Here is a moronically stupid and shit BBC News article about the immigrant camp at Calais.
Large numbers of would-be immigrants to the UK are hanging around Calais in shit conditions trying to stow away on UK-bound trucks, which is not easy so they end up spending a long time there. That, in a nutshell, is the entire content of the article. It goes on and on and on waffling and talking arse, but the actual information it conveys can be summed up in that one sentence.
It does plenty of whining and hand-wringing about how terrible it is that this is happening, and plenty of implying that "something must be done", but it provides no basis whatsoever for any constructive thought on what that "something" might be. Because it deliberately avoids addressing the actual important point at the root of the matter, ie. why are they doing it?
Of course there is a "standard answer" to that question which is repeated often and in innumerable variations by The Sun and The Daily Mail and UKIP and similar-minded twats, but it is not a useful answer, any more than any of the other made-up arse that those cunts come out with is.
The article does manage to get as far as saying that one bloke the reporter spoke to "reels out a list of reasons why Britain is the best place - the only place - that can provide him and his family with salvation." But it does not say what all those reasons are. This is fucking annoying, shit, and also bloody stupid. The reporter was provided with the information to write a useful and informative article, but he left it out, and just wrote a load of pointless bleeding-heart waffle when he could have used the space to write something useful.
These guys all left their home countries in the first place for basically the same reason: they all come from shit places where you can get beaten and shot for saying nasty things about the government. So far so good. But all that leads to by way of requirements for their destination is that it should be somewhere you don't get beaten and shot for saying nasty things about the government. So it doesn't explain the situation at all.
Anywhere in Western Europe would meet that requirement. Britain is not special in that regard. Nor, for that matter, in any other. All Western European countries are basically the same: secular, technology-based societies where you can more or less do what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone. Moreover, they are all part of the European Union which has all sorts of regulations that say they have to be all more or less the same and if you live in one it's not much different from living in any of the others and you can swap freely between them. And these refugee chaps come from places to the south and east of Europe, which means that they have to cross at least one and usually several perfectly decent countries that don't shoot people before they get near Britain.
But they don't regard those countries as potential destinations. Rather than trying to settle in Italy or France or any of the other non-shooty places they have to go through, they prefer to trog all the way to Calais and then spend months living in shit conditions on the off-chance that they may be able to hide on a lorry to get to somewhere which isn't practically any different from anywhere they've been through already.
Somehow or other they have picked up a bunch of weird ideas concerning Britain that make them believe it is massively different from the other countries of the EU and therefore the only viable destination. And whatever the fuck it is they think about the place, they believe it strongly enough to impel them to go through vastly more shit than they need to go through simply to achieve the aim of not being arbitrarily shot.
So the real question is: just what the bleeding fuck is it that they think about Britain? Where do they get these weird ideas from, and why do they believe them so strongly? What is it that causes them to stick so firmly to a skewed viewpoint when there is nothing to support it?
And why does the article completely not bother to address this fundamental point?
For a very simple reason: IT'S ALL BOLLOCKS.
"They all want to come here" is BULLSHIT. They DON'T. Most of them DO stop in other EU countries - Germany is a particular favourite. Only some small single-digit percentage want to come to the UK. If there is any disproportionateness in the numbers coming here, it's in the other direction - the UK gets a disproportionately SMALL number of refugees. Probably because, quite apart from geography, most of them now realise what a bunch of xenophobic cunts this fucking shitty nation is becoming.
Only the shitheads of the UKIP tendency have a large overlap with the shitheads who run the fucking bog paper factories that pass for our news media, and so the newspapers fan the xenophobia by presenting the situation as if the UK is the only refugee destination for the entire sodding world, when the TRUTH is that as refugee destinations go it is a noticeably UNpopular one.
Which is the same fucking bollocks as everything else said about the UK's relationship with the EU. We don't have a "free press". What we do have is a press which is free to be controlled by fascist cunts and shitheads like Rupert Murdoch and the Barclay brothers (owners of the Telegraph, multi-billionaire cunts who are fucking up Sark so they can become its de-facto dictators while pretending they're promoting "democracy", are they fuck.) And the BBC is a mouthpiece for the fucking Tory party as it slides further and further into fascism and becomes indistinguishable from UKIP. What the fuck is wrong with the fucking Tories that they are so scared of losing votes to a shit party that can't manage to get more than one fucking seat that they think the only way to save their skins is to emulate them, I can't imagine.
All the so-called "facts" about the EU being shit for Britain are in reality BOLLOCKS. Now that we have the internet, it is easy to look up the real facts concerning any given situation, and in every case when you look up the truth about anything touted as being EU shit, it turns out to be pure HOME-GROWN shit. Usually with nothing more behind it than the imagination of some shithead reporter, and no fucking basis in reality whatsoever. And the crap about the UK receiving all the refugees is simply another example of this made-up shite. We do NOT receive all the refugees, in fact we receive disproportionately FEW of them.
2016 seems to have quite a notoriety as being a year in which all sorts of shit things happen, and one of these shit things is the seemingly excessive number of popular and famous people dying unexpectedly. It is a shame that it is only popular and famous people. Why the fuck can't it be the geriatric fascist shitheads like Rupert Murdoch who are all dying off instead? Hurry up and fucking die, Murdoch, you evil nazi fuck.
Oh, and you know all this other bollocks in the media about how awful Jeremy Corbyn is? Yeah, he is... FOR THE MEDIA. They hate him because he is more or less unique in NOT being obsessed with licking the fascist media's arse, and they are shit-scared in case he does win an election and fuck up their ability to lie and deceive the population with their steaming stinking made-up bullshit. There, if anything, is a reason to vote for Corbyn: to put the shackles on the liars-for-profit, to make the media at least a little less fucking biased and untruthful, and to get closer to the situation where Murdoch and his cunts do not govern the country, the government do. Which is exactly why they want to put people off voting for him.
FUCK THE MEDIA. FUCK MURDOCH. FUCK PIERS MORGAN. FUCK THE BARCLAY BROTHERS. FUCK ALL THE LYING CUNTS WHO FILL THE POPULATION'S HEADS WITH BULLSHIT JUST SO THEY CAN HAVE EVEN MORE MONEY TO WANK OVER. FUCK THEM ALL UP THE ARSE WITH A ROTARY WIRE BRUSH.
Back to Pigeon's Nest
Be kind to pigeons