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 |
"We can't send them to Rwanda, the barges aren't good enough, military camps are good enough, hotels mean people are losing jobs? I ask all of those people who challenge the government at every single opportunity? We exactly do you want us to house asylum seekers? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/12/first-asylum-seekers-brought-to-military-base-as-challenges-reach-high-court It's good enough for our armed forces but not for aomeone who has fuck all "I think those in favour should give up their spare bedrooms like good old Gary  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We can't send them to Rwanda, the barges aren't good enough, military camps are good enough, hotels mean people are losing jobs? I ask all of those people who challenge the government at every single opportunity? We exactly do you want us to house asylum seekers? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/12/first-asylum-seekers-brought-to-military-base-as-challenges-reach-high-court It's good enough for our armed forces but not for aomeone who has fuck all "the asylum seekers arent taking HMG to court. I only skimmed but I didn't see that anyone said it wasn't good enough for asylum seekers I dont have an answer but if I'm worried about a lack of housing I'm the UK, I'd look to reduce other immigration. If also focus on quicker processing to reduce the need for HMG responsibility to house and look to find ways of allowing people to become self sufficient | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"772,000 second homes 164,000 second homes registered as businesses for free business rates 10,000 long term empty MOD properties costing taxpayer £25M annually to maintain 300,000-400,000 spaces over shops suitable for residential conversion (the planner.com) 400,000 land banked sites with planning consent (nhbc). 8% of London dwellings vacant £130bn worth of homes left empty Plenty of housing options, but 1.6 million people are on council house waiting lists, some for over a decade, so they can join the queue. In the meantime we are paying £5.6m a day, £20bn a year housing these people - while chancellor says no extra pay for public services. " We should just 'steal' property that others own to house asylum seekers? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We can't send them to Rwanda, the barges aren't good enough, military camps are good enough, hotels mean people are losing jobs? I ask all of those people who challenge the government at every single opportunity? We exactly do you want us to house asylum seekers? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/12/first-asylum-seekers-brought-to-military-base-as-challenges-reach-high-court It's good enough for our armed forces but not for aomeone who has fuck all the asylum seekers arent taking HMG to court. I only skimmed but I didn't see that anyone said it wasn't good enough for asylum seekers
I dont have an answer but if I'm worried about a lack of housing I'm the UK, I'd look to reduce other immigration. If also focus on quicker processing to reduce the need for HMG responsibility to house and look to find ways of allowing people to become self sufficient "One of the challenges to this particular case is that the correct planning hasn't been sought. Everywhere we turn 'it's not good enough'. I agree we need to be processing quicker but that doesn't answer the questions as you've alluded to already. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"772,000 second homes 164,000 second homes registered as businesses for free business rates 10,000 long term empty MOD properties costing taxpayer £25M annually to maintain 300,000-400,000 spaces over shops suitable for residential conversion (the planner.com) 400,000 land banked sites with planning consent (nhbc). 8% of London dwellings vacant £130bn worth of homes left empty Plenty of housing options, but 1.6 million people are on council house waiting lists, some for over a decade, so they can join the queue. In the meantime we are paying £5.6m a day, £20bn a year housing these people - while chancellor says no extra pay for public services. We should just 'steal' property that others own to house asylum seekers?" Given the amount of dodgy property ‘owned’ by oligarchs in London for shady means? Yeah. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We can't send them to Rwanda, the barges aren't good enough, military camps are good enough, hotels mean people are losing jobs? I ask all of those people who challenge the government at every single opportunity? We exactly do you want us to house asylum seekers? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/12/first-asylum-seekers-brought-to-military-base-as-challenges-reach-high-court It's good enough for our armed forces but not for aomeone who has fuck all "I want the home office to process people better/faster, and to accept that post-Brexit we need to negotiate a deal with France to create controls on the other side of the channel, including safe routes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"772,000 second homes 164,000 second homes registered as businesses for free business rates 10,000 long term empty MOD properties costing taxpayer £25M annually to maintain 300,000-400,000 spaces over shops suitable for residential conversion (the planner.com) 400,000 land banked sites with planning consent (nhbc). 8% of London dwellings vacant £130bn worth of homes left empty Plenty of housing options, but 1.6 million people are on council house waiting lists, some for over a decade, so they can join the queue. In the meantime we are paying £5.6m a day, £20bn a year housing these people - while chancellor says no extra pay for public services. We should just 'steal' property that others own to house asylum seekers?" Put the asylum seekers to one side Is it right that successive governments have failed on housing, 2.3 million council houses sold off at one time discounts and not replaced. All these empty homes, many owned via offshore tax havens while the social housing waiting list keeps increasing. Council house waiting list is currently 50% higher than in 2010. Where are the policies to get all these empty and second homes into residential use, and the unbuilt homes on sites with planning approved. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"772,000 second homes 164,000 second homes registered as businesses for free business rates 10,000 long term empty MOD properties costing taxpayer £25M annually to maintain 300,000-400,000 spaces over shops suitable for residential conversion (the planner.com) 400,000 land banked sites with planning consent (nhbc). 8% of London dwellings vacant £130bn worth of homes left empty Plenty of housing options, but 1.6 million people are on council house waiting lists, some for over a decade, so they can join the queue. In the meantime we are paying £5.6m a day, £20bn a year housing these people - while chancellor says no extra pay for public services. We should just 'steal' property that others own to house asylum seekers? Given the amount of dodgy property ‘owned’ by oligarchs in London for shady means? Yeah." Got any proof of these 'shady means'? The unofficial figures is under 2000 properties, that'll help. There's no way I'm gonna advocate stealing property from anyone unless you can prove they're a product of 'proceeds of crime'. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"772,000 second homes 164,000 second homes registered as businesses for free business rates 10,000 long term empty MOD properties costing taxpayer £25M annually to maintain 300,000-400,000 spaces over shops suitable for residential conversion (the planner.com) 400,000 land banked sites with planning consent (nhbc). 8% of London dwellings vacant £130bn worth of homes left empty Plenty of housing options, but 1.6 million people are on council house waiting lists, some for over a decade, so they can join the queue. In the meantime we are paying £5.6m a day, £20bn a year housing these people - while chancellor says no extra pay for public services. We should just 'steal' property that others own to house asylum seekers? Put the asylum seekers to one side Is it right that successive governments have failed on housing, 2.3 million council houses sold off at one time discounts and not replaced. All these empty homes, many owned via offshore tax havens while the social housing waiting list keeps increasing. Council house waiting list is currently 50% higher than in 2010. Where are the policies to get all these empty and second homes into residential use, and the unbuilt homes on sites with planning approved. " I won't put asylum seekers aside. This thread is about the challenges of housing them. Legal challenges that is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We can't send them to Rwanda, the barges aren't good enough, military camps are good enough, hotels mean people are losing jobs? I ask all of those people who challenge the government at every single opportunity? We exactly do you want us to house asylum seekers? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/12/first-asylum-seekers-brought-to-military-base-as-challenges-reach-high-court It's good enough for our armed forces but not for aomeone who has fuck all
I want the home office to process people better/faster, and to accept that post-Brexit we need to negotiate a deal with France to create controls on the other side of the channel, including safe routes.
"That wasn't the question though, was it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"772,000 second homes 164,000 second homes registered as businesses for free business rates 10,000 long term empty MOD properties costing taxpayer £25M annually to maintain 300,000-400,000 spaces over shops suitable for residential conversion (the planner.com) 400,000 land banked sites with planning consent (nhbc). 8% of London dwellings vacant £130bn worth of homes left empty Plenty of housing options, but 1.6 million people are on council house waiting lists, some for over a decade, so they can join the queue. In the meantime we are paying £5.6m a day, £20bn a year housing these people - while chancellor says no extra pay for public services. We should just 'steal' property that others own to house asylum seekers? Given the amount of dodgy property ‘owned’ by oligarchs in London for shady means? Yeah. Got any proof of these 'shady means'? The unofficial figures is under 2000 properties, that'll help. There's no way I'm gonna advocate stealing property from anyone unless you can prove they're a product of 'proceeds of crime'." Of course I don’t have any proof. In the same way that j don’t have any proof that the American candy stores all over the city are money laundering fronts. But we all know they are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We can't send them to Rwanda, the barges aren't good enough, military camps are good enough, hotels mean people are losing jobs? I ask all of those people who challenge the government at every single opportunity? We exactly do you want us to house asylum seekers? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/12/first-asylum-seekers-brought-to-military-base-as-challenges-reach-high-court It's good enough for our armed forces but not for aomeone who has fuck all
I want the home office to process people better/faster, and to accept that post-Brexit we need to negotiate a deal with France to create controls on the other side of the channel, including safe routes.
That wasn't the question though, was it?"The problem isn’t capable of being solved with a simple solution, is it? It’s a multi-faceted approach that’s needed, as I’m sure you’re aware. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This isn’t about the accommodation not being suitable, it is a challenge from local people who do not want the people crossing the channel in small boats housed temporarily in their area. " Lawyers for Clarke-Holland said the judicial review claims were highly significant for asylum seekers and communities across the UK, because they will affect whether the government can set up “potentially unsuitable and harmful military-style accommodation for asylum seekers, without any consultation, in remote areas of the UK, by using emergency powers to bypass planning regulations”. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"772,000 second homes 164,000 second homes registered as businesses for free business rates 10,000 long term empty MOD properties costing taxpayer £25M annually to maintain 300,000-400,000 spaces over shops suitable for residential conversion (the planner.com) 400,000 land banked sites with planning consent (nhbc). 8% of London dwellings vacant £130bn worth of homes left empty Plenty of housing options, but 1.6 million people are on council house waiting lists, some for over a decade, so they can join the queue. In the meantime we are paying £5.6m a day, £20bn a year housing these people - while chancellor says no extra pay for public services. We should just 'steal' property that others own to house asylum seekers? Given the amount of dodgy property ‘owned’ by oligarchs in London for shady means? Yeah. Got any proof of these 'shady means'? The unofficial figures is under 2000 properties, that'll help. There's no way I'm gonna advocate stealing property from anyone unless you can prove they're a product of 'proceeds of crime'. Of course I don’t have any proof. In the same way that j don’t have any proof that the American candy stores all over the city are money laundering fronts. But we all know they are. " So you'll steal property without any proof? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We can't send them to Rwanda, the barges aren't good enough, military camps are good enough, hotels mean people are losing jobs? I ask all of those people who challenge the government at every single opportunity? We exactly do you want us to house asylum seekers? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/12/first-asylum-seekers-brought-to-military-base-as-challenges-reach-high-court It's good enough for our armed forces but not for aomeone who has fuck all
I want the home office to process people better/faster, and to accept that post-Brexit we need to negotiate a deal with France to create controls on the other side of the channel, including safe routes.
That wasn't the question though, was it?
The problem isn’t capable of being solved with a simple solution, is it? It’s a multi-faceted approach that’s needed, as I’m sure you’re aware."We still need to house them until we sort the solution. The question was, if nowhere is good enough, where can we house them? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This isn’t about the accommodation not being suitable, it is a challenge from local people who do not want the people crossing the channel in small boats housed temporarily in their area. Lawyers for Clarke-Holland said the judicial review claims were highly significant for asylum seekers and communities across the UK, because they will affect whether the government can set up “potentially unsuitable and harmful military-style accommodation for asylum seekers, without any consultation, in remote areas of the UK, by using emergency powers to bypass planning regulations”." Exactly, prove the sites are not fit for purpose and not in my back yard | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This isn’t about the accommodation not being suitable, it is a challenge from local people who do not want the people crossing the channel in small boats housed temporarily in their area. Lawyers for Clarke-Holland said the judicial review claims were highly significant for asylum seekers and communities across the UK, because they will affect whether the government can set up “potentially unsuitable and harmful military-style accommodation for asylum seekers, without any consultation, in remote areas of the UK, by using emergency powers to bypass planning regulations”. Exactly, prove the sites are not fit for purpose and not in my back yard" I see why you think that way, I'm just going off the article. I'll admit I focused on 'nowhere the government suggests is safe' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"164,000 second homes registered as businesses for free business rates" Or perhaps they are registered as businesses because, you know, they are businesses and it would be illegal to register them as homes. "300,000-400,000 spaces over shops suitable for residential conversion (the planner.com)" I'd say that was an underestimate, but it's hellishly expensive to split a commercial property and convert part of it to residential. It's about £40,000 - £50,000, just for a basic conversion. And neither the shop owner nor the landlord would benefit, so there's no incentive to get it done. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This isn’t about the accommodation not being suitable, it is a challenge from local people who do not want the people crossing the channel in small boats housed temporarily in their area. Lawyers for Clarke-Holland said the judicial review claims were highly significant for asylum seekers and communities across the UK, because they will affect whether the government can set up “potentially unsuitable and harmful military-style accommodation for asylum seekers, without any consultation, in remote areas of the UK, by using emergency powers to bypass planning regulations”. Exactly, prove the sites are not fit for purpose and not in my back yard I see why you think that way, I'm just going off the article. I'll admit I focused on 'nowhere the government suggests is safe'" The spin is good from the guardian, it is true that people and councils are challenging the government on suitability, but that is to prevent them using areas as holding stations for people crossing in small boats The facility will remain permanently and the people turned frequently | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I come from Indian middle class family. When I was in university, we stayed in dorms which looked way worse than the barracks these people are complaining about. Every room was shared by 4 guys and we had 4 showers and 4 toilets for ten rooms. We even run out of water once in awhile. And guess what? We actually paid for the privilege of living there for 4 years and it was still much better place to live compared to the areas where most poor people live - A hut where the entire family sleep next to each other on the floor. And yet you don't see them seeking asylum anywhere. The sense of entitlement of some folks here is astonishing. Last week someone was complaining about how housing three people in one room in a four star hotel is "inhumane". Speak about being spoilt. Anyways, the question is still why there are so many people waiting to have their request processed in the first place." I’m not sure any people crossing in small boats are complaining. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I come from Indian middle class family. When I was in university, we stayed in dorms which looked way worse than the barracks these people are complaining about. Every room was shared by 4 guys and we had 4 showers and 4 toilets for ten rooms. We even run out of water once in awhile. And guess what? We actually paid for the privilege of living there for 4 years and it was still much better place to live compared to the areas where most poor people live - A hut where the entire family sleep next to each other on the floor. And yet you don't see them seeking asylum anywhere. The sense of entitlement of some folks here is astonishing. Last week someone was complaining about how housing three people in one room in a four star hotel is "inhumane". Speak about being spoilt. Anyways, the question is still why there are so many people waiting to have their request processed in the first place. I’m not sure any people crossing in small boats are complaining. " I think there was a protest in front of a hotel in a really posh area in London by the people living in the hotel. But agree that most protests are by people living here and have no clue how the world outside looks like. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This isn’t about the accommodation not being suitable, it is a challenge from local people who do not want the people crossing the channel in small boats housed temporarily in their area. Lawyers for Clarke-Holland said the judicial review claims were highly significant for asylum seekers and communities across the UK, because they will affect whether the government can set up “potentially unsuitable and harmful military-style accommodation for asylum seekers, without any consultation, in remote areas of the UK, by using emergency powers to bypass planning regulations”." I'm gonna hold my hands up here. I thought it was unlikely that it was a local who had asylum seekers well being at heart. According to the crowd raiser, my cynicism is missplaced. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Although quicker processing has obvious benefits it does not do a great deal to solve the accommodation problems. They still need a place to live if granted permission to stay. It helps a bit with those rejected but what happens to a person once the authorities say OK you can stay." Leroy, you are getting into detail here and that will lead to problems far greater than simply ignoring it will bring. Please do not bring this up again until we have lived with the problem and have ignored it for at least another decade just in case we were on the right path all along.. You know I’m being flippantly pretentious, yet it is so delicious in its truth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This isn’t about the accommodation not being suitable, it is a challenge from local people who do not want the people crossing the channel in small boats housed temporarily in their area. Lawyers for Clarke-Holland said the judicial review claims were highly significant for asylum seekers and communities across the UK, because they will affect whether the government can set up “potentially unsuitable and harmful military-style accommodation for asylum seekers, without any consultation, in remote areas of the UK, by using emergency powers to bypass planning regulations”.I'm gonna hold my hands up here. I thought it was unlikely that it was a local who had asylum seekers well being at heart. According to the crowd raiser, my cynicism is missplaced. " Can you expand on this? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What's wrong with Rwanda?" I’m sure someone has explained it to you, Suella  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I lived in a fucking tent in a combat zone for months at a time. I wished I had general barrack facilities. To say a military base is not good enough take those with different views put them in a tent for months on end.They will understand real quick what the difference is. Your empathy twords people gets real thin." This is nothing to do with living standards, this is just Tory councils (and indeed MP’s) who don’t want asylum seekers kept in their area. It has nothing to do with empathy and everything to do with moving the problem elsewhere | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I lived in a fucking tent in a combat zone for months at a time. I wished I had general barrack facilities. To say a military base is not good enough take those with different views put them in a tent for months on end.They will understand real quick what the difference is. Your empathy twords people gets real thin." ******************************** You were lucky. There were 23 of us living in a shoebox in t'middle o' t'road. An' every mornin our dad used to beat us out o' bed forrus t' lick road clean wi' t'tongue...... And..... You try tellin' THAT to the kids of today....... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I lived in a fucking tent in a combat zone for months at a time. I wished I had general barrack facilities. To say a military base is not good enough take those with different views put them in a tent for months on end.They will understand real quick what the difference is. Your empathy twords people gets real thin. ******************************** You were lucky. There were 23 of us living in a shoebox in t'middle o' t'road. An' every mornin our dad used to beat us out o' bed forrus t' lick road clean wi' t'tongue...... And..... You try tellin' THAT to the kids of today......." lol  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I lived in a fucking tent in a combat zone for months at a time. I wished I had general barrack facilities. To say a military base is not good enough take those with different views put them in a tent for months on end.They will understand real quick what the difference is. Your empathy twords people gets real thin. This is nothing to do with living standards, this is just Tory councils (and indeed MP’s) who don’t want asylum seekers kept in their area. It has nothing to do with empathy and everything to do with moving the problem elsewhere " Should the men of age get military training and be sent back to fight for their country? It is a civil war. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't know where to house them, but housing they need. Safe, secure, sanitary at the very least. But few, if any are talking about their Country of Origin. Asylum seekers have to come from somewhere. They are fleeing a place for various reasons. The largest groups as of April 2023 (EUAA - European Union Agency For Asylum) were Syrian and Afghan. Venezuela, Türkiye, Columbia also feature highly. Are we not pressuring these countries in the international arena ? No punitive action against them ? If many countries of the world can come together to impose sanctions on Russia, why not the same on these origin countries ? Economic sanctions. Removal of any memberships to various organisations. Economically cripple their elites. Confiscate the elite's property. Redirect the funds recouped as payment for the asylum seekers. Make it so financially unattractive to said countries that they have no choice but to change their treatment of their own citizens. Make it financially attractive that if they do treat them better, their standing on the world stage will improve and new opportunities will come their way. If a citizen feels safe and secure in their own country, they have no need to flee it in the first place. Put the onus on the countries they are fleeing from and deal with the issue at the source." UK has one of the worse homeless population per capita. How about taking care of the people there first. You are just adding to a problem. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't know where to house them, but housing they need. Safe, secure, sanitary at the very least. But few, if any are talking about their Country of Origin. Asylum seekers have to come from somewhere. They are fleeing a place for various reasons. The largest groups as of April 2023 (EUAA - European Union Agency For Asylum) were Syrian and Afghan. Venezuela, Türkiye, Columbia also feature highly. Are we not pressuring these countries in the international arena ? No punitive action against them ? If many countries of the world can come together to impose sanctions on Russia, why not the same on these origin countries ? Economic sanctions. Removal of any memberships to various organisations. Economically cripple their elites. Confiscate the elite's property. Redirect the funds recouped as payment for the asylum seekers. Make it so financially unattractive to said countries that they have no choice but to change their treatment of their own citizens. Make it financially attractive that if they do treat them better, their standing on the world stage will improve and new opportunities will come their way. If a citizen feels safe and secure in their own country, they have no need to flee it in the first place. Put the onus on the countries they are fleeing from and deal with the issue at the source. UK has one of the worse homeless population per capita. How about taking care of the people there first. You are just adding to a problem. " My politicians are just as stupid... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"UK has one of the worse homeless population per capita. How about taking care of the people there first. You are just adding to a problem. " We're not talking about our homeless though are we Blu ? That's an entirely different matter. We're talking about asylum seekers and where to put them. that's the cut and thrust of this particular thread. I'd just like to see more pressure on their countries of origin. Far too many folks are focussed on the horses after they have bolted, and too few on the stable and stable owner where they came from. If the garden hose is leaking all over the patio, two jobs present themselves. Clean up the mess, but also turn off the tap. That's common sense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"UK has one of the worse homeless population per capita. How about taking care of the people there first. You are just adding to a problem. We're not talking about our homeless though are we Blu ? That's an entirely different matter. We're talking about asylum seekers and where to put them. that's the cut and thrust of this particular thread. I'd just like to see more pressure on their countries of origin. Far too many folks are focussed on the horses after they have bolted, and too few on the stable and stable owner where they came from. If the garden hose is leaking all over the patio, two jobs present themselves. Clean up the mess, but also turn off the tap. That's common sense." I don't know if you are aware. It's the same thing. So what wrong with taking care of the current homeless first before any others ? You can't say they are not adding to a already problem. It's the same here. So you saying fuck the ones that are already homeless. Let's take in more. Sorry I say take care of those citizens first. You know the forgotten ones.Its the same here. The average citizen doesn't make headlines . But a boatload of immigrants does. Then some of you go see look what the news said I should have empathy.Yet turn your backs on the current situation. It's the same here idiots wanting to feel special. Yet turns a blind eye. | |||
(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 |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable." Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog." That’s what I suggested the home office do. Negotiate with France to provide safe accommodation and passage to the U.K in numbers that we can process without causing backlogs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Like any problem in life, for a lasting solution you have to go back to the source and sort that out. The rest is just sticking-plasters. That said, illegal migration will become a huge challenge as global warming makes swathes of land uninhabitable. There will be increasing human migration to the cooler North. At the end of the day we'll probably have to enforce border controls just to survive." And those fleeing the uninhabitable land? How are they to survive? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Like any problem in life, for a lasting solution you have to go back to the source and sort that out. The rest is just sticking-plasters. That said, illegal migration will become a huge challenge as global warming makes swathes of land uninhabitable. There will be increasing human migration to the cooler North. At the end of the day we'll probably have to enforce border controls just to survive. And those fleeing the uninhabitable land? How are they to survive? " Exactly the dilemma! I have no idea. Your suggestion? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Like any problem in life, for a lasting solution you have to go back to the source and sort that out. The rest is just sticking-plasters. That said, illegal migration will become a huge challenge as global warming makes swathes of land uninhabitable. There will be increasing human migration to the cooler North. At the end of the day we'll probably have to enforce border controls just to survive. And those fleeing the uninhabitable land? How are they to survive? Exactly the dilemma! I have no idea. Your suggestion?" Oh I don’t pretend to have an answer to such a vastly complex situation. I’m just uncomfortable throwing up walls to people fleeing from situations the likes of which we’ll fortunately never know or understand. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Like any problem in life, for a lasting solution you have to go back to the source and sort that out. The rest is just sticking-plasters. That said, illegal migration will become a huge challenge as global warming makes swathes of land uninhabitable. There will be increasing human migration to the cooler North. At the end of the day we'll probably have to enforce border controls just to survive. And those fleeing the uninhabitable land? How are they to survive? Exactly the dilemma! I have no idea. Your suggestion? Oh I don’t pretend to have an answer to such a vastly complex situation. I’m just uncomfortable throwing up walls to people fleeing from situations the likes of which we’ll fortunately never know or understand. " Nor me, but at what point do we say 'enough is enough' and look after our own interests? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable." I guess many regulars CBA with rewriting their thoughts. Change the law to allow applications to be made outside of the UK in certain circumstances Set up temporary housing and processing sites near known hotspots. Have a housing and processing site in France for the other cases Employ more people to process. Review wider immigration policy to reduce the need here there giving more bandwidth to those in need. Develop better adult training (for all not just refugees) Have a better foreign policy when it comes to exiting zones we've been involved in. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Like any problem in life, for a lasting solution you have to go back to the source and sort that out. The rest is just sticking-plasters. That said, illegal migration will become a huge challenge as global warming makes swathes of land uninhabitable. There will be increasing human migration to the cooler North. At the end of the day we'll probably have to enforce border controls just to survive. And those fleeing the uninhabitable land? How are they to survive? Exactly the dilemma! I have no idea. Your suggestion? Oh I don’t pretend to have an answer to such a vastly complex situation. I’m just uncomfortable throwing up walls to people fleeing from situations the likes of which we’ll fortunately never know or understand. Nor me, but at what point do we say 'enough is enough' and look after our own interests?" The day we prioritise our own interests above those fleeing war, famine or god knows what else, is a sad day indeed. We’re very fortunate to have been born in the first world. We didn’t choose it, just as people on the third world didn’t choose to be born into poverty. It’s all our responsibility as part of the human race to help those who desperately need it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That said, illegal migration will become a huge challenge as global warming makes swathes of land uninhabitable. There will be increasing human migration to the cooler North. At the end of the day we'll probably have to enforce border controls just to survive." "And those fleeing the uninhabitable land? How are they to survive?" We have plenty of time to worry about that in the future. Nowhere is going to become uninhabitable any time in the next couple of decades. Let's get our own problems sorted before we start worrying about our grandchildren's. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. I guess many regulars CBA with rewriting their thoughts. Change the law to allow applications to be made outside of the UK in certain circumstances Set up temporary housing and processing sites near known hotspots. Have a housing and processing site in France for the other cases Employ more people to process. Review wider immigration policy to reduce the need here there giving more bandwidth to those in need. Develop better adult training (for all not just refugees) Have a better foreign policy when it comes to exiting zones we've been involved in. " I agree with most of those but I don't think it answers the question of 'where can we house them if everywhere governement suggests isn't good enough?' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That said, illegal migration will become a huge challenge as global warming makes swathes of land uninhabitable. There will be increasing human migration to the cooler North. At the end of the day we'll probably have to enforce border controls just to survive. And those fleeing the uninhabitable land? How are they to survive? We have plenty of time to worry about that in the future. Nowhere is going to become uninhabitable any time in the next couple of decades. Let's get our own problems sorted before we start worrying about our grandchildren's." We don’t have plenty of time to combat climate change, honestly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable." "I guess many regulars CBA with rewriting their thoughts. Change the law to allow applications to be made outside of the UK in certain circumstances Set up temporary housing and processing sites near known hotspots. Have a housing and processing site in France for the other cases Employ more people to process. Review wider immigration policy to reduce the need here there giving more bandwidth to those in need. Develop better adult training (for all not just refugees) Have a better foreign policy when it comes to exiting zones we've been involved in." All of those things would help with processing and stopping small boat losses. But this thread is about where we would house all of the people. A faster immigration system will mean more people arriving in the country, and we need somewhere to put them all. Where will that be? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. I guess many regulars CBA with rewriting their thoughts. Change the law to allow applications to be made outside of the UK in certain circumstances Set up temporary housing and processing sites near known hotspots. Have a housing and processing site in France for the other cases Employ more people to process. Review wider immigration policy to reduce the need here there giving more bandwidth to those in need. Develop better adult training (for all not just refugees) Have a better foreign policy when it comes to exiting zones we've been involved in. All of those things would help with processing and stopping small boat losses. But this thread is about where we would house all of the people. A faster immigration system will mean more people arriving in the country, and we need somewhere to put them all. Where will that be?" A faster processing system won’t change the numbers, it’ll just allow those accepted to move into ‘normal’ housing faster and out the rejected ones from temp. accommodation quicker. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That said, illegal migration will become a huge challenge as global warming makes swathes of land uninhabitable. There will be increasing human migration to the cooler North. At the end of the day we'll probably have to enforce border controls just to survive." "And those fleeing the uninhabitable land? How are they to survive?" "We have plenty of time to worry about that in the future. Nowhere is going to become uninhabitable any time in the next couple of decades. Let's get our own problems sorted before we start worrying about our grandchildren's." "We don’t have plenty of time to combat climate change, honestly." We do. Global temperatures have risen by about 1degC in the last 150 years. The most pessimistic predictions say that it will be 4degC by the end of the century, but the general consensus is that it will be around 2degC. Nowhere is going to become uninhabitable before the end of this century. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That said, illegal migration will become a huge challenge as global warming makes swathes of land uninhabitable. There will be increasing human migration to the cooler North. At the end of the day we'll probably have to enforce border controls just to survive. And those fleeing the uninhabitable land? How are they to survive? We have plenty of time to worry about that in the future. Nowhere is going to become uninhabitable any time in the next couple of decades. Let's get our own problems sorted before we start worrying about our grandchildren's. We don’t have plenty of time to combat climate change, honestly. We do. Global temperatures have risen by about 1degC in the last 150 years. The most pessimistic predictions say that it will be 4degC by the end of the century, but the general consensus is that it will be around 2degC. Nowhere is going to become uninhabitable before the end of this century. " That’s misrepresentation of data though - because we risk entering a climate spiral at 2deg. Which means that whilst you may claim that nowhere will become uninhabitable by the end of the century (also probably incorrect due to coastal regions/sea level rises), we’ve still doomed future generations to an unstoppable climate process. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That said, illegal migration will become a huge challenge as global warming makes swathes of land uninhabitable. There will be increasing human migration to the cooler North. At the end of the day we'll probably have to enforce border controls just to survive. And those fleeing the uninhabitable land? How are they to survive? We have plenty of time to worry about that in the future. Nowhere is going to become uninhabitable any time in the next couple of decades. Let's get our own problems sorted before we start worrying about our grandchildren's. We don’t have plenty of time to combat climate change, honestly. We do. Global temperatures have risen by about 1degC in the last 150 years. The most pessimistic predictions say that it will be 4degC by the end of the century, but the general consensus is that it will be around 2degC. Nowhere is going to become uninhabitable before the end of this century. " Climate change appears to be accelerating. It's +40C across most of Southern Europe this week. At that rate the area will be a desert in short order. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable." "I guess many regulars CBA with rewriting their thoughts. Change the law to allow applications to be made outside of the UK in certain circumstances Set up temporary housing and processing sites near known hotspots. Have a housing and processing site in France for the other cases Employ more people to process. Review wider immigration policy to reduce the need here there giving more bandwidth to those in need. Develop better adult training (for all not just refugees) Have a better foreign policy when it comes to exiting zones we've been involved in." "All of those things would help with processing and stopping small boat losses. But this thread is about where we would house all of the people. A faster immigration system will mean more people arriving in the country, and we need somewhere to put them all. Where will that be?" "A faster processing system won’t change the numbers, it’ll just allow those accepted to move into ‘normal’ housing faster and out the rejected ones from temp. accommodation quicker." Where is this 'normal' housing that you talk about. Councils already have massive backlogs of people waiting for housing, and rental is regularly described as unaffordable. Will a better processing system really get people out of 'temporary' accommodation, or will they just stay there while they struggle to get their life set up? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. I guess many regulars CBA with rewriting their thoughts. Change the law to allow applications to be made outside of the UK in certain circumstances Set up temporary housing and processing sites near known hotspots. Have a housing and processing site in France for the other cases Employ more people to process. Review wider immigration policy to reduce the need here there giving more bandwidth to those in need. Develop better adult training (for all not just refugees) Have a better foreign policy when it comes to exiting zones we've been involved in. All of those things would help with processing and stopping small boat losses. But this thread is about where we would house all of the people. A faster immigration system will mean more people arriving in the country, and we need somewhere to put them all. Where will that be? A faster processing system won’t change the numbers, it’ll just allow those accepted to move into ‘normal’ housing faster and out the rejected ones from temp. accommodation quicker. Where is this 'normal' housing that you talk about. Councils already have massive backlogs of people waiting for housing, and rental is regularly described as unaffordable. Will a better processing system really get people out of 'temporary' accommodation, or will they just stay there while they struggle to get their life set up?" Like I said, this isn’t an easy solution. It’s come as a result of decades of poor governance and failure to build adequate housing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We don’t have plenty of time to combat climate change, honestly." "We do. Global temperatures have risen by about 1degC in the last 150 years. The most pessimistic predictions say that it will be 4degC by the end of the century, but the general consensus is that it will be around 2degC. Nowhere is going to become uninhabitable before the end of this century." "That’s misrepresentation of data though - because we risk entering a climate spiral at 2deg. Which means that whilst you may claim that nowhere will become uninhabitable by the end of the century (also probably incorrect due to coastal regions/sea level rises), we’ve still doomed future generations to an unstoppable climate process." You've moved on to a different topic. I'm still talking about us having time to provide housing for people fleeing uninhabitable land, and you're now talking about combating climate change immediately to save as yet unborn generations. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Climate change appears to be accelerating. It's +40C across most of Southern Europe this week. At that rate the area will be a desert in short order." It's this sort of post that ruins the debate for all of us. It gets to 40C in Southern Europe every year. It lasts for a week or so, and then goes back to normal. There's nothing unusual about this sort of weather. People shouting "climate change" every time it gets a bit warm are a major reason why a lot of people have stopped listening. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Climate change appears to be accelerating. It's +40C across most of Southern Europe this week. At that rate the area will be a desert in short order. It's this sort of post that ruins the debate for all of us. It gets to 40C in Southern Europe every year. It lasts for a week or so, and then goes back to normal. There's nothing unusual about this sort of weather. People shouting "climate change" every time it gets a bit warm are a major reason why a lot of people have stopped listening." Maybe we should show temperature graphs for the past 50 years instead. Or a list of the hottest years on record. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We don’t have plenty of time to combat climate change, honestly. We do. Global temperatures have risen by about 1degC in the last 150 years. The most pessimistic predictions say that it will be 4degC by the end of the century, but the general consensus is that it will be around 2degC. Nowhere is going to become uninhabitable before the end of this century. That’s misrepresentation of data though - because we risk entering a climate spiral at 2deg. Which means that whilst you may claim that nowhere will become uninhabitable by the end of the century (also probably incorrect due to coastal regions/sea level rises), we’ve still doomed future generations to an unstoppable climate process. You've moved on to a different topic. I'm still talking about us having time to provide housing for people fleeing uninhabitable land, and you're now talking about combating climate change immediately to save as yet unborn generations." Your argument is that nowhere is going to become uninhabitable any time soon, so we don’t need to combat it - we can kick the van down the road. Mine is that if we don’t act now, then that uninhabitable land is inevitable and we won’t be able to solve it later. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Climate change appears to be accelerating. It's +40C across most of Southern Europe this week. At that rate the area will be a desert in short order. It's this sort of post that ruins the debate for all of us. It gets to 40C in Southern Europe every year. It lasts for a week or so, and then goes back to normal. There's nothing unusual about this sort of weather. People shouting "climate change" every time it gets a bit warm are a major reason why a lot of people have stopped listening." People stop listening about climate change when it's pointed out that heatwaves are getting worse? How weird. Are you sure it's not that they stopped when the fossil fuels industry spread doubt and misinformation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"772,000 second homes 164,000 second homes registered as businesses for free business rates 10,000 long term empty MOD properties costing taxpayer £25M annually to maintain 300,000-400,000 spaces over shops suitable for residential conversion (the planner.com) 400,000 land banked sites with planning consent (nhbc). 8% of London dwellings vacant £130bn worth of homes left empty Plenty of housing options, but 1.6 million people are on council house waiting lists, some for over a decade, so they can join the queue. In the meantime we are paying £5.6m a day, £20bn a year housing these people - while chancellor says no extra pay for public services. " Can we get sources for all of these? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Climate change appears to be accelerating. It's +40C across most of Southern Europe this week. At that rate the area will be a desert in short order. It's this sort of post that ruins the debate for all of us. It gets to 40C in Southern Europe every year. It lasts for a week or so, and then goes back to normal. There's nothing unusual about this sort of weather. People shouting "climate change" every time it gets a bit warm are a major reason why a lot of people have stopped listening." Really? So last July we had had the hottest day ever recorded in the UK when it surpassed 40C. Coincidence? As for people stopping listening - there's none so deaf as those that don't want to hear eh? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Your argument is that nowhere is going to become uninhabitable any time soon, so we don’t need to combat it - we can kick the van down the road." No. My argument is that nowhere is becoming uninhabitable now, so we don't need to worry about building housing for all the displaced people right now. This thread is about housing people, not about climate change. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Your argument is that nowhere is going to become uninhabitable any time soon, so we don’t need to combat it - we can kick the van down the road. No. My argument is that nowhere is becoming uninhabitable now, so we don't need to worry about building housing for all the displaced people right now. This thread is about housing people, not about climate change." We need to build housing for the myriad people who need housing, including the numbers that are only going to swell in future. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Climate change appears to be accelerating. It's +40C across most of Southern Europe this week. At that rate the area will be a desert in short order." "It's this sort of post that ruins the debate for all of us. It gets to 40C in Southern Europe every year. It lasts for a week or so, and then goes back to normal. There's nothing unusual about this sort of weather. People shouting "climate change" every time it gets a bit warm are a major reason why a lot of people have stopped listening." "People stop listening about climate change when it's pointed out that heatwaves are getting worse?" But he didn't point out that it's getting worse, he just said that it was 40C in Southern Europe. That happens every year. If it was hotter than ever (it isn't), or happened earlier than ever (it didn't), or lasted longer than ever (it hasn't) then that would be worth commenting on. But none of those happened, this is just normal Southern European weather. If you say "it's hot over there, must be climate change", you give legitimacy to those people that say "it's cold in July, climate change must be bollocks". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Climate change appears to be accelerating. It's +40C across most of Southern Europe this week. At that rate the area will be a desert in short order. It's this sort of post that ruins the debate for all of us. It gets to 40C in Southern Europe every year. It lasts for a week or so, and then goes back to normal. There's nothing unusual about this sort of weather. People shouting "climate change" every time it gets a bit warm are a major reason why a lot of people have stopped listening. People stop listening about climate change when it's pointed out that heatwaves are getting worse? But he didn't point out that it's getting worse, he just said that it was 40C in Southern Europe. That happens every year. If it was hotter than ever (it isn't), or happened earlier than ever (it didn't), or lasted longer than ever (it hasn't) then that would be worth commenting on. But none of those happened, this is just normal Southern European weather. If you say "it's hot over there, must be climate change", you give legitimacy to those people that say "it's cold in July, climate change must be bollocks"." Again, we could look at climate records since they began to determine what is or isn’t ‘normal southern European weather’ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog. That’s what I suggested the home office do. Negotiate with France to provide safe accommodation and passage to the U.K in numbers that we can process without causing backlogs. " I’m suggesting we pay for houses being built in mainland Europe, not in Calais. Spend the money we are throwing down the sink on affordable housing in countries that want the work and people to live there. No need to cross the channel, no money down the drain, all good | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Climate change appears to be accelerating. It's +40C across most of Southern Europe this week. At that rate the area will be a desert in short order. It's this sort of post that ruins the debate for all of us. It gets to 40C in Southern Europe every year. It lasts for a week or so, and then goes back to normal. There's nothing unusual about this sort of weather. People shouting "climate change" every time it gets a bit warm are a major reason why a lot of people have stopped listening. People stop listening about climate change when it's pointed out that heatwaves are getting worse? But he didn't point out that it's getting worse, he just said that it was 40C in Southern Europe. That happens every year. If it was hotter than ever (it isn't), or happened earlier than ever (it didn't), or lasted longer than ever (it hasn't) then that would be worth commenting on. But none of those happened, this is just normal Southern European weather. If you say "it's hot over there, must be climate change", you give legitimacy to those people that say "it's cold in July, climate change must be bollocks"." Just to be clear. Nothing gives legitimacy to climate change denial, because it's bollocks. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog. That’s what I suggested the home office do. Negotiate with France to provide safe accommodation and passage to the U.K in numbers that we can process without causing backlogs. I’m suggesting we pay for houses being built in mainland Europe, not in Calais. Spend the money we are throwing down the sink on affordable housing in countries that want the work and people to live there. No need to cross the channel, no money down the drain, all good " Don’t we want/need immigrants to fill the jobs gaps that we have? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog. That’s what I suggested the home office do. Negotiate with France to provide safe accommodation and passage to the U.K in numbers that we can process without causing backlogs. I’m suggesting we pay for houses being built in mainland Europe, not in Calais. Spend the money we are throwing down the sink on affordable housing in countries that want the work and people to live there. No need to cross the channel, no money down the drain, all good Don’t we want/need immigrants to fill the jobs gaps that we have? " What jobs do we need to fill? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog. That’s what I suggested the home office do. Negotiate with France to provide safe accommodation and passage to the U.K in numbers that we can process without causing backlogs. I’m suggesting we pay for houses being built in mainland Europe, not in Calais. Spend the money we are throwing down the sink on affordable housing in countries that want the work and people to live there. No need to cross the channel, no money down the drain, all good Don’t we want/need immigrants to fill the jobs gaps that we have? What jobs do we need to fill?" Ask the tories who are looking into it now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog. That’s what I suggested the home office do. Negotiate with France to provide safe accommodation and passage to the U.K in numbers that we can process without causing backlogs. I’m suggesting we pay for houses being built in mainland Europe, not in Calais. Spend the money we are throwing down the sink on affordable housing in countries that want the work and people to live there. No need to cross the channel, no money down the drain, all good Don’t we want/need immigrants to fill the jobs gaps that we have? What jobs do we need to fill? Ask the tories who are looking into it now." You have said this before, keen to understand the jobs we need to fill | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog. That’s what I suggested the home office do. Negotiate with France to provide safe accommodation and passage to the U.K in numbers that we can process without causing backlogs. I’m suggesting we pay for houses being built in mainland Europe, not in Calais. Spend the money we are throwing down the sink on affordable housing in countries that want the work and people to live there. No need to cross the channel, no money down the drain, all good Don’t we want/need immigrants to fill the jobs gaps that we have? What jobs do we need to fill? Ask the tories who are looking into it now. You have said this before, keen to understand the jobs we need to fill" Google is your friend. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/skilled-worker-visa-shortage-occupations/skilled-worker-visa-shortage-occupations | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog. That’s what I suggested the home office do. Negotiate with France to provide safe accommodation and passage to the U.K in numbers that we can process without causing backlogs. I’m suggesting we pay for houses being built in mainland Europe, not in Calais. Spend the money we are throwing down the sink on affordable housing in countries that want the work and people to live there. No need to cross the channel, no money down the drain, all good Don’t we want/need immigrants to fill the jobs gaps that we have? What jobs do we need to fill? Ask the tories who are looking into it now. You have said this before, keen to understand the jobs we need to fill Google is your friend. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/skilled-worker-visa-shortage-occupations/skilled-worker-visa-shortage-occupations" Thanks for getting me on the same page…. Now tell me this, who are you expecting to fill these roles exactly? Be very specific in terms of how they are entering the country, how they apply for roles etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog. That’s what I suggested the home office do. Negotiate with France to provide safe accommodation and passage to the U.K in numbers that we can process without causing backlogs. I’m suggesting we pay for houses being built in mainland Europe, not in Calais. Spend the money we are throwing down the sink on affordable housing in countries that want the work and people to live there. No need to cross the channel, no money down the drain, all good Don’t we want/need immigrants to fill the jobs gaps that we have? What jobs do we need to fill? Ask the tories who are looking into it now. You have said this before, keen to understand the jobs we need to fill Google is your friend. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/skilled-worker-visa-shortage-occupations/skilled-worker-visa-shortage-occupations" A SOL? This has always been a thing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Although quicker processing has obvious benefits it does not do a great deal to solve the accommodation problems. They still need a place to live if granted permission to stay. It helps a bit with those rejected but what happens to a person once the authorities say OK you can stay. Leroy, you are getting into detail here and that will lead to problems far greater than simply ignoring it will bring. Please do not bring this up again until we have lived with the problem and have ignored it for at least another decade just in case we were on the right path all along.. You know I’m being flippantly pretentious, yet it is so delicious in its truth." Rather foolish of me to not think that once a person is given permission to stay they automatically are not in need of housing and benefits anymore | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Although quicker processing has obvious benefits it does not do a great deal to solve the accommodation problems. They still need a place to live if granted permission to stay. It helps a bit with those rejected but what happens to a person once the authorities say OK you can stay. Leroy, you are getting into detail here and that will lead to problems far greater than simply ignoring it will bring. Please do not bring this up again until we have lived with the problem and have ignored it for at least another decade just in case we were on the right path all along.. You know I’m being flippantly pretentious, yet it is so delicious in its truth. Rather foolish of me to not think that once a person is given permission to stay they automatically are not in need of housing and benefits anymore" I’m so pleased you said that, you’ve just avoided compulsory mind training. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"772,000 second homes 164,000 second homes registered as businesses for free business rates 10,000 long term empty MOD properties costing taxpayer £25M annually to maintain 300,000-400,000 spaces over shops suitable for residential conversion (the planner.com) 400,000 land banked sites with planning consent (nhbc). 8% of London dwellings vacant £130bn worth of homes left empty Plenty of housing options, but 1.6 million people are on council house waiting lists, some for over a decade, so they can join the queue. In the meantime we are paying £5.6m a day, £20bn a year housing these people - while chancellor says no extra pay for public services. Can we get sources for all of these?" ONS for first three The Planner for spaces over shops Nhbc for land banking Joseph Roundtree foundation for last two. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"772,000 second homes 164,000 second homes registered as businesses for free business rates 10,000 long term empty MOD properties costing taxpayer £25M annually to maintain 300,000-400,000 spaces over shops suitable for residential conversion (the planner.com) 400,000 land banked sites with planning consent (nhbc). 8% of London dwellings vacant £130bn worth of homes left empty Plenty of housing options, but 1.6 million people are on council house waiting lists, some for over a decade, so they can join the queue. In the meantime we are paying £5.6m a day, £20bn a year housing these people - while chancellor says no extra pay for public services. Can we get sources for all of these? ONS for first three The Planner for spaces over shops Nhbc for land banking Joseph Roundtree foundation for last two. " What’s your thoughts? Take property and pay the owners the market price + a percentage due to loss? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What’s your thoughts? Take property and pay the owners the market price + a percentage due to loss? " That would create unintended consequences, I fear. . Speculative landlords, especially those amassing a "portfolio" will purchased suitable property and hoard it, knowing that a "government scheme" (Read : Taypayer Funded), will come along and purchase the property at a higher market value than if it went on the open market. . This would distort the housing market even more. It would limit supply and drive up prices. . It'd probably make some canny investors a packet load, but we've got to knock that shit on the head, not encourage it ! . HMRC Source : A 1p increase in the basic rate of income tax would raise £5.5bn in 2022/23 (0.2% of GDP), and a 1p increase in the higher rate would raise £1.3bn in 2022/23 . £6.8 Billion should go quite some way to funding permanent accommodation for asylum seekers. . The trick would be to create a new "NHS-like" organisation by the government but for council housing. I'd go a step further and they'd have their own in-house Construction Arm, Procurement Arm, etc. Basically keep as much money away from private enterprise as is feasibly possible. The prime directive is to keep the money swirling inside the fence, and not leak it out. Taxes and Rent keep the system liquid. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We can't send them to Rwanda, the barges aren't good enough, military camps are good enough, hotels mean people are losing jobs? I ask all of those people who challenge the government at every single opportunity? We exactly do you want us to house asylum seekers? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/12/first-asylum-seekers-brought-to-military-base-as-challenges-reach-high-court It's good enough for our armed forces but not for aomeone who has fuck all "It has to start with our own system. Cut benifit to all to reduce the attraction of a free ride from migrants that is one of the main reason they don't want to stay in France. By all means increase PIP to ballance out to those ho realy need the support. Housing is now a free for all they would go n the list with everyone else. So generally woman and children first. Part of the problem with housing is the organisation that now runs the housing stock. I see lots of single older people in 3 bed house and lots of overcrowding in flats but Southen housing don't have a system to relocate properly. So long as rent is paid its all good. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"772,000 second homes 164,000 second homes registered as businesses for free business rates 10,000 long term empty MOD properties costing taxpayer £25M annually to maintain 300,000-400,000 spaces over shops suitable for residential conversion (the planner.com) 400,000 land banked sites with planning consent (nhbc). 8% of London dwellings vacant £130bn worth of homes left empty Plenty of housing options, but 1.6 million people are on council house waiting lists, some for over a decade, so they can join the queue. In the meantime we are paying £5.6m a day, £20bn a year housing these people - while chancellor says no extra pay for public services. We should just 'steal' property that others own to house asylum seekers? Put the asylum seekers to one side Is it right that successive governments have failed on housing, 2.3 million council houses sold off at one time discounts and not replaced. All these empty homes, many owned via offshore tax havens while the social housing waiting list keeps increasing. Council house waiting list is currently 50% higher than in 2010. Where are the policies to get all these empty and second homes into residential use, and the unbuilt homes on sites with planning approved. I won't put asylum seekers aside. This thread is about the challenges of housing them. Legal challenges that is." 
Simplistic bollocks!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"772,000 second homes 164,000 second homes registered as businesses for free business rates 10,000 long term empty MOD properties costing taxpayer £25M annually to maintain 300,000-400,000 spaces over shops suitable for residential conversion (the planner.com) 400,000 land banked sites with planning consent (nhbc). 8% of London dwellings vacant £130bn worth of homes left empty Plenty of housing options, but 1.6 million people are on council house waiting lists, some for over a decade, so they can join the queue. In the meantime we are paying £5.6m a day, £20bn a year housing these people - while chancellor says no extra pay for public services. We should just 'steal' property that others own to house asylum seekers? Put the asylum seekers to one side Is it right that successive governments have failed on housing, 2.3 million council houses sold off at one time discounts and not replaced. All these empty homes, many owned via offshore tax havens while the social housing waiting list keeps increasing. Council house waiting list is currently 50% higher than in 2010. Where are the policies to get all these empty and second homes into residential use, and the unbuilt homes on sites with planning approved. I won't put asylum seekers aside. This thread is about the challenges of housing them. Legal challenges that is.
Simplistic bollocks!! "What is? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wasn't there an argument saying it is cheaper to keep them here in hotels than deport to Rwanda? The price to keep one person here was something like £109,000, cheaper than sending to Rwanda. Tell me, how do people here get by on £22,000 a year yet it costs £109,000 to keep one of these migrants? It's all about agendas and folk making money out of taxes that should go to our services and our pensions. Let folk in the UK have the option to rent their rooms to the home office for migrants. At least that way people will see some benefit. That said, it's a pretty sorry state of affairs when nobody, and we mean nobody, asks the sensible question of why does it costs so much per migrant? Unless of course it doesn't and they count the full annual salary of people who spend a few consultancy hours with a person or something." This ignores the deterrent effect of the Rwanda policy. If one migrant is deterred for every one that is sent there it becomes cost effective. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don’t we want/need immigrants to fill the jobs gaps that we have? " Not withstanding seasonal labour, the usual example is fruit picking. That's surely just a myth. Even if that was the case; don't you need to get the right people to do the right jobs, ie if we need more doctors, nurses, teachers etc, otherwise you just end with more people but not actually filling the shortages. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe Westminster should stop attacking their native countries and creating reasons for them to seek asylum. " Name the countries we have we attacked | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What’s your thoughts? Take property and pay the owners the market price + a percentage due to loss? That would create unintended consequences, I fear. . Speculative landlords, especially those amassing a "portfolio" will purchased suitable property and hoard it, knowing that a "government scheme" (Read : Taypayer Funded), will come along and purchase the property at a higher market value than if it went on the open market. . This would distort the housing market even more. It would limit supply and drive up prices. . It'd probably make some canny investors a packet load, but we've got to knock that shit on the head, not encourage it ! . HMRC Source : A 1p increase in the basic rate of income tax would raise £5.5bn in 2022/23 (0.2% of GDP), and a 1p increase in the higher rate would raise £1.3bn in 2022/23 . £6.8 Billion should go quite some way to funding permanent accommodation for asylum seekers. . The trick would be to create a new "NHS-like" organisation by the government but for council housing. I'd go a step further and they'd have their own in-house Construction Arm, Procurement Arm, etc. Basically keep as much money away from private enterprise as is feasibly possible. The prime directive is to keep the money swirling inside the fence, and not leak it out. Taxes and Rent keep the system liquid." In a pervious post I said why don't we give the EU the money we spend on temporary accommodation, food and staff which is very close to the number you have, and they can build houses on the mainland. A lot more space, removes the channel crossings and provides work in the EU for builders etc. Everyone is a winner, is that an answer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What’s your thoughts? Take property and pay the owners the market price + a percentage due to loss? That would create unintended consequences, I fear. . Speculative landlords, especially those amassing a "portfolio" will purchased suitable property and hoard it, knowing that a "government scheme" (Read : Taypayer Funded), will come along and purchase the property at a higher market value than if it went on the open market. . This would distort the housing market even more. It would limit supply and drive up prices. . It'd probably make some canny investors a packet load, but we've got to knock that shit on the head, not encourage it ! . HMRC Source : A 1p increase in the basic rate of income tax would raise £5.5bn in 2022/23 (0.2% of GDP), and a 1p increase in the higher rate would raise £1.3bn in 2022/23 . £6.8 Billion should go quite some way to funding permanent accommodation for asylum seekers. . The trick would be to create a new "NHS-like" organisation by the government but for council housing. I'd go a step further and they'd have their own in-house Construction Arm, Procurement Arm, etc. Basically keep as much money away from private enterprise as is feasibly possible. The prime directive is to keep the money swirling inside the fence, and not leak it out. Taxes and Rent keep the system liquid. In a pervious post I said why don't we give the EU the money we spend on temporary accommodation, food and staff which is very close to the number you have, and they can build houses on the mainland. A lot more space, removes the channel crossings and provides work in the EU for builders etc. Everyone is a winner, is that an answer. " They would not get free healthcare or anything like as much in benefits and the French are a hard nation to live with the UK is the soft touch. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wasn't there an argument saying it is cheaper to keep them here in hotels than deport to Rwanda? The price to keep one person here was something like £109,000, cheaper than sending to Rwanda. Tell me, how do people here get by on £22,000 a year yet it costs £109,000 to keep one of these migrants? It's all about agendas and folk making money out of taxes that should go to our services and our pensions. Let folk in the UK have the option to rent their rooms to the home office for migrants. At least that way people will see some benefit. That said, it's a pretty sorry state of affairs when nobody, and we mean nobody, asks the sensible question of why does it costs so much per migrant? Unless of course it doesn't and they count the full annual salary of people who spend a few consultancy hours with a person or something." The figure for accommodation is the low estimation and the actual figures quoted were between 109k and 165k. On top of that are benefits they get and health care. If they are accepted then they still need housing of some sort and entitled to more benifits | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We can't send them to Rwanda, the barges aren't good enough, military camps are good enough, hotels mean people are losing jobs? I ask all of those people who challenge the government at every single opportunity? We exactly do you want us to house asylum seekers? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/12/first-asylum-seekers-brought-to-military-base-as-challenges-reach-high-court It's good enough for our armed forces but not for aomeone who has fuck all "Re-erect the Nightingale hospitals on abandoned airfields | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Like any problem in life, for a lasting solution you have to go back to the source and sort that out. The rest is just sticking-plasters. That said, illegal migration will become a huge challenge as global warming makes swathes of land uninhabitable. There will be increasing human migration to the cooler North. At the end of the day we'll probably have to enforce border controls just to survive. And those fleeing the uninhabitable land? How are they to survive? Exactly the dilemma! I have no idea. Your suggestion? Oh I don’t pretend to have an answer to such a vastly complex situation. I’m just uncomfortable throwing up walls to people fleeing from situations the likes of which we’ll fortunately never know or understand. " Errrrm you need to throw up a roof too. That makes shelter  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Climate change appears to be accelerating. It's +40C across most of Southern Europe this week. At that rate the area will be a desert in short order. It's this sort of post that ruins the debate for all of us. It gets to 40C in Southern Europe every year. It lasts for a week or so, and then goes back to normal. There's nothing unusual about this sort of weather. People shouting "climate change" every time it gets a bit warm are a major reason why a lot of people have stopped listening. Really? So last July we had had the hottest day ever recorded in the UK when it surpassed 40C. Coincidence? As for people stopping listening - there's none so deaf as those that don't want to hear eh?" And our own version of forest fires because of heatwaves. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Climate change appears to be accelerating. It's +40C across most of Southern Europe this week. At that rate the area will be a desert in short order. It's this sort of post that ruins the debate for all of us. It gets to 40C in Southern Europe every year. It lasts for a week or so, and then goes back to normal. There's nothing unusual about this sort of weather. People shouting "climate change" every time it gets a bit warm are a major reason why a lot of people have stopped listening. People stop listening about climate change when it's pointed out that heatwaves are getting worse? But he didn't point out that it's getting worse, he just said that it was 40C in Southern Europe. That happens every year. If it was hotter than ever (it isn't), or happened earlier than ever (it didn't), or lasted longer than ever (it hasn't) then that would be worth commenting on. But none of those happened, this is just normal Southern European weather. If you say "it's hot over there, must be climate change", you give legitimacy to those people that say "it's cold in July, climate change must be bollocks"." 48 isn't normal but was expected in Italy this week (BBC news from Italy, no less). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog. That’s what I suggested the home office do. Negotiate with France to provide safe accommodation and passage to the U.K in numbers that we can process without causing backlogs. I’m suggesting we pay for houses being built in mainland Europe, not in Calais. Spend the money we are throwing down the sink on affordable housing in countries that want the work and people to live there. No need to cross the channel, no money down the drain, all good Don’t we want/need immigrants to fill the jobs gaps that we have? What jobs do we need to fill?" Really?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wasn't there an argument saying it is cheaper to keep them here in hotels than deport to Rwanda? The price to keep one person here was something like £109,000, cheaper than sending to Rwanda. Tell me, how do people here get by on £22,000 a year yet it costs £109,000 to keep one of these migrants? It's all about agendas and folk making money out of taxes that should go to our services and our pensions. Let folk in the UK have the option to rent their rooms to the home office for migrants. At least that way people will see some benefit. That said, it's a pretty sorry state of affairs when nobody, and we mean nobody, asks the sensible question of why does it costs so much per migrant? Unless of course it doesn't and they count the full annual salary of people who spend a few consultancy hours with a person or something. The figure for accommodation is the low estimation and the actual figures quoted were between 109k and 165k. On top of that are benefits they get and health care. If they are accepted then they still need housing of some sort and entitled to more benifits" Why if you are Born hear you bid to get a property you should migrants be any diferant give them a 2k start then let them find work and rent where they can | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog. That’s what I suggested the home office do. Negotiate with France to provide safe accommodation and passage to the U.K in numbers that we can process without causing backlogs. I’m suggesting we pay for houses being built in mainland Europe, not in Calais. Spend the money we are throwing down the sink on affordable housing in countries that want the work and people to live there. No need to cross the channel, no money down the drain, all good Don’t we want/need immigrants to fill the jobs gaps that we have? What jobs do we need to fill? Really? "Fire away and please do remember we are talking about immigrants who are inviting themselves via small boats, not those that are applying for jobs and are qualified. Over to you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog. That’s what I suggested the home office do. Negotiate with France to provide safe accommodation and passage to the U.K in numbers that we can process without causing backlogs. I’m suggesting we pay for houses being built in mainland Europe, not in Calais. Spend the money we are throwing down the sink on affordable housing in countries that want the work and people to live there. No need to cross the channel, no money down the drain, all good Don’t we want/need immigrants to fill the jobs gaps that we have? What jobs do we need to fill? Really?
Fire away and please do remember we are talking about immigrants who are inviting themselves via small boats, not those that are applying for jobs and are qualified.
Over to you"Pre-empted you with my re jobs post. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog. That’s what I suggested the home office do. Negotiate with France to provide safe accommodation and passage to the U.K in numbers that we can process without causing backlogs. I’m suggesting we pay for houses being built in mainland Europe, not in Calais. Spend the money we are throwing down the sink on affordable housing in countries that want the work and people to live there. No need to cross the channel, no money down the drain, all good Don’t we want/need immigrants to fill the jobs gaps that we have? What jobs do we need to fill? Really?
Fire away and please do remember we are talking about immigrants who are inviting themselves via small boats, not those that are applying for jobs and are qualified.
Over to you
Pre-empted you with my re jobs post."Just read that post, so tell me more… all a bit vague. We have thousands of people crossing the channel in small boats and you think the NHS is the right place for them to be working? Expand your reasoning so we can understand what jobs are out there for these people | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog. That’s what I suggested the home office do. Negotiate with France to provide safe accommodation and passage to the U.K in numbers that we can process without causing backlogs. I’m suggesting we pay for houses being built in mainland Europe, not in Calais. Spend the money we are throwing down the sink on affordable housing in countries that want the work and people to live there. No need to cross the channel, no money down the drain, all good Don’t we want/need immigrants to fill the jobs gaps that we have? What jobs do we need to fill? Really?
Fire away and please do remember we are talking about immigrants who are inviting themselves via small boats, not those that are applying for jobs and are qualified.
Over to you
Pre-empted you with my re jobs post."But are you sure they want to work on minimum wage in a cost of living crises. If they have to pay rent bills etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog. That’s what I suggested the home office do. Negotiate with France to provide safe accommodation and passage to the U.K in numbers that we can process without causing backlogs. I’m suggesting we pay for houses being built in mainland Europe, not in Calais. Spend the money we are throwing down the sink on affordable housing in countries that want the work and people to live there. No need to cross the channel, no money down the drain, all good Don’t we want/need immigrants to fill the jobs gaps that we have? What jobs do we need to fill? Really?
Fire away and please do remember we are talking about immigrants who are inviting themselves via small boats, not those that are applying for jobs and are qualified.
Over to you
Pre-empted you with my re jobs post.
But are you sure they want to work on minimum wage in a cost of living crises. If they have to pay rent bills etc."I’m sure people would love to work for the NHS in social care and other vague jobs yet to be disclosed, are they qualified and suitable for these vague roles is the question. I wonder if this is why the NHS is a burden on tax payers, being the money pit of under performing services? It is making some sense now | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog. That’s what I suggested the home office do. Negotiate with France to provide safe accommodation and passage to the U.K in numbers that we can process without causing backlogs. I’m suggesting we pay for houses being built in mainland Europe, not in Calais. Spend the money we are throwing down the sink on affordable housing in countries that want the work and people to live there. No need to cross the channel, no money down the drain, all good Don’t we want/need immigrants to fill the jobs gaps that we have? What jobs do we need to fill? Really?
Fire away and please do remember we are talking about immigrants who are inviting themselves via small boats, not those that are applying for jobs and are qualified.
Over to you
Pre-empted you with my re jobs post.
Just read that post, so tell me more… all a bit vague.
We have thousands of people crossing the channel in small boats and you think the NHS is the right place for them to be working?
Expand your reasoning so we can understand what jobs are out there for these people"No I won't  . I have given enough info. I gave you a sector that is crying out for both professional and non-professional workers. You want to know more, seek it yourself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog. That’s what I suggested the home office do. Negotiate with France to provide safe accommodation and passage to the U.K in numbers that we can process without causing backlogs. I’m suggesting we pay for houses being built in mainland Europe, not in Calais. Spend the money we are throwing down the sink on affordable housing in countries that want the work and people to live there. No need to cross the channel, no money down the drain, all good Don’t we want/need immigrants to fill the jobs gaps that we have? What jobs do we need to fill? Really?
Fire away and please do remember we are talking about immigrants who are inviting themselves via small boats, not those that are applying for jobs and are qualified.
Over to you
Pre-empted you with my re jobs post.
But are you sure they want to work on minimum wage in a cost of living crises. If they have to pay rent bills etc."Yep support workers in the care industry are often on minimum pay... But it's a job. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog. That’s what I suggested the home office do. Negotiate with France to provide safe accommodation and passage to the U.K in numbers that we can process without causing backlogs. I’m suggesting we pay for houses being built in mainland Europe, not in Calais. Spend the money we are throwing down the sink on affordable housing in countries that want the work and people to live there. No need to cross the channel, no money down the drain, all good Don’t we want/need immigrants to fill the jobs gaps that we have? What jobs do we need to fill? Really?
Fire away and please do remember we are talking about immigrants who are inviting themselves via small boats, not those that are applying for jobs and are qualified.
Over to you
Pre-empted you with my re jobs post.
Just read that post, so tell me more… all a bit vague.
We have thousands of people crossing the channel in small boats and you think the NHS is the right place for them to be working?
Expand your reasoning so we can understand what jobs are out there for these people
No I won't . I have given enough info. I gave you a sector that is crying out for both professional and non-professional workers. You want to know more, seek it yourself."Classic…. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog. That’s what I suggested the home office do. Negotiate with France to provide safe accommodation and passage to the U.K in numbers that we can process without causing backlogs. I’m suggesting we pay for houses being built in mainland Europe, not in Calais. Spend the money we are throwing down the sink on affordable housing in countries that want the work and people to live there. No need to cross the channel, no money down the drain, all good Don’t we want/need immigrants to fill the jobs gaps that we have? What jobs do we need to fill? Really?
Fire away and please do remember we are talking about immigrants who are inviting themselves via small boats, not those that are applying for jobs and are qualified.
Over to you
Pre-empted you with my re jobs post.
Just read that post, so tell me more… all a bit vague.
We have thousands of people crossing the channel in small boats and you think the NHS is the right place for them to be working?
Expand your reasoning so we can understand what jobs are out there for these people
No I won't . I have given enough info. I gave you a sector that is crying out for both professional and non-professional workers. You want to know more, seek it yourself."Got to admit I missed the non-professional role or am I confused with professional and skilled or even semi skilled. Semi skilled roles are underestimate in the UK | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog. That’s what I suggested the home office do. Negotiate with France to provide safe accommodation and passage to the U.K in numbers that we can process without causing backlogs. I’m suggesting we pay for houses being built in mainland Europe, not in Calais. Spend the money we are throwing down the sink on affordable housing in countries that want the work and people to live there. No need to cross the channel, no money down the drain, all good Don’t we want/need immigrants to fill the jobs gaps that we have? What jobs do we need to fill? Really?
Fire away and please do remember we are talking about immigrants who are inviting themselves via small boats, not those that are applying for jobs and are qualified.
Over to you
Pre-empted you with my re jobs post.
But are you sure they want to work on minimum wage in a cost of living crises. If they have to pay rent bills etc.
Yep support workers in the care industry are often on minimum pay... But it's a job."But that is a semi skilled role and on minimum wage you would need a deposit for housing and a reference for work oh and pass a DBS check if you don't know there back ground would you give them the role. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog. That’s what I suggested the home office do. Negotiate with France to provide safe accommodation and passage to the U.K in numbers that we can process without causing backlogs. I’m suggesting we pay for houses being built in mainland Europe, not in Calais. Spend the money we are throwing down the sink on affordable housing in countries that want the work and people to live there. No need to cross the channel, no money down the drain, all good Don’t we want/need immigrants to fill the jobs gaps that we have? What jobs do we need to fill? Really?
Fire away and please do remember we are talking about immigrants who are inviting themselves via small boats, not those that are applying for jobs and are qualified.
Over to you
Pre-empted you with my re jobs post.
But are you sure they want to work on minimum wage in a cost of living crises. If they have to pay rent bills etc.
Yep support workers in the care industry are often on minimum pay... But it's a job.
But that is a semi skilled role and on minimum wage you would need a deposit for housing and a reference for work oh and pass a DBS check if you don't know there back ground would you give them the role. "They'll pass the DBS no problem at all seeing as it only covers UK and they'd have only just entered the country. Not sure if I'm comfortable with that tbh. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At the risk of repeating myself the Australian model works if you implement it properly " Australia dose not have the small boat problems. I have said for a long time let the get o a ferry free process at see as in I'd biometric work card give them £2k on a pre-loaded card and tell them to get on with it. So husband splits from wife and kids wife keeps the home for the kids what help dose the guy get fuck all. Probably working but has nothing and will not be given social housing at the bottom of the list | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At the risk of repeating myself the Australian model works if you implement it properly Australia dose not have the small boat problems. I have said for a long time let the get o a ferry free process at see as in I'd biometric work card give them £2k on a pre-loaded card and tell them to get on with it. So husband splits from wife and kids wife keeps the home for the kids what help dose the guy get fuck all. Probably working but has nothing and will not be given social housing at the bottom of the list " It doesn't have the small boat problem because it was dealt with in 2013 by operation sovereign borders | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog. That’s what I suggested the home office do. Negotiate with France to provide safe accommodation and passage to the U.K in numbers that we can process without causing backlogs. I’m suggesting we pay for houses being built in mainland Europe, not in Calais. Spend the money we are throwing down the sink on affordable housing in countries that want the work and people to live there. No need to cross the channel, no money down the drain, all good Don’t we want/need immigrants to fill the jobs gaps that we have? What jobs do we need to fill? Really?
Fire away and please do remember we are talking about immigrants who are inviting themselves via small boats, not those that are applying for jobs and are qualified.
Over to you
Pre-empted you with my re jobs post.
Just read that post, so tell me more… all a bit vague.
We have thousands of people crossing the channel in small boats and you think the NHS is the right place for them to be working?
Expand your reasoning so we can understand what jobs are out there for these people
No I won't . I have given enough info. I gave you a sector that is crying out for both professional and non-professional workers. You want to know more, seek it yourself.
Got to admit I missed the non-professional role or am I confused with professional and skilled or even semi skilled. Semi skilled roles are underestimate in the UK"Professional- has to go to university, has a code of conduct set by their professional board, so doctors, nurses, allied professionals (physios, dieticians, OTs, SALT). Non-professional - admin, porters, support workers, cleaners, kitchen staff... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At the risk of repeating myself the Australian model works if you implement it properly" Yes, but the Australian model involves making sure that you have thousands of miles of open sea between you and the nearest poor country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog. That’s what I suggested the home office do. Negotiate with France to provide safe accommodation and passage to the U.K in numbers that we can process without causing backlogs. I’m suggesting we pay for houses being built in mainland Europe, not in Calais. Spend the money we are throwing down the sink on affordable housing in countries that want the work and people to live there. No need to cross the channel, no money down the drain, all good Don’t we want/need immigrants to fill the jobs gaps that we have? What jobs do we need to fill? Really?
Fire away and please do remember we are talking about immigrants who are inviting themselves via small boats, not those that are applying for jobs and are qualified.
Over to you
Pre-empted you with my re jobs post.
Just read that post, so tell me more… all a bit vague.
We have thousands of people crossing the channel in small boats and you think the NHS is the right place for them to be working?
Expand your reasoning so we can understand what jobs are out there for these people
No I won't . I have given enough info. I gave you a sector that is crying out for both professional and non-professional workers. You want to know more, seek it yourself.
Got to admit I missed the non-professional role or am I confused with professional and skilled or even semi skilled. Semi skilled roles are underestimate in the UK
Professional- has to go to university, has a code of conduct set by their professional board, so doctors, nurses, allied professionals (physios, dieticians, OTs, SALT). Non-professional - admin, porters, support workers, cleaners, kitchen staff..."So where would you list plumbers and electrical engineers. Fruit pickers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog. That’s what I suggested the home office do. Negotiate with France to provide safe accommodation and passage to the U.K in numbers that we can process without causing backlogs. I’m suggesting we pay for houses being built in mainland Europe, not in Calais. Spend the money we are throwing down the sink on affordable housing in countries that want the work and people to live there. No need to cross the channel, no money down the drain, all good Don’t we want/need immigrants to fill the jobs gaps that we have? What jobs do we need to fill? Really?
Fire away and please do remember we are talking about immigrants who are inviting themselves via small boats, not those that are applying for jobs and are qualified.
Over to you
Pre-empted you with my re jobs post.
Just read that post, so tell me more… all a bit vague.
We have thousands of people crossing the channel in small boats and you think the NHS is the right place for them to be working?
Expand your reasoning so we can understand what jobs are out there for these people
No I won't . I have given enough info. I gave you a sector that is crying out for both professional and non-professional workers. You want to know more, seek it yourself.
Got to admit I missed the non-professional role or am I confused with professional and skilled or even semi skilled. Semi skilled roles are underestimate in the UK
Professional- has to go to university, has a code of conduct set by their professional board, so doctors, nurses, allied professionals (physios, dieticians, OTs, SALT). Non-professional - admin, porters, support workers, cleaners, kitchen staff...
So where would you list plumbers and electrical engineers.
Fruit pickers."My context was NHS and social care. NHS doesn't employ fruit pickers . And I'm not here to answer all questions cos people need to think for themselves and look for themselves. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At the risk of repeating myself the Australian model works if you implement it properly Yes, but the Australian model involves making sure that you have thousands of miles of open sea between you and the nearest poor country."  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised. Not one viable suggestion. Well, there is some if you count 'stealing property' as viable. Could we house them on mainland Europe? A lot more space and it removes that awful boat crossing. I wonder if our government should offer the £5 billion a year it is spending now to the EU to build houses. That would be a better outcome for all concerned fixed rate payments, removes channel crossing dangers, provides housing and eliminates the backlog. That’s what I suggested the home office do. Negotiate with France to provide safe accommodation and passage to the U.K in numbers that we can process without causing backlogs. I’m suggesting we pay for houses being built in mainland Europe, not in Calais. Spend the money we are throwing down the sink on affordable housing in countries that want the work and people to live there. No need to cross the channel, no money down the drain, all good Don’t we want/need immigrants to fill the jobs gaps that we have? What jobs do we need to fill? Really?
Fire away and please do remember we are talking about immigrants who are inviting themselves via small boats, not those that are applying for jobs and are qualified.
Over to you
Pre-empted you with my re jobs post.
Just read that post, so tell me more… all a bit vague.
We have thousands of people crossing the channel in small boats and you think the NHS is the right place for them to be working?
Expand your reasoning so we can understand what jobs are out there for these people
No I won't . I have given enough info. I gave you a sector that is crying out for both professional and non-professional workers. You want to know more, seek it yourself.
Got to admit I missed the non-professional role or am I confused with professional and skilled or even semi skilled. Semi skilled roles are underestimate in the UK
Professional- has to go to university, has a code of conduct set by their professional board, so doctors, nurses, allied professionals (physios, dieticians, OTs, SALT). Non-professional - admin, porters, support workers, cleaners, kitchen staff...
So where would you list plumbers and electrical engineers.
Fruit pickers.
My context was NHS and social care. NHS doesn't employ fruit pickers . And I'm not here to answer all questions cos people need to think for themselves and look for themselves."Most if not all NHS Staff are skilled workers semi skilled at best so would all need traning. And takes a will from a migrant most would rather do delivery driving where they need very little English or experience. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At the risk of repeating myself the Australian model works if you implement it properly Yes, but the Australian model involves making sure that you have thousands of miles of open sea between you and the nearest poor country." The fact that the policy was needed indicates that the length of sea crossing didn't deter the immigrants trying to enter Australia illegally. Following the introduction of turnback, he futility of the journey did. Unlike Australia, we would only be turning back to France which, until recently, was a safe and peaceful country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ah the old "I know! We have hundreds of jobs here that they could do".. "We need these people to fill our job gaps". Uncontrolled immigration, which is what we are talking about is exactly what it say on the tin, uncontrolled. We don't know the skill sets, education or suitability of anyone that enters the country in this manner, meaning it is all pie in the sky liberal soundbites aimed to make people think that uncontrolled immigration should not be a blocker for entry into the UK. Controlled immigration however, works perfectly well. People with the skills and suitability being interviewed, helped to relocate and paid correctly for the work they do. " We have never had uncontrolled immigration in the U.K. at least not in anyone’s lifetime. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At the risk of repeating myself the Australian model works if you implement it properly" "Yes, but the Australian model involves making sure that you have thousands of miles of open sea between you and the nearest poor country." "The fact that the policy was needed indicates that the length of sea crossing didn't deter the immigrants trying to enter Australia illegally. Following the introduction of turnback, he futility of the journey did. Unlike Australia, we would only be turning back to France which, until recently, was a safe and peaceful country." The length of the sea crossing didn't stop people trying, but it did mean that they were all in seaworthy vessels. Those could be physically turned around by ramming them without endangering the people onboard. The people coming over from France are in overloaded inflatable boats. Attempting to bump them away just results in them sinking, with all the people aboard having to be rescued. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At the risk of repeating myself the Australian model works if you implement it properly Yes, but the Australian model involves making sure that you have thousands of miles of open sea between you and the nearest poor country. The fact that the policy was needed indicates that the length of sea crossing didn't deter the immigrants trying to enter Australia illegally. Following the introduction of turnback, he futility of the journey did. Unlike Australia, we would only be turning back to France which, until recently, was a safe and peaceful country." It is surprising that the long journey did not deter them from going to Australia. I understand how being turned back after a long journey might put most of trying again. However I suspect the location could make it easier in Australia. The vast open sea gives the authorities plenty of time to intercept small boats and are turning them back into open water. In the English channel, there is much less time and it is a very busy route so not sure of the practical side | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At the risk of repeating myself the Australian model works if you implement it properly Yes, but the Australian model involves making sure that you have thousands of miles of open sea between you and the nearest poor country. The fact that the policy was needed indicates that the length of sea crossing didn't deter the immigrants trying to enter Australia illegally. Following the introduction of turnback, he futility of the journey did. Unlike Australia, we would only be turning back to France which, until recently, was a safe and peaceful country. It is surprising that the long journey did not deter them from going to Australia. I understand how being turned back after a long journey might put most of trying again. However I suspect the location could make it easier in Australia. The vast open sea gives the authorities plenty of time to intercept small boats and are turning them back into open water. In the English channel, there is much less time and it is a very busy route so not sure of the practical side" Australia has a coastline of 34,000 km and had to patrol hundreds of thousands of sq km of ocean! The task of monitoring a few kms of channel can be done from the comfort of a shore base. Australia simply had the will and support of the people to do the right thing and stop the people traffickers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ah the old "I know! We have hundreds of jobs here that they could do".. "We need these people to fill our job gaps". Uncontrolled immigration, which is what we are talking about is exactly what it say on the tin, uncontrolled. We don't know the skill sets, education or suitability of anyone that enters the country in this manner, meaning it is all pie in the sky liberal soundbites aimed to make people think that uncontrolled immigration should not be a blocker for entry into the UK. Controlled immigration however, works perfectly well. People with the skills and suitability being interviewed, helped to relocate and paid correctly for the work they do. We have never had uncontrolled immigration in the U.K. at least not in anyone’s lifetime." Is that a semantic cul-de-sac. Does Illegal entry work better? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ah the old "I know! We have hundreds of jobs here that they could do".. "We need these people to fill our job gaps". Uncontrolled immigration, which is what we are talking about is exactly what it say on the tin, uncontrolled. We don't know the skill sets, education or suitability of anyone that enters the country in this manner, meaning it is all pie in the sky liberal soundbites aimed to make people think that uncontrolled immigration should not be a blocker for entry into the UK. Controlled immigration however, works perfectly well. People with the skills and suitability being interviewed, helped to relocate and paid correctly for the work they do. We have never had uncontrolled immigration in the U.K. at least not in anyone’s lifetime. Is that a semantic cul-de-sac. Does Illegal entry work better? " No, because illegal entry is just that. Illegal. It’s unrelated to job requirements. A proper fit for purpose asylum system solves the problem. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ah the old "I know! We have hundreds of jobs here that they could do".. "We need these people to fill our job gaps". Uncontrolled immigration, which is what we are talking about is exactly what it say on the tin, uncontrolled. We don't know the skill sets, education or suitability of anyone that enters the country in this manner, meaning it is all pie in the sky liberal soundbites aimed to make people think that uncontrolled immigration should not be a blocker for entry into the UK. Controlled immigration however, works perfectly well. People with the skills and suitability being interviewed, helped to relocate and paid correctly for the work they do. We have never had uncontrolled immigration in the U.K. at least not in anyone’s lifetime. Is that a semantic cul-de-sac. Does Illegal entry work better? No, because illegal entry is just that. Illegal. It’s unrelated to job requirements. A proper fit for purpose asylum system solves the problem. " By definition, there should be no 'asylum seekers' coming to the UK from France. Convention requires that asylum is sought in the first 'safe' state entered. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ah the old "I know! We have hundreds of jobs here that they could do".. "We need these people to fill our job gaps". Uncontrolled immigration, which is what we are talking about is exactly what it say on the tin, uncontrolled. We don't know the skill sets, education or suitability of anyone that enters the country in this manner, meaning it is all pie in the sky liberal soundbites aimed to make people think that uncontrolled immigration should not be a blocker for entry into the UK. Controlled immigration however, works perfectly well. People with the skills and suitability being interviewed, helped to relocate and paid correctly for the work they do. We have never had uncontrolled immigration in the U.K. at least not in anyone’s lifetime. Is that a semantic cul-de-sac. Does Illegal entry work better? No, because illegal entry is just that. Illegal. It’s unrelated to job requirements. A proper fit for purpose asylum system solves the problem. By definition, there should be no 'asylum seekers' coming to the UK from France. Convention requires that asylum is sought in the first 'safe' state entered." When you Google this, most sites suggest that it's not true. Asylum seekers can travel through many "safe" countries on their way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ah the old "I know! We have hundreds of jobs here that they could do".. "We need these people to fill our job gaps". Uncontrolled immigration, which is what we are talking about is exactly what it say on the tin, uncontrolled. We don't know the skill sets, education or suitability of anyone that enters the country in this manner, meaning it is all pie in the sky liberal soundbites aimed to make people think that uncontrolled immigration should not be a blocker for entry into the UK. Controlled immigration however, works perfectly well. People with the skills and suitability being interviewed, helped to relocate and paid correctly for the work they do. We have never had uncontrolled immigration in the U.K. at least not in anyone’s lifetime. Is that a semantic cul-de-sac. Does Illegal entry work better? No, because illegal entry is just that. Illegal. It’s unrelated to job requirements. A proper fit for purpose asylum system solves the problem. " Good you are in agreement then that those crossing the channel in small boats and entering the UK illegally should not be part of the liberal soundbite that they can fill gaps in the job market? r I think you are also agreeing that the our legal immigration and people being able to enter the country legally to fill legitimate vacancies is working well. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ah the old "I know! We have hundreds of jobs here that they could do".. "We need these people to fill our job gaps". Uncontrolled immigration, which is what we are talking about is exactly what it say on the tin, uncontrolled. We don't know the skill sets, education or suitability of anyone that enters the country in this manner, meaning it is all pie in the sky liberal soundbites aimed to make people think that uncontrolled immigration should not be a blocker for entry into the UK. Controlled immigration however, works perfectly well. People with the skills and suitability being interviewed, helped to relocate and paid correctly for the work they do. We have never had uncontrolled immigration in the U.K. at least not in anyone’s lifetime. Is that a semantic cul-de-sac. Does Illegal entry work better? No, because illegal entry is just that. Illegal. It’s unrelated to job requirements. A proper fit for purpose asylum system solves the problem. By definition, there should be no 'asylum seekers' coming to the UK from France. Convention requires that asylum is sought in the first 'safe' state entered. When you Google this, most sites suggest that it's not true. Asylum seekers can travel through many "safe" countries on their way. " Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee convention Convention refers to: 'those coming directly from a country where their life or freedom is threatened.' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ah the old "I know! We have hundreds of jobs here that they could do".. "We need these people to fill our job gaps". Uncontrolled immigration, which is what we are talking about is exactly what it say on the tin, uncontrolled. We don't know the skill sets, education or suitability of anyone that enters the country in this manner, meaning it is all pie in the sky liberal soundbites aimed to make people think that uncontrolled immigration should not be a blocker for entry into the UK. Controlled immigration however, works perfectly well. People with the skills and suitability being interviewed, helped to relocate and paid correctly for the work they do. We have never had uncontrolled immigration in the U.K. at least not in anyone’s lifetime. Is that a semantic cul-de-sac. Does Illegal entry work better? No, because illegal entry is just that. Illegal. It’s unrelated to job requirements. A proper fit for purpose asylum system solves the problem. By definition, there should be no 'asylum seekers' coming to the UK from France. Convention requires that asylum is sought in the first 'safe' state entered. When you Google this, most sites suggest that it's not true. Asylum seekers can travel through many "safe" countries on their way. Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee convention Convention refers to: 'those coming directly from a country where their life or freedom is threatened.'" Doesn't imply having to stop any specific country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ah the old "I know! We have hundreds of jobs here that they could do".. "We need these people to fill our job gaps". Uncontrolled immigration, which is what we are talking about is exactly what it say on the tin, uncontrolled. We don't know the skill sets, education or suitability of anyone that enters the country in this manner, meaning it is all pie in the sky liberal soundbites aimed to make people think that uncontrolled immigration should not be a blocker for entry into the UK. Controlled immigration however, works perfectly well. People with the skills and suitability being interviewed, helped to relocate and paid correctly for the work they do. We have never had uncontrolled immigration in the U.K. at least not in anyone’s lifetime. Is that a semantic cul-de-sac. Does Illegal entry work better? No, because illegal entry is just that. Illegal. It’s unrelated to job requirements. A proper fit for purpose asylum system solves the problem. By definition, there should be no 'asylum seekers' coming to the UK from France. Convention requires that asylum is sought in the first 'safe' state entered." This is not part of global refugee convention. There is the Dublin Convention for EU member states (which the UK was at the forefront in drafting) - this states that if somebody is fingerprinted in one EU state and then travels to another to claim asylum, the person can be retuned to the original EU country. We used to do this. Of course now we are no longer part of the EU and the Dubin Convention so we can't... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ah the old "I know! We have hundreds of jobs here that they could do".. "We need these people to fill our job gaps". Uncontrolled immigration, which is what we are talking about is exactly what it say on the tin, uncontrolled. We don't know the skill sets, education or suitability of anyone that enters the country in this manner, meaning it is all pie in the sky liberal soundbites aimed to make people think that uncontrolled immigration should not be a blocker for entry into the UK. Controlled immigration however, works perfectly well. People with the skills and suitability being interviewed, helped to relocate and paid correctly for the work they do. We have never had uncontrolled immigration in the U.K. at least not in anyone’s lifetime. Is that a semantic cul-de-sac. Does Illegal entry work better? No, because illegal entry is just that. Illegal. It’s unrelated to job requirements. A proper fit for purpose asylum system solves the problem. By definition, there should be no 'asylum seekers' coming to the UK from France. Convention requires that asylum is sought in the first 'safe' state entered. This is not part of global refugee convention. There is the Dublin Convention for EU member states (which the UK was at the forefront in drafting) - this states that if somebody is fingerprinted in one EU state and then travels to another to claim asylum, the person can be retuned to the original EU country. We used to do this. Of course now we are no longer part of the EU and the Dubin Convention so we can't..." This is pretty much my understanding of it too. If I understand correctly it also gave greater weight to asylum seekers families being able to follow them once they were accepted. I assume this is also changed given the UK is no longer a member. It still has to follow basic human rights of course. I also believe that as the UK and EU did not agree to a replacement version, that the UK is now trying to peruse bi lateral agreements with individual countries though not sure how they will get on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee convention Convention refers to: 'those coming directly from a country where their life or freedom is threatened.'" It does say that, but there have been several court cases in which it was determined that walking from one country to another counts as 'directly', even if you pass through other countries on the way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we can all agree we can't stop the small boats coming over. But dose the UK have to house them in any form if they wish to come here and be homeless that should be up to them. NO if they brake a law to try and get in to prison as a roof and food then they need to be shipped some where that is the problem." Why would anyone want more homeless people? Why can't we process their claims, get them into society living, earning and paying taxes? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we can all agree we can't stop the small boats coming over. But dose the UK have to house them in any form if they wish to come here and be homeless that should be up to them. NO if they brake a law to try and get in to prison as a roof and food then they need to be shipped some where that is the problem. Why would anyone want more homeless people? Why can't we process their claims, get them into society living, earning and paying taxes?" And where are these houses coming from the council waiting list is so long if you built Milton Keynes tomorrow you would not clear the back log if they want to buy privately I have know problem with that. But even that dose not answer where would they buy a home | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we can all agree we can't stop the small boats coming over. But dose the UK have to house them in any form if they wish to come here and be homeless that should be up to them. NO if they brake a law to try and get in to prison as a roof and food then they need to be shipped some where that is the problem. Why would anyone want more homeless people? Why can't we process their claims, get them into society living, earning and paying taxes? And where are these houses coming from the council waiting list is so long if you built Milton Keynes tomorrow you would not clear the back log if they want to buy privately I have know problem with that. But even that dose not answer where would they buy a home " Maybe collect cash from corporations or billionaire tax Dodgers. Or use the tax money that newly integrated asylum seekers generate to build residential properties? Or maybe we shouldn't have spunked billions down the brexit toilet. Then we could have built houses. But when you get down to it. The real answer is that the government simply doesn't give a fuck about poor people, British or otherwise. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we can all agree we can't stop the small boats coming over. But dose the UK have to house them in any form if they wish to come here and be homeless that should be up to them. NO if they brake a law to try and get in to prison as a roof and food then they need to be shipped some where that is the problem. Why would anyone want more homeless people? Why can't we process their claims, get them into society living, earning and paying taxes? And where are these houses coming from the council waiting list is so long if you built Milton Keynes tomorrow you would not clear the back log if they want to buy privately I have know problem with that. But even that dose not answer where would they buy a home Maybe collect cash from corporations or billionaire tax Dodgers. Or use the tax money that newly integrated asylum seekers generate to build residential properties? Or maybe we shouldn't have spunked billions down the brexit toilet. Then we could have built houses. But when you get down to it. The real answer is that the government simply doesn't give a fuck about poor people, British or otherwise. " True its a dog eat dog World and noone is going to build lots of property ASAP as it would bring down profits. So do you think the government has a responsibility to house all homeless and immigrants. I see the way some social housing tenants treat there property and its a disgrace. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we can all agree we can't stop the small boats coming over. But dose the UK have to house them in any form if they wish to come here and be homeless that should be up to them. NO if they brake a law to try and get in to prison as a roof and food then they need to be shipped some where that is the problem. Why would anyone want more homeless people? Why can't we process their claims, get them into society living, earning and paying taxes? And where are these houses coming from the council waiting list is so long if you built Milton Keynes tomorrow you would not clear the back log if they want to buy privately I have know problem with that. But even that dose not answer where would they buy a home Maybe collect cash from corporations or billionaire tax Dodgers. Or use the tax money that newly integrated asylum seekers generate to build residential properties? Or maybe we shouldn't have spunked billions down the brexit toilet. Then we could have built houses. But when you get down to it. The real answer is that the government simply doesn't give a fuck about poor people, British or otherwise. True its a dog eat dog World and noone is going to build lots of property ASAP as it would bring down profits. So do you think the government has a responsibility to house all homeless and immigrants. I see the way some social housing tenants treat there property and its a disgrace. " I think the purpose of the government is to look after the welfare of the citizens and the people who live here. Weather every single homeless or immigrant (although a minute ago we were discussing asylum seekers), should be housed is a complicated question. I think that people should be given the opportunity to improve their lives, and not to be trapped at the bottom rung of society forever. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ah the old "I know! We have hundreds of jobs here that they could do".. "We need these people to fill our job gaps". Uncontrolled immigration, which is what we are talking about is exactly what it say on the tin, uncontrolled. We don't know the skill sets, education or suitability of anyone that enters the country in this manner, meaning it is all pie in the sky liberal soundbites aimed to make people think that uncontrolled immigration should not be a blocker for entry into the UK. Controlled immigration however, works perfectly well. People with the skills and suitability being interviewed, helped to relocate and paid correctly for the work they do. We have never had uncontrolled immigration in the U.K. at least not in anyone’s lifetime. Is that a semantic cul-de-sac. Does Illegal entry work better? No, because illegal entry is just that. Illegal. It’s unrelated to job requirements. A proper fit for purpose asylum system solves the problem. By definition, there should be no 'asylum seekers' coming to the UK from France. Convention requires that asylum is sought in the first 'safe' state entered." Convention says no such thing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ah the old "I know! We have hundreds of jobs here that they could do".. "We need these people to fill our job gaps". Uncontrolled immigration, which is what we are talking about is exactly what it say on the tin, uncontrolled. We don't know the skill sets, education or suitability of anyone that enters the country in this manner, meaning it is all pie in the sky liberal soundbites aimed to make people think that uncontrolled immigration should not be a blocker for entry into the UK. Controlled immigration however, works perfectly well. People with the skills and suitability being interviewed, helped to relocate and paid correctly for the work they do. We have never had uncontrolled immigration in the U.K. at least not in anyone’s lifetime. Is that a semantic cul-de-sac. Does Illegal entry work better? No, because illegal entry is just that. Illegal. It’s unrelated to job requirements. A proper fit for purpose asylum system solves the problem. Good you are in agreement then that those crossing the channel in small boats and entering the UK illegally should not be part of the liberal soundbite that they can fill gaps in the job market? r I think you are also agreeing that the our legal immigration and people being able to enter the country legally to fill legitimate vacancies is working well. " Those asylum seekers arriving on boats can’t fill any job gaps until they’ve been approved and become refugee status. Those who aren’t approved can’t stay. This isn’t complicated. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we can all agree we can't stop the small boats coming over. But dose the UK have to house them in any form if they wish to come here and be homeless that should be up to them. NO if they brake a law to try and get in to prison as a roof and food then they need to be shipped some where that is the problem. Why would anyone want more homeless people? Why can't we process their claims, get them into society living, earning and paying taxes? And where are these houses coming from the council waiting list is so long if you built Milton Keynes tomorrow you would not clear the back log if they want to buy privately I have know problem with that. But even that dose not answer where would they buy a home Maybe collect cash from corporations or billionaire tax Dodgers. Or use the tax money that newly integrated asylum seekers generate to build residential properties? Or maybe we shouldn't have spunked billions down the brexit toilet. Then we could have built houses. But when you get down to it. The real answer is that the government simply doesn't give a fuck about poor people, British or otherwise. " It really isn't as simple as just building more houses. In my local news today, a district council has approved 400 new homes, the town council are now considering whether to fight them on it because they argue the infrastructure isn't in place. When we have councils fighting councils, it's really not as simple as it may sound. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we can all agree we can't stop the small boats coming over. But dose the UK have to house them in any form if they wish to come here and be homeless that should be up to them. NO if they brake a law to try and get in to prison as a roof and food then they need to be shipped some where that is the problem. Why would anyone want more homeless people? Why can't we process their claims, get them into society living, earning and paying taxes? And where are these houses coming from the council waiting list is so long if you built Milton Keynes tomorrow you would not clear the back log if they want to buy privately I have know problem with that. But even that dose not answer where would they buy a home Maybe collect cash from corporations or billionaire tax Dodgers. Or use the tax money that newly integrated asylum seekers generate to build residential properties? Or maybe we shouldn't have spunked billions down the brexit toilet. Then we could have built houses. But when you get down to it. The real answer is that the government simply doesn't give a fuck about poor people, British or otherwise. It really isn't as simple as just building more houses. In my local news today, a district council has approved 400 new homes, the town council are now considering whether to fight them on it because they argue the infrastructure isn't in place. When we have councils fighting councils, it's really not as simple as it may sound. " Of course. None of these things seem insurmountable though. Infrastructure could be built. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we can all agree we can't stop the small boats coming over. But dose the UK have to house them in any form if they wish to come here and be homeless that should be up to them. NO if they brake a law to try and get in to prison as a roof and food then they need to be shipped some where that is the problem. Why would anyone want more homeless people? Why can't we process their claims, get them into society living, earning and paying taxes? And where are these houses coming from the council waiting list is so long if you built Milton Keynes tomorrow you would not clear the back log if they want to buy privately I have know problem with that. But even that dose not answer where would they buy a home Maybe collect cash from corporations or billionaire tax Dodgers. Or use the tax money that newly integrated asylum seekers generate to build residential properties? Or maybe we shouldn't have spunked billions down the brexit toilet. Then we could have built houses. But when you get down to it. The real answer is that the government simply doesn't give a fuck about poor people, British or otherwise. It really isn't as simple as just building more houses. In my local news today, a district council has approved 400 new homes, the town council are now considering whether to fight them on it because they argue the infrastructure isn't in place. When we have councils fighting councils, it's really not as simple as it may sound. Of course. None of these things seem insurmountable though. Infrastructure could be built." Of course it could but the developer didn't allow for it and the council are refusing to pay for it. That raises another question of who should be paying to build shops and schools. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we can all agree we can't stop the small boats coming over. But dose the UK have to house them in any form if they wish to come here and be homeless that should be up to them. NO if they brake a law to try and get in to prison as a roof and food then they need to be shipped some where that is the problem. Why would anyone want more homeless people? Why can't we process their claims, get them into society living, earning and paying taxes? And where are these houses coming from the council waiting list is so long if you built Milton Keynes tomorrow you would not clear the back log if they want to buy privately I have know problem with that. But even that dose not answer where would they buy a home Maybe collect cash from corporations or billionaire tax Dodgers. Or use the tax money that newly integrated asylum seekers generate to build residential properties? Or maybe we shouldn't have spunked billions down the brexit toilet. Then we could have built houses. But when you get down to it. The real answer is that the government simply doesn't give a fuck about poor people, British or otherwise. It really isn't as simple as just building more houses. In my local news today, a district council has approved 400 new homes, the town council are now considering whether to fight them on it because they argue the infrastructure isn't in place. When we have councils fighting councils, it's really not as simple as it may sound. Of course. None of these things seem insurmountable though. Infrastructure could be built. Of course it could but the developer didn't allow for it and the council are refusing to pay for it. That raises another question of who should be paying to build shops and schools." Good question. I've no idea. They built a new town in Devon recently, I always assumed the developer had to pay to have roads put in, built the shops and other amenities. But I've nothing to base that on beyond driving through and thinking that maybe the case. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we can all agree we can't stop the small boats coming over. But dose the UK have to house them in any form if they wish to come here and be homeless that should be up to them. NO if they brake a law to try and get in to prison as a roof and food then they need to be shipped some where that is the problem. Why would anyone want more homeless people? Why can't we process their claims, get them into society living, earning and paying taxes? And where are these houses coming from the council waiting list is so long if you built Milton Keynes tomorrow you would not clear the back log if they want to buy privately I have know problem with that. But even that dose not answer where would they buy a home Maybe collect cash from corporations or billionaire tax Dodgers. Or use the tax money that newly integrated asylum seekers generate to build residential properties? Or maybe we shouldn't have spunked billions down the brexit toilet. Then we could have built houses. But when you get down to it. The real answer is that the government simply doesn't give a fuck about poor people, British or otherwise. It really isn't as simple as just building more houses. In my local news today, a district council has approved 400 new homes, the town council are now considering whether to fight them on it because they argue the infrastructure isn't in place. When we have councils fighting councils, it's really not as simple as it may sound. Of course. None of these things seem insurmountable though. Infrastructure could be built. Of course it could but the developer didn't allow for it and the council are refusing to pay for it. That raises another question of who should be paying to build shops and schools." Shops and schools are cheep. It's power stations, water supply and water treatment that costs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we can all agree we can't stop the small boats coming over. But dose the UK have to house them in any form if they wish to come here and be homeless that should be up to them. NO if they brake a law to try and get in to prison as a roof and food then they need to be shipped some where that is the problem. Why would anyone want more homeless people? Why can't we process their claims, get them into society living, earning and paying taxes? And where are these houses coming from the council waiting list is so long if you built Milton Keynes tomorrow you would not clear the back log if they want to buy privately I have know problem with that. But even that dose not answer where would they buy a home Maybe collect cash from corporations or billionaire tax Dodgers. Or use the tax money that newly integrated asylum seekers generate to build residential properties? Or maybe we shouldn't have spunked billions down the brexit toilet. Then we could have built houses. But when you get down to it. The real answer is that the government simply doesn't give a fuck about poor people, British or otherwise. It really isn't as simple as just building more houses. In my local news today, a district council has approved 400 new homes, the town council are now considering whether to fight them on it because they argue the infrastructure isn't in place. When we have councils fighting councils, it's really not as simple as it may sound. Of course. None of these things seem insurmountable though. Infrastructure could be built. Of course it could but the developer didn't allow for it and the council are refusing to pay for it. That raises another question of who should be paying to build shops and schools. Shops and schools are cheep. It's power stations, water supply and water treatment that costs." Those amenities are worked into every development. It is the schools and shops that are the issue with the development I'm talking about. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we can all agree we can't stop the small boats coming over. But dose the UK have to house them in any form if they wish to come here and be homeless that should be up to them. NO if they brake a law to try and get in to prison as a roof and food then they need to be shipped some where that is the problem. Why would anyone want more homeless people? Why can't we process their claims, get them into society living, earning and paying taxes? And where are these houses coming from the council waiting list is so long if you built Milton Keynes tomorrow you would not clear the back log if they want to buy privately I have know problem with that. But even that dose not answer where would they buy a home Maybe collect cash from corporations or billionaire tax Dodgers. Or use the tax money that newly integrated asylum seekers generate to build residential properties? Or maybe we shouldn't have spunked billions down the brexit toilet. Then we could have built houses. But when you get down to it. The real answer is that the government simply doesn't give a fuck about poor people, British or otherwise. It really isn't as simple as just building more houses. In my local news today, a district council has approved 400 new homes, the town council are now considering whether to fight them on it because they argue the infrastructure isn't in place. When we have councils fighting councils, it's really not as simple as it may sound. Of course. None of these things seem insurmountable though. Infrastructure could be built. Of course it could but the developer didn't allow for it and the council are refusing to pay for it. That raises another question of who should be paying to build shops and schools. Good question. I've no idea. They built a new town in Devon recently, I always assumed the developer had to pay to have roads put in, built the shops and other amenities. But I've nothing to base that on beyond driving through and thinking that maybe the case." It's hard to find anything but I found this - Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide enough school places in their areas but they do not control the number of places in academies or free schools. By that I would assume if there aren't enough school places, then they should build a new school. Just my perception though, no idea in reality. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we can all agree we can't stop the small boats coming over. But dose the UK have to house them in any form if they wish to come here and be homeless that should be up to them. NO if they brake a law to try and get in to prison as a roof and food then they need to be shipped some where that is the problem. Why would anyone want more homeless people? Why can't we process their claims, get them into society living, earning and paying taxes? And where are these houses coming from the council waiting list is so long if you built Milton Keynes tomorrow you would not clear the back log if they want to buy privately I have know problem with that. But even that dose not answer where would they buy a home Maybe collect cash from corporations or billionaire tax Dodgers. Or use the tax money that newly integrated asylum seekers generate to build residential properties? Or maybe we shouldn't have spunked billions down the brexit toilet. Then we could have built houses. But when you get down to it. The real answer is that the government simply doesn't give a fuck about poor people, British or otherwise. True its a dog eat dog World and noone is going to build lots of property ASAP as it would bring down profits. So do you think the government has a responsibility to house all homeless and immigrants. I see the way some social housing tenants treat there property and its a disgrace. I think the purpose of the government is to look after the welfare of the citizens and the people who live here. Weather every single homeless or immigrant (although a minute ago we were discussing asylum seekers), should be housed is a complicated question. I think that people should be given the opportunity to improve their lives, and not to be trapped at the bottom rung of society forever." You cant honestly believe that the government should be held responsible for housing people who have decided to enter the country by any means they see fit and play the system to remain. That is bonkers thinking. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we can all agree we can't stop the small boats coming over. But dose the UK have to house them in any form if they wish to come here and be homeless that should be up to them. NO if they brake a law to try and get in to prison as a roof and food then they need to be shipped some where that is the problem. Why would anyone want more homeless people? Why can't we process their claims, get them into society living, earning and paying taxes? And where are these houses coming from the council waiting list is so long if you built Milton Keynes tomorrow you would not clear the back log if they want to buy privately I have know problem with that. But even that dose not answer where would they buy a home Maybe collect cash from corporations or billionaire tax Dodgers. Or use the tax money that newly integrated asylum seekers generate to build residential properties? Or maybe we shouldn't have spunked billions down the brexit toilet. Then we could have built houses. But when you get down to it. The real answer is that the government simply doesn't give a fuck about poor people, British or otherwise. True its a dog eat dog World and noone is going to build lots of property ASAP as it would bring down profits. So do you think the government has a responsibility to house all homeless and immigrants. I see the way some social housing tenants treat there property and its a disgrace. I think the purpose of the government is to look after the welfare of the citizens and the people who live here. Weather every single homeless or immigrant (although a minute ago we were discussing asylum seekers), should be housed is a complicated question. I think that people should be given the opportunity to improve their lives, and not to be trapped at the bottom rung of society forever. You cant honestly believe that the government should be held responsible for housing people who have decided to enter the country by any means they see fit and play the system to remain. That is bonkers thinking." Good job I didn't say anything even vaguely like that then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we can all agree we can't stop the small boats coming over. But dose the UK have to house them in any form if they wish to come here and be homeless that should be up to them. NO if they brake a law to try and get in to prison as a roof and food then they need to be shipped some where that is the problem. Why would anyone want more homeless people? Why can't we process their claims, get them into society living, earning and paying taxes? And where are these houses coming from the council waiting list is so long if you built Milton Keynes tomorrow you would not clear the back log if they want to buy privately I have know problem with that. But even that dose not answer where would they buy a home Maybe collect cash from corporations or billionaire tax Dodgers. Or use the tax money that newly integrated asylum seekers generate to build residential properties? Or maybe we shouldn't have spunked billions down the brexit toilet. Then we could have built houses. But when you get down to it. The real answer is that the government simply doesn't give a fuck about poor people, British or otherwise. It really isn't as simple as just building more houses. In my local news today, a district council has approved 400 new homes, the town council are now considering whether to fight them on it because they argue the infrastructure isn't in place. When we have councils fighting councils, it's really not as simple as it may sound. " That certainly does not help when they are too busy arguing with each other. It is hard for anyone to get accommodation even with having permanent jobs. How does an asylum seeker who has just been granted permission to stay but has no job and no fixed abode get accommodation | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we can all agree we can't stop the small boats coming over. But dose the UK have to house them in any form if they wish to come here and be homeless that should be up to them. NO if they brake a law to try and get in to prison as a roof and food then they need to be shipped some where that is the problem. Why would anyone want more homeless people? Why can't we process their claims, get them into society living, earning and paying taxes? And where are these houses coming from the council waiting list is so long if you built Milton Keynes tomorrow you would not clear the back log if they want to buy privately I have know problem with that. But even that dose not answer where would they buy a home Maybe collect cash from corporations or billionaire tax Dodgers. Or use the tax money that newly integrated asylum seekers generate to build residential properties? Or maybe we shouldn't have spunked billions down the brexit toilet. Then we could have built houses. But when you get down to it. The real answer is that the government simply doesn't give a fuck about poor people, British or otherwise. True its a dog eat dog World and noone is going to build lots of property ASAP as it would bring down profits. So do you think the government has a responsibility to house all homeless and immigrants. I see the way some social housing tenants treat there property and its a disgrace. I think the purpose of the government is to look after the welfare of the citizens and the people who live here. Weather every single homeless or immigrant (although a minute ago we were discussing asylum seekers), should be housed is a complicated question. I think that people should be given the opportunity to improve their lives, and not to be trapped at the bottom rung of society forever. You cant honestly believe that the government should be held responsible for housing people who have decided to enter the country by any means they see fit and play the system to remain. That is bonkers thinking. Good job I didn't say anything even vaguely like that then. " What did you actually mean? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we can all agree we can't stop the small boats coming over. But dose the UK have to house them in any form if they wish to come here and be homeless that should be up to them. NO if they brake a law to try and get in to prison as a roof and food then they need to be shipped some where that is the problem. Why would anyone want more homeless people? Why can't we process their claims, get them into society living, earning and paying taxes? And where are these houses coming from the council waiting list is so long if you built Milton Keynes tomorrow you would not clear the back log if they want to buy privately I have know problem with that. But even that dose not answer where would they buy a home Maybe collect cash from corporations or billionaire tax Dodgers. Or use the tax money that newly integrated asylum seekers generate to build residential properties? Or maybe we shouldn't have spunked billions down the brexit toilet. Then we could have built houses. But when you get down to it. The real answer is that the government simply doesn't give a fuck about poor people, British or otherwise. It really isn't as simple as just building more houses. In my local news today, a district council has approved 400 new homes, the town council are now considering whether to fight them on it because they argue the infrastructure isn't in place. When we have councils fighting councils, it's really not as simple as it may sound. Of course. None of these things seem insurmountable though. Infrastructure could be built. Of course it could but the developer didn't allow for it and the council are refusing to pay for it. That raises another question of who should be paying to build shops and schools. Shops and schools are cheep. It's power stations, water supply and water treatment that costs. Those amenities are worked into every development. It is the schools and shops that are the issue with the development I'm talking about. " And GP practice... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we can all agree we can't stop the small boats coming over. But dose the UK have to house them in any form if they wish to come here and be homeless that should be up to them. NO if they brake a law to try and get in to prison as a roof and food then they need to be shipped some where that is the problem. Why would anyone want more homeless people? Why can't we process their claims, get them into society living, earning and paying taxes? And where are these houses coming from the council waiting list is so long if you built Milton Keynes tomorrow you would not clear the back log if they want to buy privately I have know problem with that. But even that dose not answer where would they buy a home Maybe collect cash from corporations or billionaire tax Dodgers. Or use the tax money that newly integrated asylum seekers generate to build residential properties? Or maybe we shouldn't have spunked billions down the brexit toilet. Then we could have built houses. But when you get down to it. The real answer is that the government simply doesn't give a fuck about poor people, British or otherwise. True its a dog eat dog World and noone is going to build lots of property ASAP as it would bring down profits. So do you think the government has a responsibility to house all homeless and immigrants. I see the way some social housing tenants treat there property and its a disgrace. I think the purpose of the government is to look after the welfare of the citizens and the people who live here. Weather every single homeless or immigrant (although a minute ago we were discussing asylum seekers), should be housed is a complicated question. I think that people should be given the opportunity to improve their lives, and not to be trapped at the bottom rung of society forever. You cant honestly believe that the government should be held responsible for housing people who have decided to enter the country by any means they see fit and play the system to remain. That is bonkers thinking. Good job I didn't say anything even vaguely like that then. What did you actually mean?" ********************************* "I think the purpose of the government is to look after the welfare of the citizens and the people who live here." Clear enough to me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we can all agree we can't stop the small boats coming over. But dose the UK have to house them in any form if they wish to come here and be homeless that should be up to them. NO if they brake a law to try and get in to prison as a roof and food then they need to be shipped some where that is the problem. Why would anyone want more homeless people? Why can't we process their claims, get them into society living, earning and paying taxes? And where are these houses coming from the council waiting list is so long if you built Milton Keynes tomorrow you would not clear the back log if they want to buy privately I have know problem with that. But even that dose not answer where would they buy a home Maybe collect cash from corporations or billionaire tax Dodgers. Or use the tax money that newly integrated asylum seekers generate to build residential properties? Or maybe we shouldn't have spunked billions down the brexit toilet. Then we could have built houses. But when you get down to it. The real answer is that the government simply doesn't give a fuck about poor people, British or otherwise. True its a dog eat dog World and noone is going to build lots of property ASAP as it would bring down profits. So do you think the government has a responsibility to house all homeless and immigrants. I see the way some social housing tenants treat there property and its a disgrace. I think the purpose of the government is to look after the welfare of the citizens and the people who live here. Weather every single homeless or immigrant (although a minute ago we were discussing asylum seekers), should be housed is a complicated question. I think that people should be given the opportunity to improve their lives, and not to be trapped at the bottom rung of society forever. You cant honestly believe that the government should be held responsible for housing people who have decided to enter the country by any means they see fit and play the system to remain. That is bonkers thinking." That’s why we have an asylum system. If someone comes legitimately seeking asylum and passes the requisite checks, then yes our govt. should be responsible for ensuring their basic needs are met, including granting them the ability to work. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we can all agree we can't stop the small boats coming over. But dose the UK have to house them in any form if they wish to come here and be homeless that should be up to them. NO if they brake a law to try and get in to prison as a roof and food then they need to be shipped some where that is the problem. Why would anyone want more homeless people? Why can't we process their claims, get them into society living, earning and paying taxes? And where are these houses coming from the council waiting list is so long if you built Milton Keynes tomorrow you would not clear the back log if they want to buy privately I have know problem with that. But even that dose not answer where would they buy a home Maybe collect cash from corporations or billionaire tax Dodgers. Or use the tax money that newly integrated asylum seekers generate to build residential properties? Or maybe we shouldn't have spunked billions down the brexit toilet. Then we could have built houses. But when you get down to it. The real answer is that the government simply doesn't give a fuck about poor people, British or otherwise. True its a dog eat dog World and noone is going to build lots of property ASAP as it would bring down profits. So do you think the government has a responsibility to house all homeless and immigrants. I see the way some social housing tenants treat there property and its a disgrace. I think the purpose of the government is to look after the welfare of the citizens and the people who live here. Weather every single homeless or immigrant (although a minute ago we were discussing asylum seekers), should be housed is a complicated question. I think that people should be given the opportunity to improve their lives, and not to be trapped at the bottom rung of society forever. You cant honestly believe that the government should be held responsible for housing people who have decided to enter the country by any means they see fit and play the system to remain. That is bonkers thinking. That’s why we have an asylum system. If someone comes legitimately seeking asylum and passes the requisite checks, then yes our govt. should be responsible for ensuring their basic needs are met, including granting them the ability to work. " ***************************** I agree. Unfortunately, there seems to be some here who would prefer to feed and lodge anyone getting here by any means and for any reasons......... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we can all agree we can't stop the small boats coming over. But dose the UK have to house them in any form if they wish to come here and be homeless that should be up to them. NO if they brake a law to try and get in to prison as a roof and food then they need to be shipped some where that is the problem. Why would anyone want more homeless people? Why can't we process their claims, get them into society living, earning and paying taxes? And where are these houses coming from the council waiting list is so long if you built Milton Keynes tomorrow you would not clear the back log if they want to buy privately I have know problem with that. But even that dose not answer where would they buy a home Maybe collect cash from corporations or billionaire tax Dodgers. Or use the tax money that newly integrated asylum seekers generate to build residential properties? Or maybe we shouldn't have spunked billions down the brexit toilet. Then we could have built houses. But when you get down to it. The real answer is that the government simply doesn't give a fuck about poor people, British or otherwise. It really isn't as simple as just building more houses. In my local news today, a district council has approved 400 new homes, the town council are now considering whether to fight them on it because they argue the infrastructure isn't in place. When we have councils fighting councils, it's really not as simple as it may sound. Of course. None of these things seem insurmountable though. Infrastructure could be built. Of course it could but the developer didn't allow for it and the council are refusing to pay for it. That raises another question of who should be paying to build shops and schools. Shops and schools are cheep. It's power stations, water supply and water treatment that costs. Those amenities are worked into every development. It is the schools and shops that are the issue with the development I'm talking about. " No there are not water companies are not even a part of the planing process and get no funding towards increased supply and treatment plants. UKPN charge for each connection as dose transco. The rest is just a planing mess hospitals don't get funding from developers so double the size of a town and you just get problems that is 1 reason this small island is over crowded. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we can all agree we can't stop the small boats coming over. But dose the UK have to house them in any form if they wish to come here and be homeless that should be up to them. NO if they brake a law to try and get in to prison as a roof and food then they need to be shipped some where that is the problem. Why would anyone want more homeless people? Why can't we process their claims, get them into society living, earning and paying taxes? And where are these houses coming from the council waiting list is so long if you built Milton Keynes tomorrow you would not clear the back log if they want to buy privately I have know problem with that. But even that dose not answer where would they buy a home Maybe collect cash from corporations or billionaire tax Dodgers. Or use the tax money that newly integrated asylum seekers generate to build residential properties? Or maybe we shouldn't have spunked billions down the brexit toilet. Then we could have built houses. But when you get down to it. The real answer is that the government simply doesn't give a fuck about poor people, British or otherwise. True its a dog eat dog World and noone is going to build lots of property ASAP as it would bring down profits. So do you think the government has a responsibility to house all homeless and immigrants. I see the way some social housing tenants treat there property and its a disgrace. I think the purpose of the government is to look after the welfare of the citizens and the people who live here. Weather every single homeless or immigrant (although a minute ago we were discussing asylum seekers), should be housed is a complicated question. I think that people should be given the opportunity to improve their lives, and not to be trapped at the bottom rung of society forever. You cant honestly believe that the government should be held responsible for housing people who have decided to enter the country by any means they see fit and play the system to remain. That is bonkers thinking. That’s why we have an asylum system. If someone comes legitimately seeking asylum and passes the requisite checks, then yes our govt. should be responsible for ensuring their basic needs are met, including granting them the ability to work. " That just shows that the up to £165k per person housing costs while awaiting a decision plus the benefit they get plus healthcare ect ect is just the start of what each one costs this country. Then after the decision to stay they need even more benefits. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
