FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Illegal immigration- getting worse
Illegal immigration- getting worse
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above." You appear to have gone full Oswald Mosley. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. You appear to have gone full Oswald Mosley. " Why? Are you in favour of uncontrolled migration? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. You appear to have gone full Oswald Mosley. Why? Are you in favour of uncontrolled migration? " This is a nonsensical question. There is no such thing as "uncontrolled migration". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. You appear to have gone full Oswald Mosley. Why? Are you in favour of uncontrolled migration? This is a nonsensical question. There is no such thing as "uncontrolled migration"." There was. That led to Brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The situation is totally out of control. But the default position of the political class, media, professional classes and civil service is inaction. They don't really see immigration as an issue at all, and even if they did they are incapable of doing anything about it. And even when we get a politician like Braverman who dares to stick their head above the parapet, and basically talk a bit tougher than usual while still doing nothing, the blob steps up to try to destroy her as quickly as possible and return things to the status quo. The UK likes to see itself as some major player on the world stage, influencing events at COP, Ukraine, the Middle East, funding everyone else through wasted foreign aid. But it can't even protect its own borders from some ragtag no marks in cheap dinghies. All Putin needs to do if he wants to invade is send some blokes over in a dinghy in leather jackets and a mobile phone, pretending to be Afghan school kids and it's game over. " Amazing that some people don't think the government are using the non-issue of immigration as a distraction tactic enough. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. You appear to have gone full Oswald Mosley. Why? Are you in favour of uncontrolled migration? This is a nonsensical question. There is no such thing as "uncontrolled migration". There was. That led to Brexit." Did you vote for brexit? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The situation is totally out of control. But the default position of the political class, media, professional classes and civil service is inaction. They don't really see immigration as an issue at all, and even if they did they are incapable of doing anything about it. And even when we get a politician like Braverman who dares to stick their head above the parapet, and basically talk a bit tougher than usual while still doing nothing, the blob steps up to try to destroy her as quickly as possible and return things to the status quo. The UK likes to see itself as some major player on the world stage, influencing events at COP, Ukraine, the Middle East, funding everyone else through wasted foreign aid. But it can't even protect its own borders from some ragtag no marks in cheap dinghies. All Putin needs to do if he wants to invade is send some blokes over in a dinghy in leather jackets and a mobile phone, pretending to be Afghan school kids and it's game over. Amazing that some people don't think the government are using the non-issue of immigration as a distraction tactic enough. " Over a million illegal immigrants in the country, estimates this is growing by 150k per year. Over 40,000 arrived illegally by boats from a safe country. Mainly young men being housed & fed in hotels until they get fed up & disappear. You think that’s a ‘non issue’ and just a ‘ distraction do you? It’s a growing crisis. Being British, most good people are fearful to discuss for being branded racist xenophobes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. You appear to have gone full Oswald Mosley. Why? Are you in favour of uncontrolled migration? This is a nonsensical question. There is no such thing as "uncontrolled migration". There was. That led to Brexit. Did you vote for brexit?" I’m a remainer. I have mentioned that many times on here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is hilarious disinformation again….so labour are responsible for Brexit and mass invasions of Eastern Europeans….that’s the funniest load of rubbish I’ve read in 12 years of Tory rule "Do your research. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The situation is totally out of control. But the default position of the political class, media, professional classes and civil service is inaction. They don't really see immigration as an issue at all, and even if they did they are incapable of doing anything about it. And even when we get a politician like Braverman who dares to stick their head above the parapet, and basically talk a bit tougher than usual while still doing nothing, the blob steps up to try to destroy her as quickly as possible and return things to the status quo. The UK likes to see itself as some major player on the world stage, influencing events at COP, Ukraine, the Middle East, funding everyone else through wasted foreign aid. But it can't even protect its own borders from some ragtag no marks in cheap dinghies. All Putin needs to do if he wants to invade is send some blokes over in a dinghy in leather jackets and a mobile phone, pretending to be Afghan school kids and it's game over. Amazing that some people don't think the government are using the non-issue of immigration as a distraction tactic enough. Over a million illegal immigrants in the country, estimates this is growing by 150k per year. Over 40,000 arrived illegally by boats from a safe country. Mainly young men being housed & fed in hotels until they get fed up & disappear. You think that’s a ‘non issue’ and just a ‘ distraction do you? It’s a growing crisis. Being British, most good people are fearful to discuss for being branded racist xenophobes." Buck, this Seb chap demonstrates that the government distraction tactics blaming immigrants and stoking fear is working perfectly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. You appear to have gone full Oswald Mosley. Why? Are you in favour of uncontrolled migration? This is a nonsensical question. There is no such thing as "uncontrolled migration". There was. That led to Brexit. Did you vote for brexit? I’m a remainer. I have mentioned that many times on here." You've also mentioned many times "I'm no anti-immigrant". So you can't blame us for suspecting you could be economical with the truth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The situation is totally out of control. But the default position of the political class, media, professional classes and civil service is inaction. They don't really see immigration as an issue at all, and even if they did they are incapable of doing anything about it. And even when we get a politician like Braverman who dares to stick their head above the parapet, and basically talk a bit tougher than usual while still doing nothing, the blob steps up to try to destroy her as quickly as possible and return things to the status quo. The UK likes to see itself as some major player on the world stage, influencing events at COP, Ukraine, the Middle East, funding everyone else through wasted foreign aid. But it can't even protect its own borders from some ragtag no marks in cheap dinghies. All Putin needs to do if he wants to invade is send some blokes over in a dinghy in leather jackets and a mobile phone, pretending to be Afghan school kids and it's game over. Amazing that some people don't think the government are using the non-issue of immigration as a distraction tactic enough. Over a million illegal immigrants in the country, estimates this is growing by 150k per year. Over 40,000 arrived illegally by boats from a safe country. Mainly young men being housed & fed in hotels until they get fed up & disappear. You think that’s a ‘non issue’ and just a ‘ distraction do you? It’s a growing crisis. Being British, most good people are fearful to discuss for being branded racist xenophobes. Buck, this Seb chap demonstrates that the government distraction tactics blaming immigrants and stoking fear is working perfectly. " Except nobody is blaming immigrants. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The situation is totally out of control. But the default position of the political class, media, professional classes and civil service is inaction. They don't really see immigration as an issue at all, and even if they did they are incapable of doing anything about it. And even when we get a politician like Braverman who dares to stick their head above the parapet, and basically talk a bit tougher than usual while still doing nothing, the blob steps up to try to destroy her as quickly as possible and return things to the status quo. The UK likes to see itself as some major player on the world stage, influencing events at COP, Ukraine, the Middle East, funding everyone else through wasted foreign aid. But it can't even protect its own borders from some ragtag no marks in cheap dinghies. All Putin needs to do if he wants to invade is send some blokes over in a dinghy in leather jackets and a mobile phone, pretending to be Afghan school kids and it's game over. Amazing that some people don't think the government are using the non-issue of immigration as a distraction tactic enough. Over a million illegal immigrants in the country, estimates this is growing by 150k per year. Over 40,000 arrived illegally by boats from a safe country. Mainly young men being housed & fed in hotels until they get fed up & disappear. You think that’s a ‘non issue’ and just a ‘ distraction do you? It’s a growing crisis. Being British, most good people are fearful to discuss for being branded racist xenophobes. Buck, this Seb chap demonstrates that the government distraction tactics blaming immigrants and stoking fear is working perfectly. Except nobody is blaming immigrants. " I politely refer you to this post here where you blame immigrants. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1377711#last | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The situation is totally out of control. But the default position of the political class, media, professional classes and civil service is inaction. They don't really see immigration as an issue at all, and even if they did they are incapable of doing anything about it. And even when we get a politician like Braverman who dares to stick their head above the parapet, and basically talk a bit tougher than usual while still doing nothing, the blob steps up to try to destroy her as quickly as possible and return things to the status quo. The UK likes to see itself as some major player on the world stage, influencing events at COP, Ukraine, the Middle East, funding everyone else through wasted foreign aid. But it can't even protect its own borders from some ragtag no marks in cheap dinghies. All Putin needs to do if he wants to invade is send some blokes over in a dinghy in leather jackets and a mobile phone, pretending to be Afghan school kids and it's game over. Amazing that some people don't think the government are using the non-issue of immigration as a distraction tactic enough. Over a million illegal immigrants in the country, estimates this is growing by 150k per year. Over 40,000 arrived illegally by boats from a safe country. Mainly young men being housed & fed in hotels until they get fed up & disappear. You think that’s a ‘non issue’ and just a ‘ distraction do you? It’s a growing crisis. Being British, most good people are fearful to discuss for being branded racist xenophobes. Buck, this Seb chap demonstrates that the government distraction tactics blaming immigrants and stoking fear is working perfectly. Except nobody is blaming immigrants. I politely refer you to this post here where you blame immigrants. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1377711#last" How do I find that on my phone? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is hilarious disinformation again….so labour are responsible for Brexit and mass invasions of Eastern Europeans….that’s the funniest load of rubbish I’ve read in 12 years of Tory rule
Do your research. "I do which is why I understand that this situation is the result of 12 years of Tory government not Labour | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above." Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The situation is totally out of control. But the default position of the political class, media, professional classes and civil service is inaction. They don't really see immigration as an issue at all, and even if they did they are incapable of doing anything about it. And even when we get a politician like Braverman who dares to stick their head above the parapet, and basically talk a bit tougher than usual while still doing nothing, the blob steps up to try to destroy her as quickly as possible and return things to the status quo. The UK likes to see itself as some major player on the world stage, influencing events at COP, Ukraine, the Middle East, funding everyone else through wasted foreign aid. But it can't even protect its own borders from some ragtag no marks in cheap dinghies. All Putin needs to do if he wants to invade is send some blokes over in a dinghy in leather jackets and a mobile phone, pretending to be Afghan school kids and it's game over. Amazing that some people don't think the government are using the non-issue of immigration as a distraction tactic enough. Over a million illegal immigrants in the country, estimates this is growing by 150k per year. Over 40,000 arrived illegally by boats from a safe country. Mainly young men being housed & fed in hotels until they get fed up & disappear. You think that’s a ‘non issue’ and just a ‘ distraction do you? It’s a growing crisis. Being British, most good people are fearful to discuss for being branded racist xenophobes. Buck, this Seb chap demonstrates that the government distraction tactics blaming immigrants and stoking fear is working perfectly. Except nobody is blaming immigrants. I politely refer you to this post here where you blame immigrants. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1377711#last How do I find that on my phone? " Scroll up, then up more, then a little more, until you reach your OP. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion!" Are you suggesting that the OP is just a big unsubstantiated rant against immigrants? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The situation is totally out of control. But the default position of the political class, media, professional classes and civil service is inaction. They don't really see immigration as an issue at all, and even if they did they are incapable of doing anything about it. And even when we get a politician like Braverman who dares to stick their head above the parapet, and basically talk a bit tougher than usual while still doing nothing, the blob steps up to try to destroy her as quickly as possible and return things to the status quo. The UK likes to see itself as some major player on the world stage, influencing events at COP, Ukraine, the Middle East, funding everyone else through wasted foreign aid. But it can't even protect its own borders from some ragtag no marks in cheap dinghies. All Putin needs to do if he wants to invade is send some blokes over in a dinghy in leather jackets and a mobile phone, pretending to be Afghan school kids and it's game over. Amazing that some people don't think the government are using the non-issue of immigration as a distraction tactic enough. Over a million illegal immigrants in the country, estimates this is growing by 150k per year. Over 40,000 arrived illegally by boats from a safe country. Mainly young men being housed & fed in hotels until they get fed up & disappear. You think that’s a ‘non issue’ and just a ‘ distraction do you? It’s a growing crisis. Being British, most good people are fearful to discuss for being branded racist xenophobes. Buck, this Seb chap demonstrates that the government distraction tactics blaming immigrants and stoking fear is working perfectly. Except nobody is blaming immigrants. I politely refer you to this post here where you blame immigrants. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1377711#last How do I find that on my phone? Scroll up, then up more, then a little more, until you reach your OP." Are you referring to this post or another? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion! Are you suggesting that the OP is just a big unsubstantiated rant against immigrants?" Poor Seb, I decided a wouldn’t engage with him on here until he gets help, since then we have had the news that a 66 year old radicalised pensioner called Andrew Leak attacked an asylum centre then killed himself. I hope history isn’t repeating itself  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion! Are you suggesting that the OP is just a big unsubstantiated rant against immigrants? Poor Seb, I decided a wouldn’t engage with him on here until he gets help, since then we have had the news that a 66 year old radicalised pensioner called Andrew Leak attacked an asylum centre then killed himself. I hope history isn’t repeating itself "Probably should just leave him to his immigrant based confusion and anger. Hopefully he works it out of his system and finds some peace. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion! Are you suggesting that the OP is just a big unsubstantiated rant against immigrants? Poor Seb, I decided a wouldn’t engage with him on here until he gets help, since then we have had the news that a 66 year old radicalised pensioner called Andrew Leak attacked an asylum centre then killed himself. I hope history isn’t repeating itself
Probably should just leave him to his immigrant based confusion and anger. Hopefully he works it out of his system and finds some peace. "I agree, if we ignore these rants he won’t keep posting them, he is either an attention seeker , troll, or worse, he has been radicalised like Andrew Leak | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion! Are you suggesting that the OP is just a big unsubstantiated rant against immigrants? Poor Seb, I decided a wouldn’t engage with him on here until he gets help, since then we have had the news that a 66 year old radicalised pensioner called Andrew Leak attacked an asylum centre then killed himself. I hope history isn’t repeating itself "Dear oh lord. Change the record and get your facts right. Also keep to your word. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion! Are you suggesting that the OP is just a big unsubstantiated rant against immigrants? Poor Seb, I decided a wouldn’t engage with him on here until he gets help, since then we have had the news that a 66 year old radicalised pensioner called Andrew Leak attacked an asylum centre then killed himself. I hope history isn’t repeating itself
Probably should just leave him to his immigrant based confusion and anger. Hopefully he works it out of his system and finds some peace. "Are you that thick or twisted that you can’t keep to the truth? Immigrants- good. Criminal activity- bad Agreed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion! Are you suggesting that the OP is just a big unsubstantiated rant against immigrants? Poor Seb, I decided a wouldn’t engage with him on here until he gets help, since then we have had the news that a 66 year old radicalised pensioner called Andrew Leak attacked an asylum centre then killed himself. I hope history isn’t repeating itself
Probably should just leave him to his immigrant based confusion and anger. Hopefully he works it out of his system and finds some peace.
I agree, if we ignore these rants he won’t keep posting them, he is either an attention seeker , troll, or worse, he has been radicalised like Andrew Leak "Yawn. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion!" Just commenting on current news stories. Do you agree with my distinct groups? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion! Are you suggesting that the OP is just a big unsubstantiated rant against immigrants? Poor Seb, I decided a wouldn’t engage with him on here until he gets help, since then we have had the news that a 66 year old radicalised pensioner called Andrew Leak attacked an asylum centre then killed himself. I hope history isn’t repeating itself "I imagine you couldn’t contain your glee when you heard the tragic story of Andrew Leak. Made your day I imagine? A certain level of sickness right there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion! Are you suggesting that the OP is just a big unsubstantiated rant against immigrants? Poor Seb, I decided a wouldn’t engage with him on here until he gets help, since then we have had the news that a 66 year old radicalised pensioner called Andrew Leak attacked an asylum centre then killed himself. I hope history isn’t repeating itself
Probably should just leave him to his immigrant based confusion and anger. Hopefully he works it out of his system and finds some peace. "But there is no confusion, no anger either. A disappointment I guess that others can’t debate this crisis without the tired old rant that is all the fault of the FUCKING TORIES, or that sensible people (I thought) can’t distinguish between immigration and illegal immigrants. Clearly they choose not to for some unknown agenda. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd hazard a guess that benefit fraud costs the country more than illegal immigrants " A separate issue I guess. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion! Just commenting on current news stories. Do you agree with my distinct groups? " My position is completely clear Seb. Until you provide verifiable statistics from credible sources, then everything you say is no more than unverifiable opinion. That is the way facts work. It’s annoying but there you go. If you can provide the stats then perhaps it will illicit a sensible debate/discussion. Sadly at the moment you are coming across like an angry man shouting into the wind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion! Are you suggesting that the OP is just a big unsubstantiated rant against immigrants?" I have expressed my thoughts on different aspects of immigration. I have listed a couple of recent news items . How is that in any sense of the word a ‘rant’? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd hazard a guess that benefit fraud costs the country more than illegal immigrants A separate issue I guess. " Your right, I'll delete it as it's unsubstantiated garbage lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion! Just commenting on current news stories. Do you agree with my distinct groups? My position is completely clear Seb. Until you provide verifiable statistics from credible sources, then everything you say is no more than unverifiable opinion. That is the way facts work. It’s annoying but there you go. If you can provide the stats then perhaps it will illicit a sensible debate/discussion. Sadly at the moment you are coming across like an angry man shouting into the wind. " No stats or facts required. I have simply stated my thoughts on different aspects of immigration. I have posted on a couple of recent news reports. Do you think I simply make this stuff up? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd hazard a guess that benefit fraud costs the country more than illegal immigrants A separate issue I guess. Your right, I'll delete it as it's unsubstantiated garbage lol" Why ‘lol’ ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above." ‘Shires’ not shores | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion! Just commenting on current news stories. Do you agree with my distinct groups? My position is completely clear Seb. Until you provide verifiable statistics from credible sources, then everything you say is no more than unverifiable opinion. That is the way facts work. It’s annoying but there you go. If you can provide the stats then perhaps it will illicit a sensible debate/discussion. Sadly at the moment you are coming across like an angry man shouting into the wind. " Why ‘angry’ ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion! Just commenting on current news stories. Do you agree with my distinct groups? My position is completely clear Seb. Until you provide verifiable statistics from credible sources, then everything you say is no more than unverifiable opinion. That is the way facts work. It’s annoying but there you go. If you can provide the stats then perhaps it will illicit a sensible debate/discussion. Sadly at the moment you are coming across like an angry man shouting into the wind. No stats or facts required. I have simply stated my thoughts on different aspects of immigration. I have posted on a couple of recent news reports. Do you think I simply make this stuff up?" But issues require quantification to understand actual impact versus perceived impact. I am strongly of the opinion that while immigration, and illegal immigration, has/is caused issues in the UK (and plenty of other countries), it has been overstated and weaponised to deflect from the quantifiably bigger negative issues facing citizens of the UK. So while nobody in their right mind supports uncontrolled migration or illegal immigration, the quantifiable impact is undoubtedly less then many other issues facing us today. So it is used as a dead cat distraction. Personally I think we should assign priority according to impact. Right now the cost of living crisis and financial black hole (massively exacerbated by Truss/Kwartang and impact of Brexit) is far more concerning than anything related to illegal immigrants. People being unable to afford their gas/electric, food, rent/mortgage or the admission by BoE that their base rate increases WILL result in far higher unemployment (making the former affordability points worse and increasing the benefits costs for UK) are all far bigger issues to discuss than immigrants (legal or illegal, genuine asylum seeker or not). Very few of the main issues facing the UK are the cause of immigrants. But they remain a highly emotive easy target for distraction (wonder who else figured out something similar - ie identify a bogeyman and blame them for everything). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion! Are you suggesting that the OP is just a big unsubstantiated rant against immigrants? Poor Seb, I decided a wouldn’t engage with him on here until he gets help, since then we have had the news that a 66 year old radicalised pensioner called Andrew Leak attacked an asylum centre then killed himself. I hope history isn’t repeating itself
Probably should just leave him to his immigrant based confusion and anger. Hopefully he works it out of his system and finds some peace.
But there is no confusion, no anger either. A disappointment I guess that others can’t debate this crisis without the tired old rant that is all the fault of the FUCKING TORIES, or that sensible people (I thought) can’t distinguish between immigration and illegal immigrants.
Clearly they choose not to for some unknown agenda. "What part of your angry confused nonsensical rant do you want people to debate? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion! Just commenting on current news stories. Do you agree with my distinct groups? My position is completely clear Seb. Until you provide verifiable statistics from credible sources, then everything you say is no more than unverifiable opinion. That is the way facts work. It’s annoying but there you go. If you can provide the stats then perhaps it will illicit a sensible debate/discussion. Sadly at the moment you are coming across like an angry man shouting into the wind. No stats or facts required. I have simply stated my thoughts on different aspects of immigration. I have posted on a couple of recent news reports. Do you think I simply make this stuff up?" You either make it up, or read it in a publication who's specific agenda is to distract, and cause confusion/outrage amongst their readers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion! Are you suggesting that the OP is just a big unsubstantiated rant against immigrants? Poor Seb, I decided a wouldn’t engage with him on here until he gets help, since then we have had the news that a 66 year old radicalised pensioner called Andrew Leak attacked an asylum centre then killed himself. I hope history isn’t repeating itself
Probably should just leave him to his immigrant based confusion and anger. Hopefully he works it out of his system and finds some peace.
But there is no confusion, no anger either. A disappointment I guess that others can’t debate this crisis without the tired old rant that is all the fault of the FUCKING TORIES, or that sensible people (I thought) can’t distinguish between immigration and illegal immigrants.
Clearly they choose not to for some unknown agenda.
What part of your angry confused nonsensical rant do you want people to debate?"Again you persist with daft claims. Stop it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion! Just commenting on current news stories. Do you agree with my distinct groups? My position is completely clear Seb. Until you provide verifiable statistics from credible sources, then everything you say is no more than unverifiable opinion. That is the way facts work. It’s annoying but there you go. If you can provide the stats then perhaps it will illicit a sensible debate/discussion. Sadly at the moment you are coming across like an angry man shouting into the wind. No stats or facts required. I have simply stated my thoughts on different aspects of immigration. I have posted on a couple of recent news reports. Do you think I simply make this stuff up? You either make it up, or read it in a publication who's specific agenda is to distract, and cause confusion/outrage amongst their readers." Can I take it then that you think it’s alright for whoever that wants to come to the UK it’s ok? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion! Just commenting on current news stories. Do you agree with my distinct groups? My position is completely clear Seb. Until you provide verifiable statistics from credible sources, then everything you say is no more than unverifiable opinion. That is the way facts work. It’s annoying but there you go. If you can provide the stats then perhaps it will illicit a sensible debate/discussion. Sadly at the moment you are coming across like an angry man shouting into the wind. No stats or facts required. I have simply stated my thoughts on different aspects of immigration. I have posted on a couple of recent news reports. Do you think I simply make this stuff up? But issues require quantification to understand actual impact versus perceived impact. I am strongly of the opinion that while immigration, and illegal immigration, has/is caused issues in the UK (and plenty of other countries), it has been overstated and weaponised to deflect from the quantifiably bigger negative issues facing citizens of the UK. So while nobody in their right mind supports uncontrolled migration or illegal immigration, the quantifiable impact is undoubtedly less then many other issues facing us today. So it is used as a dead cat distraction. Personally I think we should assign priority according to impact. Right now the cost of living crisis and financial black hole (massively exacerbated by Truss/Kwartang and impact of Brexit) is far more concerning than anything related to illegal immigrants. People being unable to afford their gas/electric, food, rent/mortgage or the admission by BoE that their base rate increases WILL result in far higher unemployment (making the former affordability points worse and increasing the benefits costs for UK) are all far bigger issues to discuss than immigrants (legal or illegal, genuine asylum seeker or not). Very few of the main issues facing the UK are the cause of immigrants. But they remain a highly emotive easy target for distraction (wonder who else figured out something similar - ie identify a bogeyman and blame them for everything). " I agree with this post completely and admire the tolerance you always show in articulating your point of view I only wish I had as much patience (and good humour) as you  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion! Just commenting on current news stories. Do you agree with my distinct groups? My position is completely clear Seb. Until you provide verifiable statistics from credible sources, then everything you say is no more than unverifiable opinion. That is the way facts work. It’s annoying but there you go. If you can provide the stats then perhaps it will illicit a sensible debate/discussion. Sadly at the moment you are coming across like an angry man shouting into the wind. No stats or facts required. I have simply stated my thoughts on different aspects of immigration. I have posted on a couple of recent news reports. Do you think I simply make this stuff up? You either make it up, or read it in a publication who's specific agenda is to distract, and cause confusion/outrage amongst their readers. Can I take it then that you think it’s alright for whoever that wants to come to the UK it’s ok? " I hope you manage to find some peace, and can break free from this obsession you have with immigrants. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ironically that's why eatern European countries have begin putting up a border around kaliningrad as Russia has begin flying immigrants there and telling them to head toward poland. So part of the irony. Its easier to hold people at a land border than a sea one. Once they're reach the uk waters we can't turn them back. At a land border they reach a physical barrier, the moment we pick them up we cant return them Atleast now we know that most are Albanian. And thus have no right to stay in the uk and can be deported. Ideally the quicker the Rwanda plan is implemented the better." The Rwanda plan is finished,  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes you say that? The memorandum of understanding hasn't been removed from uk gov website " It’s finished, a waste of £120 million, terrible idea conceived by idiots | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? " How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? " None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? " I asked you to elaborate why it was a bad plan. Please do so? Why do you think Rwanda received money. Please elaborate that point? Why do you think it's finished? Please elaborate? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid." Sounds nice, tbh though, Great Yarmouth is a shit hole, I am sure the hotel owners are glad for the business | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? I asked you to elaborate why it was a bad plan. Please do so? Why do you think Rwanda received money. Please elaborate that point? Why do you think it's finished? Please elaborate? " How about we return to this when They start sending asylum seekers to Rwanda The number of asylum seekers start to decrease | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid." Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? I asked you to elaborate why it was a bad plan. Please do so? Why do you think Rwanda received money. Please elaborate that point? Why do you think it's finished? Please elaborate? How about we return to this when They start sending asylum seekers to Rwanda The number of asylum seekers start to decrease " No really. They are appropriate questions right now. Donyou just not have the answer for them? As you know they are contradictory points? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. " The law is the law, break it and face the consequences | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences "Well yes. Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported. Great news. The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported."Get back to me when that happens | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion! Just commenting on current news stories. Do you agree with my distinct groups? My position is completely clear Seb. Until you provide verifiable statistics from credible sources, then everything you say is no more than unverifiable opinion. That is the way facts work. It’s annoying but there you go. If you can provide the stats then perhaps it will illicit a sensible debate/discussion. Sadly at the moment you are coming across like an angry man shouting into the wind. No stats or facts required. I have simply stated my thoughts on different aspects of immigration. I have posted on a couple of recent news reports. Do you think I simply make this stuff up? You either make it up, or read it in a publication who's specific agenda is to distract, and cause confusion/outrage amongst their readers. Can I take it then that you think it’s alright for whoever that wants to come to the UK it’s ok? I hope you manage to find some peace, and can break free from this obsession you have with immigrants. " Come on, big boy pants on, try and answer the question or tell me where I’m wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
Get back to me when that happens "Just like you got back to me with my queries on your contradictions?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported."How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK? BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
Get back to me when that happens
Just like you got back to me with my queries on your contradictions?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In Internet slang, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, a newsgroup, forum, chat room, online video game, or blog, with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses, or manipulating others' perception" Googling again. In your world a troll is ‘anyone that dares to post anything that I simply don’t like, even though I don’t know why’ Weird | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country. "They can do so via legal routes. I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country. "Is this the law from 1951 that everyone likes to refer to? The world is a very different place now. Time to change it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country. " Only those countries that are signatories to the 1951 Convention. But that does mean most countries, I agree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes."What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also International law also states the burden of proof is on them to show persecution and threat to life " Ok, so why is it taking so long to process them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also International law also states the burden of proof is on them to show persecution and threat to life Ok, so why is it taking so long to process them " Because the numbers are overwhelming perhaps? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?"So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk. Gateway protection program Vcrs Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries) Calais protocol These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs ACRS exists for Afghans. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also International law also states the burden of proof is on them to show persecution and threat to life Ok, so why is it taking so long to process them " Due to courts closing over covide we have a backlog of about 100k. It's also difficult to deport some one when they throw their ids way and refuse to speak. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ironically that's why eatern European countries have begin putting up a border around kaliningrad as Russia has begin flying immigrants there and telling them to head toward poland. So part of the irony. Its easier to hold people at a land border than a sea one. Once they're reach the uk waters we can't turn them back. At a land border they reach a physical barrier, the moment we pick them up we cant return them Atleast now we know that most are Albanian. And thus have no right to stay in the uk and can be deported. Ideally the quicker the Rwanda plan is implemented the better." Do you really support wasting 100s of millions trafficking humans to Rwanda? Wasn't it just a poly by the Tories to secure support from racists? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also International law also states the burden of proof is on them to show persecution and threat to life Ok, so why is it taking so long to process them Due to courts closing over covide we have a backlog of about 100k. It's also difficult to deport some one when they throw their ids way and refuse to speak." Hold on ‘International law also states the burden of proof is on them to show persecution and threat to life’ ?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion! Just commenting on current news stories. Do you agree with my distinct groups? My position is completely clear Seb. Until you provide verifiable statistics from credible sources, then everything you say is no more than unverifiable opinion. That is the way facts work. It’s annoying but there you go. If you can provide the stats then perhaps it will illicit a sensible debate/discussion. Sadly at the moment you are coming across like an angry man shouting into the wind. No stats or facts required. I have simply stated my thoughts on different aspects of immigration. I have posted on a couple of recent news reports. Do you think I simply make this stuff up? You either make it up, or read it in a publication who's specific agenda is to distract, and cause confusion/outrage amongst their readers. Can I take it then that you think it’s alright for whoever that wants to come to the UK it’s ok? I hope you manage to find some peace, and can break free from this obsession you have with immigrants. Come on, big boy pants on, try and answer the question or tell me where I’m wrong. " What questions do you want answering? I can't even tell you if you're right or wrong. You post something, then deny it. Your OP is utterly bonkers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?
So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans.
"You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like. ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?
So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans.
You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like.
ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria? "Do we know how many people have used this scheme ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?
So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans.
You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like.
ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria?
Do we know how many people have used this scheme ? "I’m sure the chap from Morley will have an explanation! Here’s a nice little factoid about ACRS... Entry clearance for the UK will only be granted after your biometrics, normally your facial image and fingerprints, have been enrolled at a Visa Application Centre (VAC). Relocating to the UK may take some time, and will depend on your ability to travel to a third country to provide biometrics. If you are outside Afghanistan and able to get to a Visa Application Centre in a neighbouring country, you will be able to provide biometrics in this way. There are no Visa Application Centres in Afghanistan. If you are still in Afghanistan, the UK government is working with international partners, including non-governmental organisations and other countries to secure safe routes out of Afghanistan. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?
So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans.
You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like.
ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria?
Do we know how many people have used this scheme ?
I’m sure the chap from Morley will have an explanation!
Here’s a nice little factoid about ACRS...
Entry clearance for the UK will only be granted after your biometrics, normally your facial image and fingerprints, have been enrolled at a Visa Application Centre (VAC). Relocating to the UK may take some time, and will depend on your ability to travel to a third country to provide biometrics.
If you are outside Afghanistan and able to get to a Visa Application Centre in a neighbouring country, you will be able to provide biometrics in this way.
There are no Visa Application Centres in Afghanistan. If you are still in Afghanistan, the UK government is working with international partners, including non-governmental organisations and other countries to secure safe routes out of Afghanistan."Ah, they will just have to wait and hope they are not imprisoned or murdered then  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also International law also states the burden of proof is on them to show persecution and threat to life Ok, so why is it taking so long to process them Due to courts closing over covide we have a backlog of about 100k. It's also difficult to deport some one when they throw their ids way and refuse to speak. Hold on ‘International law also states the burden of proof is on them to show persecution and threat to life’ ?? " Yes. Or any one from any country could see asylum I'm another country. At any time. And never be deported. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?
So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans.
You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like.
ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria?
Do we know how many people have used this scheme ? "Sp are we going now from saying these schemes don't exist. To asking how many use them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?
So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans.
You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like.
ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria?
Do we know how many people have used this scheme ?
Sp are we going now from saying these schemes don't exist.
To asking how many use them?
"Where did I say they didn’t exist? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?
So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans.
You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like.
ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria?
Do we know how many people have used this scheme ?
I’m sure the chap from Morley will have an explanation!
Here’s a nice little factoid about ACRS...
Entry clearance for the UK will only be granted after your biometrics, normally your facial image and fingerprints, have been enrolled at a Visa Application Centre (VAC). Relocating to the UK may take some time, and will depend on your ability to travel to a third country to provide biometrics.
If you are outside Afghanistan and able to get to a Visa Application Centre in a neighbouring country, you will be able to provide biometrics in this way.
There are no Visa Application Centres in Afghanistan. If you are still in Afghanistan, the UK government is working with international partners, including non-governmental organisations and other countries to secure safe routes out of Afghanistan.
Ah, they will just have to wait and hope they are not imprisoned or murdered then "In first year (2022) ACRS is limited to 1,500 people (total to include applicants and their dependents). However, if you do not fit the criteria then there is nothing else on offer (although Morley may be able to correct me on that). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also International law also states the burden of proof is on them to show persecution and threat to life Ok, so why is it taking so long to process them Due to courts closing over covide we have a backlog of about 100k. It's also difficult to deport some one when they throw their ids way and refuse to speak. Hold on ‘International law also states the burden of proof is on them to show persecution and threat to life’ ?? Yes. Or any one from any country could see asylum I'm another country. At any time. And never be deported." I see, so if an asylum loses their ID and doesn’t speak it makes no difference as the onus of them to prove they are fleeing war and persecution? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?
So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans.
You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like.
ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria?
Do we know how many people have used this scheme ?
I’m sure the chap from Morley will have an explanation!
Here’s a nice little factoid about ACRS...
Entry clearance for the UK will only be granted after your biometrics, normally your facial image and fingerprints, have been enrolled at a Visa Application Centre (VAC). Relocating to the UK may take some time, and will depend on your ability to travel to a third country to provide biometrics.
If you are outside Afghanistan and able to get to a Visa Application Centre in a neighbouring country, you will be able to provide biometrics in this way.
There are no Visa Application Centres in Afghanistan. If you are still in Afghanistan, the UK government is working with international partners, including non-governmental organisations and other countries to secure safe routes out of Afghanistan.
Ah, they will just have to wait and hope they are not imprisoned or murdered then
In first year (2022) ACRS is limited to 1,500 people (total to include applicants and their dependents). However, if you do not fit the criteria then there is nothing else on offer (although Morley may be able to correct me on that)."And how many Afghans worked and helped the British government? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?
So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans.
You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like.
ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria?
Do we know how many people have used this scheme ?
I’m sure the chap from Morley will have an explanation!
Here’s a nice little factoid about ACRS...
Entry clearance for the UK will only be granted after your biometrics, normally your facial image and fingerprints, have been enrolled at a Visa Application Centre (VAC). Relocating to the UK may take some time, and will depend on your ability to travel to a third country to provide biometrics.
If you are outside Afghanistan and able to get to a Visa Application Centre in a neighbouring country, you will be able to provide biometrics in this way.
There are no Visa Application Centres in Afghanistan. If you are still in Afghanistan, the UK government is working with international partners, including non-governmental organisations and other countries to secure safe routes out of Afghanistan."Actually I do know it. You weren't even aware the scheme existed 10 minutes ago. And so you've done quick Google. I'm these schemes. They are taken from their refuge points and interviewed by UN workers. Who process them and verify all their details. They then will decide which country best suits the individual based on speech, social, religion,family etc. They send the details to the uk say and tbe uk gives them indefinite leave to stay(xand gives them a visa tk teavek and work here). After which they can apply comfort citizenship. The fact you thought you needed the visa centre in Afghanistan is hilarious. Instead of doing a quick Google and making assumptions. How about sitting down and reading the schemes thoroughly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?
So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans.
You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like.
ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria?
Do we know how many people have used this scheme ?
I’m sure the chap from Morley will have an explanation!
Here’s a nice little factoid about ACRS...
Entry clearance for the UK will only be granted after your biometrics, normally your facial image and fingerprints, have been enrolled at a Visa Application Centre (VAC). Relocating to the UK may take some time, and will depend on your ability to travel to a third country to provide biometrics.
If you are outside Afghanistan and able to get to a Visa Application Centre in a neighbouring country, you will be able to provide biometrics in this way.
There are no Visa Application Centres in Afghanistan. If you are still in Afghanistan, the UK government is working with international partners, including non-governmental organisations and other countries to secure safe routes out of Afghanistan.
Ah, they will just have to wait and hope they are not imprisoned or murdered then
In first year (2022) ACRS is limited to 1,500 people (total to include applicants and their dependents). However, if you do not fit the criteria then there is nothing else on offer (although Morley may be able to correct me on that)."So again. The argument has shifted from...there is no legal way they can get to the uk to...Well they can get here.. you were right morley man. But HOW MANY can get here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?
So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans.
You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like.
ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria?
Do we know how many people have used this scheme ?
Sp are we going now from saying these schemes don't exist.
To asking how many use them?
"Who said schemes haven’t existed? I asked a simple question. It only required a simple answer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?
So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans.
You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like.
ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria?
Do we know how many people have used this scheme ?
I’m sure the chap from Morley will have an explanation!
Here’s a nice little factoid about ACRS...
Entry clearance for the UK will only be granted after your biometrics, normally your facial image and fingerprints, have been enrolled at a Visa Application Centre (VAC). Relocating to the UK may take some time, and will depend on your ability to travel to a third country to provide biometrics.
If you are outside Afghanistan and able to get to a Visa Application Centre in a neighbouring country, you will be able to provide biometrics in this way.
There are no Visa Application Centres in Afghanistan. If you are still in Afghanistan, the UK government is working with international partners, including non-governmental organisations and other countries to secure safe routes out of Afghanistan.
Ah, they will just have to wait and hope they are not imprisoned or murdered then
In first year (2022) ACRS is limited to 1,500 people (total to include applicants and their dependents). However, if you do not fit the criteria then there is nothing else on offer (although Morley may be able to correct me on that).
So again.
The argument has shifted from...there is no legal way they can get to the uk to...Well they can get here.. you were right morley man.
But HOW MANY can get here "Yes, HOW MANY can get here? And what happens to people who can’t get on the scheme? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?
So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans.
You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like.
ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria?
Do we know how many people have used this scheme ?
I’m sure the chap from Morley will have an explanation!
Here’s a nice little factoid about ACRS...
Entry clearance for the UK will only be granted after your biometrics, normally your facial image and fingerprints, have been enrolled at a Visa Application Centre (VAC). Relocating to the UK may take some time, and will depend on your ability to travel to a third country to provide biometrics.
If you are outside Afghanistan and able to get to a Visa Application Centre in a neighbouring country, you will be able to provide biometrics in this way.
There are no Visa Application Centres in Afghanistan. If you are still in Afghanistan, the UK government is working with international partners, including non-governmental organisations and other countries to secure safe routes out of Afghanistan.
Ah, they will just have to wait and hope they are not imprisoned or murdered then
In first year (2022) ACRS is limited to 1,500 people (total to include applicants and their dependents). However, if you do not fit the criteria then there is nothing else on offer (although Morley may be able to correct me on that).
So again.
The argument has shifted from...there is no legal way they can get to the uk to...Well they can get here.. you were right morley man.
But HOW MANY can get here "The argument didn’t shift. It was a simple question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?
So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans.
You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like.
ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria?
Do we know how many people have used this scheme ?
I’m sure the chap from Morley will have an explanation!
Here’s a nice little factoid about ACRS...
Entry clearance for the UK will only be granted after your biometrics, normally your facial image and fingerprints, have been enrolled at a Visa Application Centre (VAC). Relocating to the UK may take some time, and will depend on your ability to travel to a third country to provide biometrics.
If you are outside Afghanistan and able to get to a Visa Application Centre in a neighbouring country, you will be able to provide biometrics in this way.
There are no Visa Application Centres in Afghanistan. If you are still in Afghanistan, the UK government is working with international partners, including non-governmental organisations and other countries to secure safe routes out of Afghanistan.
Ah, they will just have to wait and hope they are not imprisoned or murdered then
In first year (2022) ACRS is limited to 1,500 people (total to include applicants and their dependents). However, if you do not fit the criteria then there is nothing else on offer (although Morley may be able to correct me on that).
So again.
The argument has shifted from...there is no legal way they can get to the uk to...Well they can get here.. you were right morley man.
But HOW MANY can get here
Yes, HOW MANY can get here? And what happens to people who can’t get on the scheme? "Across all schemes its roughly 5000 a year accepted. Acrs is open to 5000 a year when fully operational.but will also run alongside ukrs, community sponsorship scheme etc etc All this data is available to you? I can supply a link if you so wish. And you can see the applicants and country of origin? Pr how the process works. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?
So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans.
You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like.
ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria?
Do we know how many people have used this scheme ?
I’m sure the chap from Morley will have an explanation!
Here’s a nice little factoid about ACRS...
Entry clearance for the UK will only be granted after your biometrics, normally your facial image and fingerprints, have been enrolled at a Visa Application Centre (VAC). Relocating to the UK may take some time, and will depend on your ability to travel to a third country to provide biometrics.
If you are outside Afghanistan and able to get to a Visa Application Centre in a neighbouring country, you will be able to provide biometrics in this way.
There are no Visa Application Centres in Afghanistan. If you are still in Afghanistan, the UK government is working with international partners, including non-governmental organisations and other countries to secure safe routes out of Afghanistan.
Ah, they will just have to wait and hope they are not imprisoned or murdered then
In first year (2022) ACRS is limited to 1,500 people (total to include applicants and their dependents). However, if you do not fit the criteria then there is nothing else on offer (although Morley may be able to correct me on that).
So again.
The argument has shifted from...there is no legal way they can get to the uk to...Well they can get here.. you were right morley man.
But HOW MANY can get here
Yes, HOW MANY can get here? And what happens to people who can’t get on the scheme?
Across all schemes its roughly 5000 a year accepted. Acrs is open to 5000 a year when fully operational.but will also run alongside ukrs, community sponsorship scheme etc etc
All this data is available to you? I can supply a link if you so wish. And you can see the applicants and country of origin? Pr how the process works.
"Sure, provide the link, does it show the number of people who have used the scheme ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?
So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans.
You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like.
ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria?
Do we know how many people have used this scheme ?
I’m sure the chap from Morley will have an explanation!
Here’s a nice little factoid about ACRS...
Entry clearance for the UK will only be granted after your biometrics, normally your facial image and fingerprints, have been enrolled at a Visa Application Centre (VAC). Relocating to the UK may take some time, and will depend on your ability to travel to a third country to provide biometrics.
If you are outside Afghanistan and able to get to a Visa Application Centre in a neighbouring country, you will be able to provide biometrics in this way.
There are no Visa Application Centres in Afghanistan. If you are still in Afghanistan, the UK government is working with international partners, including non-governmental organisations and other countries to secure safe routes out of Afghanistan.
Ah, they will just have to wait and hope they are not imprisoned or murdered then
In first year (2022) ACRS is limited to 1,500 people (total to include applicants and their dependents). However, if you do not fit the criteria then there is nothing else on offer (although Morley may be able to correct me on that).
So again.
The argument has shifted from...there is no legal way they can get to the uk to...Well they can get here.. you were right morley man.
But HOW MANY can get here
Yes, HOW MANY can get here? And what happens to people who can’t get on the scheme?
Across all schemes its roughly 5000 a year accepted. Acrs is open to 5000 a year when fully operational.but will also run alongside ukrs, community sponsorship scheme etc etc
All this data is available to you? I can supply a link if you so wish. And you can see the applicants and country of origin? Pr how the process works.
"Btw, do you know why Brexit hasn’t slowed down the number of asylum seekers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?
So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans.
You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like.
ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria?
Do we know how many people have used this scheme ?
I’m sure the chap from Morley will have an explanation!
Here’s a nice little factoid about ACRS...
Entry clearance for the UK will only be granted after your biometrics, normally your facial image and fingerprints, have been enrolled at a Visa Application Centre (VAC). Relocating to the UK may take some time, and will depend on your ability to travel to a third country to provide biometrics.
If you are outside Afghanistan and able to get to a Visa Application Centre in a neighbouring country, you will be able to provide biometrics in this way.
There are no Visa Application Centres in Afghanistan. If you are still in Afghanistan, the UK government is working with international partners, including non-governmental organisations and other countries to secure safe routes out of Afghanistan.
Ah, they will just have to wait and hope they are not imprisoned or murdered then
In first year (2022) ACRS is limited to 1,500 people (total to include applicants and their dependents). However, if you do not fit the criteria then there is nothing else on offer (although Morley may be able to correct me on that).
So again.
The argument has shifted from...there is no legal way they can get to the uk to...Well they can get here.. you were right morley man.
But HOW MANY can get here
Yes, HOW MANY can get here? And what happens to people who can’t get on the scheme?
Across all schemes its roughly 5000 a year accepted. Acrs is open to 5000 a year when fully operational.but will also run alongside ukrs, community sponsorship scheme etc etc
All this data is available to you? I can supply a link if you so wish. And you can see the applicants and country of origin? Pr how the process works.
Sure, provide the link, does it show the number of people who have used the scheme ? "Yes.uo until June 22. You will want asyD02 tab You will want the asylum and resettlement data sets. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/asylum-and-resettlement-datasets | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?
So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans.
You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like.
ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria?
Do we know how many people have used this scheme ?
I’m sure the chap from Morley will have an explanation!
Here’s a nice little factoid about ACRS...
Entry clearance for the UK will only be granted after your biometrics, normally your facial image and fingerprints, have been enrolled at a Visa Application Centre (VAC). Relocating to the UK may take some time, and will depend on your ability to travel to a third country to provide biometrics.
If you are outside Afghanistan and able to get to a Visa Application Centre in a neighbouring country, you will be able to provide biometrics in this way.
There are no Visa Application Centres in Afghanistan. If you are still in Afghanistan, the UK government is working with international partners, including non-governmental organisations and other countries to secure safe routes out of Afghanistan.
Ah, they will just have to wait and hope they are not imprisoned or murdered then
In first year (2022) ACRS is limited to 1,500 people (total to include applicants and their dependents). However, if you do not fit the criteria then there is nothing else on offer (although Morley may be able to correct me on that).
So again.
The argument has shifted from...there is no legal way they can get to the uk to...Well they can get here.. you were right morley man.
But HOW MANY can get here
Yes, HOW MANY can get here? And what happens to people who can’t get on the scheme?
Across all schemes its roughly 5000 a year accepted. Acrs is open to 5000 a year when fully operational.but will also run alongside ukrs, community sponsorship scheme etc etc
All this data is available to you? I can supply a link if you so wish. And you can see the applicants and country of origin? Pr how the process works.
Sure, provide the link, does it show the number of people who have used the scheme ?
Yes.uo until June 22. You will want asyD02 tab
You will want the asylum and resettlement data sets.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/asylum-and-resettlement-datasets
"Only 5% of applicants have received help from these schemes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?
So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans.
You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like.
ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria?
Do we know how many people have used this scheme ?
I’m sure the chap from Morley will have an explanation!
Here’s a nice little factoid about ACRS...
Entry clearance for the UK will only be granted after your biometrics, normally your facial image and fingerprints, have been enrolled at a Visa Application Centre (VAC). Relocating to the UK may take some time, and will depend on your ability to travel to a third country to provide biometrics.
If you are outside Afghanistan and able to get to a Visa Application Centre in a neighbouring country, you will be able to provide biometrics in this way.
There are no Visa Application Centres in Afghanistan. If you are still in Afghanistan, the UK government is working with international partners, including non-governmental organisations and other countries to secure safe routes out of Afghanistan.
Ah, they will just have to wait and hope they are not imprisoned or murdered then
In first year (2022) ACRS is limited to 1,500 people (total to include applicants and their dependents). However, if you do not fit the criteria then there is nothing else on offer (although Morley may be able to correct me on that).
So again.
The argument has shifted from...there is no legal way they can get to the uk to...Well they can get here.. you were right morley man.
But HOW MANY can get here
Yes, HOW MANY can get here? And what happens to people who can’t get on the scheme?
Across all schemes its roughly 5000 a year accepted. Acrs is open to 5000 a year when fully operational.but will also run alongside ukrs, community sponsorship scheme etc etc
All this data is available to you? I can supply a link if you so wish. And you can see the applicants and country of origin? Pr how the process works.
Sure, provide the link, does it show the number of people who have used the scheme ?
Yes.uo until June 22. You will want asyD02 tab
You will want the asylum and resettlement data sets.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/asylum-and-resettlement-datasets
Only 5% of applicants have received help
from these schemes "Well yes...many applicant arrive via boat... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion! Just commenting on current news stories. Do you agree with my distinct groups? My position is completely clear Seb. Until you provide verifiable statistics from credible sources, then everything you say is no more than unverifiable opinion. That is the way facts work. It’s annoying but there you go. If you can provide the stats then perhaps it will illicit a sensible debate/discussion. Sadly at the moment you are coming across like an angry man shouting into the wind. No stats or facts required. I have simply stated my thoughts on different aspects of immigration. I have posted on a couple of recent news reports. Do you think I simply make this stuff up? You either make it up, or read it in a publication who's specific agenda is to distract, and cause confusion/outrage amongst their readers. Can I take it then that you think it’s alright for whoever that wants to come to the UK it’s ok? I hope you manage to find some peace, and can break free from this obsession you have with immigrants. Come on, big boy pants on, try and answer the question or tell me where I’m wrong. What questions do you want answering? I can't even tell you if you're right or wrong. You post something, then deny it. Your OP is utterly bonkers." No denial at all. Are you in favour of uncontrolled mass immigration? Are you in favour of people coming here by illegal means? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?
So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans.
You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like.
ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria?
Do we know how many people have used this scheme ?
I’m sure the chap from Morley will have an explanation!
Here’s a nice little factoid about ACRS...
Entry clearance for the UK will only be granted after your biometrics, normally your facial image and fingerprints, have been enrolled at a Visa Application Centre (VAC). Relocating to the UK may take some time, and will depend on your ability to travel to a third country to provide biometrics.
If you are outside Afghanistan and able to get to a Visa Application Centre in a neighbouring country, you will be able to provide biometrics in this way.
There are no Visa Application Centres in Afghanistan. If you are still in Afghanistan, the UK government is working with international partners, including non-governmental organisations and other countries to secure safe routes out of Afghanistan.
Ah, they will just have to wait and hope they are not imprisoned or murdered then
In first year (2022) ACRS is limited to 1,500 people (total to include applicants and their dependents). However, if you do not fit the criteria then there is nothing else on offer (although Morley may be able to correct me on that).
So again.
The argument has shifted from...there is no legal way they can get to the uk to...Well they can get here.. you were right morley man.
But HOW MANY can get here
Yes, HOW MANY can get here? And what happens to people who can’t get on the scheme?
Across all schemes its roughly 5000 a year accepted. Acrs is open to 5000 a year when fully operational.but will also run alongside ukrs, community sponsorship scheme etc etc
All this data is available to you? I can supply a link if you so wish. And you can see the applicants and country of origin? Pr how the process works.
Sure, provide the link, does it show the number of people who have used the scheme ?
Yes.uo until June 22. You will want asyD02 tab
You will want the asylum and resettlement data sets.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/asylum-and-resettlement-datasets
Only 5% of applicants have received help
from these schemes
Well yes...many applicant arrive via boat..."Why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Inwoukd then advise you read the vovernment report "/uk refugee resettlement policy" co authored by the UN Search the below term to find it on Google as a pdf. "Resettled refugees are then granted Indefinite Leave to Remain and refugee status on arrival in the UK1"" Do you agree that every single Afghan who worked for the British government should (if they want it ) be provided asylum in the UK immediately? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?
So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans.
You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like.
ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria?
Do we know how many people have used this scheme ?
I’m sure the chap from Morley will have an explanation!
Here’s a nice little factoid about ACRS...
Entry clearance for the UK will only be granted after your biometrics, normally your facial image and fingerprints, have been enrolled at a Visa Application Centre (VAC). Relocating to the UK may take some time, and will depend on your ability to travel to a third country to provide biometrics.
If you are outside Afghanistan and able to get to a Visa Application Centre in a neighbouring country, you will be able to provide biometrics in this way.
There are no Visa Application Centres in Afghanistan. If you are still in Afghanistan, the UK government is working with international partners, including non-governmental organisations and other countries to secure safe routes out of Afghanistan.
Ah, they will just have to wait and hope they are not imprisoned or murdered then
In first year (2022) ACRS is limited to 1,500 people (total to include applicants and their dependents). However, if you do not fit the criteria then there is nothing else on offer (although Morley may be able to correct me on that).
So again.
The argument has shifted from...there is no legal way they can get to the uk to...Well they can get here.. you were right morley man.
But HOW MANY can get here
Yes, HOW MANY can get here? And what happens to people who can’t get on the scheme?
Across all schemes its roughly 5000 a year accepted. Acrs is open to 5000 a year when fully operational.but will also run alongside ukrs, community sponsorship scheme etc etc
All this data is available to you? I can supply a link if you so wish. And you can see the applicants and country of origin? Pr how the process works.
Sure, provide the link, does it show the number of people who have used the scheme ?
Yes.uo until June 22. You will want asyD02 tab
You will want the asylum and resettlement data sets.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/asylum-and-resettlement-datasets
Only 5% of applicants have received help
from these schemes
Well yes...many applicant arrive via boat...
Why? "Ask the Albanians about 20k habe come by boat this year. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?
So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans.
You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like.
ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria?
Do we know how many people have used this scheme ?
I’m sure the chap from Morley will have an explanation!
Here’s a nice little factoid about ACRS...
Entry clearance for the UK will only be granted after your biometrics, normally your facial image and fingerprints, have been enrolled at a Visa Application Centre (VAC). Relocating to the UK may take some time, and will depend on your ability to travel to a third country to provide biometrics.
If you are outside Afghanistan and able to get to a Visa Application Centre in a neighbouring country, you will be able to provide biometrics in this way.
There are no Visa Application Centres in Afghanistan. If you are still in Afghanistan, the UK government is working with international partners, including non-governmental organisations and other countries to secure safe routes out of Afghanistan.
Ah, they will just have to wait and hope they are not imprisoned or murdered then
In first year (2022) ACRS is limited to 1,500 people (total to include applicants and their dependents). However, if you do not fit the criteria then there is nothing else on offer (although Morley may be able to correct me on that).
So again.
The argument has shifted from...there is no legal way they can get to the uk to...Well they can get here.. you were right morley man.
But HOW MANY can get here
Yes, HOW MANY can get here? And what happens to people who can’t get on the scheme?
Across all schemes its roughly 5000 a year accepted. Acrs is open to 5000 a year when fully operational.but will also run alongside ukrs, community sponsorship scheme etc etc
All this data is available to you? I can supply a link if you so wish. And you can see the applicants and country of origin? Pr how the process works.
Sure, provide the link, does it show the number of people who have used the scheme ?
Yes.uo until June 22. You will want asyD02 tab
You will want the asylum and resettlement data sets.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/asylum-and-resettlement-datasets
Only 5% of applicants have received help
from these schemes
Well yes...many applicant arrive via boat...
Why?
Ask the Albanians about 20k habe come by boat this year."I am talking scout Afghans applying to the ACRS | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Inwoukd then advise you read the vovernment report "/uk refugee resettlement policy" co authored by the UN Search the below term to find it on Google as a pdf. "Resettled refugees are then granted Indefinite Leave to Remain and refugee status on arrival in the UK1" Do you agree that every single Afghan who worked for the British government should (if they want it ) be provided asylum in the UK immediately? " No. I would still like them to go through the security checks etc. We have the likes of shamima begum who defected to isis and left the uk. Its absolutely a possibility those who worked for the uk might not be trustworthy and be a security threat. Simply blanket giving them all passports would be extremely naive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?
So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans.
You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like.
ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria?
Do we know how many people have used this scheme ?
I’m sure the chap from Morley will have an explanation!
Here’s a nice little factoid about ACRS...
Entry clearance for the UK will only be granted after your biometrics, normally your facial image and fingerprints, have been enrolled at a Visa Application Centre (VAC). Relocating to the UK may take some time, and will depend on your ability to travel to a third country to provide biometrics.
If you are outside Afghanistan and able to get to a Visa Application Centre in a neighbouring country, you will be able to provide biometrics in this way.
There are no Visa Application Centres in Afghanistan. If you are still in Afghanistan, the UK government is working with international partners, including non-governmental organisations and other countries to secure safe routes out of Afghanistan.
Ah, they will just have to wait and hope they are not imprisoned or murdered then
In first year (2022) ACRS is limited to 1,500 people (total to include applicants and their dependents). However, if you do not fit the criteria then there is nothing else on offer (although Morley may be able to correct me on that).
So again.
The argument has shifted from...there is no legal way they can get to the uk to...Well they can get here.. you were right morley man.
But HOW MANY can get here
Yes, HOW MANY can get here? And what happens to people who can’t get on the scheme?
Across all schemes its roughly 5000 a year accepted. Acrs is open to 5000 a year when fully operational.but will also run alongside ukrs, community sponsorship scheme etc etc
All this data is available to you? I can supply a link if you so wish. And you can see the applicants and country of origin? Pr how the process works.
Sure, provide the link, does it show the number of people who have used the scheme ?
Yes.uo until June 22. You will want asyD02 tab
You will want the asylum and resettlement data sets.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/asylum-and-resettlement-datasets
Only 5% of applicants have received help
from these schemes
Well yes...many applicant arrive via boat...
Why?
Ask the Albanians about 20k habe come by boat this year.
I am talking scout Afghans applying to the ACRS "You said only 5% of applicant's to these schemes have received help. Where did you get that from? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?
So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans.
You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like.
ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria?
Do we know how many people have used this scheme ?
I’m sure the chap from Morley will have an explanation!
Here’s a nice little factoid about ACRS...
Entry clearance for the UK will only be granted after your biometrics, normally your facial image and fingerprints, have been enrolled at a Visa Application Centre (VAC). Relocating to the UK may take some time, and will depend on your ability to travel to a third country to provide biometrics.
If you are outside Afghanistan and able to get to a Visa Application Centre in a neighbouring country, you will be able to provide biometrics in this way.
There are no Visa Application Centres in Afghanistan. If you are still in Afghanistan, the UK government is working with international partners, including non-governmental organisations and other countries to secure safe routes out of Afghanistan.
Ah, they will just have to wait and hope they are not imprisoned or murdered then
In first year (2022) ACRS is limited to 1,500 people (total to include applicants and their dependents). However, if you do not fit the criteria then there is nothing else on offer (although Morley may be able to correct me on that).
So again.
The argument has shifted from...there is no legal way they can get to the uk to...Well they can get here.. you were right morley man.
But HOW MANY can get here
Yes, HOW MANY can get here? And what happens to people who can’t get on the scheme?
Across all schemes its roughly 5000 a year accepted. Acrs is open to 5000 a year when fully operational.but will also run alongside ukrs, community sponsorship scheme etc etc
All this data is available to you? I can supply a link if you so wish. And you can see the applicants and country of origin? Pr how the process works.
Sure, provide the link, does it show the number of people who have used the scheme ?
Yes.uo until June 22. You will want asyD02 tab
You will want the asylum and resettlement data sets.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/asylum-and-resettlement-datasets
Only 5% of applicants have received help
from these schemes
Well yes...many applicant arrive via boat...
Why?
Ask the Albanians about 20k habe come by boat this year.
I am talking scout Afghans applying to the ACRS "About | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why it was terrible. Please elaborate. If it'd finished . Why do you think Rwanda received that money? Ifnits finished? Why is tbe memorandum of understanding still not pulled? How many asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda? When will they start sending them? Has it reduced the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK? None. That's presumably why they keep coming because there's no chance of anything happening to them, aside from a trip to a four star hotel in Great Yarmouth, all expenses paid. Sadly a law firm used an inappropriate rule of echr to get a case heard and stop the flight. The law is the law, break it and face the consequences
Well yes.
Glad you agree then that entering tbe uk via clandestine entry is illegal and they should be deported.
Great news.
The law is the law. And like many cases a judge will preside over it and realise their time has been wasted and they can be deported.
How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK?
BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.
They can do so via legal routes.
I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.
What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq?
So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans.
You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like.
ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria?
Do we know how many people have used this scheme ?
I’m sure the chap from Morley will have an explanation!
Here’s a nice little factoid about ACRS...
Entry clearance for the UK will only be granted after your biometrics, normally your facial image and fingerprints, have been enrolled at a Visa Application Centre (VAC). Relocating to the UK may take some time, and will depend on your ability to travel to a third country to provide biometrics.
If you are outside Afghanistan and able to get to a Visa Application Centre in a neighbouring country, you will be able to provide biometrics in this way.
There are no Visa Application Centres in Afghanistan. If you are still in Afghanistan, the UK government is working with international partners, including non-governmental organisations and other countries to secure safe routes out of Afghanistan.
Ah, they will just have to wait and hope they are not imprisoned or murdered then
In first year (2022) ACRS is limited to 1,500 people (total to include applicants and their dependents). However, if you do not fit the criteria then there is nothing else on offer (although Morley may be able to correct me on that).
So again.
The argument has shifted from...there is no legal way they can get to the uk to...Well they can get here.. you were right morley man.
But HOW MANY can get here
Yes, HOW MANY can get here? And what happens to people who can’t get on the scheme?
Across all schemes its roughly 5000 a year accepted. Acrs is open to 5000 a year when fully operational.but will also run alongside ukrs, community sponsorship scheme etc etc
All this data is available to you? I can supply a link if you so wish. And you can see the applicants and country of origin? Pr how the process works.
Sure, provide the link, does it show the number of people who have used the scheme ?
Yes.uo until June 22. You will want asyD02 tab
You will want the asylum and resettlement data sets.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/asylum-and-resettlement-datasets
Only 5% of applicants have received help
from these schemes
Well yes...many applicant arrive via boat...
Why?
Ask the Albanians about 20k habe come by boat this year.
I am talking scout Afghans applying to the ACRS
You said only 5% of applicant's to these schemes have received help.
Where did you get that from?
"My apologies, I misread the stats and mixed up Ukraine with Afghans, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"However I found this quote on the BBC In written evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, Raphael Marshall, who previously worked on the Foreign Office's Afghanistan crisis response, estimated that between 75,000 and 150,000 people had applied for evacuation in August 2021. He estimated that 5% of these received assistance." The kabul airlift operation yes. That's not an asylum application. And it's bot every 1 who worked for the uk government. That was the Biden administration absolutely shafting the people of Afghanistan. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"However I found this quote on the BBC In written evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, Raphael Marshall, who previously worked on the Foreign Office's Afghanistan crisis response, estimated that between 75,000 and 150,000 people had applied for evacuation in August 2021. He estimated that 5% of these received assistance. The kabul airlift operation yes. That's not an asylum application. And it's bot every 1 who worked for the uk government. That was the Biden administration absolutely shafting the people of Afghanistan. " Nothing that do with Biden, they wanted to come the the UK and were shafted by this government’s incompetence. Btw, why hasn’t Brexit helped slow down the number of asylum seekers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"However I found this quote on the BBC In written evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, Raphael Marshall, who previously worked on the Foreign Office's Afghanistan crisis response, estimated that between 75,000 and 150,000 people had applied for evacuation in August 2021. He estimated that 5% of these received assistance. The kabul airlift operation yes. That's not an asylum application. And it's bot every 1 who worked for the uk government. That was the Biden administration absolutely shafting the people of Afghanistan. Nothing that do with Biden, they wanted to come the the UK and were shafted by this government’s incompetence. Btw, why hasn’t Brexit helped slow down the number of asylum seekers? " I think you really need to look into what you are citing here and read it fully. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"However I found this quote on the BBC In written evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, Raphael Marshall, who previously worked on the Foreign Office's Afghanistan crisis response, estimated that between 75,000 and 150,000 people had applied for evacuation in August 2021. He estimated that 5% of these received assistance. The kabul airlift operation yes. That's not an asylum application. And it's bot every 1 who worked for the uk government. That was the Biden administration absolutely shafting the people of Afghanistan. Nothing that do with Biden, they wanted to come the the UK and were shafted by this government’s incompetence. Btw, why hasn’t Brexit helped slow down the number of asylum seekers? I think you really need to look into what you are citing here and read it fully." https://news.sky.com/story/amp/serious-failures-of-afghanistan-evacuation-lowered-uks-global-standing-damning-report-calls-for-foreign-office-boss-to-resign-12620053 And Brexit ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"However I found this quote on the BBC In written evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, Raphael Marshall, who previously worked on the Foreign Office's Afghanistan crisis response, estimated that between 75,000 and 150,000 people had applied for evacuation in August 2021. He estimated that 5% of these received assistance. The kabul airlift operation yes. That's not an asylum application. And it's bot every 1 who worked for the uk government. That was the Biden administration absolutely shafting the people of Afghanistan. Nothing that do with Biden, they wanted to come the the UK and were shafted by this government’s incompetence. Btw, why hasn’t Brexit helped slow down the number of asylum seekers? I think you really need to look into what you are citing here and read it fully. https://news.sky.com/story/amp/serious-failures-of-afghanistan-evacuation-lowered-uks-global-standing-damning-report-calls-for-foreign-office-boss-to-resign-12620053 And Brexit ? " Not sure what brexit has to do with it I am well aware of the situation. Every 1 that the uk could airlift was airlifted. I'm really bot sure what you wanted? The uk government to begin firing on talibman government forces against the peace agreement? To suddenly magic up new airplans? The USA decided to leave its post without much notice and create a power vacuum. You seem To be confusing the kabul airlift and people wanting flights out of Afghanistan. With Afghanistan refugees in camps wanting asylum in the uk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"However I found this quote on the BBC In written evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, Raphael Marshall, who previously worked on the Foreign Office's Afghanistan crisis response, estimated that between 75,000 and 150,000 people had applied for evacuation in August 2021. He estimated that 5% of these received assistance. The kabul airlift operation yes. That's not an asylum application. And it's bot every 1 who worked for the uk government. That was the Biden administration absolutely shafting the people of Afghanistan. Nothing that do with Biden, they wanted to come the the UK and were shafted by this government’s incompetence. Btw, why hasn’t Brexit helped slow down the number of asylum seekers? I think you really need to look into what you are citing here and read it fully. https://news.sky.com/story/amp/serious-failures-of-afghanistan-evacuation-lowered-uks-global-standing-damning-report-calls-for-foreign-office-boss-to-resign-12620053 And Brexit ? Not sure what brexit has to do with it I am well aware of the situation. Every 1 that the uk could airlift was airlifted. I'm really bot sure what you wanted? The uk government to begin firing on talibman government forces against the peace agreement? To suddenly magic up new airplans? The USA decided to leave its post without much notice and create a power vacuum. You seem To be confusing the kabul airlift and people wanting flights out of Afghanistan. With Afghanistan refugees in camps wanting asylum in the uk." You obviously didn’t read the link. I mentioned Brexit because it was supposed to slow down asylum seekers and ‘control ‘ our borders, so you think this has happened (after all, you are a Brexit supporter) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"However I found this quote on the BBC In written evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, Raphael Marshall, who previously worked on the Foreign Office's Afghanistan crisis response, estimated that between 75,000 and 150,000 people had applied for evacuation in August 2021. He estimated that 5% of these received assistance. The kabul airlift operation yes. That's not an asylum application. And it's bot every 1 who worked for the uk government. That was the Biden administration absolutely shafting the people of Afghanistan. Nothing that do with Biden, they wanted to come the the UK and were shafted by this government’s incompetence. Btw, why hasn’t Brexit helped slow down the number of asylum seekers? I think you really need to look into what you are citing here and read it fully. https://news.sky.com/story/amp/serious-failures-of-afghanistan-evacuation-lowered-uks-global-standing-damning-report-calls-for-foreign-office-boss-to-resign-12620053 And Brexit ? Not sure what brexit has to do with it I am well aware of the situation. Every 1 that the uk could airlift was airlifted. I'm really bot sure what you wanted? The uk government to begin firing on talibman government forces against the peace agreement? To suddenly magic up new airplans? The USA decided to leave its post without much notice and create a power vacuum. You seem To be confusing the kabul airlift and people wanting flights out of Afghanistan. With Afghanistan refugees in camps wanting asylum in the uk. You obviously didn’t read the link. I mentioned Brexit because it was supposed to slow down asylum seekers and ‘control ‘ our borders, so you think this has happened (after all, you are a Brexit supporter) " Your link doesn't mention brexit? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"However I found this quote on the BBC In written evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, Raphael Marshall, who previously worked on the Foreign Office's Afghanistan crisis response, estimated that between 75,000 and 150,000 people had applied for evacuation in August 2021. He estimated that 5% of these received assistance. The kabul airlift operation yes. That's not an asylum application. And it's bot every 1 who worked for the uk government. That was the Biden administration absolutely shafting the people of Afghanistan. Nothing that do with Biden, they wanted to come the the UK and were shafted by this government’s incompetence. Btw, why hasn’t Brexit helped slow down the number of asylum seekers? I think you really need to look into what you are citing here and read it fully. https://news.sky.com/story/amp/serious-failures-of-afghanistan-evacuation-lowered-uks-global-standing-damning-report-calls-for-foreign-office-boss-to-resign-12620053 And Brexit ? Not sure what brexit has to do with it I am well aware of the situation. Every 1 that the uk could airlift was airlifted. I'm really bot sure what you wanted? The uk government to begin firing on talibman government forces against the peace agreement? To suddenly magic up new airplans? The USA decided to leave its post without much notice and create a power vacuum. You seem To be confusing the kabul airlift and people wanting flights out of Afghanistan. With Afghanistan refugees in camps wanting asylum in the uk. You obviously didn’t read the link. I mentioned Brexit because it was supposed to slow down asylum seekers and ‘control ‘ our borders, so you think this has happened (after all, you are a Brexit supporter) Your link doesn't mention brexit?" No it doesn’t, I am mentioning Brexit, it’s off topic but I was hoping you would know the answer, obviously you don’t, not to worry | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think... again you are conflating 2 issues. The evacuation of Afghanistan of about 120k civilians vs people arriving via clandestine entry to the uk. 120k people were evacuated from Afghanistan over 20 days or so. Mainly to America. The uk government is accepting refugees who may nit have been on those flights but left the country or flew to another country. Via acrs etc This is not to do with the dinghies coming across the channel where about 50% are Albanian? " I have moved on, I am now talking about Brexit and taking back control of our borders, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think... again you are conflating 2 issues. The evacuation of Afghanistan of about 120k civilians vs people arriving via clandestine entry to the uk. 120k people were evacuated from Afghanistan over 20 days or so. Mainly to America. The uk government is accepting refugees who may nit have been on those flights but left the country or flew to another country. Via acrs etc This is not to do with the dinghies coming across the channel where about 50% are Albanian? " Where are the other 50% from?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think... again you are conflating 2 issues. The evacuation of Afghanistan of about 120k civilians vs people arriving via clandestine entry to the uk. 120k people were evacuated from Afghanistan over 20 days or so. Mainly to America. The uk government is accepting refugees who may nit have been on those flights but left the country or flew to another country. Via acrs etc This is not to do with the dinghies coming across the channel where about 50% are Albanian? I have moved on, I am now talking about Brexit and taking back control of our borders, " Then start your own thread. Why are you so angry & confused? Why do you appear to have such a poor opinion of the UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think... again you are conflating 2 issues. The evacuation of Afghanistan of about 120k civilians vs people arriving via clandestine entry to the uk. 120k people were evacuated from Afghanistan over 20 days or so. Mainly to America. The uk government is accepting refugees who may nit have been on those flights but left the country or flew to another country. Via acrs etc This is not to do with the dinghies coming across the channel where about 50% are Albanian? Where are the other 50% from??" You can investigate the data. I imagine most declare themselves from Iran or Afghanistan | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think... again you are conflating 2 issues. The evacuation of Afghanistan of about 120k civilians vs people arriving via clandestine entry to the uk. 120k people were evacuated from Afghanistan over 20 days or so. Mainly to America. The uk government is accepting refugees who may nit have been on those flights but left the country or flew to another country. Via acrs etc This is not to do with the dinghies coming across the channel where about 50% are Albanian? Where are the other 50% from?? You can investigate the data. I imagine most declare themselves from Iran or Afghanistan" Where did you get the 50% from Albanian figure from? They will probably have the information on there | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above." It a very disturbing situation indeed and not helped that the system does not seem fit for purpose. Having said that I'm not sure it was designed to cope with so many at once. Shockingly are the BBC reports that 2 youngsters have been sexually assaulted by these people who are seeking our help. This morning on the news they were saying that Albanian gangs already in the UK are targeting others in France and paying for their crossing if they join the gangs once here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think... again you are conflating 2 issues. The evacuation of Afghanistan of about 120k civilians vs people arriving via clandestine entry to the uk. 120k people were evacuated from Afghanistan over 20 days or so. Mainly to America. The uk government is accepting refugees who may nit have been on those flights but left the country or flew to another country. Via acrs etc This is not to do with the dinghies coming across the channel where about 50% are Albanian? Where are the other 50% from?? You can investigate the data. I imagine most declare themselves from Iran or Afghanistan Where did you get the 50% from Albanian figure from? They will probably have the information on there " They do. But I feel I go out of my way to find you and others who make ill informed comments on this thread too much. I have always supplied national for you lot, government and United nations papers? To highlight where there's a misunderstanding. And then never a thank you. But simply a change of subject. I feel its about time you ladies and gents did you own research. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. It a very disturbing situation indeed and not helped that the system does not seem fit for purpose. Having said that I'm not sure it was designed to cope with so many at once. Shockingly are the BBC reports that 2 youngsters have been sexually assaulted by these people who are seeking our help. This morning on the news they were saying that Albanian gangs already in the UK are targeting others in France and paying for their crossing if they join the gangs once here. " 11,102 Albanians travelled to the uk via boat in may-sptember alone. It's only going to get worse | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think... again you are conflating 2 issues. The evacuation of Afghanistan of about 120k civilians vs people arriving via clandestine entry to the uk. 120k people were evacuated from Afghanistan over 20 days or so. Mainly to America. The uk government is accepting refugees who may nit have been on those flights but left the country or flew to another country. Via acrs etc This is not to do with the dinghies coming across the channel where about 50% are Albanian? Where are the other 50% from?? You can investigate the data. I imagine most declare themselves from Iran or Afghanistan Where did you get the 50% from Albanian figure from? They will probably have the information on there They do. But I feel I go out of my way to find you and others who make ill informed comments on this thread too much. I have always supplied national for you lot, government and United nations papers? To highlight where there's a misunderstanding. And then never a thank you. But simply a change of subject. I feel its about time you ladies and gents did you own research." Ah ok, come back to me when you can find how and why Brexit and the Rwanda scheme has helped the asylum situation . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. It a very disturbing situation indeed and not helped that the system does not seem fit for purpose. Having said that I'm not sure it was designed to cope with so many at once. Shockingly are the BBC reports that 2 youngsters have been sexually assaulted by these people who are seeking our help. This morning on the news they were saying that Albanian gangs already in the UK are targeting others in France and paying for their crossing if they join the gangs once here. 11,102 Albanians travelled to the uk via boat in may-sptember alone. It's only going to get worse " Why don’t we have control of our borders? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. It a very disturbing situation indeed and not helped that the system does not seem fit for purpose. Having said that I'm not sure it was designed to cope with so many at once. Shockingly are the BBC reports that 2 youngsters have been sexually assaulted by these people who are seeking our help. This morning on the news they were saying that Albanian gangs already in the UK are targeting others in France and paying for their crossing if they join the gangs once here. 11,102 Albanians travelled to the uk via boat in may-sptember alone. It's only going to get worse Why don’t we have control of our borders? " We do. That's why they are going to be sent back to Albania Weird question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. It a very disturbing situation indeed and not helped that the system does not seem fit for purpose. Having said that I'm not sure it was designed to cope with so many at once. Shockingly are the BBC reports that 2 youngsters have been sexually assaulted by these people who are seeking our help. This morning on the news they were saying that Albanian gangs already in the UK are targeting others in France and paying for their crossing if they join the gangs once here. 11,102 Albanians travelled to the uk via boat in may-sptember alone. It's only going to get worse Why don’t we have control of our borders? We do. That's why they are going to be sent back to Albania Weird question." When? 4 % have been processed this year and why are they being allowed to come here ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think... again you are conflating 2 issues. The evacuation of Afghanistan of about 120k civilians vs people arriving via clandestine entry to the uk. 120k people were evacuated from Afghanistan over 20 days or so. Mainly to America. The uk government is accepting refugees who may nit have been on those flights but left the country or flew to another country. Via acrs etc This is not to do with the dinghies coming across the channel where about 50% are Albanian? Where are the other 50% from?? You can investigate the data. I imagine most declare themselves from Iran or Afghanistan Where did you get the 50% from Albanian figure from? They will probably have the information on there They do. But I feel I go out of my way to find you and others who make ill informed comments on this thread too much. I have always supplied national for you lot, government and United nations papers? To highlight where there's a misunderstanding. And then never a thank you. But simply a change of subject. I feel its about time you ladies and gents did you own research. Ah ok, come back to me when you can find how and why Brexit and the Rwanda scheme has helped the asylum situation . "Brexit had nothing to do with it. Albanians misunderstanding the law did after the nations & borders Bill. The Rwanda plan will in the end lead to lower figures when fully enacted | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think... again you are conflating 2 issues. The evacuation of Afghanistan of about 120k civilians vs people arriving via clandestine entry to the uk. 120k people were evacuated from Afghanistan over 20 days or so. Mainly to America. The uk government is accepting refugees who may nit have been on those flights but left the country or flew to another country. Via acrs etc This is not to do with the dinghies coming across the channel where about 50% are Albanian? Where are the other 50% from?? You can investigate the data. I imagine most declare themselves from Iran or Afghanistan Where did you get the 50% from Albanian figure from? They will probably have the information on there They do. But I feel I go out of my way to find you and others who make ill informed comments on this thread too much. I have always supplied national for you lot, government and United nations papers? To highlight where there's a misunderstanding. And then never a thank you. But simply a change of subject. I feel its about time you ladies and gents did you own research. Ah ok, come back to me when you can find how and why Brexit and the Rwanda scheme has helped the asylum situation .
Brexit had nothing to do with it. Albanians misunderstanding the law did after the nations & borders Bill.
The Rwanda plan will in the end lead to lower figures when fully enacted"Get back to me when it does | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think... again you are conflating 2 issues. The evacuation of Afghanistan of about 120k civilians vs people arriving via clandestine entry to the uk. 120k people were evacuated from Afghanistan over 20 days or so. Mainly to America. The uk government is accepting refugees who may nit have been on those flights but left the country or flew to another country. Via acrs etc This is not to do with the dinghies coming across the channel where about 50% are Albanian? Where are the other 50% from?? You can investigate the data. I imagine most declare themselves from Iran or Afghanistan Where did you get the 50% from Albanian figure from? They will probably have the information on there They do. But I feel I go out of my way to find you and others who make ill informed comments on this thread too much. I have always supplied national for you lot, government and United nations papers? To highlight where there's a misunderstanding. And then never a thank you. But simply a change of subject. I feel its about time you ladies and gents did you own research. Ah ok, come back to me when you can find how and why Brexit and the Rwanda scheme has helped the asylum situation .
Brexit had nothing to do with it. Albanians misunderstanding the law did after the nations & borders Bill.
The Rwanda plan will in the end lead to lower figures when fully enacted
Get back to me when it does "Will do. Will you get back to me and answer some of my questuon that ia shed earlier in the thread? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think... again you are conflating 2 issues. The evacuation of Afghanistan of about 120k civilians vs people arriving via clandestine entry to the uk. 120k people were evacuated from Afghanistan over 20 days or so. Mainly to America. The uk government is accepting refugees who may nit have been on those flights but left the country or flew to another country. Via acrs etc This is not to do with the dinghies coming across the channel where about 50% are Albanian? Where are the other 50% from?? You can investigate the data. I imagine most declare themselves from Iran or Afghanistan Where did you get the 50% from Albanian figure from? They will probably have the information on there They do. But I feel I go out of my way to find you and others who make ill informed comments on this thread too much. I have always supplied national for you lot, government and United nations papers? To highlight where there's a misunderstanding. And then never a thank you. But simply a change of subject. I feel its about time you ladies and gents did you own research. Ah ok, come back to me when you can find how and why Brexit and the Rwanda scheme has helped the asylum situation .
Brexit had nothing to do with it. Albanians misunderstanding the law did after the nations & borders Bill.
The Rwanda plan will in the end lead to lower figures when fully enacted
Get back to me when it does
Will do.
Will you get back to me and answer some of my questuon that ia shed earlier in the thread?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think... again you are conflating 2 issues. The evacuation of Afghanistan of about 120k civilians vs people arriving via clandestine entry to the uk. 120k people were evacuated from Afghanistan over 20 days or so. Mainly to America. The uk government is accepting refugees who may nit have been on those flights but left the country or flew to another country. Via acrs etc This is not to do with the dinghies coming across the channel where about 50% are Albanian? Where are the other 50% from?? You can investigate the data. I imagine most declare themselves from Iran or Afghanistan Where did you get the 50% from Albanian figure from? They will probably have the information on there They do. But I feel I go out of my way to find you and others who make ill informed comments on this thread too much. I have always supplied national for you lot, government and United nations papers? To highlight where there's a misunderstanding. And then never a thank you. But simply a change of subject. I feel its about time you ladies and gents did you own research. Ah ok, come back to me when you can find how and why Brexit and the Rwanda scheme has helped the asylum situation .
Brexit had nothing to do with it. Albanians misunderstanding the law did after the nations & borders Bill.
The Rwanda plan will in the end lead to lower figures when fully enacted
Get back to me when it does
Will do.
Will you get back to me and answer some of my questuon that ia shed earlier in the thread?
"So then thumbs up you'll answer the question is asked good. Why do you think the Rwanda plan was pulled? Why do you think we have paid Rwanda 120m ? Do you accept there are legal entry routes to the uk without requiring clandestine entry? Do you accept well over 12000 illegal migrants this year are form Albania who aren't entitled to asylum? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. It a very disturbing situation indeed and not helped that the system does not seem fit for purpose. Having said that I'm not sure it was designed to cope with so many at once. Shockingly are the BBC reports that 2 youngsters have been sexually assaulted by these people who are seeking our help. This morning on the news they were saying that Albanian gangs already in the UK are targeting others in France and paying for their crossing if they join the gangs once here. " Wow, I didn’t know that. Gangs already here paying for more to come. Most of us grew out of a ‘gang’ when we were 12. What’s going on? I’ve heard reports of weapons in Manston. I daren’t comment on it as some will accuse me of being an alarmist xenophobe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think... again you are conflating 2 issues. The evacuation of Afghanistan of about 120k civilians vs people arriving via clandestine entry to the uk. 120k people were evacuated from Afghanistan over 20 days or so. Mainly to America. The uk government is accepting refugees who may nit have been on those flights but left the country or flew to another country. Via acrs etc This is not to do with the dinghies coming across the channel where about 50% are Albanian? Where are the other 50% from?? You can investigate the data. I imagine most declare themselves from Iran or Afghanistan Where did you get the 50% from Albanian figure from? They will probably have the information on there They do. But I feel I go out of my way to find you and others who make ill informed comments on this thread too much. I have always supplied national for you lot, government and United nations papers? To highlight where there's a misunderstanding. And then never a thank you. But simply a change of subject. I feel its about time you ladies and gents did you own research. Ah ok, come back to me when you can find how and why Brexit and the Rwanda scheme has helped the asylum situation .
Brexit had nothing to do with it. Albanians misunderstanding the law did after the nations & borders Bill.
The Rwanda plan will in the end lead to lower figures when fully enacted
Get back to me when it does
Will do.
Will you get back to me and answer some of my questuon that ia shed earlier in the thread?
So then thumbs up you'll answer the question is asked good.
Why do you think the Rwanda plan was pulled?
Why do you think we have paid Rwanda 120m ?
Do you accept there are legal entry routes to the uk without requiring clandestine entry?
Do you accept well over 12000 illegal migrants this year are form Albania who aren't entitled to asylum?
"He normally claims that they are all honest good hard working people and we should be lucky that they have come here to rebuild broken Britain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. It a very disturbing situation indeed and not helped that the system does not seem fit for purpose. Having said that I'm not sure it was designed to cope with so many at once. Shockingly are the BBC reports that 2 youngsters have been sexually assaulted by these people who are seeking our help. This morning on the news they were saying that Albanian gangs already in the UK are targeting others in France and paying for their crossing if they join the gangs once here. Wow, I didn’t know that. Gangs already here paying for more to come. Most of us grew out of a ‘gang’ when we were 12. What’s going on? I’ve heard reports of weapons in Manston. I daren’t comment on it as some will accuse me of being an alarmist xenophobe. " gangs preying suggests a) ppl are twhre already wanting to claim asylum. And b) also supports modern sl@very claims. Our system enables a criminal element. Shouldn't we change the system rather than driving it further underground? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. It a very disturbing situation indeed and not helped that the system does not seem fit for purpose. Having said that I'm not sure it was designed to cope with so many at once. Shockingly are the BBC reports that 2 youngsters have been sexually assaulted by these people who are seeking our help. This morning on the news they were saying that Albanian gangs already in the UK are targeting others in France and paying for their crossing if they join the gangs once here. Wow, I didn’t know that. Gangs already here paying for more to come. Most of us grew out of a ‘gang’ when we were 12. What’s going on? I’ve heard reports of weapons in Manston. I daren’t comment on it as some will accuse me of being an alarmist xenophobe. gangs preying suggests a) ppl are twhre already wanting to claim asylum. And b) also supports modern sl@very claims. Our system enables a criminal element. Shouldn't we change the system rather than driving it further underground? " The modern sla very act of 2015 addresses this. But deporting people is not easy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. It a very disturbing situation indeed and not helped that the system does not seem fit for purpose. Having said that I'm not sure it was designed to cope with so many at once. Shockingly are the BBC reports that 2 youngsters have been sexually assaulted by these people who are seeking our help. This morning on the news they were saying that Albanian gangs already in the UK are targeting others in France and paying for their crossing if they join the gangs once here. Wow, I didn’t know that. Gangs already here paying for more to come. Most of us grew out of a ‘gang’ when we were 12. What’s going on? I’ve heard reports of weapons in Manston. I daren’t comment on it as some will accuse me of being an alarmist xenophobe. gangs preying suggests a) ppl are twhre already wanting to claim asylum. And b) also supports modern sl@very claims. Our system enables a criminal element. Shouldn't we change the system rather than driving it further underground? " every system is liable to criminal abuse. Some more than others of course. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think... again you are conflating 2 issues. The evacuation of Afghanistan of about 120k civilians vs people arriving via clandestine entry to the uk. 120k people were evacuated from Afghanistan over 20 days or so. Mainly to America. The uk government is accepting refugees who may nit have been on those flights but left the country or flew to another country. Via acrs etc This is not to do with the dinghies coming across the channel where about 50% are Albanian? Where are the other 50% from?? You can investigate the data. I imagine most declare themselves from Iran or Afghanistan Where did you get the 50% from Albanian figure from? They will probably have the information on there They do. But I feel I go out of my way to find you and others who make ill informed comments on this thread too much. I have always supplied national for you lot, government and United nations papers? To highlight where there's a misunderstanding. And then never a thank you. But simply a change of subject. I feel its about time you ladies and gents did you own research. Ah ok, come back to me when you can find how and why Brexit and the Rwanda scheme has helped the asylum situation .
Brexit had nothing to do with it. Albanians misunderstanding the law did after the nations & borders Bill.
The Rwanda plan will in the end lead to lower figures when fully enacted
Get back to me when it does
Will do.
Will you get back to me and answer some of my questuon that ia shed earlier in the thread?
So then thumbs up you'll answer the question is asked good.
Why do you think the Rwanda plan was pulled?
Why do you think we have paid Rwanda 120m ?
Do you accept there are legal entry routes to the uk without requiring clandestine entry?
Do you accept well over 12000 illegal migrants this year are form Albania who aren't entitled to asylum?
"Get back to me when it starts and works | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How very adult of you. Such a Shame many in the uk have lost three ability to debate and use factual numbers and logic. But instead prefer to shout loudest and when challenged on their claims refuse to answer. " ‘I feel its about time you ladies and gents did you own research’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How very adult of you. Such a Shame many in the uk have lost three ability to debate and use factual numbers and logic. But instead prefer to shout loudest and when challenged on their claims refuse to answer. ‘I feel its about time you ladies and gents did you own research’ "We do. Try it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How very adult of you. Such a Shame many in the uk have lost three ability to debate and use factual numbers and logic. But instead prefer to shout loudest and when challenged on their claims refuse to answer. " Such as with the OP? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How very adult of you. Such a Shame many in the uk have lost three ability to debate and use factual numbers and logic. But instead prefer to shout loudest and when challenged on their claims refuse to answer. Such as with the OP?" As you like to believe. Try to open your mind | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How very adult of you. Such a Shame many in the uk have lost three ability to debate and use factual numbers and logic. But instead prefer to shout loudest and when challenged on their claims refuse to answer. Such as with the OP? As you like to believe. Try to open your mind" I'm happy to be open minded to good ideas, reasonable points. Your OP contained none, so the only thing to debate is why you post anti-immigrant rants, then spend the rest of the thread denying what you said earlier. It's been going on for months, and I haven't seen anything other than confused ranting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. It a very disturbing situation indeed and not helped that the system does not seem fit for purpose. Having said that I'm not sure it was designed to cope with so many at once. Shockingly are the BBC reports that 2 youngsters have been sexually assaulted by these people who are seeking our help. This morning on the news they were saying that Albanian gangs already in the UK are targeting others in France and paying for their crossing if they join the gangs once here. Wow, I didn’t know that. Gangs already here paying for more to come. Most of us grew out of a ‘gang’ when we were 12. What’s going on? I’ve heard reports of weapons in Manston. I daren’t comment on it as some will accuse me of being an alarmist xenophobe. gangs preying suggests a) ppl are twhre already wanting to claim asylum. And b) also supports modern sl@very claims. Our system enables a criminal element. Shouldn't we change the system rather than driving it further underground? The modern sla very act of 2015 addresses this. But deporting people is not easy. " I don't follow. If Gangs are preying on vulnerable ppl, probably getting them into debt bondage, that comes under modern sl@very. Some suggest these claims are false and the system is being abused... But if you bekieve they are grooming asylum then that is evidence for it being true... At least for these folks. It also suggests their claims are move than just modern sl@very. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it a bad thing to question whether illegal immigration is being handled correctly or not ? From what's reported most seem to be young guys , not many women , few children. People escaping a dangerous situation in their own country should be helped. However , to reach our shores they'd need to cross quite a few other countries that are able to offer safety. If my house is on fire I run to the nearest place of safety . I don't get on a bus and travel for 5 hours to a better neighbourhood because they may have a more comfortable settee to sit on whilst the fire brigade do their job. Imagine being a homeless person on the streets in an area where these people turn up . they get set up in hotel room with nice warm meals.... if that's fair in some peoples eyes they need to visit specsavers ( other opticians are an option )" I see, after your house has burnt down where did you go? And why are there homeless people on the streets? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it a bad thing to question whether illegal immigration is being handled correctly or not ? From what's reported most seem to be young guys , not many women , few children. People escaping a dangerous situation in their own country should be helped. However , to reach our shores they'd need to cross quite a few other countries that are able to offer safety. If my house is on fire I run to the nearest place of safety . I don't get on a bus and travel for 5 hours to a better neighbourhood because they may have a more comfortable settee to sit on whilst the fire brigade do their job. Imagine being a homeless person on the streets in an area where these people turn up . they get set up in hotel room with nice warm meals.... if that's fair in some peoples eyes they need to visit specsavers ( other opticians are an option ) I see, after your house has burnt down where did you go? And why are there homeless people on the streets? " I certainly don't travel hundreds of miles to a place where I can't speak the language. I wouldn't leave my wife and kids either. And homeless on the streets isn't going to be helped by spending a fortune on hotel rooms for people that have contributed nothing to this country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it a bad thing to question whether illegal immigration is being handled correctly or not ? From what's reported most seem to be young guys , not many women , few children. People escaping a dangerous situation in their own country should be helped. However , to reach our shores they'd need to cross quite a few other countries that are able to offer safety. If my house is on fire I run to the nearest place of safety . I don't get on a bus and travel for 5 hours to a better neighbourhood because they may have a more comfortable settee to sit on whilst the fire brigade do their job. Imagine being a homeless person on the streets in an area where these people turn up . they get set up in hotel room with nice warm meals.... if that's fair in some peoples eyes they need to visit specsavers ( other opticians are an option )" The government doesn't give a shit about homeless people either. They should be looking after both, it's not a choice between one or the other. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it a bad thing to question whether illegal immigration is being handled correctly or not ? From what's reported most seem to be young guys , not many women , few children. People escaping a dangerous situation in their own country should be helped. However , to reach our shores they'd need to cross quite a few other countries that are able to offer safety. If my house is on fire I run to the nearest place of safety . I don't get on a bus and travel for 5 hours to a better neighbourhood because they may have a more comfortable settee to sit on whilst the fire brigade do their job. Imagine being a homeless person on the streets in an area where these people turn up . they get set up in hotel room with nice warm meals.... if that's fair in some peoples eyes they need to visit specsavers ( other opticians are an option )" you're house is burnt my friend. You ain't living there again. Would you prefer to live with your family. Or q random stranger? Ppl have the right to claim asylum where they choose. We can think that's a dumb rule. But that doesnt mean they are doing anything wrong, illegal or immoral (as I heard a minister say today) by using their rights. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it a bad thing to question whether illegal immigration is being handled correctly or not ? From what's reported most seem to be young guys , not many women , few children. People escaping a dangerous situation in their own country should be helped. However , to reach our shores they'd need to cross quite a few other countries that are able to offer safety. If my house is on fire I run to the nearest place of safety . I don't get on a bus and travel for 5 hours to a better neighbourhood because they may have a more comfortable settee to sit on whilst the fire brigade do their job. Imagine being a homeless person on the streets in an area where these people turn up . they get set up in hotel room with nice warm meals.... if that's fair in some peoples eyes they need to visit specsavers ( other opticians are an option ) I see, after your house has burnt down where did you go? And why are there homeless people on the streets? I certainly don't travel hundreds of miles to a place where I can't speak the language. I wouldn't leave my wife and kids either. And homeless on the streets isn't going to be helped by spending a fortune on hotel rooms for people that have contributed nothing to this country. " You have no house, it’s been burnt down, where are you living? There have been homeless people in the streets for years , | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planned sensible immigration = good. We all get that don’t we? We have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and have at times provided refuge to those in need. Uncontrolled mass immigration - bad. Especially when it was politically driven as per Tony Blair’s wish to ‘stick it up the Tories in the shores’. This ultimately led to the disaster of Brexit. Who is in favour of mass uncontrolled migration? Illegal immigration- bad. People from wherever turning up on our shores, finding dangerous & illegal ways to gain entry. Overwhelmingly young men. History repeatedly shows that where you have an excess of young men you get social unrest. People abusing our compassion & good nature. Who thinks this is good? We have seen the consequences before of disillusioned or failed asylum seekers going on to commit horrific crimes. Just in the last few days things have gone from bad to much worse. We are seeing incidents of child sexual abuse & r@pe. We saw the other day a number of young men left on a coach in Victoria, they found themselves without accommodation or food but why is that the responsibility of the British authorities, they should have been grateful that they hadn’t been kicked out back to France which they left of their own accord. Stoke centre is according to locals becoming a no go zone due to gangs of Syrians, Albanians, Iraqis. Already this influx is being felt in the courts. So, planned immigration good. Mass uncontrolled immigration bad. Illegal immigration bad. Put aside the usual cries of ‘racist’ ‘xenophobe’, and tell me why you disagree with the above. It a very disturbing situation indeed and not helped that the system does not seem fit for purpose. Having said that I'm not sure it was designed to cope with so many at once. Shockingly are the BBC reports that 2 youngsters have been sexually assaulted by these people who are seeking our help. This morning on the news they were saying that Albanian gangs already in the UK are targeting others in France and paying for their crossing if they join the gangs once here. Wow, I didn’t know that. Gangs already here paying for more to come. Most of us grew out of a ‘gang’ when we were 12. What’s going on? I’ve heard reports of weapons in Manston. I daren’t comment on it as some will accuse me of being an alarmist xenophobe. gangs preying suggests a) ppl are twhre already wanting to claim asylum. And b) also supports modern sl@very claims. Our system enables a criminal element. Shouldn't we change the system rather than driving it further underground? The modern sla very act of 2015 addresses this. But deporting people is not easy. I don't follow. If Gangs are preying on vulnerable ppl, probably getting them into debt bondage, that comes under modern sl@very. Some suggest these claims are false and the system is being abused... But if you bekieve they are grooming asylum then that is evidence for it being true... At least for these folks. It also suggests their claims are move than just modern sl@very. " The act deals with bringing them here etc and work(sla very). This is something I dealt with in a previous line of work for a bank. Typically they will get women here to make money, and then take their passports. And used them as prost itutes for x years before returning it The men typically will work for the gangs. But it fall under the act because the act also deals with fraud and tax implications of payment and declaration. It a varied and wide ranging bill to try and stop reasons people should want to be smuggled here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it a bad thing to question whether illegal immigration is being handled correctly or not ? From what's reported most seem to be young guys , not many women , few children. People escaping a dangerous situation in their own country should be helped. However , to reach our shores they'd need to cross quite a few other countries that are able to offer safety. If my house is on fire I run to the nearest place of safety . I don't get on a bus and travel for 5 hours to a better neighbourhood because they may have a more comfortable settee to sit on whilst the fire brigade do their job. Imagine being a homeless person on the streets in an area where these people turn up . they get set up in hotel room with nice warm meals.... if that's fair in some peoples eyes they need to visit specsavers ( other opticians are an option ) I see, after your house has burnt down where did you go? And why are there homeless people on the streets? I certainly don't travel hundreds of miles to a place where I can't speak the language. I wouldn't leave my wife and kids either. And homeless on the streets isn't going to be helped by spending a fortune on hotel rooms for people that have contributed nothing to this country. " To quote myself on this thread a few hours ago... issues require quantification to understand actual impact versus perceived impact. I am strongly of the opinion that while immigration, and illegal immigration, has/is caused issues in the UK (and plenty of other countries), it has been overstated and weaponised to deflect from the quantifiably bigger negative issues facing citizens of the UK. So while nobody in their right mind supports uncontrolled migration or illegal immigration, the quantifiable impact is undoubtedly less then many other issues facing us today. So it is used as a dead cat distraction. Personally I think we should assign priority according to impact. Right now the cost of living crisis and financial black hole (massively exacerbated by Truss/Kwartang and impact of Brexit) is far more concerning than anything related to illegal immigrants. People being unable to afford their gas/electric, food, rent/mortgage or the admission by BoE that their base rate increases WILL result in far higher unemployment (making the former affordability points worse and increasing the benefits costs for UK) are all far bigger issues to discuss than immigrants (legal or illegal, genuine asylum seeker or not). Very few of the main issues facing the UK are the cause of immigrants. But they remain a highly emotive easy target for distraction (wonder who else figured out something similar - ie identify a bogeyman and blame them for everything). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it a bad thing to question whether illegal immigration is being handled correctly or not ? From what's reported most seem to be young guys , not many women , few children. People escaping a dangerous situation in their own country should be helped. However , to reach our shores they'd need to cross quite a few other countries that are able to offer safety. If my house is on fire I run to the nearest place of safety . I don't get on a bus and travel for 5 hours to a better neighbourhood because they may have a more comfortable settee to sit on whilst the fire brigade do their job. Imagine being a homeless person on the streets in an area where these people turn up . they get set up in hotel room with nice warm meals.... if that's fair in some peoples eyes they need to visit specsavers ( other opticians are an option )you're house is burnt my friend. You ain't living there again. Would you prefer to live with your family. Or q random stranger? Ppl have the right to claim asylum where they choose. We can think that's a dumb rule. But that doesnt mean they are doing anything wrong, illegal or immoral (as I heard a minister say today) by using their rights. " Agreed people can claim asylum where they want. But a country doesn't have to accept that claim. For me asylum should be used where you are being persecuted and have civil right taken away and are likely under the threat of death. I have bo problem with genuine iranians/eritreans/Afghans coming here who have maybe spoke out about a regime too much in their own country and applying for asylum. But they should all be screened and come here with ID so background checks on social media, bank accounts etc can be done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Very few of the main issues facing the UK are the cause of immigrants. But they remain a highly emotive easy target for distraction (wonder who else figured out something similar - ie identify a bogeyman and blame them for everything) Whats with the distraction claim ? I'm not distracted from all the other problems going on in the world , from climate change to Ukraine and the f@#k up the government are making of the economy. What's your point ? What issue are you okay with us discussing? Who made you the arbiter. " Good post.
Who were the questions at the end directed to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Very few of the main issues facing the UK are the cause of immigrants. But they remain a highly emotive easy target for distraction (wonder who else figured out something similar - ie identify a bogeyman and blame them for everything) Whats with the distraction claim ? I'm not distracted from all the other problems going on in the world , from climate change to Ukraine and the f@#k up the government are making of the economy. What's your point ? What issue are you okay with us discussing? Who made you the arbiter. " Nobody but the point stands. Wonder how many column inches papers like the Faily Heil and Express have devoted to immigrants (illegal or illegal) compared to other topics that might be seen as being critical of the management of UK plc over the last 12yrs? Nothing wrong with discussing it but my point is that we should spend proportionately the right amount of time in relation to impact. We don’t! That’s because immigration has been weaponised and is a perfect distraction from the things that we should be more focused on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Very few of the main issues facing the UK are the cause of immigrants. But they remain a highly emotive easy target for distraction (wonder who else figured out something similar - ie identify a bogeyman and blame them for everything) Whats with the distraction claim ? I'm not distracted from all the other problems going on in the world , from climate change to Ukraine and the f@#k up the government are making of the economy. What's your point ? What issue are you okay with us discussing? Who made you the arbiter. Good post.
Who were the questions at the end directed to?"Seems I was right about the 2 brain cells | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it a bad thing to question whether illegal immigration is being handled correctly or not ? From what's reported most seem to be young guys , not many women , few children. People escaping a dangerous situation in their own country should be helped. However , to reach our shores they'd need to cross quite a few other countries that are able to offer safety. If my house is on fire I run to the nearest place of safety . I don't get on a bus and travel for 5 hours to a better neighbourhood because they may have a more comfortable settee to sit on whilst the fire brigade do their job. Imagine being a homeless person on the streets in an area where these people turn up . they get set up in hotel room with nice warm meals.... if that's fair in some peoples eyes they need to visit specsavers ( other opticians are an option )you're house is burnt my friend. You ain't living there again. Would you prefer to live with your family. Or q random stranger? Ppl have the right to claim asylum where they choose. We can think that's a dumb rule. But that doesnt mean they are doing anything wrong, illegal or immoral (as I heard a minister say today) by using their rights. Agreed people can claim asylum where they want. But a country doesn't have to accept that claim. For me asylum should be used where you are being persecuted and have civil right taken away and are likely under the threat of death. I have bo problem with genuine iranians/eritreans/Afghans coming here who have maybe spoke out about a regime too much in their own country and applying for asylum. But they should all be screened and come here with ID so background checks on social media, bank accounts etc can be done. " The UK's routes for refugees are limited to those from specific geographies and both in number and characterised by extremely slow processing. How do Eritreans and Iranians apply to come here "legally"? How does limiting refugee immigration prevent the movement of economic migrants and people trafficking? How doe the Rwanda scheme that removes people legally granted asylum to Rwanda prevent the movement of economic migrants and people trafficking? Why are those who you acknowledge as "deserving" of help being penalised to "deter" those who are not? Is this approach proving to be successful in any way? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Very few of the main issues facing the UK are the cause of immigrants. But they remain a highly emotive easy target for distraction (wonder who else figured out something similar - ie identify a bogeyman and blame them for everything) Whats with the distraction claim ? I'm not distracted from all the other problems going on in the world , from climate change to Ukraine and the f@#k up the government are making of the economy. What's your point ? What issue are you okay with us discussing? Who made you the arbiter. Nobody but the point stands. Wonder how many column inches papers like the Faily Heil and Express have devoted to immigrants (illegal or illegal) compared to other topics that might be seen as being critical of the management of UK plc over the last 12yrs? Nothing wrong with discussing it but my point is that we should spend proportionately the right amount of time in relation to impact. We don’t! That’s because immigration has been weaponised and is a perfect distraction from the things that we should be more focused on." Thats your opinion , fine. Others don't agree with the level you set fir its discussion. Is that okay with you ? Open a discussion on another topic and I'll give you my opinion...go ahead. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Very few of the main issues facing the UK are the cause of immigrants. But they remain a highly emotive easy target for distraction (wonder who else figured out something similar - ie identify a bogeyman and blame them for everything) Whats with the distraction claim ? I'm not distracted from all the other problems going on in the world , from climate change to Ukraine and the f@#k up the government are making of the economy. What's your point ? What issue are you okay with us discussing? Who made you the arbiter. Good post.
Who were the questions at the end directed to?
Seems I was right about the 2 brain cells"Just to be clear. 1. You posted the whole thing with no quotes. 2. You were complaining on the other thread about light banter being bullying and here you jump directly to personal insults. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Very few of the main issues facing the UK are the cause of immigrants. But they remain a highly emotive easy target for distraction (wonder who else figured out something similar - ie identify a bogeyman and blame them for everything) Whats with the distraction claim ? I'm not distracted from all the other problems going on in the world , from climate change to Ukraine and the f@#k up the government are making of the economy. What's your point ? What issue are you okay with us discussing? Who made you the arbiter. Nobody but the point stands. Wonder how many column inches papers like the Faily Heil and Express have devoted to immigrants (illegal or illegal) compared to other topics that might be seen as being critical of the management of UK plc over the last 12yrs? Nothing wrong with discussing it but my point is that we should spend proportionately the right amount of time in relation to impact. We don’t! That’s because immigration has been weaponised and is a perfect distraction from the things that we should be more focused on. Thats your opinion , fine. Others don't agree with the level you set fir its discussion. Is that okay with you ? Open a discussion on another topic and I'll give you my opinion...go ahead. " If your opinion is just personal insults. Pointless. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it a bad thing to question whether illegal immigration is being handled correctly or not ? From what's reported most seem to be young guys , not many women , few children. People escaping a dangerous situation in their own country should be helped. However , to reach our shores they'd need to cross quite a few other countries that are able to offer safety. If my house is on fire I run to the nearest place of safety . I don't get on a bus and travel for 5 hours to a better neighbourhood because they may have a more comfortable settee to sit on whilst the fire brigade do their job. Imagine being a homeless person on the streets in an area where these people turn up . they get set up in hotel room with nice warm meals.... if that's fair in some peoples eyes they need to visit specsavers ( other opticians are an option )you're house is burnt my friend. You ain't living there again. Would you prefer to live with your family. Or q random stranger? Ppl have the right to claim asylum where they choose. We can think that's a dumb rule. But that doesnt mean they are doing anything wrong, illegal or immoral (as I heard a minister say today) by using their rights. Agreed people can claim asylum where they want. But a country doesn't have to accept that claim. For me asylum should be used where you are being persecuted and have civil right taken away and are likely under the threat of death. I have bo problem with genuine iranians/eritreans/Afghans coming here who have maybe spoke out about a regime too much in their own country and applying for asylum. But they should all be screened and come here with ID so background checks on social media, bank accounts etc can be done. " that a different angle imo. And I believe that the safe country bit is a consideration. It's just lower in importance than other things like if you have connections to the UK. I have no reason to think sensible checks aren't being done. Welcome evidence to the contrary. There does seem a distrust in the ppl / system doing our checks that we don't do a good job. Don't know where that comes from other than fear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it a bad thing to question whether illegal immigration is being handled correctly or not ? From what's reported most seem to be young guys , not many women , few children. People escaping a dangerous situation in their own country should be helped. However , to reach our shores they'd need to cross quite a few other countries that are able to offer safety. If my house is on fire I run to the nearest place of safety . I don't get on a bus and travel for 5 hours to a better neighbourhood because they may have a more comfortable settee to sit on whilst the fire brigade do their job. Imagine being a homeless person on the streets in an area where these people turn up . they get set up in hotel room with nice warm meals.... if that's fair in some peoples eyes they need to visit specsavers ( other opticians are an option )you're house is burnt my friend. You ain't living there again. Would you prefer to live with your family. Or q random stranger? Ppl have the right to claim asylum where they choose. We can think that's a dumb rule. But that doesnt mean they are doing anything wrong, illegal or immoral (as I heard a minister say today) by using their rights. Agreed people can claim asylum where they want. But a country doesn't have to accept that claim. For me asylum should be used where you are being persecuted and have civil right taken away and are likely under the threat of death. I have bo problem with genuine iranians/eritreans/Afghans coming here who have maybe spoke out about a regime too much in their own country and applying for asylum. But they should all be screened and come here with ID so background checks on social media, bank accounts etc can be done. The UK's routes for refugees are limited to those from specific geographies and both in number and characterised by extremely slow processing. How do Eritreans and Iranians apply to come here "legally"? How does limiting refugee immigration prevent the movement of economic migrants and people trafficking? How doe the Rwanda scheme that removes people legally granted asylum to Rwanda prevent the movement of economic migrants and people trafficking? Why are those who you acknowledge as "deserving" of help being penalised to "deter" those who are not? Is this approach proving to be successful in any way?" I have already dealt with how they can apply I put a Google search in on how they can. Search UK resettlement scheme. Yes it's slow. But it's how the uk verifies the genuine claims. They are in a safe place while it's being done. People traffickers rely on the migrants knowing they won't be sent to Rwanda or their home country. If they realise there's a strong possibility that if they can prove their need for asylum they will have paid 5k fkr nothing. The trafficking will end very quickly. No 1 is being penalised. Infact those in need are being penalised because we now have about 12k Albanians we need tk get rid of first before we can process genuine claims. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Very few of the main issues facing the UK are the cause of immigrants. But they remain a highly emotive easy target for distraction (wonder who else figured out something similar - ie identify a bogeyman and blame them for everything) Whats with the distraction claim ? I'm not distracted from all the other problems going on in the world , from climate change to Ukraine and the f@#k up the government are making of the economy. What's your point ? What issue are you okay with us discussing? Who made you the arbiter. Nobody but the point stands. Wonder how many column inches papers like the Faily Heil and Express have devoted to immigrants (illegal or illegal) compared to other topics that might be seen as being critical of the management of UK plc over the last 12yrs? Nothing wrong with discussing it but my point is that we should spend proportionately the right amount of time in relation to impact. We don’t! That’s because immigration has been weaponised and is a perfect distraction from the things that we should be more focused on. Thats your opinion , fine. Others don't agree with the level you set fir its discussion. Is that okay with you ? Open a discussion on another topic and I'll give you my opinion...go ahead. " Of course it is my opinion. What else would it be? It is all any of us post generally. Does that irk you for some reason? I don’t want to open another thread, just respond here if you want to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
