taking income and jobs with them, leading to more poverty.

...and donating to the Tory Party, Kense!

It's also weird how it was okay for Alan sugar to actually 'tell' his followers who they should vote for in the last election.

There's another way of deciphering Lineker saying the language was similar to that used in 1930's Germany.
At that time, the German government was using deflection politics. In other words, denying there were any problems in Germany, but if there were, it was the fault of others, ie other nations nor conceding to them.

Very much like this Government.
We have an increase i homelessness
An increase in poverty
A dying NHS
Striking underpaid Doctors, nurses and teachers
Energy prices going through the roof - while shareholders are pocketing more money than they will ever need in 2 lifetimes.
etc etc.
So what do the Government do? Point away from the state of the country, and blame everything on refugees.

Strange that the BBC should worry about Gary Lineker compromising its supposed impartiality when the BBC Chairman was allegedly appointed after facilitating a loan for Boris Johnson.

I agree, we have enough homelessness and poverty - yet this Government can spend £7million a day keeping asylum seekers in hotels.
Shame that amount wasn't spent on out own homeless.
However, blankly refusing people refuge isn't the way to go about this.

Why did the Government cut the number of border guards?

Why don't they set up asylum offices in countries bordering on places of war or where inhabitants are being targeted?
That way, they can stop the people traffikers, and sort out the genuine refugees from the 'chancers', way before they get here - and stop the slave traders bringing people over, too..
It would be a darned sight cheaper than the current fiasco.

Although Gary didn't say Nazi in his Tweet that is obviously what he implied or else why not compare it to France, Belgium or come to that any other European country in the 1930s!

It really does annoy me when people say these things but give no viable alternative!

Unfortunately, no legislation is going to be pleasant and will be controversial but something does need to be done. We have too many British born people who need housing, benefits and health care so although that might appear harsh, it is a reality :-(

Yes, we live in a country of free speech thank goodness but with that comes responsibilities. If you receive a salary of £1.3m from an organisation that is supposed to be impartial then, I feel, you need to consider your Tweets accordingly or alternatively resign then you can Tweet whatever you like:-)