NPR

If the military sends extra boats (probably its OPVs) to the channel then they will be constrained by the same maratime conventions as the RNLI or BF.

Other than that the P9's could probably do a decent job identifying the boats leaving France but there are only 9 and they are based in Scotland (and have far more important jobs to do tracking the Russian Northern fleet).

tc27 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:51 pm If the military sends extra boats (probably its OPVs) to the channel then they will be constrained by the same maratime conventions as the RNLI or BF.

Other than that the P9's could probably do a decent job identifying the boats leaving France but there are only 9 and they are based in Scotland (and have far more important jobs to do tracking the Russian Northern fleet).

Will the Daily Mail call out the Navy as the Enemy of the People and demand the Army take their tanks into the channel?

JM - yes I want to fuck the P9s.

tc27 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:59 pm JM - yes I want to fuck the P9s.

Rule One

(of the boats, not you in action)

They're my go to, if my non-woke opinions are not being heard/enforced

tc27 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:51 pm If the military sends extra boats (probably its OPVs) to the channel then they will be constrained by the same maratime conventions as the RNLI or BF.

Other than that the P9's could probably do a decent job identifying the boats leaving France but there are only 9 and they are based in Scotland (and have far more important jobs to do tracking the Russian Northern fleet).

Would it really be that difficult to patrol the coast with boats, drones, helicopters and find these boats before they get going? I know it's a long bit of coast but there can only be relatively short parts that they can launch from. There must be a way to hammer the cunts that are organising all this around the coasts.

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:41 pm

Would it really be that difficult to patrol the coast with boats, drones, helicopters and find these boats before they get going? I know it's a long bit of coast but there can only be relatively short parts that they can launch from. There must be a way to hammer the cunts that are organising all this around the coasts.

They're difficult to spot because they hide in the dunes and can put to sea at a moment's notice. The boats can be launched from pretty much anywhere because they can operate at pretty much any draught, sot it's just a question of pushing them out. Once they're in the water they're much harder to stop of course, because they float all over the shop.

The grown up solution to the problem both here and in the Med would be for European States including Britain to reach an agreement on processing so that legitimate asylum claimants could be allowed in, whilst those without a legitimate claim could be returned to their hoe countries. Unfortunately none of the Northern European plates want to act like grown ups on this, and are happy to send people back to war zones in the full knowledge that the people they're sending back are likely to face severe consequences. Britain and Denmark in particular are absolute bastards for this.

Brazil wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:59 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:41 pm

Would it really be that difficult to patrol the coast with boats, drones, helicopters and find these boats before they get going? I know it's a long bit of coast but there can only be relatively short parts that they can launch from. There must be a way to hammer the cunts that are organising all this around the coasts.

They're difficult to spot because they hide in the dunes and can put to sea at a moment's notice. The boats can be launched from pretty much anywhere because they can operate at pretty much any draught, sot it's just a question of pushing them out. Once they're in the water they're much harder to stop of course, because they float all over the shop.

The grown up solution to the problem both here and in the Med would be for European States including Britain to reach an agreement on processing so that legitimate asylum claimants could be allowed in, whilst those without a legitimate claim could be returned to their hoe countries. Unfortunately none of the Northern European plates want to act like grown ups on this, and are happy to send people back to war zones in the full knowledge that the people they're sending back are likely to face severe consequences. Britain and Denmark in particular are absolute bastards for this.

I know you are probably right. I guess it's a bit of an emotional wish list as I'd love these trafficking cunts to be caught and treated very averagely, and it seems to me there must be a fair bit more we could do to achieve some of that.

On your 2nd point, completely agree. Can't believe we are seriously considering flying everyone to Rwanda, along with a hefty bribe, when surely it would be so much easier and less expensive to achieve a more efficient and more humane process in Europe.

Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:54 pm

tc27 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:51 pm If the military sends extra boats (probably its OPVs) to the channel then they will be constrained by the same maratime conventions as the RNLI or BF.

Other than that the P9's could probably do a decent job identifying the boats leaving France but there are only 9 and they are based in Scotland (and have far more important jobs to do tracking the Russian Northern fleet).

Will the Daily Mail call out the Navy as the Enemy of the People and demand the Army take their tanks into the channel?

Whilst in no way wishing for a potential tragedy, the reaction of the Fail and other hardliners to a rescue by RN vessels and crew in our waters meaning the survivors had to be brought onshore here in the UK would certainly be "revealing".

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:41 pm There must be a way to hammer the cunts that are organising all this around the coasts.

Why would the Tories do that? The issue provides a continuously useful deflection from all the other ills emanating from no10 whilst allowing them to crow "told you so" on May's Go Back "Home" policy.

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:04 pm

Brazil wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:59 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:41 pm

Would it really be that difficult to patrol the coast with boats, drones, helicopters and find these boats before they get going? I know it's a long bit of coast but there can only be relatively short parts that they can launch from. There must be a way to hammer the cunts that are organising all this around the coasts.

They're difficult to spot because they hide in the dunes and can put to sea at a moment's notice. The boats can be launched from pretty much anywhere because they can operate at pretty much any draught, sot it's just a question of pushing them out. Once they're in the water they're much harder to stop of course, because they float all over the shop.

The grown up solution to the problem both here and in the Med would be for European States including Britain to reach an agreement on processing so that legitimate asylum claimants could be allowed in, whilst those without a legitimate claim could be returned to their hoe countries. Unfortunately none of the Northern European plates want to act like grown ups on this, and are happy to send people back to war zones in the full knowledge that the people they're sending back are likely to face severe consequences. Britain and Denmark in particular are absolute bastards for this.

I know you are probably right. I guess it's a bit of an emotional wish list as I'd love these trafficking cunts to be caught and treated very averagely, and it seems to me there must be a fair bit more we could do to achieve some of that.

On your 2nd point, completely agree. Can't believe we are seriously considering flying everyone to Rwanda, along with a hefty bribe, when surely it would be so much easier and less expensive to achieve a more efficient and more humane process in Europe.

I think both solutions require huge cooperation and investment from governments across Northern Europe. And we just don't have that type of statescraft anywhere anymore.

tabascoboy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:09 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:54 pm

tc27 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:51 pm If the military sends extra boats (probably its OPVs) to the channel then they will be constrained by the same maratime conventions as the RNLI or BF.

Other than that the P9's could probably do a decent job identifying the boats leaving France but there are only 9 and they are based in Scotland (and have far more important jobs to do tracking the Russian Northern fleet).

Will the Daily Mail call out the Navy as the Enemy of the People and demand the Army take their tanks into the channel?

Whilst in no way wishing for a potential tragedy, the reaction of the Fail and other hardliners to a rescue by RN vessels and crew in our waters meaning the survivors had to be brought onshore here in the UK would certainly be "revealing".

They would leave well alone. Just like they leave the modern policies that the military have that would probably fall under being woke.

She is a piece of work

Sounds more like a suggestion that there's going to be an election beforehand to me.

Another helpful tweet from Dom!!!

SaintK wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:01 pm Another helpful tweet from Dom!!!

Hell hath no fury like a spad scorned.

PCPhil wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:34 pm

SaintK wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:01 pm Another helpful tweet from Dom!!!

Hell hath no fury like a spad scorned.

You’d almost expect the police to take an interest in that.

I think that like the Americans before us the UK will start to understand how our political systems are built upon supposed rules of decorum, honour and self sacrifice for the country. And when a character comes along with no honour and only wishing for personal gratifications there are no checks & balances in place.

Of all the bizarre Tory policies, spending taxpayer money on an advertising campaign against privacy seems particularly fucking weird

https://amp.hothardware.com/news/uk-gov ... encryption

sturginho wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 7:03 pm Of all the bizarre Tory policies, spending taxpayer money on an advertising campaign against privacy seems particularly fucking weird

https://amp.hothardware.com/news/uk-gov ... encryption

Not really; the UK has a long history of using GCHQ for Political, & Economic espionage; & privacy, is something else that only the, wealthy, & Elites, are entitled to. They're already making peaceful protest illegal; now they're laying the ground work for removing an right to free speech.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:23 pm

sturginho wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 7:03 pm Of all the bizarre Tory policies, spending taxpayer money on an advertising campaign against privacy seems particularly fucking weird

https://amp.hothardware.com/news/uk-gov ... encryption

Not really; the UK has a long history of using GCHQ for Political, & Economic espionage; & privacy, is something else that only the, wealthy, & Elites, are entitled to. They're already making peaceful protest illegal; now they're laying the ground work for removing an right to free speech.

I understand why, what confuses me is what makes them think that an expensive ad campaign to convince me that my privacy is a bad thing was a good idea, especially given increasing awareness around online privacy

sturginho wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:11 pm

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:23 pm

sturginho wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 7:03 pm Of all the bizarre Tory policies, spending taxpayer money on an advertising campaign against privacy seems particularly fucking weird

https://amp.hothardware.com/news/uk-gov ... encryption

Not really; the UK has a long history of using GCHQ for Political, & Economic espionage; & privacy, is something else that only the, wealthy, & Elites, are entitled to. They're already making peaceful protest illegal; now they're laying the ground work for removing an right to free speech.

I understand why, what confuses me is what makes them think that an expensive ad campaign to convince me that my privacy is a bad thing was a good idea, especially given increasing awareness around online privacy

God only knows. Some conman has probably convinced Priti Vacant, that the UK can have it's own version of the Great Firewall of China; and can block dissenting messages.

Thinking about it; is the attack on the Beeb; not another massively stupid measure ?

Not speaking from just how idiotic it is, an act of cultural vandalism, & destruction of soft power; & an engine for an entire industry; but from the POV, of how it will blow back against the Tories !

If you kick a dog often enough; & then starve it; & back it into a corner, one more time; & pick up a stick ....
how do you see that ending well ?

If the Journos in the Beeb see themselves getting thrown out on the street, & the whole organization getting reduced to churning out , "... with the Stars", dross, & castrated News programs; do these morons think they'll just sit there, & accept it ?

... or will they make it their mission for their remaining time; to destroy as much of the Tory Party as possible ?

The same cabbages will trot out arguments whenever Republicans question why the Royal Family gets so much money; but completely ignore the fact; that any defense; or justification for why the Royals pay their way; equally applies to BBC.

The soft power the BBC gives the UK is immeasurable.

PCPhil wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:51 pm I think that like the Americans before us the UK will start to understand how our political systems are built upon supposed rules of decorum, honour and self sacrifice for the country. And when a character comes along with no honour and only wishing for personal gratifications there are no checks & balances in place.

Surely lying to Parliament is a crime?

If it's not, it bloody well should be.

A fundamental principle of a Parliamentary democracy is oversight, which requires transparency.

If deception is legal, democracy is hamstrung.

Rinkals wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:38 am

PCPhil wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:51 pm I think that like the Americans before us the UK will start to understand how our political systems are built upon supposed rules of decorum, honour and self sacrifice for the country. And when a character comes along with no honour and only wishing for personal gratifications there are no checks & balances in place.

Surely lying to Parliament is a crime?

If it's not, it bloody well should be.

A fundamental principle of a Parliamentary democracy is oversight, which requires transparency.

If deception is legal, democracy is hamstrung.

No, once again it relies on the individual to have enough integrity to resign

sturginho wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:24 am

Rinkals wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:38 am

PCPhil wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:51 pm I think that like the Americans before us the UK will start to understand how our political systems are built upon supposed rules of decorum, honour and self sacrifice for the country. And when a character comes along with no honour and only wishing for personal gratifications there are no checks & balances in place.

Surely lying to Parliament is a crime?

If it's not, it bloody well should be.

A fundamental principle of a Parliamentary democracy is oversight, which requires transparency.

If deception is legal, democracy is hamstrung.

No, once again it relies on the individual to have enough integrity to resign

And a speaker stiffer than a limp lettuce leaf

Maybe the Tories going to start bankrolling this lot instead...

GB News to play God Save the Queen every day ‘Celebrating what’s good about our country’

tabascoboy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:53 am Maybe the Tories going to start bankrolling this lot instead...

GB News to play God Save the Queen every day ‘Celebrating what’s good about our country’

Isn't that at 5.59am or something??

Happyhooker wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:12 am

tabascoboy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:53 am Maybe the Tories going to start bankrolling this lot instead...

GB News to play God Save the Queen every day ‘Celebrating what’s good about our country’

Isn't that at 5.59am or something??

Apart from Nigel Farage singing along whilst wanking into a Union Jack sock will anyone else be watching at that time, at any time?

GogLais wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:43 pm

PCPhil wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:34 pm

SaintK wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:01 pm Another helpful tweet from Dom!!!

Hell hath no fury like a spad scorned.

You’d almost expect the police to take an interest in that.

They need a reliable witness.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:23 pm

sturginho wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 7:03 pm Of all the bizarre Tory policies, spending taxpayer money on an advertising campaign against privacy seems particularly fucking weird

https://amp.hothardware.com/news/uk-gov ... encryption

Not really; the UK has a long history of using GCHQ for Political, & Economic espionage; & privacy, is something else that only the, wealthy, & Elites, are entitled to. They're already making peaceful protest illegal; now they're laying the ground work for removing an right to free speech.

Paying a family equally as bent as the Maxwells to do it.

Blackmac wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:28 am

GogLais wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:43 pm

PCPhil wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:34 pm

Hell hath no fury like a spad scorned.

You’d almost expect the police to take an interest in that.

They need a reliable witness.

there are questions about his eyesight

A sorry state of affairs when we have to rely on an unelected upper chamber to keep an increasingly authoritarian government in check

And that's with Johnson stuffing his cronies into the peerages.

Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:58 pm And that's with Johnson stuffing his cronies into the peerages.

They probably don’t bother turning up.

GogLais wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 1:00 pm

Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:58 pm And that's with Johnson stuffing his cronies into the peerages.

They probably don’t bother turning up.

No booze, music and nibbles in the chamber?

tabascoboy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 1:19 pm

GogLais wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 1:00 pm

Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:58 pm And that's with Johnson stuffing his cronies into the peerages.

They probably don’t bother turning up.

No booze, music and nibbles in the chamber?

I'm sure there's a sufficiency of two out of the three.

It suits the principle contenders to have Scummings be one who takes down the Bumblecunt.

They all know that the one who knocks him off; won't be elected by the Party; but they were all happy to solemnly confirm that if ... .. he lied to the House; that would be a resigning matter.

And now he is claiming no one told him the party in the garden at number 10 was against the rules, those very rules that his own government had given out to everyone that he had signed off himself