FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Asylum seekers flying home for Christmas.
Asylum seekers flying home for Christmas.
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“As part of your asylum application, the Home Office will have taken your national passport away. However you can apply for and travel with a Refugee travel document that the Home Office can issue. You will need someone to verify/certify the application. “" Considering it is upper 90% of people arriving by small boat don’t have documents, there isn’t a lot of confiscation to do really. And I guess travelling back to a country you have fled from and risked your life to get away from, is okay during festivities. Strange set of circumstances, indeed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Daily Express is proficient are riling up people who are fearful of foreigners. " Nice to know and what are your thoughts on this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Daily Express is proficient are riling up people who are fearful of foreigners. Nice to know and what are your thoughts on this?" My thoughts are that the Daily Express has deliberately misreported what happened to cause outrage amongst their readership. Thanks for asking.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Daily Express is proficient are riling up people who are fearful of foreigners. Nice to know and what are your thoughts on this? My thoughts are that the Daily Express has deliberately misreported what happened to cause outrage amongst their readership. Thanks for asking. "Great insights, any views on the actual interview with border control that sparked this? I think we can put the express to one side for a moment, unless that really is all you want to talk about? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Daily Express is proficient are riling up people who are fearful of foreigners. " But the measure is whether the story is true or not. The originator seems to be UK Border Force Head. What are your thoughts if he's right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Daily Express is proficient are riling up people who are fearful of foreigners. Nice to know and what are your thoughts on this? My thoughts are that the Daily Express has deliberately misreported what happened to cause outrage amongst their readership. Thanks for asking.
Great insights, any views on the actual interview with border control that sparked this?
I think we can put the express to one side for a moment, unless that really is all you want to talk about?"No, I have no opinion on the opinion of the guy who was interviewed. Thanks for asking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Daily Express is proficient are riling up people who are fearful of foreigners. Nice to know and what are your thoughts on this? My thoughts are that the Daily Express has deliberately misreported what happened to cause outrage amongst their readership. Thanks for asking. "What has actually happened for clarity? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Daily Express is proficient are riling up people who are fearful of foreigners. Nice to know and what are your thoughts on this? My thoughts are that the Daily Express has deliberately misreported what happened to cause outrage amongst their readership. Thanks for asking.
What has actually happened for clarity? "It appears to have started with the UK border force boss interviewed on LBC isaying that operation pantera - outward bound flights, is finding asylum seekers going out of uk for Christmas. The home office issue travel permits for this. Interview is on LBC. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Daily Express is proficient are riling up people who are fearful of foreigners. But the measure is whether the story is true or not. The originator seems to be UK Border Force Head. What are your thoughts if he's right?" If it's right, then I'm half for it .. the first half that is  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Additionally, inside housing (web) is reporting “ It’s good that the government is processing people’s asylum claims faster. (215,500 in progress), but there are no homes for them to move to. “ There are currently 1,600,000 households ( not people) on council house waiting lists. ONS fig Additionally “the number of households living in temporary accommodation has also continued to climb steeply with 104,510 people sleeping in temporary accommodation on 31st March 2023, an increase of 10 per cent since last year, and up four per cent since last quarter” “Councils are under significant financial pressures, and with no additional funding announced in the Autumn Statement last month – despite repeated calls from local authorities that this is urgently needed – this pressure will only rise.” " They want to be hear and get asylum dose there have to be an obligation to house them. They can work and find there own accommodation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I hope they get a nice Xmas lunch on us as well " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I hope they get a nice Xmas lunch on us as well "Legal fees, accommodation, Christmas lunch......what a generous people we are. Or is it mugs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I hope they get a nice Xmas lunch on us as well
Legal fees, accommodation, Christmas lunch......what a generous people we are. Or is it mugs?"Not mugs, definitely not mugs... What does the head of border control know about stuff, cancel him now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Daily Express is proficient are riling up people who are fearful of foreigners. Nice to know and what are your thoughts on this? My thoughts are that the Daily Express has deliberately misreported what happened to cause outrage amongst their readership. Thanks for asking. "What part of it was reported incorrectly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Daily Express is proficient are riling up people who are fearful of foreigners. Nice to know and what are your thoughts on this? My thoughts are that the Daily Express has deliberately misreported what happened to cause outrage amongst their readership. Thanks for asking.
What part of it was reported incorrectly?"Not seen the article as yet but not sure if some are saying the report is inaccurate or that it should not be reported at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now had a quick read and the story is mostly about the Rwanda scheme but does mention that someone from border force saying that their checks show asylum seekers going back to their home country for Christmas. They say this is obviously against the rules but don't say if it is being stopped or what the implications are for those traveling home. " The story sounds suspect. Could it be economic migrants returning home for Christmas rather than asylum seekers? A proposal put forward by Cleverly. I cannot imagine anything more ridiculous than refugees doing this... They would have to get another small boat  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I hope they get a nice Xmas lunch on us as well
Legal fees, accommodation, Christmas lunch......what a generous people we are. Or is it mugs?
Not mugs, definitely not mugs... What does the head of border control know about stuff, cancel him now.
"He's probably a Far Right agitator stirring trouble. What's wrong with nipping home to a despot state for some mince pies? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I hope they get a nice Xmas lunch on us as well
Legal fees, accommodation, Christmas lunch......what a generous people we are. Or is it mugs?
Not mugs, definitely not mugs... What does the head of border control know about stuff, cancel him now.
He's probably a Far Right agitator stirring trouble. What's wrong with nipping home to a despot state for some mince pies?"Bit harsh calling France a despot state. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I hope they get a nice Xmas lunch on us as well
Legal fees, accommodation, Christmas lunch......what a generous people we are. Or is it mugs?
Not mugs, definitely not mugs... What does the head of border control know about stuff, cancel him now.
He's probably a Far Right agitator stirring trouble. What's wrong with nipping home to a despot state for some mince pies?
Bit harsh calling France a despot state."Indeed, and people are forced to flee in droves and seek asylum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The question is why the European governments are incapable of doing anything about it." Coz 'human rights', innit  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The question is why the European governments are incapable of doing anything about it. Coz 'human rights', innit " Who would have thought, writing so many laws with loopholes and framing them as human rights would result in them being exploited a few decades later with the governments incapable of fixing them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now had a quick read and the story is mostly about the Rwanda scheme but does mention that someone from border force saying that their checks show asylum seekers going back to their home country for Christmas. They say this is obviously against the rules but don't say if it is being stopped or what the implications are for those traveling home. The story sounds suspect. Could it be economic migrants returning home for Christmas rather than asylum seekers? A proposal put forward by Cleverly. I cannot imagine anything more ridiculous than refugees doing this... They would have to get another small boat "It was border force that provided the information apparently and did use the term asylum seekers. What surprises me is that they are allowed to travel back if it's both against the rules and its the place they are fleeing. I've not seen anything disputing the facts as reported though some may wish the story not to be reported at all | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
The question is will they be allowed re-entry? I don't believe so.
And note, this is part of operation somethingorother. This suggests they are doing something specaul.
Border forced don't normally know who is leaving the country but rwlwy (I believe) on airline etc data. Which isn't great.
Which is rubbish as a) we don't know for sure if we have overstayers and b) when you see stats of x000 asylum seekers disappearing, these folk are likely included. For all those with security issues about illegal immigration, I'd suggest the lack of robust outbound checks is something to focus on.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not allowed.
The question is will they be allowed re-entry? I don't believe so.
And note, this is part of operation somethingorother. This suggests they are doing something specaul.
Border forced don't normally know who is leaving the country but rwlwy (I believe) on airline etc data. Which isn't great.
Which is rubbish as a) we don't know for sure if we have overstayers and b) when you see stats of x000 asylum seekers disappearing, these folk are likely included. For all those with security issues about illegal immigration, I'd suggest the lack of robust outbound checks is something to focus on.
"So could be letting them go to call their bluff then. Those that go are effect proving they are not genuine and not allowed back. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not allowed.
The question is will they be allowed re-entry? I don't believe so.
And note, this is part of operation somethingorother. This suggests they are doing something specaul.
Border forced don't normally know who is leaving the country but rwlwy (I believe) on airline etc data. Which isn't great.
Which is rubbish as a) we don't know for sure if we have overstayers and b) when you see stats of x000 asylum seekers disappearing, these folk are likely included. For all those with security issues about illegal immigration, I'd suggest the lack of robust outbound checks is something to focus on.
So could be letting them go to call their bluff then. Those that go are effect proving they are not genuine and not allowed back. "don't know if it's calling bluff,nor just a case of letting them go. I'd agree they shouldn't be allowed back (Exceptions here are Ukrainians but strictly speaking they are on visas irrc and so not refugees in that sense) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now had a quick read and the story is mostly about the Rwanda scheme but does mention that someone from border force saying that their checks show asylum seekers going back to their home country for Christmas. They say this is obviously against the rules but don't say if it is being stopped or what the implications are for those traveling home. The story sounds suspect. Could it be economic migrants returning home for Christmas rather than asylum seekers? A proposal put forward by Cleverly. I cannot imagine anything more ridiculous than refugees doing this... They would have to get another small boat
It was border force that provided the information apparently and did use the term asylum seekers. What surprises me is that they are allowed to travel back if it's both against the rules and its the place they are fleeing. I've not seen anything disputing the facts as reported though some may wish the story not to be reported at all"Why would seriou news outlets bother to correct the likes of the express, on what is presumably a an insignificant hearsay report! I'm guessing that the majority of refugees don't take tax payer funded trips each year. There's a difference between a short trip and living permanently in a place that may be harmful when living there too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now had a quick read and the story is mostly about the Rwanda scheme but does mention that someone from border force saying that their checks show asylum seekers going back to their home country for Christmas. They say this is obviously against the rules but don't say if it is being stopped or what the implications are for those traveling home. The story sounds suspect. Could it be economic migrants returning home for Christmas rather than asylum seekers? A proposal put forward by Cleverly. I cannot imagine anything more ridiculous than refugees doing this... They would have to get another small boat
It was border force that provided the information apparently and did use the term asylum seekers. What surprises me is that they are allowed to travel back if it's both against the rules and its the place they are fleeing. I've not seen anything disputing the facts as reported though some may wish the story not to be reported at all
Why would seriou news outlets bother to correct the likes of the express, on what is presumably a an insignificant hearsay report! I'm guessing that the majority of refugees don't take tax payer funded trips each year. There's a difference between a short trip and living permanently in a place that may be harmful when living there too. "I'm not aware of anyone asking why some other outlets have not reported it. I asked is the story inaccurate or just unwelcome to be made public. Still it's good news that some feel safe to go back to the places they fled. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now had a quick read and the story is mostly about the Rwanda scheme but does mention that someone from border force saying that their checks show asylum seekers going back to their home country for Christmas. They say this is obviously against the rules but don't say if it is being stopped or what the implications are for those traveling home. The story sounds suspect. Could it be economic migrants returning home for Christmas rather than asylum seekers? A proposal put forward by Cleverly. I cannot imagine anything more ridiculous than refugees doing this... They would have to get another small boat
It was border force that provided the information apparently and did use the term asylum seekers. What surprises me is that they are allowed to travel back if it's both against the rules and its the place they are fleeing. I've not seen anything disputing the facts as reported though some may wish the story not to be reported at all
Why would seriou news outlets bother to correct the likes of the express, on what is presumably a an insignificant hearsay report! I'm guessing that the majority of refugees don't take tax payer funded trips each year. There's a difference between a short trip and living permanently in a place that may be harmful when living there too. "You’ve obviously not heard the head of border force comments that created this story? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now had a quick read and the story is mostly about the Rwanda scheme but does mention that someone from border force saying that their checks show asylum seekers going back to their home country for Christmas. They say this is obviously against the rules but don't say if it is being stopped or what the implications are for those traveling home. The story sounds suspect. Could it be economic migrants returning home for Christmas rather than asylum seekers? A proposal put forward by Cleverly. I cannot imagine anything more ridiculous than refugees doing this... They would have to get another small boat
It was border force that provided the information apparently and did use the term asylum seekers. What surprises me is that they are allowed to travel back if it's both against the rules and its the place they are fleeing. I've not seen anything disputing the facts as reported though some may wish the story not to be reported at all
Why would seriou news outlets bother to correct the likes of the express, on what is presumably a an insignificant hearsay report! I'm guessing that the majority of refugees don't take tax payer funded trips each year. There's a difference between a short trip and living permanently in a place that may be harmful when living there too.
You’ve obviously not heard the head of border force comments that created this story?"I didn't hear anything on the LBC clip suggesting it paid by tax payers. Nor that they could come back. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now had a quick read and the story is mostly about the Rwanda scheme but does mention that someone from border force saying that their checks show asylum seekers going back to their home country for Christmas. They say this is obviously against the rules but don't say if it is being stopped or what the implications are for those traveling home. The story sounds suspect. Could it be economic migrants returning home for Christmas rather than asylum seekers? A proposal put forward by Cleverly. I cannot imagine anything more ridiculous than refugees doing this... They would have to get another small boat
It was border force that provided the information apparently and did use the term asylum seekers. What surprises me is that they are allowed to travel back if it's both against the rules and its the place they are fleeing. I've not seen anything disputing the facts as reported though some may wish the story not to be reported at all
Why would seriou news outlets bother to correct the likes of the express, on what is presumably a an insignificant hearsay report! I'm guessing that the majority of refugees don't take tax payer funded trips each year. There's a difference between a short trip and living permanently in a place that may be harmful when living there too.
You’ve obviously not heard the head of border force comments that created this story?I didn't hear anything on the LBC clip suggesting it paid by tax payers. Nor that they could come back. "? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This story is yet another example of lazy and poor quality journalism with the sole purpose of sowing division and creating a hostile environment for asylum seekers. The journalist really needs to go back to school and understand the difference between the words migrant, immigrant and asylum seeker. A migrant, normally economic, The word migrant refers to someone who moves to other places in search of work. Therefore if they have the correct documentation they can travel between places and countries. That even means going home for Christmas. An immigrant, The word immigrant refers to those who have moved to foreign countries permanently. Providing they are not illegal that would be able to travel back to their country of origin for Christmas. Asylum seekers, a person who has left their home country to escape persecution or as a political refugee and is seeking asylum in another. - Probably would not want to fly home for Christmas… It helps to understand the differences when reporting stories. English lessons are available on request…. "So if you don't like the news, shoot the messenger right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. " That's pretty much my understanding to and so far I have not heard or discovered that the article in not true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This story is yet another example of lazy and poor quality journalism with the sole purpose of sowing division and creating a hostile environment for asylum seekers. The journalist really needs to go back to school and understand the difference between the words migrant, immigrant and asylum seeker. A migrant, normally economic, The word migrant refers to someone who moves to other places in search of work. Therefore if they have the correct documentation they can travel between places and countries. That even means going home for Christmas. An immigrant, The word immigrant refers to those who have moved to foreign countries permanently. Providing they are not illegal that would be able to travel back to their country of origin for Christmas. Asylum seekers, a person who has left their home country to escape persecution or as a political refugee and is seeking asylum in another. - Probably would not want to fly home for Christmas… It helps to understand the differences when reporting stories. English lessons are available on request…. "I have no idea what you are referring to in this post, the original interview was with the Director General of Border Force, Phil Douglas, who clearly said that his officers are doing outbound security checks and they are finding "a lot" people who have claimed asylum in this country, trying to travel back to their home country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This story is yet another example of lazy and poor quality journalism with the sole purpose of sowing division and creating a hostile environment for asylum seekers. The journalist really needs to go back to school and understand the difference between the words migrant, immigrant and asylum seeker. A migrant, normally economic, The word migrant refers to someone who moves to other places in search of work. Therefore if they have the correct documentation they can travel between places and countries. That even means going home for Christmas. An immigrant, The word immigrant refers to those who have moved to foreign countries permanently. Providing they are not illegal that would be able to travel back to their country of origin for Christmas. Asylum seekers, a person who has left their home country to escape persecution or as a political refugee and is seeking asylum in another. - Probably would not want to fly home for Christmas… It helps to understand the differences when reporting stories. English lessons are available on request….
I have no idea what you are referring to in this post, the original interview was with the Director General of Border Force,
Phil Douglas, who clearly said that his officers are doing outbound security checks and they are finding "a lot" people who have claimed asylum in this country, trying to travel back to their home country."I'm not 100pc sure he meant to imply a lot of asylum seekers or finding a lot of people (with issues) and asylum seekers were an example. The sentence was a little clumsy. This is where some actual numbers would be helpful. And nationalities. even if he meant "a lot of asylum seekers" then it would be good to know what he means by a lot. (My sense is that it's likely Albanians as Luton is apparently a good airport for eastern European. But I'm likely confirming my own views that there has been a surge on people who believe there is a way thru the system. Whether there is such a loophole, not convinced. Whether these folk are tricked or coerced, or entirely free will, not sure). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This story is yet another example of lazy and poor quality journalism with the sole purpose of sowing division and creating a hostile environment for asylum seekers. The journalist really needs to go back to school and understand the difference between the words migrant, immigrant and asylum seeker. A migrant, normally economic, The word migrant refers to someone who moves to other places in search of work. Therefore if they have the correct documentation they can travel between places and countries. That even means going home for Christmas. An immigrant, The word immigrant refers to those who have moved to foreign countries permanently. Providing they are not illegal that would be able to travel back to their country of origin for Christmas. Asylum seekers, a person who has left their home country to escape persecution or as a political refugee and is seeking asylum in another. - Probably would not want to fly home for Christmas… It helps to understand the differences when reporting stories. English lessons are available on request….
I have no idea what you are referring to in this post, the original interview was with the Director General of Border Force,
Phil Douglas, who clearly said that his officers are doing outbound security checks and they are finding "a lot" people who have claimed asylum in this country, trying to travel back to their home country.I'm not 100pc sure he meant to imply a lot of asylum seekers or finding a lot of people (with issues) and asylum seekers were an example. The sentence was a little clumsy. This is where some actual numbers would be helpful. And nationalities.
even if he meant "a lot of asylum seekers" then it would be good to know what he means by a lot.
(My sense is that it's likely Albanians as Luton is apparently a good airport for eastern European. But I'm likely confirming my own views that there has been a surge on people who believe there is a way thru the system. Whether there is such a loophole, not convinced. Whether these folk are tricked or coerced, or entirely free will, not sure). "Likely Albanians with suitcases full of £50 notes from their nefarious activities. But bless them, let taxpayers pay for their £2k/day barristers, accommodation and free healthcare. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. " Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…." Do you expect asylum seekers to travel home for Christmas? In my opinion anyone caught trying to travel back to their home country after arriving here illegally and lying to authorities to stay under asylum, should be let out and not let back in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…." It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up" The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news"." Why do you keep talking about the express? It was a recorded interview with the director general of border force, it is he who said they find lots of people trying to travel back to their home countries, who have applied for asylum here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". Why do you keep talking about the express? It was a recorded interview with the director general of border force, it is he who said they find lots of people trying to travel back to their home countries, who have applied for asylum here. " And it was reported initially by the Express, LBC, then GB News. Pick a different one if you like. All these outlets has a similar target audience. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". Why do you keep talking about the express? It was a recorded interview with the director general of border force, it is he who said they find lots of people trying to travel back to their home countries, who have applied for asylum here. " Because it's easier to try rubbish the source than speak of the fact. Especially when said fact goes against the narrative you want to push. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". Why do you keep talking about the express? It was a recorded interview with the director general of border force, it is he who said they find lots of people trying to travel back to their home countries, who have applied for asylum here. And it was reported initially by the Express, LBC, then GB News. Pick a different one if you like. All these outlets has a similar target audience. " It was an interview with LBC, recorded so no getting away from what was said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news"." Why blame the messenger if you don't like the story? It seems the story was reported verbatim from a Border Force manager. Outrage at bogus asylum seekers is understandable given the cost to our nation, Daily Express readers or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". Why do you keep talking about the express? It was a recorded interview with the director general of border force, it is he who said they find lots of people trying to travel back to their home countries, who have applied for asylum here. Because it's easier to try rubbish the source than speak of the fact. Especially when said fact goes against the narrative you want to push. " Bit like The Vatican News
Only kidding, trying to lighten the mood. Did Santa empty his sack over Mrs Feisty?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". Why do you keep talking about the express? It was a recorded interview with the director general of border force, it is he who said they find lots of people trying to travel back to their home countries, who have applied for asylum here. And it was reported initially by the Express, LBC, then GB News. Pick a different one if you like. All these outlets has a similar target audience. " Wver wondered if the reason you only see this type of story on said platforms is because The Guardian, Mirror et al won't publish because it doesn't suit their outlook. Why can't we have news channels reporting non partisan news? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". Why do you keep talking about the express? It was a recorded interview with the director general of border force, it is he who said they find lots of people trying to travel back to their home countries, who have applied for asylum here. And it was reported initially by the Express, LBC, then GB News. Pick a different one if you like. All these outlets has a similar target audience. It was an interview with LBC, recorded so no getting away from what was said." Come off it LBC is a notorious source of right wing disinformation. Look at that O’Brien guy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". Why blame the messenger if you don't like the story? It seems the story was reported verbatim from a Border Force manager. Outrage at bogus asylum seekers is understandable given the cost to our nation, Daily Express readers or not." No one is blaming the messenger. Discussing the purpose of pretending this is "news". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". Why do you keep talking about the express? It was a recorded interview with the director general of border force, it is he who said they find lots of people trying to travel back to their home countries, who have applied for asylum here. Because it's easier to try rubbish the source than speak of the fact. Especially when said fact goes against the narrative you want to push. Bit like The Vatican News
Only kidding, trying to lighten the mood. Did Santa empty his sack over Mrs Feisty? "If you're trying to lighten the mood, you should come with facts. Did I try to rubbish The Vatican News? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". Why blame the messenger if you don't like the story? It seems the story was reported verbatim from a Border Force manager. Outrage at bogus asylum seekers is understandable given the cost to our nation, Daily Express readers or not. No one is blaming the messenger. Discussing the purpose of pretending this is "news"." Why is it not news in your opinion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". Why do you keep talking about the express? It was a recorded interview with the director general of border force, it is he who said they find lots of people trying to travel back to their home countries, who have applied for asylum here. Because it's easier to try rubbish the source than speak of the fact. Especially when said fact goes against the narrative you want to push. Bit like The Vatican News
Only kidding, trying to lighten the mood. Did Santa empty his sack over Mrs Feisty?
If you're trying to lighten the mood, you should come with facts. Did I try to rubbish The Vatican News? "You implied that the Church in Gaza had been the source of several unverified claims and implied the media were therefore making stuff up (at least that is how it came across). I raised the point that The Vatican News is the official comms channel for the Pope so asked if you therefore did not believe them and asked what the christian church had to gain from misinformation? You ignored me. You swerved the santa question. Surely far more interesting than an argument over politics? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". Why do you keep talking about the express? It was a recorded interview with the director general of border force, it is he who said they find lots of people trying to travel back to their home countries, who have applied for asylum here. Because it's easier to try rubbish the source than speak of the fact. Especially when said fact goes against the narrative you want to push. Bit like The Vatican News
Only kidding, trying to lighten the mood. Did Santa empty his sack over Mrs Feisty?
If you're trying to lighten the mood, you should come with facts. Did I try to rubbish The Vatican News?
You implied that the Church in Gaza had been the source of several unverified claims and implied the media were therefore making stuff up (at least that is how it came across). I raised the point that The Vatican News is the official comms channel for the Pope so asked if you therefore did not believe them and asked what the christian church had to gain from misinformation? You ignored me.
You swerved the santa question. Surely far more interesting than an argument over politics?"Oops... You CLAIMED that the Church in Gaza had been the source | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news"." The purpose of news is to report what's happening. If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". Why do you keep talking about the express? It was a recorded interview with the director general of border force, it is he who said they find lots of people trying to travel back to their home countries, who have applied for asylum here. Because it's easier to try rubbish the source than speak of the fact. Especially when said fact goes against the narrative you want to push. Bit like The Vatican News
Only kidding, trying to lighten the mood. Did Santa empty his sack over Mrs Feisty?
If you're trying to lighten the mood, you should come with facts. Did I try to rubbish The Vatican News?
You implied that the Church in Gaza had been the source of several unverified claims and implied the media were therefore making stuff up (at least that is how it came across). I raised the point that The Vatican News is the official comms channel for the Pope so asked if you therefore did not believe them and asked what the christian church had to gain from misinformation? You ignored me.
You swerved the santa question. Surely far more interesting than an argument over politics?"I didn't imply the media made up stories. I implied the church fella did. I also implicitly stated *in a war of disinformation, why are we so quick to believe unverified reports* I have no problem with The Vatican News reporting what is being said. Santa only gifted the kids, shit timing and all that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". Why do you keep talking about the express? It was a recorded interview with the director general of border force, it is he who said they find lots of people trying to travel back to their home countries, who have applied for asylum here. Because it's easier to try rubbish the source than speak of the fact. Especially when said fact goes against the narrative you want to push. Bit like The Vatican News
Only kidding, trying to lighten the mood. Did Santa empty his sack over Mrs Feisty?
If you're trying to lighten the mood, you should come with facts. Did I try to rubbish The Vatican News?
You implied that the Church in Gaza had been the source of several unverified claims and implied the media were therefore making stuff up (at least that is how it came across). I raised the point that The Vatican News is the official comms channel for the Pope so asked if you therefore did not believe them and asked what the christian church had to gain from misinformation? You ignored me.
You swerved the santa question. Surely far more interesting than an argument over politics?
I didn't imply the media made up stories. I implied the church fella did. I also implicitly stated *in a war of disinformation, why are we so quick to believe unverified reports* I have no problem with The Vatican News reporting what is being said.
Santa only gifted the kids, shit timing and all that." just going to think happy thoughts, the world “out there” is shit but “in here” it is warm and cozy!
I suppose that while it only happens for him once a year, coming down millions of chimneys would leave Santa’s sack pretty empty by the time he reached Bournemouth! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. " Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? " If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. " It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose?" This is why I get nervous at the thought of Labour taking power, the left influence over everything they don’t agree with, right down to the news you should hear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? This is why I get nervous at the thought of Labour taking power, the left influence over everything they don’t agree with, right down to the news you should hear. " What makes you think that discussion of the news on a swingers website makes you think that Labour would influence the news? Labour aren't left. No one has suggested any of the things you said. You appear to constantly try to shut down anyone who doesn't blindly accept the new from GBnews/Express/Mail etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose?" They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. " No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. " Let’s be fair though Leroy, we regularly see posts from certain posters dismissing anything said by The Guardian or BBC News or The Mirror (the latter is fair enough) so it is fair game really. I think if this had been in The Times or The Telegraph the validity of the reporting might have been questioned less. However, let’s get real here, The Express is really only one step from The Daily Sport. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion. "So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. Let’s be fair though Leroy, we regularly see posts from certain posters dismissing anything said by The Guardian or BBC News or The Mirror (the latter is fair enough) so it is fair game really. I think if this had been in The Times or The Telegraph the validity of the reporting might have been questioned less. However, let’s get real here, The Express is really only one step from The Daily Sport." Let's be extra fair here, people are picking on the Express because of the publication. This story actually came from LBC. Not only that, the source is Border Force. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. Do you expect asylum seekers to travel home for Christmas? In my opinion anyone caught trying to travel back to their home country after arriving here illegally and lying to authorities to stay under asylum, should be let out and not let back in. " When your out your out. Flat refusal if you try and get back and claim asylum again. Time we stopped pandering to the wet woke brigade. My opinion and if you don’t like it just jog on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views"What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either. A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world. B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. Let’s be fair though Leroy, we regularly see posts from certain posters dismissing anything said by The Guardian or BBC News or The Mirror (the latter is fair enough) so it is fair game really. I think if this had been in The Times or The Telegraph the validity of the reporting might have been questioned less. However, let’s get real here, The Express is really only one step from The Daily Sport." That kind of highlights what I'm asking. As you rightly say some will dismiss what the paper's you mention report regardless of if the facts are indeed facts. To me if they have the facts then they should not be non stories. Just because a die hard Tory does not like what the guardian has reported as they say it is biased, does not make it a non story | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc. "I'm assuming you haven't actually read the article, nor listened to the LBC interview. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc. "As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue. I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
"He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions. " I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story" What exactly is the story here as you see it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?"The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation? The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
"You should read what he said. " The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story." It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage. "I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions? "Let's start with what was actually said: "We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent. We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.” The article speculates the following: "A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas." The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants. GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!' 'This is an absolute outrage!' Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'." As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
"Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculation"isnt the "police chief" the same border force guy ? Question: should a German jew refugee from WW2 be banned from going to Germany today? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculationisnt the "police chief" the same border force guy ?
Question: should a German jew refugee from WW2 be banned from going to Germany today? "Today, how about 1940 are you saying German Jews would of returned to Germany to go home in 1941. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculationisnt the "police chief" the same border force guy ?
Question: should a German jew refugee from WW2 be banned from going to Germany today?
Today, how about 1940 are you saying German Jews would of returned to Germany to go home in 1941."its not clear if they are seeking asylum or have been successful in claiming asylum. I'm seeking to understand if the reaction varies with the situation of the person who has claimed asylum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculationisnt the "police chief" the same border force guy ?
Question: should a German jew refugee from WW2 be banned from going to Germany today?
Today, how about 1940 are you saying German Jews would of returned to Germany to go home in 1941.its not clear if they are seeking asylum or have been successful in claiming asylum. I'm seeking to understand if the reaction varies with the situation of the person who has claimed asylum. "If they had been granted british citizenship it would be a none story but the word asylum was mentioned, so I presume they are asylum seekers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculationisnt the "police chief" the same border force guy ?
Question: should a German jew refugee from WW2 be banned from going to Germany today?
Today, how about 1940 are you saying German Jews would of returned to Germany to go home in 1941.its not clear if they are seeking asylum or have been successful in claiming asylum. I'm seeking to understand if the reaction varies with the situation of the person who has claimed asylum.
If they had been granted british citizenship it would be a none story but the word asylum was mentioned, so I presume they are asylum seekers."afaik a successful claim doesn't give automatic citizenship. Just a right to stay. Feels like we need more info. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Proper journalism would have followed up the interview with: * What numbers are we talking about? * Any countries in particular? * Are we taking about people with claims, or settled refugees. And then researched into * Do they return? * If we allow them back, do we have to, or is this choice ? As it stands, everyone is shaking their fist at an issue that is of unknown size, and demanding things that may already be happening (and of it's not, may need to be angry at HMG at their lack of investment on the issue) The facts are incomplete. And a cynic would say there's just enough facts to involve emotion, but not enough to create discourse. Which is great for clicks. " Which was better than what I said a few posts before that... "I am not going to read whole thread and certainly won’t read The Express. So have I got this right... 1. The current Director General of Border Force in an interview said that some people who had claimed asylum in UK (was that successfully or still being processed?) were returning to their home country. 2. Do we know if any of these asylum seekers then come back to the UK? 3. Do we know if the circumstances in their home country had changed permitting them to return? 4. Are they claiming (being processed) rather than successful (been granted) asylum seekers? 5. What is the point on “at taxpayers expense”? Ta" And yet nobody has responded. Starting to feel like a non-story until we get more detail. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculationisnt the "police chief" the same border force guy ?
Question: should a German jew refugee from WW2 be banned from going to Germany today?
Today, how about 1940 are you saying German Jews would of returned to Germany to go home in 1941.its not clear if they are seeking asylum or have been successful in claiming asylum. I'm seeking to understand if the reaction varies with the situation of the person who has claimed asylum.
If they had been granted british citizenship it would be a none story but the word asylum was mentioned, so I presume they are asylum seekers.afaik a successful claim doesn't give automatic citizenship. Just a right to stay. Feels like we need more info. "They must be using their own countries passport not the UK blue passport, only british subjects can get a British passport. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculationisnt the "police chief" the same border force guy ?
Question: should a German jew refugee from WW2 be banned from going to Germany today?
Today, how about 1940 are you saying German Jews would of returned to Germany to go home in 1941.its not clear if they are seeking asylum or have been successful in claiming asylum. I'm seeking to understand if the reaction varies with the situation of the person who has claimed asylum.
If they had been granted british citizenship it would be a none story but the word asylum was mentioned, so I presume they are asylum seekers.afaik a successful claim doesn't give automatic citizenship. Just a right to stay. Feels like we need more info.
They must be using their own countries passport not the UK blue passport, only british subjects can get a British passport. "Thought all these asylum seekers were dumping their ID over the side of the small boats? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculationisnt the "police chief" the same border force guy ?
Question: should a German jew refugee from WW2 be banned from going to Germany today?
Today, how about 1940 are you saying German Jews would of returned to Germany to go home in 1941.its not clear if they are seeking asylum or have been successful in claiming asylum. I'm seeking to understand if the reaction varies with the situation of the person who has claimed asylum.
If they had been granted british citizenship it would be a none story but the word asylum was mentioned, so I presume they are asylum seekers.afaik a successful claim doesn't give automatic citizenship. Just a right to stay. Feels like we need more info.
They must be using their own countries passport not the UK blue passport, only british subjects can get a British passport.
Thought all these asylum seekers were dumping their ID over the side of the small boats?"The media must of got it wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculationisnt the "police chief" the same border force guy ?
Question: should a German jew refugee from WW2 be banned from going to Germany today?
Today, how about 1940 are you saying German Jews would of returned to Germany to go home in 1941.its not clear if they are seeking asylum or have been successful in claiming asylum. I'm seeking to understand if the reaction varies with the situation of the person who has claimed asylum.
If they had been granted british citizenship it would be a none story but the word asylum was mentioned, so I presume they are asylum seekers.afaik a successful claim doesn't give automatic citizenship. Just a right to stay. Feels like we need more info.
They must be using their own countries passport not the UK blue passport, only british subjects can get a British passport.
Thought all these asylum seekers were dumping their ID over the side of the small boats?
The media must of got it wrong."It happens! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculationisnt the "police chief" the same border force guy ?
Question: should a German jew refugee from WW2 be banned from going to Germany today?
Today, how about 1940 are you saying German Jews would of returned to Germany to go home in 1941.its not clear if they are seeking asylum or have been successful in claiming asylum. I'm seeking to understand if the reaction varies with the situation of the person who has claimed asylum.
If they had been granted british citizenship it would be a none story but the word asylum was mentioned, so I presume they are asylum seekers.afaik a successful claim doesn't give automatic citizenship. Just a right to stay. Feels like we need more info.
They must be using their own countries passport not the UK blue passport, only british subjects can get a British passport.
Thought all these asylum seekers were dumping their ID over the side of the small boats?
The media must of got it wrong.
It happens!"More than you think, unless they are pushing a narrative of division. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculationisnt the "police chief" the same border force guy ?
Question: should a German jew refugee from WW2 be banned from going to Germany today? "It's entirely possible they are one and the same person but either way it does not create speculation, it just reports the facts as supplied. Either border force plus the police say this occurred or just border force only. Either way one or both of them are in a position to know | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculation"I've literally just spelled it out. Do you see the difference between what was said and what was reported? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculationisnt the "police chief" the same border force guy ?
Question: should a German jew refugee from WW2 be banned from going to Germany today?
It's entirely possible they are one and the same person but either way it does not create speculation, it just reports the facts as supplied. Either border force plus the police say this occurred or just border force only. Either way one or both of them are in a position to know"agree they/he would know. But we don't know of they are asylum seekers or those given asylum. We don't know how many. Indeed the actual vid is unclear if he meant a lot of asylum seekers/refugees or found a lot of things, of which asylum seekers/regugees were one example. I'm assuming they were those with claims in process as he then said this is not allowed. We do t know what happened to them or what consequences there were. It's a story short of facts, but built off one comment in a short vid clip. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculationisnt the "police chief" the same border force guy ?
Question: should a German jew refugee from WW2 be banned from going to Germany today?
It's entirely possible they are one and the same person but either way it does not create speculation, it just reports the facts as supplied. Either border force plus the police say this occurred or just border force only. Either way one or both of them are in a position to knowagree they/he would know.
But we don't know of they are asylum seekers or those given asylum.
We don't know how many. Indeed the actual vid is unclear if he meant a lot of asylum seekers/refugees or found a lot of things, of which asylum seekers/regugees were one example.
I'm assuming they were those with claims in process as he then said this is not allowed.
We do t know what happened to them or what consequences there were.
It's a story short of facts, but built off one comment in a short vid clip. "Absolutely the more details the better but that does not make what is reported a non story, especially as the source is, as you agreed, a person that will know the situation. The quote uses the term ' a lot of people that have claimed asylum in this country' he does not state if they are pre or post acceptance but does confirm it is against the rules. I also am not agreeing with the speculation angle as the article also does not make any claim if they are pre or post acceptance, it just says what border force says. Same with the numbers involved, the article does not mention numbers involved or even hazzards a guess, it just quotes border force. If the articles said something like, they are most likely pre acceptance or, we think x amount of people have done this then I could understand, but this is not the case | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculation
I've literally just spelled it out.
Do you see the difference between what was said and what was reported? "No I do not | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculation
I've literally just spelled it out.
Do you see the difference between what was said and what was reported?
No I do not"Blimey. Did the bloke say anything about them being "asylum seekers"? Did the bloke say anything about them flying home for Christmas? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? This is why I get nervous at the thought of Labour taking power, the left influence over everything they don’t agree with, right down to the news you should hear. What makes you think that discussion of the news on a swingers website makes you think that Labour would influence the news? Labour aren't left. No one has suggested any of the things you said. You appear to constantly try to shut down anyone who doesn't blindly accept the new from GBnews/Express/Mail etc." You are wrong with everything you have written here. I have not defended any media outlet, you have made that up. I told you what was said and it was a recorded interview conducted by LBC, so there is no denying what was said and by whom. I didn't say labour was left, I said influenced by the left, such as the people on here who want to close down speech, thought, ability to earn and anything they can't achieve through their idealistic liberally progressive virtue signalling. You will ignore or not understand what I have written, I'm yet to decide if it is the former or the latter of the 2, it is extremely difficult to workout. However, my statement stands! I will be nervous for the country and its direction, once labour take power, because it gives the liberal progressives an even bigger platform to deny and disrupt independent thinking and life styles that are not in line with their own. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculation
I've literally just spelled it out.
Do you see the difference between what was said and what was reported?
No I do not
Blimey.
Did the bloke say anything about them being "asylum seekers"?
Did the bloke say anything about them flying home for Christmas?
"As I said above, border force say those that have claimed asylum, he does not say if it is pre or post acceptance. So it is either those that have been accepted or those that are awaiting a decision, either way according to them it is against the rules. Yes he says they have found many who have claimed asylum in this country are heading back to their home countries for the holidays. They also say this is in the run up to Christmas | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? This is why I get nervous at the thought of Labour taking power, the left influence over everything they don’t agree with, right down to the news you should hear. What makes you think that discussion of the news on a swingers website makes you think that Labour would influence the news? Labour aren't left. No one has suggested any of the things you said. You appear to constantly try to shut down anyone who doesn't blindly accept the new from GBnews/Express/Mail etc. You are wrong with everything you have written here. I have not defended any media outlet, you have made that up. " I didn't say you have. " I told you what was said and it was a recorded interview conducted by LBC, so there is no denying what was said and by whom. " Yes very little of substance was said. " I didn't say labour was left, I said influenced by the left, such as the people on here who want to close down speech, thought, ability to earn and anything they can't achieve through their idealistic liberally progressive virtue signalling. " That's the people on the right. Try speaking out against the government, the prevailing media, the fear whipped up towards immigrants, and you'll soon find yourself on the end of a stream of personal abuse and people trying to shut you and your opinion down. " You will ignore or not understand what I have written, I'm yet to decide if it is the former or the latter of the 2, it is extremely difficult to workout. However, my statement stands! I will be nervous for the country and its direction, once labour take power, because it gives the liberal progressives an even bigger platform to deny and disrupt independent thinking and life styles that are not in line with their own." This is the current situation, what you describe with the media and government marginalising foriegners, Muslims, poor people, homeless people, people who eat tofu, people who think for themselves, people who question the government etc. I don't think having a centrist party in power would make anything worse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculation
I've literally just spelled it out.
Do you see the difference between what was said and what was reported?
No I do not
Blimey.
Did the bloke say anything about them being "asylum seekers"?
Did the bloke say anything about them flying home for Christmas?
As I said above, border force say those that have claimed asylum, he does not say if it is pre or post acceptance. So it is either those that have been accepted or those that are awaiting a decision, either way according to them it is against the rules. Yes he says they have found many who have claimed asylum in this country are heading back to their home countries for the holidays. They also say this is in the run up to Christmas"So you see what was reported differs from what the bloke said. That's all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Blimey. Did the bloke say anything about them being "asylum seekers"? Did the bloke say anything about them flying home for Christmas?" He said: "we find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their countries for holidays, which is obviously not allowed". What part of that do you not understand, or believe to be a lie from the director general of border control UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Blimey. Did the bloke say anything about them being "asylum seekers"? Did the bloke say anything about them flying home for Christmas? He said: "we find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their countries for holidays, which is obviously not allowed". What part of that do you not understand, or believe to be a lie from the director general of border control UK? " Why do you think I don't understand or believe this? I was helping the other chap see the difference between what was said and what was reported. Thanks for your input though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculation
I've literally just spelled it out.
Do you see the difference between what was said and what was reported?
No I do not
Blimey.
Did the bloke say anything about them being "asylum seekers"?
Did the bloke say anything about them flying home for Christmas?
As I said above, border force say those that have claimed asylum, he does not say if it is pre or post acceptance. So it is either those that have been accepted or those that are awaiting a decision, either way according to them it is against the rules. Yes he says they have found many who have claimed asylum in this country are heading back to their home countries for the holidays. They also say this is in the run up to Christmas
So you see what was reported differs from what the bloke said. That's all."The article says what border force has said so I still don't understand why it's a non story. I have confirmed they say for the holidays and is in the lead up to Christmas. The only thing I can think your disputing is that they do not clarify if it is pre or post acceptance asylum seekers. It could be either or both but it is against the rules either way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculation
I've literally just spelled it out.
Do you see the difference between what was said and what was reported?
No I do not
Blimey.
Did the bloke say anything about them being "asylum seekers"?
Did the bloke say anything about them flying home for Christmas?
As I said above, border force say those that have claimed asylum, he does not say if it is pre or post acceptance. So it is either those that have been accepted or those that are awaiting a decision, either way according to them it is against the rules. Yes he says they have found many who have claimed asylum in this country are heading back to their home countries for the holidays. They also say this is in the run up to Christmas
So you see what was reported differs from what the bloke said. That's all.
The article says what border force has said so I still don't understand why it's a non story.
"Because most of what was reported was made up and/or not related to what was said. Designed specifically to induce outrage about asylum seekers and immigrants. " I have confirmed they say for the holidays and is in the lead up to Christmas. " Not "the holidays", just "holidays". " The only thing I can think your disputing is that they do not clarify if it is pre or post acceptance asylum seekers. It could be either or both but it is against the rules either way" Is it against the rules, do they just forfeit the right to claim asylum, or to re-enter the uk? How many are doing this? The article tells us very little. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Blimey. Did the bloke say anything about them being "asylum seekers"? Did the bloke say anything about them flying home for Christmas? He said: "we find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their countries for holidays, which is obviously not allowed". What part of that do you not understand, or believe to be a lie from the director general of border control UK? Why do you think I don't understand or believe this? I was helping the other chap see the difference between what was said and what was reported. Thanks for your input though. "Why do I think you don’t understand or believe this? Every post you’ve made on the subject, leads me to believe this. Either that or you are purposely trying to downplay the story, and are playing with other posters with your comments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Blimey. Did the bloke say anything about them being "asylum seekers"? Did the bloke say anything about them flying home for Christmas? He said: "we find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their countries for holidays, which is obviously not allowed". What part of that do you not understand, or believe to be a lie from the director general of border control UK? Why do you think I don't understand or believe this? I was helping the other chap see the difference between what was said and what was reported. Thanks for your input though.
Why do I think you don’t understand or believe this?
Every post you’ve made on the subject, leads me to believe this. Either that or you are purposely trying to downplay the story, and are playing with other posters with your comments."Not sure why you've read this. All I've done is discussed the purpose of the article. Then followed up with another chap who didn't understand the difference between what was reported, and what was said during the interview. Not sure how I can help you other than to reassure you that I am not disputing that the chap who was interviewed, said the things that he said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculation
I've literally just spelled it out.
Do you see the difference between what was said and what was reported?
No I do not
Blimey.
Did the bloke say anything about them being "asylum seekers"?
Did the bloke say anything about them flying home for Christmas?
As I said above, border force say those that have claimed asylum, he does not say if it is pre or post acceptance. So it is either those that have been accepted or those that are awaiting a decision, either way according to them it is against the rules. Yes he says they have found many who have claimed asylum in this country are heading back to their home countries for the holidays. They also say this is in the run up to Christmas
So you see what was reported differs from what the bloke said. That's all.
The article says what border force has said so I still don't understand why it's a non story.
Because most of what was reported was made up and/or not related to what was said. Designed specifically to induce outrage about asylum seekers and immigrants.
I have confirmed they say for the holidays and is in the lead up to Christmas.
Not "the holidays", just "holidays".
The only thing I can think your disputing is that they do not clarify if it is pre or post acceptance asylum seekers. It could be either or both but it is against the rules either way
Is it against the rules, do they just forfeit the right to claim asylum, or to re-enter the uk? How many are doing this?
The article tells us very little."What border force have said is what is reported. Apart from not clarifying what stage the asylum seekers are at in the process, I don't see any problem with what's reported. Yes, according to border force it us against the rules. I don't know the consequences for those involved and as I said further up it, more details would be welcome. I would assume it would have a negative impact on those awaiting a decision and possibly those recently accepted | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculation
I've literally just spelled it out.
Do you see the difference between what was said and what was reported?
No I do not
Blimey.
Did the bloke say anything about them being "asylum seekers"?
Did the bloke say anything about them flying home for Christmas?
As I said above, border force say those that have claimed asylum, he does not say if it is pre or post acceptance. So it is either those that have been accepted or those that are awaiting a decision, either way according to them it is against the rules. Yes he says they have found many who have claimed asylum in this country are heading back to their home countries for the holidays. They also say this is in the run up to Christmas
So you see what was reported differs from what the bloke said. That's all.
The article says what border force has said so I still don't understand why it's a non story.
Because most of what was reported was made up and/or not related to what was said. Designed specifically to induce outrage about asylum seekers and immigrants.
I have confirmed they say for the holidays and is in the lead up to Christmas.
Not "the holidays", just "holidays".
The only thing I can think your disputing is that they do not clarify if it is pre or post acceptance asylum seekers. It could be either or both but it is against the rules either way
Is it against the rules, do they just forfeit the right to claim asylum, or to re-enter the uk? How many are doing this?
The article tells us very little.
What border force have said is what is reported.
"Plus a healthy dose of assumptions and outrage. " Apart from not clarifying what stage the asylum seekers are at in the process, I don't see any problem with what's reported. Yes, according to border force it us against the rules. I don't know the consequences for those involved and as I said further up it, more details would be welcome. " In the meantime we can assume a bunch of stuff, not pay attention to actual news and blame immigrants. " I would assume it would have a negative impact on those awaiting a decision and possibly those recently accepted " Probably, but that's completely beside the point of the article. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Proper journalism would have followed up the interview with: * What numbers are we talking about? * Any countries in particular? * Are we taking about people with claims, or settled refugees. And then researched into * Do they return? * If we allow them back, do we have to, or is this choice ? As it stands, everyone is shaking their fist at an issue that is of unknown size, and demanding things that may already be happening (and of it's not, may need to be angry at HMG at their lack of investment on the issue) The facts are incomplete. And a cynic would say there's just enough facts to involve emotion, but not enough to create discourse. Which is great for clicks. " Not knowing the background facts and challenging the statements and obtaining further information by Boarder Force official it really is a non story. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be reported but at least provide further details. So an informed view is given. You might as well report that Asylum seekers are seen driving around on a UK road at 70 mph without mentioning that they on a motorway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculation
I've literally just spelled it out.
Do you see the difference between what was said and what was reported?
No I do not
Blimey.
Did the bloke say anything about them being "asylum seekers"?
Did the bloke say anything about them flying home for Christmas?
As I said above, border force say those that have claimed asylum, he does not say if it is pre or post acceptance. So it is either those that have been accepted or those that are awaiting a decision, either way according to them it is against the rules. Yes he says they have found many who have claimed asylum in this country are heading back to their home countries for the holidays. They also say this is in the run up to Christmas
So you see what was reported differs from what the bloke said. That's all.
The article says what border force has said so I still don't understand why it's a non story.
Because most of what was reported was made up and/or not related to what was said. Designed specifically to induce outrage about asylum seekers and immigrants.
I have confirmed they say for the holidays and is in the lead up to Christmas.
Not "the holidays", just "holidays".
The only thing I can think your disputing is that they do not clarify if it is pre or post acceptance asylum seekers. It could be either or both but it is against the rules either way
Is it against the rules, do they just forfeit the right to claim asylum, or to re-enter the uk? How many are doing this?
The article tells us very little.
What border force have said is what is reported.
Plus a healthy dose of assumptions and outrage.
Apart from not clarifying what stage the asylum seekers are at in the process, I don't see any problem with what's reported. Yes, according to border force it us against the rules. I don't know the consequences for those involved and as I said further up it, more details would be welcome.
In the meantime we can assume a bunch of stuff, not pay attention to actual news and blame immigrants.
I would assume it would have a negative impact on those awaiting a decision and possibly those recently accepted
Probably, but that's completely beside the point of the article.
"I disagree, this is a valid story and the information comes from a valid source. As I said earlier, more information would be welcome but we know it's been happening and we know it's against the rules. I see no reason not to report this. You can assume what you like but I feel people are able to take in more than one story or topic at a time. I don't feel this is a distraction thing as it is a valid story from a valid source. Not sure why you asked me my opinion on the consequences for those that have done this and when I give my opinion, you say it's completely besides the point. Makes me wonder why you asked it in the first place | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculation
I've literally just spelled it out.
Do you see the difference between what was said and what was reported?
No I do not
Blimey.
Did the bloke say anything about them being "asylum seekers"?
Did the bloke say anything about them flying home for Christmas?
As I said above, border force say those that have claimed asylum, he does not say if it is pre or post acceptance. So it is either those that have been accepted or those that are awaiting a decision, either way according to them it is against the rules. Yes he says they have found many who have claimed asylum in this country are heading back to their home countries for the holidays. They also say this is in the run up to Christmas
So you see what was reported differs from what the bloke said. That's all.
The article says what border force has said so I still don't understand why it's a non story.
Because most of what was reported was made up and/or not related to what was said. Designed specifically to induce outrage about asylum seekers and immigrants.
I have confirmed they say for the holidays and is in the lead up to Christmas.
Not "the holidays", just "holidays".
The only thing I can think your disputing is that they do not clarify if it is pre or post acceptance asylum seekers. It could be either or both but it is against the rules either way
Is it against the rules, do they just forfeit the right to claim asylum, or to re-enter the uk? How many are doing this?
The article tells us very little.
What border force have said is what is reported.
Plus a healthy dose of assumptions and outrage.
Apart from not clarifying what stage the asylum seekers are at in the process, I don't see any problem with what's reported. Yes, according to border force it us against the rules. I don't know the consequences for those involved and as I said further up it, more details would be welcome.
In the meantime we can assume a bunch of stuff, not pay attention to actual news and blame immigrants.
I would assume it would have a negative impact on those awaiting a decision and possibly those recently accepted
Probably, but that's completely beside the point of the article.
I disagree, this is a valid story and the information comes from a valid source. As I said earlier, more information would be welcome but we know it's been happening and we know it's against the rules. I see no reason not to report this. You can assume what you like but I feel people are able to take in more than one story or topic at a time. I don't feel this is a distraction thing as it is a valid story from a valid source. Not sure why you asked me my opinion on the consequences for those that have done this and when I give my opinion, you say it's completely besides the point. Makes me wonder why you asked it in the first place"So am I right in thinking the original article was an interview with LBC? If so was The Express article verbatim or did they add/remove anything? Did they leave it at that or did they embellish it and in the process conflate different things. If they did the latter then why? Is it to stoke the fires of an agenda? All these things matter as does having more detail and context as listed before. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://rmx.news/article/four-in-five-refugees-living-in-sweden-have-vacationed-in-the-country-they-fled-from/ Not sure why anyone is surprised. In Sweden, 4 in 5 refugees vacationed in the country they claimed to flee from. Except for the guardian readers, most others know that the humanitarian laws in Europe have been exploited for years now. The question is why the European governments are incapable of doing anything about it." That can be very misleading for various reasons…. A) it doesn’t give a timescale B) it doesn’t say what type of asylum seekers… for example if you leave a country under political asylum… and the rules or leadership change I know of Iranians or Syrians or people that come from former despot states that because they have made their new home in new country do go back to visit…. For example Sweden took in a lot of Bosnian and Croat refugees in the Yugoslav wars… if they made a new life.. should they never be allowed to go back and visit people who could not leave? We had a big bloody wall in the middle of Europe for god sakes! How many people did we take then! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Without proper context the story and what was reported is meaningless. As has previously been stated Proper journalism would have followed up the interview with: * What numbers are we talking about? * Any countries in particular? * Are we taking about people with claims, or settled refugees. And then researched into * Do they return? * If we allow them back, do we have to, or is this choice ? As it stands, everyone is shaking their fist at an issue that is of unknown size, and demanding things that may already be happening (and of it's not, may need to be angry at HMG at their lack of investment on the issue) The facts are incomplete. And a cynic would say there's just enough facts to involve emotion, but not enough to create discourse. Which is great for clicks. Not knowing the background facts and challenging the statements and obtaining further information by Boarder Force official it really is a non story. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be reported but at least provide further details. So an informed view is given. You might as well report that Asylum seekers are seen driving around on a UK road at 70 mph without mentioning that they on a motorway." If they are a passenger in said vehicle not a problem you need a UK driving licence to drive on the highway in the UK and I dought very much an asylum seeker has a right to a UK driving licence while their case is being assessed. Asylum seekers are not driving on the UK roads. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Excuse my ignorance are not 90% of asylum seekers from war torn Islamic countries that don't celebrate Christmas? Wait a minute,the games afoot Watson "Perhaps they were leaving to escape Christmas, and who can blame them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread seems to have grown arms and legs and made stuff up. The border force guy (based on lbc vids) said that outward checks were finding people leaving who have "claimed asylum" which "obviously isn't allowed". He was specific on asylum. No claim it was tax payers money. Did not say either way if they could come back. Or how. Basically it’s a non story…. A bit like saying Monday is followed by Tuesday…. It's a non story if you don't want people to know and prefer it covered up The story is designed to cause outrage amongst people who read the Daily Express et al. I don't think anyone is saying it should or shouldn't be reported. The commentary is about the purpose of the "news". The purpose of news is to report what's happening. Does the news report on every single thing that's happening, or do certain outlets pick stories based on some criteria? If the article was untrue then it would be a non story but if it's true but some don't like the fact its been published does not make it a non story. So far I have seen no evidence or even claim that this is untrue. It's true that a bloke said a thing. You appear to be missing the point, on purpose? They report on a wide range of things. Politics, sport, businesses, entertainment, international stuff even cooking tips. Are news outlets biased to their views- yes certainly both left and right ones are. Does that make an article invalid to be published (if the facts are true) - no in my opinion not at all. Just because some may not like certain facts being published does not make it a non story. No one has claimed it's "invalid to be published". So that should solve your confusion.
So it's not invalid to be published and it accurate so why is it a non story. Is it because it is information that supports certain people's views
What "information" is there in the story? Very little, it's nearly all speculation from the likes of Daily Express (insert other similar news outlet). Which is designed for a specific purpose. Do you think either.
A. To give people a balanced view of what's going on in the world.
B. To cause outrage amongst the consumers of the news who mostly are already perma-outraged by immigrants/asylum seekers etc.
As far as I am aware the express and others reported what border force said. So far no one has dismissed this or even claimed it to be untrue.
He said very little actual information, just lots of speculation and assumptions.
I have already confirmed that I believe news outlets are biased in what they report across the spectrum but the does not make this a non story in my opinion it makes it a story that some want to read and some do not. Either way it is a valid story
What exactly is the story here as you see it?
The information comes from border force itself when doing their checks. How is that speculation?
You should read what he said.
The article as I see it provides information that I previously did not know and so far I have not seen anything to dispute article. I do not see this as a non story.
It provides information about speculation, then follows up with lots of other speculation and assumptions and outrage.
I did read it. It is border force reporting what they have found when doing exit checks. How is this border force information on actual exit checks speculation? What part of the article is speculation and assumptions?
Let's start with what was actually said:
"We do outbound checks on people to certain flights that are prevalent.
We do find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their home country for holidays which obviously isn’t allowed.”
The article speculates the following:
"A police chief has revealed that asylum seekers have been stopped at airports trying to go home for Christmas."
The rest of the article is unrelated rambling about Rwanda and immigrants.
GBnews didn't even bother pretending to speculate and said "'If you're fleeing your home out of fear for your life, then why on earth are you flying home for Christmas?!'
'This is an absolute outrage!'
Luton Airport's Border Force chief reveals that asylum seekers are 'flying home for Christmas'."
As someone above mentioned, no real journalism was employed to look into this in anyway, direct to "outrage".
Again, where is the speculation?. How is a police chief confirming the situation which also confirms what border force say speculation?. You have both border force revealing what has occurred and the police chief agreeing what has occurred and yet you call it speculation
I've literally just spelled it out.
Do you see the difference between what was said and what was reported?
No I do not
Blimey.
Did the bloke say anything about them being "asylum seekers"?
Did the bloke say anything about them flying home for Christmas?
As I said above, border force say those that have claimed asylum, he does not say if it is pre or post acceptance. So it is either those that have been accepted or those that are awaiting a decision, either way according to them it is against the rules. Yes he says they have found many who have claimed asylum in this country are heading back to their home countries for the holidays. They also say this is in the run up to Christmas
So you see what was reported differs from what the bloke said. That's all.
The article says what border force has said so I still don't understand why it's a non story.
Because most of what was reported was made up and/or not related to what was said. Designed specifically to induce outrage about asylum seekers and immigrants.
I have confirmed they say for the holidays and is in the lead up to Christmas.
Not "the holidays", just "holidays".
The only thing I can think your disputing is that they do not clarify if it is pre or post acceptance asylum seekers. It could be either or both but it is against the rules either way
Is it against the rules, do they just forfeit the right to claim asylum, or to re-enter the uk? How many are doing this?
The article tells us very little.
What border force have said is what is reported.
Plus a healthy dose of assumptions and outrage.
Apart from not clarifying what stage the asylum seekers are at in the process, I don't see any problem with what's reported. Yes, according to border force it us against the rules. I don't know the consequences for those involved and as I said further up it, more details would be welcome.
In the meantime we can assume a bunch of stuff, not pay attention to actual news and blame immigrants.
I would assume it would have a negative impact on those awaiting a decision and possibly those recently accepted
Probably, but that's completely beside the point of the article.
I disagree, this is a valid story and the information comes from a valid source. As I said earlier, more information would be welcome but we know it's been happening and we know it's against the rules. I see no reason not to report this. You can assume what you like but I feel people are able to take in more than one story or topic at a time. I don't feel this is a distraction thing as it is a valid story from a valid source. Not sure why you asked me my opinion on the consequences for those that have done this and when I give my opinion, you say it's completely besides the point. Makes me wonder why you asked it in the first place
So am I right in thinking the original article was an interview with LBC? If so was The Express article verbatim or did they add/remove anything? Did they leave it at that or did they embellish it and in the process conflate different things. If they did the latter then why? Is it to stoke the fires of an agenda? All these things matter as does having more detail and context as listed before."From what I have read the lbc were given behind the scenes access to border force in the run up to Christmas. It was border force that revealed their exit checks and what has been happening to lbc. They did not quote figures or say at what stage in the process these people are. The express and lbc also did not quote figures or say what stage in the process these people are at. They did not even hazard a guess. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Excuse my ignorance are not 90% of asylum seekers from war torn Islamic countries that don't celebrate Christmas? Wait a minute,the games afoot Watson "I understand this was Luton airport and is very busy with flights to eastern Europe this time of year. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Excuse my ignorance are not 90% of asylum seekers from war torn Islamic countries that don't celebrate Christmas? Wait a minute,the games afoot Watson "this is why we need numbers. The fella may have seen ten as being a lot, given it should be zero. As it stands we have no idea how big an issue this is, or if there is any sleuthing to do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So...LAZY JOURNALISM and a source only providing part of the story without sufficient context." As this thread demonstrates, it worked well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. " Nope, that's not what was said. " What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. " Nope, people are pointing out the purpose of the news articles, they're working, reread the OP and balance that against what was said. " In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. " Nope. The reality of the story has been compared to how it was reported and what people on here think. Glad I could clear that up for you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. Nope, that's not what was said. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. Nope, people are pointing out the purpose of the news articles, they're working, reread the OP and balance that against what was said. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. Nope. The reality of the story has been compared to how it was reported and what people on here think. Glad I could clear that up for you " Cleared that up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. " NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. " It was one line, in a 30 second interview, that somehow created three plus articles, and this thread, none of which added anything. Very few people believe that there arent some out there trying to play the system. Just like very few people believe there are no genuine asylum seekers in the system. It reads as those these folk haven't had asylum granted. And therefore how have we been played as fools ? Indeed it suggests the system is working as they are giving up (assuming that we don't let them back, which is within our gift) Without numbers and context, we can't read much into this. However much you want to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked." I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country." re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. " Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it." what do you mean by out wit screening ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it.what do you mean by out wit screening ? " If these people are trying to return home we can safely assume that they were not running from fear, and as such should not have been considered asylum seekers. Yet they have been, so they played the system, passed the screening, how? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it.what do you mean by out wit screening ? If these people are trying to return home we can safely assume that they were not running from fear, and as such should not have been considered asylum seekers. Yet they have been, so they played the system, passed the screening, how?" I'm not clear what screening you think they have gone thru. They haven't (afaik) been granted asylum and are probably part of the backlog. That may mean screening hasn't even started! Again, more details not disclosed as part of any articles ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country." That doesn’t fully answer my points and is only really your assumptions in some cases. The DG of Border Force needs to provide more context and answer the points I raised (sure there are other better questions to ask). Either way we need more info to really understand what is happening before leaping to conclusions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it.what do you mean by out wit screening ? If these people are trying to return home we can safely assume that they were not running from fear, and as such should not have been considered asylum seekers. Yet they have been, so they played the system, passed the screening, how?I'm not clear what screening you think they have gone thru. They haven't (afaik) been granted asylum and are probably part of the backlog. That may mean screening hasn't even started! Again, more details not disclosed as part of any articles !" Think about what you saying... for them to be picked out as asylum seekers or even refugees, they must have gone through the system and therefore have been processed. The processing is screening them for the eligibility, they clearly should not have passed that screening and, they have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country. That doesn’t fully answer my points and is only really your assumptions in some cases. The DG of Border Force needs to provide more context and answer the points I raised (sure there are other better questions to ask). Either way we need more info to really understand what is happening before leaping to conclusions." Context? He said: "we find a lot of people who have claimed asylum in this country and are heading back to their countries for holidays, which is obviously not allowed". Now he didn't add figures or what countries, but it is enough of a problem for him to mention it and use "a lot". You dismissed this as a non story based on not knowing enough, that is little rich on this forum, when there is an actual statement from the top of the food chain! Usually a mate who heard about something down the pub is enough to hang someone out to dry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it.what do you mean by out wit screening ? If these people are trying to return home we can safely assume that they were not running from fear, and as such should not have been considered asylum seekers. Yet they have been, so they played the system, passed the screening, how?I'm not clear what screening you think they have gone thru. They haven't (afaik) been granted asylum and are probably part of the backlog. That may mean screening hasn't even started! Again, more details not disclosed as part of any articles ! Think about what you saying... for them to be picked out as asylum seekers or even refugees, they must have gone through the system and therefore have been processed. The processing is screening them for the eligibility, they clearly should not have passed that screening and, they have. " we have different understandinga here. My understanding is that they claim asylum (eg request it) and we decide if the claim is valid (screening it). Not go around picking people. One the screening takes place they are given asylum or not. But we probably have some.shared ground here. We should be looking at ways of quickly identifying the less probable cases so they don't sit on our buck for years. Irrc elwe've hardly processed any Albanian men, even from 2022. Now as they have still being processed I don't count this as playing the system as they should be rejected if not legit. Although you may feel that a year of free board is enough to have played the system. But then that's on us to process quicker. It's not that they have got thru screening just screening hasn't fully happened yet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it.what do you mean by out wit screening ? If these people are trying to return home we can safely assume that they were not running from fear, and as such should not have been considered asylum seekers. Yet they have been, so they played the system, passed the screening, how?I'm not clear what screening you think they have gone thru. They haven't (afaik) been granted asylum and are probably part of the backlog. That may mean screening hasn't even started! Again, more details not disclosed as part of any articles ! Think about what you saying... for them to be picked out as asylum seekers or even refugees, they must have gone through the system and therefore have been processed. The processing is screening them for the eligibility, they clearly should not have passed that screening and, they have. we have different understandinga here. My understanding is that they claim asylum (eg request it) and we decide if the claim is valid (screening it). Not go around picking people. One the screening takes place they are given asylum or not. But we probably have some.shared ground here. We should be looking at ways of quickly identifying the less probable cases so they don't sit on our buck for years. Irrc elwe've hardly processed any Albanian men, even from 2022. Now as they have still being processed I don't count this as playing the system as they should be rejected if not legit. Although you may feel that a year of free board is enough to have played the system. But then that's on us to process quicker. It's not that they have got thru screening just screening hasn't fully happened yet. " You are missing the point. For them to be identified as asylum seekers at the airport, they must have applied, screened and passed to be in the country freely walking around. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it.what do you mean by out wit screening ? If these people are trying to return home we can safely assume that they were not running from fear, and as such should not have been considered asylum seekers. Yet they have been, so they played the system, passed the screening, how?I'm not clear what screening you think they have gone thru. They haven't (afaik) been granted asylum and are probably part of the backlog. That may mean screening hasn't even started! Again, more details not disclosed as part of any articles ! Think about what you saying... for them to be picked out as asylum seekers or even refugees, they must have gone through the system and therefore have been processed. The processing is screening them for the eligibility, they clearly should not have passed that screening and, they have. " Just a random thought on this screening. If these people have the refugee id travel permit as has been mentioned a few times then at a guess I would say they would have had some checks carried out or screening to have been granted such a document. I doubt you get it straight away but this is just a guess | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it.what do you mean by out wit screening ? If these people are trying to return home we can safely assume that they were not running from fear, and as such should not have been considered asylum seekers. Yet they have been, so they played the system, passed the screening, how?I'm not clear what screening you think they have gone thru. They haven't (afaik) been granted asylum and are probably part of the backlog. That may mean screening hasn't even started! Again, more details not disclosed as part of any articles ! Think about what you saying... for them to be picked out as asylum seekers or even refugees, they must have gone through the system and therefore have been processed. The processing is screening them for the eligibility, they clearly should not have passed that screening and, they have. Just a random thought on this screening. If these people have the refugee id travel permit as has been mentioned a few times then at a guess I would say they would have had some checks carried out or screening to have been granted such a document. I doubt you get it straight away but this is just a guess" it's a good point. I don't know. We also don't know what kinda passport they were travelling on. More good things any decent article could have covered. As it is we are speculating again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can you book a return ticket on a refugee travel permit. "Lol. No idea but I would guess yes assuming you are not traveling back to the country you are claiming to be fleeing in fear if your life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it.what do you mean by out wit screening ? If these people are trying to return home we can safely assume that they were not running from fear, and as such should not have been considered asylum seekers. Yet they have been, so they played the system, passed the screening, how?I'm not clear what screening you think they have gone thru. They haven't (afaik) been granted asylum and are probably part of the backlog. That may mean screening hasn't even started! Again, more details not disclosed as part of any articles ! Think about what you saying... for them to be picked out as asylum seekers or even refugees, they must have gone through the system and therefore have been processed. The processing is screening them for the eligibility, they clearly should not have passed that screening and, they have. Just a random thought on this screening. If these people have the refugee id travel permit as has been mentioned a few times then at a guess I would say they would have had some checks carried out or screening to have been granted such a document. I doubt you get it straight away but this is just a guessit's a good point. I don't know. We also don't know what kinda passport they were travelling on. More good things any decent article could have covered. As it is we are speculating again. " To be fair we are talking about a comment made by the director general of border force, the discussion on the media reporting of it took over the main talking point as it was being used to play down and call it a non story. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it.what do you mean by out wit screening ? If these people are trying to return home we can safely assume that they were not running from fear, and as such should not have been considered asylum seekers. Yet they have been, so they played the system, passed the screening, how?I'm not clear what screening you think they have gone thru. They haven't (afaik) been granted asylum and are probably part of the backlog. That may mean screening hasn't even started! Again, more details not disclosed as part of any articles ! Think about what you saying... for them to be picked out as asylum seekers or even refugees, they must have gone through the system and therefore have been processed. The processing is screening them for the eligibility, they clearly should not have passed that screening and, they have. Just a random thought on this screening. If these people have the refugee id travel permit as has been mentioned a few times then at a guess I would say they would have had some checks carried out or screening to have been granted such a document. I doubt you get it straight away but this is just a guessit's a good point. I don't know. We also don't know what kinda passport they were travelling on. More good things any decent article could have covered. As it is we are speculating again. To be fair we are talking about a comment made by the director general of border force, the discussion on the media reporting of it took over the main talking point as it was being used to play down and call it a non story. " every action etc etc. The original articles was (imo) to trigger some reactions and so the other side has challenged thisnby playing down those reactions. There may be a story in there. However the lack of any details has made it a bit of a pointless story as it stands. Imo it's not (yet) worthy of an article. It's a curiosity more than a story. One that should have been explored before it went to press. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it.what do you mean by out wit screening ? If these people are trying to return home we can safely assume that they were not running from fear, and as such should not have been considered asylum seekers. Yet they have been, so they played the system, passed the screening, how?I'm not clear what screening you think they have gone thru. They haven't (afaik) been granted asylum and are probably part of the backlog. That may mean screening hasn't even started! Again, more details not disclosed as part of any articles ! Think about what you saying... for them to be picked out as asylum seekers or even refugees, they must have gone through the system and therefore have been processed. The processing is screening them for the eligibility, they clearly should not have passed that screening and, they have. Just a random thought on this screening. If these people have the refugee id travel permit as has been mentioned a few times then at a guess I would say they would have had some checks carried out or screening to have been granted such a document. I doubt you get it straight away but this is just a guessit's a good point. I don't know. We also don't know what kinda passport they were travelling on. More good things any decent article could have covered. As it is we are speculating again. To be fair we are talking about a comment made by the director general of border force, the discussion on the media reporting of it took over the main talking point as it was being used to play down and call it a non story. every action etc etc. The original articles was (imo) to trigger some reactions and so the other side has challenged thisnby playing down those reactions. There may be a story in there. However the lack of any details has made it a bit of a pointless story as it stands. Imo it's not (yet) worthy of an article. It's a curiosity more than a story. One that should have been explored before it went to press. " It was a live interview from Luton airport with LBC, what was said was factual, the way certain media outlets reported on it has no weight in the accuracy of the original interview | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it.what do you mean by out wit screening ? If these people are trying to return home we can safely assume that they were not running from fear, and as such should not have been considered asylum seekers. Yet they have been, so they played the system, passed the screening, how?I'm not clear what screening you think they have gone thru. They haven't (afaik) been granted asylum and are probably part of the backlog. That may mean screening hasn't even started! Again, more details not disclosed as part of any articles ! Think about what you saying... for them to be picked out as asylum seekers or even refugees, they must have gone through the system and therefore have been processed. The processing is screening them for the eligibility, they clearly should not have passed that screening and, they have. Just a random thought on this screening. If these people have the refugee id travel permit as has been mentioned a few times then at a guess I would say they would have had some checks carried out or screening to have been granted such a document. I doubt you get it straight away but this is just a guessit's a good point. I don't know. We also don't know what kinda passport they were travelling on. More good things any decent article could have covered. As it is we are speculating again. To be fair we are talking about a comment made by the director general of border force, the discussion on the media reporting of it took over the main talking point as it was being used to play down and call it a non story. every action etc etc. The original articles was (imo) to trigger some reactions and so the other side has challenged thisnby playing down those reactions. There may be a story in there. However the lack of any details has made it a bit of a pointless story as it stands. Imo it's not (yet) worthy of an article. It's a curiosity more than a story. One that should have been explored before it went to press. It was a live interview from Luton airport with LBC, what was said was factual, the way certain media outlets reported on it has no weight in the accuracy of the original interview" But we still need to know why it is “against the rules” and whether that is the case for all or some people granted asylum? Is there a time limit within which it is against the rules? Is it only applicable to people granted asylum in the last XX months? When granted asylum is that forever or is it limited to when their home country is deemed safe to return? There’s so many questions related to this single statement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it.what do you mean by out wit screening ? If these people are trying to return home we can safely assume that they were not running from fear, and as such should not have been considered asylum seekers. Yet they have been, so they played the system, passed the screening, how?I'm not clear what screening you think they have gone thru. They haven't (afaik) been granted asylum and are probably part of the backlog. That may mean screening hasn't even started! Again, more details not disclosed as part of any articles ! Think about what you saying... for them to be picked out as asylum seekers or even refugees, they must have gone through the system and therefore have been processed. The processing is screening them for the eligibility, they clearly should not have passed that screening and, they have. Just a random thought on this screening. If these people have the refugee id travel permit as has been mentioned a few times then at a guess I would say they would have had some checks carried out or screening to have been granted such a document. I doubt you get it straight away but this is just a guessit's a good point. I don't know. We also don't know what kinda passport they were travelling on. More good things any decent article could have covered. As it is we are speculating again. To be fair we are talking about a comment made by the director general of border force, the discussion on the media reporting of it took over the main talking point as it was being used to play down and call it a non story. every action etc etc. The original articles was (imo) to trigger some reactions and so the other side has challenged thisnby playing down those reactions. There may be a story in there. However the lack of any details has made it a bit of a pointless story as it stands. Imo it's not (yet) worthy of an article. It's a curiosity more than a story. One that should have been explored before it went to press. It was a live interview from Luton airport with LBC, what was said was factual, the way certain media outlets reported on it has no weight in the accuracy of the original interview" Which is basically what we've been discussing. Refer back to the OP to see how the way the media reports this stuff helps to shape people's points of view. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it.what do you mean by out wit screening ? If these people are trying to return home we can safely assume that they were not running from fear, and as such should not have been considered asylum seekers. Yet they have been, so they played the system, passed the screening, how?I'm not clear what screening you think they have gone thru. They haven't (afaik) been granted asylum and are probably part of the backlog. That may mean screening hasn't even started! Again, more details not disclosed as part of any articles ! Think about what you saying... for them to be picked out as asylum seekers or even refugees, they must have gone through the system and therefore have been processed. The processing is screening them for the eligibility, they clearly should not have passed that screening and, they have. Just a random thought on this screening. If these people have the refugee id travel permit as has been mentioned a few times then at a guess I would say they would have had some checks carried out or screening to have been granted such a document. I doubt you get it straight away but this is just a guessit's a good point. I don't know. We also don't know what kinda passport they were travelling on. More good things any decent article could have covered. As it is we are speculating again. To be fair we are talking about a comment made by the director general of border force, the discussion on the media reporting of it took over the main talking point as it was being used to play down and call it a non story. every action etc etc. The original articles was (imo) to trigger some reactions and so the other side has challenged thisnby playing down those reactions. There may be a story in there. However the lack of any details has made it a bit of a pointless story as it stands. Imo it's not (yet) worthy of an article. It's a curiosity more than a story. One that should have been explored before it went to press. It was a live interview from Luton airport with LBC, what was said was factual, the way certain media outlets reported on it has no weight in the accuracy of the original interview But we still need to know why it is “against the rules” and whether that is the case for all or some people granted asylum? Is there a time limit within which it is against the rules? Is it only applicable to people granted asylum in the last XX months? When granted asylum is that forever or is it limited to when their home country is deemed safe to return? There’s so many questions related to this single statement." For me, asylum should only ever be granted for a temporary period, and reassessed at set intervals. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it.what do you mean by out wit screening ? If these people are trying to return home we can safely assume that they were not running from fear, and as such should not have been considered asylum seekers. Yet they have been, so they played the system, passed the screening, how?I'm not clear what screening you think they have gone thru. They haven't (afaik) been granted asylum and are probably part of the backlog. That may mean screening hasn't even started! Again, more details not disclosed as part of any articles ! Think about what you saying... for them to be picked out as asylum seekers or even refugees, they must have gone through the system and therefore have been processed. The processing is screening them for the eligibility, they clearly should not have passed that screening and, they have. Just a random thought on this screening. If these people have the refugee id travel permit as has been mentioned a few times then at a guess I would say they would have had some checks carried out or screening to have been granted such a document. I doubt you get it straight away but this is just a guessit's a good point. I don't know. We also don't know what kinda passport they were travelling on. More good things any decent article could have covered. As it is we are speculating again. To be fair we are talking about a comment made by the director general of border force, the discussion on the media reporting of it took over the main talking point as it was being used to play down and call it a non story. every action etc etc. The original articles was (imo) to trigger some reactions and so the other side has challenged thisnby playing down those reactions. There may be a story in there. However the lack of any details has made it a bit of a pointless story as it stands. Imo it's not (yet) worthy of an article. It's a curiosity more than a story. One that should have been explored before it went to press. It was a live interview from Luton airport with LBC, what was said was factual, the way certain media outlets reported on it has no weight in the accuracy of the original interview But we still need to know why it is “against the rules” and whether that is the case for all or some people granted asylum? Is there a time limit within which it is against the rules? Is it only applicable to people granted asylum in the last XX months? When granted asylum is that forever or is it limited to when their home country is deemed safe to return? There’s so many questions related to this single statement. For me, asylum should only ever be granted for a temporary period, and reassessed at set intervals. " I agree. Anyone know the actual rules in relation to asylum? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it.what do you mean by out wit screening ? If these people are trying to return home we can safely assume that they were not running from fear, and as such should not have been considered asylum seekers. Yet they have been, so they played the system, passed the screening, how?I'm not clear what screening you think they have gone thru. They haven't (afaik) been granted asylum and are probably part of the backlog. That may mean screening hasn't even started! Again, more details not disclosed as part of any articles ! Think about what you saying... for them to be picked out as asylum seekers or even refugees, they must have gone through the system and therefore have been processed. The processing is screening them for the eligibility, they clearly should not have passed that screening and, they have. Just a random thought on this screening. If these people have the refugee id travel permit as has been mentioned a few times then at a guess I would say they would have had some checks carried out or screening to have been granted such a document. I doubt you get it straight away but this is just a guessit's a good point. I don't know. We also don't know what kinda passport they were travelling on. More good things any decent article could have covered. As it is we are speculating again. To be fair we are talking about a comment made by the director general of border force, the discussion on the media reporting of it took over the main talking point as it was being used to play down and call it a non story. every action etc etc. The original articles was (imo) to trigger some reactions and so the other side has challenged thisnby playing down those reactions. There may be a story in there. However the lack of any details has made it a bit of a pointless story as it stands. Imo it's not (yet) worthy of an article. It's a curiosity more than a story. One that should have been explored before it went to press. It was a live interview from Luton airport with LBC, what was said was factual, the way certain media outlets reported on it has no weight in the accuracy of the original interview But we still need to know why it is “against the rules” and whether that is the case for all or some people granted asylum? Is there a time limit within which it is against the rules? Is it only applicable to people granted asylum in the last XX months? When granted asylum is that forever or is it limited to when their home country is deemed safe to return? There’s so many questions related to this single statement. For me, asylum should only ever be granted for a temporary period, and reassessed at set intervals. I agree. Anyone know the actual rules in relation to asylum?" I'd be interested. I honestly have no idea. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it.what do you mean by out wit screening ? If these people are trying to return home we can safely assume that they were not running from fear, and as such should not have been considered asylum seekers. Yet they have been, so they played the system, passed the screening, how?I'm not clear what screening you think they have gone thru. They haven't (afaik) been granted asylum and are probably part of the backlog. That may mean screening hasn't even started! Again, more details not disclosed as part of any articles ! Think about what you saying... for them to be picked out as asylum seekers or even refugees, they must have gone through the system and therefore have been processed. The processing is screening them for the eligibility, they clearly should not have passed that screening and, they have. Just a random thought on this screening. If these people have the refugee id travel permit as has been mentioned a few times then at a guess I would say they would have had some checks carried out or screening to have been granted such a document. I doubt you get it straight away but this is just a guessit's a good point. I don't know. We also don't know what kinda passport they were travelling on. More good things any decent article could have covered. As it is we are speculating again. To be fair we are talking about a comment made by the director general of border force, the discussion on the media reporting of it took over the main talking point as it was being used to play down and call it a non story. every action etc etc. The original articles was (imo) to trigger some reactions and so the other side has challenged thisnby playing down those reactions. There may be a story in there. However the lack of any details has made it a bit of a pointless story as it stands. Imo it's not (yet) worthy of an article. It's a curiosity more than a story. One that should have been explored before it went to press. It was a live interview from Luton airport with LBC, what was said was factual, the way certain media outlets reported on it has no weight in the accuracy of the original interview But we still need to know why it is “against the rules” and whether that is the case for all or some people granted asylum? Is there a time limit within which it is against the rules? Is it only applicable to people granted asylum in the last XX months? When granted asylum is that forever or is it limited to when their home country is deemed safe to return? There’s so many questions related to this single statement. For me, asylum should only ever be granted for a temporary period, and reassessed at set intervals. I agree. Anyone know the actual rules in relation to asylum? I'd be interested. I honestly have no idea. " Asylum is granted for a minimum of 5 years. They are not allowed to go back to their home country for their own safety and if they have no passport, they are issued with a travel document by the home office. If they do travel back to their home country they can lose their asylum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it.what do you mean by out wit screening ? If these people are trying to return home we can safely assume that they were not running from fear, and as such should not have been considered asylum seekers. Yet they have been, so they played the system, passed the screening, how?I'm not clear what screening you think they have gone thru. They haven't (afaik) been granted asylum and are probably part of the backlog. That may mean screening hasn't even started! Again, more details not disclosed as part of any articles ! Think about what you saying... for them to be picked out as asylum seekers or even refugees, they must have gone through the system and therefore have been processed. The processing is screening them for the eligibility, they clearly should not have passed that screening and, they have. Just a random thought on this screening. If these people have the refugee id travel permit as has been mentioned a few times then at a guess I would say they would have had some checks carried out or screening to have been granted such a document. I doubt you get it straight away but this is just a guessit's a good point. I don't know. We also don't know what kinda passport they were travelling on. More good things any decent article could have covered. As it is we are speculating again. To be fair we are talking about a comment made by the director general of border force, the discussion on the media reporting of it took over the main talking point as it was being used to play down and call it a non story. every action etc etc. The original articles was (imo) to trigger some reactions and so the other side has challenged thisnby playing down those reactions. There may be a story in there. However the lack of any details has made it a bit of a pointless story as it stands. Imo it's not (yet) worthy of an article. It's a curiosity more than a story. One that should have been explored before it went to press. It was a live interview from Luton airport with LBC, what was said was factual, the way certain media outlets reported on it has no weight in the accuracy of the original interview But we still need to know why it is “against the rules” and whether that is the case for all or some people granted asylum? Is there a time limit within which it is against the rules? Is it only applicable to people granted asylum in the last XX months? When granted asylum is that forever or is it limited to when their home country is deemed safe to return? There’s so many questions related to this single statement. For me, asylum should only ever be granted for a temporary period, and reassessed at set intervals. I agree. Anyone know the actual rules in relation to asylum? I'd be interested. I honestly have no idea. Asylum is granted for a minimum of 5 years. They are not allowed to go back to their home country for their own safety and if they have no passport, they are issued with a travel document by the home office. If they do travel back to their home country they can lose their asylum. " Now we are getting somewhere. Do you have a link for that info? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it.what do you mean by out wit screening ? If these people are trying to return home we can safely assume that they were not running from fear, and as such should not have been considered asylum seekers. Yet they have been, so they played the system, passed the screening, how?I'm not clear what screening you think they have gone thru. They haven't (afaik) been granted asylum and are probably part of the backlog. That may mean screening hasn't even started! Again, more details not disclosed as part of any articles ! Think about what you saying... for them to be picked out as asylum seekers or even refugees, they must have gone through the system and therefore have been processed. The processing is screening them for the eligibility, they clearly should not have passed that screening and, they have. Just a random thought on this screening. If these people have the refugee id travel permit as has been mentioned a few times then at a guess I would say they would have had some checks carried out or screening to have been granted such a document. I doubt you get it straight away but this is just a guessit's a good point. I don't know. We also don't know what kinda passport they were travelling on. More good things any decent article could have covered. As it is we are speculating again. To be fair we are talking about a comment made by the director general of border force, the discussion on the media reporting of it took over the main talking point as it was being used to play down and call it a non story. every action etc etc. The original articles was (imo) to trigger some reactions and so the other side has challenged thisnby playing down those reactions. There may be a story in there. However the lack of any details has made it a bit of a pointless story as it stands. Imo it's not (yet) worthy of an article. It's a curiosity more than a story. One that should have been explored before it went to press. It was a live interview from Luton airport with LBC, what was said was factual, the way certain media outlets reported on it has no weight in the accuracy of the original interview But we still need to know why it is “against the rules” and whether that is the case for all or some people granted asylum? Is there a time limit within which it is against the rules? Is it only applicable to people granted asylum in the last XX months? When granted asylum is that forever or is it limited to when their home country is deemed safe to return? There’s so many questions related to this single statement. For me, asylum should only ever be granted for a temporary period, and reassessed at set intervals. I agree. Anyone know the actual rules in relation to asylum? I'd be interested. I honestly have no idea. Asylum is granted for a minimum of 5 years. They are not allowed to go back to their home country for their own safety and if they have no passport, they are issued with a travel document by the home office. If they do travel back to their home country they can lose their asylum. Now we are getting somewhere. Do you have a link for that info?" I haven't heard asylum is a minimum of 5 years... But re not going back to the home country, that's against the rules of the travel doco https://www.gov.uk/apply-home-office-travel-document/refugee-travel-document | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it.what do you mean by out wit screening ? If these people are trying to return home we can safely assume that they were not running from fear, and as such should not have been considered asylum seekers. Yet they have been, so they played the system, passed the screening, how?I'm not clear what screening you think they have gone thru. They haven't (afaik) been granted asylum and are probably part of the backlog. That may mean screening hasn't even started! Again, more details not disclosed as part of any articles ! Think about what you saying... for them to be picked out as asylum seekers or even refugees, they must have gone through the system and therefore have been processed. The processing is screening them for the eligibility, they clearly should not have passed that screening and, they have. Just a random thought on this screening. If these people have the refugee id travel permit as has been mentioned a few times then at a guess I would say they would have had some checks carried out or screening to have been granted such a document. I doubt you get it straight away but this is just a guessit's a good point. I don't know. We also don't know what kinda passport they were travelling on. More good things any decent article could have covered. As it is we are speculating again. To be fair we are talking about a comment made by the director general of border force, the discussion on the media reporting of it took over the main talking point as it was being used to play down and call it a non story. every action etc etc. The original articles was (imo) to trigger some reactions and so the other side has challenged thisnby playing down those reactions. There may be a story in there. However the lack of any details has made it a bit of a pointless story as it stands. Imo it's not (yet) worthy of an article. It's a curiosity more than a story. One that should have been explored before it went to press. It was a live interview from Luton airport with LBC, what was said was factual, the way certain media outlets reported on it has no weight in the accuracy of the original interview But we still need to know why it is “against the rules” and whether that is the case for all or some people granted asylum? Is there a time limit within which it is against the rules? Is it only applicable to people granted asylum in the last XX months? When granted asylum is that forever or is it limited to when their home country is deemed safe to return? There’s so many questions related to this single statement. For me, asylum should only ever be granted for a temporary period, and reassessed at set intervals. I agree. Anyone know the actual rules in relation to asylum? I'd be interested. I honestly have no idea. Asylum is granted for a minimum of 5 years. They are not allowed to go back to their home country for their own safety and if they have no passport, they are issued with a travel document by the home office. If they do travel back to their home country they can lose their asylum. Now we are getting somewhere. Do you have a link for that info?" This information is not hard to find https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/decision | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it.what do you mean by out wit screening ? If these people are trying to return home we can safely assume that they were not running from fear, and as such should not have been considered asylum seekers. Yet they have been, so they played the system, passed the screening, how?I'm not clear what screening you think they have gone thru. They haven't (afaik) been granted asylum and are probably part of the backlog. That may mean screening hasn't even started! Again, more details not disclosed as part of any articles ! Think about what you saying... for them to be picked out as asylum seekers or even refugees, they must have gone through the system and therefore have been processed. The processing is screening them for the eligibility, they clearly should not have passed that screening and, they have. Just a random thought on this screening. If these people have the refugee id travel permit as has been mentioned a few times then at a guess I would say they would have had some checks carried out or screening to have been granted such a document. I doubt you get it straight away but this is just a guessit's a good point. I don't know. We also don't know what kinda passport they were travelling on. More good things any decent article could have covered. As it is we are speculating again. To be fair we are talking about a comment made by the director general of border force, the discussion on the media reporting of it took over the main talking point as it was being used to play down and call it a non story. every action etc etc. The original articles was (imo) to trigger some reactions and so the other side has challenged thisnby playing down those reactions. There may be a story in there. However the lack of any details has made it a bit of a pointless story as it stands. Imo it's not (yet) worthy of an article. It's a curiosity more than a story. One that should have been explored before it went to press. It was a live interview from Luton airport with LBC, what was said was factual, the way certain media outlets reported on it has no weight in the accuracy of the original interview But we still need to know why it is “against the rules” and whether that is the case for all or some people granted asylum? Is there a time limit within which it is against the rules? Is it only applicable to people granted asylum in the last XX months? When granted asylum is that forever or is it limited to when their home country is deemed safe to return? There’s so many questions related to this single statement. For me, asylum should only ever be granted for a temporary period, and reassessed at set intervals. I agree. Anyone know the actual rules in relation to asylum? I'd be interested. I honestly have no idea. Asylum is granted for a minimum of 5 years. They are not allowed to go back to their home country for their own safety and if they have no passport, they are issued with a travel document by the home office. If they do travel back to their home country they can lose their asylum. Now we are getting somewhere. Do you have a link for that info? This information is not hard to find https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/decision " But it is nice when someone else does the work for you! It is xmas afterall! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it.what do you mean by out wit screening ? If these people are trying to return home we can safely assume that they were not running from fear, and as such should not have been considered asylum seekers. Yet they have been, so they played the system, passed the screening, how?I'm not clear what screening you think they have gone thru. They haven't (afaik) been granted asylum and are probably part of the backlog. That may mean screening hasn't even started! Again, more details not disclosed as part of any articles ! Think about what you saying... for them to be picked out as asylum seekers or even refugees, they must have gone through the system and therefore have been processed. The processing is screening them for the eligibility, they clearly should not have passed that screening and, they have. Just a random thought on this screening. If these people have the refugee id travel permit as has been mentioned a few times then at a guess I would say they would have had some checks carried out or screening to have been granted such a document. I doubt you get it straight away but this is just a guessit's a good point. I don't know. We also don't know what kinda passport they were travelling on. More good things any decent article could have covered. As it is we are speculating again. To be fair we are talking about a comment made by the director general of border force, the discussion on the media reporting of it took over the main talking point as it was being used to play down and call it a non story. every action etc etc. The original articles was (imo) to trigger some reactions and so the other side has challenged thisnby playing down those reactions. There may be a story in there. However the lack of any details has made it a bit of a pointless story as it stands. Imo it's not (yet) worthy of an article. It's a curiosity more than a story. One that should have been explored before it went to press. It was a live interview from Luton airport with LBC, what was said was factual, the way certain media outlets reported on it has no weight in the accuracy of the original interview But we still need to know why it is “against the rules” and whether that is the case for all or some people granted asylum? Is there a time limit within which it is against the rules? Is it only applicable to people granted asylum in the last XX months? When granted asylum is that forever or is it limited to when their home country is deemed safe to return? There’s so many questions related to this single statement. For me, asylum should only ever be granted for a temporary period, and reassessed at set intervals. I agree. Anyone know the actual rules in relation to asylum? I'd be interested. I honestly have no idea. Asylum is granted for a minimum of 5 years. They are not allowed to go back to their home country for their own safety and if they have no passport, they are issued with a travel document by the home office. If they do travel back to their home country they can lose their asylum. Now we are getting somewhere. Do you have a link for that info? This information is not hard to find https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/decision But it is nice when someone else does the work for you! It is xmas afterall!" That sounds like something one of the bogus asylum seekers would say on the way to the airport for holidays back home. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it.what do you mean by out wit screening ? If these people are trying to return home we can safely assume that they were not running from fear, and as such should not have been considered asylum seekers. Yet they have been, so they played the system, passed the screening, how?I'm not clear what screening you think they have gone thru. They haven't (afaik) been granted asylum and are probably part of the backlog. That may mean screening hasn't even started! Again, more details not disclosed as part of any articles ! Think about what you saying... for them to be picked out as asylum seekers or even refugees, they must have gone through the system and therefore have been processed. The processing is screening them for the eligibility, they clearly should not have passed that screening and, they have. Just a random thought on this screening. If these people have the refugee id travel permit as has been mentioned a few times then at a guess I would say they would have had some checks carried out or screening to have been granted such a document. I doubt you get it straight away but this is just a guessit's a good point. I don't know. We also don't know what kinda passport they were travelling on. More good things any decent article could have covered. As it is we are speculating again. To be fair we are talking about a comment made by the director general of border force, the discussion on the media reporting of it took over the main talking point as it was being used to play down and call it a non story. every action etc etc. The original articles was (imo) to trigger some reactions and so the other side has challenged thisnby playing down those reactions. There may be a story in there. However the lack of any details has made it a bit of a pointless story as it stands. Imo it's not (yet) worthy of an article. It's a curiosity more than a story. One that should have been explored before it went to press. It was a live interview from Luton airport with LBC, what was said was factual, the way certain media outlets reported on it has no weight in the accuracy of the original interview But we still need to know why it is “against the rules” and whether that is the case for all or some people granted asylum? Is there a time limit within which it is against the rules? Is it only applicable to people granted asylum in the last XX months? When granted asylum is that forever or is it limited to when their home country is deemed safe to return? There’s so many questions related to this single statement. For me, asylum should only ever be granted for a temporary period, and reassessed at set intervals. I agree. Anyone know the actual rules in relation to asylum? I'd be interested. I honestly have no idea. Asylum is granted for a minimum of 5 years. They are not allowed to go back to their home country for their own safety and if they have no passport, they are issued with a travel document by the home office. If they do travel back to their home country they can lose their asylum. Now we are getting somewhere. Do you have a link for that info? This information is not hard to find https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/decision But it is nice when someone else does the work for you! It is xmas afterall! That sounds like something one of the bogus asylum seekers would say on the way to the airport for holidays back home." tbf, the story is that these folk are all economic migrants, so have been working bloody hard the last few months. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it.what do you mean by out wit screening ? If these people are trying to return home we can safely assume that they were not running from fear, and as such should not have been considered asylum seekers. Yet they have been, so they played the system, passed the screening, how?I'm not clear what screening you think they have gone thru. They haven't (afaik) been granted asylum and are probably part of the backlog. That may mean screening hasn't even started! Again, more details not disclosed as part of any articles ! Think about what you saying... for them to be picked out as asylum seekers or even refugees, they must have gone through the system and therefore have been processed. The processing is screening them for the eligibility, they clearly should not have passed that screening and, they have. Just a random thought on this screening. If these people have the refugee id travel permit as has been mentioned a few times then at a guess I would say they would have had some checks carried out or screening to have been granted such a document. I doubt you get it straight away but this is just a guessit's a good point. I don't know. We also don't know what kinda passport they were travelling on. More good things any decent article could have covered. As it is we are speculating again. To be fair we are talking about a comment made by the director general of border force, the discussion on the media reporting of it took over the main talking point as it was being used to play down and call it a non story. every action etc etc. The original articles was (imo) to trigger some reactions and so the other side has challenged thisnby playing down those reactions. There may be a story in there. However the lack of any details has made it a bit of a pointless story as it stands. Imo it's not (yet) worthy of an article. It's a curiosity more than a story. One that should have been explored before it went to press. It was a live interview from Luton airport with LBC, what was said was factual, the way certain media outlets reported on it has no weight in the accuracy of the original interview But we still need to know why it is “against the rules” and whether that is the case for all or some people granted asylum? Is there a time limit within which it is against the rules? Is it only applicable to people granted asylum in the last XX months? When granted asylum is that forever or is it limited to when their home country is deemed safe to return? There’s so many questions related to this single statement. For me, asylum should only ever be granted for a temporary period, and reassessed at set intervals. I agree. Anyone know the actual rules in relation to asylum? I'd be interested. I honestly have no idea. Asylum is granted for a minimum of 5 years. They are not allowed to go back to their home country for their own safety and if they have no passport, they are issued with a travel document by the home office. If they do travel back to their home country they can lose their asylum. Now we are getting somewhere. Do you have a link for that info? This information is not hard to find https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/decision But it is nice when someone else does the work for you! It is xmas afterall! That sounds like something one of the bogus asylum seekers would say on the way to the airport for holidays back home." Chris Rea got around it by not flying | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it.what do you mean by out wit screening ? If these people are trying to return home we can safely assume that they were not running from fear, and as such should not have been considered asylum seekers. Yet they have been, so they played the system, passed the screening, how?I'm not clear what screening you think they have gone thru. They haven't (afaik) been granted asylum and are probably part of the backlog. That may mean screening hasn't even started! Again, more details not disclosed as part of any articles ! Think about what you saying... for them to be picked out as asylum seekers or even refugees, they must have gone through the system and therefore have been processed. The processing is screening them for the eligibility, they clearly should not have passed that screening and, they have. Just a random thought on this screening. If these people have the refugee id travel permit as has been mentioned a few times then at a guess I would say they would have had some checks carried out or screening to have been granted such a document. I doubt you get it straight away but this is just a guessit's a good point. I don't know. We also don't know what kinda passport they were travelling on. More good things any decent article could have covered. As it is we are speculating again. To be fair we are talking about a comment made by the director general of border force, the discussion on the media reporting of it took over the main talking point as it was being used to play down and call it a non story. every action etc etc. The original articles was (imo) to trigger some reactions and so the other side has challenged thisnby playing down those reactions. There may be a story in there. However the lack of any details has made it a bit of a pointless story as it stands. Imo it's not (yet) worthy of an article. It's a curiosity more than a story. One that should have been explored before it went to press. It was a live interview from Luton airport with LBC, what was said was factual, the way certain media outlets reported on it has no weight in the accuracy of the original interview But we still need to know why it is “against the rules” and whether that is the case for all or some people granted asylum? Is there a time limit within which it is against the rules? Is it only applicable to people granted asylum in the last XX months? When granted asylum is that forever or is it limited to when their home country is deemed safe to return? There’s so many questions related to this single statement. For me, asylum should only ever be granted for a temporary period, and reassessed at set intervals. I agree. Anyone know the actual rules in relation to asylum? I'd be interested. I honestly have no idea. Asylum is granted for a minimum of 5 years. They are not allowed to go back to their home country for their own safety and if they have no passport, they are issued with a travel document by the home office. If they do travel back to their home country they can lose their asylum. Now we are getting somewhere. Do you have a link for that info? This information is not hard to find https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/decision But it is nice when someone else does the work for you! It is xmas afterall! That sounds like something one of the bogus asylum seekers would say on the way to the airport for holidays back home. Chris Rea got around it by not flying "I'm starting to build a campaign that should help slow down small boat crossings. 1) videos showing the UK housing crisis the empty high streets and the realities of living here on benefits. Idea is to buy advertising space on the local TV and radio stations that people are travelling from. Additional big screens on the beaches that they are launching from, imagine getting into the small boat and seeing that playing... 2) slogans: Arrive and you will not be going home for Christmas. Im sure there are a lot more that can be added to the list, I think Labour could strive at this using twitter
I think this approach could mothball Rwanda and be a fantastic success, I shall call this campaign, "the truth".
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is a cracker!! We have undisputed and a recorded interview with the director general of uk border force stating, lots of people who have claimed asylum in the uk are trying to travel back to their home countries during the holidays. What do our progressives make of this: focus on media that didn’t report it verbatim and question to the letter, what a lot means, what holiday means. In short, they have tried very hard to water down the impact of the story because it breaks their narrative with the realities of illegal entry, whilst shining a spotlight on the people who have managed to play the system and taken them for fools. NotReally NotMe (see what I did there?) On the surface this does seem shocking. However, for me to be truly shocked I need to know more information. That is fair enough right? 1. Are these people who have been granted asylum or people still being processed/assessed? 2. If the former then we need clarity on why this is against the rules? Do we only grant asylum on a temporary basis pending conditions in the home country changing? Or do they get indefinite leave to remain? 3. If the latter then how do they actually travel if they have no passport? 4. If Border Force are encountering these people who are travelling and it is against the rules, why do they allow them through passport control? Why aren’t they stopped and told “this is against the rules!” 5. If somehow they still travel, presumably their name and photo is added to the database so that when they subsequently try to return to the UK the Border Force can deny entry and send them back because “you broke the asylum rules”? Tell me this info and I can then decide whether to be shocked. I don't need to fill in the blanks do I? Surely there is the ability to workout if there is a problem at Luton, there will also be problems at other airports and maybe ports? The director general of border force is a trusted source too, wouldn't you say?? As for documents, on application of asylum they can be given a travel refugee id document that they can travel with, and after 12 months of being accepted can apply for a UK passport. Non of the documents allows them to travel back to their home country.re extrapolating Luton... That's a leap. If these are 100pc Albanians say, then why would we extrapolate to Iraqi bound flights? Especially as we are told they are economic migrants whereas I don't believe the same claim is being made about Iraqi and Syrian refugees. There is an interesting thread here. Unfortunately no one has actually done the work to see what's at the end of it. Despite the numerous articles. Depends on where flights are scheduled to leave from I guess and take on your point. I think we can safely say this happening, people wanting to return for holidays! The burning question is how did they manage to outwit screening and how do we stop it.what do you mean by out wit screening ? If these people are trying to return home we can safely assume that they were not running from fear, and as such should not have been considered asylum seekers. Yet they have been, so they played the system, passed the screening, how?I'm not clear what screening you think they have gone thru. They haven't (afaik) been granted asylum and are probably part of the backlog. That may mean screening hasn't even started! Again, more details not disclosed as part of any articles ! Think about what you saying... for them to be picked out as asylum seekers or even refugees, they must have gone through the system and therefore have been processed. The processing is screening them for the eligibility, they clearly should not have passed that screening and, they have. Just a random thought on this screening. If these people have the refugee id travel permit as has been mentioned a few times then at a guess I would say they would have had some checks carried out or screening to have been granted such a document. I doubt you get it straight away but this is just a guessit's a good point. I don't know. We also don't know what kinda passport they were travelling on. More good things any decent article could have covered. As it is we are speculating again. To be fair we are talking about a comment made by the director general of border force, the discussion on the media reporting of it took over the main talking point as it was being used to play down and call it a non story. every action etc etc. The original articles was (imo) to trigger some reactions and so the other side has challenged thisnby playing down those reactions. There may be a story in there. However the lack of any details has made it a bit of a pointless story as it stands. Imo it's not (yet) worthy of an article. It's a curiosity more than a story. One that should have been explored before it went to press. It was a live interview from Luton airport with LBC, what was said was factual, the way certain media outlets reported on it has no weight in the accuracy of the original interview But we still need to know why it is “against the rules” and whether that is the case for all or some people granted asylum? Is there a time limit within which it is against the rules? Is it only applicable to people granted asylum in the last XX months? When granted asylum is that forever or is it limited to when their home country is deemed safe to return? There’s so many questions related to this single statement. For me, asylum should only ever be granted for a temporary period, and reassessed at set intervals. I agree. Anyone know the actual rules in relation to asylum? I'd be interested. I honestly have no idea. Asylum is granted for a minimum of 5 years. They are not allowed to go back to their home country for their own safety and if they have no passport, they are issued with a travel document by the home office. If they do travel back to their home country they can lose their asylum. Now we are getting somewhere. Do you have a link for that info? This information is not hard to find https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/decision But it is nice when someone else does the work for you! It is xmas afterall! That sounds like something one of the bogus asylum seekers would say on the way to the airport for holidays back home. Chris Rea got around it by not flying
I'm starting to build a campaign that should help slow down small boat crossings.
1) videos showing the UK housing crisis the empty high streets and the realities of living here on benefits. Idea is to buy advertising space on the local TV and radio stations that people are travelling from. Additional big screens on the beaches that they are launching from, imagine getting into the small boat and seeing that playing...
2) slogans: Arrive and you will not be going home for Christmas.
Im sure there are a lot more that can be added to the list, I think Labour could strive at this using twitter
I think this approach could mothball Rwanda and be a fantastic success, I shall call this campaign, "the truth".
"been done for albania https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65735660 It would be interesting to know what those crossing believe versus the truth, and also why they risk their lives. I mean, you'd need to pay me a fuck load to get in those boats, if my only motivation was money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
