Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated..." One is buoyant and due to equal displacement of water, floats and is navigable upon the waters (a brief explanation) The other is permanently set upon a foundation of some solidity, (footings) on terra firma and is immovable.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... One is buoyant and due to equal displacement of water, floats and is navigable upon the waters (a brief explanation) The other is permanently set upon a foundation of some solidity, (footings) on terra firma and is immovable. "Hilarious... and from a legal, HR pov why is one acceptable? Please don't give me arguments about seasickness or scurvy  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... One is buoyant and due to equal displacement of water, floats and is navigable upon the waters (a brief explanation) The other is permanently set upon a foundation of some solidity, (footings) on terra firma and is immovable. "Maritime law will be lurking somewhere it depends on if they are docked or not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... One is buoyant and due to equal displacement of water, floats and is navigable upon the waters (a brief explanation) The other is permanently set upon a foundation of some solidity, (footings) on terra firma and is immovable.
Hilarious... and from a legal, HR pov why is one acceptable? Please don't give me arguments about seasickness or scurvy "I'm not giving any arguments, I will not stoke controversy which seems to be the norm on this forum. Besides, I have better things to do here at the moment. Best of British and a good evening to you..! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated..." I think it's cheaper than normal hotels but that is an assumption. I believe there has been complaints from asylum support groups and also the authorities where the barge is moored are not happy either | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... I think it's cheaper than normal hotels but that is an assumption. I believe there has been complaints from asylum support groups and also the authorities where the barge is moored are not happy either" I read about those complaints that the barge wouldn’t be fit for purpose, I hope they have inspected it personally to get an opinion, or it will be yet again a group throwing out objection based on nothing. Will will see in the course of time | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... I think it's cheaper than normal hotels but that is an assumption. I believe there has been complaints from asylum support groups and also the authorities where the barge is moored are not happy either I read about those complaints that the barge wouldn’t be fit for purpose, I hope they have inspected it personally to get an opinion, or it will be yet again a group throwing out objection based on nothing. Will will see in the course of time " It's actually been used in various locations, to house construction and marine workers. All rooms are en-suite, have a proper bed, storage and a desk. The vessel also has a laundry and a canteen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... I think it's cheaper than normal hotels but that is an assumption. I believe there has been complaints from asylum support groups and also the authorities where the barge is moored are not happy either I read about those complaints that the barge wouldn’t be fit for purpose, I hope they have inspected it personally to get an opinion, or it will be yet again a group throwing out objection based on nothing. Will will see in the course of time It's actually been used in various locations, to house construction and marine workers. All rooms are en-suite, have a proper bed, storage and a desk. The vessel also has a laundry and a canteen." And a sea view. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... I think it's cheaper than normal hotels but that is an assumption. I believe there has been complaints from asylum support groups and also the authorities where the barge is moored are not happy either I read about those complaints that the barge wouldn’t be fit for purpose, I hope they have inspected it personally to get an opinion, or it will be yet again a group throwing out objection based on nothing. Will will see in the course of time It's actually been used in various locations, to house construction and marine workers. All rooms are en-suite, have a proper bed, storage and a desk. The vessel also has a laundry and a canteen. And a sea view." And so the problem is what exactly? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There will no doubt be a few people along soon to tell you why it's inhumane" Doubtless, and im waiting with interest | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There will no doubt be a few people along soon to tell you why it's inhumane" Apparently according to the BBC article It does not provide what they need or the respect, dignity and support they deserve. One group describes it as ministerial cruelty I'm not sure if the accommodation on this barge is any worse than a standard hotel. I think it has a gym too, how inhumane can you get | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There will no doubt be a few people along soon to tell you why it's inhumane Apparently according to the BBC article It does not provide what they need or the respect, dignity and support they deserve. One group describes it as ministerial cruelty I'm not sure if the accommodation on this barge is any worse than a standard hotel. I think it has a gym too, how inhumane can you get "And that's the point so why is anyone complaining? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated..." Cost | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost" I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC " 200 rooms. Housing 500 men. I bet that plays a part. Are they bunking up ATM ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC 200 rooms. Housing 500 men. I bet that plays a part. Are they bunking up ATM ?" Ensuite, gym, TV and pool rooms...it's a tough life | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC 200 rooms. Housing 500 men. I bet that plays a part. Are they bunking up ATM ? Ensuite, gym, TV and pool rooms...it's a tough life" the barges own blurb says it has space for 222 guests. So I'm hoping the 500 in the BBC article is wrong. But if it was true ... Would it be cause for complaint ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC 200 rooms. Housing 500 men. I bet that plays a part. Are they bunking up ATM ? Ensuite, gym, TV and pool rooms...it's a tough lifethe barges own blurb says it has space for 222 guests. So I'm hoping the 500 in the BBC article is wrong. But if it was true ... Would it be cause for complaint ? " Let them bunk. They arrived here illegally they jave broken a law. It happens to prisoners. I hope they bunk. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC 200 rooms. Housing 500 men. I bet that plays a part. Are they bunking up ATM ? Ensuite, gym, TV and pool rooms...it's a tough lifethe barges own blurb says it has space for 222 guests. So I'm hoping the 500 in the BBC article is wrong. But if it was true ... Would it be cause for complaint ? Let them bunk. They arrived here illegally they jave broken a law. It happens to prisoners. I hope they bunk." They didn’t arrive illegally, it is not illegal to claim asylum. You don’t know who they are, you don’t know where they have come from, and you don’t know why they have felt it necessary to cross the Channel in a rubber dinghy other than our Government has closed down most of the safe routes that used to exist. Until all the answers are known, they should at least be treated with some compassion. It is after all the British way to be decent and fair. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC 200 rooms. Housing 500 men. I bet that plays a part. Are they bunking up ATM ? Ensuite, gym, TV and pool rooms...it's a tough lifethe barges own blurb says it has space for 222 guests. So I'm hoping the 500 in the BBC article is wrong. But if it was true ... Would it be cause for complaint ? Let them bunk. They arrived here illegally they jave broken a law. It happens to prisoners. I hope they bunk. They didn’t arrive illegally, it is not illegal to claim asylum. You don’t know who they are, you don’t know where they have come from, and you don’t know why they have felt it necessary to cross the Channel in a rubber dinghy other than our Government has closed down most of the safe routes that used to exist. Until all the answers are known, they should at least be treated with some compassion. It is after all the British way to be decent and fair." You are mixing with 2 things up Yes it is illegal to arrive through clandestine entry. No you cant have it how you arrived used against you when applying for asylum. When asylum is rejected.d you are removed because you have arrived here illegally. They have come from France. The government hasn't closed down most of the safe routes. They are open. They chose toclose their passports and IDs They are housed and fed. As per the convention. They aren't entitled to their own room | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I heard a guy from His Majesty’s Prison Inspectorate on the radio today and he said that the issue might be that whilst the accommodation might be fine, people still need to experience open air recreation to live a tolerable life. " They are not being kept inside them. These are just basic amenities. You can't imprison them. But you don't have to give then 4* hotels either | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC 200 rooms. Housing 500 men. I bet that plays a part. Are they bunking up ATM ? Ensuite, gym, TV and pool rooms...it's a tough lifethe barges own blurb says it has space for 222 guests. So I'm hoping the 500 in the BBC article is wrong. But if it was true ... Would it be cause for complaint ? Let them bunk. They arrived here illegally they jave broken a law. It happens to prisoners. I hope they bunk. They didn’t arrive illegally, it is not illegal to claim asylum. You don’t know who they are, you don’t know where they have come from, and you don’t know why they have felt it necessary to cross the Channel in a rubber dinghy other than our Government has closed down most of the safe routes that used to exist. Until all the answers are known, they should at least be treated with some compassion. It is after all the British way to be decent and fair. You are mixing with 2 things up Yes it is illegal to arrive through clandestine entry. No you cant have it how you arrived used against you when applying for asylum. When asylum is rejected.d you are removed because you have arrived here illegally. They have come from France. The government hasn't closed down most of the safe routes. They are open. They chose toclose their passports and IDs They are housed and fed. As per the convention. They aren't entitled to their own room" Legal and safe routes...you posted about this several month back. However, when confronted on this none of our Ministers or MPs were able to explain this or list any. You therefore must know more than they do! As you must have that info to hand, would you please list out these safe routes and how asylum seekers from different countries can access them? Also if you have access to the info could you tell us how many asylum seekers have been successfully processed via these legal and safe routes and been granted asylum in the UK. Thanks in advance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC 200 rooms. Housing 500 men. I bet that plays a part. Are they bunking up ATM ? Ensuite, gym, TV and pool rooms...it's a tough lifethe barges own blurb says it has space for 222 guests. So I'm hoping the 500 in the BBC article is wrong. But if it was true ... Would it be cause for complaint ? Let them bunk. They arrived here illegally they jave broken a law. It happens to prisoners. I hope they bunk." prisoners share a bed ? That's news to me. Kinda feels like you are punishing them for arriving illegally. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC 200 rooms. Housing 500 men. I bet that plays a part. Are they bunking up ATM ? Ensuite, gym, TV and pool rooms...it's a tough lifethe barges own blurb says it has space for 222 guests. So I'm hoping the 500 in the BBC article is wrong. But if it was true ... Would it be cause for complaint ? Let them bunk. They arrived here illegally they jave broken a law. It happens to prisoners. I hope they bunk. They didn’t arrive illegally, it is not illegal to claim asylum. You don’t know who they are, you don’t know where they have come from, and you don’t know why they have felt it necessary to cross the Channel in a rubber dinghy other than our Government has closed down most of the safe routes that used to exist. Until all the answers are known, they should at least be treated with some compassion. It is after all the British way to be decent and fair. You are mixing with 2 things up Yes it is illegal to arrive through clandestine entry. No you cant have it how you arrived used against you when applying for asylum. When asylum is rejected.d you are removed because you have arrived here illegally. They have come from France. The government hasn't closed down most of the safe routes. They are open. They chose toclose their passports and IDs They are housed and fed. As per the convention. They aren't entitled to their own room" By which safe route can a gay Ugandan person, an Iranian woman with family in the U.K. or the family of a former Afghan interpreter get to the U.K. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Specious reasoning, like putting people in different accommodation is going to solve the problem of immigration. Tories are the ultimate cheapskates when it comes to public services, what a bunch of tight fisted people. Rather than spending proper money on practical solutions, like investment in our border forces, or attempting to sort root cause problems. They waste what little money they are barely willing to spend on gimmicks and PR stunts. The sooner they are kicked out of power, the sooner we will get a competent immigration policy." They are spending around 7 billion a year currently on housing them nktnsure that is " cheap skating" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC 200 rooms. Housing 500 men. I bet that plays a part. Are they bunking up ATM ? Ensuite, gym, TV and pool rooms...it's a tough lifethe barges own blurb says it has space for 222 guests. So I'm hoping the 500 in the BBC article is wrong. But if it was true ... Would it be cause for complaint ? Let them bunk. They arrived here illegally they jave broken a law. It happens to prisoners. I hope they bunk. They didn’t arrive illegally, it is not illegal to claim asylum. You don’t know who they are, you don’t know where they have come from, and you don’t know why they have felt it necessary to cross the Channel in a rubber dinghy other than our Government has closed down most of the safe routes that used to exist. Until all the answers are known, they should at least be treated with some compassion. It is after all the British way to be decent and fair. You are mixing with 2 things up Yes it is illegal to arrive through clandestine entry. No you cant have it how you arrived used against you when applying for asylum. When asylum is rejected.d you are removed because you have arrived here illegally. They have come from France. The government hasn't closed down most of the safe routes. They are open. They chose toclose their passports and IDs They are housed and fed. As per the convention. They aren't entitled to their own room Legal and safe routes...you posted about this several month back. However, when confronted on this none of our Ministers or MPs were able to explain this or list any. You therefore must know more than they do! As you must have that info to hand, would you please list out these safe routes and how asylum seekers from different countries can access them? Also if you have access to the info could you tell us how many asylum seekers have been successfully processed via these legal and safe routes and been granted asylum in the UK. Thanks in advance." I think you are talking about the parliament committee interview with Braverman. If you watch it. She defers to the expert to answer. I simply watched the committee eating. I posted to you this time last week how to download the excel file. As to how many have entered via the legal routes. You said you were going to take a look later on. I guess you never did ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC 200 rooms. Housing 500 men. I bet that plays a part. Are they bunking up ATM ? Ensuite, gym, TV and pool rooms...it's a tough lifethe barges own blurb says it has space for 222 guests. So I'm hoping the 500 in the BBC article is wrong. But if it was true ... Would it be cause for complaint ? Let them bunk. They arrived here illegally they jave broken a law. It happens to prisoners. I hope they bunk.prisoners share a bed ? That's news to me. Kinda feels like you are punishing them for arriving illegally. " They share a room. That's bunking. I am not punishing them. They just dont habe a right to their own room. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC 200 rooms. Housing 500 men. I bet that plays a part. Are they bunking up ATM ? Ensuite, gym, TV and pool rooms...it's a tough lifethe barges own blurb says it has space for 222 guests. So I'm hoping the 500 in the BBC article is wrong. But if it was true ... Would it be cause for complaint ? Let them bunk. They arrived here illegally they jave broken a law. It happens to prisoners. I hope they bunk. They didn’t arrive illegally, it is not illegal to claim asylum. You don’t know who they are, you don’t know where they have come from, and you don’t know why they have felt it necessary to cross the Channel in a rubber dinghy other than our Government has closed down most of the safe routes that used to exist. Until all the answers are known, they should at least be treated with some compassion. It is after all the British way to be decent and fair. You are mixing with 2 things up Yes it is illegal to arrive through clandestine entry. No you cant have it how you arrived used against you when applying for asylum. When asylum is rejected.d you are removed because you have arrived here illegally. They have come from France. The government hasn't closed down most of the safe routes. They are open. They chose toclose their passports and IDs They are housed and fed. As per the convention. They aren't entitled to their own room By which safe route can a gay Ugandan person, an Iranian woman with family in the U.K. or the family of a former Afghan interpreter get to the U.K. " Feel free to look at where I told _irldn to look in my reply above then research the safe routes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Specious reasoning, like putting people in different accommodation is going to solve the problem of immigration. Tories are the ultimate cheapskates when it comes to public services, what a bunch of tight fisted people. Rather than spending proper money on practical solutions, like investment in our border forces, or attempting to sort root cause problems. They waste what little money they are barely willing to spend on gimmicks and PR stunts. The sooner they are kicked out of power, the sooner we will get a competent immigration policy. They are spending around 7 billion a year currently on housing them nktnsure that is " cheap skating"" I don’t believe the figure. I am sure it’s way lower than that. But of course trusting tories with money…. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For _irldn This is what you put I'm reply to me. Morley man. "won't post the link. But should you Google " asylum and resettlement data sets" and go to the end tab of the government excel file. You will find what you are looking for for entry routes and total who entered via those routes each quarter I think it's circa 25k Not including operation pitting.(15k afghan nationals airlifted to the uk)" You *****it won’t work on my phone so I will look later on a desktop/laptop*****" So this is what I found... “The “safe and legal” routes the government claims those crossing the Channel ignore are programmes where the UK resettles people from abroad who are recognised by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR). It also allows people to join relatives who have already been granted asylum in the UK. They effectively allow the government to pick and choose who comes to the UK, how and when. For that reason, the process is slow and extremely restricted. The UNHCR has said: “Critical resettlement schemes remain very limited, and can never substitute for access to asylum. The Refugee Convention explicitly recognises that refugees may be compelled to enter a country of asylum irregularly.” How many people arrive on safe and legal routes? Home Office figures show that in 2022, 14 times more refugees were granted asylum after travelling to the UK themselves than were resettled by the British government. More than 16,600 people were granted asylum after travelling to the UK – including many who arrived on small boats – while only 887 refugees were brought to the UK under the government’s flagship UK resettlement scheme. A further 216 people were resettled under the separate community sponsorship scheme, and 22 Afghans who missed the August 2021 evacuation were brought to Britain. While 4,473 partners and children of refugees living in the UK were allowed in on family reunion visas, the figure is 40 per cent down on 2019 and the route is not open to other relatives. Many MPs have pointed to figures showing that while only 22 Afghans who missed the August 2021 evacuation have been brought to Britain under the government’s latest resettlement scheme, thousands have crossed the English Channel on small boats. They now make up the largest nationality of arrivals, overtaking Albanians, while Syrians, Iranians and Iraqis also make up significant groups.” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC 200 rooms. Housing 500 men. I bet that plays a part. Are they bunking up ATM ? Ensuite, gym, TV and pool rooms...it's a tough lifethe barges own blurb says it has space for 222 guests. So I'm hoping the 500 in the BBC article is wrong. But if it was true ... Would it be cause for complaint ? Let them bunk. They arrived here illegally they jave broken a law. It happens to prisoners. I hope they bunk.prisoners share a bed ? That's news to me. Kinda feels like you are punishing them for arriving illegally. They share a room. That's bunking. I am not punishing them. They just dont habe a right to their own room. " not sharing a bed then. So different.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC 200 rooms. Housing 500 men. I bet that plays a part. Are they bunking up ATM ? Ensuite, gym, TV and pool rooms...it's a tough lifethe barges own blurb says it has space for 222 guests. So I'm hoping the 500 in the BBC article is wrong. But if it was true ... Would it be cause for complaint ? Let them bunk. They arrived here illegally they jave broken a law. It happens to prisoners. I hope they bunk.prisoners share a bed ? That's news to me. Kinda feels like you are punishing them for arriving illegally. They share a room. That's bunking. I am not punishing them. They just dont habe a right to their own room. not sharing a bed then. So different. "Did any 1 say they shared a bed? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Specious reasoning, like putting people in different accommodation is going to solve the problem of immigration. Tories are the ultimate cheapskates when it comes to public services, what a bunch of tight fisted people. Rather than spending proper money on practical solutions, like investment in our border forces, or attempting to sort root cause problems. They waste what little money they are barely willing to spend on gimmicks and PR stunts. The sooner they are kicked out of power, the sooner we will get a competent immigration policy. They are spending around 7 billion a year currently on housing them nktnsure that is " cheap skating" I don’t believe the figure. I am sure it’s way lower than that. But of course trusting tories with money…." It's 6 billion a year. I am sorry ykubdont believe it.cthere are multiple sources for the figure Doesn't seem skintish to me | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For _irldn This is what you put I'm reply to me. Morley man. "won't post the link. But should you Google " asylum and resettlement data sets" and go to the end tab of the government excel file. You will find what you are looking for for entry routes and total who entered via those routes each quarter I think it's circa 25k Not including operation pitting.(15k afghan nationals airlifted to the uk)" You *****it won’t work on my phone so I will look later on a desktop/laptop***** So this is what I found... “The “safe and legal” routes the government claims those crossing the Channel ignore are programmes where the UK resettles people from abroad who are recognised by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR). It also allows people to join relatives who have already been granted asylum in the UK. They effectively allow the government to pick and choose who comes to the UK, how and when. For that reason, the process is slow and extremely restricted. The UNHCR has said: “Critical resettlement schemes remain very limited, and can never substitute for access to asylum. The Refugee Convention explicitly recognises that refugees may be compelled to enter a country of asylum irregularly.” How many people arrive on safe and legal routes? Home Office figures show that in 2022, 14 times more refugees were granted asylum after travelling to the UK themselves than were resettled by the British government. More than 16,600 people were granted asylum after travelling to the UK – including many who arrived on small boats – while only 887 refugees were brought to the UK under the government’s flagship UK resettlement scheme. A further 216 people were resettled under the separate community sponsorship scheme, and 22 Afghans who missed the August 2021 evacuation were brought to Britain. While 4,473 partners and children of refugees living in the UK were allowed in on family reunion visas, the figure is 40 per cent down on 2019 and the route is not open to other relatives. Many MPs have pointed to figures showing that while only 22 Afghans who missed the August 2021 evacuation have been brought to Britain under the government’s latest resettlement scheme, thousands have crossed the English Channel on small boats. They now make up the largest nationality of arrivals, overtaking Albanians, while Syrians, Iranians and Iraqis also make up significant groups.”" Yes the governemnt works with agencies. Those agencies verify the individuals and do all the work. Then they are granted right to remain indefinitely. The uk will have a limit we can't take in every refugee that wants to come here indont knkw what that limit is. Again not one is saying theybdont have a right to enter illegally if they can prove they are genuine refugees. As we have witnessed this year with Albanians. This is not the case. And for the last decade only around 20% have been granted asylum on 1st request(they can prove their country of origin though identification, phones, messages, Facebook. I am glad though that you are now aware of the legal routes. FYI. On the nationalities. These are declared nationalities. It doesn't mean they came from that country I posed a question on here a while ago. Would you like me to pose it again. Last time I never got an answer | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Most of the Albanians arriving are literally just criminals. What's the ratio these days? Are 40% or more arriving still Albanian?" No. Once the mou with albania wa signed the arrivals dropped off a cliff pr should I say atleast their country of origin declarations dropped off a cliff. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Would it be easy enough to send this boat towards the country that these “passengers” on board came from? Asking for a friend " Afghanistan is landlocked | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... I think it's cheaper than normal hotels but that is an assumption. I believe there has been complaints from asylum support groups and also the authorities where the barge is moored are not happy either I read about those complaints that the barge wouldn’t be fit for purpose, I hope they have inspected it personally to get an opinion, or it will be yet again a group throwing out objection based on nothing. Will will see in the course of time It's actually been used in various locations, to house construction and marine workers. All rooms are en-suite, have a proper bed, storage and a desk. The vessel also has a laundry and a canteen." Spot on, they are very comfortable. We have accommodation barges tie up next to the oil rig during shut downs, Your room has en-suite toilet/shower, tv and computer in room. Restaurant, Gym, cinema. Plus they will be docked in a harbour they wont experience the rough weather of the North Sea. better than living in a tent, and not many hotels where they are staying have cinema and gym. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For _irldn This is what you put I'm reply to me. Morley man. "won't post the link. But should you Google " asylum and resettlement data sets" and go to the end tab of the government excel file. You will find what you are looking for for entry routes and total who entered via those routes each quarter I think it's circa 25k Not including operation pitting.(15k afghan nationals airlifted to the uk)" You *****it won’t work on my phone so I will look later on a desktop/laptop***** So this is what I found... “The “safe and legal” routes the government claims those crossing the Channel ignore are programmes where the UK resettles people from abroad who are recognised by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR). It also allows people to join relatives who have already been granted asylum in the UK. They effectively allow the government to pick and choose who comes to the UK, how and when. For that reason, the process is slow and extremely restricted. The UNHCR has said: “Critical resettlement schemes remain very limited, and can never substitute for access to asylum. The Refugee Convention explicitly recognises that refugees may be compelled to enter a country of asylum irregularly.” How many people arrive on safe and legal routes? Home Office figures show that in 2022, 14 times more refugees were granted asylum after travelling to the UK themselves than were resettled by the British government. More than 16,600 people were granted asylum after travelling to the UK – including many who arrived on small boats – while only 887 refugees were brought to the UK under the government’s flagship UK resettlement scheme. A further 216 people were resettled under the separate community sponsorship scheme, and 22 Afghans who missed the August 2021 evacuation were brought to Britain. While 4,473 partners and children of refugees living in the UK were allowed in on family reunion visas, the figure is 40 per cent down on 2019 and the route is not open to other relatives. Many MPs have pointed to figures showing that while only 22 Afghans who missed the August 2021 evacuation have been brought to Britain under the government’s latest resettlement scheme, thousands have crossed the English Channel on small boats. They now make up the largest nationality of arrivals, overtaking Albanians, while Syrians, Iranians and Iraqis also make up significant groups.” Yes the governemnt works with agencies. Those agencies verify the individuals and do all the work. Then they are granted right to remain indefinitely. The uk will have a limit we can't take in every refugee that wants to come here indont knkw what that limit is. Again not one is saying theybdont have a right to enter illegally if they can prove they are genuine refugees. As we have witnessed this year with Albanians. This is not the case. And for the last decade only around 20% have been granted asylum on 1st request(they can prove their country of origin though identification, phones, messages, Facebook. I am glad though that you are now aware of the legal routes. FYI. On the nationalities. These are declared nationalities. It doesn't mean they came from that country I posed a question on here a while ago. Would you like me to pose it again. Last time I never got an answer" But Morleyman are you missing the point? These scheme are only available for specific groups. And the numbers actually being processed through the schemes are pitiful... “More than 16,600 people were granted asylum after travelling to the UK – including many who arrived on small boats – while only 887 refugees were brought to the UK under the government’s flagship UK resettlement scheme.” Clearly the schemes that do exist are not fit for purpose and clearly there are not schemes to cover anyone except some specific situations. Someone above asked specifically what route a gay person from Uganda could use (where it is now punishable by death for being homosexual). Can you tell us? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I believe this barge to house the people seeking asylum will cost £7.3m a year. That is enough to hire 234 people on £30k a year to actually process the applications! Sure someone can point to the cost benefit analysis?" Certainly cheaper than hotels. The problem is in verifying them. We have seen in Germany syrian asylum seekers stabbing and killing people. What's the cost benefit there? 1 life for just giving some.one citizen ship quicker? We see it here too. They have been caught grooming children. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For _irldn This is what you put I'm reply to me. Morley man. "won't post the link. But should you Google " asylum and resettlement data sets" and go to the end tab of the government excel file. You will find what you are looking for for entry routes and total who entered via those routes each quarter I think it's circa 25k Not including operation pitting.(15k afghan nationals airlifted to the uk)" You *****it won’t work on my phone so I will look later on a desktop/laptop***** So this is what I found... “The “safe and legal” routes the government claims those crossing the Channel ignore are programmes where the UK resettles people from abroad who are recognised by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR). It also allows people to join relatives who have already been granted asylum in the UK. They effectively allow the government to pick and choose who comes to the UK, how and when. For that reason, the process is slow and extremely restricted. The UNHCR has said: “Critical resettlement schemes remain very limited, and can never substitute for access to asylum. The Refugee Convention explicitly recognises that refugees may be compelled to enter a country of asylum irregularly.” How many people arrive on safe and legal routes? Home Office figures show that in 2022, 14 times more refugees were granted asylum after travelling to the UK themselves than were resettled by the British government. More than 16,600 people were granted asylum after travelling to the UK – including many who arrived on small boats – while only 887 refugees were brought to the UK under the government’s flagship UK resettlement scheme. A further 216 people were resettled under the separate community sponsorship scheme, and 22 Afghans who missed the August 2021 evacuation were brought to Britain. While 4,473 partners and children of refugees living in the UK were allowed in on family reunion visas, the figure is 40 per cent down on 2019 and the route is not open to other relatives. Many MPs have pointed to figures showing that while only 22 Afghans who missed the August 2021 evacuation have been brought to Britain under the government’s latest resettlement scheme, thousands have crossed the English Channel on small boats. They now make up the largest nationality of arrivals, overtaking Albanians, while Syrians, Iranians and Iraqis also make up significant groups.” Yes the governemnt works with agencies. Those agencies verify the individuals and do all the work. Then they are granted right to remain indefinitely. The uk will have a limit we can't take in every refugee that wants to come here indont knkw what that limit is. Again not one is saying theybdont have a right to enter illegally if they can prove they are genuine refugees. As we have witnessed this year with Albanians. This is not the case. And for the last decade only around 20% have been granted asylum on 1st request(they can prove their country of origin though identification, phones, messages, Facebook. I am glad though that you are now aware of the legal routes. FYI. On the nationalities. These are declared nationalities. It doesn't mean they came from that country I posed a question on here a while ago. Would you like me to pose it again. Last time I never got an answer But Morleyman are you missing the point? These scheme are only available for specific groups. And the numbers actually being processed through the schemes are pitiful... “More than 16,600 people were granted asylum after travelling to the UK – including many who arrived on small boats – while only 887 refugees were brought to the UK under the government’s flagship UK resettlement scheme.” Clearly the schemes that do exist are not fit for purpose and clearly there are not schemes to cover anyone except some specific situations. Someone above asked specifically what route a gay person from Uganda could use (where it is now punishable by death for being homosexual). Can you tell us? " They are available to any one being persecuted and fleeing their home state younget in contact with the UN. They verify your persecution and your ID Yes. The resettlement scheme requires ID and proof of presentation rather than just false claimants. Funny how it drops off the cliff. You are welcome to do a ROI to the UN and ask how many applicants there are. 2023 have come here until Dec 2022 on ukrs. We also just took in some 150k Ukrainians Hong Kongers and Afghans in the last 15 months. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Someone above asked specifically what route a gay person from Uganda could use (where it is now punishable by death for being homosexual). Can you tell us? " We've done this before. They could apply for a UK tourist visa online, buy a plane ticket, fly here, and claim asylum on arrival. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC 200 rooms. Housing 500 men. I bet that plays a part. Are they bunking up ATM ? Ensuite, gym, TV and pool rooms...it's a tough lifethe barges own blurb says it has space for 222 guests. So I'm hoping the 500 in the BBC article is wrong. But if it was true ... Would it be cause for complaint ? Let them bunk. They arrived here illegally they jave broken a law. It happens to prisoners. I hope they bunk.prisoners share a bed ? That's news to me. Kinda feels like you are punishing them for arriving illegally. They share a room. That's bunking. I am not punishing them. They just dont habe a right to their own room. not sharing a bed then. So different.
Did any 1 say they shared a bed?"the bbc article suggested it was for 500 people. There is space for 222. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC 200 rooms. Housing 500 men. I bet that plays a part. Are they bunking up ATM ? Ensuite, gym, TV and pool rooms...it's a tough lifethe barges own blurb says it has space for 222 guests. So I'm hoping the 500 in the BBC article is wrong. But if it was true ... Would it be cause for complaint ? Let them bunk. They arrived here illegally they jave broken a law. It happens to prisoners. I hope they bunk.prisoners share a bed ? That's news to me. Kinda feels like you are punishing them for arriving illegally. They share a room. That's bunking. I am not punishing them. They just dont habe a right to their own room. not sharing a bed then. So different.
Did any 1 say they shared a bed?the bbc article suggested it was for 500 people. There is space for 222.
"You can have 2 single beds in a room? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC 200 rooms. Housing 500 men. I bet that plays a part. Are they bunking up ATM ? Ensuite, gym, TV and pool rooms...it's a tough lifethe barges own blurb says it has space for 222 guests. So I'm hoping the 500 in the BBC article is wrong. But if it was true ... Would it be cause for complaint ? Let them bunk. They arrived here illegally they jave broken a law. It happens to prisoners. I hope they bunk.prisoners share a bed ? That's news to me. Kinda feels like you are punishing them for arriving illegally. They share a room. That's bunking. I am not punishing them. They just dont habe a right to their own room. not sharing a bed then. So different.
Did any 1 say they shared a bed?the bbc article suggested it was for 500 people. There is space for 222.
You can have 2 single beds in a room?"from Bibby themselves "Bibby Stockholm can accommodate up to 222 guests". Not 200 rooms. 200 guests. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I believe this barge to house the people seeking asylum will cost £7.3m a year. That is enough to hire 234 people on £30k a year to actually process the applications! Sure someone can point to the cost benefit analysis?" The problem with delayed processing is the lack of documentation and the issues that brings. As an example it has been a highly likely security flag that terrorists are, have, will use the small boat crossing infrastructure to enter the country. There are so many reasons that processing is delayed, if they did not destroy their paperwork, which is known to be what they are told to do by the smugglers the processing time would fall. 98% arrived without paperwork last year, approx 44k people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC 200 rooms. Housing 500 men. I bet that plays a part. Are they bunking up ATM ? Ensuite, gym, TV and pool rooms...it's a tough lifethe barges own blurb says it has space for 222 guests. So I'm hoping the 500 in the BBC article is wrong. But if it was true ... Would it be cause for complaint ? Let them bunk. They arrived here illegally they jave broken a law. It happens to prisoners. I hope they bunk.prisoners share a bed ? That's news to me. Kinda feels like you are punishing them for arriving illegally. They share a room. That's bunking. I am not punishing them. They just dont habe a right to their own room. not sharing a bed then. So different.
Did any 1 say they shared a bed?the bbc article suggested it was for 500 people. There is space for 222.
You can have 2 single beds in a room?from Bibby themselves
"Bibby Stockholm can accommodate up to 222 guests".
Not 200 rooms. 200 guests. "Ever think they had double beds kW 2 singles. Or where the single was. They made it a bunk? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I believe this barge to house the people seeking asylum will cost £7.3m a year. That is enough to hire 234 people on £30k a year to actually process the applications! Sure someone can point to the cost benefit analysis? The problem with delayed processing is the lack of documentation and the issues that brings. As an example it has been a highly likely security flag that terrorists are, have, will use the small boat crossing infrastructure to enter the country. There are so many reasons that processing is delayed, if they did not destroy their paperwork, which is known to be what they are told to do by the smugglers the processing time would fall. 98% arrived without paperwork last year, approx 44k people. " Small correction. To try and be accurate. I might remember wrong. But I think it's 98% without a passport. But I cant imagine them having any other form of ID. But agree 100% as per my point on attacks ing ermany and grooming going on. We have no idea who they are or their criminal background. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC 200 rooms. Housing 500 men. I bet that plays a part. Are they bunking up ATM ? Ensuite, gym, TV and pool rooms...it's a tough lifethe barges own blurb says it has space for 222 guests. So I'm hoping the 500 in the BBC article is wrong. But if it was true ... Would it be cause for complaint ? Let them bunk. They arrived here illegally they jave broken a law. It happens to prisoners. I hope they bunk.prisoners share a bed ? That's news to me. Kinda feels like you are punishing them for arriving illegally. They share a room. That's bunking. I am not punishing them. They just dont habe a right to their own room. not sharing a bed then. So different.
Did any 1 say they shared a bed?the bbc article suggested it was for 500 people. There is space for 222.
You can have 2 single beds in a room?from Bibby themselves
"Bibby Stockholm can accommodate up to 222 guests".
Not 200 rooms. 200 guests.
Ever think they had double beds kW 2 singles.
Or where the single was. They made it a bunk?"I'm going by their own words. Guests. Not rooms. Your guessing if they have double bunked. I'm simply saying based on what is in public domain something doesn't add up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC 200 rooms. Housing 500 men. I bet that plays a part. Are they bunking up ATM ? Ensuite, gym, TV and pool rooms...it's a tough lifethe barges own blurb says it has space for 222 guests. So I'm hoping the 500 in the BBC article is wrong. But if it was true ... Would it be cause for complaint ? Let them bunk. They arrived here illegally they jave broken a law. It happens to prisoners. I hope they bunk.prisoners share a bed ? That's news to me. Kinda feels like you are punishing them for arriving illegally. They share a room. That's bunking. I am not punishing them. They just dont habe a right to their own room. not sharing a bed then. So different.
Did any 1 say they shared a bed?the bbc article suggested it was for 500 people. There is space for 222.
You can have 2 single beds in a room?from Bibby themselves
"Bibby Stockholm can accommodate up to 222 guests".
Not 200 rooms. 200 guests.
Ever think they had double beds kW 2 singles.
Or where the single was. They made it a bunk?I'm going by their own words. Guests. Not rooms.
Your guessing if they have double bunked. I'm simply saying based on what is in public domain something doesn't add up. "The barge is used to house workers in difficult to access or expensive locations and can be configured to requirements, is what they say on their promo video. Being realistic I wouldn't imagine for one moment that each individual would have their own room, I would not expect them to have their own rooms on land, to be sharing a double room with 2 singe beds as an example. I would also imaging that the bar and some other parts of the configured boat can be repurposed for extra living space. The barge has not been refit yet as I understand so we are all guessing | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC 200 rooms. Housing 500 men. I bet that plays a part. Are they bunking up ATM ? Ensuite, gym, TV and pool rooms...it's a tough lifethe barges own blurb says it has space for 222 guests. So I'm hoping the 500 in the BBC article is wrong. But if it was true ... Would it be cause for complaint ? Let them bunk. They arrived here illegally they jave broken a law. It happens to prisoners. I hope they bunk.prisoners share a bed ? That's news to me. Kinda feels like you are punishing them for arriving illegally. They share a room. That's bunking. I am not punishing them. They just dont habe a right to their own room. not sharing a bed then. So different.
Did any 1 say they shared a bed?the bbc article suggested it was for 500 people. There is space for 222.
You can have 2 single beds in a room?from Bibby themselves
"Bibby Stockholm can accommodate up to 222 guests".
Not 200 rooms. 200 guests.
Ever think they had double beds kW 2 singles.
Or where the single was. They made it a bunk?I'm going by their own words. Guests. Not rooms.
Your guessing if they have double bunked. I'm simply saying based on what is in public domain something doesn't add up. "I'll ad it. Its an assumption I think a reasonable one. That they will be in bunk beds or singles in 1 room. Rather than sharing a bed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC 200 rooms. Housing 500 men. I bet that plays a part. Are they bunking up ATM ? Ensuite, gym, TV and pool rooms...it's a tough lifethe barges own blurb says it has space for 222 guests. So I'm hoping the 500 in the BBC article is wrong. But if it was true ... Would it be cause for complaint ? Let them bunk. They arrived here illegally they jave broken a law. It happens to prisoners. I hope they bunk.prisoners share a bed ? That's news to me. Kinda feels like you are punishing them for arriving illegally. They share a room. That's bunking. I am not punishing them. They just dont habe a right to their own room. not sharing a bed then. So different.
Did any 1 say they shared a bed?the bbc article suggested it was for 500 people. There is space for 222.
You can have 2 single beds in a room?from Bibby themselves
"Bibby Stockholm can accommodate up to 222 guests".
Not 200 rooms. 200 guests.
Ever think they had double beds kW 2 singles.
Or where the single was. They made it a bunk?I'm going by their own words. Guests. Not rooms.
Your guessing if they have double bunked. I'm simply saying based on what is in public domain something doesn't add up.
I'll ad it. Its an assumption
I think a reasonable one. That they will be in bunk beds or singles in 1 room. Rather than sharing a bed."I was being facitous some what. However the narrative is "this boat has been designed for 200 people and has in the past been used for 200 people. We are doubling capacity to make it 500 by adding in bunk beds." It's shifts the idea that "it was good enough for corporates/prisons it's good enough for asylum seekers" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is nothing in the echr act about bunk beds infringing on one's human rights. It does say you do not have right to sunlight though. "Cant remember the exact working but I think the conve turn states any one seeking asylum wul have the right to move round a country freely. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC 200 rooms. Housing 500 men. I bet that plays a part. Are they bunking up ATM ? Ensuite, gym, TV and pool rooms...it's a tough lifethe barges own blurb says it has space for 222 guests. So I'm hoping the 500 in the BBC article is wrong. But if it was true ... Would it be cause for complaint ? Let them bunk. They arrived here illegally they jave broken a law. It happens to prisoners. I hope they bunk.prisoners share a bed ? That's news to me. Kinda feels like you are punishing them for arriving illegally. They share a room. That's bunking. I am not punishing them. They just dont habe a right to their own room. not sharing a bed then. So different.
Did any 1 say they shared a bed?the bbc article suggested it was for 500 people. There is space for 222.
You can have 2 single beds in a room?from Bibby themselves
"Bibby Stockholm can accommodate up to 222 guests".
Not 200 rooms. 200 guests.
Ever think they had double beds kW 2 singles.
Or where the single was. They made it a bunk?I'm going by their own words. Guests. Not rooms.
Your guessing if they have double bunked. I'm simply saying based on what is in public domain something doesn't add up.
I'll ad it. Its an assumption
I think a reasonable one. That they will be in bunk beds or singles in 1 room. Rather than sharing a bed.I was being facitous some what.
However the narrative is "this boat has been designed for 200 people and has in the past been used for 200 people. We are doubling capacity to make it 500 by adding in bunk beds." It's shifts the idea that "it was good enough for corporates/prisons it's good enough for asylum seekers""You are making assumptions that the barge has never been configured for 2 beds per room and we probably wont know that detail. What are the sleeping arrangements in hotel? 2 to a room or 1 room each and why do you feel sharing a room is wrong? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"_oo hot Perfect posting every thing you say couldn't agree more " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Cant remember the exact working but I think the conve turn states any one seeking asylum wul have the right to move round a country freely." You're thinking of: "ARTICLE 26. FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT Each Contracting State shall accord to refugees lawfully in its territory the right to choose their place of residence and to move freely within its territory, subject to any regulations applicable to aliens generally in the same circumstances." The important words (for this discussion) are "lawfully in its territory". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Re Uganda. What you do is ypunget your passport. You buy a ticket to the uk on a flight. You arrive in the uk. You request asylum." Wrong (again). No-one can board a flight to the U.K. unless they have a visa. They can’t get a visa without good reason and the only way they can claim asylum is by getting themselves to the U.K. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Re Uganda. What you do is ypunget your passport. You buy a ticket to the uk on a flight. You arrive in the uk. You request asylum. Wrong (again). No-one can board a flight to the U.K. unless they have a visa. They can’t get a visa without good reason and the only way they can claim asylum is by getting themselves to the U.K. " When you say 'without good reason' does that mean no one can get a holiday visa? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Re Uganda. What you do is ypunget your passport. You buy a ticket to the uk on a flight. You arrive in the uk. You request asylum. Wrong (again). No-one can board a flight to the U.K. unless they have a visa. They can’t get a visa without good reason and the only way they can claim asylum is by getting themselves to the U.K. " Why can't they buy a visa Did you want me to tell you they needed to buy a cab to the airport too? Pack their suitcase? Bring a passport, flammable.? Nice attempt at being a smart arse though | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Re Uganda. What you do is ypunget your passport. You buy a ticket to the uk on a flight. You arrive in the uk. You request asylum. Wrong (again). No-one can board a flight to the U.K. unless they have a visa. They can’t get a visa without good reason and the only way they can claim asylum is by getting themselves to the U.K. When you say 'without good reason' does that mean no one can get a holiday visa?" Apparently Ugandans are banned from having a holiday to the uk. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For _irldn This is what you put I'm reply to me. Morley man. "won't post the link. But should you Google " asylum and resettlement data sets" and go to the end tab of the government excel file. You will find what you are looking for for entry routes and total who entered via those routes each quarter I think it's circa 25k Not including operation pitting.(15k afghan nationals airlifted to the uk)" You *****it won’t work on my phone so I will look later on a desktop/laptop***** So this is what I found... “The “safe and legal” routes the government claims those crossing the Channel ignore are programmes where the UK resettles people from abroad who are recognised by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR). It also allows people to join relatives who have already been granted asylum in the UK. They effectively allow the government to pick and choose who comes to the UK, how and when. For that reason, the process is slow and extremely restricted. The UNHCR has said: “Critical resettlement schemes remain very limited, and can never substitute for access to asylum. The Refugee Convention explicitly recognises that refugees may be compelled to enter a country of asylum irregularly.” How many people arrive on safe and legal routes? Home Office figures show that in 2022, 14 times more refugees were granted asylum after travelling to the UK themselves than were resettled by the British government. More than 16,600 people were granted asylum after travelling to the UK – including many who arrived on small boats – while only 887 refugees were brought to the UK under the government’s flagship UK resettlement scheme. A further 216 people were resettled under the separate community sponsorship scheme, and 22 Afghans who missed the August 2021 evacuation were brought to Britain. While 4,473 partners and children of refugees living in the UK were allowed in on family reunion visas, the figure is 40 per cent down on 2019 and the route is not open to other relatives. Many MPs have pointed to figures showing that while only 22 Afghans who missed the August 2021 evacuation have been brought to Britain under the government’s latest resettlement scheme, thousands have crossed the English Channel on small boats. They now make up the largest nationality of arrivals, overtaking Albanians, while Syrians, Iranians and Iraqis also make up significant groups.” Yes the governemnt works with agencies. Those agencies verify the individuals and do all the work. Then they are granted right to remain indefinitely. The uk will have a limit we can't take in every refugee that wants to come here indont knkw what that limit is. Again not one is saying theybdont have a right to enter illegally if they can prove they are genuine refugees. As we have witnessed this year with Albanians. This is not the case. And for the last decade only around 20% have been granted asylum on 1st request(they can prove their country of origin though identification, phones, messages, Facebook. I am glad though that you are now aware of the legal routes. FYI. On the nationalities. These are declared nationalities. It doesn't mean they came from that country I posed a question on here a while ago. Would you like me to pose it again. Last time I never got an answer But Morleyman are you missing the point? These scheme are only available for specific groups. And the numbers actually being processed through the schemes are pitiful... “More than 16,600 people were granted asylum after travelling to the UK – including many who arrived on small boats – while only 887 refugees were brought to the UK under the government’s flagship UK resettlement scheme.” Clearly the schemes that do exist are not fit for purpose and clearly there are not schemes to cover anyone except some specific situations. Someone above asked specifically what route a gay person from Uganda could use (where it is now punishable by death for being homosexual). Can you tell us? They are available to any one being persecuted and fleeing their home state younget in contact with the UN. They verify your persecution and your ID Yes. The resettlement scheme requires ID and proof of presentation rather than just false claimants. Funny how it drops off the cliff. You are welcome to do a ROI to the UN and ask how many applicants there are. 2023 have come here until Dec 2022 on ukrs. We also just took in some 150k Ukrainians Hong Kongers and Afghans in the last 15 months." I don’t think you can include the numbers from either Ukraine or Hong Kong. Both are special circumstances. Ukraine as a result of a major war in Europe and public outcry (I believe we were slow to act compared to others) and HK was a British colony that only returned to China recently (and with promises in place for HK citizens). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Would it be easy enough to send this boat towards the country that these “passengers” on board came from? Asking for a friend Afghanistan is landlocked" Don't let geography get in the way of good old jingoism! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Would it be easy enough to send this boat towards the country that these “passengers” on board came from? Asking for a friend Afghanistan is landlocked Don't let geography get in the way of good old jingoism!" I know I'm being pedantic, he probably means France? Surely not all onboard are from Afghanistan? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC 200 rooms. Housing 500 men. I bet that plays a part. Are they bunking up ATM ? Ensuite, gym, TV and pool rooms...it's a tough lifethe barges own blurb says it has space for 222 guests. So I'm hoping the 500 in the BBC article is wrong. But if it was true ... Would it be cause for complaint ? Let them bunk. They arrived here illegally they jave broken a law. It happens to prisoners. I hope they bunk.prisoners share a bed ? That's news to me. Kinda feels like you are punishing them for arriving illegally. They share a room. That's bunking. I am not punishing them. They just dont habe a right to their own room. not sharing a bed then. So different.
Did any 1 say they shared a bed?the bbc article suggested it was for 500 people. There is space for 222.
You can have 2 single beds in a room?from Bibby themselves
"Bibby Stockholm can accommodate up to 222 guests".
Not 200 rooms. 200 guests.
Ever think they had double beds kW 2 singles.
Or where the single was. They made it a bunk?I'm going by their own words. Guests. Not rooms.
Your guessing if they have double bunked. I'm simply saying based on what is in public domain something doesn't add up.
I'll ad it. Its an assumption
I think a reasonable one. That they will be in bunk beds or singles in 1 room. Rather than sharing a bed.I was being facitous some what.
However the narrative is "this boat has been designed for 200 people and has in the past been used for 200 people. We are doubling capacity to make it 500 by adding in bunk beds." It's shifts the idea that "it was good enough for corporates/prisons it's good enough for asylum seekers"
You are making assumptions that the barge has never been configured for 2 beds per room and we probably wont know that detail.
What are the sleeping arrangements in hotel? 2 to a room or 1 room each and why do you feel sharing a room is wrong? "the rooms are marketed as single. The website went up from 222 guests to 500 at some point it seems (although they have forgotten to update the marketing material). While I don't have anything wrong with people sharing a room, I would worry that the vessel isn't designed for 500 ppl. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests. "What about all the uninvited ones from our own community? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
What about all the uninvited ones from our own community?"I don't get you, do you mean homeless? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests. "Yes. Let's all panic about immigrants. Don't worry about what's going on in government, nothing to see there. Look over there at that distraction. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For _irldn This is what you put I'm reply to me. Morley man. "won't post the link. But should you Google " asylum and resettlement data sets" and go to the end tab of the government excel file. You will find what you are looking for for entry routes and total who entered via those routes each quarter I think it's circa 25k Not including operation pitting.(15k afghan nationals airlifted to the uk)" You *****it won’t work on my phone so I will look later on a desktop/laptop***** So this is what I found... “The “safe and legal” routes the government claims those crossing the Channel ignore are programmes where the UK resettles people from abroad who are recognised by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR). It also allows people to join relatives who have already been granted asylum in the UK. They effectively allow the government to pick and choose who comes to the UK, how and when. For that reason, the process is slow and extremely restricted. The UNHCR has said: “Critical resettlement schemes remain very limited, and can never substitute for access to asylum. The Refugee Convention explicitly recognises that refugees may be compelled to enter a country of asylum irregularly.” How many people arrive on safe and legal routes? Home Office figures show that in 2022, 14 times more refugees were granted asylum after travelling to the UK themselves than were resettled by the British government. More than 16,600 people were granted asylum after travelling to the UK – including many who arrived on small boats – while only 887 refugees were brought to the UK under the government’s flagship UK resettlement scheme. A further 216 people were resettled under the separate community sponsorship scheme, and 22 Afghans who missed the August 2021 evacuation were brought to Britain. While 4,473 partners and children of refugees living in the UK were allowed in on family reunion visas, the figure is 40 per cent down on 2019 and the route is not open to other relatives. Many MPs have pointed to figures showing that while only 22 Afghans who missed the August 2021 evacuation have been brought to Britain under the government’s latest resettlement scheme, thousands have crossed the English Channel on small boats. They now make up the largest nationality of arrivals, overtaking Albanians, while Syrians, Iranians and Iraqis also make up significant groups.” Yes the governemnt works with agencies. Those agencies verify the individuals and do all the work. Then they are granted right to remain indefinitely. The uk will have a limit we can't take in every refugee that wants to come here indont knkw what that limit is. Again not one is saying theybdont have a right to enter illegally if they can prove they are genuine refugees. As we have witnessed this year with Albanians. This is not the case. And for the last decade only around 20% have been granted asylum on 1st request(they can prove their country of origin though identification, phones, messages, Facebook. I am glad though that you are now aware of the legal routes. FYI. On the nationalities. These are declared nationalities. It doesn't mean they came from that country I posed a question on here a while ago. Would you like me to pose it again. Last time I never got an answer But Morleyman are you missing the point? These scheme are only available for specific groups. And the numbers actually being processed through the schemes are pitiful... “More than 16,600 people were granted asylum after travelling to the UK – including many who arrived on small boats – while only 887 refugees were brought to the UK under the government’s flagship UK resettlement scheme.” Clearly the schemes that do exist are not fit for purpose and clearly there are not schemes to cover anyone except some specific situations. Someone above asked specifically what route a gay person from Uganda could use (where it is now punishable by death for being homosexual). Can you tell us? They are available to any one being persecuted and fleeing their home state younget in contact with the UN. They verify your persecution and your ID Yes. The resettlement scheme requires ID and proof of presentation rather than just false claimants. Funny how it drops off the cliff. You are welcome to do a ROI to the UN and ask how many applicants there are. 2023 have come here until Dec 2022 on ukrs. We also just took in some 150k Ukrainians Hong Kongers and Afghans in the last 15 months. I don’t think you can include the numbers from either Ukraine or Hong Kong. Both are special circumstances. Ukraine as a result of a major war in Europe and public outcry (I believe we were slow to act compared to others) and HK was a British colony that only returned to China recently (and with promises in place for HK citizens)." Let's ignore the uk doing its part to take in 150k refugees, because it doesn't suit my narrative. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
Yes. Let's all panic about immigrants. Don't worry about what's going on in government, nothing to see there. Look over there at that distraction. "Seriously though the government resorting to cramming people onto a barge for possibly years, does not tell you something. that the country is struggling to accommodate these people and the government are trying to discourage people crossing with shouts of racist, Nazi human rights abusers. The government has both hands behind its back. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My OP was trying to clarify why a hotel was acceptable for housing migrants, but a floating hotel was, apparently, not. Can we get back to that point rather than the argument of immigration/migration/asylum " There's no difference the charter doesn't say they have to be kept in 5 * hotels. Just thatbthey be given freedom to move and without judgement on their entry. There is no difference. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
Yes. Let's all panic about immigrants. Don't worry about what's going on in government, nothing to see there. Look over there at that distraction. "Why do you seemingly think everyone but you is dopey enough to (constantly) fall for these...., as you put it...., "distractions....??! According to many of your posts here, a lot of people are easily led. Be great if the disrespect stopped and a little more debate could be forthcoming....? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
Yes. Let's all panic about immigrants. Don't worry about what's going on in government, nothing to see there. Look over there at that distraction.
Seriously though the government resorting to cramming people onto a barge for possibly years, does not tell you something. that the country is struggling to accommodate these people and the government are trying to discourage people crossing with shouts of racist, Nazi human rights abusers. The government has both hands behind its back. "Yes. The government are cranking out the anti-immigrant propaganda hard. Can't blame them. It's a very successful tactic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
Yes. Let's all panic about immigrants. Don't worry about what's going on in government, nothing to see there. Look over there at that distraction.
Seriously though the government resorting to cramming people onto a barge for possibly years, does not tell you something. that the country is struggling to accommodate these people and the government are trying to discourage people crossing with shouts of racist, Nazi human rights abusers. The government has both hands behind its back.
Yes. The government are cranking out the anti-immigrant propaganda hard.
Can't blame them. It's a very successful tactic."What is anti immigration about mitigating the risk and danger to life to people leaving one safe country to another safe country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For _irldn This is what you put I'm reply to me. Morley man. "won't post the link. But should you Google " asylum and resettlement data sets" and go to the end tab of the government excel file. You will find what you are looking for for entry routes and total who entered via those routes each quarter I think it's circa 25k Not including operation pitting.(15k afghan nationals airlifted to the uk)" You *****it won’t work on my phone so I will look later on a desktop/laptop***** So this is what I found... “The “safe and legal” routes the government claims those crossing the Channel ignore are programmes where the UK resettles people from abroad who are recognised by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR). It also allows people to join relatives who have already been granted asylum in the UK. They effectively allow the government to pick and choose who comes to the UK, how and when. For that reason, the process is slow and extremely restricted. The UNHCR has said: “Critical resettlement schemes remain very limited, and can never substitute for access to asylum. The Refugee Convention explicitly recognises that refugees may be compelled to enter a country of asylum irregularly.” How many people arrive on safe and legal routes? Home Office figures show that in 2022, 14 times more refugees were granted asylum after travelling to the UK themselves than were resettled by the British government. More than 16,600 people were granted asylum after travelling to the UK – including many who arrived on small boats – while only 887 refugees were brought to the UK under the government’s flagship UK resettlement scheme. A further 216 people were resettled under the separate community sponsorship scheme, and 22 Afghans who missed the August 2021 evacuation were brought to Britain. While 4,473 partners and children of refugees living in the UK were allowed in on family reunion visas, the figure is 40 per cent down on 2019 and the route is not open to other relatives. Many MPs have pointed to figures showing that while only 22 Afghans who missed the August 2021 evacuation have been brought to Britain under the government’s latest resettlement scheme, thousands have crossed the English Channel on small boats. They now make up the largest nationality of arrivals, overtaking Albanians, while Syrians, Iranians and Iraqis also make up significant groups.” Yes the governemnt works with agencies. Those agencies verify the individuals and do all the work. Then they are granted right to remain indefinitely. The uk will have a limit we can't take in every refugee that wants to come here indont knkw what that limit is. Again not one is saying theybdont have a right to enter illegally if they can prove they are genuine refugees. As we have witnessed this year with Albanians. This is not the case. And for the last decade only around 20% have been granted asylum on 1st request(they can prove their country of origin though identification, phones, messages, Facebook. I am glad though that you are now aware of the legal routes. FYI. On the nationalities. These are declared nationalities. It doesn't mean they came from that country I posed a question on here a while ago. Would you like me to pose it again. Last time I never got an answer But Morleyman are you missing the point? These scheme are only available for specific groups. And the numbers actually being processed through the schemes are pitiful... “More than 16,600 people were granted asylum after travelling to the UK – including many who arrived on small boats – while only 887 refugees were brought to the UK under the government’s flagship UK resettlement scheme.” Clearly the schemes that do exist are not fit for purpose and clearly there are not schemes to cover anyone except some specific situations. Someone above asked specifically what route a gay person from Uganda could use (where it is now punishable by death for being homosexual). Can you tell us? They are available to any one being persecuted and fleeing their home state younget in contact with the UN. They verify your persecution and your ID Yes. The resettlement scheme requires ID and proof of presentation rather than just false claimants. Funny how it drops off the cliff. You are welcome to do a ROI to the UN and ask how many applicants there are. 2023 have come here until Dec 2022 on ukrs. We also just took in some 150k Ukrainians Hong Kongers and Afghans in the last 15 months. I don’t think you can include the numbers from either Ukraine or Hong Kong. Both are special circumstances. Ukraine as a result of a major war in Europe and public outcry (I believe we were slow to act compared to others) and HK was a British colony that only returned to China recently (and with promises in place for HK citizens). Let's ignore the uk doing its part to take in 150k refugees, because it doesn't suit my narrative. " Not really. People from Ukraine and HK were given special dispensation. They did not enter the UK illegally or come across in small boats (they did not need to). Also people from Ukraine are here on the understanding they will return home once the war is over and it is safe to do so. They are “refugees” not “asylum seekers”. So including them in the numbers is misleading when the discussion is clearly about that specific small boat issue. Nothing to do with a “narrative”, just hugely skews the numbers and becomes an apples and pears comparison. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
Yes. Let's all panic about immigrants. Don't worry about what's going on in government, nothing to see there. Look over there at that distraction.
Seriously though the government resorting to cramming people onto a barge for possibly years, does not tell you something. that the country is struggling to accommodate these people and the government are trying to discourage people crossing with shouts of racist, Nazi human rights abusers. The government has both hands behind its back.
Yes. The government are cranking out the anti-immigrant propaganda hard.
Can't blame them. It's a very successful tactic.
What is anti immigration about mitigating the risk and danger to life to people leaving one safe country to another safe country. "Come on now! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Specious reasoning, like putting people in different accommodation is going to solve the problem of immigration. Tories are the ultimate cheapskates when it comes to public services, what a bunch of tight fisted people. Rather than spending proper money on practical solutions, like investment in our border forces, or attempting to sort root cause problems. They waste what little money they are barely willing to spend on gimmicks and PR stunts. The sooner they are kicked out of power, the sooner we will get a competent immigration policy. They are spending around 7 billion a year currently on housing them nktnsure that is " cheap skating" I don’t believe the figure. I am sure it’s way lower than that. But of course trusting tories with money…. It's 6 billion a year. I am sorry ykubdont believe it.cthere are multiple sources for the figure Doesn't seem skintish to me" First it’s 7 billion then 6 billion, even you are not sure, tories say they spend so much money but in reality they spend as little as they can, if they can. The problem has always been that when it comes to government finances the tories boast about spending lots but really they spend little and normally on some gimmick which somehow benefits so friend of theirs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Specious reasoning, like putting people in different accommodation is going to solve the problem of immigration. Tories are the ultimate cheapskates when it comes to public services, what a bunch of tight fisted people. Rather than spending proper money on practical solutions, like investment in our border forces, or attempting to sort root cause problems. They waste what little money they are barely willing to spend on gimmicks and PR stunts. The sooner they are kicked out of power, the sooner we will get a competent immigration policy. They are spending around 7 billion a year currently on housing them nktnsure that is " cheap skating" I don’t believe the figure. I am sure it’s way lower than that. But of course trusting tories with money…. It's 6 billion a year. I am sorry ykubdont believe it.cthere are multiple sources for the figure Doesn't seem skintish to me First it’s 7 billion then 6 billion, even you are not sure, tories say they spend so much money but in reality they spend as little as they can, if they can. The problem has always been that when it comes to government finances the tories boast about spending lots but really they spend little and normally on some gimmick which somehow benefits so friend of theirs." Sorry typo. 7.billion Where do you think the government are skimping. Because it doesn't look it from government spending data. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
Yes. Let's all panic about immigrants. Don't worry about what's going on in government, nothing to see there. Look over there at that distraction.
Seriously though the government resorting to cramming people onto a barge for possibly years, does not tell you something. that the country is struggling to accommodate these people and the government are trying to discourage people crossing with shouts of racist, Nazi human rights abusers. The government has both hands behind its back.
Yes. The government are cranking out the anti-immigrant propaganda hard.
Can't blame them. It's a very successful tactic."Enact a policy most people want to to see..the horror | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For _irldn This is what you put I'm reply to me. Morley man. "won't post the link. But should you Google " asylum and resettlement data sets" and go to the end tab of the government excel file. You will find what you are looking for for entry routes and total who entered via those routes each quarter I think it's circa 25k Not including operation pitting.(15k afghan nationals airlifted to the uk)" You *****it won’t work on my phone so I will look later on a desktop/laptop***** So this is what I found... “The “safe and legal” routes the government claims those crossing the Channel ignore are programmes where the UK resettles people from abroad who are recognised by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR). It also allows people to join relatives who have already been granted asylum in the UK. They effectively allow the government to pick and choose who comes to the UK, how and when. For that reason, the process is slow and extremely restricted. The UNHCR has said: “Critical resettlement schemes remain very limited, and can never substitute for access to asylum. The Refugee Convention explicitly recognises that refugees may be compelled to enter a country of asylum irregularly.” How many people arrive on safe and legal routes? Home Office figures show that in 2022, 14 times more refugees were granted asylum after travelling to the UK themselves than were resettled by the British government. More than 16,600 people were granted asylum after travelling to the UK – including many who arrived on small boats – while only 887 refugees were brought to the UK under the government’s flagship UK resettlement scheme. A further 216 people were resettled under the separate community sponsorship scheme, and 22 Afghans who missed the August 2021 evacuation were brought to Britain. While 4,473 partners and children of refugees living in the UK were allowed in on family reunion visas, the figure is 40 per cent down on 2019 and the route is not open to other relatives. Many MPs have pointed to figures showing that while only 22 Afghans who missed the August 2021 evacuation have been brought to Britain under the government’s latest resettlement scheme, thousands have crossed the English Channel on small boats. They now make up the largest nationality of arrivals, overtaking Albanians, while Syrians, Iranians and Iraqis also make up significant groups.” Yes the governemnt works with agencies. Those agencies verify the individuals and do all the work. Then they are granted right to remain indefinitely. The uk will have a limit we can't take in every refugee that wants to come here indont knkw what that limit is. Again not one is saying theybdont have a right to enter illegally if they can prove they are genuine refugees. As we have witnessed this year with Albanians. This is not the case. And for the last decade only around 20% have been granted asylum on 1st request(they can prove their country of origin though identification, phones, messages, Facebook. I am glad though that you are now aware of the legal routes. FYI. On the nationalities. These are declared nationalities. It doesn't mean they came from that country I posed a question on here a while ago. Would you like me to pose it again. Last time I never got an answer But Morleyman are you missing the point? These scheme are only available for specific groups. And the numbers actually being processed through the schemes are pitiful... “More than 16,600 people were granted asylum after travelling to the UK – including many who arrived on small boats – while only 887 refugees were brought to the UK under the government’s flagship UK resettlement scheme.” Clearly the schemes that do exist are not fit for purpose and clearly there are not schemes to cover anyone except some specific situations. Someone above asked specifically what route a gay person from Uganda could use (where it is now punishable by death for being homosexual). Can you tell us? They are available to any one being persecuted and fleeing their home state younget in contact with the UN. They verify your persecution and your ID Yes. The resettlement scheme requires ID and proof of presentation rather than just false claimants. Funny how it drops off the cliff. You are welcome to do a ROI to the UN and ask how many applicants there are. 2023 have come here until Dec 2022 on ukrs. We also just took in some 150k Ukrainians Hong Kongers and Afghans in the last 15 months. I don’t think you can include the numbers from either Ukraine or Hong Kong. Both are special circumstances. Ukraine as a result of a major war in Europe and public outcry (I believe we were slow to act compared to others) and HK was a British colony that only returned to China recently (and with promises in place for HK citizens). Let's ignore the uk doing its part to take in 150k refugees, because it doesn't suit my narrative. Not really. People from Ukraine and HK were given special dispensation. They did not enter the UK illegally or come across in small boats (they did not need to). Also people from Ukraine are here on the understanding they will return home once the war is over and it is safe to do so. They are “refugees” not “asylum seekers”. So including them in the numbers is misleading when the discussion is clearly about that specific small boat issue. Nothing to do with a “narrative”, just hugely skews the numbers and becomes an apples and pears comparison. " You sincerely believe that all those Ukrainians are upping sticks and going home? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
Yes. Let's all panic about immigrants. Don't worry about what's going on in government, nothing to see there. Look over there at that distraction.
Seriously though the government resorting to cramming people onto a barge for possibly years, does not tell you something. that the country is struggling to accommodate these people and the government are trying to discourage people crossing with shouts of racist, Nazi human rights abusers. The government has both hands behind its back.
Yes. The government are cranking out the anti-immigrant propaganda hard.
Can't blame them. It's a very successful tactic.
Enact a policy most people want to to see..the horror "Lol. You missed the first two steps. Come on you're not that disengaged from how this works. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
Yes. Let's all panic about immigrants. Don't worry about what's going on in government, nothing to see there. Look over there at that distraction.
Seriously though the government resorting to cramming people onto a barge for possibly years, does not tell you something. that the country is struggling to accommodate these people and the government are trying to discourage people crossing with shouts of racist, Nazi human rights abusers. The government has both hands behind its back.
Yes. The government are cranking out the anti-immigrant propaganda hard.
Can't blame them. It's a very successful tactic.
What is anti immigration about mitigating the risk and danger to life to people leaving one safe country to another safe country.
Come on now!"Is that you, shouting from the white cliffs of dover to the people in a safe country to risk their lives for a hotel room, the difference is i'm shouting no you could drown next to you, when bodies wash up on the beach you would still be their say come on now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
Yes. Let's all panic about immigrants. Don't worry about what's going on in government, nothing to see there. Look over there at that distraction.
Seriously though the government resorting to cramming people onto a barge for possibly years, does not tell you something. that the country is struggling to accommodate these people and the government are trying to discourage people crossing with shouts of racist, Nazi human rights abusers. The government has both hands behind its back.
Yes. The government are cranking out the anti-immigrant propaganda hard.
Can't blame them. It's a very successful tactic.
What is anti immigration about mitigating the risk and danger to life to people leaving one safe country to another safe country.
Come on now!
Is that you, shouting from the white cliffs of dover to the people in a safe country to risk their lives for a hotel room, the difference is i'm shouting no you could drown next to you, when bodies wash up on the beach you would still be their say come on now."You've made an assumption there, then got annoyed about what you assumed, then come to the conclusion that I would be ignoring dead bodies on the beach to say "come on now". Can't really help you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
Yes. Let's all panic about immigrants. Don't worry about what's going on in government, nothing to see there. Look over there at that distraction.
Seriously though the government resorting to cramming people onto a barge for possibly years, does not tell you something. that the country is struggling to accommodate these people and the government are trying to discourage people crossing with shouts of racist, Nazi human rights abusers. The government has both hands behind its back.
Yes. The government are cranking out the anti-immigrant propaganda hard.
Can't blame them. It's a very successful tactic.
What is anti immigration about mitigating the risk and danger to life to people leaving one safe country to another safe country.
Come on now!
Is that you, shouting from the white cliffs of dover to the people in a safe country to risk their lives for a hotel room, the difference is i'm shouting no you could drown next to you, when bodies wash up on the beach you would still be their say come on now.
You've made an assumption there, then got annoyed about what you assumed, then come to the conclusion that I would be ignoring dead bodies on the beach to say "come on now".
Can't really help you."So what is anti immigration about not wanting people risking their lives for a hotel room. Come on now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
Yes. Let's all panic about immigrants. Don't worry about what's going on in government, nothing to see there. Look over there at that distraction.
Seriously though the government resorting to cramming people onto a barge for possibly years, does not tell you something. that the country is struggling to accommodate these people and the government are trying to discourage people crossing with shouts of racist, Nazi human rights abusers. The government has both hands behind its back.
Yes. The government are cranking out the anti-immigrant propaganda hard.
Can't blame them. It's a very successful tactic.
What is anti immigration about mitigating the risk and danger to life to people leaving one safe country to another safe country.
Come on now!
Is that you, shouting from the white cliffs of dover to the people in a safe country to risk their lives for a hotel room, the difference is i'm shouting no you could drown next to you, when bodies wash up on the beach you would still be their say come on now.
You've made an assumption there, then got annoyed about what you assumed, then come to the conclusion that I would be ignoring dead bodies on the beach to say "come on now".
Can't really help you.
So what is anti immigration about not wanting people risking their lives for a hotel room.
Come on now."Who is saying they don't want people risking their lives? The people complaining are the same people who want to send gunships to the channel, people who want to ban the RNLI from rescuing them etc. Let's not pretend that these right wingers give a shit about the wellbeing of the people crossing in boats. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For _irldn This is what you put I'm reply to me. Morley man. "won't post the link. But should you Google " asylum and resettlement data sets" and go to the end tab of the government excel file. You will find what you are looking for for entry routes and total who entered via those routes each quarter I think it's circa 25k Not including operation pitting.(15k afghan nationals airlifted to the uk)" You *****it won’t work on my phone so I will look later on a desktop/laptop***** So this is what I found... “The “safe and legal” routes the government claims those crossing the Channel ignore are programmes where the UK resettles people from abroad who are recognised by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR). It also allows people to join relatives who have already been granted asylum in the UK. They effectively allow the government to pick and choose who comes to the UK, how and when. For that reason, the process is slow and extremely restricted. The UNHCR has said: “Critical resettlement schemes remain very limited, and can never substitute for access to asylum. The Refugee Convention explicitly recognises that refugees may be compelled to enter a country of asylum irregularly.” How many people arrive on safe and legal routes? Home Office figures show that in 2022, 14 times more refugees were granted asylum after travelling to the UK themselves than were resettled by the British government. More than 16,600 people were granted asylum after travelling to the UK – including many who arrived on small boats – while only 887 refugees were brought to the UK under the government’s flagship UK resettlement scheme. A further 216 people were resettled under the separate community sponsorship scheme, and 22 Afghans who missed the August 2021 evacuation were brought to Britain. While 4,473 partners and children of refugees living in the UK were allowed in on family reunion visas, the figure is 40 per cent down on 2019 and the route is not open to other relatives. Many MPs have pointed to figures showing that while only 22 Afghans who missed the August 2021 evacuation have been brought to Britain under the government’s latest resettlement scheme, thousands have crossed the English Channel on small boats. They now make up the largest nationality of arrivals, overtaking Albanians, while Syrians, Iranians and Iraqis also make up significant groups.” Yes the governemnt works with agencies. Those agencies verify the individuals and do all the work. Then they are granted right to remain indefinitely. The uk will have a limit we can't take in every refugee that wants to come here indont knkw what that limit is. Again not one is saying theybdont have a right to enter illegally if they can prove they are genuine refugees. As we have witnessed this year with Albanians. This is not the case. And for the last decade only around 20% have been granted asylum on 1st request(they can prove their country of origin though identification, phones, messages, Facebook. I am glad though that you are now aware of the legal routes. FYI. On the nationalities. These are declared nationalities. It doesn't mean they came from that country I posed a question on here a while ago. Would you like me to pose it again. Last time I never got an answer But Morleyman are you missing the point? These scheme are only available for specific groups. And the numbers actually being processed through the schemes are pitiful... “More than 16,600 people were granted asylum after travelling to the UK – including many who arrived on small boats – while only 887 refugees were brought to the UK under the government’s flagship UK resettlement scheme.” Clearly the schemes that do exist are not fit for purpose and clearly there are not schemes to cover anyone except some specific situations. Someone above asked specifically what route a gay person from Uganda could use (where it is now punishable by death for being homosexual). Can you tell us? They are available to any one being persecuted and fleeing their home state younget in contact with the UN. They verify your persecution and your ID Yes. The resettlement scheme requires ID and proof of presentation rather than just false claimants. Funny how it drops off the cliff. You are welcome to do a ROI to the UN and ask how many applicants there are. 2023 have come here until Dec 2022 on ukrs. We also just took in some 150k Ukrainians Hong Kongers and Afghans in the last 15 months. I don’t think you can include the numbers from either Ukraine or Hong Kong. Both are special circumstances. Ukraine as a result of a major war in Europe and public outcry (I believe we were slow to act compared to others) and HK was a British colony that only returned to China recently (and with promises in place for HK citizens). Let's ignore the uk doing its part to take in 150k refugees, because it doesn't suit my narrative. Not really. People from Ukraine and HK were given special dispensation. They did not enter the UK illegally or come across in small boats (they did not need to). Also people from Ukraine are here on the understanding they will return home once the war is over and it is safe to do so. They are “refugees” not “asylum seekers”. So including them in the numbers is misleading when the discussion is clearly about that specific small boat issue. Nothing to do with a “narrative”, just hugely skews the numbers and becomes an apples and pears comparison. You sincerely believe that all those Ukrainians are upping sticks and going home?" if they stay past 3 years it will (as it stands) be illegal. This scheme is currently not a route to settlement. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I hate to be controversial... But.. wouldn't the finances (tax payers money) be better spent on processing asylum claims rather than keeping claimants for ages in limbo?" Or it could be that this frees up some funds to hire more staff to process quicker. Depends which way you want to look at it  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
Yes. Let's all panic about immigrants. Don't worry about what's going on in government, nothing to see there. Look over there at that distraction.
Seriously though the government resorting to cramming people onto a barge for possibly years, does not tell you something. that the country is struggling to accommodate these people and the government are trying to discourage people crossing with shouts of racist, Nazi human rights abusers. The government has both hands behind its back.
Yes. The government are cranking out the anti-immigrant propaganda hard.
Can't blame them. It's a very successful tactic.
What is anti immigration about mitigating the risk and danger to life to people leaving one safe country to another safe country.
Come on now!
Is that you, shouting from the white cliffs of dover to the people in a safe country to risk their lives for a hotel room, the difference is i'm shouting no you could drown next to you, when bodies wash up on the beach you would still be their say come on now.
You've made an assumption there, then got annoyed about what you assumed, then come to the conclusion that I would be ignoring dead bodies on the beach to say "come on now".
Can't really help you.
So what is anti immigration about not wanting people risking their lives for a hotel room.
Come on now.
Who is saying they don't want people risking their lives?
The people complaining are the same people who want to send gunships to the channel, people who want to ban the RNLI from rescuing them etc.
Let's not pretend that these right wingers give a shit about the wellbeing of the people crossing in boats. "You said the government is pumping out it's anti migrant propaganda. The government is trying to discourage people from risking their lives, that's why they send out the boats they don't want bodies on the beach everything the government is doing is to mitigate the risk to life which should be supported by all. You do understand that heay. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
Yes. Let's all panic about immigrants. Don't worry about what's going on in government, nothing to see there. Look over there at that distraction.
Seriously though the government resorting to cramming people onto a barge for possibly years, does not tell you something. that the country is struggling to accommodate these people and the government are trying to discourage people crossing with shouts of racist, Nazi human rights abusers. The government has both hands behind its back.
Yes. The government are cranking out the anti-immigrant propaganda hard.
Can't blame them. It's a very successful tactic.
What is anti immigration about mitigating the risk and danger to life to people leaving one safe country to another safe country.
Come on now!
Is that you, shouting from the white cliffs of dover to the people in a safe country to risk their lives for a hotel room, the difference is i'm shouting no you could drown next to you, when bodies wash up on the beach you would still be their say come on now.
You've made an assumption there, then got annoyed about what you assumed, then come to the conclusion that I would be ignoring dead bodies on the beach to say "come on now".
Can't really help you.
So what is anti immigration about not wanting people risking their lives for a hotel room.
Come on now.
Who is saying they don't want people risking their lives?
The people complaining are the same people who want to send gunships to the channel, people who want to ban the RNLI from rescuing them etc.
Let's not pretend that these right wingers give a shit about the wellbeing of the people crossing in boats.
You said the government is pumping out it's anti migrant propaganda. The government is trying to discourage people from risking their lives, that's why they send out the boats they don't want bodies on the beach everything the government is doing is to mitigate the risk to life which should be supported by all. You do understand that heay. "This is a very weird angle. The government doesn't give a shit either way, all they care about is drumming up support with some good old fashioned 'blame the immigrants'. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
Yes. Let's all panic about immigrants. Don't worry about what's going on in government, nothing to see there. Look over there at that distraction.
Seriously though the government resorting to cramming people onto a barge for possibly years, does not tell you something. that the country is struggling to accommodate these people and the government are trying to discourage people crossing with shouts of racist, Nazi human rights abusers. The government has both hands behind its back.
Yes. The government are cranking out the anti-immigrant propaganda hard.
Can't blame them. It's a very successful tactic.
What is anti immigration about mitigating the risk and danger to life to people leaving one safe country to another safe country.
Come on now!
Is that you, shouting from the white cliffs of dover to the people in a safe country to risk their lives for a hotel room, the difference is i'm shouting no you could drown next to you, when bodies wash up on the beach you would still be their say come on now.
You've made an assumption there, then got annoyed about what you assumed, then come to the conclusion that I would be ignoring dead bodies on the beach to say "come on now".
Can't really help you.
So what is anti immigration about not wanting people risking their lives for a hotel room.
Come on now.
Who is saying they don't want people risking their lives?
The people complaining are the same people who want to send gunships to the channel, people who want to ban the RNLI from rescuing them etc.
Let's not pretend that these right wingers give a shit about the wellbeing of the people crossing in boats.
You said the government is pumping out it's anti migrant propaganda. The government is trying to discourage people from risking their lives, that's why they send out the boats they don't want bodies on the beach everything the government is doing is to mitigate the risk to life which should be supported by all. You do understand that heay.
This is a very weird angle.
The government doesn't give a shit either way, all they care about is drumming up support with some good old fashioned 'blame the immigrants'. "You are serious aren't you and you believe that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For _irldn This is what you put I'm reply to me. Morley man. "won't post the link. But should you Google " asylum and resettlement data sets" and go to the end tab of the government excel file. You will find what you are looking for for entry routes and total who entered via those routes each quarter I think it's circa 25k Not including operation pitting.(15k afghan nationals airlifted to the uk)" You *****it won’t work on my phone so I will look later on a desktop/laptop***** So this is what I found... “The “safe and legal” routes the government claims those crossing the Channel ignore are programmes where the UK resettles people from abroad who are recognised by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR). It also allows people to join relatives who have already been granted asylum in the UK. They effectively allow the government to pick and choose who comes to the UK, how and when. For that reason, the process is slow and extremely restricted. The UNHCR has said: “Critical resettlement schemes remain very limited, and can never substitute for access to asylum. The Refugee Convention explicitly recognises that refugees may be compelled to enter a country of asylum irregularly.” How many people arrive on safe and legal routes? Home Office figures show that in 2022, 14 times more refugees were granted asylum after travelling to the UK themselves than were resettled by the British government. More than 16,600 people were granted asylum after travelling to the UK – including many who arrived on small boats – while only 887 refugees were brought to the UK under the government’s flagship UK resettlement scheme. A further 216 people were resettled under the separate community sponsorship scheme, and 22 Afghans who missed the August 2021 evacuation were brought to Britain. While 4,473 partners and children of refugees living in the UK were allowed in on family reunion visas, the figure is 40 per cent down on 2019 and the route is not open to other relatives. Many MPs have pointed to figures showing that while only 22 Afghans who missed the August 2021 evacuation have been brought to Britain under the government’s latest resettlement scheme, thousands have crossed the English Channel on small boats. They now make up the largest nationality of arrivals, overtaking Albanians, while Syrians, Iranians and Iraqis also make up significant groups.” Yes the governemnt works with agencies. Those agencies verify the individuals and do all the work. Then they are granted right to remain indefinitely. The uk will have a limit we can't take in every refugee that wants to come here indont knkw what that limit is. Again not one is saying theybdont have a right to enter illegally if they can prove they are genuine refugees. As we have witnessed this year with Albanians. This is not the case. And for the last decade only around 20% have been granted asylum on 1st request(they can prove their country of origin though identification, phones, messages, Facebook. I am glad though that you are now aware of the legal routes. FYI. On the nationalities. These are declared nationalities. It doesn't mean they came from that country I posed a question on here a while ago. Would you like me to pose it again. Last time I never got an answer But Morleyman are you missing the point? These scheme are only available for specific groups. And the numbers actually being processed through the schemes are pitiful... “More than 16,600 people were granted asylum after travelling to the UK – including many who arrived on small boats – while only 887 refugees were brought to the UK under the government’s flagship UK resettlement scheme.” Clearly the schemes that do exist are not fit for purpose and clearly there are not schemes to cover anyone except some specific situations. Someone above asked specifically what route a gay person from Uganda could use (where it is now punishable by death for being homosexual). Can you tell us? They are available to any one being persecuted and fleeing their home state younget in contact with the UN. They verify your persecution and your ID Yes. The resettlement scheme requires ID and proof of presentation rather than just false claimants. Funny how it drops off the cliff. You are welcome to do a ROI to the UN and ask how many applicants there are. 2023 have come here until Dec 2022 on ukrs. We also just took in some 150k Ukrainians Hong Kongers and Afghans in the last 15 months. I don’t think you can include the numbers from either Ukraine or Hong Kong. Both are special circumstances. Ukraine as a result of a major war in Europe and public outcry (I believe we were slow to act compared to others) and HK was a British colony that only returned to China recently (and with promises in place for HK citizens). Let's ignore the uk doing its part to take in 150k refugees, because it doesn't suit my narrative. Not really. People from Ukraine and HK were given special dispensation. They did not enter the UK illegally or come across in small boats (they did not need to). Also people from Ukraine are here on the understanding they will return home once the war is over and it is safe to do so. They are “refugees” not “asylum seekers”. So including them in the numbers is misleading when the discussion is clearly about that specific small boat issue. Nothing to do with a “narrative”, just hugely skews the numbers and becomes an apples and pears comparison. You sincerely believe that all those Ukrainians are upping sticks and going home?" No idea but that is the agreement under which they came here. As many/most/all  have been housed with British people, the Govt knows who they are and where they are?
But my point stands. You cannot include them or HK in the figures as we are talking about completely different circumstances. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
Yes. Let's all panic about immigrants. Don't worry about what's going on in government, nothing to see there. Look over there at that distraction.
Seriously though the government resorting to cramming people onto a barge for possibly years, does not tell you something. that the country is struggling to accommodate these people and the government are trying to discourage people crossing with shouts of racist, Nazi human rights abusers. The government has both hands behind its back.
Yes. The government are cranking out the anti-immigrant propaganda hard.
Can't blame them. It's a very successful tactic.
What is anti immigration about mitigating the risk and danger to life to people leaving one safe country to another safe country.
Come on now!
Is that you, shouting from the white cliffs of dover to the people in a safe country to risk their lives for a hotel room, the difference is i'm shouting no you could drown next to you, when bodies wash up on the beach you would still be their say come on now.
You've made an assumption there, then got annoyed about what you assumed, then come to the conclusion that I would be ignoring dead bodies on the beach to say "come on now".
Can't really help you.
So what is anti immigration about not wanting people risking their lives for a hotel room.
Come on now.
Who is saying they don't want people risking their lives?
The people complaining are the same people who want to send gunships to the channel, people who want to ban the RNLI from rescuing them etc.
Let's not pretend that these right wingers give a shit about the wellbeing of the people crossing in boats.
You said the government is pumping out it's anti migrant propaganda. The government is trying to discourage people from risking their lives, that's why they send out the boats they don't want bodies on the beach everything the government is doing is to mitigate the risk to life which should be supported by all. You do understand that heay.
This is a very weird angle.
The government doesn't give a shit either way, all they care about is drumming up support with some good old fashioned 'blame the immigrants'. "******************************* Do you know the government "doesn't give a sh*t" for a fact....?? Do you really believe that, or are you trolling for a laugh...??!! Prove it unequivocally, you can't because your claim(s) are rubbish. It's like Walter Mitty on steroids at times, it really is......! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
Yes. Let's all panic about immigrants. Don't worry about what's going on in government, nothing to see there. Look over there at that distraction.
Seriously though the government resorting to cramming people onto a barge for possibly years, does not tell you something. that the country is struggling to accommodate these people and the government are trying to discourage people crossing with shouts of racist, Nazi human rights abusers. The government has both hands behind its back.
Yes. The government are cranking out the anti-immigrant propaganda hard.
Can't blame them. It's a very successful tactic.
What is anti immigration about mitigating the risk and danger to life to people leaving one safe country to another safe country.
Come on now!
Is that you, shouting from the white cliffs of dover to the people in a safe country to risk their lives for a hotel room, the difference is i'm shouting no you could drown next to you, when bodies wash up on the beach you would still be their say come on now.
You've made an assumption there, then got annoyed about what you assumed, then come to the conclusion that I would be ignoring dead bodies on the beach to say "come on now".
Can't really help you.
So what is anti immigration about not wanting people risking their lives for a hotel room.
Come on now.
Who is saying they don't want people risking their lives?
The people complaining are the same people who want to send gunships to the channel, people who want to ban the RNLI from rescuing them etc.
Let's not pretend that these right wingers give a shit about the wellbeing of the people crossing in boats.
You said the government is pumping out it's anti migrant propaganda. The government is trying to discourage people from risking their lives, that's why they send out the boats they don't want bodies on the beach everything the government is doing is to mitigate the risk to life which should be supported by all. You do understand that heay.
This is a very weird angle.
The government doesn't give a shit either way, all they care about is drumming up support with some good old fashioned 'blame the immigrants'.
You are serious aren't you and you believe that.
"It's the reality of the situation. In any case. We can get back to people complaining about immigrants. This side track about the government caring about people dying isn't on topic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's a pseudo 'reality' of the most fantastic." Glad to see you think I'm fantastic. Usually you follow me around cheering on people insulting me and accusing me of random shit. Nice to see your change of heart. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's a pseudo 'reality' of the most fantastic. Glad to see you think I'm fantastic. Usually you follow me around cheering on people insulting me and accusing me of random shit. Nice to see your change of heart." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's a pseudo 'reality' of the most fantastic. Glad to see you think I'm fantastic. Usually you follow me around cheering on people insulting me and accusing me of random shit. Nice to see your change of heart." Do you understand the literal definition of 'fantastic'......?? 'Ludicrously odd, existing only in fancy, fanciful and foolish' No, I'm not "following you around", I'm engaging in some form of debate on a free forum, is all. Some left wingers are quite incredible, in my honest opinion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's a pseudo 'reality' of the most fantastic. Glad to see you think I'm fantastic. Usually you follow me around cheering on people insulting me and accusing me of random shit. Nice to see your change of heart. Do you understand the literal definition of 'fantastic'......?? 'Ludicrously odd, existing only in fancy, fanciful and foolish' No, I'm not "following you around", I'm engaging in some form of debate on a free forum, is all. Some left wingers are quite incredible, in my honest opinion. "As fun as it is being the butt of your constant personal jibes. I'll opt out from now on if that's okay? Let's try and stick to the point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Re Uganda. What you do is ypunget your passport. You buy a ticket to the uk on a flight. You arrive in the uk. You request asylum. Wrong (again). No-one can board a flight to the U.K. unless they have a visa. They can’t get a visa without good reason and the only way they can claim asylum is by getting themselves to the U.K. Why can't they buy a visa Did you want me to tell you they needed to buy a cab to the airport too? Pack their suitcase? Bring a passport, flammable.? Nice attempt at being a smart arse though" You really do have no idea do you. For someone to get a tourist visa from Uganda they would need to attend a British (or nearest nominated) Embassy and be interviewed. They would have to have a watertight story including reasons, travel bookings and prove that they had sufficient funds in their own bank to not be perceived as an immigration threat. Once they get to the airport, they will be grilled again by airport staff and then again on their arrival at the U.K. border. If you believe that this might be a sustainable way for persecuted people to arrive in the U.K. you are absolutely dreaming. I am not sure you realise how arduous it is for most of the world (especially those from the third world and developing countries) to get any kind of visa to come to the U.K. Three of my wife’s Russian friends (long before Ukraine) were denied visa’s and a couple from Colombia who we met on holiday in Mexico were denied visa’s to come to the U.K. even though they had got a tourist visa to visit Spain (and the EU). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
Yes. Let's all panic about immigrants. Don't worry about what's going on in government, nothing to see there. Look over there at that distraction.
Seriously though the government resorting to cramming people onto a barge for possibly years, does not tell you something. that the country is struggling to accommodate these people and the government are trying to discourage people crossing with shouts of racist, Nazi human rights abusers. The government has both hands behind its back.
Yes. The government are cranking out the anti-immigrant propaganda hard.
Can't blame them. It's a very successful tactic.
What is anti immigration about mitigating the risk and danger to life to people leaving one safe country to another safe country.
Come on now!
Is that you, shouting from the white cliffs of dover to the people in a safe country to risk their lives for a hotel room, the difference is i'm shouting no you could drown next to you, when bodies wash up on the beach you would still be their say come on now.
You've made an assumption there, then got annoyed about what you assumed, then come to the conclusion that I would be ignoring dead bodies on the beach to say "come on now".
Can't really help you.
So what is anti immigration about not wanting people risking their lives for a hotel room.
Come on now.
Who is saying they don't want people risking their lives?
The people complaining are the same people who want to send gunships to the channel, people who want to ban the RNLI from rescuing them etc.
Let's not pretend that these right wingers give a shit about the wellbeing of the people crossing in boats.
You said the government is pumping out it's anti migrant propaganda. The government is trying to discourage people from risking their lives, that's why they send out the boats they don't want bodies on the beach everything the government is doing is to mitigate the risk to life which should be supported by all. You do understand that heay.
This is a very weird angle.
The government doesn't give a shit either way, all they care about is drumming up support with some good old fashioned 'blame the immigrants'.
You are serious aren't you and you believe that.
It's the reality of the situation.
In any case. We can get back to people complaining about immigrants. This side track about the government caring about people dying isn't on topic. "What do you think the boats are for.? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
Yes. Let's all panic about immigrants. Don't worry about what's going on in government, nothing to see there. Look over there at that distraction.
Seriously though the government resorting to cramming people onto a barge for possibly years, does not tell you something. that the country is struggling to accommodate these people and the government are trying to discourage people crossing with shouts of racist, Nazi human rights abusers. The government has both hands behind its back.
Yes. The government are cranking out the anti-immigrant propaganda hard.
Can't blame them. It's a very successful tactic.
What is anti immigration about mitigating the risk and danger to life to people leaving one safe country to another safe country.
Come on now!
Is that you, shouting from the white cliffs of dover to the people in a safe country to risk their lives for a hotel room, the difference is i'm shouting no you could drown next to you, when bodies wash up on the beach you would still be their say come on now.
You've made an assumption there, then got annoyed about what you assumed, then come to the conclusion that I would be ignoring dead bodies on the beach to say "come on now".
Can't really help you.
So what is anti immigration about not wanting people risking their lives for a hotel room.
Come on now.
Who is saying they don't want people risking their lives?
The people complaining are the same people who want to send gunships to the channel, people who want to ban the RNLI from rescuing them etc.
Let's not pretend that these right wingers give a shit about the wellbeing of the people crossing in boats.
You said the government is pumping out it's anti migrant propaganda. The government is trying to discourage people from risking their lives, that's why they send out the boats they don't want bodies on the beach everything the government is doing is to mitigate the risk to life which should be supported by all. You do understand that heay.
This is a very weird angle.
The government doesn't give a shit either way, all they care about is drumming up support with some good old fashioned 'blame the immigrants'.
You are serious aren't you and you believe that.
It's the reality of the situation.
In any case. We can get back to people complaining about immigrants. This side track about the government caring about people dying isn't on topic.
What do you think the boats are for.?
"For travelling on water. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's a pseudo 'reality' of the most fantastic. Glad to see you think I'm fantastic. Usually you follow me around cheering on people insulting me and accusing me of random shit. Nice to see your change of heart. Do you understand the literal definition of 'fantastic'......?? 'Ludicrously odd, existing only in fancy, fanciful and foolish' No, I'm not "following you around", I'm engaging in some form of debate on a free forum, is all. Some left wingers are quite incredible, in my honest opinion.
As fun as it is being the butt of your constant personal jibes. I'll opt out from now on if that's okay?
Let's try and stick to the point. "OK, I agree. Even in the (unlikely) event you desist with stating your opinions as factual. Maybe...... You could volunteer your services to the Labour party and, at the very least, coach their elders toward forming a satisfactory and united opposition...??!! I'll just peruse the forum from now on, I'm soon to be immersed in my career so no time to post. Have a grand time until the G.E. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's a pseudo 'reality' of the most fantastic. Glad to see you think I'm fantastic. Usually you follow me around cheering on people insulting me and accusing me of random shit. Nice to see your change of heart. Do you understand the literal definition of 'fantastic'......?? 'Ludicrously odd, existing only in fancy, fanciful and foolish' No, I'm not "following you around", I'm engaging in some form of debate on a free forum, is all. Some left wingers are quite incredible, in my honest opinion.
As fun as it is being the butt of your constant personal jibes. I'll opt out from now on if that's okay?
Let's try and stick to the point.
OK, I agree. Even in the (unlikely) event you desist with stating your opinions as factual.
Maybe...... You could volunteer your services to the Labour party and, at the very least, coach their elders toward forming a satisfactory and united opposition...??!!
I'll just peruse the forum from now on, I'm soon to be immersed in my career so no time to post.
Have a grand time until the G.E. "Well, I hope everything goes well with your career, and that you have a grand time to the GE and beyond. I'll decline your suggestion to engage with the Labour party. No clue why you suggested that I do. But hey. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
Yes. Let's all panic about immigrants. Don't worry about what's going on in government, nothing to see there. Look over there at that distraction.
Seriously though the government resorting to cramming people onto a barge for possibly years, does not tell you something. that the country is struggling to accommodate these people and the government are trying to discourage people crossing with shouts of racist, Nazi human rights abusers. The government has both hands behind its back.
Yes. The government are cranking out the anti-immigrant propaganda hard.
Can't blame them. It's a very successful tactic.
What is anti immigration about mitigating the risk and danger to life to people leaving one safe country to another safe country.
Come on now!
Is that you, shouting from the white cliffs of dover to the people in a safe country to risk their lives for a hotel room, the difference is i'm shouting no you could drown next to you, when bodies wash up on the beach you would still be their say come on now.
You've made an assumption there, then got annoyed about what you assumed, then come to the conclusion that I would be ignoring dead bodies on the beach to say "come on now".
Can't really help you.
So what is anti immigration about not wanting people risking their lives for a hotel room.
Come on now.
Who is saying they don't want people risking their lives?
The people complaining are the same people who want to send gunships to the channel, people who want to ban the RNLI from rescuing them etc.
Let's not pretend that these right wingers give a shit about the wellbeing of the people crossing in boats.
You said the government is pumping out it's anti migrant propaganda. The government is trying to discourage people from risking their lives, that's why they send out the boats they don't want bodies on the beach everything the government is doing is to mitigate the risk to life which should be supported by all. You do understand that heay.
This is a very weird angle.
The government doesn't give a shit either way, all they care about is drumming up support with some good old fashioned 'blame the immigrants'.
You are serious aren't you and you believe that.
It's the reality of the situation.
In any case. We can get back to people complaining about immigrants. This side track about the government caring about people dying isn't on topic.
What do you think the boats are for.?
For travelling on water."Come on now. They are there to mitigate the risk of people drowning, a better solution would be to discourage people from partaking in the dangerous activity. But you see and think that's anti migrant and the government does not care about human rights or who drowns. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
Yes. Let's all panic about immigrants. Don't worry about what's going on in government, nothing to see there. Look over there at that distraction.
Seriously though the government resorting to cramming people onto a barge for possibly years, does not tell you something. that the country is struggling to accommodate these people and the government are trying to discourage people crossing with shouts of racist, Nazi human rights abusers. The government has both hands behind its back.
Yes. The government are cranking out the anti-immigrant propaganda hard.
Can't blame them. It's a very successful tactic.
What is anti immigration about mitigating the risk and danger to life to people leaving one safe country to another safe country.
Come on now!
Is that you, shouting from the white cliffs of dover to the people in a safe country to risk their lives for a hotel room, the difference is i'm shouting no you could drown next to you, when bodies wash up on the beach you would still be their say come on now.
You've made an assumption there, then got annoyed about what you assumed, then come to the conclusion that I would be ignoring dead bodies on the beach to say "come on now".
Can't really help you.
So what is anti immigration about not wanting people risking their lives for a hotel room.
Come on now.
Who is saying they don't want people risking their lives?
The people complaining are the same people who want to send gunships to the channel, people who want to ban the RNLI from rescuing them etc.
Let's not pretend that these right wingers give a shit about the wellbeing of the people crossing in boats.
You said the government is pumping out it's anti migrant propaganda. The government is trying to discourage people from risking their lives, that's why they send out the boats they don't want bodies on the beach everything the government is doing is to mitigate the risk to life which should be supported by all. You do understand that heay.
This is a very weird angle.
The government doesn't give a shit either way, all they care about is drumming up support with some good old fashioned 'blame the immigrants'.
You are serious aren't you and you believe that.
It's the reality of the situation.
In any case. We can get back to people complaining about immigrants. This side track about the government caring about people dying isn't on topic.
What do you think the boats are for.?
For travelling on water.
Come on now.
They are there to mitigate the risk of people drowning, a better solution would be to discourage people from partaking in the dangerous activity. But you see and think that's anti migrant and the government does not care about human rights or who drowns.
"I honestly don't know where you have this idea that the government is concerned about immigrants drowning in the channel. So I don't know how you want me to respond. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
Yes. Let's all panic about immigrants. Don't worry about what's going on in government, nothing to see there. Look over there at that distraction.
Seriously though the government resorting to cramming people onto a barge for possibly years, does not tell you something. that the country is struggling to accommodate these people and the government are trying to discourage people crossing with shouts of racist, Nazi human rights abusers. The government has both hands behind its back.
Yes. The government are cranking out the anti-immigrant propaganda hard.
Can't blame them. It's a very successful tactic.
What is anti immigration about mitigating the risk and danger to life to people leaving one safe country to another safe country.
Come on now!
Is that you, shouting from the white cliffs of dover to the people in a safe country to risk their lives for a hotel room, the difference is i'm shouting no you could drown next to you, when bodies wash up on the beach you would still be their say come on now.
You've made an assumption there, then got annoyed about what you assumed, then come to the conclusion that I would be ignoring dead bodies on the beach to say "come on now".
Can't really help you.
So what is anti immigration about not wanting people risking their lives for a hotel room.
Come on now.
Who is saying they don't want people risking their lives?
The people complaining are the same people who want to send gunships to the channel, people who want to ban the RNLI from rescuing them etc.
Let's not pretend that these right wingers give a shit about the wellbeing of the people crossing in boats.
You said the government is pumping out it's anti migrant propaganda. The government is trying to discourage people from risking their lives, that's why they send out the boats they don't want bodies on the beach everything the government is doing is to mitigate the risk to life which should be supported by all. You do understand that heay.
This is a very weird angle.
The government doesn't give a shit either way, all they care about is drumming up support with some good old fashioned 'blame the immigrants'.
You are serious aren't you and you believe that.
It's the reality of the situation.
In any case. We can get back to people complaining about immigrants. This side track about the government caring about people dying isn't on topic.
What do you think the boats are for.?
For travelling on water.
Come on now.
They are there to mitigate the risk of people drowning, a better solution would be to discourage people from partaking in the dangerous activity. But you see and think that's anti migrant and the government does not care about human rights or who drowns.
I honestly don't know where you have this idea that the government is concerned about immigrants drowning in the channel. So I don't know how you want me to respond. "Going around in circles. they send out the boats to rescue people from overcrowded inflatables which mitigates the risk of drownings. Can you not see that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What do you think the boats are for.? For travelling on water. " The boats are likely to be used because they currently represent spare accommodation capacity. Just as a while back a redundant super ferry was used in Portland to house surplus prisoners. It had nothing to do with Alcatraz style security. It was sitting around not being used and filled a gap. During lock down Lyme Bay had 'umpteen cruise ships anchored up doing nothing. The market is only just coming back to life and there will be some spare 'floating hotels'. If I were in the market for retirement accommodation I would seriously consider a permanently moored up cruise ship in a pleasant location, even Tilbury! I suppose that if the government wanted to make people unwelcome they could pick a location where the ship pitched and rolled a lot. I guess stabilisers only work well in conjunction with forward motion. I can't speak for the government or hazard a guess as to its intentions. I am, however, familiar with politicians, making electoral capital in the furtherance of their careers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
Yes. Let's all panic about immigrants. Don't worry about what's going on in government, nothing to see there. Look over there at that distraction.
Seriously though the government resorting to cramming people onto a barge for possibly years, does not tell you something. that the country is struggling to accommodate these people and the government are trying to discourage people crossing with shouts of racist, Nazi human rights abusers. The government has both hands behind its back.
Yes. The government are cranking out the anti-immigrant propaganda hard.
Can't blame them. It's a very successful tactic.
What is anti immigration about mitigating the risk and danger to life to people leaving one safe country to another safe country.
Come on now!
Is that you, shouting from the white cliffs of dover to the people in a safe country to risk their lives for a hotel room, the difference is i'm shouting no you could drown next to you, when bodies wash up on the beach you would still be their say come on now.
You've made an assumption there, then got annoyed about what you assumed, then come to the conclusion that I would be ignoring dead bodies on the beach to say "come on now".
Can't really help you.
So what is anti immigration about not wanting people risking their lives for a hotel room.
Come on now.
Who is saying they don't want people risking their lives?
The people complaining are the same people who want to send gunships to the channel, people who want to ban the RNLI from rescuing them etc.
Let's not pretend that these right wingers give a shit about the wellbeing of the people crossing in boats.
You said the government is pumping out it's anti migrant propaganda. The government is trying to discourage people from risking their lives, that's why they send out the boats they don't want bodies on the beach everything the government is doing is to mitigate the risk to life which should be supported by all. You do understand that heay.
This is a very weird angle.
The government doesn't give a shit either way, all they care about is drumming up support with some good old fashioned 'blame the immigrants'.
You are serious aren't you and you believe that.
It's the reality of the situation.
In any case. We can get back to people complaining about immigrants. This side track about the government caring about people dying isn't on topic.
What do you think the boats are for.?
For travelling on water.
Come on now.
They are there to mitigate the risk of people drowning, a better solution would be to discourage people from partaking in the dangerous activity. But you see and think that's anti migrant and the government does not care about human rights or who drowns.
I honestly don't know where you have this idea that the government is concerned about immigrants drowning in the channel. So I don't know how you want me to respond.
Going around in circles. they send out the boats to rescue people from overcrowded inflatables which mitigates the risk of drownings.
Can you not see that. "The RNLI? Which the right wingers protest against. I'll be honest, I'm really struggling to understand your point and how it relates to the thread theme of people complaining about immigrants. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
Yes. Let's all panic about immigrants. Don't worry about what's going on in government, nothing to see there. Look over there at that distraction.
Seriously though the government resorting to cramming people onto a barge for possibly years, does not tell you something. that the country is struggling to accommodate these people and the government are trying to discourage people crossing with shouts of racist, Nazi human rights abusers. The government has both hands behind its back.
Yes. The government are cranking out the anti-immigrant propaganda hard.
Can't blame them. It's a very successful tactic.
What is anti immigration about mitigating the risk and danger to life to people leaving one safe country to another safe country.
Come on now!
Is that you, shouting from the white cliffs of dover to the people in a safe country to risk their lives for a hotel room, the difference is i'm shouting no you could drown next to you, when bodies wash up on the beach you would still be their say come on now.
You've made an assumption there, then got annoyed about what you assumed, then come to the conclusion that I would be ignoring dead bodies on the beach to say "come on now".
Can't really help you.
So what is anti immigration about not wanting people risking their lives for a hotel room.
Come on now.
Who is saying they don't want people risking their lives?
The people complaining are the same people who want to send gunships to the channel, people who want to ban the RNLI from rescuing them etc.
Let's not pretend that these right wingers give a shit about the wellbeing of the people crossing in boats.
You said the government is pumping out it's anti migrant propaganda. The government is trying to discourage people from risking their lives, that's why they send out the boats they don't want bodies on the beach everything the government is doing is to mitigate the risk to life which should be supported by all. You do understand that heay.
This is a very weird angle.
The government doesn't give a shit either way, all they care about is drumming up support with some good old fashioned 'blame the immigrants'.
You are serious aren't you and you believe that.
It's the reality of the situation.
In any case. We can get back to people complaining about immigrants. This side track about the government caring about people dying isn't on topic.
What do you think the boats are for.?
For travelling on water.
Come on now.
They are there to mitigate the risk of people drowning, a better solution would be to discourage people from partaking in the dangerous activity. But you see and think that's anti migrant and the government does not care about human rights or who drowns.
I honestly don't know where you have this idea that the government is concerned about immigrants drowning in the channel. So I don't know how you want me to respond.
Going around in circles. they send out the boats to rescue people from overcrowded inflatables which mitigates the risk of drownings.
Can you not see that.
The RNLI?
Which the right wingers protest against.
I'll be honest, I'm really struggling to understand your point and how it relates to the thread theme of people complaining about immigrants. "I was responding to your response to my post in this thread. Good tactic you have. Point a finger and say lets look at that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
Yes. Let's all panic about immigrants. Don't worry about what's going on in government, nothing to see there. Look over there at that distraction.
Seriously though the government resorting to cramming people onto a barge for possibly years, does not tell you something. that the country is struggling to accommodate these people and the government are trying to discourage people crossing with shouts of racist, Nazi human rights abusers. The government has both hands behind its back.
Yes. The government are cranking out the anti-immigrant propaganda hard.
Can't blame them. It's a very successful tactic.
What is anti immigration about mitigating the risk and danger to life to people leaving one safe country to another safe country.
Come on now!
Is that you, shouting from the white cliffs of dover to the people in a safe country to risk their lives for a hotel room, the difference is i'm shouting no you could drown next to you, when bodies wash up on the beach you would still be their say come on now.
You've made an assumption there, then got annoyed about what you assumed, then come to the conclusion that I would be ignoring dead bodies on the beach to say "come on now".
Can't really help you.
So what is anti immigration about not wanting people risking their lives for a hotel room.
Come on now.
Who is saying they don't want people risking their lives?
The people complaining are the same people who want to send gunships to the channel, people who want to ban the RNLI from rescuing them etc.
Let's not pretend that these right wingers give a shit about the wellbeing of the people crossing in boats.
You said the government is pumping out it's anti migrant propaganda. The government is trying to discourage people from risking their lives, that's why they send out the boats they don't want bodies on the beach everything the government is doing is to mitigate the risk to life which should be supported by all. You do understand that heay.
This is a very weird angle.
The government doesn't give a shit either way, all they care about is drumming up support with some good old fashioned 'blame the immigrants'.
You are serious aren't you and you believe that.
It's the reality of the situation.
In any case. We can get back to people complaining about immigrants. This side track about the government caring about people dying isn't on topic.
What do you think the boats are for.?
For travelling on water.
Come on now.
They are there to mitigate the risk of people drowning, a better solution would be to discourage people from partaking in the dangerous activity. But you see and think that's anti migrant and the government does not care about human rights or who drowns.
I honestly don't know where you have this idea that the government is concerned about immigrants drowning in the channel. So I don't know how you want me to respond.
Going around in circles. they send out the boats to rescue people from overcrowded inflatables which mitigates the risk of drownings.
Can you not see that.
The RNLI?
Which the right wingers protest against.
I'll be honest, I'm really struggling to understand your point and how it relates to the thread theme of people complaining about immigrants.
I was responding to your response to my post in this thread. Good tactic you have. Point a finger and say lets look at that."There's no tactic here. I'm just not following your point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What do you think the boats are for.? For travelling on water. The boats are likely to be used because they currently represent spare accommodation capacity. Just as a while back a redundant super ferry was used in Portland to house surplus prisoners. It had nothing to do with Alcatraz style security. It was sitting around not being used and filled a gap. During lock down Lyme Bay had 'umpteen cruise ships anchored up doing nothing. The market is only just coming back to life and there will be some spare 'floating hotels'. If I were in the market for retirement accommodation I would seriously consider a permanently moored up cruise ship in a pleasant location, even Tilbury! I suppose that if the government wanted to make people unwelcome they could pick a location where the ship pitched and rolled a lot. I guess stabilisers only work well in conjunction with forward motion. I can't speak for the government or hazard a guess as to its intentions. I am, however, familiar with politicians, making electoral capital in the furtherance of their careers." I now realise that the boats being referred to immediately above were those of the RNLI and not the redundant cruise ships from the start of the thread. Nevertheless my comments about putting redundant cruise ships to good use still stand. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... Cost I understand that, my initial point is why the representatives of migrants are complaining according to the BBC 200 rooms. Housing 500 men. I bet that plays a part. Are they bunking up ATM ? Ensuite, gym, TV and pool rooms...it's a tough lifethe barges own blurb says it has space for 222 guests. So I'm hoping the 500 in the BBC article is wrong. But if it was true ... Would it be cause for complaint ? Let them bunk. They arrived here illegally they jave broken a law. It happens to prisoners. I hope they bunk. They didn’t arrive illegally, it is not illegal to claim asylum. You don’t know who they are, you don’t know where they have come from, and you don’t know why they have felt it necessary to cross the Channel in a rubber dinghy other than our Government has closed down most of the safe routes that used to exist. Until all the answers are known, they should at least be treated with some compassion. It is after all the British way to be decent and fair." So how would you segest they are all housed humanly. In the idear world I guess A house or flat. Paid for and run for free we would all like that. Go you think a family living with over in crowded conditions would be better of landing back I a boaty and getting a bigger house. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When the topic of asylum seekers / small boat crossings is raised both in the media and here, is it always to divert attention from other problems or cock ups ?" The Government could quietly just get on with resolving the migrant problem by reinstating the overseas asylum processing centres that used to exist and allow people to claim asylum via safe routes. They are not doing that because it suits their purposes to keep the migrant issue front and centre in the news. The hard of thinking, the racists and the idiots will continue to be easily distracted by the never ending migrant problem and applaud the government for fighting it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When the topic of asylum seekers / small boat crossings is raised both in the media and here, is it always to divert attention from other problems or cock ups ?" To those that think the small boat crossings are nothing to worry about, everything else seems more important and it becomes a "non story" or a diversion by politicians or the media. They then like to tell everyone that thinks differently they are either wrong or stupid for falling for a diversion. It isn't really helpful in my opinion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When the topic of asylum seekers / small boat crossings is raised both in the media and here, is it always to divert attention from other problems or cock ups ? To those that think the small boat crossings are nothing to worry about, everything else seems more important and it becomes a "non story" or a diversion by politicians or the media. They then like to tell everyone that thinks differently they are either wrong or stupid for falling for a diversion. It isn't really helpful in my opinion. " What (in your opinion) makes the topic of asylum seekers arriving by boat so ‘important’ when compared with other national issues ( cost of living, high inflation, low living standards, etc) I am genuinely intrigued | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When the topic of asylum seekers / small boat crossings is raised both in the media and here, is it always to divert attention from other problems or cock ups ? To those that think the small boat crossings are nothing to worry about, everything else seems more important and it becomes a "non story" or a diversion by politicians or the media. They then like to tell everyone that thinks differently they are either wrong or stupid for falling for a diversion. It isn't really helpful in my opinion. What (in your opinion) makes the topic of asylum seekers arriving by boat so ‘important’ when compared with other national issues ( cost of living, high inflation, low living standards, etc) I am genuinely intrigued "I didn't say it was either up or down in my priorities.... But as you ask, it has certainly made its way up to in my list of priorities due to the increased numbers and the cost. We need to be open and honest about the cost to the nation, especially as we are seeing calls for pay rises, people who can't afford to heat their homes, food and the many other things that are blighting us right now. Which is why I think it is not helpful to keep telling people who do think it is a problem that they are stupid, or easily diverted, they can have reasonable concerns and we should respect that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When the topic of asylum seekers / small boat crossings is raised both in the media and here, is it always to divert attention from other problems or cock ups ? To those that think the small boat crossings are nothing to worry about, everything else seems more important and it becomes a "non story" or a diversion by politicians or the media. They then like to tell everyone that thinks differently they are either wrong or stupid for falling for a diversion. It isn't really helpful in my opinion. What (in your opinion) makes the topic of asylum seekers arriving by boat so ‘important’ when compared with other national issues ( cost of living, high inflation, low living standards, etc) I am genuinely intrigued
I didn't say it was either up or down in my priorities....
But as you ask, it has certainly made its way up to in my list of priorities due to the increased numbers and the cost. We need to be open and honest about the cost to the nation, especially as we are seeing calls for pay rises, people who can't afford to heat their homes, food and the many other things that are blighting us right now.
Which is why I think it is not helpful to keep telling people who do think it is a problem that they are stupid, or easily diverted, they can have reasonable concerns and we should respect that. "Fair enough, so basically it’s down to cost ? I think the ‘issue’ has been given far too much attention (by the government and certain sections of the media) when compared with other more important and ‘costly’ issues . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When the topic of asylum seekers / small boat crossings is raised both in the media and here, is it always to divert attention from other problems or cock ups ? To those that think the small boat crossings are nothing to worry about, everything else seems more important and it becomes a "non story" or a diversion by politicians or the media. They then like to tell everyone that thinks differently they are either wrong or stupid for falling for a diversion. It isn't really helpful in my opinion. What (in your opinion) makes the topic of asylum seekers arriving by boat so ‘important’ when compared with other national issues ( cost of living, high inflation, low living standards, etc) I am genuinely intrigued
I didn't say it was either up or down in my priorities....
But as you ask, it has certainly made its way up to in my list of priorities due to the increased numbers and the cost. We need to be open and honest about the cost to the nation, especially as we are seeing calls for pay rises, people who can't afford to heat their homes, food and the many other things that are blighting us right now.
Which is why I think it is not helpful to keep telling people who do think it is a problem that they are stupid, or easily diverted, they can have reasonable concerns and we should respect that.
Fair enough, so basically it’s down to cost ? I think the ‘issue’ has been given far too much attention (by the government and certain sections of the media) when compared with other more important and ‘costly’ issues . "In your opinion, other people will see it differently... Our home grown costs that you mentioned above would be in a better position if we did not have £7 billion in costs to support those making small boat crossing. We are struggling on all fronts and this extra cost is impacting all the things you mention above. The next argument will be process them quicker, we have been through this so many times! 44K people arriving without documentation takes a long time in the processing. I believe the issues here are complex, costly and I see no reason why people would not be concerned on many levels, not simply distracted. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When the topic of asylum seekers / small boat crossings is raised both in the media and here, is it always to divert attention from other problems or cock ups ? To those that think the small boat crossings are nothing to worry about, everything else seems more important and it becomes a "non story" or a diversion by politicians or the media. They then like to tell everyone that thinks differently they are either wrong or stupid for falling for a diversion. It isn't really helpful in my opinion. What (in your opinion) makes the topic of asylum seekers arriving by boat so ‘important’ when compared with other national issues ( cost of living, high inflation, low living standards, etc) I am genuinely intrigued
I didn't say it was either up or down in my priorities....
But as you ask, it has certainly made its way up to in my list of priorities due to the increased numbers and the cost. We need to be open and honest about the cost to the nation, especially as we are seeing calls for pay rises, people who can't afford to heat their homes, food and the many other things that are blighting us right now.
Which is why I think it is not helpful to keep telling people who do think it is a problem that they are stupid, or easily diverted, they can have reasonable concerns and we should respect that.
Fair enough, so basically it’s down to cost ? I think the ‘issue’ has been given far too much attention (by the government and certain sections of the media) when compared with other more important and ‘costly’ issues .
In your opinion, other people will see it differently...
Our home grown costs that you mentioned above would be in a better position if we did not have £7 billion in costs to support those making small boat crossing.
We are struggling on all fronts and this extra cost is impacting all the things you mention above.
The next argument will be process them quicker, we have been through this so many times! 44K people arriving without documentation takes a long time in the processing.
I believe the issues here are complex, costly and I see no reason why people would not be concerned on many levels, not simply distracted."We lost at least £5 billion to covid loan fraud , liz truss cost the economy at least £30 billion etc etc | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When the topic of asylum seekers / small boat crossings is raised both in the media and here, is it always to divert attention from other problems or cock ups ? To those that think the small boat crossings are nothing to worry about, everything else seems more important and it becomes a "non story" or a diversion by politicians or the media. They then like to tell everyone that thinks differently they are either wrong or stupid for falling for a diversion. It isn't really helpful in my opinion. What (in your opinion) makes the topic of asylum seekers arriving by boat so ‘important’ when compared with other national issues ( cost of living, high inflation, low living standards, etc) I am genuinely intrigued
I didn't say it was either up or down in my priorities....
But as you ask, it has certainly made its way up to in my list of priorities due to the increased numbers and the cost. We need to be open and honest about the cost to the nation, especially as we are seeing calls for pay rises, people who can't afford to heat their homes, food and the many other things that are blighting us right now.
Which is why I think it is not helpful to keep telling people who do think it is a problem that they are stupid, or easily diverted, they can have reasonable concerns and we should respect that. "Does it ever occur to you to look at the people in no Whitehall and question why they have allowed this to happen and why it has become such a big issue in recent years? They could do t this out very, very quickly if they wanted to but it suits their purposes to keep it in the news. I am staggered that there are so many people “worried” about a problem that this Government: 1) has enabled, 2) allows to continue and 3) will not act to end the problem quietly and discretely. Read between the lines for goodness sake. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When the topic of asylum seekers / small boat crossings is raised both in the media and here, is it always to divert attention from other problems or cock ups ? To those that think the small boat crossings are nothing to worry about, everything else seems more important and it becomes a "non story" or a diversion by politicians or the media. They then like to tell everyone that thinks differently they are either wrong or stupid for falling for a diversion. It isn't really helpful in my opinion. What (in your opinion) makes the topic of asylum seekers arriving by boat so ‘important’ when compared with other national issues ( cost of living, high inflation, low living standards, etc) I am genuinely intrigued
I didn't say it was either up or down in my priorities....
But as you ask, it has certainly made its way up to in my list of priorities due to the increased numbers and the cost. We need to be open and honest about the cost to the nation, especially as we are seeing calls for pay rises, people who can't afford to heat their homes, food and the many other things that are blighting us right now.
Which is why I think it is not helpful to keep telling people who do think it is a problem that they are stupid, or easily diverted, they can have reasonable concerns and we should respect that.
Fair enough, so basically it’s down to cost ? I think the ‘issue’ has been given far too much attention (by the government and certain sections of the media) when compared with other more important and ‘costly’ issues .
In your opinion, other people will see it differently...
Our home grown costs that you mentioned above would be in a better position if we did not have £7 billion in costs to support those making small boat crossing.
We are struggling on all fronts and this extra cost is impacting all the things you mention above.
The next argument will be process them quicker, we have been through this so many times! 44K people arriving without documentation takes a long time in the processing.
I believe the issues here are complex, costly and I see no reason why people would not be concerned on many levels, not simply distracted."People who voted for brexit can hardly now suddenly care about how much something will cost the country. Also, where did you get this figure from? Immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and the amount of tax collected. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When the topic of asylum seekers / small boat crossings is raised both in the media and here, is it always to divert attention from other problems or cock ups ? The Government could quietly just get on with resolving the migrant problem by reinstating the overseas asylum processing centres that used to exist and allow people to claim asylum via safe routes. They are not doing that because it suits their purposes to keep the migrant issue front and centre in the news. The hard of thinking, the racists and the idiots will continue to be easily distracted by the never ending migrant problem and applaud the government for fighting it." I'm not saying your wrong about the government's strategy but not convinced keeping it high on the news agenda is helping them. If anything it keeps the fact that they cannot or will not solve the problem in people's minds. They are just highlighting their incompetence on the issue. Not something I would think they want in the news to often. I think it is genuinely high on people's concerns. They may be concerned about the risks involved to people, the amount of Money it costs, the impact on communities ect. I don't personally think that makes people hard of thinking or racists. For sure there are some like that but feel the vast majority are not | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When the topic of asylum seekers / small boat crossings is raised both in the media and here, is it always to divert attention from other problems or cock ups ? To those that think the small boat crossings are nothing to worry about, everything else seems more important and it becomes a "non story" or a diversion by politicians or the media. They then like to tell everyone that thinks differently they are either wrong or stupid for falling for a diversion. It isn't really helpful in my opinion. What (in your opinion) makes the topic of asylum seekers arriving by boat so ‘important’ when compared with other national issues ( cost of living, high inflation, low living standards, etc) I am genuinely intrigued
I didn't say it was either up or down in my priorities....
But as you ask, it has certainly made its way up to in my list of priorities due to the increased numbers and the cost. We need to be open and honest about the cost to the nation, especially as we are seeing calls for pay rises, people who can't afford to heat their homes, food and the many other things that are blighting us right now.
Which is why I think it is not helpful to keep telling people who do think it is a problem that they are stupid, or easily diverted, they can have reasonable concerns and we should respect that.
Fair enough, so basically it’s down to cost ? I think the ‘issue’ has been given far too much attention (by the government and certain sections of the media) when compared with other more important and ‘costly’ issues .
In your opinion, other people will see it differently...
Our home grown costs that you mentioned above would be in a better position if we did not have £7 billion in costs to support those making small boat crossing.
We are struggling on all fronts and this extra cost is impacting all the things you mention above.
The next argument will be process them quicker, we have been through this so many times! 44K people arriving without documentation takes a long time in the processing.
I believe the issues here are complex, costly and I see no reason why people would not be concerned on many levels, not simply distracted.
People who voted for brexit can hardly now suddenly care about how much something will cost the country.
Also, where did you get this figure from? Immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and the amount of tax collected."Not all immigration is net positive, you are quoting immigration for professional people such as doctors and nurses and applying it to immigration. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but proving me wrong is not asking another question, it is giving me the facts. To be help we have been around this before and you couldn't provide.
Brexit and voting for or against it has not influenced small boat crossings, can you provide the evidence for this, other than numbers went up post the the brexit vote? We will never know if that would have still been the case if the vote was to remain. Again happy to see the evidence.
Finally and most significantly, If you are surprised by the costs to the country it would seem you are not fully aware of all the implications that small boat crossing are having on the country and if that is the case, what are your arguments based on, emotion or fact?
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When the topic of asylum seekers / small boat crossings is raised both in the media and here, is it always to divert attention from other problems or cock ups ? To those that think the small boat crossings are nothing to worry about, everything else seems more important and it becomes a "non story" or a diversion by politicians or the media. They then like to tell everyone that thinks differently they are either wrong or stupid for falling for a diversion. It isn't really helpful in my opinion. What (in your opinion) makes the topic of asylum seekers arriving by boat so ‘important’ when compared with other national issues ( cost of living, high inflation, low living standards, etc) I am genuinely intrigued
I didn't say it was either up or down in my priorities....
But as you ask, it has certainly made its way up to in my list of priorities due to the increased numbers and the cost. We need to be open and honest about the cost to the nation, especially as we are seeing calls for pay rises, people who can't afford to heat their homes, food and the many other things that are blighting us right now.
Which is why I think it is not helpful to keep telling people who do think it is a problem that they are stupid, or easily diverted, they can have reasonable concerns and we should respect that.
Does it ever occur to you to look at the people in no Whitehall and question why they have allowed this to happen and why it has become such a big issue in recent years?
They could do t this out very, very quickly if they wanted to but it suits their purposes to keep it in the news.
I am staggered that there are so many people “worried” about a problem that this Government: 1) has enabled, 2) allows to continue and 3) will not act to end the problem quietly and discretely.
Read between the lines for goodness sake."Do you accept that your view is not held by all people and we are all equally entitled to hold our own views? That is the crux of my argument here, some people will see things differently, it does not make them wrong and you right, or them right and you wrong. If we as a nation want to grow and move forward, we need to learn to accept that people have differences of opinion and we need to respect that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When the topic of asylum seekers / small boat crossings is raised both in the media and here, is it always to divert attention from other problems or cock ups ? To those that think the small boat crossings are nothing to worry about, everything else seems more important and it becomes a "non story" or a diversion by politicians or the media. They then like to tell everyone that thinks differently they are either wrong or stupid for falling for a diversion. It isn't really helpful in my opinion. What (in your opinion) makes the topic of asylum seekers arriving by boat so ‘important’ when compared with other national issues ( cost of living, high inflation, low living standards, etc) I am genuinely intrigued
I didn't say it was either up or down in my priorities....
But as you ask, it has certainly made its way up to in my list of priorities due to the increased numbers and the cost. We need to be open and honest about the cost to the nation, especially as we are seeing calls for pay rises, people who can't afford to heat their homes, food and the many other things that are blighting us right now.
Which is why I think it is not helpful to keep telling people who do think it is a problem that they are stupid, or easily diverted, they can have reasonable concerns and we should respect that.
Fair enough, so basically it’s down to cost ? I think the ‘issue’ has been given far too much attention (by the government and certain sections of the media) when compared with other more important and ‘costly’ issues .
In your opinion, other people will see it differently...
Our home grown costs that you mentioned above would be in a better position if we did not have £7 billion in costs to support those making small boat crossing.
We are struggling on all fronts and this extra cost is impacting all the things you mention above.
The next argument will be process them quicker, we have been through this so many times! 44K people arriving without documentation takes a long time in the processing.
I believe the issues here are complex, costly and I see no reason why people would not be concerned on many levels, not simply distracted.
We lost at least £5 billion to covid loan fraud , liz truss cost the economy at least £30 billion etc etc "Oh that is not lost on me, this amplifies the seriousness of her bad decisions, an epic fail in a time we could least afford it. Shocking | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When the topic of asylum seekers / small boat crossings is raised both in the media and here, is it always to divert attention from other problems or cock ups ? To those that think the small boat crossings are nothing to worry about, everything else seems more important and it becomes a "non story" or a diversion by politicians or the media. They then like to tell everyone that thinks differently they are either wrong or stupid for falling for a diversion. It isn't really helpful in my opinion. What (in your opinion) makes the topic of asylum seekers arriving by boat so ‘important’ when compared with other national issues ( cost of living, high inflation, low living standards, etc) I am genuinely intrigued
I didn't say it was either up or down in my priorities....
But as you ask, it has certainly made its way up to in my list of priorities due to the increased numbers and the cost. We need to be open and honest about the cost to the nation, especially as we are seeing calls for pay rises, people who can't afford to heat their homes, food and the many other things that are blighting us right now.
Which is why I think it is not helpful to keep telling people who do think it is a problem that they are stupid, or easily diverted, they can have reasonable concerns and we should respect that.
Fair enough, so basically it’s down to cost ? I think the ‘issue’ has been given far too much attention (by the government and certain sections of the media) when compared with other more important and ‘costly’ issues .
In your opinion, other people will see it differently...
Our home grown costs that you mentioned above would be in a better position if we did not have £7 billion in costs to support those making small boat crossing.
We are struggling on all fronts and this extra cost is impacting all the things you mention above.
The next argument will be process them quicker, we have been through this so many times! 44K people arriving without documentation takes a long time in the processing.
I believe the issues here are complex, costly and I see no reason why people would not be concerned on many levels, not simply distracted.
People who voted for brexit can hardly now suddenly care about how much something will cost the country.
Also, where did you get this figure from? Immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and the amount of tax collected.
Not all immigration is net positive,
"This doesn't make sense. " you are quoting immigration for professional people such as doctors and nurses and applying it to immigration. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but proving me wrong is not asking another question, it is giving me the facts. To be help we have been around this before and you couldn't provide.
"I asked you a question, which you answered by asking me a question and accusing me of not answering something else which I don't know about. " Brexit and voting for or against it has not influenced small boat crossings, can you provide the evidence for this, other than numbers went up post the the brexit vote? We will never know if that would have still been the case if the vote was to remain. Again happy to see the evidence. Finally and most significantly, If you are surprised by the costs to the country it would seem you are not fully aware of all the implications that small boat crossing are having on the country and if that is the case, what are your arguments based on, emotion or fact? " Honestly don't know what you mean by this last section. To be clear, are you suggesting that immigration was not a factor with Brexit? That's pretty far fetched. I am not surprised by the costs you quoted because I have no idea where you got them from. See above question I asked you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When the topic of asylum seekers / small boat crossings is raised both in the media and here, is it always to divert attention from other problems or cock ups ? To those that think the small boat crossings are nothing to worry about, everything else seems more important and it becomes a "non story" or a diversion by politicians or the media. They then like to tell everyone that thinks differently they are either wrong or stupid for falling for a diversion. It isn't really helpful in my opinion. What (in your opinion) makes the topic of asylum seekers arriving by boat so ‘important’ when compared with other national issues ( cost of living, high inflation, low living standards, etc) I am genuinely intrigued
I didn't say it was either up or down in my priorities....
But as you ask, it has certainly made its way up to in my list of priorities due to the increased numbers and the cost. We need to be open and honest about the cost to the nation, especially as we are seeing calls for pay rises, people who can't afford to heat their homes, food and the many other things that are blighting us right now.
Which is why I think it is not helpful to keep telling people who do think it is a problem that they are stupid, or easily diverted, they can have reasonable concerns and we should respect that.
Fair enough, so basically it’s down to cost ? I think the ‘issue’ has been given far too much attention (by the government and certain sections of the media) when compared with other more important and ‘costly’ issues .
In your opinion, other people will see it differently...
Our home grown costs that you mentioned above would be in a better position if we did not have £7 billion in costs to support those making small boat crossing.
We are struggling on all fronts and this extra cost is impacting all the things you mention above.
The next argument will be process them quicker, we have been through this so many times! 44K people arriving without documentation takes a long time in the processing.
I believe the issues here are complex, costly and I see no reason why people would not be concerned on many levels, not simply distracted.
People who voted for brexit can hardly now suddenly care about how much something will cost the country.
Also, where did you get this figure from? Immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and the amount of tax collected.
Not all immigration is net positive,
This doesn't make sense.
you are quoting immigration for professional people such as doctors and nurses and applying it to immigration. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but proving me wrong is not asking another question, it is giving me the facts. To be help we have been around this before and you couldn't provide.
I asked you a question, which you answered by asking me a question and accusing me of not answering something else which I don't know about.
Brexit and voting for or against it has not influenced small boat crossings, can you provide the evidence for this, other than numbers went up post the the brexit vote? We will never know if that would have still been the case if the vote was to remain. Again happy to see the evidence.
Finally and most significantly, If you are surprised by the costs to the country it would seem you are not fully aware of all the implications that small boat crossing are having on the country and if that is the case, what are your arguments based on, emotion or fact?
Honestly don't know what you mean by this last section. To be clear, are you suggesting that immigration was not a factor with Brexit? That's pretty far fetched.
I am not surprised by the costs you quoted because I have no idea where you got them from. See above question I asked you.
"Sorry, I misunderstood you
Yes I totally agree Brexit was influenced heavily immigration, take back control etc.
The cost are running at £6 million per day at present. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When the topic of asylum seekers / small boat crossings is raised both in the media and here, is it always to divert attention from other problems or cock ups ? To those that think the small boat crossings are nothing to worry about, everything else seems more important and it becomes a "non story" or a diversion by politicians or the media. They then like to tell everyone that thinks differently they are either wrong or stupid for falling for a diversion. It isn't really helpful in my opinion. What (in your opinion) makes the topic of asylum seekers arriving by boat so ‘important’ when compared with other national issues ( cost of living, high inflation, low living standards, etc) I am genuinely intrigued
I didn't say it was either up or down in my priorities....
But as you ask, it has certainly made its way up to in my list of priorities due to the increased numbers and the cost. We need to be open and honest about the cost to the nation, especially as we are seeing calls for pay rises, people who can't afford to heat their homes, food and the many other things that are blighting us right now.
Which is why I think it is not helpful to keep telling people who do think it is a problem that they are stupid, or easily diverted, they can have reasonable concerns and we should respect that.
Fair enough, so basically it’s down to cost ? I think the ‘issue’ has been given far too much attention (by the government and certain sections of the media) when compared with other more important and ‘costly’ issues .
In your opinion, other people will see it differently...
Our home grown costs that you mentioned above would be in a better position if we did not have £7 billion in costs to support those making small boat crossing.
We are struggling on all fronts and this extra cost is impacting all the things you mention above.
The next argument will be process them quicker, we have been through this so many times! 44K people arriving without documentation takes a long time in the processing.
I believe the issues here are complex, costly and I see no reason why people would not be concerned on many levels, not simply distracted.
People who voted for brexit can hardly now suddenly care about how much something will cost the country.
Also, where did you get this figure from? Immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and the amount of tax collected.
Not all immigration is net positive,
This doesn't make sense.
you are quoting immigration for professional people such as doctors and nurses and applying it to immigration. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but proving me wrong is not asking another question, it is giving me the facts. To be help we have been around this before and you couldn't provide.
I asked you a question, which you answered by asking me a question and accusing me of not answering something else which I don't know about.
Brexit and voting for or against it has not influenced small boat crossings, can you provide the evidence for this, other than numbers went up post the the brexit vote? We will never know if that would have still been the case if the vote was to remain. Again happy to see the evidence.
Finally and most significantly, If you are surprised by the costs to the country it would seem you are not fully aware of all the implications that small boat crossing are having on the country and if that is the case, what are your arguments based on, emotion or fact?
Honestly don't know what you mean by this last section. To be clear, are you suggesting that immigration was not a factor with Brexit? That's pretty far fetched.
I am not surprised by the costs you quoted because I have no idea where you got them from. See above question I asked you.
Sorry, I misunderstood you
Yes I totally agree Brexit was influenced heavily immigration, take back control etc.
The cost are running at £6 million per day at present."That is a lot of money. I am aware there is a cost to processing immigrants. My opinion is that the government make a meal of it, and are pretty happy with the situation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When the topic of asylum seekers / small boat crossings is raised both in the media and here, is it always to divert attention from other problems or cock ups ? To those that think the small boat crossings are nothing to worry about, everything else seems more important and it becomes a "non story" or a diversion by politicians or the media. They then like to tell everyone that thinks differently they are either wrong or stupid for falling for a diversion. It isn't really helpful in my opinion. What (in your opinion) makes the topic of asylum seekers arriving by boat so ‘important’ when compared with other national issues ( cost of living, high inflation, low living standards, etc) I am genuinely intrigued
I didn't say it was either up or down in my priorities....
But as you ask, it has certainly made its way up to in my list of priorities due to the increased numbers and the cost. We need to be open and honest about the cost to the nation, especially as we are seeing calls for pay rises, people who can't afford to heat their homes, food and the many other things that are blighting us right now.
Which is why I think it is not helpful to keep telling people who do think it is a problem that they are stupid, or easily diverted, they can have reasonable concerns and we should respect that.
Fair enough, so basically it’s down to cost ? I think the ‘issue’ has been given far too much attention (by the government and certain sections of the media) when compared with other more important and ‘costly’ issues .
In your opinion, other people will see it differently...
Our home grown costs that you mentioned above would be in a better position if we did not have £7 billion in costs to support those making small boat crossing.
We are struggling on all fronts and this extra cost is impacting all the things you mention above.
The next argument will be process them quicker, we have been through this so many times! 44K people arriving without documentation takes a long time in the processing.
I believe the issues here are complex, costly and I see no reason why people would not be concerned on many levels, not simply distracted.
People who voted for brexit can hardly now suddenly care about how much something will cost the country.
Also, where did you get this figure from? Immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and the amount of tax collected.
Not all immigration is net positive,
This doesn't make sense.
you are quoting immigration for professional people such as doctors and nurses and applying it to immigration. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but proving me wrong is not asking another question, it is giving me the facts. To be help we have been around this before and you couldn't provide.
I asked you a question, which you answered by asking me a question and accusing me of not answering something else which I don't know about.
Brexit and voting for or against it has not influenced small boat crossings, can you provide the evidence for this, other than numbers went up post the the brexit vote? We will never know if that would have still been the case if the vote was to remain. Again happy to see the evidence.
Finally and most significantly, If you are surprised by the costs to the country it would seem you are not fully aware of all the implications that small boat crossing are having on the country and if that is the case, what are your arguments based on, emotion or fact?
Honestly don't know what you mean by this last section. To be clear, are you suggesting that immigration was not a factor with Brexit? That's pretty far fetched.
I am not surprised by the costs you quoted because I have no idea where you got them from. See above question I asked you.
Sorry, I misunderstood you
Yes I totally agree Brexit was influenced heavily immigration, take back control etc.
The cost are running at £6 million per day at present.
That is a lot of money.
I am aware there is a cost to processing immigrants. My opinion is that the government make a meal of it, and are pretty happy with the situation. "Why would they be happy with this situation, this is what confuses me with your view. One of us is not on the page | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When the topic of asylum seekers / small boat crossings is raised both in the media and here, is it always to divert attention from other problems or cock ups ? To those that think the small boat crossings are nothing to worry about, everything else seems more important and it becomes a "non story" or a diversion by politicians or the media. They then like to tell everyone that thinks differently they are either wrong or stupid for falling for a diversion. It isn't really helpful in my opinion. What (in your opinion) makes the topic of asylum seekers arriving by boat so ‘important’ when compared with other national issues ( cost of living, high inflation, low living standards, etc) I am genuinely intrigued
I didn't say it was either up or down in my priorities....
But as you ask, it has certainly made its way up to in my list of priorities due to the increased numbers and the cost. We need to be open and honest about the cost to the nation, especially as we are seeing calls for pay rises, people who can't afford to heat their homes, food and the many other things that are blighting us right now.
Which is why I think it is not helpful to keep telling people who do think it is a problem that they are stupid, or easily diverted, they can have reasonable concerns and we should respect that.
Fair enough, so basically it’s down to cost ? I think the ‘issue’ has been given far too much attention (by the government and certain sections of the media) when compared with other more important and ‘costly’ issues .
In your opinion, other people will see it differently...
Our home grown costs that you mentioned above would be in a better position if we did not have £7 billion in costs to support those making small boat crossing.
We are struggling on all fronts and this extra cost is impacting all the things you mention above.
The next argument will be process them quicker, we have been through this so many times! 44K people arriving without documentation takes a long time in the processing.
I believe the issues here are complex, costly and I see no reason why people would not be concerned on many levels, not simply distracted.
People who voted for brexit can hardly now suddenly care about how much something will cost the country.
Also, where did you get this figure from? Immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and the amount of tax collected.
Not all immigration is net positive,
This doesn't make sense.
you are quoting immigration for professional people such as doctors and nurses and applying it to immigration. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but proving me wrong is not asking another question, it is giving me the facts. To be help we have been around this before and you couldn't provide.
I asked you a question, which you answered by asking me a question and accusing me of not answering something else which I don't know about.
Brexit and voting for or against it has not influenced small boat crossings, can you provide the evidence for this, other than numbers went up post the the brexit vote? We will never know if that would have still been the case if the vote was to remain. Again happy to see the evidence.
Finally and most significantly, If you are surprised by the costs to the country it would seem you are not fully aware of all the implications that small boat crossing are having on the country and if that is the case, what are your arguments based on, emotion or fact?
Honestly don't know what you mean by this last section. To be clear, are you suggesting that immigration was not a factor with Brexit? That's pretty far fetched.
I am not surprised by the costs you quoted because I have no idea where you got them from. See above question I asked you.
Sorry, I misunderstood you
Yes I totally agree Brexit was influenced heavily immigration, take back control etc.
The cost are running at £6 million per day at present.
That is a lot of money.
I am aware there is a cost to processing immigrants. My opinion is that the government make a meal of it, and are pretty happy with the situation.
Why would they be happy with this situation, this is what confuses me with your view.
One of us is not on the page "Lol They seem to use immigration, and constantly tell the electorate how if they vote Tory, they will do something tough about it. And stir up lots of news stories with things like "we'll send them to Rwanda" etc. Immigration is always in the news. This suits the Tories down to the ground. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Does it ever occur to you to look at the people in Whitehall and question why they have allowed this to happen and why it has become such a big issue in recent years? They could do t this out very, very quickly if they wanted to but it suits their purposes to keep it in the news. I am staggered that there are so many people “worried” about a problem that this Government: 1) has enabled, 2) allows to continue and 3) will not act to end the problem quietly and discretely. Read between the lines for goodness sake. Do you accept that your view is not held by all people and we are all equally entitled to hold our own views? That is the crux of my argument here, some people will see things differently, it does not make them wrong and you right, or them right and you wrong. If we as a nation want to grow and move forward, we need to learn to accept that people have differences of opinion and we need to respect that." Of course people can have their own views, but if those views and opinions are based on “feelings” and “thoughts” as opposed to facts then the opinions are not really based on anything are they? Why do you think that the Government has not (for example) set up a “homes for Afghans” route like they did for Ukrainians? Why do you think they would rather talk about sending people to Rwanda instead of opening overseas asylum application centres in the Middle East? Why do you think they keep talking about boats instead of building and operating a processing centre in France - as the French suggested and gave permission for? It’s all very well to have an opinion about brown skinned invaders, but you really need to ask yourself who is responsible and why don’t they who are responsible deal with the root cause instead of keeping inflammatory stuff in the news? I will give you a clue… it is to keep people like you “concerned” because it’s easier to imagine that brown skinned people are at fault than our own Government. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... I think it's cheaper than normal hotels but that is an assumption. I believe there has been complaints from asylum support groups and also the authorities where the barge is moored are not happy either I read about those complaints that the barge wouldn’t be fit for purpose, I hope they have inspected it personally to get an opinion, or it will be yet again a group throwing out objection based on nothing. Will will see in the course of time " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Can you re arrange your words into a sensible readable statement All sounds xenophobic I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated... I think it's cheaper than normal hotels but that is an assumption. I believe there has been complaints from asylum support groups and also the authorities where the barge is moored are not happy either I read about those complaints that the barge wouldn’t be fit for purpose, I hope they have inspected it personally to get an opinion, or it will be yet again a group throwing out objection based on nothing. Will will see in the course of time " Which bit are you referring to. The post you responded to is from more than one poster so unsure which bit is xenophobic | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Does it ever occur to you to look at the people in Whitehall and question why they have allowed this to happen and why it has become such a big issue in recent years? They could do t this out very, very quickly if they wanted to but it suits their purposes to keep it in the news. I am staggered that there are so many people “worried” about a problem that this Government: 1) has enabled, 2) allows to continue and 3) will not act to end the problem quietly and discretely. Read between the lines for goodness sake. Do you accept that your view is not held by all people and we are all equally entitled to hold our own views? That is the crux of my argument here, some people will see things differently, it does not make them wrong and you right, or them right and you wrong. If we as a nation want to grow and move forward, we need to learn to accept that people have differences of opinion and we need to respect that. Of course people can have their own views, but if those views and opinions are based on “feelings” and “thoughts” as opposed to facts then the opinions are not really based on anything are they? Why do you think that the Government has not (for example) set up a “homes for Afghans” route like they did for Ukrainians? Why do you think they would rather talk about sending people to Rwanda instead of opening overseas asylum application centres in the Middle East? Why do you think they keep talking about boats instead of building and operating a processing centre in France - as the French suggested and gave permission for? It’s all very well to have an opinion about brown skinned invaders, but you really need to ask yourself who is responsible and why don’t they who are responsible deal with the root cause instead of keeping inflammatory stuff in the news? I will give you a clue… it is to keep people like you “concerned” because it’s easier to imagine that brown skinned people are at fault than our own Government. " Really, people like me to be concerned and find it easier to imagine brown skinned people are at fault? You have in my opinion shown yourself for what you are... You have misjudged me by a country mile! I could be harsh, clever or spiteful to your response, but I think it is easier for your words to speak for you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Re Uganda. What you do is ypunget your passport. You buy a ticket to the uk on a flight. You arrive in the uk. You request asylum. Wrong (again). No-one can board a flight to the U.K. unless they have a visa. They can’t get a visa without good reason and the only way they can claim asylum is by getting themselves to the U.K. Why can't they buy a visa Did you want me to tell you they needed to buy a cab to the airport too? Pack their suitcase? Bring a passport, flammable.? Nice attempt at being a smart arse though You really do have no idea do you. For someone to get a tourist visa from Uganda they would need to attend a British (or nearest nominated) Embassy and be interviewed. They would have to have a watertight story including reasons, travel bookings and prove that they had sufficient funds in their own bank to not be perceived as an immigration threat. Once they get to the airport, they will be grilled again by airport staff and then again on their arrival at the U.K. border. If you believe that this might be a sustainable way for persecuted people to arrive in the U.K. you are absolutely dreaming. I am not sure you realise how arduous it is for most of the world (especially those from the third world and developing countries) to get any kind of visa to come to the U.K. Three of my wife’s Russian friends (long before Ukraine) were denied visa’s and a couple from Colombia who we met on holiday in Mexico were denied visa’s to come to the U.K. even though they had got a tourist visa to visit Spain (and the EU)." You seem to think Uganda doesn't have the Internet and that for some reason. The uk treats their applications for visitor visas differently than any other country. I can't see a page for the Uganda application and their different requirements. The uk partners with a service provider to help people in other coutnries apply. Especially if they don't have their biometric data. But if they have a passport already with it...no problem. Maybe you can show me? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Probably the cost. I imagine its cheaper to do that than the hotels they've been providing (6mil a day estimated). Also some mps have said they will not be allowed to leave the docking area (again, in hotels they can go anywhere). So in a sense keeping them in one place. X" Who owns the boat(s)? Have they recently donated to the Tory party? It *should* be cheaper, otherwise why do it, but it would be interesting to know: 1. Is it actually cheaper? 2. How many asylum seekers are currently housed in hotels vs how many places there will be on this boat(s)? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Re Uganda. What you do is ypunget your passport. You buy a ticket to the uk on a flight. You arrive in the uk. You request asylum. Wrong (again). No-one can board a flight to the U.K. unless they have a visa. They can’t get a visa without good reason and the only way they can claim asylum is by getting themselves to the U.K. Why can't they buy a visa Did you want me to tell you they needed to buy a cab to the airport too? Pack their suitcase? Bring a passport, flammable.? Nice attempt at being a smart arse though You really do have no idea do you. For someone to get a tourist visa from Uganda they would need to attend a British (or nearest nominated) Embassy and be interviewed. They would have to have a watertight story including reasons, travel bookings and prove that they had sufficient funds in their own bank to not be perceived as an immigration threat. Once they get to the airport, they will be grilled again by airport staff and then again on their arrival at the U.K. border. If you believe that this might be a sustainable way for persecuted people to arrive in the U.K. you are absolutely dreaming. I am not sure you realise how arduous it is for most of the world (especially those from the third world and developing countries) to get any kind of visa to come to the U.K. Three of my wife’s Russian friends (long before Ukraine) were denied visa’s and a couple from Colombia who we met on holiday in Mexico were denied visa’s to come to the U.K. even though they had got a tourist visa to visit Spain (and the EU). You seem to think Uganda doesn't have the Internet and that for some reason. The uk treats their applications for visitor visas differently than any other country. I can't see a page for the Uganda application and their different requirements. The uk partners with a service provider to help people in other coutnries apply. Especially if they don't have their biometric data. But if they have a passport already with it...no problem. Maybe you can show me? " The citizens of Uganda who wish to travel to the United Kingdom for business, tourism, or medical tourism must first obtain a visa. While the UK Standard Visitor Visa is not available online. If you want to obtain a UK Standard Visitor Visa, you must go to the nearest British embassy and apply there (and be interviewed). You will need: Biometric passport – it must be valid for at least another 6 months from your date of arrival in the United Kingdom Accommodation information – a travel itinerary will suffice Means of sustenance – you must prove that you can provide for yourself and your dependents during your trip to the United Kingdom Proof of business or any other activity that justifies the purpose of your visit SO THEREFORE... if you are coming with the intention of claiming asylum you will need to lie. You will also need to be able to prove all of the above, so that will be some sophisticated lying! You also cannot be poor! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
What about all the uninvited ones from our own community?
I don't get you, do you mean homeless?"Apologies for being so long answering. No. It wasn't the homeless I had in mind. More, those who are brought into this world expecting a totally state funded lifestyle from birth until death without paying anything in for the duration. Sadly, the homeless tend to be so because they are not as skilled as others in using the system. Nor are they likely to provide useful votes on polling day. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
What about all the uninvited ones from our own community?
I don't get you, do you mean homeless?
Apologies for being so long answering.
No. It wasn't the homeless I had in mind. More, those who are brought into this world expecting a totally state funded lifestyle from birth until death without paying anything in for the duration.
Sadly, the homeless tend to be so because they are not as skilled as others in using the system. Nor are they likely to provide useful votes on polling day."Bang-on. Well said. Thank you...! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Probably the cost. I imagine its cheaper to do that than the hotels they've been providing (6mil a day estimated). Also some mps have said they will not be allowed to leave the docking area (again, in hotels they can go anywhere). So in a sense keeping them in one place. X Who owns the boat(s)? Have they recently donated to the Tory party? It *should* be cheaper, otherwise why do it, but it would be interesting to know: 1. Is it actually cheaper? 2. How many asylum seekers are currently housed in hotels vs how many places there will be on this boat(s)?" You should be able tog etc this information from companies House and tory donor register | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Re Uganda. What you do is ypunget your passport. You buy a ticket to the uk on a flight. You arrive in the uk. You request asylum. Wrong (again). No-one can board a flight to the U.K. unless they have a visa. They can’t get a visa without good reason and the only way they can claim asylum is by getting themselves to the U.K. Why can't they buy a visa Did you want me to tell you they needed to buy a cab to the airport too? Pack their suitcase? Bring a passport, flammable.? Nice attempt at being a smart arse though You really do have no idea do you. For someone to get a tourist visa from Uganda they would need to attend a British (or nearest nominated) Embassy and be interviewed. They would have to have a watertight story including reasons, travel bookings and prove that they had sufficient funds in their own bank to not be perceived as an immigration threat. Once they get to the airport, they will be grilled again by airport staff and then again on their arrival at the U.K. border. If you believe that this might be a sustainable way for persecuted people to arrive in the U.K. you are absolutely dreaming. I am not sure you realise how arduous it is for most of the world (especially those from the third world and developing countries) to get any kind of visa to come to the U.K. Three of my wife’s Russian friends (long before Ukraine) were denied visa’s and a couple from Colombia who we met on holiday in Mexico were denied visa’s to come to the U.K. even though they had got a tourist visa to visit Spain (and the EU). You seem to think Uganda doesn't have the Internet and that for some reason. The uk treats their applications for visitor visas differently than any other country. I can't see a page for the Uganda application and their different requirements. The uk partners with a service provider to help people in other coutnries apply. Especially if they don't have their biometric data. But if they have a passport already with it...no problem. Maybe you can show me? The citizens of Uganda who wish to travel to the United Kingdom for business, tourism, or medical tourism must first obtain a visa. While the UK Standard Visitor Visa is not available online. If you want to obtain a UK Standard Visitor Visa, you must go to the nearest British embassy and apply there (and be interviewed). You will need: Biometric passport – it must be valid for at least another 6 months from your date of arrival in the United Kingdom Accommodation information – a travel itinerary will suffice Means of sustenance – you must prove that you can provide for yourself and your dependents during your trip to the United Kingdom Proof of business or any other activity that justifies the purpose of your visit SO THEREFORE... if you are coming with the intention of claiming asylum you will need to lie. You will also need to be able to prove all of the above, so that will be some sophisticated lying! You also cannot be poor! " Thanks I saw this. This doesn't answer my questions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Re Uganda. What you do is ypunget your passport. You buy a ticket to the uk on a flight. You arrive in the uk. You request asylum. Wrong (again). No-one can board a flight to the U.K. unless they have a visa. They can’t get a visa without good reason and the only way they can claim asylum is by getting themselves to the U.K. Why can't they buy a visa Did you want me to tell you they needed to buy a cab to the airport too? Pack their suitcase? Bring a passport, flammable.? Nice attempt at being a smart arse though You really do have no idea do you. For someone to get a tourist visa from Uganda they would need to attend a British (or nearest nominated) Embassy and be interviewed. They would have to have a watertight story including reasons, travel bookings and prove that they had sufficient funds in their own bank to not be perceived as an immigration threat. Once they get to the airport, they will be grilled again by airport staff and then again on their arrival at the U.K. border. If you believe that this might be a sustainable way for persecuted people to arrive in the U.K. you are absolutely dreaming. I am not sure you realise how arduous it is for most of the world (especially those from the third world and developing countries) to get any kind of visa to come to the U.K. Three of my wife’s Russian friends (long before Ukraine) were denied visa’s and a couple from Colombia who we met on holiday in Mexico were denied visa’s to come to the U.K. even though they had got a tourist visa to visit Spain (and the EU). You seem to think Uganda doesn't have the Internet and that for some reason. The uk treats their applications for visitor visas differently than any other country. I can't see a page for the Uganda application and their different requirements. The uk partners with a service provider to help people in other coutnries apply. Especially if they don't have their biometric data. But if they have a passport already with it...no problem. Maybe you can show me? The citizens of Uganda who wish to travel to the United Kingdom for business, tourism, or medical tourism must first obtain a visa. While the UK Standard Visitor Visa is not available online. If you want to obtain a UK Standard Visitor Visa, you must go to the nearest British embassy and apply there (and be interviewed). You will need: Biometric passport – it must be valid for at least another 6 months from your date of arrival in the United Kingdom Accommodation information – a travel itinerary will suffice Means of sustenance – you must prove that you can provide for yourself and your dependents during your trip to the United Kingdom Proof of business or any other activity that justifies the purpose of your visit SO THEREFORE... if you are coming with the intention of claiming asylum you will need to lie. You will also need to be able to prove all of the above, so that will be some sophisticated lying! You also cannot be poor! Thanks I saw this. This doesn't answer my questions." You said that all they need to do to claim asylum is buy a plane ticket to come to the U.K. I, and another poster, have told you that this would be virtually impossible as the asylum claim would be bounced at the first hurdle on account of the fact that you had lied to get a visa. Now you say that your question hadn’t been answered? Why don’t you just accept the truth that it is almost impossible for a refugee to claim asylum in the U.K. without finding a way to get to the U.K. and claim on arrival. As mentioned previously, the U.K. Government could choose to invest in asylum processing centres (for example) in the Middle East and in this way tackle the root cause of the problem; or they could choose to invest the same money into a camp in Rwanda. Why would they choose the latter I wonder? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I, and another poster, have told you that this would be virtually impossible as the asylum claim would be bounced at the first hurdle on account of the fact that you had lied to get a visa." Then you and the other poster, are wrong. Article 31 of the convention states that refugees cannot be prosecuted for offences related to illegal entry to, or presence in, a country. Telling an untruth in order to obtain a visa is not a crime, and even if it were, it can't be used against a refugee. Note: when I say 'refugee', I'm talking about the very strict definition given in the 1951 Convention. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Re Uganda. What you do is ypunget your passport. You buy a ticket to the uk on a flight. You arrive in the uk. You request asylum. Wrong (again). No-one can board a flight to the U.K. unless they have a visa. They can’t get a visa without good reason and the only way they can claim asylum is by getting themselves to the U.K. Why can't they buy a visa Did you want me to tell you they needed to buy a cab to the airport too? Pack their suitcase? Bring a passport, flammable.? Nice attempt at being a smart arse though You really do have no idea do you. For someone to get a tourist visa from Uganda they would need to attend a British (or nearest nominated) Embassy and be interviewed. They would have to have a watertight story including reasons, travel bookings and prove that they had sufficient funds in their own bank to not be perceived as an immigration threat. Once they get to the airport, they will be grilled again by airport staff and then again on their arrival at the U.K. border. If you believe that this might be a sustainable way for persecuted people to arrive in the U.K. you are absolutely dreaming. I am not sure you realise how arduous it is for most of the world (especially those from the third world and developing countries) to get any kind of visa to come to the U.K. Three of my wife’s Russian friends (long before Ukraine) were denied visa’s and a couple from Colombia who we met on holiday in Mexico were denied visa’s to come to the U.K. even though they had got a tourist visa to visit Spain (and the EU). You seem to think Uganda doesn't have the Internet and that for some reason. The uk treats their applications for visitor visas differently than any other country. I can't see a page for the Uganda application and their different requirements. The uk partners with a service provider to help people in other coutnries apply. Especially if they don't have their biometric data. But if they have a passport already with it...no problem. Maybe you can show me? The citizens of Uganda who wish to travel to the United Kingdom for business, tourism, or medical tourism must first obtain a visa. While the UK Standard Visitor Visa is not available online. If you want to obtain a UK Standard Visitor Visa, you must go to the nearest British embassy and apply there (and be interviewed). You will need: Biometric passport – it must be valid for at least another 6 months from your date of arrival in the United Kingdom Accommodation information – a travel itinerary will suffice Means of sustenance – you must prove that you can provide for yourself and your dependents during your trip to the United Kingdom Proof of business or any other activity that justifies the purpose of your visit SO THEREFORE... if you are coming with the intention of claiming asylum you will need to lie. You will also need to be able to prove all of the above, so that will be some sophisticated lying! You also cannot be poor! Thanks I saw this. This doesn't answer my questions. You said that all they need to do to claim asylum is buy a plane ticket to come to the U.K. I, and another poster, have told you that this would be virtually impossible as the asylum claim would be bounced at the first hurdle on account of the fact that you had lied to get a visa. Now you say that your question hadn’t been answered? Why don’t you just accept the truth that it is almost impossible for a refugee to claim asylum in the U.K. without finding a way to get to the U.K. and claim on arrival. As mentioned previously, the U.K. Government could choose to invest in asylum processing centres (for example) in the Middle East and in this way tackle the root cause of the problem; or they could choose to invest the same money into a camp in Rwanda. Why would they choose the latter I wonder?" I was saying it as a term for speech. As in. What's more difficult. Buying a ticket for a plane trip to the uk. Or going through several coutnries and paying a smuggler 5 k inf eamce to take youa acoss in a boat. That bit seemed to skip you by in the comparison | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Re Uganda. What you do is ypunget your passport. You buy a ticket to the uk on a flight. You arrive in the uk. You request asylum. Wrong (again). No-one can board a flight to the U.K. unless they have a visa. They can’t get a visa without good reason and the only way they can claim asylum is by getting themselves to the U.K. Why can't they buy a visa Did you want me to tell you they needed to buy a cab to the airport too? Pack their suitcase? Bring a passport, flammable.? Nice attempt at being a smart arse though You really do have no idea do you. For someone to get a tourist visa from Uganda they would need to attend a British (or nearest nominated) Embassy and be interviewed. They would have to have a watertight story including reasons, travel bookings and prove that they had sufficient funds in their own bank to not be perceived as an immigration threat. Once they get to the airport, they will be grilled again by airport staff and then again on their arrival at the U.K. border. If you believe that this might be a sustainable way for persecuted people to arrive in the U.K. you are absolutely dreaming. I am not sure you realise how arduous it is for most of the world (especially those from the third world and developing countries) to get any kind of visa to come to the U.K. Three of my wife’s Russian friends (long before Ukraine) were denied visa’s and a couple from Colombia who we met on holiday in Mexico were denied visa’s to come to the U.K. even though they had got a tourist visa to visit Spain (and the EU). You seem to think Uganda doesn't have the Internet and that for some reason. The uk treats their applications for visitor visas differently than any other country. I can't see a page for the Uganda application and their different requirements. The uk partners with a service provider to help people in other coutnries apply. Especially if they don't have their biometric data. But if they have a passport already with it...no problem. Maybe you can show me? The citizens of Uganda who wish to travel to the United Kingdom for business, tourism, or medical tourism must first obtain a visa. While the UK Standard Visitor Visa is not available online. If you want to obtain a UK Standard Visitor Visa, you must go to the nearest British embassy and apply there (and be interviewed). You will need: Biometric passport – it must be valid for at least another 6 months from your date of arrival in the United Kingdom Accommodation information – a travel itinerary will suffice Means of sustenance – you must prove that you can provide for yourself and your dependents during your trip to the United Kingdom Proof of business or any other activity that justifies the purpose of your visit SO THEREFORE... if you are coming with the intention of claiming asylum you will need to lie. You will also need to be able to prove all of the above, so that will be some sophisticated lying! You also cannot be poor! " Every 1 coming needs to lie. Youcdont declare buying ticket because I am claiming asylum. There's no asylum visa | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"25k refugees were taken in lat year excluding Hong Kong and Ukraine. So clearly not impossible. 166k have managed to pay 5k to come across on small boats. Somehow they managed tk withdraw 5k from a bank without ID( LAUGHABLE) The gullibility of the whole believe its easier to travel several thousand miles though multiple.coutnries and border without ID and withdraw 5k for a trafficker. Then apply online fkr a visa then attend a UK outsourced interview centre for a visa is quite frankly astounding." What point are you trying to make? If they could buy a ticket in (Uganda for example) and get on a plane, do you not think they might prefer that rather than travelling across multiple countries to pay a smuggling gang £5K? You are proving the very point that we are making. They only do the difficult and expensive stuff because it is the only way for the vast majority. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Apologies for being so long answering. No. It wasn't the homeless I had in mind. More, those who are brought into this world expecting a totally state funded lifestyle from birth until death without paying anything in for the duration. " Conservative MPs? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Apologies for being so long answering. No. It wasn't the homeless I had in mind. More, those who are brought into this world expecting a totally state funded lifestyle from birth until death without paying anything in for the duration. Conservative MPs?" OK then. Explain, produce conclusive evidence and give just one example. You can't, can you....??!!  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Apologies for being so long answering. No. It wasn't the homeless I had in mind. More, those who are brought into this world expecting a totally state funded lifestyle from birth until death without paying anything in for the duration. Conservative MPs? OK then. Explain, produce conclusive evidence and give just one example. You can't, can you....??!! "Of what? I have no idea what you're talking about or why you're so angry at me all the time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I fail to understand what the difference is between a floating hotel and one on land? Although I'm sure I'm about to be educated..." There is no inherent problem in using any type of accommodation for housing anyone who needs it if they are of a reasonable standard and freedom to come and go. These people are not prisoners. Be that those seeking asylum or homeless. It should only be temporary and a process put in place to make a decision on their futures and find permanent accomodation or repatriation made ASAP rather than just trying to show something "new" being done with no substattive change being made. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country is up s**t creek with only a small paddle, with estimated figures of over 50k souls will have to be rescued from the channel this year the barge is a minor diversion from the real problem of accommodating uninvited guests.
What about all the uninvited ones from our own community?
I don't get you, do you mean homeless?
Apologies for being so long answering.
No. It wasn't the homeless I had in mind. More, those who are brought into this world expecting a totally state funded lifestyle from birth until death without paying anything in for the duration.
Sadly, the homeless tend to be so because they are not as skilled as others in using the system. Nor are they likely to provide useful votes on polling day."Scroungers, dole dossers I think they are just claiming the legal state benefit they are entitled to receive for being part and voting for the political state. I agree some may game the system and lie to get something they may not be entitled to, is it a crime to lie?. They are not called the benefits for nothing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
