←back to thread

525 points alex77456 | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
andyjohnson0 ◴[] No.45383356[source]
I didn't watch the video, but have read other reports, and it's worth noting that the context for this is the Labour Party conference, which starts on Sunday. The UK govt are under pressure from the tories and Reform to do something about people entering the UK from France by crossing the channel in small boats. Nothing much seems to be working. So this announcement is about trying to control the narrative by making a big, distracting announcement. I'd mlbe surprised if many people in the government/police/civil service expect it to make a difference.

Also, seems to be intended to be mandatory and require a smartphone. Hows that going to work?

Also, what happens when the database is inevitably stolen?

replies(3): >>45383425 #>>45383499 #>>45383503 #
arrowsmith ◴[] No.45383425[source]
“Nothing much seems to be working” because the government is completely unserious about stopping the boats and is unwilling to do any of the things that might actually work.

They could stop them in a week if they actually wanted to.

replies(4): >>45383489 #>>45383490 #>>45383570 #>>45384022 #
pbhjpbhj ◴[] No.45383570[source]
Legally and morally? What is your solution?
replies(1): >>45383789 #
arrowsmith ◴[] No.45383789[source]
Stick them in processing centres until they can be deported. Send a clear message to anyone who might come that it won't work, you won't get in, we won't give you anything, don't risk your life or waste your money.

Australia did exactly this (in the face of howling opposition) and it worked: illegal boat arrivals dropped from ~20,000 per year to almost zero. Thousands of people used to drown attempting the crossing, now no-one drowns. There's your moral case.

Legally, Parliament is sovereign. If the current legal framework doesn't allow it, change the law. Except they won't, because they don't want to solve the problem and they use the law as an excuse as if they aren't the fucking government.

replies(1): >>45384800 #
andyjohnson0 ◴[] No.45384800[source]
I'm genuinely wondering how harsh you'd be willing to be to get what you want.

What would you do if an individual can't be deported because no country will accept them? Or if their country of origin is likely to kill or torture them? Or if no commercial carrier is willing to risk operating to that country? Would you be willing to deport unaccompanied children with no guarantee that they'd be cared for?

replies(2): >>45385432 #>>45385616 #
1. arrowsmith ◴[] No.45385616{4}[source]
All the more reason for them to stay in France.

The humane option is still available. It’s not too late to take it. But if you keep refusing it, don’t complain when you get something else.

replies(2): >>45386993 #>>45387540 #
2. ◴[] No.45386993[source]
3. andyjohnson0 ◴[] No.45387540[source]
Its not clear what your "humane option" is. Care to explain?