FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Flag Shaggers get confused
Flag Shaggers get confused
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"No different than former hotels being used that are now classed hostels. The flag shaggers will keep calling them hotels, they are not in any sense. Or calling people illegal when they are not. Then pop down the supermarket and buy all their products flag shagged at hugely inflated prices as if they are under some weird control. " You are often see these former hotels used as hostels with their specified star rating quoted by some ,when previously used as hotels ,as if room service,restaurant chefs and housekeeping were still in place . | |||
| |||
"No different than former hotels being used that are now classed hostels. The flag shaggers will keep calling them hotels, they are not in any sense. Or calling people illegal when they are not. Then pop down the supermarket and buy all their products flag shagged at hugely inflated prices as if they are under some weird control. " entering a country by dinghy is illegal, if it isn’t how come the rest of us have to queue at passport control to enter legally | |||
"No different than former hotels being used that are now classed hostels. The flag shaggers will keep calling them hotels, they are not in any sense. Or calling people illegal when they are not. Then pop down the supermarket and buy all their products flag shagged at hugely inflated prices as if they are under some weird control. entering a country by dinghy is illegal, if it isn’t how come the rest of us have to queue at passport control to enter legally" But claiming asylum is legal - the problem is the the U.K. don’t allow safe routes from anywhere except a few specific cases | |||
"No different than former hotels being used that are now classed hostels. The flag shaggers will keep calling them hotels, they are not in any sense. Or calling people illegal when they are not. Then pop down the supermarket and buy all their products flag shagged at hugely inflated prices as if they are under some weird control. " hotel, hostel, MOB or caravan who cares, it’s illegals living of our backs for free | |||
"... the problem is the the U.K. don’t allow safe routes from anywhere except a few specific cases" Why is that a problem for the UK? | |||
 | |||
"... the problem is the the U.K. don’t allow safe routes from anywhere except a few specific cases Why is that a problem for the UK?" It’s not our problem. We need to sort our own country out and stop allowing the illegal dross of world to come and live off our backs | |||
| |||
"... the problem is the the U.K. don’t allow safe routes from anywhere except a few specific cases Why is that a problem for the UK?" Because this creates the situation where virtually anyone wishing to claim asylum in the U.K. has to resort to illegal entry . | |||
"... the problem is the the U.K. don’t allow safe routes from anywhere except a few specific cases Why is that a problem for the UK? It’s not our problem. We need to sort our own country out and stop allowing the illegal dross of world to come and live off our backs" What about genuine asylum seekers? | |||
"... the problem is the the U.K. don’t allow safe routes from anywhere except a few specific cases Why is that a problem for the UK? It’s not our problem. We need to sort our own country out and stop allowing the illegal dross of world to come and live off our backs What about genuine asylum seekers?" They are haven't got a chance, due to the tens of thousands arriving here because they wish to. If by chance they do arrive and are accepted they are not offered the greatest of starts either, when the system is overwhelmed by appeals from those who really shouldn't be here in the first place. | |||
"... the problem is the the U.K. don’t allow safe routes from anywhere except a few specific cases Why is that a problem for the UK? It’s not our problem. We need to sort our own country out and stop allowing the illegal dross of world to come and live off our backs What about genuine asylum seekers? They are haven't got a chance, due to the tens of thousands arriving here because they wish to. If by chance they do arrive and are accepted they are not offered the greatest of starts either, when the system is overwhelmed by appeals from those who really shouldn't be here in the first place. " Oh we’ve discussed many times the inadequacy of th system we have, but I was asking the poster how they feel about our responsibility to genuine asylum seekers. | |||
"... the problem is the the U.K. don’t allow safe routes from anywhere except a few specific cases Why is that a problem for the UK? Because this creates the situation where virtually anyone wishing to claim asylum in the U.K. has to resort to illegal entry ." 
A system where someone can apply in their own or a neighbouring country is cheaper than the mess we have at present..
And it allows the government to return all who try to cross the channel etc back to their own country to apply properly..
getting rid of the previous system was a massive mistake by the tories .. | |||
| |||
"Two 'asylum seekers' jailed yesterday for running a county lines drug network from tax payers funded 4 star hotel. They had a long string of previous convictions: Mohammed Dawood, 26 = multiple convictions for theft & drugs in Merseyside before sent to stay in Bournemouth. Alsayid Abdul-Khalik, 24 = class A drug conviction - and involved in a mass brawl where six people were stabbed outside Bournemouth College in Jan 2024. " And one assumes they’ll now be returned . That would be the correct decision, no? | |||
| |||
"Two 'asylum seekers' jailed yesterday for running a county lines drug network from tax payers funded 4 star hotel. They had a long string of previous convictions: Mohammed Dawood, 26 = multiple convictions for theft & drugs in Merseyside before sent to stay in Bournemouth. Alsayid Abdul-Khalik, 24 = class A drug conviction - and involved in a mass brawl where six people were stabbed outside Bournemouth College in Jan 2024. And one assumes they’ll now be returned . That would be the correct decision, no?"Perhaps you or the OP could put them up while that's being processed? | |||
"Two 'asylum seekers' jailed yesterday for running a county lines drug network from tax payers funded 4 star hotel. They had a long string of previous convictions: Mohammed Dawood, 26 = multiple convictions for theft & drugs in Merseyside before sent to stay in Bournemouth. Alsayid Abdul-Khalik, 24 = class A drug conviction - and involved in a mass brawl where six people were stabbed outside Bournemouth College in Jan 2024. And one assumes they’ll now be returned . That would be the correct decision, no?
Perhaps you or the OP could put them up while that's being processed? "No, we have processing centres for that. I’ve long argued that processing should be carried out abroad and only the successful be granted passage to the UK by safe routes, bit the great minds of the fabs forum seem to think that’s crazy | |||
"... the problem is the the U.K. don’t allow safe routes from anywhere except a few specific cases" "Why is that a problem for the UK?" "Because this creates the situation where virtually anyone wishing to claim asylum in the U.K. has to resort to illegal entry ." They don't *have* to resort to illegal entry, they *choose* to resort to illegal entry. But these people have decided to come here, and will use any means available to them. Again, why is it a problem for the UK that there is no safe route for their arrival? | |||
"A system where someone can apply in their own or a neighbouring country is cheaper than the mess we have at present.. And it allows the government to return all who try to cross the channel etc back to their own country to apply properly.. getting rid of the previous system was a massive mistake by the tories .." There's never been a system where people can apply for asylum from other countries. No country in the world has such a system. | |||
"A system where someone can apply in their own or a neighbouring country is cheaper than the mess we have at present.. And it allows the government to return all who try to cross the channel etc back to their own country to apply properly.. getting rid of the previous system was a massive mistake by the tories .. There's never been a system where people can apply for asylum from other countries. No country in the world has such a system." Correct. Not sure what your point is though. | |||
"... the problem is the the U.K. don’t allow safe routes from anywhere except a few specific cases Why is that a problem for the UK? Because this creates the situation where virtually anyone wishing to claim asylum in the U.K. has to resort to illegal entry . They don't *have* to resort to illegal entry, they *choose* to resort to illegal entry. But these people have decided to come here, and will use any means available to them. Again, why is it a problem for the UK that there is no safe route for their arrival?" Well I said ‘anyone wishing to…’ so my statement was correct, was it not? | |||
"A system where someone can apply in their own or a neighbouring country is cheaper than the mess we have at present.. And it allows the government to return all who try to cross the channel etc back to their own country to apply properly.. getting rid of the previous system was a massive mistake by the tories .." "There's never been a system where people can apply for asylum from other countries. No country in the world has such a system." "Correct. Not sure what your point is though." The person I was talking to said "getting rid of the previous system was a massive mistake by the tories". I was correcting them by pointing out that there's never been a previous system. Perhaps you should gain the context before adding your opinion. | |||
| |||
"A system where someone can apply in their own or a neighbouring country is cheaper than the mess we have at present.. And it allows the government to return all who try to cross the channel etc back to their own country to apply properly.. getting rid of the previous system was a massive mistake by the tories .. There's never been a system where people can apply for asylum from other countries. No country in the world has such a system." I sit corrected, I thought we used to have one.. | |||
"... the problem is the the U.K. don’t allow safe routes from anywhere except a few specific cases" "Why is that a problem for the UK?" "Because this creates the situation where virtually anyone wishing to claim asylum in the U.K. has to resort to illegal entry ." "They don't *have* to resort to illegal entry, they *choose* to resort to illegal entry. But these people have decided to come here, and will use any means available to them. Again, why is it a problem for the UK that there is no safe route for their arrival?" "Well I said ‘anyone wishing to…’ so my statement was correct, was it not?" You also said that they *have* to resort to illegal entry, so your statement was not correct. You still haven't answered the question of what problem the UK has which is caused by the lack of safe routes. | |||
"A system where someone can apply in their own or a neighbouring country is cheaper than the mess we have at present.. And it allows the government to return all who try to cross the channel etc back to their own country to apply properly.. getting rid of the previous system was a massive mistake by the tories .. There's never been a system where people can apply for asylum from other countries. No country in the world has such a system. I sit corrected, I thought we used to have one.." We used to have more safe routes, but the were stopped largely under the previous Tory regime. Processing centres abroad are the best workable solution. | |||
"I sit corrected, I thought we used to have one.." On this site you'd be more likely to be bent over if you wanted to be corrected. | |||
"... the problem is the the U.K. don’t allow safe routes from anywhere except a few specific cases Why is that a problem for the UK? Because this creates the situation where virtually anyone wishing to claim asylum in the U.K. has to resort to illegal entry . They don't *have* to resort to illegal entry, they *choose* to resort to illegal entry. But these people have decided to come here, and will use any means available to them. Again, why is it a problem for the UK that there is no safe route for their arrival? Well I said ‘anyone wishing to…’ so my statement was correct, was it not? You also said that they *have* to resort to illegal entry, so your statement was not correct. You still haven't answered the question of what problem the UK has which is caused by the lack of safe routes." Well we have to abide by the refugee convention, so we can’t turn asylum seekers away, but we don’t provide safe passage (except for a few cases) allowing the boat gangs to thrive. | |||
"A system where someone can apply in their own or a neighbouring country is cheaper than the mess we have at present.. And it allows the government to return all who try to cross the channel etc back to their own country to apply properly.. getting rid of the previous system was a massive mistake by the tories .. There's never been a system where people can apply for asylum from other countries. No country in the world has such a system. I sit corrected, I thought we used to have one.. We used to have more safe routes, but the were stopped largely under the previous Tory regime. Processing centres abroad are the best workable solution." Therein lay my confusion.. | |||
"We used to have more safe routes, but the were stopped largely under the previous Tory regime." I've already said that we've never had safe routes for asylum. Even though I wasn't talking to you, you replied to say that I was correct. | |||
"I sit corrected, I thought we used to have one.. On this site you'd be more likely to be bent over if you wanted to be corrected." Possibly but there are more subtle and effective ways with such things..  | |||
"Two 'asylum seekers' jailed yesterday for running a county lines drug network from tax payers funded 4 star hotel. They had a long string of previous convictions: Mohammed Dawood, 26 = multiple convictions for theft & drugs in Merseyside before sent to stay in Bournemouth. Alsayid Abdul-Khalik, 24 = class A drug conviction - and involved in a mass brawl where six people were stabbed outside Bournemouth College in Jan 2024. And one assumes they’ll now be returned . That would be the correct decision, no?
Perhaps you or the OP could put them up while that's being processed?
No, we have processing centres for that.
I’ve long argued that processing should be carried out abroad and only the successful be granted passage to the UK by safe routes, bit the great minds of the fabs forum seem to think that’s crazy "Tell me what is the point of processing abroad? It will costs millions to setup and haw does it alter the situation of people turning up in small boats? | |||
"We used to have more safe routes, but the were stopped largely under the previous Tory regime. I've already said that we've never had safe routes for asylum. Even though I wasn't talking to you, you replied to say that I was correct." We have safe routes now. We used to have more. | |||
"You still haven't answered the question of what problem the UK has which is caused by the lack of safe routes." "Well we have to abide by the refugee convention, so we can’t turn asylum seekers away, but we don’t provide safe passage (except for a few cases) allowing the boat gangs to thrive." You still aren't answering the question. Yes, the desire to get here and the lack of safe routes has led to boat gangs thriving. How is that a problem for the UK? | |||
"Two 'asylum seekers' jailed yesterday for running a county lines drug network from tax payers funded 4 star hotel. They had a long string of previous convictions: Mohammed Dawood, 26 = multiple convictions for theft & drugs in Merseyside before sent to stay in Bournemouth. Alsayid Abdul-Khalik, 24 = class A drug conviction - and involved in a mass brawl where six people were stabbed outside Bournemouth College in Jan 2024. And one assumes they’ll now be returned . That would be the correct decision, no?
Perhaps you or the OP could put them up while that's being processed?
No, we have processing centres for that.
I’ve long argued that processing should be carried out abroad and only the successful be granted passage to the UK by safe routes, bit the great minds of the fabs forum seem to think that’s crazy
Tell me what is the point of processing abroad? It will costs millions to setup and haw does it alter the situation of people turning up in small boats? "It will slash small boat numbers. If you’re an asylum seeker, why are you paying a boat gang for a dangerous and illegal crossing, to an island where you will the be processed, when you could be processed and then gain a safe and legal crossing without fear of death? | |||
| |||
"You still haven't answered the question of what problem the UK has which is caused by the lack of safe routes. Well we have to abide by the refugee convention, so we can’t turn asylum seekers away, but we don’t provide safe passage (except for a few cases) allowing the boat gangs to thrive. You still aren't answering the question. Yes, the desire to get here and the lack of safe routes has led to boat gangs thriving. How is that a problem for the UK?" You don’t think this boat gangs thriving is a problem for the UK? | |||
"We used to have more safe routes, but the were stopped largely under the previous Tory regime. I've already said that we've never had safe routes for asylum. Even though I wasn't talking to you, you replied to say that I was correct. We have safe routes now. We used to have more. Earlier on I said that there were no safe routes to apply for asylum and never had been, and you replied with the word "correct". Now you're saying that there are safe routes and they used to be more. Let's solve this by you just giving us an example of a safe route to apply for asylum, either past or present. Just the name of the scheme will do, we can look up the details from that." You can have gov.uk link if you like
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes#:~:text=©%20Crown%20copyright%202023,bespoke%20route%20for%20every%20situation. | |||
"We used to have more safe routes, but the were stopped largely under the previous Tory regime." "I've already said that we've never had safe routes for asylum. Even though I wasn't talking to you, you replied to say that I was correct." "We have safe routes now. We used to have more." Earlier on I said that there were no safe routes to apply for asylum and never had been, and you replied with the word "correct". Now you're saying that there are safe routes and there used to be more. Let's solve this by you just giving us an example of a safe route to apply for asylum, either past or present. Just the name of the scheme will do, we can look up the details from that. | |||
"We used to have more safe routes, but the were stopped largely under the previous Tory regime. I've already said that we've never had safe routes for asylum. Even though I wasn't talking to you, you replied to say that I was correct. We have safe routes now. We used to have more. Earlier on I said that there were no safe routes to apply for asylum and never had been, and you replied with the word "correct". Now you're saying that there are safe routes and there used to be more. Let's solve this by you just giving us an example of a safe route to apply for asylum, either past or present. Just the name of the scheme will do, we can look up the details from that." https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes#:~:text=©%20Crown%20copyright%202023,bespoke%20route%20for%20every%20situation. | |||
"Two 'asylum seekers' jailed yesterday for running a county lines drug network from tax payers funded 4 star hotel. They had a long string of previous convictions: Mohammed Dawood, 26 = multiple convictions for theft & drugs in Merseyside before sent to stay in Bournemouth. Alsayid Abdul-Khalik, 24 = class A drug conviction - and involved in a mass brawl where six people were stabbed outside Bournemouth College in Jan 2024. And one assumes they’ll now be returned . That would be the correct decision, no?
Perhaps you or the OP could put them up while that's being processed?
No, we have processing centres for that.
I’ve long argued that processing should be carried out abroad and only the successful be granted passage to the UK by safe routes, bit the great minds of the fabs forum seem to think that’s crazy
Tell me what is the point of processing abroad? It will costs millions to setup and haw does it alter the situation of people turning up in small boats?
It will slash small boat numbers.
If you’re an asylum seeker, why are you paying a boat gang for a dangerous and illegal crossing, to an island where you will the be processed, when you could be processed and then gain a safe and legal crossing without fear of death? "What % do you believe would be genuine enough to pass a check outside the country? If we say the following would be needed, ID, proof of origin, a credible reason for asylum, basic background and security screening? Approx 80% on average arrive here without any form of ID purposefully, meaning realistically, a huge % of those currently paying smugglers either wouldn’t qualify or wouldn’t attempt to process offshore when their odds of being accepted are many times greater arriving in a small boat. | |||
"Two 'asylum seekers' jailed yesterday for running a county lines drug network from tax payers funded 4 star hotel. They had a long string of previous convictions: Mohammed Dawood, 26 = multiple convictions for theft & drugs in Merseyside before sent to stay in Bournemouth. Alsayid Abdul-Khalik, 24 = class A drug conviction - and involved in a mass brawl where six people were stabbed outside Bournemouth College in Jan 2024. And one assumes they’ll now be returned . That would be the correct decision, no?
Perhaps you or the OP could put them up while that's being processed?
No, we have processing centres for that.
I’ve long argued that processing should be carried out abroad and only the successful be granted passage to the UK by safe routes, bit the great minds of the fabs forum seem to think that’s crazy
Tell me what is the point of processing abroad? It will costs millions to setup and haw does it alter the situation of people turning up in small boats? "The cost of putting staff in embassies etc will be less than the cost of housing people here waiting for their appeals etc, plus theirs the social impact of communities feeling under threat (often fuelled by the far right).. Yes there will still be a backlog once the new system starts but if there was a set date stating if you try to bypass the new system we will return you plus you will no longer have the right to apply under the new system.. Costs of planes etc but within a cpl of years the numbers will decline.. Too draconian perhaps but the cost of the current system regardless of the current trend we are told is not just in monetary terms.. The system is broken, we hear that all the time.. | |||
"You still haven't answered the question of what problem the UK has which is caused by the lack of safe routes." "Well we have to abide by the refugee convention, so we can’t turn asylum seekers away, but we don’t provide safe passage (except for a few cases) allowing the boat gangs to thrive." "You still aren't answering the question. Yes, the desire to get here and the lack of safe routes has led to boat gangs thriving. How is that a problem for the UK?" "You don’t think this boat gangs thriving is a problem for the UK? " It doesn't matter what I think, we're trying to understand your thinking. The boat gangs are based mostly in France and are exploiting non-British people. How are they a problem to the UK? | |||
" Approx 80% on average arrive here without any form of ID purposefully, meaning realistically, a huge % of those currently paying smugglers either wouldn’t qualify or wouldn’t attempt to process offshore when their odds of being accepted are many times greater arriving in a small boat. " Their odds of being accepted wouldn’t be greater though - because the asylum ‘scores’ would be consistent, of course - no matter where you’re applying for asylum. | |||
"Two 'asylum seekers' jailed yesterday for running a county lines drug network from tax payers funded 4 star hotel. They had a long string of previous convictions: Mohammed Dawood, 26 = multiple convictions for theft & drugs in Merseyside before sent to stay in Bournemouth. Alsayid Abdul-Khalik, 24 = class A drug conviction - and involved in a mass brawl where six people were stabbed outside Bournemouth College in Jan 2024. And one assumes they’ll now be returned . That would be the correct decision, no?
Perhaps you or the OP could put them up while that's being processed?
No, we have processing centres for that.
I’ve long argued that processing should be carried out abroad and only the successful be granted passage to the UK by safe routes, bit the great minds of the fabs forum seem to think that’s crazy
Tell me what is the point of processing abroad? It will costs millions to setup and haw does it alter the situation of people turning up in small boats?
The cost of putting staff in embassies etc will be less than the cost of housing people here waiting for their appeals etc, plus theirs the social impact of communities feeling under threat (often fuelled by the far right)..
Yes there will still be a backlog once the new system starts but if there was a set date stating if you try to bypass the new system we will return you plus you will no longer have the right to apply under the new system..
Costs of planes etc but within a cpl of years the numbers will decline..
Too draconian perhaps but the cost of the current system regardless of the current trend we are told is not just in monetary terms..
The system is broken, we hear that all the time.."I did reply above, but will add to this too. If they are stopped from entering via small boat because they failed to pass offshore screening, those attempting to play the system will be better off simply arriving here by small boat, their chances of staying are significantly improved. Out of interest how would we refuse and return someone who failed offshore processing if they arrive again by small boat? They are still seeking asylum, and if we don't have a returns agreement, then what? | |||
"You still haven't answered the question of what problem the UK has which is caused by the lack of safe routes. Well we have to abide by the refugee convention, so we can’t turn asylum seekers away, but we don’t provide safe passage (except for a few cases) allowing the boat gangs to thrive. You still aren't answering the question. Yes, the desire to get here and the lack of safe routes has led to boat gangs thriving. How is that a problem for the UK? You don’t think this boat gangs thriving is a problem for the UK? It doesn't matter what I think, we're trying to understand your thinking. The boat gangs are based mostly in France and are exploiting non-British people. How are they a problem to the UK?" Ah I see, ‘it doesn’t matter what I think’ because you know full well the boat gangs are a problem for the UK. They take up coastguard time and money, they allow for the possibility of people passing without asylum processing, they increase the risk of of dead bodies washing up on our shores, and they increase the feeling of discomfort upon arrival as all occupants are assumed as being a threat by locals - regardless of whether they are or not. | |||
"Two 'asylum seekers' jailed yesterday for running a county lines drug network from tax payers funded 4 star hotel. They had a long string of previous convictions: Mohammed Dawood, 26 = multiple convictions for theft & drugs in Merseyside before sent to stay in Bournemouth. Alsayid Abdul-Khalik, 24 = class A drug conviction - and involved in a mass brawl where six people were stabbed outside Bournemouth College in Jan 2024. And one assumes they’ll now be returned . That would be the correct decision, no?
Perhaps you or the OP could put them up while that's being processed?
No, we have processing centres for that.
I’ve long argued that processing should be carried out abroad and only the successful be granted passage to the UK by safe routes, bit the great minds of the fabs forum seem to think that’s crazy
Tell me what is the point of processing abroad? It will costs millions to setup and haw does it alter the situation of people turning up in small boats?
The cost of putting staff in embassies etc will be less than the cost of housing people here waiting for their appeals etc, plus theirs the social impact of communities feeling under threat (often fuelled by the far right)..
Yes there will still be a backlog once the new system starts but if there was a set date stating if you try to bypass the new system we will return you plus you will no longer have the right to apply under the new system..
Costs of planes etc but within a cpl of years the numbers will decline..
Too draconian perhaps but the cost of the current system regardless of the current trend we are told is not just in monetary terms..
The system is broken, we hear that all the time..
I did reply above, but will add to this too.
If they are stopped from entering via small boat because they failed to pass offshore screening, those attempting to play the system will be better off simply arriving here by small boat, their chances of staying are significantly improved.
Out of interest how would we refuse and return someone who failed offshore processing if they arrive again by small boat? They are still seeking asylum, and if we don't have a returns agreement, then what? "Yore very fond of creating argumentative obstacles, but fail to present a fairer system that would improve what we have in place (which I think we all agree is substandard and dangerous for asylum seekers, and open to abuse from traffickers) | |||
"You can have gov.uk link if you like https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes#:~:text=©%20Crown%20copyright%202023,bespoke%20route%20for%20every%20situation." You cleverly managed to answer my post before I made it (I spotted a spelling error and deleted the original). That's a list of special immigration schemes set up to allow applications from people that we had a responsibility for. None of those people were claiming asylum, and many of them were expected to return home after a short while (e.g the Ukraine scheme). Yes we occasionally set up schemes for people that have helped the UK (like the Afghan scheme), or people where we caused the issue (like the Hong Kong scheme), but that's not asylum. There has never been a method by which people can claim asylum from outside the UK, which means that there have never been safe routes for asylum seekers to come to the UK. | |||
"You can have gov.uk link if you like https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes#:~:text=©%20Crown%20copyright%202023,bespoke%20route%20for%20every%20situation. You cleverly managed to answer my post before I made it (I spotted a spelling error and deleted the original). That's a list of special immigration schemes set up to allow applications from people that we had a responsibility for. None of those people were claiming asylum, and many of them were expected to return home after a short while (e.g the Ukraine scheme). " Ukrainians living here were literally refugees - which is the status as asylum seeker gains when their process is complete and accepted. It is under the gov.uk website heading of ‘safe and legal routes’ yet you claim those are not safe routes. I can’t help you any more with this, dude. You’re denying reality. | |||
"Ah I see, ‘it doesn’t matter what I think’ because you know full well the boat gangs are a problem for the UK." It doesn't matter what I think about boat gangs because this conversation is about you claiming that safe routes for asylum would benefit the UK. I'm trying to get to why you think that's the case. "They take up coastguard time and money ..." That's true, but the Coastguard is quietly pleased about that. Successive governments over the years have slashed the Coastguard's funding, and the small boat crisis has slowed that trend. The amount of money taken up by the Coastguard is fairly obviously less than would be needed to provide safe routes. Besides which the vast majority of boat people are 'rescued' by the RNLI, which is of course a charity. "... they allow for the possibility of people passing without asylum processing ..." That's true. But safe routes aren't going to stop bad actors from arriving. They'll still arrive whether they're rejected from the safe route or not. Nice to see you acknowledging that some of the people that arrive here have no basis for asylum. "... they increase the risk of of dead bodies washing up on our shores ..." That's true as well, but from a heartless government point of view there are a very small number of bodies washed up, and the cost of dealing with them is trivial. "... and they increase the feeling of discomfort upon arrival as all occupants are assumed as being a threat by locals - regardless of whether they are or not." True again, but that affects the people arriving, not the UK. From the issues you've listed, you aren't making a compelling argument that safe routes for asylum would be beneficial to the UK. I can see that there would be benefits to the asylum seekers, but that's not the claim you made earlier. | |||
"You can have gov.uk link if you like https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes#:~:text=©%20Crown%20copyright%202023,bespoke%20route%20for%20every%20situation." "That's a list of special immigration schemes set up to allow applications from people that we had a responsibility for. None of those people were claiming asylum, and many of them were expected to return home after a short while (e.g the Ukraine scheme)." "Ukrainians living here were literally refugees ..." They literally aren't. The 1951 Convention defines a refugee as someone "fleeing a justifiable risk of persecution". Yes, That's not the common language use of the word, but we're talking about asylum here, so what's in the Convention matters. Yes, those Ukrainians were taking refuge from the war in their country, but they don't count as 1951 Convention refugees, and therefore would never have qualified for asylum. That's why a special scheme was set up to provide a legal basis to help them. "It is under the gov.uk website heading of ‘safe and legal routes’ yet you claim those are not safe routes." That's because the government document that you linked was discussing safe and legal routes for immigration. It wasn't talking about asylum. "Asylum" and "immigration" are not the same thing. | |||
"Two 'asylum seekers' jailed yesterday for running a county lines drug network from tax payers funded 4 star hotel. They had a long string of previous convictions: Mohammed Dawood, 26 = multiple convictions for theft & drugs in Merseyside before sent to stay in Bournemouth. Alsayid Abdul-Khalik, 24 = class A drug conviction - and involved in a mass brawl where six people were stabbed outside Bournemouth College in Jan 2024. And one assumes they’ll now be returned . That would be the correct decision, no?
Perhaps you or the OP could put them up while that's being processed?
No, we have processing centres for that.
I’ve long argued that processing should be carried out abroad and only the successful be granted passage to the UK by safe routes, bit the great minds of the fabs forum seem to think that’s crazy
Tell me what is the point of processing abroad? It will costs millions to setup and haw does it alter the situation of people turning up in small boats?
The cost of putting staff in embassies etc will be less than the cost of housing people here waiting for their appeals etc, plus theirs the social impact of communities feeling under threat (often fuelled by the far right)..
Yes there will still be a backlog once the new system starts but if there was a set date stating if you try to bypass the new system we will return you plus you will no longer have the right to apply under the new system..
Costs of planes etc but within a cpl of years the numbers will decline..
Too draconian perhaps but the cost of the current system regardless of the current trend we are told is not just in monetary terms..
The system is broken, we hear that all the time..
I did reply above, but will add to this too.
If they are stopped from entering via small boat because they failed to pass offshore screening, those attempting to play the system will be better off simply arriving here by small boat, their chances of staying are significantly improved.
Out of interest how would we refuse and return someone who failed offshore processing if they arrive again by small boat? They are still seeking asylum, and if we don't have a returns agreement, then what?
Yore very fond of creating argumentative obstacles, but fail to present a fairer system that would improve what we have in place (which I think we all agree is substandard and dangerous for asylum seekers, and open to abuse from traffickers)
"I have been clear the issues are based on outdated conventions that are being exploited. I think you know this and are trying to navigate around it as though they are not a problem, when in fact they are the obstacle that prevents any idea or change to the way we deal with asylum from succeeding. | |||
"Two 'asylum seekers' jailed yesterday for running a county lines drug network from tax payers funded 4 star hotel. They had a long string of previous convictions: Mohammed Dawood, 26 = multiple convictions for theft & drugs in Merseyside before sent to stay in Bournemouth. Alsayid Abdul-Khalik, 24 = class A drug conviction - and involved in a mass brawl where six people were stabbed outside Bournemouth College in Jan 2024. And one assumes they’ll now be returned . That would be the correct decision, no?
Perhaps you or the OP could put them up while that's being processed?
No, we have processing centres for that.
I’ve long argued that processing should be carried out abroad and only the successful be granted passage to the UK by safe routes, bit the great minds of the fabs forum seem to think that’s crazy
Tell me what is the point of processing abroad? It will costs millions to setup and haw does it alter the situation of people turning up in small boats?
The cost of putting staff in embassies etc will be less than the cost of housing people here waiting for their appeals etc, plus theirs the social impact of communities feeling under threat (often fuelled by the far right)..
Yes there will still be a backlog once the new system starts but if there was a set date stating if you try to bypass the new system we will return you plus you will no longer have the right to apply under the new system..
Costs of planes etc but within a cpl of years the numbers will decline..
Too draconian perhaps but the cost of the current system regardless of the current trend we are told is not just in monetary terms..
The system is broken, we hear that all the time..
I did reply above, but will add to this too.
If they are stopped from entering via small boat because they failed to pass offshore screening, those attempting to play the system will be better off simply arriving here by small boat, their chances of staying are significantly improved.
Out of interest how would we refuse and return someone who failed offshore processing if they arrive again by small boat? They are still seeking asylum, and if we don't have a returns agreement, then what? "I'm not saying there aren't hurdles but such things can be negotiated, we didnt have an option such as Rwanda which whilst deemed to be unlawful was a new idea and achieved by negotiating.. If we act within the international agreements, some which are being reviewed then things are possible.. The status quo as you've often said isn't for for purpose.. | |||
"Two 'asylum seekers' jailed yesterday for running a county lines drug network from tax payers funded 4 star hotel. They had a long string of previous convictions: Mohammed Dawood, 26 = multiple convictions for theft & drugs in Merseyside before sent to stay in Bournemouth. Alsayid Abdul-Khalik, 24 = class A drug conviction - and involved in a mass brawl where six people were stabbed outside Bournemouth College in Jan 2024. And one assumes they’ll now be returned . That would be the correct decision, no?
Perhaps you or the OP could put them up while that's being processed?
No, we have processing centres for that.
I’ve long argued that processing should be carried out abroad and only the successful be granted passage to the UK by safe routes, bit the great minds of the fabs forum seem to think that’s crazy
Tell me what is the point of processing abroad? It will costs millions to setup and haw does it alter the situation of people turning up in small boats?
The cost of putting staff in embassies etc will be less than the cost of housing people here waiting for their appeals etc, plus theirs the social impact of communities feeling under threat (often fuelled by the far right)..
Yes there will still be a backlog once the new system starts but if there was a set date stating if you try to bypass the new system we will return you plus you will no longer have the right to apply under the new system..
Costs of planes etc but within a cpl of years the numbers will decline..
Too draconian perhaps but the cost of the current system regardless of the current trend we are told is not just in monetary terms..
The system is broken, we hear that all the time..
I did reply above, but will add to this too.
If they are stopped from entering via small boat because they failed to pass offshore screening, those attempting to play the system will be better off simply arriving here by small boat, their chances of staying are significantly improved.
Out of interest how would we refuse and return someone who failed offshore processing if they arrive again by small boat? They are still seeking asylum, and if we don't have a returns agreement, then what?
I'm not saying there aren't hurdles but such things can be negotiated, we didnt have an option such as Rwanda which whilst deemed to be unlawful was a new idea and achieved by negotiating..
If we act within the international agreements, some which are being reviewed then things are possible..
The status quo as you've often said isn't for for purpose.."And that really is the issue, the 1951 refugee convention that we act within is no longer fit for purpose and is being exploited. If we do nothing about this, it will not be long before a party who promises to take us out of the convention will take power. My personal opinion is that over the years we have had so many radical ideas to smash the gangs, stop the boats and not 1 thing has stuck or worked and in the meantime the problem continues to become bigger. We are at a turning point, a slow one but it is here, do nothing and let far right politics take over, or main stream centre parties take hold of the core issue and get a resolution. The latter will prevent the worse case scenario. | |||
| |||
| |||
"We've ended up with lunatics running the asylum system!" 👏👏 | |||
| |||
"Protesters descended on the former home of a Coronation Street legend after false rumours spread that the site was to be used to house immigrants. The protest came after some building work began at Primrose Hill Farm without planning permission. Rochdale Council confirmed no plans had been submitted to house immigrants. "We have to stop this disinformation," said Councillor Paul O'Neil." Perhaps a facility needs to be built in your neighbourhood to home them. The irony is, you probably post and share slogans and symbols all the time yourself. | |||
"Protesters descended on the former home of a Coronation Street legend after false rumours spread that the site was to be used to house immigrants. The protest came after some building work began at Primrose Hill Farm without planning permission. Rochdale Council confirmed no plans had been submitted to house immigrants. "We have to stop this disinformation," said Councillor Paul O'Neil. Perhaps a facility needs to be built in your neighbourhood to home them. The irony is, you probably post and share slogans and symbols all the time yourself. " Already have one. The irony is that these people aren't the murderous rapists that you want them to be. Sorry. | |||
"Protesters descended on the former home of a Coronation Street legend after false rumours spread that the site was to be used to house immigrants. The protest came after some building work began at Primrose Hill Farm without planning permission. Rochdale Council confirmed no plans had been submitted to house immigrants. "We have to stop this disinformation," said Councillor Paul O'Neil. Perhaps a facility needs to be built in your neighbourhood to home them. The irony is, you probably post and share slogans and symbols all the time yourself. Already have one. The irony is that these people aren't the murderous rapists that you want them to be. Sorry." That's fair. A lot of them are only dealers or nonces. | |||
| |||
"I'm guessing you're well acquainted with dealers and nonces, which makes you the expert here." Haha 🤣 | |||
"Protesters descended on the former home of a Coronation Street legend after false rumours spread that the site was to be used to house immigrants. The protest came after some building work began at Primrose Hill Farm without planning permission. Rochdale Council confirmed no plans had been submitted to house immigrants. "We have to stop this disinformation," said Councillor Paul O'Neil. Perhaps a facility needs to be built in your neighbourhood to home them. The irony is, you probably post and share slogans and symbols all the time yourself. Already have one. The irony is that these people aren't the murderous rapists that you want them to be. Sorry." Of course they’re not, they’re also not Dr, nurses and engineers that the mainstream sold them as being | |||
"Two 'asylum seekers' jailed yesterday for running a county lines drug network from tax payers funded 4 star hotel. They had a long string of previous convictions: Mohammed Dawood, 26 = multiple convictions for theft & drugs in Merseyside before sent to stay in Bournemouth. Alsayid Abdul-Khalik, 24 = class A drug conviction - and involved in a mass brawl where six people were stabbed outside Bournemouth College in Jan 2024. And one assumes they’ll now be returned . That would be the correct decision, no?
Perhaps you or the OP could put them up while that's being processed?
No, we have processing centres for that.
I’ve long argued that processing should be carried out abroad and only the successful be granted passage to the UK by safe routes, bit the great minds of the fabs forum seem to think that’s crazy
Tell me what is the point of processing abroad? It will costs millions to setup and haw does it alter the situation of people turning up in small boats?
The cost of putting staff in embassies etc will be less than the cost of housing people here waiting for their appeals etc, plus theirs the social impact of communities feeling under threat (often fuelled by the far right)..
Yes there will still be a backlog once the new system starts but if there was a set date stating if you try to bypass the new system we will return you plus you will no longer have the right to apply under the new system..
Costs of planes etc but within a cpl of years the numbers will decline..
Too draconian perhaps but the cost of the current system regardless of the current trend we are told is not just in monetary terms..
The system is broken, we hear that all the time..
I did reply above, but will add to this too.
If they are stopped from entering via small boat because they failed to pass offshore screening, those attempting to play the system will be better off simply arriving here by small boat, their chances of staying are significantly improved.
Out of interest how would we refuse and return someone who failed offshore processing if they arrive again by small boat? They are still seeking asylum, and if we don't have a returns agreement, then what?
I'm not saying there aren't hurdles but such things can be negotiated, we didnt have an option such as Rwanda which whilst deemed to be unlawful was a new idea and achieved by negotiating..
If we act within the international agreements, some which are being reviewed then things are possible..
The status quo as you've often said isn't for for purpose..
And that really is the issue, the 1951 refugee convention that we act within is no longer fit for purpose and is being exploited.
If we do nothing about this, it will not be long before a party who promises to take us out of the convention will take power.
My personal opinion is that over the years we have had so many radical ideas to smash the gangs, stop the boats and not 1 thing has stuck or worked and in the meantime the problem continues to become bigger.
We are at a turning point, a slow one but it is here, do nothing and let far right politics take over, or main stream centre parties take hold of the core issue and get a resolution. The latter will prevent the worse case scenario.
"And please tell how leaving the convention will affect me, my family and friends exactly | |||
"You still haven't answered the question of what problem the UK has which is caused by the lack of safe routes. Well we have to abide by the refugee convention, so we can’t turn asylum seekers away, but we don’t provide safe passage (except for a few cases) allowing the boat gangs to thrive. You still aren't answering the question. Yes, the desire to get here and the lack of safe routes has led to boat gangs thriving. How is that a problem for the UK? You don’t think this boat gangs thriving is a problem for the UK? It doesn't matter what I think, we're trying to understand your thinking. The boat gangs are based mostly in France and are exploiting non-British people. How are they a problem to the UK?" Wasn’t Mr 2 Tier going to SMASH!!.. the gangs and signed agreement with China on rubber dinghy’s and outboards so I’m guessing he’s failed on both | |||
"You still haven't answered the question of what problem the UK has which is caused by the lack of safe routes. Well we have to abide by the refugee convention, so we can’t turn asylum seekers away, but we don’t provide safe passage (except for a few cases) allowing the boat gangs to thrive. You still aren't answering the question. Yes, the desire to get here and the lack of safe routes has led to boat gangs thriving. How is that a problem for the UK? You don’t think this boat gangs thriving is a problem for the UK? It doesn't matter what I think, we're trying to understand your thinking. The boat gangs are based mostly in France and are exploiting non-British people. How are they a problem to the UK?" Wasn’t Mr 2 Tier going to SMASH!!.. the gangs and signed agreement with China on rubber dinghy’s and outboards so I’m guessing he’s failed on both | |||
"Two 'asylum seekers' jailed yesterday for running a county lines drug network from tax payers funded 4 star hotel. They had a long string of previous convictions: Mohammed Dawood, 26 = multiple convictions for theft & drugs in Merseyside before sent to stay in Bournemouth. Alsayid Abdul-Khalik, 24 = class A drug conviction - and involved in a mass brawl where six people were stabbed outside Bournemouth College in Jan 2024. And one assumes they’ll now be returned . That would be the correct decision, no?
Perhaps you or the OP could put them up while that's being processed?
No, we have processing centres for that.
I’ve long argued that processing should be carried out abroad and only the successful be granted passage to the UK by safe routes, bit the great minds of the fabs forum seem to think that’s crazy
Tell me what is the point of processing abroad? It will costs millions to setup and haw does it alter the situation of people turning up in small boats?
The cost of putting staff in embassies etc will be less than the cost of housing people here waiting for their appeals etc, plus theirs the social impact of communities feeling under threat (often fuelled by the far right)..
Yes there will still be a backlog once the new system starts but if there was a set date stating if you try to bypass the new system we will return you plus you will no longer have the right to apply under the new system..
Costs of planes etc but within a cpl of years the numbers will decline..
Too draconian perhaps but the cost of the current system regardless of the current trend we are told is not just in monetary terms..
The system is broken, we hear that all the time..
I did reply above, but will add to this too.
If they are stopped from entering via small boat because they failed to pass offshore screening, those attempting to play the system will be better off simply arriving here by small boat, their chances of staying are significantly improved.
Out of interest how would we refuse and return someone who failed offshore processing if they arrive again by small boat? They are still seeking asylum, and if we don't have a returns agreement, then what?
I'm not saying there aren't hurdles but such things can be negotiated, we didnt have an option such as Rwanda which whilst deemed to be unlawful was a new idea and achieved by negotiating..
If we act within the international agreements, some which are being reviewed then things are possible..
The status quo as you've often said isn't for for purpose..
And that really is the issue, the 1951 refugee convention that we act within is no longer fit for purpose and is being exploited.
If we do nothing about this, it will not be long before a party who promises to take us out of the convention will take power.
My personal opinion is that over the years we have had so many radical ideas to smash the gangs, stop the boats and not 1 thing has stuck or worked and in the meantime the problem continues to become bigger.
We are at a turning point, a slow one but it is here, do nothing and let far right politics take over, or main stream centre parties take hold of the core issue and get a resolution. The latter will prevent the worse case scenario.
And please tell how leaving the convention will affect me, my family and friends exactly "The refugee convention? Well leaving it will make Britain a pariah state, it will impact trade as nations distance themselves from us (and some agreements will have ‘ethical’ clauses which will terminate if we leave certain arrangements such as ECHR, ECJ, Refugee convention etc). Which will negatively affect the economy, and your pocket. | |||
"And please tell how leaving the convention will affect me, my family and friends exactly" "The refugee convention? Well leaving it will make Britain a pariah state, it will impact trade as nations distance themselves from us ..." Or, possibly, other nations will see the changes that get made and will join us in leaving. If it's enough countries, that will provide the impetus for them all to sit down and come up with a new convention, one that better fits the modern world. "... and some agreements will have ‘ethical’ clauses which will terminate if we leave certain arrangements such as ECHR, ECJ, Refugee convention etc" Would you like to name some? I'll help you out with the Good Friday Agreement. That one's easy as the only force that the ECHR has in the UK is by its inclusion in UK law. A new government could re-write those laws to say that ECHR rulings still apply to Northern Ireland, but not the rest of the UK. Problem solved. Tell us which other agreements have awkward clauses. | |||
"And please tell how leaving the convention will affect me, my family and friends exactly The refugee convention? Well leaving it will make Britain a pariah state, it will impact trade as nations distance themselves from us ... Or, possibly, other nations will see the changes that get made and will join us in leaving. If it's enough countries, that will provide the impetus for them all to sit down and come up with a new convention, one that better fits the modern world. ... and some agreements will have ‘ethical’ clauses which will terminate if we leave certain arrangements such as ECHR, ECJ, Refugee convention etc Would you like to name some? I'll help you out with the Good Friday Agreement. That one's easy as the only force that the ECHR has in the UK is by its inclusion in UK law. A new government could re-write those laws to say that ECHR rulings still apply to Northern Ireland, but not the rest of the UK. Problem solved. Tell us which other agreements have awkward clauses." The UK/EU TCA for one. And no, nations aren’t going to join us in leaving the refugee convention, like they don’t join us in leaving the EU. Why? Because it’s a very obviously stupid idea. | |||
"... and some agreements will have ‘ethical’ clauses which will terminate if we leave certain arrangements such as ECHR, ECJ, Refugee convention etc" "Would you like to name some? I'll help you out with the Good Friday Agreement. That one's easy as the only force that the ECHR has in the UK is by its inclusion in UK law. A new government could re-write those laws to say that ECHR rulings still apply to Northern Ireland, but not the rest of the UK. Problem solved. Tell us which other agreements have awkward clauses." "The UK/EU TCA for one." Funny you should mention that one. I happen to have a copy of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement right here, and it doesn't mention the ECHR even once. Nor does it mention the 1951 Convention. It does say a lot about courts, dedicating an entire section to them (article 372) where it explicitly says that the courts of each country are to be considered the arbiters. "And no, nations aren’t going to join us in leaving the refugee convention, like they don’t join us in leaving the EU. Why? Because it’s a very obviously stupid idea." There's an awful lot of right wing parties gaining an awful lot of traction in very many EU countries. They all seem to think it's a good idea to leave the ECHR. Are you really that sure that none of them would join the UK if we left first? | |||
"And please tell how leaving the convention will affect me, my family and friends exactly The refugee convention? Well leaving it will make Britain a pariah state, it will impact trade as nations distance themselves from us ... Or, possibly, other nations will see the changes that get made and will join us in leaving. If it's enough countries, that will provide the impetus for them all to sit down and come up with a new convention, one that better fits the modern world. ... and some agreements will have ‘ethical’ clauses which will terminate if we leave certain arrangements such as ECHR, ECJ, Refugee convention etc Would you like to name some? I'll help you out with the Good Friday Agreement. That one's easy as the only force that the ECHR has in the UK is by its inclusion in UK law. A new government could re-write those laws to say that ECHR rulings still apply to Northern Ireland, but not the rest of the UK. Problem solved. Tell us which other agreements have awkward clauses. The UK/EU TCA for one. And no, nations aren’t going to join us in leaving the refugee convention, like they don’t join us in leaving the EU. Why? Because it’s a very obviously stupid idea. " The one thing that keeps this going is you refer constantly to leaving, when everyone is saying rewriting. | |||
"And please tell how leaving the convention will affect me, my family and friends exactly The refugee convention? Well leaving it will make Britain a pariah state, it will impact trade as nations distance themselves from us ... Or, possibly, other nations will see the changes that get made and will join us in leaving. If it's enough countries, that will provide the impetus for them all to sit down and come up with a new convention, one that better fits the modern world. ... and some agreements will have ‘ethical’ clauses which will terminate if we leave certain arrangements such as ECHR, ECJ, Refugee convention etc Would you like to name some? I'll help you out with the Good Friday Agreement. That one's easy as the only force that the ECHR has in the UK is by its inclusion in UK law. A new government could re-write those laws to say that ECHR rulings still apply to Northern Ireland, but not the rest of the UK. Problem solved. Tell us which other agreements have awkward clauses. The UK/EU TCA for one. And no, nations aren’t going to join us in leaving the refugee convention, like they don’t join us in leaving the EU. Why? Because it’s a very obviously stupid idea. The one thing that keeps this going is you refer constantly to leaving, when everyone is saying rewriting. " We can’t unilaterally rewrite the refugee convention. Sorry to burst that particular bubble. | |||
" There's an awful lot of right wing parties gaining an awful lot of traction in very many EU countries. They all seem to think it's a good idea to leave the ECHR. Are you really that sure that none of them would join the UK if we left first?" Remember Frexit? Italexit? Nederlexit? Polexit? They were all going to happen too. Except we left, a support for the EU went up in all those countries. Yes, I am sure that if we were idiotic enough to leave the ECHR, they would not follow us. | |||
| |||
