ChatterBank12 mins ago
Absolutely No Need For This Sort Of Thing.
236 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by douglas9401. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// So do you believe the 10,000 or so young males from Albania have fled persecution and are in genuine need of our help?. //
On the contrary! However the UK does not allow for those seeking asylum to make an application outside of its waters. Therefore migrants are faced with no other option than to reach these shores via a small boat.
It is certainly not up to any one individual on this boards to 'write off' all claims, even if the number does extend to 10,000 plus Albanians.
// This is not confirmed simply by the ravings of what you describe as a xenophobic press. //
I challenge you to find any post/s, be it in this thread or any other thread since I joined AB where I have used the 'x' word!
On the contrary! However the UK does not allow for those seeking asylum to make an application outside of its waters. Therefore migrants are faced with no other option than to reach these shores via a small boat.
It is certainly not up to any one individual on this boards to 'write off' all claims, even if the number does extend to 10,000 plus Albanians.
// This is not confirmed simply by the ravings of what you describe as a xenophobic press. //
I challenge you to find any post/s, be it in this thread or any other thread since I joined AB where I have used the 'x' word!
// So does that transfer the burden to the UK taxpayer? //
Can you really blame anyone so distraught, who would seek help to rid themselves of a dehumanising problem.
To leave your mother country is one the boldest decisions any one of us 'god forbid' could ever make.
Let's look back a few decades. The British police failed to take seriously domestic violence. Many suffered in silence. Helpless, a system that did not work for them!
Had they the wherewithal, would you have denied those people the right to flee to another country in an attempt to rid themselves of a violent partner?
Some people here in the UK have had to resort to taking illegal steps by sending their loved ones to Switzerland to be euthanised. Should we hold them in contempt too?
Bottom line. GBritain is a responsible nation. It takes very seriously the plight of those subject to human trafficking and modern day slavery. It is only right it helps where it can!
Can you really blame anyone so distraught, who would seek help to rid themselves of a dehumanising problem.
To leave your mother country is one the boldest decisions any one of us 'god forbid' could ever make.
Let's look back a few decades. The British police failed to take seriously domestic violence. Many suffered in silence. Helpless, a system that did not work for them!
Had they the wherewithal, would you have denied those people the right to flee to another country in an attempt to rid themselves of a violent partner?
Some people here in the UK have had to resort to taking illegal steps by sending their loved ones to Switzerland to be euthanised. Should we hold them in contempt too?
Bottom line. GBritain is a responsible nation. It takes very seriously the plight of those subject to human trafficking and modern day slavery. It is only right it helps where it can!
//However the UK does not allow for those seeking asylum to make an application outside of its waters.//
Why should it, for those in France (which is what this thread is about)? Those living in France do not need asylum. What s=is continually lost is that asylum is for those coming directly from a place where their lives are in danger (as per UN 1951 Convention, A31). Or are you suggesting that France is not a safe country?
//I challenge you to find any post/s, be it in this thread or any other thread since I joined AB where I have used the 'x' word!//
You can say "xenophobic". No, you didn't use it. But there is an air among some people that those suggesting the country should protect its borders from illegal incursions are somehow xenophobic.
Why should it, for those in France (which is what this thread is about)? Those living in France do not need asylum. What s=is continually lost is that asylum is for those coming directly from a place where their lives are in danger (as per UN 1951 Convention, A31). Or are you suggesting that France is not a safe country?
//I challenge you to find any post/s, be it in this thread or any other thread since I joined AB where I have used the 'x' word!//
You can say "xenophobic". No, you didn't use it. But there is an air among some people that those suggesting the country should protect its borders from illegal incursions are somehow xenophobic.
// Those living in France do not need asylum. //
Agreed. They do not.
//What s=is continually lost is that asylum is for those coming directly from a place where their lives are in danger (as per UN 1951 Convention, A31)//
Is it?
Have we given up on those Ukranians who have had to leave those war torn parts of their country, in search of sanctuary here?
Agreed. They do not.
//What s=is continually lost is that asylum is for those coming directly from a place where their lives are in danger (as per UN 1951 Convention, A31)//
Is it?
Have we given up on those Ukranians who have had to leave those war torn parts of their country, in search of sanctuary here?
//Is it?//
Yes. If you read it you will find it makes a distinction between those arriving directly from a place where they are under threat and those who don’t. There would be no need for such a distinction if it the provisions of the convention were to apply equally to those who don’t. But the UN has unilaterally and informally declared that part of A31 to be effectively void.
//Have we given up on those Ukranians who have had to leave those war torn parts of their country, in search of sanctuary here?//
Not as far as I know. Those who arrived here earlier this year arrived directly from Ukraine as far as I can recall. I don’t remember any of them pitching up in a rubber boat on the Kent coast and those who did arrive did so under a scheme agreed by the UK government. I recall clearly seeing the facilities provided for their reception at Stansted airport.
As well as that, of course, there were very few young men of military age among the asylum seekers from Ukraine. Young men are not permitted to leave the country. They are required to remain and sort out the country's problems, rather than simply *** off elsewhere.
Yes. If you read it you will find it makes a distinction between those arriving directly from a place where they are under threat and those who don’t. There would be no need for such a distinction if it the provisions of the convention were to apply equally to those who don’t. But the UN has unilaterally and informally declared that part of A31 to be effectively void.
//Have we given up on those Ukranians who have had to leave those war torn parts of their country, in search of sanctuary here?//
Not as far as I know. Those who arrived here earlier this year arrived directly from Ukraine as far as I can recall. I don’t remember any of them pitching up in a rubber boat on the Kent coast and those who did arrive did so under a scheme agreed by the UK government. I recall clearly seeing the facilities provided for their reception at Stansted airport.
As well as that, of course, there were very few young men of military age among the asylum seekers from Ukraine. Young men are not permitted to leave the country. They are required to remain and sort out the country's problems, rather than simply *** off elsewhere.
Big problem regarding im mood that Britain actually thrives on immigration- you people who are willing to come here work in agriculture, hospitality etc to grow the economy.
Since it’s now so difficult for people to come in from the EI we now have an employment crisis in a number of industries where these could actually be of benefit. I think that some believe they simply want to cone here to be put up in four star hotels and be given hundreds of pounds a week.
Is that true?
Since it’s now so difficult for people to come in from the EI we now have an employment crisis in a number of industries where these could actually be of benefit. I think that some believe they simply want to cone here to be put up in four star hotels and be given hundreds of pounds a week.
Is that true?
naomi24
The Ed will have made a decision about your post and would’ve then deleted it based on whether he/she believes it contravenes Site Rules.
The Ed will have made a decision about your post and would’ve then deleted it based on whether he/she believes it contravenes Site Rules.
"Or are you suggesting that France is not a safe country? "
there all kinds of reasons for people to seek asylum in the uk rather than france (e.g. they the language, they have connections here) and there is nothing i am aware of that explicitly criminalises doing so...
the uk guidance for seeking asylum however does suggest that an application is less likely to be accepted if it is being made by a person who has entered from a safe country... this appears to be the prerogative of the UK government and i cannot find anything in english laying out any similar guidelines on the part of the french government (i.e. i do not know if they are able to claim asylum in france)
nevertheless yet you need to be IN the uk to claim asylum at all and once someone has arrived it is much harder to remove them... the most practical thing to do would therefore seem to be to reject or accept (as appropriate) asylum claims outside of the uk and prevent some of the crossings from happening at all
there all kinds of reasons for people to seek asylum in the uk rather than france (e.g. they the language, they have connections here) and there is nothing i am aware of that explicitly criminalises doing so...
the uk guidance for seeking asylum however does suggest that an application is less likely to be accepted if it is being made by a person who has entered from a safe country... this appears to be the prerogative of the UK government and i cannot find anything in english laying out any similar guidelines on the part of the french government (i.e. i do not know if they are able to claim asylum in france)
nevertheless yet you need to be IN the uk to claim asylum at all and once someone has arrived it is much harder to remove them... the most practical thing to do would therefore seem to be to reject or accept (as appropriate) asylum claims outside of the uk and prevent some of the crossings from happening at all
//there all kinds of reasons for people to seek asylum in the uk rather than France etc….//
Let’s change tack slightly, then. Let’s leave aside our differences on the mechanics of the UK’s asylum application system. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the UK cannot prevent people landing here under the current rules of engagement and that it is obliged to examine individually the merits of every single person landing here in rubber boats.
It is, I would suggest, beyond argument that dealing with this influx at its current levels is causing enormous problems for the authorities. But more important than that, it is also places great stress on the essential services which are already struggling. There are critical problems with housing, healthcare and education. It is costing an absolute fortune and it means that people already here are suffering deprivations as a result.
So with that in mind, do you think it is acceptable that this government (or their successors) should simply accept that the influx must continue indefinitely (and it surely will unless measures are taken to prevent it)? Or do you believe that some radical changes are necessary? I note that your principal strategy is to allow asylum applications to be made from abroad. This is not particularly helpful because (and I know this is argumentative) the UK seems to be a particularly soft touch when examining asylum claims and the rate of success is quite high. So even if that was introduced, it would still not cure the problem. Don’t you think that the UK government has a greater obligation towards those already here who are seeing their vital services deteriorate? Or should ever-increasing amounts of resources simply be diverted to accommodate the needs of the newcomers?
Let’s change tack slightly, then. Let’s leave aside our differences on the mechanics of the UK’s asylum application system. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the UK cannot prevent people landing here under the current rules of engagement and that it is obliged to examine individually the merits of every single person landing here in rubber boats.
It is, I would suggest, beyond argument that dealing with this influx at its current levels is causing enormous problems for the authorities. But more important than that, it is also places great stress on the essential services which are already struggling. There are critical problems with housing, healthcare and education. It is costing an absolute fortune and it means that people already here are suffering deprivations as a result.
So with that in mind, do you think it is acceptable that this government (or their successors) should simply accept that the influx must continue indefinitely (and it surely will unless measures are taken to prevent it)? Or do you believe that some radical changes are necessary? I note that your principal strategy is to allow asylum applications to be made from abroad. This is not particularly helpful because (and I know this is argumentative) the UK seems to be a particularly soft touch when examining asylum claims and the rate of success is quite high. So even if that was introduced, it would still not cure the problem. Don’t you think that the UK government has a greater obligation towards those already here who are seeing their vital services deteriorate? Or should ever-increasing amounts of resources simply be diverted to accommodate the needs of the newcomers?
sp I don't read the Daily Mail, the present 1 in 6 number of UK residents born outside of the UK is an official government stat;
https:/
https:/
you won't get any sensible answer to that question Naomi, because they don't know.
I am incensed that this country is putting up with this nonsense, send them packing, to Rwanda if need be, or indeed tow them back to France, stop the RNLI from collecting these people. Its a charity i have supported for years, but longer will i do that.
I am incensed that this country is putting up with this nonsense, send them packing, to Rwanda if need be, or indeed tow them back to France, stop the RNLI from collecting these people. Its a charity i have supported for years, but longer will i do that.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles28 mins ago
Who's Got The Guts To Take This...
News59 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles92 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles93 mins ago
News100 mins ago
