Quote Originally Posted by JamesWales View Post
It's a conclusion based on reading his posts. Equally he could explain how my definition of a decent society differs to his. I would suggest that is a more outlandish claim and one I take some offence to, although thats fine.

My argument is that because the overwhelming majority of people want a good, decent fair and compassionate asylum and immigration system, they fail to recognise that the current system is broken and needs fixing because ideologically it is awkward for them to do so, so they have to present an alternative as being evil, vile and all the rest of it. Being wedded to that line of thinking can prevent the proper identification of the problem and thus the proper solutions. In this instance, removing criminal gangs from the process is absolutely critical and some kind of stronger disincentive is probably necessary.

Our and France's inability to stop this is shameful in my opinion and you need to be able to look at all practical solutions with a calm head and consider what may and may not work and not be afraid of a different approach.
It isn't just about it 'working', taking a rocket launcher to the dinghy's half way across the channel would 'work' as a deterrent. It needs to also be a solution that we believe matches the ethos of the country we live in. I don't think the policy meets that requirement. Add that to the high financial cost, and the strong possibility that it won't reduce attempts and it is a no go for me.

The more I read the official agreement, the more it looks like the prime intention is to give the government political cover to start removing illegals without assessing their case fairly, i.e. their method of entry trumps their actual claim to asylum.