egafd.com

Whilst I am saddened by the loss of life I assume that once the others are healthy they will given a one way ferry ticket back to Zeebrugge?

I doubt it, they'll all claim asylum and be housed at taxpayers expense, given Benefits, free healthcare and everything else. If we're very very lucky they will just have no loyalty or care for this country, if we're not lucky they'll have absolute loathing for this place - whilst living here forever and taking vast amounts of money of course. We have to respect them, even though they either couldn't care less or actually despise us, because if we don't we're being 'racist'. Remember the Stansted high-jackers? They're all still here, being housed and kept at tax-payers expense. As The Sun newspaper said at the time "steal an airliner, win a council house".

Here we go again!

Well said Max.

1. If the roles were reversed, you would probably be an asylum seeker like all the other endless whingers who post on here.
2. You clearly have little empathy or respect for people who are worse off than you are.

Why does this even go through your mind?

My first thoughts after hearing of the deaths and conditions these people were in is: Who's responsible? Who's making the money to bringing them over here? They didn't get all this way without nobody knowing and nobody earning a fair amount of cash for it. They must pay. People go to prison for hauling livestock across continents in inhumane conditions.

Sorry Sam but whilst I am also against people smuggling the UK already has far too many people and the hard working white man and woman are now seen as second class in the PC lefty world. How do you suggest we pay for these parasites? What right have they to expect free medical treatment when NHS patients wait months? Are you OK? Good. Now fuck off back to whence you came and don't bother us again. Enoch was right.

Now you've done ranting, I'll ask again:

Why does this even go through your mind? It doesn't matter what you think about our immigration policy or strain on services. We nearly had a minor tragedy where scores humans may have died of starvation or hypothermia because they wanted a better life (given they are Sikhs living in Afghanistan I don't blame them).

Surely the important thing is their welfare and catching the people who are getting rich by shipping human cargo around the world like animals.

You've used these peoples' plight as an opportunity to rant about immigration. Tighter immigration controls will not shut down these criminal international gangs who get rich from desperate, poor families who want to start a better life for themselves in the West.

'If the roles were reversed, you would probably be an asylum seeker'

I wouldn't be an asylum seeker I would do what people across Europe used to do in times of dire-economic hardship and move, by getting official residency, in another country and work very hard there once I'd arrived to support myself and any family members I had taken with me. Huge numbers of Europeans used to emigrate to the New World as it was called then, worked hard, supported themselves and contributed. Look at Irish people, I have some Irish in my background but I view myself as totally English - they more or less built America. Brits and people from all over Europe moved to the USA, Australia and other places when things were hard in their own country and worked hard and were an asset to the place they had moved to.

I know an old guy whose parents were Russian, he and his siblings were born in London and he told me his father used to have what he calls the 'immigrant attitude' of the time - namely 'you'll never have a penny unless you earn it'. His parents did well here, just like all their kids and subsequent generations of their family. There's a difference between migrating, getting a job, paying for your property and earning your own money to feed and clothe your family, compared to just turning up, being housed at taxpapers expense and living off the State. If people just did the former now, and we had the room, people wouldn't moan about it. It's when people do the latter, and in a country that is over-crowded, that makes people whinge about it - and there are many people who are second and third generation immigrant here in Britain who whinge about such people too, not just those of the indigenous population.

I have never understood the people-smuggling thing, it costs a lot of money to pay people smugglers and it also takes forever to get here, travelling in a lorry from country to country, or in a container on a ship. Someone could get a cheap flight, it would cost less than it costs to be smuggled the way I've just described, arrive here under of the guise of a holiday-maker and once here claim asylum.

There was a rule established under, I think it was, the Dublin Convention 1990 on Asylum - that is you must claim in the first safe place you get to. This boat may just have come here so this would be the first safe country they got to, but most asylum claimants travel through many safe countries on their way here, just look at all the people hanging around the French ports, living in tent cities, hoping to get to the UK. France is one of the nicest countries you could live in, I've not heard of any French people wanting to, or trying to, escape from there for many years. Why do the people in the tent cities on the northern French coast not claim there, or in the country they passed through before it, like Germany? That is a very nice, and classed as a SAFE, country too. People are selective about where they go and that is not in-keeping with the rules laid out by that Convention.

I really am concerned about the future. We do not have the room and our services can not keep up with demand.