c4countdown

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Apr 05, 2022 8:35 am Nadine Dorries.

Oh sorry - I thought this was the joke items thread.

She could be in multiple threads.
People you shouldn't trust being an obvious one

An idea rejected by writers of a satirical comedy (presumably anyway) for being too unrealistic has now become official government policy. I have to keep checking it's not April Fools' Day.

Just when you think they couldn't get any more c***ier

The whole refugee/asylum seeker situation is ridiculous anyway. It's insane that people are in a position where they feel the need to make a dangerous crossing from France to the UK when both are rich western countries that should know how to treat people properly.

Countries should simply work together on this and come to a mutual agreement. Anyone who is trying to reach somewhere should be able to make their claim in the first safe country they reach, but make their claim for where they want to go. Then an independent body (set up by the countries in the agreement) decides where to place them, based on their need and obviously also availability (not just they just happen to end up first). That way, they would be treated fairly wherever they go.

Or we have global communism and no borders.

Freedom of movement is not communism. Neither is socialism

Paul Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Apr 16, 2022 11:08 am Freedom of movement is not communism. Neither is socialism

Great. We should still have global communism and no borders.

I think it's pretty insane how Shell have made record profits.

Shell's profits were expected to be big.

The price of oil and gas, already high at the end of last year, surged higher after the Russian invasion of Ukraine threatened disruption and eventual boycotts of one of the world's biggest suppliers of energy.

This makes no sense to me at all. Presumably the price rise was to cover Shell's costs. Anything on top of that is just us being ripped off by the energy companies. Am I missing something? And why does the BBC article not address this?

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 1:00 pm I think it's pretty insane how Shell have made record profits.

Shell's profits were expected to be big.

The price of oil and gas, already high at the end of last year, surged higher after the Russian invasion of Ukraine threatened disruption and eventual boycotts of one of the world's biggest suppliers of energy.

This makes no sense to me at all. Presumably the price rise was to cover Shell's costs. Anything on top of that is just us being ripped off by the energy companies. Am I missing something? And why does the BBC article not address this?

No you're not missing anything. Shell, BP and others are charging more because there is a shortage, so basically they can. Yes their costs have gone up, but they will charge what they can get. Capitalism innit.

The oil companies' behaviour really is disgraceful. More reason to stop investing In them wherever possible. Windfall tax would be good but still just a superficial response to the problem of oil company greed.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 1:14 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 1:00 pm I think it's pretty insane how Shell have made record profits.

Shell's profits were expected to be big.

The price of oil and gas, already high at the end of last year, surged higher after the Russian invasion of Ukraine threatened disruption and eventual boycotts of one of the world's biggest suppliers of energy.

This makes no sense to me at all. Presumably the price rise was to cover Shell's costs. Anything on top of that is just us being ripped off by the energy companies. Am I missing something? And why does the BBC article not address this?

No you're not missing anything. Shell, BP and others are charging more because there is a shortage, so basically they can. Yes their costs have gone up, but they will charge what they can get. Capitalism innit.

If anyone believes strongly that you should only sell something for a price based on what you paid for it, rather than its market value, please PM me if you are selling a house any time, particularly if you bought it for half a crown in the 1950s.

But where does the market value come from in this case?

Edit - Anyway there's no comparison between the cases. Companies aren't sitting on oil for decades and then selling it for one thing so it's not like such a big change in market conditions has happened. Also house selling is more symmetrical. The buyers and sellers are generally members of the public and the price sets itself in a more natural way. That's not the case here. You have the big energy companies just setting the price and we have no choice. So that's why I'm asking where the "market value" comes from. I asked if I was missing anything and it can't have been that obvious because the other posters didn't nail it. And you just posted a sarcastic comment.

This is also an argument for nationalisation of course.

I don't believe this to be sufficient to answer your question Gavin but here's my best attempt at explaining the article's assertion that "profits were expected to be big" because of price rises:

If the oil companies rise their prices in such a way as to maintain their profit margin as a percentage rather than gross profit, then their gross profits will rice as prices rise. E.g. if you normally buy something at £10 and sell it at £12, then when your purchase price increases to £15 you sell at £18 so you still make a 20% profit margin. But your gross profit just rose by 50%.

Thereby gross profits (which is what the article is referring to when it just says "profits") will rise as purchase prices rise.

The problem in this specific instance is the degree to which the profits are rising: "nearly triple" according to the article.

Edit: I originally made a suggestion here that, having since done some rough example calculations, I think is wrong. Maybe some of you mathsy types can help crunch the numbers but it looks to me like there's no way of getting a nearly 300% gross profit increase from only a 50 to 60% sales price increases without deliberately increasing the profit margin. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

So basically: it's understandable for the article to say that you expect gross profit increases from price increases, but you should expect proportionality unless some fuckery is afoot. And yeah, the article just glosses over the disproportionality. If Gavin's missing something I'm missing it too.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 7:20 am That's not the case here. You have the big energy companies just setting the price and we have no choice.

The oil companies don't set the price. The market does.

Back in 2020, at the start of lockdown, oil companies were losing money and were expected to suck it up. BP and Shell have just taken multibillion pound hits due to the war in Ukraine and are expected to suck it up.

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 8:36 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 7:20 am That's not the case here. You have the big energy companies just setting the price and we have no choice.

The oil companies don't set the price. The market does.

Back in 2020, at the start of lockdown, oil companies were losing money and were expected to suck it up. BP and Shell have just taken multibillion pound hits due to the war in Ukraine and are expected to suck it up.

As is evident by my tying myself in knots with the high-school-level maths I attempted with profit margins in my previous post, I'm not very well educated in economics but I'm having another "am I missing something?" moment here.

Sticking with Shell for the moment as they were the focus of the article Gavin shared with us: the article also referenced them losing billions because of the Ukraine situation but it also said they made (even more billions) profit. So I'm confused by what is meant by "losing" or "hits" in this context.

Put simply: are Shell billions of pounds better off or worse off since Putin invaded Ukraine? Compared to how much money they were actually making beforehand, not compared to some hypothetical scenario in which the invasion never happened.

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 8:36 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 7:20 am That's not the case here. You have the big energy companies just setting the price and we have no choice.

The oil companies don't set the price. The market does.

But as I was asking above, how does this work? You have a very limited number of big companies selling oil. It's not like individual people buying and selling houses to each other where the price will be decided in a more "natural" way. So the discussion hasn't progressed.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 9:33 am
But as I was asking above, how does this work? You have a very limited number of big companies selling oil. It's not like individual people buying and selling houses to each other where the price will be decided in a more "natural" way. So the discussion hasn't progressed.

As I understand it, oil prices, like all commodity prices, are determined by speculators and hedgers who are betting on price moves. OPEC can control the supply side of the supply/demand equation, but individual companies cannot. BP and Shell can't decide the spot price for oil anymore than Beaverbrooks can decide the spot price for gold.

Having said that, I do believe there is a case for a windfall tax on UK oil producing companies.

WE WON HARROW COUNCIL. WE GAINED A COUNCIL IN LONDON. (And the BBC haven’t really bothered to dwell on it, largely because they didn’t send any reporters here.)

(I lost. Narrowly. Which was better than we expected.)

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:17 pm WE WON HARROW COUNCIL. WE GAINED A COUNCIL IN LONDON. (And the BBC haven’t really bothered to dwell on it, largely because they didn’t send any reporters here.)

(I lost. Narrowly. Which was better than we expected.)

Well done. Sort of. I mean, I don't want the Tories in!

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 3:58 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 9:33 am
But as I was asking above, how does this work? You have a very limited number of big companies selling oil. It's not like individual people buying and selling houses to each other where the price will be decided in a more "natural" way. So the discussion hasn't progressed.

As I understand it, oil prices, like all commodity prices, are determined by speculators and hedgers who are betting on price moves. OPEC can control the supply side of the supply/demand equation, but individual companies cannot. BP and Shell can't decide the spot price for oil anymore than Beaverbrooks can decide the spot price for gold.

Having said that, I do believe there is a case for a windfall tax on UK oil producing companies.

OK, thanks. I did wonder if it might be something like that. Still, the BBC article could have done a better job explaining it in the first place.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:17 pm (And the BBC haven’t really bothered to dwell on it, largely because they didn’t send any reporters here.)

Is that the reason? Or is it largely because the gain of a single council is quite an insignificant story compared to the massive losses suffered overall?

Well done Rhys.

A guy I went to school with and knew quite well stood in my ward and won. He also just got appointed Mayor of my town!

Sam Cappleman-Lynes wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 8:18 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:17 pm (And the BBC haven’t really bothered to dwell on it, largely because they didn’t send any reporters here.)

Is that the reason? Or is it largely because the gain of a single council is quite an insignificant story compared to the massive losses suffered overall?

Being a London council, if we (and Croydon) had counted overnight rather than during Friday day, we might arguably have changed the whole narrative: the Tories lost three councils in London and gained one/two (Croydon looking likely).

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 3:58 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 9:33 am
But as I was asking above, how does this work? You have a very limited number of big companies selling oil. It's not like individual people buying and selling houses to each other where the price will be decided in a more "natural" way. So the discussion hasn't progressed.

As I understand it, oil prices, like all commodity prices, are determined by speculators and hedgers who are betting on price moves. OPEC can control the supply side of the supply/demand equation, but individual companies cannot. BP and Shell can't decide the spot price for oil anymore than Beaverbrooks can decide the spot price for gold.

Having said that, I do believe there is a case for a windfall tax on UK oil producing companies.

So the argument against a windfall tax appears to be that it would affect the smaller players and discourage competition.....at the same time that Ofgem have made changes that effectively make switching suppliers impossible.

https://twitter.com/MartinSLewis/status ... 6399017985

I'm no economist, but this all seems bonkers. Does anyone get this?

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 7:13 pm

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 3:58 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 9:33 am
But as I was asking above, how does this work? You have a very limited number of big companies selling oil. It's not like individual people buying and selling houses to each other where the price will be decided in a more "natural" way. So the discussion hasn't progressed.

As I understand it, oil prices, like all commodity prices, are determined by speculators and hedgers who are betting on price moves. OPEC can control the supply side of the supply/demand equation, but individual companies cannot. BP and Shell can't decide the spot price for oil anymore than Beaverbrooks can decide the spot price for gold.

Having said that, I do believe there is a case for a windfall tax on UK oil producing companies.

OK, thanks. I did wonder if it might be something like that. Still, the BBC article could have done a better job explaining it in the first place.

Thinking about this further, I'm not sure it would really work as a business model. If energy companies are just blindly buying and selling at the market rate, what happens if there is a fall in prices over any extended period of time? They just suck up the loss and sell to the public at the going rate?

People/companies attempt to make money buying and selling shares etc. by e.g. trying to buy when prices are down and selling when they're up. So they can hold without selling for as long as they want. But companies sellings goods to the public are in a completely different position. People need these goods at a relatively constant rate so the companies can't just hold without selling, and companies in general set the prices accordingly. Obviously they can't just make anything up because other companies can sell at a lower price, but the point is that Tesco selling a pizza is not restricted by some market speculator sitting up all night at a computer in New York. So I'm not sure that a company would for energy prices either.

Anyway, James May questioned this on Have I Got News For You on Friday (well, not in that detail), but no answer came. It's just one of many things that the news assume everyone understands when almost no-one does.

Fucking hell Gev. Just read Marx. It's the contradiction of capitalism that was outlined over 100 years ago. "Business models" don't actually exist. You're trying to square a circle using a methodology that doesn't allow circles to be squared.

Also what is the point in there being a price cap if it just goes up with energy prices anyway?

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 12:37 pm Also what is the point in there being a price cap if it just goes up with energy prices anyway?

The logic was that people that didn't change supplier over long periods were being screwed by annual increases being applied which were effectively loyalty penalties. A separate issue to the cost of the energy itself.

The Gray report is clear that Number 10’s staff clearly thought that as they were exempt from lockdown they were exempt from restrictions in total.

I’m not sure you can pin that on the PM, to be honest. I think that’s on Martin Reynolds and other Number 10 officials. They then created a culture, telling everyone (Boris included) it was OK, and that no rules were being broken.

So yeah, should Boris take the sword for this? I honestly don’t know.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 6:50 am The Gray report is clear that Number 10’s staff clearly thought that as they were exempt from lockdown they were exempt from restrictions in total.

I’m not sure you can pin that on the PM, to be honest. I think that’s on Martin Reynolds and other Number 10 officials. They then created a culture, telling everyone (Boris included) it was OK, and that no rules were being broken.

So yeah, should Boris take the sword for this? I honestly don’t know.

So what you're saying is that the leader of the country is so easily led that he can break his own rules without giving it any thought? Jeeeeez.

I wonder if you'd be so willing to defend similar scenarios with other lawbreakers:

"I'm sorry, I didn't realise the speed limit was 30 for everyone. My mate told me that I could do 60, as he didn't think the rules applied to us. I didn't think it'd cause a crash."
"I'm sorry, I didn't realise that taking out of the charity donation box was forbidden. My mate told me that we could help ourselves to it, as he didn't think the rules applied to us."
"I'm sorry, I didn't realise that stabbing the man was wrong. My mate told me that it was acceptable if the person deserved it, as he didn't think the rules applied to us."

Would you say that the lawbreaker wasn't culpable in these scenarios, and that their friend should take the blame? Or would you say that they shouldn't have been so careless and imbecilic to believe the bogus advice given to them?

If even Rhys isn't sure, then he definitely needs to go.

Rhys needs to go

When a clown moves into a palace he doesn't become king.
The Palace turns into a circus.
Turkish proverb.

There are rumours about that Carrie Johnson has run off with Zac Goldsmith, and maybe even that Zac is the father of her child (the most recent one presumably). This is mostly Twitter gossip.

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 7:51 am "I'm sorry, I didn't realise the speed limit was 30 for everyone. My mate told me that I could do 60, as he didn't think the rules applied to us. I didn't think it'd cause a crash."

Except this is more like a police car speeding without bloos and toos. It’s a case of mistakes being made.

What’s less unforgivable is Robert Peston pedalling fake news on Twitter and then NOT deleting it, even after admitting fault.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 10:27 am

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 7:51 am "I'm sorry, I didn't realise the speed limit was 30 for everyone. My mate told me that I could do 60, as he didn't think the rules applied to us. I didn't think it'd cause a crash."

Except this is more like a police car speeding without bloos and toos. It’s a case of mistakes being made.

What’s less unforgivable is Robert Peston pedalling fake news on Twitter and then NOT deleting it, even after admitting fault.

"mistakes being made"

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 10:27 am

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 7:51 am "I'm sorry, I didn't realise the speed limit was 30 for everyone. My mate told me that I could do 60, as he didn't think the rules applied to us. I didn't think it'd cause a crash."

Except this is more like a police car speeding without bloos and toos.

How is it? It's like you're suggesting it was OK to do, but they didn't put on the right party hats to validate it. It wasn't the right thing to do. They broke the law, and not because they forgot to do something which would have made it OK.

Mens rea is not an excuse here

This isn't really politics, but I think this thread is the best fit. You might be aware of a man being tasered by police who then died after falling into the River Thames. Look at this article from the BBC, which was written while he was still in a critical condition.

A man is in a critical condition after being Tasered by police and falling in the River Thames.
...
Officers challenged a man in his 40s before shooting him with a Taser. He then fell into the river.

The man is in a critical condition in hospital and an internal investigation has been launched by the Met Police.

A Met spokesman said shooting the man with a Taser "did not enable the officers to safely detain him" and he "subsequently entered the river".

Sounds pretty bad doesn't it? They tasered him by the river and he fell in! But further down the article:

Video shared online shows two officers confronting the man, who falls to the ground after the Taser is discharged.

He eventually gets up and runs to the side of the bridge, and is seen to pull himself over the edge before either officer can reach him.

So it had nothing to do with being tasered. I'd say that this article is pretty dishonest and irresponsible from the BBC. Rhys will be happy.

Looks like, finally Boris is on his way out.
No confidence vote expected tonight

No, he'll easily survive it, but will be mortally damaged by it

Triggered on purpose by his supporters before the by-elections?

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 1:38 pm Triggered on purpose by his supporters before the by-elections?

If i was a tory voter I would want him out before the next general election as I don't think the tories would win with him at the helm

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 5:05 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 1:38 pm Triggered on purpose by his supporters before the by-elections?

If i was a tory voter I would want him out before the next general election as I don't think the tories would win with him at the helm

I think you've got to give him time, he's been so diverted with Covid and the Ukraine war, he may yet work wonders!

It’s more like “oh, I’m sorry, as a police car the traffic laws don’t all apply to us, I didn’t realise that one still did”.

But now there’s a genuinely awful conspiracy theory going around that Boris never had Covid. Come on, seriously… a bit of fact-checking please.

Please take a sensible pill before you call our office with “wHy dId aLeXaNdEr jOhNsOn lIe aBoUt hAvInG cOvId”

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 11:13 am It’s more like “oh, I’m sorry, as a police car the traffic laws don’t all apply to us, I didn’t realise that one still did”.

This is actually a good analogy, as the usual traffic laws do apply to police cars, with the only exception being when they're actively responding to an emergency (source: my brother, a cop).

Ben Wilson wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 12:26 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 11:13 am It’s more like “oh, I’m sorry, as a police car the traffic laws don’t all apply to us, I didn’t realise that one still did”.

This is actually a good analogy, as the usual traffic laws do apply to police cars, with the only exception being when they're actively responding to an emergency (source: my brother, a cop).

Yes, and I'm not sure what laws Rhys thinks Boris Johnson doesn't have to obey.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 11:13 am But now there’s a genuinely awful conspiracy theory going around that Boris never had Covid. Come on, seriously… a bit of fact-checking please.

Please take a sensible pill before you call our office with “wHy dId aLeXaNdEr jOhNsOn lIe aBoUt hAvInG cOvId”

It was total BS that he nearly died though.

This video is a good summary of some of what Boris Johnson got up to before becoming Prime Minister. It still amazes me that anyone ever thought he was remotely suitable for the job. I think the only reason the Tory MPs accepted him as their leader is that for some reason he was able to win over a lot of people with his inane Mr Blobby persona, and that they were aware that most of the rest of them are more transparently dislikeable. Christ knows why anyone fell for it though.

It was Angus Deayton's fault. If he hadn't got fired from Have I Got News For You and they didn't do that guest host thing, Johnson would never have gotten famous.

Flight to Rwanda cancelled!

The people smugglers have won then.

No. Just come up with a better system to stop it. E.g.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 9:24 pm The whole refugee/asylum seeker situation is ridiculous anyway. It's insane that people are in a position where they feel the need to make a dangerous crossing from France to the UK when both are rich western countries that should know how to treat people properly.

Countries should simply work together on this and come to a mutual agreement. Anyone who is trying to reach somewhere should be able to make their claim in the first safe country they reach, but make their claim for where they want to go. Then an independent body (set up by the countries in the agreement) decides where to place them, based on their need and obviously also availability (not just they just happen to end up first). That way, they would be treated fairly wherever they go.

The fact that people are making this dangerous crossing from France to the UK is an indictment on both the UK and France and the systems they have in place.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed Jun 15, 2022 7:34 am The people smugglers have won then.

No, decency has

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed Jun 15, 2022 7:34 am The people smugglers have won then.

When did "we don't want refugees who successfully claim asylum in the UK to be deported permanently to Rwanda" start to imply support for people smugglers?

If it were about breaking the business model of the people smugglers, we could allow refugees to apply for British asylum while in France, ship them over here safely, and process their claim as normal. Nobody would have to pay thousands for a place in an overcrowded dinghy and the business model of the people smugglers would be smashed overnight.

But that's not what it's really about, is it? It's really about preventing refugees coming here in the first place.

Why do people need to claim asylum from France? It’s not exactly a non-safe country.

These people are coming over the channel in unseaworthy vessels from a safe country, France, and we are spending millions every day accommodating them in stasis. A policy of deporting them is not a bad policy at all. And France refuse to take them so why not somewhere that agrees? Like Rwanda?

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 8:22 am Why do people need to claim asylum from France? It’s not exactly a non-safe country.

Asylum seekers are not obliged to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. (Source: https://www.unhcr.org/uk/uk-immigration ... unhcr.html)

Note particularly: "While asylum-seekers do not have an unlimited right to choose their country of asylum, some might have very legitimate reasons to seek protection in a specific country, including where they might have family links."

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 8:22 am These people are coming over the channel in unseaworthy vessels from a safe country, France, and we are spending millions every day accommodating them in stasis. A policy of deporting them is not a bad policy at all.

The point is that they wouldn't need to come over the channel in unseaworthy vessels if we shipped them here ourselves. Someone can only claim asylum in a country they're physically in, so why not identify all the people in Calais who want to claim asylum in the UK and ship them over here so they can do so? Let the people traffickers stand there with empty wallets watching asylum seekers being boarded onto Royal Navy ships for free.

Spending money on accommodating asylum seekers is just one of those things every country has to do as part of their international obligations. Just like France and Germany, who each get more asylum applications than the UK.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 8:22 am And France refuse to take them so why not somewhere that agrees? Like Rwanda?

Is France refusing to take them? If so then wouldn't France be shirking its obligations to refugees? And if France is refusing to take them, isn't this a good enough reason why refugees aren't settling there?

The refugees Priti Patel wants to deport to Rwanda have no connection with the country and don't want to live there. Isn't that reason enough?

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:24 amThe point is that they wouldn't need to come over the channel in unseaworthy vessels if we shipped them here ourselves.

The point is they shouldn't be coming over in unseaworthy vessels AT ALL. There are plenty of safe and legal routes for people to come to the UK. God knows we deal with enough HO cases in our office which aren't illegal immigrants.

"If you come over in a dinghy and financing crime in our country by means of people smugglers, you're outta here" is a perfectly sensible policy.

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:24 am"While asylum-seekers do not have an unlimited right to choose their country of asylum, some might have very legitimate reasons to seek protection in a specific country, including where they might have family links."

Which still doesn't excuse illegal channel crossings.

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:24 amIs France refusing to take them? If so then wouldn't France be shirking its obligations to refugees? And if France is refusing to take them, isn't this a good enough reason why refugees aren't settling there?

The French interior minister last year even said it's not their problem and won't do anything to stop these boats taking off. The PM wrote a letter to the French Interior Minister last year and the French refused to patrol the beaches to stop boats taking off (and/or let the British army do it), and also refused to take back channel crossers.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 8:21 pm The point is they shouldn't be coming over in unseaworthy vessels AT ALL. There are plenty of safe and legal routes for people to come to the UK. God knows we deal with enough HO cases in our office which aren't illegal immigrants.

So why do they come in this illegal manner? Why don't they use the safe and legal routes? Surely they would if they could. Something's not working.

Channel crossings are not illegal
Channel crossings are not illegal
Channel crossings are not illegal
Channel crossings are not illegal
Channel crossings are not illegal
Channel crossings are not illegal
Channel crossings are not illegal
Channel crossings are not illegal

(One of many sources for the above: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 03063.html)

To be fair, if I hadn't started following people working in that sector I might also still have assumed otherwise. It's not just the likes of Patel who continue to mislead on this point; even more sympathetic media and politicians are often depressingly bad for it.