Fishermen blocked RNLI boat rescuing migrants, caller tells James O'Brien
Zoe in Hastings said: "On Saturday my boyfriend and I were just on the beach and we heard the lifeboat station opening up and thought 'oh they have a call' and started watching. There was a group of fisherman pulled up, gutting fish on the shore, and as the boat station opened up we heard the fisherman start shouting things like 'don't bring any more of those home, we're full up', 'that's why we stopped our donations', and that kind of really horrible stuff. It was really upsetting, and you could hear the hatred in their voice", she said.
"The lifeboat crew pulled the boat out and were going to go into the water and some of the fishermen deliberately came out with their buckets and stood directly in the line of the boat so the boat couldn't be put in the water."
"Are you sure?" James asked.
"I'm absolutely sure, the police were called," she replied.
I was the radio on last week and every BBC news bulletin was led with "WE'VE ALREADY HAD THREE TIMES AS MANY MIGRANTS CROSS THE CHANNEL IN SMALL BOATS THAN WE HAD LAST YEAR" and illegal immigration is now one of the biggest concerns amongst a large swathe of voters. It seems to be in the news almost every day as one of the lead stories.
What is to be done about it? Priti Patel only seems concerned with sabre-rattling and looking tough.
Iranian women are hotties, indeed they are technically caucasion. So rejecting them is not racist, it is just stupid. The men can be sent back to France, though.
>>36110 I know democracy is hyped up, but the unelected members of the House of Lords really seem to be much better at basically everything than the House of Commons. It seems like not having to worry about appealing to imbeciles frees them up and lets them talk a lot more sense.
The Facebook users who reacted with laughing emojis to news of 27 asylum seekers drowning in the Channel
On a chilly November afternoon Baran's fiancé waited with cautious excitement. Within hours the couple would be reunited, bringing to an end a desperate journey which began more than 3,000 miles away in the Kurdish town of Soran, northern Iraq, and marking the start of a new life in Britain. Baran, whose full name was Maryam Nuri, dreamed of starting a salon in Portsmouth where partner Karzan Assad works as a barber. As the 24-year-old and around 30 others were crammed into a flimsy dinghy on the French coast Karzan began intently following her progress on Snapchat's maps feature. But four hours later she phoned to say the boat was taking on water and they were waiting to be rescued. It would be the couple's last conversation.
Some 70 miles away in Chatham, England, Steve was scrolling through Facebook. News was breaking of a tragedy which many had been dreading for some time. Six miles off the coast of Calais a crumpled inflatable was sinking to the sea bed. Baran's lifeless body was one of 27 floating in the icy water. A KentOnline article about the shipwreck popped up on Steve's timeline. He laughed. But Steve, who calls me a "jumped up little ****" and tells me to "jog on" when I question him, wasn't alone.
He was one of 96 who chose to react to the news with a laughing emoji, one of several ways Facebook allows users to engage with posts. While publishers can switch the comments off after an article is published they have no control over the emojis that appear above them. Steve's not the only one who tells me to "jog on", Chantal does too but only after informing me she laughed "because our country looks after illegals before our own people!!!"
Ashford mechanic Ronni Pickering – who presumably has chosen a fake name inspired by the red-faced viral internet star – engages for longer. His willingness to talk about his views on migration was somewhat overshadowed by the bile he spouted. "No problem... it's a total joke mate," he begins, adding: "Thousands of murders (sic) rapists daft militant wogs coming into our country daily. The government are traitors!!" But when I confess I am struggling to see how the deaths of 27 people are remotely funny things begin to sour. "It's great news (they drowned)! You support the ***** probably. **** of (sic). I hope every boat ******* sinks."
I question what's got him to this point. Those coming are "rapists murders (sic) carpet-baggers daft militant wogs and they are robbing our country left right and centre cos they come from **** all and got no morals. Don’t like them never will there (sic) scum," he says. It's an appalling explosion of hate and not backed up by any statistics whatsoever. I ask him to show me any evidence for his claims. He can't but still tells me to "go away and do my homework".
>>36142 People love to throw this word around. There are numerous reasons, but here it’s because the writer’s highlighting the complete lack of morals and basic human decency in the responses to 27 people dying at sea, yeah? Just so I’m clear on this.
Smug is increasingly being redefined as “you are trying to make me think about my behaviour”. We are being taken over, as a society, by loud, unpleasant, children.
>>36142 There seems to be a weird dichotomy in terms of how voters, and the media, actually feel about all the families in dinghies coming across the Channel. When they come over, most people want to shoot them with torpedoes and drown them, and when the government suggests doing that, there is broad support in the media for this outstandingly brave act of national sovereignty. But if anyone, even an obvious economic migrant, actually dies, suddenly everyone is horribly upset and the newspapers can't understand how such a thing could possibly be allowed to happen. I bet the journalist will be pro-drowning again in a month when this story is forgotten.
Don't talk like this, for fuck's sake. You completely undermined your point (which I otherwise agreed with), by coming off as an utterly insufferable bell end. And no, that doesn't make it okay. Think back to that "writing to persuade" class you will have had in Year 8 English.
>>36144 It's a shame nobody's found a way to take "this you?" further. Some kind of automated digital equivalent of branding journalists foreheads with their own past comments so that even those who aren't reading left-wing Twitter accounts are constantly reminded that the person pretending to be empathetic today was pretending to want them all dead yesterday, with a link to their past articles if you care to see more.
For ordinary people that would be a nightmare: people should be allowed to develop their views and so on. But for the professionally disingenuous? If their views have really developed, let them do an article on how and why that happened. And let said article be stuck above everything they post on the subject when their views change back again so that people know not to believe a word they read, and (perhaps too optimistically) that there's more fun to be had in contempt for the press than in contempt for those the press want to set you against.
>>36148 I'd be wary of anything like that due to the sheer amount of cherrypicking and taking quotes out of context that goes on in order to suit an argument.
It also sounds like bollocks that journalists shouldn't be allowed to change their opinion over time.
>>36152 Anyone can change their opinion, but if someone's paid to have them and yet swings back and forth like a metronome then perhaps that's more of a story than whatever soon-to-be-abandoned opinion they hold this week.
>>36145 Write like what? What are you talking about? I’m not trying to get published, don’t expect me to agonise over every syllable just to please The Post Reviewer, because I reckon he’s a bit of a thicky no-brains.
>What is to be done about it?
The whole situation is the government's own doing.
They refuse asylum applications from abroad, that's why the immigrants risk deatch to set foot on British soil to claim asylum. Other countries let you apply for asylum from abroad and if this country did it too, then that would reduce the number of crossings. Of course Brexshit didn't help with France stopping their co-op in Calais.
>>36158 I saw on the news that other European countries absolutely do not let anyone apply for asylum in embassies or other foreign outposts, precisely because they don't want the number of entirely legitimate asylum applications that they can't refuse to skyrocket. It's a vote-loser in any country. So we're not evil in that respect.
>>36143 I used that word because the author is basically wanking himself off with this article. It's not news and when I see a breakdown posted on GS I expect it to be somewhat thought provoking rather than "look at how wittily I demolish these cunts for being cunts".
This isn't causing me to think about my behaviour, why would it? I'm pro immigration. I'm also anti smug cunts and pointless masturbatory articles that are the equivalent of sourcing comments from twitter. That and the tabloid style of it - the stuff being said is obviously hateful, it's bad journalism to inject these terms when the quotes speak for themselves. It could have been a fine, if pointless, article if he'd just let the story tell itself by quoting these people and letting them hang their own nooses, which they were very much doing.
You're just proving, again, that people who portend to be on the right side of history can't distinguish between shooting the messenger and shooting the message. You're both twats, yeah? Just so I'm clear on this.
>>36161 Because I read >>36158 as saying if people could apply to claim asylum in Britain without being on British soil that'd cut down on the number of people crossing the Channel in small boats.
My question is whether most of the people who are crossing the Channel in small boats would have had their application for asylum in Britain approved if they tried claiming it elsewhere.
>>36166 I think that is what otherlad is getting at.
>>36158 >The whole situation is the government's own doing.
>They refuse asylum applications from abroad, that's why the immigrants risk deatch to set foot on British soil to claim asylum. Other countries let you apply for asylum from abroad and if this country did it too, then that would reduce the number of crossings.
Sounds like absolute bollocks to me. As you say, asylum applications from without tend to be declined so I can't see how it'd reduce the number of Channel crossings in any meaningful way.
>>36148 I don't think that would work in the end, delightful though it sounds on paper. Nobody can force Carol Malone or Richard Littlejohn to write an article cheering for drowned kids, so in the end they'd just go quiet for a day. Or they'd write about how evil it is to successfully apply for application, and spin it as though that was what they were always saying. Or they might even just roll with the extremism and be the only columnist brave enough to tell it like it is and find criminal backgrounds for everyone who dies, every time. That might still be an improvement on the current situation since it would require research and effort rather than the usual kneejerk thicktwattishness, but you can denigrate anyone if you try hard enough, and people will swallow it. "If you want to complain about immigrants, you need to become a full-blown white supremacist" might not turn out to be the knockout blow against these rats that we're hoping it will be.
>>36148 >For ordinary people that would be a nightmare
We should do it anyway. People should be forced to go everywhere with their racist comments branded into their foreheads so that when they go to the takeaway to collect their curry the guy behind the counter knows to quickly jizz into their food before handing it over.
Speaking of Facebook emojis, there's a common pattern on the pages of football clubs whenever they post anything LGBT related. Such posts will inevitably get bombarded with thousands of angry face reactions from blokes who mostly seem to be called Abdul or Mohammed, along with comments in Arabic saying things like "death to homosexuals" and "Allah disapproves of this club". It's darkly amusing to watch the car crash between right-on corporate the shipping forecast and Islamic intolerance, but I can't imagine the media ever writing a story about that because it probably wouldn't fit their narrative.
>>36198 Almost everything to do with football and social media is a massive shit show. A lot of it gets spammed by fanatical Arabs or Africans posting complete drivel.
>The Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) has taken down its website after “suspicious activity” and said its staff had been sent threatening emails.
>The charity’s website was reduced to a pared-back landing page on Friday afternoon after a suspected hacking attempt. On the same day it said it had reminded its staff and volunteers to stay safe after threats were sent to workers. It said the threats had been reported to police.
>The charity has come under increasing criticism from anti-migrant groups over its role in saving lives in the Channel, as people continue to attempt to cross from France in small boats.
Why don't we just chuck the RNLI a couple quid to bring the migrants back to the safety of France? It seems like the easiest solution and one that won't inadvertently lead to a wave like Germany saw. I get that the institution is right-on and knows it can play this up for donations but they're just being unreasonable if they won't take the patrol money.
Then we can do a Belarus/Turkey/Sudan and make the EU do things for us under the threat that we'll release the doctors and engineers on them. If they don't give us market access we'll flood those conservative French fishing regions and put Le Pen in power what with the election coming up.
>>36198 I wonder if the next logical step of liberal hegemony will be that once we've brought regime change to their countries we'll start prosecuting them for past hate-speech. They won't even be able to run because we could scan their internet history wherever they turn up.
>>36223 > I wonder if the next logical step of liberal hegemony will be that once we've brought regime change to their countries we'll start prosecuting them for past hate-speech. They won't even be able to run because we could scan their internet history wherever they turn up.
I don't think it would work that way.
Their past hate speech gives them negative oppression points, true, but this is overwhelmed by the positive oppression points they get by being colonised and being ethnic and religious minorities.
>>36223 It'd be funnier to wait for someone like Are Nige or Are Tommeh to start fundraising for a boat so they can start patrolling the Channel popping dinghies or returning them to France.
This being while the Libyan coastguard was being trained and funded by Italy, camps were paid for by the EU in Libya and Sudan to detain migrants and NGOs were shut down for (allegedly) working with people smugglers. I assert because society was so divided on the time that states refused to risk any public confrontation on either side, as we'll likely see happen with the RNLI boats where the government must find a means to stop them without being publicly seen to shut down the institution. I think people are a lot harder on the migrant issue these days mind.
>Why don't we just chuck the RNLI a couple quid to bring the migrants back to the safety of France?
They're only legally entitled to do so if France is the nearest safe harbour. They could lie to the French, but that lie would be obvious because of the AIS data. Also the RNLI has a backbone - it isn't right on, it's just dedicated to the mission of saving life at sea. Trust is more important to that mission than money.
>>36228 The entire situation feels like a smaller scale repeat of what's been going on in the Mediterranean Sea for several years now, with official coast guard type organisations either staying away from migrant vessels or being quite heavy handed while several charities with a rescue focus do the grunt work of fishing people out of the water. Depending on where they drop them off the latter are not exactly beloved and regularly have trouble geting docking permission amongst other kinds of harrassment.
Fingers crossed it doesn't get that way in the channel for RNLI in particular. Maybe I just missed it all these years but the recent news is the first time I heard a bad word about the work they do. It's worrying that they're seemingly fair game now when what they do, not letting people drown, should be utterly uncontroversial.
