Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. cheeky French Bs -

    Think that's the point, the French and indeed the EU are not honouring the EU Dublin Treaty, which requires border States to prevent illegal entry into the Shengen Area. They've allowed these migrants to roam around their country for years, without any attempt to arrest and deport them. Those that do get through get similar soft treatment in the UK, resulting over a million in our midst. The majority are clearly economic migrants chasing a "better life"; whilst we can't blame them for trying, we can, if there was a grain of political will, ensure they fail and return to advise others not to try.
  3. cheeky French Bs -

    Saying the EU is supposed to be such an organised bloc of countries , it speaks volumes for the ineptitude of the EU that not all countries within the club are in a position to offer the same security & benefits to these economic migrants as UK plc. As we all know there is no right in law for these migrants to be constantly directed to Britain as a land of milk & honey. Central EU/UN funding should be making it possible for even the poorest most corrupt states to be able to settle "refugees". As it stands the government is allowing itself to be bullied by Macron, the Spanish over Gibraltar , changes to or abolition of the agricultural & fishing EU dictats ,& what will Germany be waiting to give us as a leaving present i wonder ? I think the government needs to seriously think about walking away from the EU without a deal.
  4. Carrillion ?

  5. cheeky French Bs -

    That's not at all what I meant and no I wouldn't be ok stepping over their dead bodies. Did you read my whole post or just that bit ? Surely even you can see that there has to be a point where the UK cannot take any more of these desperate people in and surely you have also seen the dangerous and appalling conditions they are 'living' in near the borders in the hope they can get through to get here...not to mention those who come in via other routes and risk their lives in doing so sometimes even die. What about the ones who pretty much hijack incoming lorries or sneak on to them not only risking their own lives in the way they do it but also the lives and futures of the law abiding drivers too. Like I said...something needs to be done for all involved and for the UK as a little island too...cos that's what we are...a tiny little island which everyone from afar seems to think is utopia
  6. Carrillion ?

  7. cheeky French Bs -

    If you are ok stepping over dead bodies here and there then yes, great idea.
  8. Yesterday
  9. cheeky French Bs -

    Something has to be done but whether or not this is the right approach remains to be seen. I don't quite see why we have to pay £44 million though but then again people clearly see the UK as a safe place to come and perhaps a soft touch which is why so many try to come here which in turn must causes part of the problem in Calais. Maybe as a start we (UK) might be better just cutting all social security/housing type payments etc etc and free medical care to any coming in...if there is no incentive to come then maybe not so many would want to. Having seen some of the conditions in the border camps and the peoples desperation to get themselves and their families to a place like the UK where they think they can live a safer and better life I can see why they try.....I think would try too if I was in their shoes and me and my family were living in a 'war' zone Horrid world in some places
  10. cheeky French Bs -

    they wont need to round them up and deport them if we don't pay our dues to police our border , they could just let them on the lorries and boats and their problem is solved.
  11. cheeky French Bs -

    It's only because the French haven't got the gonads to round them up and deport them; if they did, we wouldn't need that level of security in the first place. Speaks volumes for the fate of the UK (according to the Remoaners), that Brexit will turn us into a third world economy; that every migrant and his dog is heading for the UK - they seem to have more confidence in our future than they do. .
  12. cheeky French Bs -

    "An extra £44.5m is to be spent beefing up Channel border security..." It says here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42723401 I would have thought you'd consider that to be a good thing.
  13. cheeky French Bs -

    Seems M Macron has milked another £44million out of the UK Gov, to add to previous £millions being spent on security fencing and cameras, in and around Calais. Then to add insult to injury, asks that we take some of the illegal migrants dossing around France, having thrown in a sweetener that he will loan us the Bayeaux Tapestry. Whilst we may have a Parliament full of liberal bleeding hearts, isn't it time we had a Gov with some common sense ? The French have allowed illegal migrants to enter France and roam all the way to Calais, previously building camps; so why aren't they rounding up these "illegal" migrants and deporting them back to their country of origin ? Why isn't HMG doing the same with those that slip through the net into the UK ? HMG are responsible for protecting the territorial integrity of the UK, that's why we have an Army and Navy; but they've totally failed to defend our borders against this invasion for decades.
  14. Carrillion ?

    There was an article in the paper a few days ago saying they are to replace the present fleet & will only cost £4 million each !
  15. Last week
  16. Carrillion ?

    Well we've already been invaded, so I guess they're redundant.
  17. Carrillion ?

    Why does the British Army need armoured cars and troop transports? I thought it was being disbanded
  18. Carrillion ?

    Well apparently the best of the outsourcing is yet to come. A complete renewal of armoured cars & troop carriers for the British army by a German firm. How many jobs could that provide for the British workforce post Brexit ?
  19. Carrillion ?

    Listening to the Party political point scoring in Parliament, you could be forgiven for thinking that only the Tories are to blame for this mess; but the reality is it all began under Labour, with a third of such contracts issued by the Bliar/Brown regime, followed by another third under the Cameron/Clegg regime and the final third by the present Tory Gov. So instead of the pots calling the kettles, it may be preferable if they got together and came up with solutions for the future.
  20. NHS again -

    Not just farmers Dave, but the UK probably has tighter rules on antibiotics than most; they've been abused and mis-used to the point where the super-bugs are winning; which would make most infections terminal.
  21. NHS again -

    Someone gave me a downvote for saying the obvious. There's some strange people around!
  22. NHS again -

    I don't know if you watched Countryfile this week but some of the problems with antibiotics were placed at the door of farmers.It was stated that farmers are only too willing to use antibiotics on their livestock with gay abandon with little regard for the consequences. It was suggested that animal waste & urine from the fields was entering the food chain & rivers & exposing us to antibiotic overload via foodstuffs & drinking water.
  23. NHS again -

    ... and we're going to need it Latch; if we drift into a post-antibiotic era.
  24. NHS again -

    If anyone on this forum can remember pre1947 and the sickness and social deprivation that was taken as part of life then they will know that todays generations just don't know how lucky they/we are. No more Polio/Rickets/TB/Scarlet Fever and the common occurrence of Mother or Child losing their life during routine childbirth.Just to mention a few examples. My Parents lived through those days and use to tell me how heartbreaking the general conditions were. Yes The NHS can improve but just thank God we have it.
  25. NHS again -

    On the plus side, the skill and dedication of the NHS workforce appears to be generally exemplary; as shown in the BBC documentary about surgical procedures.
  26. Carrillion ?

    So basically, we're back to the issue of the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement; which Brown quoted when he off loaded Council Housing to Housing Corporations. Might mean a lot to an accountant, but very little to the now homeless, the work force or the tax-payer who picks up the tab for the adventures of these private sector cowboys. Nationalisation isn't a Socialist construct per say; during WW1 Lloyd- George basically nationalised the war effort in order to out produce the enemy in weapons of destruction - needs must etc. It seems either way, the tax-payer ultimately picks up the tab, so let's pick the option that provides a satisfactory and less precarious end result.
  27. Carrillion ?

    I am not sure it is true that they only sub-contract to smaller firms. The thing which is constant is the type of client, i.e. Government. This used to be the MO of firms like GEC who dabbled in anything that had electrical content where the end customer was a government agency, such as the military or Post Office. The attractive thing was the Cost Plus contracts which guaranteed a return. They all disappeared and so did GEC. Government started to outsource which had the effect of reducing Civil Service numbers and Pensions. The regular revenue of government service contracts and a customer which cannot go bust was irresistible. The companies like Carillion seem to either form their own subsidiaries to address the new revenue stream or form a JV if technical knowhow is needed. Cleaning, School Meals and general service work is something they can set up on their own but scale reduces costs so the government favours building up the scale in those enterprises. I suspect those JVs caused problems for Carillion since the partner can take over and remove the future value of the JV's revenue stream making administration impossible and leading straight to liquidation. Given that the point is to take the workers out of civil service type conditions the answer cannot be to nationalise them again, which is why even Corbyn said no to that. The issue with the building side is surely that the risk and the capital needed to build projects is taken off the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement until the project is complete and there is then a service revenue flow (such as a hospital) to pay back the capital from a fraction of its running costs. Given that the expertise to build these things is in the Private Sector what is to be gained by a National Building Organisation which would just sit between the Gov Dept. and the Contractors. There is a lot of work done by the big companies themselves in design, project management and financing that would have to be done by the contractors or the New Organisation and the skills are reused better by contractors in reality. The simplistic analysis above breaks down when the contractor do work in jurisdiction which are unpredictable or in currencies that are unstable relative to sterling which seems to be what happens to sterling. Then the sterling paid work has to bail out problems with the export stuff and if the ratios are wrong, it is curtains. In the past the foreign export construction jobs were indeed done by Crown Agents but they were originally in Colonies where there were suitable guarantees. For unstable areas there is insurance in the form of Export Credit Guarantees but I think they are limited and may be expensive and reduce profitability.
  28. Carrillion ?

    I think the Carrillion system is better suited to creating fat cat directors & bloated shareholders while having the advantage of being able to settle its debts on the taxpayer. Even a short time on the naughty step would be nothing for the directors considering the money they will make. Didn't we used to have the Crown Agents who ran this sort of sub contracting of government construction schemes ?
  1. Load more activity