Blog powered by Typepad

« "It was just one of those days ..." | Main | Gallipoli: Someone was to blame - but who? »

Saturday, 25 April 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

And to make your day - there was an unusually sympathetic piece by Michael Deacon about N***** F*****.

Can't wait . . .

David so this guy who writes for the Torygraph was the son of Queen Elizabeth the First.
I have to like him now.

You need to explain that one, Jimmy.

Mr Hodges is about the only Torygraph columnist who is worth reading except AEP, and I think qualifies as Lefty in Name Only (rather like our friend Brendan O Neill of Spiked on line).

Good man.

DAvid - I read the article. However much I utterly despise Microband, he made (by some miracle) the right call on Syria.

As Hodges points out his Libya intervention is opportunistic and cynical.

However what is the solution? and what are the chances of reaching it?

I happen to think a vast internationally managed holding camp is required in Libya to where all the refugees fished out of the sea can be returned until their legal applications for asylum can be processed.

By providing a legitimate and safe destination in Libya where they can aim for that should help also eliminate the people smugglers' supply chain, and thereby reduce much suffering.

What is clear the EU is not competent to deal with the problem o matter hiw much they may claim "competence" and the Italians can't be left holding the baby.

Such a solution will also involve hopefully the likes of Russia and China (for example as permanent members of the security council) and start providing incentives to achieve a lasting solution for Syria (which will likely innolve Bashar, so thank goodness we didn't bomb him).

I'd welcome your views.

Many years ago Glenda Jackson - memorably - played Good Queen Bess.

'Cuffers', sometimes it is best, or at least, honest, to own up and admit one's ignorance which is what I must do in regard to this refugee problem. On the face of it (I think), it is better to deal with as close to Libya, or even on Libyan soil, than anywhere else. However, the traffickers, of course, will simply shift to new base camps elsewhere. The other answer is to take the Australian line and treat them all as illegals and frighten them off even if several hundred die. We don't pay ransom to protect Brits taken hostages so this would be simply an extension of that hard-line.

Richard, thank you. Jimmy is way to canny for me sometimes!

"'Cuffers', sometimes it is best, or at least, honest, to own up and admit one's ignorance which is what I must do in regard to this refugee problem."

David? (Now I'm trying to be of help here - extremely infrequent as it might, in your case be - so don't go off please?)

Now it might well be there's some bit of 'separation by our common language' in operation but you'll have to explain it to me in reply however any "ignorance in regard to the refugee[s]" should have in any accounting what is implied by the word-term refugee.

'Over here' one thing always understood with the word 'refugee' is, it's always understood to be in the context of 'destitute' - like those run out of Syria floundering about in some Jordanian/Lebanese tent with no good prospects.

However, in the case of the Libyans "yearning to breathe free" these are people "of means" - $6500[US] for a male above age 12 to get a spot on a boat, $5000 for a female, a female accompanying kids under 12 .. the same $5000 and the kids ride free of charge.

Presumably, some documentary "proof" of age for those under 12 had to've been provided before getting on the boat.

So - what ya'll are experiencing 'Over there' is NOT in a strict sense "a refugee problem" it is rather, "an immigration outside statutory law (normal channels) problem."

For whatever motivation, your EUrocrats prefer ya'll plebs not recognize that piddling inconvenient.

I grovel, sir, I grovel at your wise words. You are, I suspect, entirely in the right but even so, pushing a mother and child back into the sea because they don't have the requisite passports is not easy! I'm not saying it shouldn't be done but it does require some thinking about.

That wasn't my intent at all David. Rather my intent was to buttress precisely what you suggested in your response to 'Cuffers' ... nothing to do with pushing the *refugees* into the drink rather;

"On the face of it (I think), it is better to deal with as close to Libya, or even on Libyan soil, than anywhere else."

We pretty much, 'Over here' did exactly that in the 1990s but it should be admitted owing to the Reagan/HW Bush buildup (the 400 ship US Navy) we had the capability.,_dry_feet_policy

Ya'll on the other hand ...

(Well I guess you're just gonna have to enjoy new neighbors.)

(From that above link - because I suspect [due to our Republicans campaigning for *new voters*] ... the content being Wiki, is subject to be changed in the very near future.

So to illustrate it wasn't just the Evil Democrats carried out "the wet-feet, dry-feet policy".)

"On January 7, 2006, the Coast Guard found 27 Cubans, including four women and two children, who had climbed onto a piling on the old Seven Mile Bridge in the Florida Keys. The old bridge had been cut off from land because it was no longer in use and the United States Coast Guard argued that since the refugees could not walk to land, their feet were still "wet". The decision to repatriate the Cubans was made by the Coast Guard's legal office in conjunction with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Coast Guard stated that the Cubans "were determined to be wet-feet and processed in accordance with standard procedure."

Coincidentally - the period comprising the Bill Clinton/GW Bush Cuban-Haitian Refugee Policy was probably the first time non-US Navy US citizens ever heard of Guantanamo Bay (US Navy callsign GTMO).

A Useful Corner of the World!

I am sure Flora Robson played QE 1. In the old days ! When I was young.

The comments to this entry are closed.