FabSwingers.com mobile

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Crossing the channel issue..

Jump to newest
 

By *ensual-dominant-passion OP   Man
over a year ago

sheffield

Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it..

The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually..

My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod

over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset


"

My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. "

Nope. It certainly isn't.

The main issue is that much of 'Joe Public' can't recognise the difference between an economic migrant and an asylum seeker. And because the access points to the UK are pretty much the same for both these days they're all thrown into the same bucket as 'illegals'. It's not, and never has been illegal to seek asylum. Economic migration isn't illegal either but there is a due process that many are now trying to avoid by claiming to be asylum seekers.

If you look at other countries many have put in place much better processes for applying for asylum and identifying those that are trying to sneak in when there's no genuine reason for them to need protection and safe haven.

Look at the claimed numbers of Albanians attempting to seek asylum, when there's no just cause. The UK has its obligations to meet, just like other nations. Claims that we take more are pure bullshit. Claims that we throw money at them and make it too attractive to head to the UK are equally false.

If someone has made it as far to the UK from places such as Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and many African countries that are all war zones then they need to be viewed differently to someone attempting to enter from Eastern Europe. We helped cause much of the devastation in those countries. We should help those made homeless, jobless and who have lost family members.

As for shipping them to Rwanda? A cruel diversionary tactic by the government to appease a vocal minority, rather than any form of sensible solution and another huge money making scheme for someone linked to the Tories.

A

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ensual-dominant-passion OP   Man
over a year ago

sheffield


"

My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy..

Nope. It certainly isn't.

The main issue is that much of 'Joe Public' can't recognise the difference between an economic migrant and an asylum seeker. And because the access points to the UK are pretty much the same for both these days they're all thrown into the same bucket as 'illegals'. It's not, and never has been illegal to seek asylum. Economic migration isn't illegal either but there is a due process that many are now trying to avoid by claiming to be asylum seekers.

If you look at other countries many have put in place much better processes for applying for asylum and identifying those that are trying to sneak in when there's no genuine reason for them to need protection and safe haven.

Look at the claimed numbers of Albanians attempting to seek asylum, when there's no just cause. The UK has its obligations to meet, just like other nations. Claims that we take more are pure bullshit. Claims that we throw money at them and make it too attractive to head to the UK are equally false.

If someone has made it as far to the UK from places such as Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and many African countries that are all war zones then they need to be viewed differently to someone attempting to enter from Eastern Europe. We helped cause much of the devastation in those countries. We should help those made homeless, jobless and who have lost family members.

As for shipping them to Rwanda? A cruel diversionary tactic by the government to appease a vocal minority, rather than any form of sensible solution and another huge money making scheme for someone linked to the Tories.

A"

spot on

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it..

The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually..

My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. "

yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urchoicenowCouple
over a year ago

Ashford

If they're illegal immigrants, then by definition they are committing an illegal act, so I don't get why, if they are breakers of our law, then the asylum process is passed.

It's over simplifying it as the current system we have is not fit for purpose and I understand that some are fleeing wars and persecution, but if you're wanting to move to a country to better your family life, it's not great to start by doing so illegally

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andyfloss2000Woman
over a year ago

ashford

It's horrendous! Happening daily just down the road! So so cold in that sea! Cannot imagine how they must feel! Rip those 4 people x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andyfloss2000Woman
over a year ago

ashford


"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it..

The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually..

My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy "

Sent back where? to drown in the sea????

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it..

The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually..

My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy

Sent back where? to drown in the sea????"

that's there choice but personally I'd be happy to send them back to there country of birth by plane war and civil unrest shouldn't be a reason to get asylum in my opinion

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod

over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset


"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it..

The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually..

My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy

Sent back where? to drown in the sea???? that's there choice but personally I'd be happy to send them back to there country of birth by plane war and civil unrest shouldn't be a reason to get asylum in my opinion "

How very compassionate.

So if as a country we've chosen to bomb the fuck out of somebody's country because we don't like the government running it for whatever reason, then we have no obligation to the citizens of that country despite them not asking us to destroy their homes and kill their relatives?

OK...........

A

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Throughout history countries and nations always change hand.

Great Britain had been owned by many nations in the past and in the future it’ll be the Chinese.

This boat crossing will be a moot point.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it..

The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually..

My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy

Sent back where? to drown in the sea???? that's there choice but personally I'd be happy to send them back to there country of birth by plane war and civil unrest shouldn't be a reason to get asylum in my opinion

How very compassionate.

So if as a country we've chosen to bomb the fuck out of somebody's country because we don't like the government running it for whatever reason, then we have no obligation to the citizens of that country despite them not asking us to destroy their homes and kill their relatives?

OK...........

A"

compassion doesn't come into it and yes no obligation but again I wouldn't want are country to help out about time we kept are nose out let the kill each other.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

My issue is I have no problem with people fleeing war torn countries. But the people on boats are fleeing France. I didn't know there was a war in France?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod

over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset


"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it..

The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually..

My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy

Sent back where? to drown in the sea???? that's there choice but personally I'd be happy to send them back to there country of birth by plane war and civil unrest shouldn't be a reason to get asylum in my opinion

How very compassionate.

So if as a country we've chosen to bomb the fuck out of somebody's country because we don't like the government running it for whatever reason, then we have no obligation to the citizens of that country despite them not asking us to destroy their homes and kill their relatives?

OK...........

A compassion doesn't come into it and yes no obligation but again I wouldn't want are country to help out about time we kept are nose out let the kill each other."

So you'd have advocated leaving all the refugees fleeing the nazis in WW2 to stay at home then?

Just for clarification.......

A

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackformore100Man
over a year ago

Tin town


"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it..

The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually..

My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. "

Physically yes it's that easy. They aren't super invisible boats and could easily be stopped by the French or British navies.

Politically... Not sure there's the will to address it. But it can't keep going ad infinitum..not least for the poor souls who lost their lives attempting to gain entry illegally. what is it? Something like half a million a year for the last 4 years? Another 10 years of that is another 5m in our population.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod

over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset


"My issue is I have no problem with people fleeing war torn countries. But the people on boats are fleeing France. I didn't know there was a war in France?"

So all the refugees in every war should just stop at the first neighbouring country?

1. Isn't that a bit unfair on those countries bordering war zone?

2. Most of the time they're not the big players dropping the bombs. Why should they bear the financial burden for the actions of other nations?

3. By your logic they should never have reached France. Why blame them?

A

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lubchuckerMan
over a year ago

Oxfordshire


"My issue is I have no problem with people fleeing war torn countries. But the people on boats are fleeing France. I didn't know there was a war in France?"

Or any of the many other countries they have managed to travel through to get to our shores.

Most of them are just chancers wanting the easy life at our tax paying publics expense.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *idnight RamblerMan
over a year ago

Pershore


"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it..

The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually..

My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy

Sent back where? to drown in the sea???? that's there choice but personally I'd be happy to send them back to there country of birth by plane war and civil unrest shouldn't be a reason to get asylum in my opinion

How very compassionate.

So if as a country we've chosen to bomb the fuck out of somebody's country because we don't like the government running it for whatever reason, then we have no obligation to the citizens of that country despite them not asking us to destroy their homes and kill their relatives?

OK...........

A compassion doesn't come into it and yes no obligation but again I wouldn't want are country to help out about time we kept are nose out let the kill each other.

So you'd have advocated leaving all the refugees fleeing the nazis in WW2 to stay at home then?

Just for clarification.......

A"

Taking that as an example, the UK welcomed Ukrainian refugees in a crisis - but in an organised and controlled manner. Migrants smuggled by gangs is just abuse of our borders and asylum processes. Illegal people smuggling actually disadvantages genuine asylum seekers by clogging up the system with bogus applications.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heRazorsEdgeMan
over a year ago

Wales/ All over UK


"If they're illegal immigrants, then by definition they are committing an illegal act, so I don't get why, if they are breakers of our law, then the asylum process is passed.

It's over simplifying it as the current system we have is not fit for purpose and I understand that some are fleeing wars and persecution, but if you're wanting to move to a country to better your family life, it's not great to start by doing so illegally "

The problem is that the U.K. currently does not have a legal system of applying for asylum without first entering the country unless you’re Ukrainian.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod

over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset


"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it..

The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually..

My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy

Sent back where? to drown in the sea???? that's there choice but personally I'd be happy to send them back to there country of birth by plane war and civil unrest shouldn't be a reason to get asylum in my opinion

How very compassionate.

So if as a country we've chosen to bomb the fuck out of somebody's country because we don't like the government running it for whatever reason, then we have no obligation to the citizens of that country despite them not asking us to destroy their homes and kill their relatives?

OK...........

A compassion doesn't come into it and yes no obligation but again I wouldn't want are country to help out about time we kept are nose out let the kill each other.

So you'd have advocated leaving all the refugees fleeing the nazis in WW2 to stay at home then?

Just for clarification.......

A

Taking that as an example, the UK welcomed Ukrainian refugees in a crisis - but in an organised and controlled manner. Migrants smuggled by gangs is just abuse of our borders and asylum processes. Illegal people smuggling actually disadvantages genuine asylum seekers by clogging up the system with bogus applications. "

I'm glad you mentioned that.

It's amazing job quickly and easily the UK government was able to put a smooth process in place for Ukrainians at such short notice......yet has been unable to put anything in place for victims of wars needing asylum and safe haven for the last two decades.

The two words you used are key. Organised and controlled.

Didn't somebody say that was going to be a benefit of brexit? The ability to control our borders? That seems to be going so well.............

A

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *idnight RamblerMan
over a year ago

Pershore


"If they're illegal immigrants, then by definition they are committing an illegal act, so I don't get why, if they are breakers of our law, then the asylum process is passed.

It's over simplifying it as the current system we have is not fit for purpose and I understand that some are fleeing wars and persecution, but if you're wanting to move to a country to better your family life, it's not great to start by doing so illegally

The problem is that the U.K. currently does not have a legal system of applying for asylum without first entering the country unless you’re Ukrainian.

"

How do you mean? There process is described in detail on GOV.UK and gives a legal route to asylem seekers.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod

over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset


"If they're illegal immigrants, then by definition they are committing an illegal act, so I don't get why, if they are breakers of our law, then the asylum process is passed.

It's over simplifying it as the current system we have is not fit for purpose and I understand that some are fleeing wars and persecution, but if you're wanting to move to a country to better your family life, it's not great to start by doing so illegally

The problem is that the U.K. currently does not have a legal system of applying for asylum without first entering the country unless you’re Ukrainian.

How do you mean? There process is described in detail on GOV.UK and gives a legal route to asylem seekers."

You know you can't seek asylum in a country until you're within its borders?

You knew that.....right?

A

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it..

The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually..

My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy

Sent back where? to drown in the sea???? that's there choice but personally I'd be happy to send them back to there country of birth by plane war and civil unrest shouldn't be a reason to get asylum in my opinion

How very compassionate.

So if as a country we've chosen to bomb the fuck out of somebody's country because we don't like the government running it for whatever reason, then we have no obligation to the citizens of that country despite them not asking us to destroy their homes and kill their relatives?

OK...........

A compassion doesn't come into it and yes no obligation but again I wouldn't want are country to help out about time we kept are nose out let the kill each other.

So you'd have advocated leaving all the refugees fleeing the nazis in WW2 to stay at home then?

Just for clarification.......

A"

bit different that was a world war and most wanted to go back once it was over

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heRazorsEdgeMan
over a year ago

Wales/ All over UK


"If they're illegal immigrants, then by definition they are committing an illegal act, so I don't get why, if they are breakers of our law, then the asylum process is passed.

It's over simplifying it as the current system we have is not fit for purpose and I understand that some are fleeing wars and persecution, but if you're wanting to move to a country to better your family life, it's not great to start by doing so illegally

The problem is that the U.K. currently does not have a legal system of applying for asylum without first entering the country unless you’re Ukrainian.

How do you mean? There process is described in detail on GOV.UK and gives a legal route to asylem seekers."

Once you are in the country…. You cannot apply for asylum until you are here

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *idnight RamblerMan
over a year ago

Pershore


"If they're illegal immigrants, then by definition they are committing an illegal act, so I don't get why, if they are breakers of our law, then the asylum process is passed.

It's over simplifying it as the current system we have is not fit for purpose and I understand that some are fleeing wars and persecution, but if you're wanting to move to a country to better your family life, it's not great to start by doing so illegally

The problem is that the U.K. currently does not have a legal system of applying for asylum without first entering the country unless you’re Ukrainian.

How do you mean? There process is described in detail on GOV.UK and gives a legal route to asylem seekers.

Once you are in the country…. You cannot apply for asylum until you are here"

Yes, and asylum seekers are encouraged to seek asylum in the first safe country they enter. Seems reasonable, no?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackformore100Man
over a year ago

Tin town

Are Albania at war?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod

over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset


"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it..

The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually..

My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy

Sent back where? to drown in the sea???? that's there choice but personally I'd be happy to send them back to there country of birth by plane war and civil unrest shouldn't be a reason to get asylum in my opinion

How very compassionate.

So if as a country we've chosen to bomb the fuck out of somebody's country because we don't like the government running it for whatever reason, then we have no obligation to the citizens of that country despite them not asking us to destroy their homes and kill their relatives?

OK...........

A compassion doesn't come into it and yes no obligation but again I wouldn't want are country to help out about time we kept are nose out let the kill each other.

So you'd have advocated leaving all the refugees fleeing the nazis in WW2 to stay at home then?

Just for clarification.......

Abit different that was a world war and most wanted to go back once it was over "

You may want to brush up on your history. There were still displaced refugees from WW2 in 1959. Add to those the huge number that couldn't return home because their home country was now occupied by the Russians, the hundreds of thousands of Jews who had no desire to return to countries that had tried to exterminate them and those that actively sought better lives abroad in countries such as the UK, the USA and elsewhere.

War is war so the 'that was a world war' argument is irrelevant. Just because it's not on our doorstep doesn't mean we're not involved and have responsibilities for our actions.

A

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod

over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset


"If they're illegal immigrants, then by definition they are committing an illegal act, so I don't get why, if they are breakers of our law, then the asylum process is passed.

It's over simplifying it as the current system we have is not fit for purpose and I understand that some are fleeing wars and persecution, but if you're wanting to move to a country to better your family life, it's not great to start by doing so illegally

The problem is that the U.K. currently does not have a legal system of applying for asylum without first entering the country unless you’re Ukrainian.

How do you mean? There process is described in detail on GOV.UK and gives a legal route to asylem seekers.

Once you are in the country…. You cannot apply for asylum until you are here

Yes, and asylum seekers are encouraged to seek asylum in the first safe country they enter. Seems reasonable, no?"

Not required to by international law though.

Imagine if there was a disaster in Cornwall making it ilumsafe to live there and everyone was told they were only permitted to move to Devon......

A

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"My issue is I have no problem with people fleeing war torn countries. But the people on boats are fleeing France. I didn't know there was a war in France?

So all the refugees in every war should just stop at the first neighbouring country?

1. Isn't that a bit unfair on those countries bordering war zone?

2. Most of the time they're not the big players dropping the bombs. Why should they bear the financial burden for the actions of other nations?

3. By your logic they should never have reached France. Why blame them?

A"

There is some UK domestic law which allows the government to refuse to consider an asylum application if it is judged that the person could have claimed asylum elsewhere. Refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, also be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

I don't blame the refugees. I do blame the French and the illegal gangs

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod

over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset


"My issue is I have no problem with people fleeing war torn countries. But the people on boats are fleeing France. I didn't know there was a war in France?

So all the refugees in every war should just stop at the first neighbouring country?

1. Isn't that a bit unfair on those countries bordering war zone?

2. Most of the time they're not the big players dropping the bombs. Why should they bear the financial burden for the actions of other nations?

3. By your logic they should never have reached France. Why blame them?

A

There is some UK domestic law which allows the government to refuse to consider an asylum application if it is judged that the person could have claimed asylum elsewhere. Refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, also be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

I don't blame the refugees. I do blame the French and the illegal gangs"

The Dublin Regulations ceased to be law in the UK in January 2021. And asylum has always been sought via the Geneva Convention rules rather than any national policy.

And brexit has negatively impacted the UK's ability to act on asylum and access funding for initiatives.

Copied from the House of Commons Library.

"Leaving the EU does not change the UK’s obligation to offer protection to refugees as a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. The Government reaffirmed its commitment to the Refugee Convention in October. It has also said that the UK’s status as a ‘world leader’ in the field of asylum will not change once it is no longer subject to EU laws specifying minimum asylum standards.

It appears unlikely that the UK will be able to continue to rely on readmission agreements negotiated between the EU and third countries as a non-member state.

The UK is losing access to EU funding for asylum and immigration initiatives. This has been used, for example, to support Home Office activities related to asylum, refugee resettlement, immigration enforcement, and to provide funding for some NGO-led projects focusing on integration."

A

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We should put the facilities in France for them to apply for refuge status {France have actually suggested this)

This would be a far better way of dealing with the problem.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"If they're illegal immigrants, then by definition they are committing an illegal act, so I don't get why, if they are breakers of our law, then the asylum process is passed.

It's over simplifying it as the current system we have is not fit for purpose and I understand that some are fleeing wars and persecution, but if you're wanting to move to a country to better your family life, it's not great to start by doing so illegally

The problem is that the U.K. currently does not have a legal system of applying for asylum without first entering the country unless you’re Ukrainian.

How do you mean? There process is described in detail on GOV.UK and gives a legal route to asylem seekers.

Once you are in the country…. You cannot apply for asylum until you are here

Yes, and asylum seekers are encouraged to seek asylum in the first safe country they enter. Seems reasonable, no?

Not required to by international law though.

Imagine if there was a disaster in Cornwall making it ilumsafe to live there and everyone was told they were only permitted to move to Devon......

A"

as we know some laws aren't fit for purpose

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it..

The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually..

My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. "

I actually watched that film last weekend, it’s heartbreaking to watch and shows the reality of what they go through

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I would suggest a lot of people on here should try and go through what these people go through to get to a safe place.

Go sit in the trailer of a truck for a couple of hours at some stage over the next couple of months see how much fun that is in the cold. I regularly load/unload truck trailers I can be on and off them for about an hour per trailer it's great fun in winter when I have 2 or 3 in a row. Fortunately by law I have to be provided with cold weather gear because of health and safety laws. I know how easy it is to get dangerously cold just loading/unloading trailers in winter I know how easily these vulnerable people can die in the back of trailer trying to flee somewhere safe.

Go down to your local beach in the next couple of months in whatever rags you can find stand down there for a few hours during the night maybe even a wet windy night and see if your still feeling so much hate for these people.

So far I have only asked you to do something for a few hours haven't even thrown in war, people smugglers or any of that fun stuff and I can guarantee some of you lovely people looking to throw them back into the sea won't make it through just standing on one of your beaches or make it through the night in a dry comfy truck trailer.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inky_couple2020Couple
over a year ago

North West


"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it..

The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually..

My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy

Sent back where? to drown in the sea???? that's there choice but personally I'd be happy to send them back to there country of birth by plane war and civil unrest shouldn't be a reason to get asylum in my opinion

How very compassionate.

So if as a country we've chosen to bomb the fuck out of somebody's country because we don't like the government running it for whatever reason, then we have no obligation to the citizens of that country despite them not asking us to destroy their homes and kill their relatives?

OK...........

A compassion doesn't come into it and yes no obligation but again I wouldn't want are country to help out about time we kept are nose out let the kill each other.

So you'd have advocated leaving all the refugees fleeing the nazis in WW2 to stay at home then?

Just for clarification.......

Abit different that was a world war and most wanted to go back once it was over "

No they sodding well did not. Most of the countries people left under Nazi rule did not want them back. Their property and assets had been seized and sold to other people or disposed of. Many of the impoverished non-Jewish citizens did not wish to hand back property and goods they'd been "resettled" in etc. Many Jews faced active persecution when returning to countries then behind the Iron Curtain or even in Western Europe. Many went to Israel, the USA, Australia or stayed in the UK.

Source: my own family history.

It would have been nice if the UK had accepted refugees from the Netherlands. My family might be bigger than single digit figures now

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inky_couple2020Couple
over a year ago

North West

Might I remind the group that the UK did NOT allow "uncontrolled" refugee influx from Nazi persecution? In a situation reminiscent of the present day, the Govt insisted only on allowing "refugees" with visas or work to come to in the UK. Please read the desperate adverts that were placed in British newspapers by Jewish parents, effectively "selling" their young children as home help, apprentices, maids, gardeners etc, simply to get them out of Germany, Austria etc before the Nazis really closed all the exits. I will remind everyone that the UK turned away ships with refugees on board because they did not have visas. The Kindertransport trains only ran after a massive campaign in Parliament by some MPs and Lords, but many of the British Govt and populace disagreed with allowing these to take place. People thought "I'm alright, Jack", until Herr Hitler started raining down V1s on the British public. By then, the people we had refused to give safe housing or passage to were being rounded up for systematic extermination. This includes members of my own family.

In the post War period, many breasts were beaten and people said we (Britain) should have done more. We should not have listed to the pressure from right wing groups like Oswald Moseley and the Black Shirts and we should be more compassionate in future. We signed up to the Geneva Convention etc.

Yet, here we are. With people saying we should let people die in the sea and turn them back to war torn countries (unless they are Ukrainian/white - you decide which it is).

Despicable.

I can guarantee if a war broke out here, the detractors would be straight in a boat to France or Ireland with their loved ones and would move heaven and earth to do so.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andyfloss2000Woman
over a year ago

ashford

Wow! Unbelievable some people's lack of compassion! Sadly if anything this thread acts as a good filter! And making good use of the private note feature! x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rHotNottsMan
over a year ago

Dubai & Nottingham

I worked in Bulgaria Roma areas 2005/6 rescue, mentoring; anti people trafficking. not much has changed and other countries all follow the same approach

The majority including the lovely swimmers pay criminals who will do whatever it takes to get them right across Asia & Europe to easy targets like UK and Germany , the land of opportunity, profitable crime , free health, education, housing and welfare.

If you are lucky like the swimmers and have money , you won’t have to be a sex worker or criminal for years on arrival to pay back the loan

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ermite12ukMan
over a year ago

Solihull and Brentwood

Ffs, the UK mostly picks them up, half way across the channel and drops them on-shore.

If that is not encouraging them. Then I don't know what is.

Try being an illegal yourself and rucking up at a countries border. See what happens.

Most people have to apply and have skills the country they are trying to enter may require....that's if your not an illegal and using your own set of rules.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andyfloss2000Woman
over a year ago

ashford


"Ffs, the UK mostly picks them up, half way across the channel and drops them on-shore.

If that is not encouraging them. Then I don't know what is.

Try being an illegal yourself and rucking up at a countries border. See what happens.

Most people have to apply and have skills the country they are trying to enter may require....that's if your not an illegal and using your own set of rules."

So what would u prefer? Leave them to drown like those poor souls yesterday? And no they not illegal if they are seeking asylum! X

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it..

The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually..

My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy

Sent back where? to drown in the sea???? that's there choice but personally I'd be happy to send them back to there country of birth by plane war and civil unrest shouldn't be a reason to get asylum in my opinion

How very compassionate.

So if as a country we've chosen to bomb the fuck out of somebody's country because we don't like the government running it for whatever reason, then we have no obligation to the citizens of that country despite them not asking us to destroy their homes and kill their relatives?

OK...........

A compassion doesn't come into it and yes no obligation but again I wouldn't want are country to help out about time we kept are nose out let the kill each other.

So you'd have advocated leaving all the refugees fleeing the nazis in WW2 to stay at home then?

Just for clarification.......

A

Taking that as an example, the UK welcomed Ukrainian refugees in a crisis - but in an organised and controlled manner. Migrants smuggled by gangs is just abuse of our borders and asylum processes. Illegal people smuggling actually disadvantages genuine asylum seekers by clogging up the system with bogus applications.

I'm glad you mentioned that.

It's amazing job quickly and easily the UK government was able to put a smooth process in place for Ukrainians at such short notice......yet has been unable to put anything in place for victims of wars needing asylum and safe haven for the last two decades.

The two words you used are key. Organised and controlled.

Didn't somebody say that was going to be a benefit of brexit? The ability to control our borders? That seems to be going so well.............

A"

Ahhhhh...damn that Brexit!!!...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *TG3Man
over a year ago

Dorchester

I just saw a boat pull into the harbour of playa blanca in lanzarote and it was closely followed by a coastguard helicopter who actually attempted to board the boat whilst on the move, they winched an officer down very dangerous manoeuvre I thought

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackformore100Man
over a year ago

Tin town


"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it..

The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually..

My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy

Sent back where? to drown in the sea???? that's there choice but personally I'd be happy to send them back to there country of birth by plane war and civil unrest shouldn't be a reason to get asylum in my opinion

How very compassionate.

So if as a country we've chosen to bomb the fuck out of somebody's country because we don't like the government running it for whatever reason, then we have no obligation to the citizens of that country despite them not asking us to destroy their homes and kill their relatives?

OK...........

A compassion doesn't come into it and yes no obligation but again I wouldn't want are country to help out about time we kept are nose out let the kill each other.

So you'd have advocated leaving all the refugees fleeing the nazis in WW2 to stay at home then?

Just for clarification.......

A

Taking that as an example, the UK welcomed Ukrainian refugees in a crisis - but in an organised and controlled manner. Migrants smuggled by gangs is just abuse of our borders and asylum processes. Illegal people smuggling actually disadvantages genuine asylum seekers by clogging up the system with bogus applications.

I'm glad you mentioned that.

It's amazing job quickly and easily the UK government was able to put a smooth process in place for Ukrainians at such short notice......yet has been unable to put anything in place for victims of wars needing asylum and safe haven for the last two decades.

The two words you used are key. Organised and controlled.

Didn't somebody say that was going to be a benefit of brexit? The ability to control our borders? That seems to be going so well.............

A

Ahhhhh...damn that Brexit!!!... "

Brexit or not (and by the way it's done now) surely the security and safety of our borders is in all of our interests? Not knowing who or how is wandering in can't be something that people want to actually be happening.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod

over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset


"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it..

The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually..

My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy

Sent back where? to drown in the sea???? that's there choice but personally I'd be happy to send them back to there country of birth by plane war and civil unrest shouldn't be a reason to get asylum in my opinion

How very compassionate.

So if as a country we've chosen to bomb the fuck out of somebody's country because we don't like the government running it for whatever reason, then we have no obligation to the citizens of that country despite them not asking us to destroy their homes and kill their relatives?

OK...........

A compassion doesn't come into it and yes no obligation but again I wouldn't want are country to help out about time we kept are nose out let the kill each other.

So you'd have advocated leaving all the refugees fleeing the nazis in WW2 to stay at home then?

Just for clarification.......

A

Taking that as an example, the UK welcomed Ukrainian refugees in a crisis - but in an organised and controlled manner. Migrants smuggled by gangs is just abuse of our borders and asylum processes. Illegal people smuggling actually disadvantages genuine asylum seekers by clogging up the system with bogus applications.

I'm glad you mentioned that.

It's amazing job quickly and easily the UK government was able to put a smooth process in place for Ukrainians at such short notice......yet has been unable to put anything in place for victims of wars needing asylum and safe haven for the last two decades.

The two words you used are key. Organised and controlled.

Didn't somebody say that was going to be a benefit of brexit? The ability to control our borders? That seems to be going so well.............

A

Ahhhhh...damn that Brexit!!!...

Brexit or not (and by the way it's done now) surely the security and safety of our borders is in all of our interests? Not knowing who or how is wandering in can't be something that people want to actually be happening. "

There have always been ways and means of controlling access to the country, processing genuine asylum seekers effectively, efficiently and fairly, and removing those that aren't genuinely in need of save haven.

The government have just chosen not to do anything about it, as its a useful political tool to create division, play on the sentiments of their voter base and to as always, use it as an opportunity to make money for supporters, donors and their chums. Who got the contracts to run accommodation for asylum seekers? Who got the contracts to process applications? Who is getting paid for everything involved in the Rwanda plan?

Nothing that is being done benefits anyone. Not the refugees, the British public or anyone but the UK government who use what's happening to push a political agenda, generate hate and animosity to people who deserve compassion and to drive through legislative changes for reasons not linked to solving the problems faced with immigration.

It's all smoke and mirrors and the press and media are all on board to do the work for the government. If they genuinely wanted to enact positive change they could do so in a very short space of time. But they don't.

A

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ermite12ukMan
over a year ago

Solihull and Brentwood


"Ffs, the UK mostly picks them up, half way across the channel and drops them on-shore.

If that is not encouraging them. Then I don't know what is.

Try being an illegal yourself and rucking up at a countries border. See what happens.

Most people have to apply and have skills the country they are trying to enter may require....that's if your not an illegal and using your own set of rules.

So what would u prefer? Leave them to drown like those poor souls yesterday? And no they not illegal if they are seeking asylum! X"

Definition of seeking asylum is not passing through any number of countries until you arrive at the country that you would most like to take up residence. It's the first country you set foot in.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod

over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset


"Ffs, the UK mostly picks them up, half way across the channel and drops them on-shore.

If that is not encouraging them. Then I don't know what is.

Try being an illegal yourself and rucking up at a countries border. See what happens.

Most people have to apply and have skills the country they are trying to enter may require....that's if your not an illegal and using your own set of rules.

So what would u prefer? Leave them to drown like those poor souls yesterday? And no they not illegal if they are seeking asylum! X

Definition of seeking asylum is not passing through any number of countries until you arrive at the country that you would most like to take up residence. It's the first country you set foot in."

Where did you read that?

Because that's definitely not the definition of seeking asylum.

The standard definition is this. "The definition of an asylum seeker is someone who has arrived in a country and asked for asylum. Asylum is when a government accepts that your home country is unable or unwilling to ensure your protection and allows you to remain in their country in order to stay safe. Once someone is determined as needing protection, they become known as a refugee. Until they receive a decision as to whether or not they are a refugee, they are known as an asylum seeker."

As you can see there's no reference to 'the first country you set foot in' nor as previously stated, is that a requirement of the 1951 Geneva Convention through which asylum is sought.

A

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackformore100Man
over a year ago

Tin town

Why are they risking their lives to leave one safe country to get to the UK? There must be something for them to make that horrific journey.?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod

over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset


"Why are they risking their lives to leave one safe country to get to the UK? There must be something for them to make that horrific journey.? "

What makes you think they're 'safe' in a tent in freezing conditions at the side of a road in France?

There are plenty of reasons people seek asylum in a particular country. Common language for one. Many people worldwide speak English as a second language as opposed to any other. Plenty of refugees look to settle elsewhere - the UK takes in far less than most. So the claim it's all down to some 'gravy train' can be debunked easily given the better conditions and benefits other countries offer.

But hey. The press have done a great job convincing people asylum seekers have an easy life over here. Why should anyone bother doing some research to find out anything different.....

A

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackformore100Man
over a year ago

Tin town


"Why are they risking their lives to leave one safe country to get to the UK? There must be something for them to make that horrific journey.?

What makes you think they're 'safe' in a tent in freezing conditions at the side of a road in France?

There are plenty of reasons people seek asylum in a particular country. Common language for one. Many people worldwide speak English as a second language as opposed to any other. Plenty of refugees look to settle elsewhere - the UK takes in far less than most. So the claim it's all down to some 'gravy train' can be debunked easily given the better conditions and benefits other countries offer.

But hey. The press have done a great job convincing people asylum seekers have an easy life over here. Why should anyone bother doing some research to find out anything different.....

A"

My question was about the ones making the choice to travel across the channel... Not the one who aren't. Choosing to put their lives at risk. When they make the decision to do so they must conclude its worth taking the risk.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'd advise reading My Fourth Time, We Drowned

Paints a horrible picture of the process and western Europe's migrent policy

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *tephanjMan
over a year ago

Kettering

The issue I have with the migrants coming across the channel is, they are getting better treatment than our own homeless people. I understand their reason for wanting to come here but it's still taking away valuable resources that could be used for our own people

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ananaman41Man
over a year ago

Dublin


"Wow! Unbelievable some people's lack of compassion! Sadly if anything this thread acts as a good filter! And making good use of the private note feature! x"

Ooh get you

'that bad man disagreed with what i said. Note to self, dont suck him off'

Nobody cares

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why are they risking their lives to leave one safe country to get to the UK? There must be something for them to make that horrific journey.?

What makes you think they're 'safe' in a tent in freezing conditions at the side of a road in France?

There are plenty of reasons people seek asylum in a particular country. Common language for one. Many people worldwide speak English as a second language as opposed to any other. Plenty of refugees look to settle elsewhere - the UK takes in far less than most. So the claim it's all down to some 'gravy train' can be debunked easily given the better conditions and benefits other countries offer.

But hey. The press have done a great job convincing people asylum seekers have an easy life over here. Why should anyone bother doing some research to find out anything different.....

A"

Why are they in a tent in France then? Is it because France won't give them asylum? In which case should we instead? Why is that? Do we have a hugely bigger land mass, a greater economic pot, and a better free health service?... Yes, absolutely we should take on those who legitimately have a reason to flee. But as much as its 'little Britain'. We are not a huge landmass, and we cannot exactly rehome huge numbers of the rest of the world logistically. Are you offering out spare space in your home OP?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

kind in mankind seems to have fizzled out

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andyfloss2000Woman
over a year ago

ashford


"Wow! Unbelievable some people's lack of compassion! Sadly if anything this thread acts as a good filter! And making good use of the private note feature! x

Ooh get you

'that bad man disagreed with what i said. Note to self, dont suck him off'

Nobody cares "

Good! Had u on that list yonks ago! But as u say no one cares! So why comment???

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andyfloss2000Woman
over a year ago

ashford


"Why are they risking their lives to leave one safe country to get to the UK? There must be something for them to make that horrific journey.?

What makes you think they're 'safe' in a tent in freezing conditions at the side of a road in France?

There are plenty of reasons people seek asylum in a particular country. Common language for one. Many people worldwide speak English as a second language as opposed to any other. Plenty of refugees look to settle elsewhere - the UK takes in far less than most. So the claim it's all down to some 'gravy train' can be debunked easily given the better conditions and benefits other countries offer.

But hey. The press have done a great job convincing people asylum seekers have an easy life over here. Why should anyone bother doing some research to find out anything different.....

A

My question was about the ones making the choice to travel across the channel... Not the one who aren't. Choosing to put their lives at risk. When they make the decision to do so they must conclude its worth taking the risk. "

Exactly! Shows the desperation these poor folks face!! X

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ts the taking part thatMan
over a year ago

southampton


"Why are they risking their lives to leave one safe country to get to the UK? There must be something for them to make that horrific journey.?

What makes you think they're 'safe' in a tent in freezing conditions at the side of a road in France?

There are plenty of reasons people seek asylum in a particular country. Common language for one. Many people worldwide speak English as a second language as opposed to any other. Plenty of refugees look to settle elsewhere - the UK takes in far less than most. So the claim it's all down to some 'gravy train' can be debunked easily given the better conditions and benefits other countries offer.

But hey. The press have done a great job convincing people asylum seekers have an easy life over here. Why should anyone bother doing some research to find out anything different.....

A"

The countries many come from are safe & not being bombed, they are coming here for a better life but making ours worse which is not acceptable to the majority who are not bleeding hearts.

These people find the £5k to pay the smugglers so it's an investment for them. But many here can't find £5k so these financial migrants are not destitute but conto the most generous country rather than stay in a lesser one.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod

over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset


"The issue I have with the migrants coming across the channel is, they are getting better treatment than our own homeless people. I understand their reason for wanting to come here but it's still taking away valuable resources that could be used for our own people "

And why is that?

Not the fault of the asylum seekers at all. There are countless private charities helping the homeless and ex services. What are the government doing to solve the problem? Little, if nothing.

Why is it the standard argument of some that they get better treatment than UK homeless/ex services etc? It's not a question of it being either/or. There is enough wealth in the country to help both. Yet tax cuts for the super rich are always a priority for this government over any support for those needing it most.

Based on the last data available from Crisis, almost 40% of rough sleepers in London were foreign nationals. The percentage is similar across the country. These people have greater challenges than UK homeless in that by the nature of being asylum seekers and migrants they're not eligible for the same state support as UK citizens.

It's an easy win for the government and media to push the 'them and us' agenda of native homeless vs migrants. It would be just as easy a task for them.to do something positive about it, given the rising number of homeless predicted due to the current cost of living crisis. But they won't.

A

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm all for women and children fleeing war zones and coming to the UK (assuming they respect and contribute in some way) but up to 90% are adult males from none war zones is a bit worrying and they cross safe countries like Germany France Spain why risk life on a boat to get across to england

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ermite12ukMan
over a year ago

Solihull and Brentwood


"Where did you read that?

Because that's definitely not the definition of seeking asylum.

The standard definition is this. "The definition of an asylum seeker is someone who has arrived in a country and asked for asylum. Asylum is when a government accepts that your home country is unable or unwilling to ensure your protection and allows you to remain in their country in order to stay safe. Once someone is determined as needing protection, they become known as a refugee. Until they receive a decision as to whether or not they are a refugee, they are known as an asylum seeker."

As you can see there's no reference to 'the first country you set foot in' nor as previously stated, is that a requirement of the 1951 Geneva Convention through which asylum is sought.

A"

Er no. It's the first country you set foot in, after leaving your own country when entering a European country.

Why would it not be? Remember your supposed to be desperate and fleeing your own country. Not picking or choosing a country to live in. Such processes are called emigration and as stated previously, you need to apply. Not just ruck up on a countries border or beach.

C&P

"Refugees seeking asylum in European countries must do so in the first country they reach, even in exceptional circumstances, the European Court of Justice ruled on Wednesday.

The case, which was brought by Austria and Slovenia, relates to migrants who arrived during the crisis of 2015-16, and could result in several hundred people being affected.

The European Union's top court upheld the Dublin Regulation, which states that refugees must seek asylum in the first place they reach."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod

over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset


"Where did you read that?

Because that's definitely not the definition of seeking asylum.

The standard definition is this. "The definition of an asylum seeker is someone who has arrived in a country and asked for asylum. Asylum is when a government accepts that your home country is unable or unwilling to ensure your protection and allows you to remain in their country in order to stay safe. Once someone is determined as needing protection, they become known as a refugee. Until they receive a decision as to whether or not they are a refugee, they are known as an asylum seeker."

As you can see there's no reference to 'the first country you set foot in' nor as previously stated, is that a requirement of the 1951 Geneva Convention through which asylum is sought.

A

Er no. It's the first country you set foot in, after leaving your own country when entering a European country.

Why would it not be? Remember your supposed to be desperate and fleeing your own country. Not picking or choosing a country to live in. Such processes are called emigration and as stated previously, you need to apply. Not just ruck up on a countries border or beach.

C&P

"Refugees seeking asylum in European countries must do so in the first country they reach, even in exceptional circumstances, the European Court of Justice ruled on Wednesday.

The case, which was brought by Austria and Slovenia, relates to migrants who arrived during the crisis of 2015-16, and could result in several hundred people being affected.

The European Union's top court upheld the Dublin Regulation, which states that refugees must seek asylum in the first place they reach.""

Er no.

That's literally not the law at all. And as stated earlier the Dublin Regulations ceased to be any part of UK law in January 2021.

A

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lephantisMan
over a year ago

Oxford

I love these threads, partly because Fabbers seem so much less likely than the general public to swallow tabloid lies, and partly because it is such an easy way to add those who do to the 'Absolutely no' pile.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago

carrbrook stalybridge


"I'm all for women and children fleeing war zones and coming to the UK (assuming they respect and contribute in some way) but up to 90% are adult males from none war zones is a bit worrying and they cross safe countries like Germany France Spain why risk life on a boat to get across to england"
the one and only reason ANY of the refugees economic or not is that this govt has sealed of all safe legal routes for refugees to make thier way to this country so unless you are Ukrainian Afghani or form Hong Kong who currently have a resettlement schemes there are no legally ways to make an application for refugee status in great Britain other than arriving in this counrty if you do so by air you will be put on the next plane back to your country of origin and the airline sanctioned if you come try to via truck that method has been virtually sealed off the only way is by boat why do you think at tje start of the Ukraine crises the govt refused point blank to put a visa application center at calais instead they had to go to paris ? as they knew it would be over whelmed .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heRazorsEdgeMan
over a year ago

Wales/ All over UK


"I love these threads, partly because Fabbers seem so much less likely than the general public to swallow tabloid lies, and partly because it is such an easy way to add those who do to the 'Absolutely no' pile."

This!

It’s very easy to spot those that lack critical thinking skills and swallow everything that the likes of the Telegraph and the Mail spout.

Far to many lack basic compassion and would rather be angry at some foreigners while this country is continually being harmed far more by our own government

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackformore100Man
over a year ago

Tin town


"I love these threads, partly because Fabbers seem so much less likely than the general public to swallow tabloid lies, and partly because it is such an easy way to add those who do to the 'Absolutely no' pile.

This!

It’s very easy to spot those that lack critical thinking skills and swallow everything that the likes of the Telegraph and the Mail spout.

Far to many lack basic compassion and would rather be angry at some foreigners while this country is continually being harmed far more by our own government "

Oh the irony

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Where did you read that?

Because that's definitely not the definition of seeking asylum.

The standard definition is this. "The definition of an asylum seeker is someone who has arrived in a country and asked for asylum. Asylum is when a government accepts that your home country is unable or unwilling to ensure your protection and allows you to remain in their country in order to stay safe. Once someone is determined as needing protection, they become known as a refugee. Until they receive a decision as to whether or not they are a refugee, they are known as an asylum seeker."

As you can see there's no reference to 'the first country you set foot in' nor as previously stated, is that a requirement of the 1951 Geneva Convention through which asylum is sought.

A

Er no. It's the first country you set foot in, after leaving your own country when entering a European country.

Why would it not be? Remember your supposed to be desperate and fleeing your own country. Not picking or choosing a country to live in. Such processes are called emigration and as stated previously, you need to apply. Not just ruck up on a countries border or beach.

C&P

"Refugees seeking asylum in European countries must do so in the first country they reach, even in exceptional circumstances, the European Court of Justice ruled on Wednesday.

The case, which was brought by Austria and Slovenia, relates to migrants who arrived during the crisis of 2015-16, and could result in several hundred people being affected.

The European Union's top court upheld the Dublin Regulation, which states that refugees must seek asylum in the first place they reach.""

not an expert, but believe that this part of the convention has since been replaced with Dublin III.

Either which way, its an EU treaty.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago

Titz Towers, North Notts

Anyone risking their life to cross the channel has a damn good reason to do so and it isn't because they're looking forward to spending 6 months in a horrendous processing centre.

It shouldn't have surprised me, but it did, when white Ukrainians were made very welcome, but brown skinned Syrians aren't, yet both are fleeing the same horrors.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heRazorsEdgeMan
over a year ago

Wales/ All over UK


"I love these threads, partly because Fabbers seem so much less likely than the general public to swallow tabloid lies, and partly because it is such an easy way to add those who do to the 'Absolutely no' pile.

This!

It’s very easy to spot those that lack critical thinking skills and swallow everything that the likes of the Telegraph and the Mail spout.

Far to many lack basic compassion and would rather be angry at some foreigners while this country is continually being harmed far more by our own government

Oh the irony "

What is ironic about what I posted?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackformore100Man
over a year ago

Tin town


"I love these threads, partly because Fabbers seem so much less likely than the general public to swallow tabloid lies, and partly because it is such an easy way to add those who do to the 'Absolutely no' pile.

This!

It’s very easy to spot those that lack critical thinking skills and swallow everything that the likes of the Telegraph and the Mail spout.

Far to many lack basic compassion and would rather be angry at some foreigners while this country is continually being harmed far more by our own government

Oh the irony

What is ironic about what I posted?"

All of it. From calling our people who believe everything one media outlet says whilst at the same time demonstrating they have done just the same thing but from a different media outlet. From calling out people who lack compassion for the uncontrolled invasion whilst at the same time showing no compassion for those citizens whose lives are being affected. Insulting those with different opinions to yourself only serves to divide further and not to progress the problem. Now I don't no what the answer is but I do know that uncontrolled and illegal entry is not a good thing. Consider the size of the British expeditionary force that we sent to France in the second world War was 390k. And that by the end of this year they will have sent to us an equivalent number. Its a legitimate concern with unknown outcomes.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *penbicoupleCouple
over a year ago

Northampton


"yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out... "

We have to accept asylum seekers. It's international law. Plus, it's the right thing to do.

How can they apply for asylum in the UK if they're 'somewhere abroad'? That's not what asylym means.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackformore100Man
over a year ago

Tin town


"yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out...

We have to accept asylum seekers. It's international law. Plus, it's the right thing to do.

How can they apply for asylum in the UK if they're 'somewhere abroad'? That's not what asylym means. "

Do we have to accept anyone who claims asylum? Or those who qualify for asylum.? And what happens to those who do not qualify for asylum?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *penbicoupleCouple
over a year ago

Northampton


"Do we have to accept anyone who claims asylum? Or those who qualify for asylum.? And what happens to those who do not qualify for asylum? "

We are supposed to accept anyone who seeks asylum. They are then meant to be assessed and if granted asylym they are then given refuge in the UK.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heRazorsEdgeMan
over a year ago

Wales/ All over UK


"I love these threads, partly because Fabbers seem so much less likely than the general public to swallow tabloid lies, and partly because it is such an easy way to add those who do to the 'Absolutely no' pile.

This!

It’s very easy to spot those that lack critical thinking skills and swallow everything that the likes of the Telegraph and the Mail spout.

Far to many lack basic compassion and would rather be angry at some foreigners while this country is continually being harmed far more by our own government

Oh the irony

What is ironic about what I posted?

All of it. From calling our people who believe everything one media outlet says whilst at the same time demonstrating they have done just the same thing but from a different media outlet. From calling out people who lack compassion for the uncontrolled invasion whilst at the same time showing no compassion for those citizens whose lives are being affected. Insulting those with different opinions to yourself only serves to divide further and not to progress the problem. Now I don't no what the answer is but I do know that uncontrolled and illegal entry is not a good thing. Consider the size of the British expeditionary force that we sent to France in the second world War was 390k. And that by the end of this year they will have sent to us an equivalent number. Its a legitimate concern with unknown outcomes. "

A few points..

Someone on here stated that they wished that the people on one of the recent rescues had “all drowned”… this is clearly a lack of compassion and human decency.

The uncontrolled/ illegal entry aspect is solely down to the actions the government has taken in recent years… Brexit removed us from the various Dublin agreements where we could relocate people back to the first safe country, and the government has still failed to set up a legal method of entry for asylum seekers unless they happen to be from some certain groups.

How are people’s lives being affected by the number of people crossing?…. Local services are struggling not because of migrants but due to 12 years of austerity and underfunding from the government, which is why it’s just as difficult to get Drs appointments etc in Devon as it is in Kent.

As for the criticism of the dogmatic adherence to what the tabloids say…. I do not get my views from ANY of the media companies, I do however get information from international organisations and charities with no political affiliation and make judgements based on that, among other sources.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackformore100Man
over a year ago

Tin town


"Do we have to accept anyone who claims asylum? Or those who qualify for asylum.? And what happens to those who do not qualify for asylum?

We are supposed to accept anyone who seeks asylum. They are then meant to be assessed and if granted asylym they are then given refuge in the UK. "

Sorry yes when I wrote accept I meant that do all asylum seekers get granted asylum and if not what happens to them when their claim is rejected?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackformore100Man
over a year ago

Tin town


"I love these threads, partly because Fabbers seem so much less likely than the general public to swallow tabloid lies, and partly because it is such an easy way to add those who do to the 'Absolutely no' pile.

This!

It’s very easy to spot those that lack critical thinking skills and swallow everything that the likes of the Telegraph and the Mail spout.

Far to many lack basic compassion and would rather be angry at some foreigners while this country is continually being harmed far more by our own government

Oh the irony

What is ironic about what I posted?

All of it. From calling our people who believe everything one media outlet says whilst at the same time demonstrating they have done just the same thing but from a different media outlet. From calling out people who lack compassion for the uncontrolled invasion whilst at the same time showing no compassion for those citizens whose lives are being affected. Insulting those with different opinions to yourself only serves to divide further and not to progress the problem. Now I don't no what the answer is but I do know that uncontrolled and illegal entry is not a good thing. Consider the size of the British expeditionary force that we sent to France in the second world War was 390k. And that by the end of this year they will have sent to us an equivalent number. Its a legitimate concern with unknown outcomes.

A few points..

Someone on here stated that they wished that the people on one of the recent rescues had “all drowned”… this is clearly a lack of compassion and human decency.

The uncontrolled/ illegal entry aspect is solely down to the actions the government has taken in recent years… Brexit removed us from the various Dublin agreements where we could relocate people back to the first safe country, and the government has still failed to set up a legal method of entry for asylum seekers unless they happen to be from some certain groups.

How are people’s lives being affected by the number of people crossing?…. Local services are struggling not because of migrants but due to 12 years of austerity and underfunding from the government, which is why it’s just as difficult to get Drs appointments etc in Devon as it is in Kent.

As for the criticism of the dogmatic adherence to what the tabloids say…. I do not get my views from ANY of the media companies, I do however get information from international organisations and charities with no political affiliation and make judgements based on that, among other sources."

Some good observations.

Don't you think it a bit naive to claim that services are not affected by another 500k people who need housing health transport and food? Are all the materials free? Are the people who must now work for them expected to do so for free?

Im not sure what the answer is but it takes funding to home and look after them. If funding is going there its coming from somewhere else.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *penbicoupleCouple
over a year ago

Northampton


"DSorry yes when I wrote accept I meant that do all asylum seekers get granted asylum and if not what happens to them when their claim is rejected? "

From the govt:

'The percentage of asylum applicants refused at initial decision reached its highest point at 88% in 2004. Since then, the refusal rate has been falling overall and was at 23% in the year ending September 2022, its lowest point since 1990.

In the period from 2004 to 2020, around three-quarters of applicants refused asylum at initial decision lodged an appeal and almost one third of those appeals were allowed.'

The UK is currently in a bit of a mess with those denied asylym, post-Brexit. Some return home voluntarily, whilst others are forcibly returned. Presumably, some stay incognito, as it were.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I love these threads, partly because Fabbers seem so much less likely than the general public to swallow tabloid lies, and partly because it is such an easy way to add those who do to the 'Absolutely no' pile.

This!

It’s very easy to spot those that lack critical thinking skills and swallow everything that the likes of the Telegraph and the Mail spout.

Far to many lack basic compassion and would rather be angry at some foreigners while this country is continually being harmed far more by our own government

Oh the irony

What is ironic about what I posted?

All of it. From calling our people who believe everything one media outlet says whilst at the same time demonstrating they have done just the same thing but from a different media outlet. From calling out people who lack compassion for the uncontrolled invasion whilst at the same time showing no compassion for those citizens whose lives are being affected. Insulting those with different opinions to yourself only serves to divide further and not to progress the problem. Now I don't no what the answer is but I do know that uncontrolled and illegal entry is not a good thing. Consider the size of the British expeditionary force that we sent to France in the second world War was 390k. And that by the end of this year they will have sent to us an equivalent number. Its a legitimate concern with unknown outcomes.

A few points..

Someone on here stated that they wished that the people on one of the recent rescues had “all drowned”… this is clearly a lack of compassion and human decency.

The uncontrolled/ illegal entry aspect is solely down to the actions the government has taken in recent years… Brexit removed us from the various Dublin agreements where we could relocate people back to the first safe country, and the government has still failed to set up a legal method of entry for asylum seekers unless they happen to be from some certain groups.

How are people’s lives being affected by the number of people crossing?…. Local services are struggling not because of migrants but due to 12 years of austerity and underfunding from the government, which is why it’s just as difficult to get Drs appointments etc in Devon as it is in Kent.

As for the criticism of the dogmatic adherence to what the tabloids say…. I do not get my views from ANY of the media companies, I do however get information from international organisations and charities with no political affiliation and make judgements based on that, among other sources.

Some good observations.

Don't you think it a bit naive to claim that services are not affected by another 500k people who need housing health transport and food? Are all the materials free? Are the people who must now work for them expected to do so for free?

Im not sure what the answer is but it takes funding to home and look after them. If funding is going there its coming from somewhere else. "

where did the 500k come from ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackformore100Man
over a year ago

Tin town

Rather that repeat all the above... Re the 500k number.

It's interesting. I guessed it. But since you asked I've hit the ons and fact check. Its a full time job. Seems nobody knows the real number or even a close guess.

Re the channel the only number they seem to capture is very tight defined and concerns small boats. Of which 2022 ytd number is something like 40k..of which 87% are interestingly male.

The figures exclude and I cut and last here from gov site. ...

arrive on larger vessels, such as go-fast craft, yachts, motor cruisers, tugs and fishing vessels – although these are rarely used by irregular migrants at present

arrive in the UK clandestinely on larger vessels not referenced above, including where hidden in a vehicle on a ferry

are prevented from departing France, or those intercepted by French authorities and returned to France

arrive in the UK undetected, or where there have been reports of people making the crossing, but no actual encounters

arrive on larger vessels, such as go-fast craft, yachts, motor cruisers, tugs and fishing vessels – although these are rarely used by irregular migrants at present

arrive in the UK clandestinely on larger vessels not referenced above, including where hidden in a vehicle on a ferry

are prevented from departing France, or those intercepted by French authorities and returned to France

arrive in the UK undetected, or where there have been reports of people making the crossing, but no actual encounters

A bigger picture is found at reuters fact check which fact checked this statement.

"Fact check: It is not known how many illegal immigrants are in the UK"

Which was done in response to this Facebook post..

: “There’s no point in locking us down when there are 2million illegals wandering around the UK & our borders are still open”

The response shown below.

VERDICT

Misleading. The exact number of illegal immigrants in the UK is not known. However, the two most recent studies estimate the number to be between 594,000-745,000 and 800,000-1.2 million respectively.

This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work here .?????????

Interestingly they reference research from 2017 and 2019.

Anyway to answer your question it was an informed guess.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod

over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset


"I love these threads, partly because Fabbers seem so much less likely than the general public to swallow tabloid lies, and partly because it is such an easy way to add those who do to the 'Absolutely no' pile.

This!

It’s very easy to spot those that lack critical thinking skills and swallow everything that the likes of the Telegraph and the Mail spout.

Far to many lack basic compassion and would rather be angry at some foreigners while this country is continually being harmed far more by our own government

Oh the irony

What is ironic about what I posted?

All of it. From calling our people who believe everything one media outlet says whilst at the same time demonstrating they have done just the same thing but from a different media outlet. From calling out people who lack compassion for the uncontrolled invasion whilst at the same time showing no compassion for those citizens whose lives are being affected. Insulting those with different opinions to yourself only serves to divide further and not to progress the problem. Now I don't no what the answer is but I do know that uncontrolled and illegal entry is not a good thing. Consider the size of the British expeditionary force that we sent to France in the second world War was 390k. And that by the end of this year they will have sent to us an equivalent number. Its a legitimate concern with unknown outcomes.

A few points..

Someone on here stated that they wished that the people on one of the recent rescues had “all drowned”… this is clearly a lack of compassion and human decency.

The uncontrolled/ illegal entry aspect is solely down to the actions the government has taken in recent years… Brexit removed us from the various Dublin agreements where we could relocate people back to the first safe country, and the government has still failed to set up a legal method of entry for asylum seekers unless they happen to be from some certain groups.

How are people’s lives being affected by the number of people crossing?…. Local services are struggling not because of migrants but due to 12 years of austerity and underfunding from the government, which is why it’s just as difficult to get Drs appointments etc in Devon as it is in Kent.

As for the criticism of the dogmatic adherence to what the tabloids say…. I do not get my views from ANY of the media companies, I do however get information from international organisations and charities with no political affiliation and make judgements based on that, among other sources.

Some good observations.

Don't you think it a bit naive to claim that services are not affected by another 500k people who need housing health transport and food? Are all the materials free? Are the people who must now work for them expected to do so for free?

Im not sure what the answer is but it takes funding to home and look after them. If funding is going there its coming from somewhere else. where did the 500k come from ?"

Plus he didn't say Services weren't affected. Just that it's not purely down to immigration. Here in Somerset and down the road in Devon and Cornwall it's nigh on impossible to get an NHS dentist and there are issues in many areas re GP appointments. And we have far less immigrants than the SE.

We have got the same government though that's underfunded health care, education and local services for 12 years now.

I suspect that's a far more significant influence on local services nationwide than immigrants.

Still. We made a lot of people rich during covid and there's a lovely new (if expensive and of no benefit to the majority of the UK population) train set on the way. If there's any rail staff left to run it of course......

A

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ean counterMan
over a year ago

Market Harborough/ Kettering

How many "safe" countries do these people pass through on their way to the promised land? The UK must be the laughing stock of the world. I can here the conversations now " In the UK they are stupid. We turn up with no paperwork, they rescue us, put us in a lovely hotel, give us a mobile phone (yes this is true) and plenty of food". I do feel sorry for future generations in this country as I'm afraid we are now done as "Great" Britain. Stupid Britain would be a better name !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Rather that repeat all the above... Re the 500k number.

It's interesting. I guessed it. But since you asked I've hit the ons and fact check. Its a full time job. Seems nobody knows the real number or even a close guess.

Re the channel the only number they seem to capture is very tight defined and concerns small boats. Of which 2022 ytd number is something like 40k..of which 87% are interestingly male.

The figures exclude and I cut and last here from gov site. ...

arrive on larger vessels, such as go-fast craft, yachts, motor cruisers, tugs and fishing vessels – although these are rarely used by irregular migrants at present

arrive in the UK clandestinely on larger vessels not referenced above, including where hidden in a vehicle on a ferry

are prevented from departing France, or those intercepted by French authorities and returned to France

arrive in the UK undetected, or where there have been reports of people making the crossing, but no actual encounters

arrive on larger vessels, such as go-fast craft, yachts, motor cruisers, tugs and fishing vessels – although these are rarely used by irregular migrants at present

arrive in the UK clandestinely on larger vessels not referenced above, including where hidden in a vehicle on a ferry

are prevented from departing France, or those intercepted by French authorities and returned to France

arrive in the UK undetected, or where there have been reports of people making the crossing, but no actual encounters

A bigger picture is found at reuters fact check which fact checked this statement.

"Fact check: It is not known how many illegal immigrants are in the UK"

Which was done in response to this Facebook post..

: “There’s no point in locking us down when there are 2million illegals wandering around the UK & our borders are still open”

The response shown below.

VERDICT

Misleading. The exact number of illegal immigrants in the UK is not known. However, the two most recent studies estimate the number to be between 594,000-745,000 and 800,000-1.2 million respectively.

This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work here .?????????

Interestingly they reference research from 2017 and 2019.

Anyway to answer your question it was an informed guess. "

ah okay. I thought it may have been thsinyrats net migration. Those numbers are about illegal migrants. Nothing to do with refugees. I saw c 15k pa. So 500k felt tippy as a total number.

Refugees are something like 8pc of all migrants. The convenient tip of the iceberg.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"How many "safe" countries do these people pass through on their way to the promised land? The UK must be the laughing stock of the world. I can here the conversations now " In the UK they are stupid. We turn up with no paperwork, they rescue us, put us in a lovely hotel, give us a mobile phone (yes this is true) and plenty of food". I do feel sorry for future generations in this country as I'm afraid we are now done as "Great" Britain. Stupid Britain would be a better name ! "
I'd not be getting on a dingy for a mobile phone. Plenty of asylum seekers choose France and others above the UK. We see a small percentage of those that enter safe countries.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *penbicoupleCouple
over a year ago

Northampton


"How many "safe" countries do these people pass through on their way to the promised land? The UK must be the laughing stock of the world. I can here the conversations now " In the UK they are stupid. We turn up with no paperwork, they rescue us, put us in a lovely hotel, give us a mobile phone (yes this is true) and plenty of food". I do feel sorry for future generations in this country as I'm afraid we are now done as "Great" Britain. Stupid Britain would be a better name ! "

If you actually wanted to know the answer to your question, it's easy to google. And I'm not sure how we would be a laughing stock, as other countries take more of 'these people' than we do.

Also, they don't ask for a mobile phone. If one is provided, it is because it makes things easier for the authorities. But I'm guessing you could have worked that out.

Incidentally, it's not called "Great Britain" because it's great. That was never a part of the meaning. So your Stupid Britain comment is, well, not great!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago

carrbrook stalybridge


"How many "safe" countries do these people pass through on their way to the promised land? The UK must be the laughing stock of the world. I can here the conversations now " In the UK they are stupid. We turn up with no paperwork, they rescue us, put us in a lovely hotel, give us a mobile phone (yes this is true) and plenty of food". I do feel sorry for future generations in this country as I'm afraid we are now done as "Great" Britain. Stupid Britain would be a better name ! "
can I ask did you ask this of the recent refugees from Ukraine? How many safe countrys do they pass through why cant they all stay in Poland or lithuanuia after all they are safe ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inky_couple2020Couple
over a year ago

North West


"How many "safe" countries do these people pass through on their way to the promised land? The UK must be the laughing stock of the world. I can here the conversations now " In the UK they are stupid. We turn up with no paperwork, they rescue us, put us in a lovely hotel, give us a mobile phone (yes this is true) and plenty of food". I do feel sorry for future generations in this country as I'm afraid we are now done as "Great" Britain. Stupid Britain would be a better name ! "

1) Have you tried living in a budget hotel for months and months with no way to prepare or cook food, bar a kettle?

2) Our entire system of support is now built around online or telephone appointments and forms, so a mobile phone or device is now essential to make applications for asylum and to engage with the British authorities. Long gone are the days of filling in paper forms.

3) Perhaps we should just let them starve?! Of course we give them food, what civilised country would deny people food? I doubt very much that they're being given stuff from the local Michelin starred restaurant, from the Cordon Bleu recipe book

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"How many "safe" countries do these people pass through on their way to the promised land? The UK must be the laughing stock of the world. I can here the conversations now " In the UK they are stupid. We turn up with no paperwork, they rescue us, put us in a lovely hotel, give us a mobile phone (yes this is true) and plenty of food". I do feel sorry for future generations in this country as I'm afraid we are now done as "Great" Britain. Stupid Britain would be a better name ! can I ask did you ask this of the recent refugees from Ukraine? How many safe countrys do they pass through why cant they all stay in Poland or lithuanuia after all they are safe ?"

Ukrainians applied for refugee status before coming to the UK.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inky_couple2020Couple
over a year ago

North West


"I'm all for women and children fleeing war zones and coming to the UK (assuming they respect and contribute in some way) but up to 90% are adult males from none war zones is a bit worrying and they cross safe countries like Germany France Spain why risk life on a boat to get across to england"

How are children coming from war zones going to "contribute in some way"? Perhaps we should put them to work in the shortage areas? Fruit picking? Waiting tables? If any of them can teach Physics, let me know

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inky_couple2020Couple
over a year ago

North West


"How many "safe" countries do these people pass through on their way to the promised land? The UK must be the laughing stock of the world. I can here the conversations now " In the UK they are stupid. We turn up with no paperwork, they rescue us, put us in a lovely hotel, give us a mobile phone (yes this is true) and plenty of food". I do feel sorry for future generations in this country as I'm afraid we are now done as "Great" Britain. Stupid Britain would be a better name ! can I ask did you ask this of the recent refugees from Ukraine? How many safe countrys do they pass through why cant they all stay in Poland or lithuanuia after all they are safe ?

Ukrainians applied for refugee status before coming to the UK. "

But only because we put this in place, by allowing applications in Poland, France and other places. We choose not to do the same for many others from active conflict zones.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ife NinjaMan
over a year ago

Dunfermline

Britain has always been a safe space for people fleeing persecution and oppression. That's a tradition we should uphold and be proud if. We should nit be bowing down to dog whistle racists, who are using the issue for their own, narrow minded agendas.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *tephanjMan
over a year ago

Kettering

All these people coming across the channel should be sent back to France, for them to deal with. It seems to me they just want them to come here so they don't have to pay for them

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"All these people coming across the channel should be sent back to France, for them to deal with. It seems to me they just want them to come here so they don't have to pay for them"
france have something like 3x the number of refugees as us.

We dont take as many as we think we do. We just talk about it a lot.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andyfloss2000Woman
over a year ago

ashford


"Britain has always been a safe space for people fleeing persecution and oppression. That's a tradition we should uphold and be proud if. We should nit be bowing down to dog whistle racists, who are using the issue for their own, narrow minded agendas."

x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Britain has always been a safe space for people fleeing persecution and oppression. That's a tradition we should uphold and be proud if. We should nit be bowing down to dog whistle racists, who are using the issue for their own, narrow minded agendas."
that's just a myth spread by liberal lefties proud my arse

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lephantisMan
over a year ago

Oxford


"Britain has always been a safe space for people fleeing persecution and oppression. That's a tradition we should uphold and be proud if. We should nit be bowing down to dog whistle racists, who are using the issue for their own, narrow minded agendas. that's just a myth spread by liberal lefties proud my arse "

It's lovely that you are proud of your arse, but it's not really the issue here.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackformore100Man
over a year ago

Tin town


"How many "safe" countries do these people pass through on their way to the promised land? The UK must be the laughing stock of the world. I can here the conversations now " In the UK they are stupid. We turn up with no paperwork, they rescue us, put us in a lovely hotel, give us a mobile phone (yes this is true) and plenty of food". I do feel sorry for future generations in this country as I'm afraid we are now done as "Great" Britain. Stupid Britain would be a better name ! can I ask did you ask this of the recent refugees from Ukraine? How many safe countrys do they pass through why cant they all stay in Poland or lithuanuia after all they are safe ?

Ukrainians applied for refugee status before coming to the UK.

But only because we put this in place, by allowing applications in Poland, France and other places. We choose not to do the same for many others from active conflict zones."

Is Albania a conflict zone?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackformore100Man
over a year ago

Tin town


"Britain has always been a safe space for people fleeing persecution and oppression. That's a tradition we should uphold and be proud if. We should nit be bowing down to dog whistle racists, who are using the issue for their own, narrow minded agendas.

x"

For people fleeing persecution and oppression. Who are in danger. Yes. Trouble is those who are availing of the service and are and are not fleeing oppression or imminent danger.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"How many "safe" countries do these people pass through on their way to the promised land? The UK must be the laughing stock of the world. I can here the conversations now " In the UK they are stupid. We turn up with no paperwork, they rescue us, put us in a lovely hotel, give us a mobile phone (yes this is true) and plenty of food". I do feel sorry for future generations in this country as I'm afraid we are now done as "Great" Britain. Stupid Britain would be a better name ! can I ask did you ask this of the recent refugees from Ukraine? How many safe countrys do they pass through why cant they all stay in Poland or lithuanuia after all they are safe ?

Ukrainians applied for refugee status before coming to the UK.

But only because we put this in place, by allowing applications in Poland, France and other places. We choose not to do the same for many others from active conflict zones.

Is Albania a conflict zone? "

it's not. Some problem it seems with human trafficking and modern day sl@very.

This issue with Albania is not the boat crossings per se. It's that we are too slow in processing cases. We have very little idea on what basis the class of 2022 are claiming asylum as we are probably still on 2020. We play into the propoganda hands.

And by having no safe routes we force asylum underground. Ironically this probably creates a stronger case as ppl get in servitude.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *inky_couple2020Couple
over a year ago

North West


"How many "safe" countries do these people pass through on their way to the promised land? The UK must be the laughing stock of the world. I can here the conversations now " In the UK they are stupid. We turn up with no paperwork, they rescue us, put us in a lovely hotel, give us a mobile phone (yes this is true) and plenty of food". I do feel sorry for future generations in this country as I'm afraid we are now done as "Great" Britain. Stupid Britain would be a better name ! can I ask did you ask this of the recent refugees from Ukraine? How many safe countrys do they pass through why cant they all stay in Poland or lithuanuia after all they are safe ?

Ukrainians applied for refugee status before coming to the UK.

But only because we put this in place, by allowing applications in Poland, France and other places. We choose not to do the same for many others from active conflict zones.

Is Albania a conflict zone? "

No, but you don't need to come from a conflict zone to be eligible to claim asylum. People who are being persecuted or are at risk of persecution for a wide range of reasons might qualify as asylum seekers. Until their claim is processed, we don't know. We do know that a substantial number of Albanians are removed from the UK, having been unsuccessful and therefore the "system" resolves that issue in these cases.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top