Subscribe
Notify of
guest
51 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stephen

We are already around 20%+ non White British, and still letting more in. Listen, a few and no one would have been bothered but we have to draw the line somewhere, we cannot just keep letting more in forever. Do you think China, India, Pakistan, Turkey, Korea, Thailand, etc., etc. are 20%+ foreign origin, and still letting more in? We cannot keep being this weak either, or will will end up outnumbered in our own country, and no one else (outside Europe) will.

We have let more than enough immigrants into Britain by now. It is time for some one else (outside Europe?) to take their turn.

We have to permanently keep the 3 extra River class for a total of 8, and even that is not enough for a country with our coastline length, especially when you consider some will be overseas (e.g. Falklands), in repair/refit, etc. France, Italy and Spain all have more O.P.V.s than us with a shorter coastline length, with upcoming Brexit we need to build 2-4 more River class O.P.V.s for a total of 10-12 to patrol our E.E.Z., this would be inexpensive.

We also desperately need more border force cutters than the pathetic 4 we now have so money must be found for that.

Bobs Baradur

You forgot the Normans, time to expel them.
900 years of Norman oppression is enough.
Nor-exit now.
Make England Danish Again.

More seriously, why not cut London loose to join the EU,
sort of a Hong Kong West ?
That would remove most of the people you are concerned about.

RichardIC

Stephen’s comments about skin colour aren’t just regrettable, they’re blatantly racist and ignorant (FFS how many ethnic groups live in China and India? Utter brain donor).

Speaking as someone who is white and British I’d rather be living next to anyone who’s decent and honest and respectful of any colour than a vile bigot like Stephen.

And Rick, please stop with the “mate”. This isn’t something you chivvy anyone out of. You don’t want to be mates with someone like that tool. Just call him out for what he is.

I came on here to read about ships. I think I’ll order a curry now.

Rick

As of last month, making personal attacks and calling people racist is not allowed on this website. You’re breaking the rules RichardlC.

RichardIC

No Rick. It needs calling out. I called it what it self-evidently is.

If the rules allow that content but don’t allow it to be challenged then the rules are screwed.

Michael

Stephen’s comments are racist? Say’s who?
The issue is language, borders, and culture.
Without borders, language and culture cannot survive. Britain has its history, tradition and culture which has made it unique in the world for ten centuries.
While many people from countries around the globe have made Britain home, they willingly became British, and embraced being so.
The immigrants flooding the UK today for the most part have no such aspirations.
Why is Mohammed the most popular name for males being born here?
The truth is that the whole world cannot beat a path to the UK.
We have our own citizens to look after, and the future of our own nation to consider, for ourselves and our offspring.
That is not racist, or selfish.
We as a sovereign country have a full right, and a responsibility, to decide who comes here.
Am I saying no immigration? No!
But we must for our sake and the sake of our families and the future of our Island nation, bring in immigrants on our terms and our wellbeing first.

Kevin Hastie

You are of course right; the issue is not so much colour as culture ( although the two inevitably correlate). The indigenous culture of Europe in general and western Europe in particular is being increasingly displaced by alien cultures, many of which are not compatible with the Faustian spirit of Western man. It would seem that only Western man can be racist. No one ever accuses the Japanese as racists despite the overwhelming homogeneity of their nation. Oddly neither the Saudis are accused of racism even though they will not admit any other culture into their kingdom of iniquity…..funny that, isnt it?
So what
s all this got to do with the RN? The RN exists to protect our borders. A nation state is defined (literally) by itsborders. This assumes that you believe in the nation state. Many do not. Those who dont however probably close the front door of their house !

Bobs Baradur

To: K. Hastie

The Japanese were often accused of racism by the Koreans and Chinese.
See Japanese colonization of Korea and various imperialist adventures
in China by the ‘Yamato Race’ as it was termed in the Japanese press of the day.
Every time the Japanese make an awkward statement about the late war or
revise a textbook, they are reminded by Koreans and Chinese, quite loudly.

RichardIC

Read the first two lines of his post. If you don’t compute that as blatant racism you have as serious a problem as he does.

Michael

Oh for crying out loud, man up!
I understand perfectly what he is talking about. It is possible to talk about a very pertinent subject without being withering
Violets. Immigration has to be controlled.

Rick

Michael and Kevin have raised some legitimate and common sense points that I think most people would agree with. Richard, what’s your take on Japan, who refuse to admit any immigration and strive to remain a homogeneous society? Are the Japanese people vial bigots?

TimH

Have you read your post back? Did you mean for it you come across as very racist?

Fedaykin

“We have let more than enough immigrants into Britain by now. It is time for some one else (outside Europe?) to take their turn.” –

In comparison to other EU countries and those outside the EU like Turkey the UK takes a tiny amount of migrants.

This is a wholly manufactured crisis to help bolster the Tories in the face of the omnishambles that is Brexit. In the case of Sajid Javid he is clearly trying to bolster his position with the Tory membership in the hope of gaining the leadership.

sjb1968

Unfortunately Fedaykin it is your type of thinking and of the political elite that has helped foster resentment and has lead directly to the leave vote winning. The UK is a relatively small land mass and is by comparison to many European countries densely populated. Politicians have set back and allowed and in some cases (Mr T Blair) actually encouraged policies to ensure mass uncontrolled migration.

Forget the colour of the skin numbers have been too high and the crisis in housing and public services have become impossible to hide. Whether you or I believe migration provides people to undertake jobs in the health service or building houses it has all the hallmarks of a pyramid scheme where a growing population just fuels demand and too hell with anything else.

This is and has been the political logic of both mainstream parties that has led directly to a loss of trust with a large number of British people of all colours. Mention immigration and you are a racist bigot. The speed of change has been too fast with visibly nobody is in control.

The cohesion of the country just as is happening in France and Germany has been put at risk. The difference in the voting pattern between London and many other parts of the UK in the BREXIT referendum was frightening and were momentarily picked up by the media and some politicians only to be forgotten again almost immediately. The concerns or economic problems of anyone outside the London bubble are not worthy it seems.

As for Sajid Javid if he thinks this little episode will help him personally, so what it is a mere side show.

Sean

And how many immigrants are EU nations such as Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland etc taking…? None to very few is the answer.
Meanwhile the U.K., which is the second most densely populated country in the EU after the Netherlands continues to take in migrants drawn by our generous welfare benefits. Migrants who won’t integrate, won’t adopt our liberal and tolerant views, and instead voluntarily group together creating ethnic ghetto areas.

Keithdwat

If they come here and integrate into society, value British laws and Customs, become British themselves and feel like they belong, then they are very welcome in my books, of course not forgetting their heritage, skin colour shouldn’t be a problem in todays world, in my opinion it should based on the actual people, how the behave themselves. A majority of people who have come to these shores in the last 50 years have become fully functioning members of society, people from Ireland, Jamaica, India, Yemen etc. have had no problem in finding their identity as being British and Jamaican etc, the same way you can be British and Scottish.
I have no problem with these people coming over, but they need to be genuine refugees, and the fact they’re coming from France means they are simply probably looking for the best welfare benefits, and these people know that the UK has great benefits, there are also those who actually hate our way of being(a minority Im sure) and hate western culture and if given the choice would destroy us but are happy to use our benefits, I believe that isn’t the case with most of these people however and many are simply trying to find a better life.
Anyway if they are happy to become lawful citizens, and are genuine refugees who simply want to better themselves then welcome, unfortunately that is not the case with a lot of these people coming from France.

Ron

It is time to rethink our home waters and the vessels in them. How about placing the OPVs, Border Cutters, Inland revenue cutters and fishery protection into a beefed up Coast Guard under the fiance control of the Home Office. That would give 16 vessels in all, saving man power of the RN, saving costs to the RN whilst having a dedicated coast guard to protect UK waters. Combine this with the Archer class then there would be 26 vessels for inshore and off shore work.
To man these vessels could be easy, an intensive would be for RN personnel with 12 years or more that wish to leave the RN could leave the RN and join the CG with full military pension. Officer training could take place on possibly a new class of fast attack craft that could be paid for by the monies saved on the OPVs and Archers.

Anthony Gilroy

Manning issues in the RN make this a really bad idea. Simply because all those vessels offer opportunity for young command experience (Lt Cdr) and also home running for some harmony time.

You won’t man a RN that has no jobs besides 8/12 months at sea every day. 2/12 months training and 2/12 months maybe on leave.

In short. It wouldn’t save any money because you’d have to purchase new Corvettes or some such… Now if you are suggesting that as well. I’m all for it!!

Ron

@Anthony, that is what I was trying to get at, the monies saved could be used to purchase some corvettes or a few extra Type 31s.

Anthony Gilroy

@Ron. In that case I agree it would represent a welcome solution. If we managed to replace the 5 Batch 2 and 3 Batch 1 with 3 Type 31 to give us a total of 8 Type 31. And replace the 16 Archer Patrol Vessels, 2 Scimitar Patrol Vessels and 13x MCMVs (31 Vessels total) with something like the Venari 85. I choose this owing to the quiet success we (The RN) seem to be enjoying with the module 11m craft with Project Vahana. That has already delivered modules for specialist survey boats and I’ve no doubt a modular “patrol” set up could be arranged that trades the 4 man cabon and toilet etc for 8-12 RM and some RWS. Buy 70-80 of them perhaps?

In the end I’d probably rub:
Spartan or Arrowhead 140 for Type 31
Venari 85 for MHPC project
Atlas 11m Project Vahanah or Barracuda 11m for a proper 11m patrol/Riverine vessel.

Food for thought I guess.

TimH

If the fisheries protection work leaves the RN the money it costs to do fisheries will also leave the RN.

Kevin Hastie

These vessels do not stop migration, they facilitate it. If you are a migrant , picked up mid-channel and then conveyed to UK shores, you have succeeded in your bid to get to the UK and these ships are unwittingly complicit in their bid. This is exactly the same situation as the med where rescue has become conveyance. Javid had bowed to pressure and provided ferries for the migrants.

David

Correct. “Rescuing” people at sea like this is not humanitarian. It encourages more people to engage in risky behaviour boarding dangerous boats who then subsequently drown at sea because there are not enough navy boats to “rescue” them. The responsibility of the Navy is to defend the UK’s borders. It is not to help facilitate mass migration from the third world.

Anthony Gilroy

It is, however, the law. You cannot just sail past a person requiring assistance at sea. And the government can definitely not ignore such a situation.

Julian Edmonds

Incorrect. All of the people “rescued” to date are in custody, being dealt with as illegal immigrants, and only a minority will make it through the UK’s immigration and asylum system. The rest will be kept in detention centres and eventually deported back to their country of origin.
Their aim had been to reach the UK’s shores undetected, then obtain support from members of their family, tribe or ethnic group already settled here. If 100% of people attempting the crossing get caught, then only those who are reasonably certain of having a valid asylum claim will run the risk.

Airborne

Julian, unfortunately that is not quite true. Yes we have detention centres, (one has just closed, two more I know are running on only 60% detainee capacity) but with people who have been either trafficked and been picked up, or with people from certain “low risk” countries, they will be given TA (Temporary admission) which entails they have to stay in what is section 4 accommodation, hostel etc and be given dates to report to their local Police Station/Immigration office, This could be weekly, fortnightly etc and they will be allocated a sum of £35 per week, per person, as they are not allowed to be employed. However the vast majority do NOT report, and disappear into the country, very rarely to be located again. If however they are picked up, for whatever reason (driving offences mainly) this is when they will be taken to a Detention Centre.

Airborne

However Julian you are correct that the massive amount of economic migrants have been assisted, by family and friends already over here, to get here and to hide. However let me assure you, if and when these people are picked up, the system allows them ALL to claim Asylum, they have legal aid, they have a number of appeals available to them, and if it all goes pear shaped and they are due to be deported, they can go for a JR. If all this fails then they can start the process once more, by applying for Bail, TA, and again if this fails they claim rule 35, victim of torture (even student over stayers who have been dossing about in this country for say 5 years or whatever use that). The process of removals is not fast, and it is abused massively by both the detainees and the legal profession, one in order to stay here and the other to make vast amounts of tax payers cash!

Grubbie

I don’t think that is right, illegal immigrants are usually released and told to report to an office in London.If they claim asylum, they are free to live in the UK whilst their cases are considered.It would be impossible to keep them all in detention centres.Every young man claiming asylum in Germany is eventually joined by an average of 7-8 family members under the right of family reunification.
However you put it, only a tiny fraction are ever deported.

TimH

If it’s true that most of the “boat people” are Iranian then it’s unlikely they will be sent back. Iran isn’t considered a safe country. These people will either get some form of residency in the U.K. or will go to another EU country. I don’t know the exact rules as to who goes where, plus all this may change in April.

Airborne

It will depend on which country they have first entered in Europe, and if they were known to the Authorities and fingerprinted. Over half of detainees deported are not deported back to their country of origin, it is the country where they have first registered and fingerprinted. For example a large amount of North Africans and East Africans get deported back to Italy (as this is their point of entry prior to making their way to UK). But this open up a whole new ball game as the receiving Country has to agree to take them back. Also before a detainee is deported that Countries Embassy team has to agree to take them, and if the detainee has a criminal conviction (over 60% are ex HMP), and has no confirmed documentation history, many countries just don’t agree to take them back.

Kevin Hastie

It is unlikely that they will be returned to their country of origin. The foreign office considers Iran not to be a safe country and therefore WILL NOT return them.

Grubbie

Stephen’s comments about skin shade are regrettable and should be withdrawn.
What ever your veiw about immigration (even if you would like to see more),these unlawful migrants should be sent straight back to France, as allowed by international law.The plastic sausages coming from Libya are totally unseaworthy have no hope of reaching the other side and would not put to sea if there was no certainty of being quickly picked up.This will quickly lead to a disaster with the strong tides, difficult weather and heavy shipping in the channel.
The funding situation is baffling, as I understood that the navy had already received extra funding for the batch 1 rivers and BAE should be paying for the lack of availability of batch 2s.
Where are the UKBF delta boats?I see one of them that has been laid up for prolonged period of time on the IOW. Coastal patrol needs to be integrated, there has been a silly amount of empire building.

Rick

Yes, I winced after reading Stephen’s first sentence. Be careful mate, this is a very sensitive and tricky topic to wade into.

TimH

Are you sure we can send them “straight back to France”? My reading is that there is a definite legal process to go through before someone can be sent to France or the first EU country they entered.

Sean

Part of the Dublin agreement states that if it can be shown they spent the previous 3 months in another safe country (ie France) then they can be sent straight back there.

TimH

My guess is the “show thy spent the previous 3 months” bit wont be easy to prove.

Airborne

No they cant just be sent back. As their are a number of issues. Some will have no documentation, some will claim to be from a different country, some will claim to be under 18. Some will claim asylum, some will not. This opens a whole new ballgame as according to the rules they have to be sent back to the first European country they were fingerprinted in (if they were known), ad that country has to agree to take them. Other than that, with no documentation, if they are detained then if they claim asylum then their case has to be considered along with thousands of others. Things that have to be carried out is their nationality has to be established, and this is done with that countries Embassy team, then travel documents have to be applied for, and all this time immigration have to justify why they are detained. If then they are told they will be removed (can take months) They then get access to legal aid, a number of appeals, Judicial review, a second JR, then if all that fails, if they haven’t already claimed asylum they can claim, and it starts again, and they then can apply for TA (Temporary admission) or bail. And if that fails, they can then claim rule 35, victim of torture. Then the process starts alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll over again. All the while Home Office still have to justify continued detention! And this chaps is a very very brief run down of the process!!!!!!!!

Aaron The Humanist

6% of immigration figures are asylum seekers. Of the 34,000 who applied last year around 8,000 were granted, so about a quarter of applicants. I agree the patrol craft could be viewed as a taxi service, but without them these people just arrive on our coast unchecked and end up sleeping on the streets as street homeless. With no passport, no visa, no national insurance number any illegal immigrants, via boat, truck stowaway or other, is unemployable, don’t qualify for any services from councils and if needing health service will get caught with a 3 in 1 chance of deportation.
Those granted right to stay compete with one million UK nationals waiting for housing, compete with a workforce that can speak fluent English, and could only find themselves in slave Labour jobs.

TimH

In general what you say is true.
In the case of the “boat people” currently a large percentage are Iranian. It’s reported the most are from middle class backgrounds are quite well educated and speck at least some English. Ironically these people will find it much easier to support themselves than the average asylum seeker.

Anthony Gilroy

Gents, Ladies,

I think those replying need to firmly be aware that the UK (and hence government, Royal Navy and UK BF AND UK MERCHANT FLEET) are signatories for SOLAS 1974.

The 2007 ammendment in Chapter V Section 33. From memory it states that:

The master of a ship which is in a position to be able to provide assistance on receiving information from any source that PERSONS are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance.

FURTHERMORE I believe it also states:

The obligation to assist applies regardless of the nationality, status or circumstances in which they are found.

Now, it has probably been too long since I checked the regulations on this including ammendment state, how it applies to the RN and such like but the long and short of it.

Assistance to life endangered at sea is the LAW. Sailors don’t care about colour, creed or religion because the sea will kill you dead regardless. It is a common bounty and enemy for all who work or live on it.

Those who keep saying we should leave them spit on human decency, the international laws of the ocean AND British Maritime history. But if you need greed as a reason.

If our OPVs/BF Cutters etc don’t pick them up Merchant vessels will have to respond costing time and money…

Grubbie

Virtue signalling drama queen

Anthony Gilroy

No drama. Just the law. Which a lot of you seem to want to ignore and that would cost Britain FAR more.

Grubbie

I’ve carefully re read all the posts, and despite there being one racist comment, no one suggested leaving people to drown.In fact quite the opposite is true, most comment has been aimed at trying to avoid encouraging them to risk their lives in the first place by the offering of perverse rewards.Yet another dramatic post,I believe that the modern term for your post is a strawman argument.

Anthony Gilroy

Stephen said:
“We cannot keep being this weak either, or will will end up outnumbered in our own country, and no one else (outside Europe) will.

We have let more than enough immigrants into Britain by now. It is time for some one else (outside Europe?) to take their turn.”

Michael said:
“We as a sovereign country have a full right, and a responsibility, to decide who comes here.
Am I saying no immigration? No!
But we must for our sake and the sake of our families and the future of our Island nation, bring in immigrants on our terms and our wellbeing first.”

Kevin Haste said:
“These vessels do not stop migration, they facilitate it. If you are a migrant , picked up mid-channel and then conveyed to UK shores, you have succeeded in your bid to get to the UK and these ships are unwittingly complicit in their bid. This is exactly the same situation as the med where rescue has become conveyance. Javid had bowed to pressure and provided ferries for the migrants.”

David said:
“Correct. “Rescuing” people at sea like this is not humanitarian. It encourages more people to engage in risky behaviour boarding dangerous boats who then subsequently drown at sea because there are not enough navy boats to “rescue” them. The responsibility of the Navy is to defend the UK’s borders. It is not to help facilitate mass migration from the third world.”

Grubbie you said:
“The plastic sausages coming from Libya are totally unseaworthy have no hope of reaching the other side and would not put to sea if there was no certainty of being quickly picked up.This will quickly lead to a disaster with the strong tides, difficult weather and heavy shipping in the channel.”

Now these are the posts I was basing my reply on. I felt that they had either stated or implied that 1) The RN should not get involved, 2) Picking them up encourages this behaviour and they don’t understand why we do. So to approach my argument from a different angle I would like to point out the following points.

1) Kevin Haste and David both have stated that effectively utilising the RN vessels is foolish and encourages “migration” to the point that the RN should be focussing on other priorities.

2) You IMPLIED that if we didn’t pick them up they wouldn’t sail. And that picking them up will make this disaster worse.

3) Yes, I was being slightly dramatic but not to the level you have suggested.

In the case of point 1). The FACT remains, all vessels in the Channel (an increadibly busy shipping lane with tight navigational margins) still HAVE to repsond to a person in distress. The RN if it focussed on its “other primary jobs” would still have to provide a good legal reason to not respond to this crisis. By dedicating OPVs to the task Merchant shipping and RN vessels can continue their business. Besides the FACT is. The RN MUST assist in this situation.

2) Not picking them up will make the disaster far worse than picking them up from a home security PoV, a foreign relations PoV and an economic PoV regarding the strain it would put on Merchant shipping.

3) I was perhaps being very slightly dramatic but you are focussing on a single part of my post. One tiny bit. However I have now covered or related to the Merchant shipping cost, the fact we are a signatory to this, our moral obligation, or even the internal security aspect.

Also you posted this,
“I believe that the modern term for your post is a strawman argument”. I would humbly suggest that If you are going to throw around such statements that you get your own grammar and spelling correct first of all. Glass houses shatter when you throw stones in them.

Grubbie

Thank you for your confirmation that no one said or implied that people should be left to drown.

D J

I would suggest the Australian solution. If at all possible, turn the boat around & send it back to where it came from. If required, offer a tow, fuel, mechanical assistance etc to get them back to where the boat came from. If you refuse, the occupants are offloaded, boat sunk & everyone is automatically taken to an offshore detention centre. Anyone found to be a paid people smuggler gets gaol & then deportation. The rest, regardless of refugee status eventually obtained, will never be allowed to settle in Australia. Either go somewhere else if someone will take you, go home or stay forever (in the offshore detention centre). It has pretty well stopped all refugee attempts by boat, eliminating drowning at sea, put a stop to people smugglers & allowed an orderly refugee program. Offshore is important to stop the lawyers picnic at public expense. Perhaps one of the Channel Islands where laws can be a little different without automatically applying to the mainland. Falklands would be another nice place. It’s cheaper in the long run.

Grubbie

Glorious isolation, dealing with this sort of problem IS the RNs day job.If the RN didn’t do fishery protection ,etc,then they wouldn’t have the rivers. If we didn’t already have a navy,it would be much cheaper and more effective to do drug patrols and disaster relief in the Caribbean with civilian vessels.Handing SAR helicopters to the coastguard just means that the forces have lost critical mass and some of their CSAR capability.There are any number of jobs that could be done by civilians if the navy wants it that way.
Shortage of boats, there is no shortage. In my travels around the marinas of the UK,I see flotillas of underemployed or unused coastguard and police boats and the university boats (which are highly suitable for this job, if no other).Funding was supposedly provided for 3 extra batch 1 rivers.

don

Shame we can’t go back an un-destroy Iraq, Libya and Syria. 20/20 hindsight, what?

Mike

Hello All ,
Allow me first to state where I stand . I am an unashamed ” BRITISH PATRIOT” . I am a proud White Male with a Christian background who has served my Country with Army Special Forces and also served my Public as a front line operational Fireman for 30 years .
I like millions of other UK born citizens of our once great and respected Country am fed up to the back teeth of migrants entering our Country as nothing more than economic leeches who would bleed our country dry without any thought or concern as to how we will cope with the future consequences . We just cannot cope with the extremely large amounts of migrants entering this country and have been doing so ever since that traitor “Tony Blair” and his weak willed government allowed the present migrant crisis to happen in the first place with one of the greatest lies this Country has ever been spun under the name of “Multi culturism” , and ever since we have been flooded with people from mainly Africa and the Middle East who should be trying to stay and make their own countries better places to live in . Tony Blair once made a televised comment stating that the large majority of people coming to the UK as migrants were mostly Doctors and engineers ! SO WHAT ! It was only another one of Blairs lies anyway and why do WE need doctors and engineers when our monies could be better spent training our own professional people ?
I have no idea how the Royal Navy will be used to combat this migrant crisis , but I do know this , that if you do the simple mathematics and add it all up , simple common sense will tell you that a country as small as the UK cannot and will not be able to sustain not just the amount of migrants we have let in to date and that’s not including the probable million illegal immigrants we have running around our streets , but also the hundreds of thousands of offspring from these migrants who have not even been born yet ! DO THE SIMPLE MATHS / IT IS NOT HARD ! Our future means it wont just be the Royal Navy at stake but our whole way of life . culture history and anything else that made us once a great power in this world .
The next time you go to vote at the polls , THINK HARD WHO YOU ARE VOTIMG FOR , YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDRENS FUTURE IS AT STAKE !!!

Steve Murtagh

Whoever wrote this article hasn’t got a clue. Migrants are escorted into UK waters by French vessels and we have to take them in. It’s a bloody disgrace when most of these so called migrants are males!! The navy should be turning them back and patrolling the boundaries in the Channel.

D Currie

To stop them from crossing the most Dangerous sea lane in the world from a safe country France, they should be picked up brought to the UK given a choice to return to France or their home Country then sent straight back and told to apply from there.