Compared to a lot of nations, the Britons are a relatively tolerant lot. That’s not to say that Britain has not had its share of problems with regards how it has treated minorities in the past, but we are and have been a damned sight better than some other nations on this issue (I’m looking at you the modern German’s great grandparents).

Britain’s history has been somewhat of a patchwork quilt in terms of tolerance with some periods where Britain was intolerant and riven by religious conflict of varying intensity, such as during the time of Henry VIII to Elizabeth I. But there have been other periods when Britain has been a haven for the oppressed, such as the time when Britain took in some of my wife’s family and saved them from certain death because by chance they had the right paperwork, connections and were lucky in that they got the last train out of Paris while Hitler’s forces were on their way into France.

Britain has been extremely welcoming to those who have sound reason to come here and who are willing to contribute to society, obey the law and if necessary take up arms to defend Britain. Two of my wife’s relatives came to the UK as refugees, they both, as soon as they could, joined the British military with one becoming part of the vital administration section of the army and another rising high in military intelligence during World War II. Both of these individuals and their wider families went on to good careers and contributed greatly to the life and prosperity of the United Kingdom.

But we have a problem in today’s Britain. We are being assailed by thousands upon thousands of mostly young men who come across the Channel from France and who have no perceivable desire to contribute to society, obey the law or become an asset to the nation. Too many of these illegal migrants also do not seem too enamoured of the idea of not being hostile to the UK or its population.

These thousands of invaders, and no I can’t think of a better word for them, are being dumped after their arrival in the UK by the Government on communities up and down the country, often being housed in expensive hotels. These invaders are not legitimate migrants they are chancers who are not arriving from a country that is at war, they are arriving from France, a first world European nation where there is no conflict. The cross channel invaders are choosing Britain because we are increasingly being seen as a soft touch which will hand out welfare and accommodation without too many checks and which has an asylum system that is much more lax than other countries meaning that there is a greater chance of a fake refugee being able to get away with whatever bullshit sob story they can create to tell the immigration authorities. The rise in the cross Channel invaders is also being helped by other nations such as Sweden, Denmark and Germany, realising that they were having the piss taken out of them by those who claimed to be ‘refugees’. The chancers can’t get into these countries so they try their luck with Britain.

Having tens of thousands of illegal migrants being allowed into the country and being led by a government that is patently failing to do anything about this problem is bad enough, but a recent article by Poppy Coburn in CapX magazine shows that the government’s policy of dumping these invaders onto already economically and socially suffering coastal communities, is making a bad situation almost intolerable. Places where life is already hard and which have also suffered from economic downturns exacerbated by pandemic control policies which hit the tourist trade are being devastated by having these invaders dumped upon them.

Ms Coburn said:

Across Britain’s coastal towns, the crumbling bed-and-breakfasts and boarded-up bingo halls that once accommodated working class British holidaymakers have taken on a second-life as Home Office-funded immigration processing centres. 

Pick up a local newspaper in Boston and Skegness, Clacton, Great Yarmouth or Ramsgate and you will find bleak stories of violence against Border Force staff, emergency injunctions attempting to block the Home Office from filling more hotels, weddings being cancelled in order to make space for more migrants, rape of schoolgirls by those seeking to claim asylum and new arrivals turning to prostitution. The Times has reported that locals in Dover have become so distressed by the influx of migrants that they have begun to arm themselves. Individuals have been breaking into people’s homes demanding access to phones, loitering around people’s gardens and primary schools. The situation is becoming completely untenable.

This is a crisis that has been long in the making. English seaside resorts are among the most deprived places in the country, blighted by high unemployment, poor health and riddled with crime. A lack of cash and political clout has made it extremely difficult for local residents to resist when B&Bs in their area are used to house people with nowhere else to go. There have long been reports that released offenders, including those charged with sex crimes, have been housed in B&Bs alongside vulnerable children.

Ms Coburn is correct in saying that the reports of the afflictions that have been brought to our coastal towns by the illegal immigrant invaders is most often only being reported locally. Only those murders and the most gross of sex crimes that are being committed by the invaders get to be publicised nationally. Some of this lack of reporting may be down to political bias with reporters or media outlets not wanting to be seen as ‘anti-refugee’, but lot of this lack of reporting might also be down to media entities believing that their readers might not be interested in what they might see as ‘underclass’ crime* and therefore a story that would not have broad appeal to readers.

The author is also correct when she says that this problem has been a long time in the making. The cheapness of the accommodation in some of these seaside towns, due to the economic circumstances that they find themselves in has attracted councils and central government. Both local and national government have used these seaside towns as dumping grounds for the vulnerable and the troublesome. This policy has made life more difficult for those who live in and run businesses in seaside towns as it’s made these places less attractive to the tourist market. It’s not a great selling point for a town to have running around a sizeable population of junkies, catastrophic drunks, criminals and troubled youths that have been sent, often for cost reasons, from places like London, Birmingham or Manchester. The use of seaside towns as dumping grounds for people like this depresses the economy. Because the economy of the towns are depressed they then become attractive to the national government who want somewhere, anywhere, to put the Channel invaders. This means that the residents and businesses, who were already struggling, now have to cope with an influx of people who often don’t exactly represent the best of their originating nations or societies. Some of these migrants housed in these seaside towns are even worse than merely ‘not the best’, they are criminal scum who are preying on the Britons who live in these places.

Ms Coburn also highlighted the massive disconnect between the politicians on the issue of the Channel invaders. This is something that I’ve notice as well. When you talk to ordinary people, whether in real life such as in the pub or online, even to those in areas that are not as afflicted by the Channel invaders as some of our coastal towns are, you will find increasing anger at the situation. The Government has basically done bugger all about stopping the invaders and instead has dealt with the problem by dumping the invaders on working class areas and already struggling towns. People are mightily pissed off about the Channel invader issue, even those who might once have been sympathetic to letting into the UK those who are genuinely suffering from oppression have now had enough. People seem to be getting increasingly exasperated about the way that the government is handing, or rather not handling, the Channel invader problem. From what I can gather from talking to people who are upset about this issue they want the government to deal with this problem but deal with it in such a way that doesn’t involve the government shitting on already stressed Britons and favouring the invaders.

The problem as I see it is that the political class is not listening to the ordinary British subject on this issue. The government continually dump the invaders on places that are already in dire straits and which are not coping with the levels of social problems that they have had prior to the arrival of the Channel invaders.

On the subject of the disconnect between people and politicians on the subject of the Channel invaders Ms Coburn said:

While the stereotyping of North Londoners as ‘tofu-eating wokerati’ is lazy, it’s also undoubtedly correct that high-income voters who burnish their tolerant credentials are unlikely to live in areas that experience the consequences of rapid demographic change. Polling by Onward shows that the coastal community of Boston and Skegness is most likely to say that immigration has overall undermined British society, while Islington North is most likely to say it has enriched it.  

Maybe that is because in places like Boston and Skegness immigration has not been a benefit and instead it has been an absolute bloody disaster. Ms Coburn is correct when she said that the middle class left are burnishing their tolerant credentials by virtue signalling about the so-called ‘refugees’. But it is not the ‘wokerati’ or their families who are paying the price for their virtue-signalling. Because the Channel invaders are being housed primarily in areas that they would never dream of living in or entering it has become ordinary working class areas that are bearing the brunt of the middle class Left’s decision to support open borders, no matter what the cost to Britain’s increasingly hard pressed working class communities and depressed towns.

Previously a lot of people who are rightly hostile to unfettered numbers and inappropriate types of migration have decided to vote for the Conservative Party because the Tories have for years made all the right noises about migration control and order security. The problem is that now a lot of Britons, including myself, can see these ‘right noises’ as being utterly and completely meaningless as it is under the Tories that this issue with the Channel invaders has become so concerning.

Ms Coburn added:

Allowing deprived coastal areas to turn into mini-Ellis Islands will come back to bite the Conservatives, especially if they are seen to sit on their hands in the face of widespread disorder. However, while Labour appear to be miles ahead, polling also indicates that the majority of 2019 voters wavering in support have drifted towards ‘don’t know’ rather than outright support of Sir Keir Starmer’s party. 

When it comes to migration and border security the Tories are drinking in the last chance saloon. Unless there is visible and palpable change which must in my view include the removal of illegals already here, the prevention of illegals getting to the UK and a toughening up of the asylum system to make it less likely that a fraudulent migrant is accepted as a refugee, then I think that it will kill off the phenomenon of working class Conservative Party support. Where these votes will go is anybodies guess. I certainly don’t believe that these votes will end up going to Labour as this party is even worse when it comes to border security than the Tories. We could end up with a situation where desperate people vote for whichever candidate promises to do something about the invasion, even if that candidate is themselves more than a little dodgy. However that situation where voters abandon reason and reasonableness in order to vote for an extremist is somewhat of a best case scenario. There are I’m afraid worse ones which I don’t really need to spell out to you.

The Tories have a window of opportunity to do the right thing and deal properly and effectively with the Channel invader issue and issues of illegal migration in general. What the Tories need to realise is that this could their last window opportunity available to them. Many of us who used to vote Tory are already abandoning them for various non-racist alternative parties and a combination of vote shifts like this and also people turning away from voting altogether could stop a Tory win at the next election and allow Labour to govern, or rather mis-govern over an increasingly fractious, angry and embittered United Kingdom.

*Not putting journalistic effort into stories that reporters and journalists might see will not have much interest for their readers is not a recent thing. When I worked in that game in the mid 80’s to the 90’s some reporters both male and female had a ‘rape scoreboard’ to work out whether a rape case that was being tried in a court would be of interest to their readers or whether it could be ignored. Bottom of the pile and therefore less likely to be covered would be a Black on Black rape or the rape of a prostitute. Slightly further up the scale would be a Black on White rape or a rape that was a particularly nasty stranger rape or was the work of a serial rapist. At the top of the scale and therefore one that might attract the readers of particular newspapers would be rapes where there was some celebrity connection with the alleged rapist. Reporters would flock to these cases because if there was a conviction (remember back then both alleged rapist and alleged victim had anonymity) then the celebrity aspect would almost guarantee extra newspaper sales because of the extra interest. This list was not as I saw it inherently racist but was basically down to the fact that some cases would be closer to the readers whilst others were not. The rape of a middle class woman returning from dropping their children off at school was almost certainly going to mean that the story could be sold to the Mail or the Express which would not be the case for a rape at a party where both the alleged offender and alleged victim were poor or from minorities.