Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[McLaren]

First topic message reminder :

Navy

And what super has also missed is that the statues and TV shows are not really the main focus of the protests. They are easy news bites to bring up but the meat of the protesters argument is about equality for black people.

I also don't think super is correct that just because you support BLM you don't also worry about atrocities committed in other spheres of life. It is just that currently the focus is on racism towards black people.

As much as he hates America, Super would really fit into their libertarian ways.

[beninho]

Navy

Explain?

Just your apparent knee-jerk assumption that that sort of thing is, and was, always non-consensual assault.

Would the intoxicated and passed out bits not be a slight cause for alarm.?

Is this a specific example? If so, I missed the details.
Mac's post, as with so many of his, wasn't clear from what I recall. Impression I got was that it was a typical generalisation, which is too often what he does. In so doing, he doesn't get his points over well enough and too often people lose interest because he just refuses to see that there are other positions/arguments from the ones he has decided are correct.

I think the initial report did mention the lady being left passed out and naked. Now, its all just allegations, and probably won't get a definitive answer on the case. But, it doesn't sound or look great.

Unfortunately r*** stats are ridiculously low in this country with regards to convictions, cases just seem so hard to convict on. Thats a bit off topic, I accept.

[navyblueshorts]

Navy

Follow the thread, it was about the woman who was essentially gang raped on a Killers tour by a group of sound engineers. But if you fancy putting your wife or daughter up for being banged by a succession of men and then being left naked and unconscious in a dressing room, so be it.

Ah. I see. Being a fan of the 'scientific method' as you are, you'll no doubt be able to forgive me missing the initial evidence/thread/whatever. I'm sure you'll oblige me by just re-posting it.

Your second sentence is unworthy of any effort on my part to comment.

[navyblueshorts]

Navy

Explain?

Just your apparent knee-jerk assumption that that sort of thing is, and was, always non-consensual assault.

Would the intoxicated and passed out bits not be a slight cause for alarm.?

Is this a specific example? If so, I missed the details.
Mac's post, as with so many of his, wasn't clear from what I recall. Impression I got was that it was a typical generalisation, which is too often what he does. In so doing, he doesn't get his points over well enough and too often people lose interest because he just refuses to see that there are other positions/arguments from the ones he has decided are correct.

I think the initial report did mention the lady being left passed out and naked. Now, its all just allegations, and probably won't get a definitive answer on the case. But, it doesn't sound or look great.

Unfortunately r*** stats are ridiculously low in this country with regards to convictions, cases just seem so hard to convict on. Thats a bit off topic, I accept.

An interesting point, particularly use of the word 'unfortunate'. You'd rather people get banged up w/o out due consideration of their rights to a fair trial etc? I'm not trying to belittle the crime, but even men accused of it surely deserve a fair trial on the basis of evidence? A hugely difficulty, and emotive, area.

[beninho]

I think its unfortunate that a number of women or men have been rapes, but cases have not been taken to court. Obviously it can become a he said she said situation and, hard for the cps to always justify it.

I have a sister working on cold cases r*** cases, having to go back and investigate again, its hard on victims as you don't want yo get their hopes up.

[incontinentia]

I think its unfortunate that a number of women or men have been rapes, but cases have not been taken to court. Obviously it can become a he said she said situation and, hard for the cps to always justify it.

I have a sister working on cold cases r*** cases, having to go back and investigate again, its hard on victims as you don't want yo get their hopes up.

Do you have any compelling evidence of this or is your view based on anecdotes from your sister?

[beninho]

I think a working police officer is able to give a decent understanding of issues with regards to r*** cases.

But, i also think it doesn't take long to look into r*** conviction stats and read about issue with regards to this.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-50812810

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-48095118

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/r***-prosecution-england-wales-victims-court-cps-police-a8885961.html%3famp
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/law/2019/sep/12/prosecutions-in-england-and-wales-at-lowest-level-in-a-decade

Now you may also believe that, based on the figures in that article, 46,000 r*** allegations are all made up.

[McLaren]

At the moment the system favors leaving some rapes un-convicted, I could be persuaded to support a system where more r*** cases were convicted by with higher rates of collateral false imprisonment.

[navyblueshorts]

At the moment the system favors leaving some rapes un-convicted, I could be persuaded to support a system where more r*** cases were convicted by with higher rates of collateral false imprisonment.

Yeah, thought you'd take that view. Perhaps it might be fun if you (or someone close to you) were wrongfully accused? I can arrange it if you'd like? You had some 'interesting' views on jurors a while back as I recall. Perhaps best to stay out of this sort of debate?

[beninho]

I dont really think anyone wants to see people wrongly convicted of r***, but also I don't think anyone would want to see people not convicted of r***. I think from the figures, its likely that more people aren't being convicted or even charged than being wrongly convicted.

We do seem to be at record low level of convictions, so something is probably not working in the system, but I have no idea how you make it work. You also hear about women being put through it on the witness stand, which i cam imagine doesn't help.

[super_realist]

Super

Don't really understand your argument, it is better late than never for mask wearing. Especially in the context of trying to avoid the second wave being as bad as the first.

You really do your claims of being Masters educated no credibility at all if you can't follow a simple point.

It may well be better late than never, but do you now see the problem of the use of face masks giving people a false sense of security? You simply have to go to a shop to see that 2m distancing is something well in the past. Netherlands and Sweden have not been convinced by the "evidence" of the veracity of masks as a means to reduce the spread of infection, so how do you explain that?

(just to make things clear for your simpleton reasoning, I am fine with masks, I've simply observed too much stupidity from moronic British people to be convinced they aren't a potential for causing more harm than good)

Either way, it's largely irrelevant as infections are practically zero as far as most of us are concerned. None of the beach goers, BLM protests, retarded footballers, private parties etc seem to have made much difference to the rate of infection. Those are simply needless risks and should continue to be condemned so as not to normalise those sort of incidents.

[navyblueshorts]

I dont really think anyone wants to see people wrongly convicted of r***, but also I don't think anyone would want to see people not convicted of r***. I think from the figures, its likely that more people aren't being convicted or even charged than being wrongly convicted.

We do seem to be at record low level of convictions, so something is probably not working in the system, but I have no idea how you make it work. You also hear about women being put through it on the witness stand, which i cam imagine doesn't help.

I'm afraid that all of this is a result of a 'presumption of innocence' judicial system etc. I'm not suggesting an individual who knows they've been assaulted and sees someone get off either via a lack of substantive evidence or through an understandable avoidance by the victim of being put through the ringer on the witness stand feels any better for that, but that's the way it is and has to be.
Simply demanding that there's a certain %age of convictions for this sort of offence isn't the solution though.

[beninho]

Yeo, it is how it is. As I said, i would have no idea how to change anything. But, and it takes me to my initial point, its unfortunate that a considerable amount of people are being raped or sexually assaulted with the perpetrator not being convicted.

[Pal Joey]

Yeo, it is how it is. As I said, i would have no idea how to change anything. But, and it takes me to my initial point, its unfortunate that a considerable amount of people are being raped or sexually assaulted with the perpetrator not being convicted.

***

Consistency please, ben.

[JAS]

Super

Don't really understand your argument, it is better late than never for mask wearing. Especially in the context of trying to avoid the second wave being as bad as the first.

You really do your claims of being Masters educated no credibility at all if you can't follow a simple point.


It may well be better late than never

yep it is and it is hindsight but why oh why we were never guided that way much earlier is a bit mystifying

but do you now see the problem of the use of face masks giving people a false sense of security? You simply have to go to a shop to see that 2m distancing is something well in the past.

That would be the case now with or without masks  

Netherlands and Sweden have not been convinced by the "evidence" of the veracity of  masks as a means to reduce the spread of infection, so how do you explain that?

By looking instead at most countries in the Far East, Japan, South Korea etc

“I've simply observed too much stupidity from moronic British people to be convinced they aren't a potential for causing more harm than good”

sadly that IS a key point!!

Either way, it's largely irrelevant as infections are practically zero as far as most of us are concerned. None of the beach goers, BLM protests, retarded footballers, private parties etc seem to have made much difference to the rate of infection.

Actually I would say they have, the rate of new infections stopped declining and is now on the rise again

 

Those are simply needless risks and should continue to be condemned so as not to normalise those sort of incidents.

Yep, pretty much spot on

[Davie]

Actually I would say they have, the rate of new infections stopped declining and is now on the rise again

That's the rate of DETECTED cases. It seems across the UK the positive tests as a ratio of tests carried out is still falling. Unfortunately there are no data on testing numbers on a regional basis so we don't know if these surges in localised areas is because of increased testing in those areas or if they really are hotspots.

[beninho]

Yeo, it is how it is. As I said, i would have no idea how to change anything. But, and it takes me to my initial point, its unfortunate that a considerable amount of people are being raped or sexually assaulted with the perpetrator not being convicted.

***

Consistency please, ben.

??

[McLaren]

I think "r***" gets filleted out but "raped" doesn't.

How is that bens fault?

[navyblueshorts]

Super

Don't really understand your argument, it is better late than never for mask wearing. Especially in the context of trying to avoid the second wave being as bad as the first.

You really do your claims of being Masters educated no credibility at all if you can't follow a simple point.


It may well be better late than never  

yep it is and it is hindsight but why oh why we were never guided that way much earlier is a bit mystifying

Not really. There's not a lot of strong evidence overall that they're a significant factor. In any risk assessment, PPE is the last option and used when there's no other real option.

Netherlands and Sweden have not been convinced by the "evidence" of the veracity of  masks as a means to reduce the spread of infection, so how do you explain that?  

By looking instead at most countries in the Far East, Japan, South Korea etc

No conclusive proof that that's down to masks alone. Far too many other variables. Culture, obeying instruction etc etc.

Either way, it's largely irrelevant as infections are practically zero as far as most of us are concerned. None of the beach goers, BLM protests, retarded footballers, private parties etc seem to have made much difference to the rate of infection.  

Actually I would say they have, the rate of new infections stopped declining and is now on the rise again

No evidence that this is down to a few events. There's been a general relaxation of all sorts over the last month or so.

[JAS]

Super

Don't really understand your argument, it is better late than never for mask wearing. Especially in the context of trying to avoid the second wave being as bad as the first.

You really do your claims of being Masters educated no credibility at all if you can't follow a simple point.


It may well be better late than never  

yep it is and it is hindsight but why oh why we were never guided that way much earlier is a bit mystifying

Not really. There's not a lot of strong evidence overall that they're a significant factor. In any risk assessment, PPE is the last option and used when there's no other real option.

Netherlands and Sweden have not been convinced by the "evidence" of the veracity of  masks as a means to reduce the spread of infection, so how do you explain that?  

By looking instead at most countries in the Far East, Japan, South Korea etc

No conclusive proof that that's down to masks alone. Far too many other variables. Culture, obeying instruction etc etc.

Either way, it's largely irrelevant as infections are practically zero as far as most of us are concerned. None of the beach goers, BLM protests, retarded footballers, private parties etc seem to have made much difference to the rate of infection.  

Actually I would say they have, the rate of new infections stopped declining and is now on the rise again

No evidence that this is down to a few events. There's been a general relaxation of all sorts over the last month or so.

In many aspects of this we will struggle to clearly mark out conclusive proof and irrefutable evidence Navy. The scientists are only making a slightly better informed educated guess than we are. I take the point about mask wearing and the countries used as examples, yes there are cultural differences as well meaning some cultures accept instruction if they believe its for the common good whilst others bang on about the right to individual freedom, yes individual freedom to do what one wants is important but the countries which hold that value dearest are the ones with the highest body count. I take that as evidence, albeit circumstantial.

[pedro]

Actually I would say they have, the rate of new infections stopped declining and is now on the rise again

That's the rate of DETECTED cases. It seems across the UK the positive tests as a ratio of tests carried out is still falling. Unfortunately there are no data on testing numbers on a regional basis so we don't know if these surges in localised areas is because of increased testing in those areas or if they really are hotspots.

In the general discussion, there’s little focus on this. If you don’t test there’s no infection.
It could be interesting to know whether the increase in cases in some countries is a result of increased testing. But that doesn’t seem to get reported.
(# of deaths is a different story though.)

[navyblueshorts]

Actually I would say they have, the rate of new infections stopped declining and is now on the rise again

That's the rate of DETECTED cases. It seems across the UK the positive tests as a ratio of tests carried out is still falling. Unfortunately there are no data on testing numbers on a regional basis so we don't know if these surges in localised areas is because of increased testing in those areas or if they really are hotspots.

In the general discussion, there’s little focus on this. If you don’t test there’s no infection.
It could be interesting to know whether the increase in cases in some countries is a result of increased testing. But that doesn’t seem to get reported.
(# of deaths is a different story though.)

Of course there is - you just don't know who, how many, where etc.
This sort of thing is reported if one wants to know. It's on the Johns Hopkins site, for example.

From a UK perspective, one thing that's interesting is the % case fatality ratio isn't falling, and that should be lower the more testing that's done. We're still at >15% and we've done more testing than almost anyone else. Despite Trumps idiocy, the U.S. still only has a 3.3% case fatality ratio.

[JAS]

Actually I would say they have, the rate of new infections stopped declining and is now on the rise again

That's the rate of DETECTED cases. It seems across the UK the positive tests as a ratio of tests carried out is still falling. Unfortunately there are no data on testing numbers on a regional basis so we don't know if these surges in localised areas is because of increased testing in those areas or if they really are hotspots.

In the general discussion, there’s little focus on this. If you don’t test there’s no infection.
It could be interesting to know whether the increase in cases in some countries is a result of increased testing. But that doesn’t seem to get reported.
(# of deaths is a different story though.)

Of course there is - you just don't know who, how many, where etc.
This sort of thing is reported if one wants to know. It's on the Johns Hopkins site, for example.

From a UK perspective, one thing that's interesting is the % case fatality ratio isn't falling, and that should be lower the more testing that's done. We're still at >15% and we've done more testing than almost anyone else. Despite Trumps idiocy, the U.S. still only has a 3.3% case fatality ratio.

There's a lot to question in terms of consistency of recording. There's quite a few figures I don't believe and for different reasons e.g. I think the likes of South Africa & India are colossally underreported, not because of any deliberate attempt to mislead but because they simply haven't got the infrastructure to a) test b) report & c) treat in any great numbers relative to population. I think the Russians are just plain lying out of a need for a superiority complex, the Chinese, i suspect are lying too. Even closer to home there are holes in Krankie's narrative. They look like they're doing ever so well now after a shocking start i.e. less than a handful of deaths in the past month and to a large part they have been doing well but....if you read the small print in the stats the deaths they're recording are deaths reported within 28 days of a positive test...so if somebody dies 29 days after a test that doesn't count? How many would fail into that category? Remains to be seen how well they handle the Aberdeen outbreak.

It does surprise me about the fatality ratio, I would have thought that would be one figure that would improve for several reasons e.g. better knowledge base meaning better more efficient treatments, lower rates of infection meaning hospitals are less stressed/pressured, more care taken by the susceptible groups to not get infected as it becomes statistically obvious who is more vulnerable, less care taken by the young and fit as statistically the odds are that they'll shake it off. All of that combined should lead to a lower fatality ratio surely? If that's not the case then that's quite the conundrum for the scientists.

[super_realist]

Krankie only also counts people who die following a positive test. If you die without a test you simply aren't counted.
There's also the benefit of being a smaller country means that it's easier to slow down the rate of infection compared to a larger one with a more densely populated country like England.
Her record on deaths in general though, especially care home deaths has been deplorable.

I too am very suspicious about China, however do you remember right at the beginning of this we were constantly being updated by expats in the country?
If it was still really bad there or thousands more had died than claimed wouldn't we have heard about it from all the non Chinese residents that live over there and previously reported on the initial outbreak?

[beninho]

Rangers out of Europe in August what a surprise.

[super_realist]

Rangers out of Europe in August what a surprise.

Such a nasty club. Horrible.

[beninho]

They are no Cowdenbeath thats for sure. Up the Blue Brazils*

*for mo other reason than my stint as Cowdenbeath manager on football manager 2020 after lockdown brought it back into my life. Still a great game!

[McLaren]

They are no Cowdenbeath thats for sure. Up the Blue Brazils*

*for mo other reason than my stint as Cowdenbeath manager on football manager 2020 after lockdown brought it back into my life. Still a great game!

Ben

I had to stop playing FM (and CM) because it became like an addiction for me. A lost a whole study leave period in high school to CM 00/01. That game is like heroin. After getting addicted again in my first year of uni I decided never to touch it again.


I would always start my career in Japan for some reason and I would pretty much never take the job at the team I supported in real life (man utd), that just felt weird.

[super_realist]

Mac, you can download CM 00/01 it for free now and you can also have it with players from 2020, but I'd prefer to stick with the original players like Andri Sigporsson, Kennedy Bakircioglu, Daniel Andersson and the two Zlatans

[McLaren]

Super

I just can't take the risk of playing that game again. If nothing else I would end up playing very little golf.


Speaking of which how much golf are you getting in at the moment? With not much else to do the group I tend to play with are getting in more rounds than ever.

[super_realist]

Super

I just can't take the risk of playing that game again. If nothing else I would end up playing very little golf.


Speaking of which how much golf are you getting in at the moment? With not much else to do the group I tend to play with are getting in more rounds than ever.

I played 3 rounds last weekend whilst I often have a midweek evening round too.
Got three/four rounds this weekend too. Very good opportunity to get to Scratch this weekend.

[McLaren]

Super

I have had a few level par rounds this year, two in comps but to get to scratch I think I would need a number of under par rounds. Css often - 1 and occasionally - 2 where I play. I just can't imagine getting to that level.

Cumulatively getting from 3 or 4 down to scratch is a lot of gross under par. And currently I shoot under par gross once a season if I am lucky.

Did you have a time where you noticed you reached a new level?

[incontinentia]

The part of Ireland I live in has just been put into lockdown again for another 2 weeks

[super_realist]

Super

I have had a few level par rounds this year, two in comps but to get to scratch I think I would need a number of under par rounds. Css often - 1 and occasionally - 2 where I play. I just can't imagine getting to that level.

Cumulatively getting from 3 or 4 down to scratch is a lot of gross under par. And currently I shoot under par gross once a season if I am lucky.

Did you have a time where you noticed you reached a new level?

My lessons have taken me to a different level of consistency Mac, so I'd say the last 18 months have seen me gradually get lower.
Probably the most important thing has been getting a reliable draw back, this has meant an increase in GIR and so I'm getting fewer holes where I'm having to rely on a strong short game to save par and instead have more birdie opportunities.

What I would say is that compared to when I was off 2 or 3 I'm much more confident of where my ball is going whilst my bad shots are less destructive than before.

If I look back I cans ee a lot more rounds in the 60's compared to a couple of years ago.

[McLaren]

What I would say is that compared to when I was off 2 or 3 I'm much more confident of where my ball is going

I think this is the key. Even when I am playing well I am hoping to find the fairway or the middle of the green, rather than having the confidence to land the ball in more specific positions.

Obviously if I have a wedge in then I will be able to pick a spot but even with short irons I am happy with a GIR rather than playing to sections of the green.

[McLaren]

And also, distance control is hard at my level. Too much reliance on quality of strike which obviously has a bit of variation.

[super_realist]

What I would say is that compared to when I was off 2 or 3 I'm much more confident of where my ball is going

I think this is the key. Even when I am playing well I am hoping to find the fairway or the middle of the green, rather than having the confidence to land the ball in more specific positions.

Obviously if I have a wedge in then I will be able to pick a spot but even with short irons I am happy with a GIR rather than playing to sections of the green.

GIR is key for me. I was only hitting 10/11 before (not including TOC in these stats because it's too easy to hit a green). I'm either hitting more now or barely missing leaving an easy chip.

[beninho]

Is ot a coincidence that the people who generally claimed #alllivesmatter matter when arguing against #blacklivesmatter are now getting riled up by immigrants trying to cross the channel.

Not really #alllivesmatter believers are they?

[super_realist]

Is ot a coincidence that the people who generally claimed #alllivesmatter matter when arguing against #blacklivesmatter are now getting riled up by immigrants trying to cross the channel.

Not really #alllivesmatter believers are they?

How do you know they are the same people?

[beninho]

Is ot a coincidence that the people who generally claimed #alllivesmatter matter when arguing against #blacklivesmatter are now getting riled up by immigrants trying to cross the channel.

Not really #alllivesmatter believers are they?

How do you know they are the same people?

Because its generally on social media you can see what they say.

[super_realist]

[quote="beninho"][quote="super_realist"]

Is ot a coincidence that the people who generally claimed #alllivesmatter matter when arguing against #blacklivesmatter are now getting riled up by immigrants trying to cross the channel.

Not really #alllivesmatter believers are they?

Have you got any evidence they are the same people though. Have you actually seen people say "All lives matter" and complaining about the migrants?  You must be some sort of anorak if you've been recording the names or handles of people doing this.

Anyway, Haven't people got a point about people crossing the channel? You are supposed to seek asylum (if you are genuine) in the first EU country you reach, not travel through Europe to the destination of your choice.

[beninho]

YOu can claim asylum in any country of your choice. But if you have registered an asylum claim in any country you cannot claim in another country. Though this should be registered. Just being in a country isn't necessarily a claim for asylum.

[super_realist]

YOu can claim asylum in any country of your choice. But if you have registered an asylum claim in any country you cannot claim in another country.  Though this should be registered.  Just being in a country isn't necessarily a claim for asylum.

How many are genuine asylum seekers and not just illegal immigrants? If you're a genuine asylum seeker you don't need to sail across the Channel in a dinghy. You can't possibly think these people are handing themselves over to the authorities on arrival and won't just end up in the hands of gang masters and in modern slavery.
Why would anyone want to come to this sh1thole when you could go to Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark etc?

[beninho]

If you want to claim asylum in the uk, how else will they get here, for a lot its there only option.

Why cone here, maybe they speak English, they may have family or friends here, they may just prefer to cone to the uk, they may follow an English football team, they probably don't realise that part of the population really hate asylum seekers.

I would probably also say, that most asylum seekers are not as well travelled as yourself, so not able to make the same decisions on what countries may be nicer.

[super_realist]

If you want to claim asylum in the uk, how else will they get here, for a lot its there only option.

Why cone here, maybe they speak English, they may have family or friends here, they may just prefer to cone to the uk, they may follow an English football team, they probably don't realise that part of the population really hate asylum seekers.

I would probably also say, that most asylum seekers are not as well travelled as yourself, so not able to make the same decisions on what countries may be nicer.

Eh, how about genuinely seeking asylum through the proper channels (no pun intended).

"They may follow an English football team" WTF? What has that got to do with where you illegally migrate to?  What a truly pathetic argument.
If you've come through the Mediterranean all the way to Britain you've come through a lot of countries, so why not just claim asylum there?

People don't hate asylum seekers. They just don't want to see people enter the country illegally and given indefinite leave to remain. I'd quite like to live in Australia for a while but guess what would happen if I tried sailing a boat there

[Soul Requiem]

The only option for some is to travel through Germany and France and then get on a dinghy and get across the channel?

[super_realist]

Also, is paying 5k to a trafficker to float you over the channel in a diridgible not a bit suspicious when you can seek asylum genuinely for free?

[beninho]

The only option for some is to travel through Germany and France and then get on a dinghy and get across the channel?

I'm sure we pick up asylum seekers through other means, but I'm not sure what other means soneone would get to the uk if they wanted to come here.

[beninho]

If you want to claim asylum in the uk, how else will they get here, for a lot its there only option.

Why cone here, maybe they speak English, they may have family or friends here, they may just prefer to cone to the uk, they may follow an English football team, they probably don't realise that part of the population really hate asylum seekers.

I would probably also say, that most asylum seekers are not as well travelled as yourself, so not able to make the same decisions on what countries may be nicer.

Eh, how about genuinely seeking asylum through the proper channels (no pun intended).

"They may follow an English football team" WTF? What has that got to do with where you illegally migrate to?  What a truly pathetic argument.
If you've come through the Mediterranean all the way to Britain you've come through a lot of countries, so why not just claim asylum there?

People don't hate asylum seekers. They just don't want to see people enter the country illegally and given indefinite leave to remain. I'd quite like to live in Australia for a while but guess what would happen if I tried sailing a boat there

Its not an argument. Just thinking of reasons why someone woukd want to come to the uk. They can choose where they want to claim asylum, no one has to claim it anywhere else in Europe.

You'd quite like to live in Australia, sone people would quite like to live in England. Though while I'm aware some parts of Scotland are pretty grim, you cant claim asylum in Australia. Thougj good to see you comparing yourself with people fleeing war torn countries.

[Soul Requiem]

The only option for some is to travel through Germany and France and then get on a dinghy and get across the channel?

I'm sure we pick up asylum seekers through other means, but I'm not sure what other means soneone would get to the uk if they wanted to come here.

That isn't the question is it, if you're travelling through France and Germany you do not to reach the UK.

[beninho]

The only option for some is to travel through Germany and France and then get on a dinghy and get across the channel?

I'm sure we pick up asylum seekers through other means, but I'm not sure what other means soneone would get to the uk if they wanted to come here.

That isn't the question is it, if you're travelling through France and Germany you do not to reach the UK.

You seemed to have missed a word out so unsure on your point. It seems, your saying if travelling through France or Germany then they don't need to come to the uk? Though, as mentioned earlier they can claim asylum where they wish, so if they want to cone to the uk, and think they can get here, they can do so. Assuming they haven't made an adylum claim elsewhere.

[Sponsored content]