What is it with peoples ability to read things properly? Do you understand what a sentence is and why chopping it up like you've done would be considered quoting something out of context? Or is it when i said "and no different than dumping a ferry full of people on "the other side" en masse at Le Havre or any other port" that because that didn't fit the car narrative thing you've just plucked out of your backside you thought you'd chop that part off.
Yes, I do understand a sentence. That's why when you made a point about how the logistics of the Dover/Calais ferry was no different to those of an plane at an airport, and attempted to back that up by referring to 'Le Harve or any other port", I broke it down to address (A) why the logistics of planes carrying people is not necessarily the same as ferries carrying vehicles and therefore (B) that comparison with the other named example you citied might not be consistent. I chopped it up precisely because I was trying to address your point more clearly. I wasn't at all intending to take you out of context or misrepresent you
If I've misread your point, then I'll gladly retract, but I'm failing to see where you think I've gone so wildly wrong with my comprehension, so just humour me for a moment:
1. danlightbulb suggests the juxtaposed border arrangement is nonsense, and that the border should be on the French side and dealt with there.
2. Bug One made the point that doing so could cause logistical problems, because rather than cars/lorries driving off the lorry and dispersing, they would instead have to queue through border control. And delays there could meant cars/lorries unable to disembark from incoming ferries due to lack of space.
3. You say it's no different from an airport where planes queue to disembark passengers as a way of claiming that is an absurd point.
4. I've pointed out that I don't think that's necessarily comparable because of the physical differences between dumping a plane full of passengers and a ferry full of vehicles. I don't think there's any situation where a queue at border control in an airport would be so bad that it would stretch back to the gate and prevent people disembarking from the plane. Therefore I don't think Bug One's point is absurd enough to warrant mockery.
Is that not a summary of the discussion so far or the point you were making? If not, then please just humour me and point out where I've gone wrong.
I was genuinely trying to engage you in the conversation because I found the logistics of topic quite interesting, not belittle or misrepresent you, so I'd appreciate it if you could reciprocate by not making snide accusations that I can't read.
Man alive the level of peoples reading skills in GD is awful, what part of "every other border crossing in the entire world" was it that you didn't understand? frequency, travel time, and any other guff doesn't apply because there's examples all around the world of crossings being more frequent, travel time being less, cars & lorries & even trains crossing border. Seriously it's not rocket science, why people think just because it's the Dover Calais border crossing that it's somehow special is dumb.
Can you give me some examples then? I am honestly struggling to think of any crossings where high capacity vehicle ferries are turning up with such high frequency across a narrow and busy shipping lane, and then disembarking large numbers of vehicles into a relatively small area for border control processing, which might cause a backlog long enough to prevent said ferry from operating. This is not a "gotcha", I did read "
every other border crossing in the entire world" but I genuinely couldn't think of any examples which would highlight the issue Bug One alluded to, so Dover-Calais struck me as fairly unique in that regard.
That's why I quoted your section about Le Harve separately. If there's only one ferry operating per day, then there's very little risk of delays with a traditional border set-up. Even if 200 cars came off the ferry and had to sit at border control on the dock for hours on end, there's not another ferry of a similar amount of vehicles arriving within the hour behind them to be held up.
If French/English border officials didn't have to travel across the border to do their job they'd have to do it in their own country and if they screwed that up then the repercussions for that would be on them not on the country that they travelled to, juxtaposed controls was a dumb idea when it was signed in 1991/93 and it's an even dumber idea now we've left the EU.
But the repercussions would still be on us, wouldn't they? If the border control is in France, and there's a delay, and as outlined above, it causes so many issues that incoming ferries cant disembark, they are going to have to start queuing up in the Channel. Or stop embarking at Dover...which would lead to the exact same vehicle queues we are seeing anyway, but with the addition of the ferries not being able to sail. Which can have added cost and safety implications.
I should note, I'm not trying to make a defence of juxtaposed borders. I am just pointing that I can see the point Bug One was making about how, logistically, they can make more sense, because it keeps the ferries themselves sailing.
www.houseofnames.com
www.kentonline.co.uk
