Coronation Street - What Will Likely...
Film, Media & TV11 mins ago
Not Good For The Uk .
A leaked memo from the "Home Office" suggests Richi Sunaks Govt anticipates the migrant crisis will continue for around half a decade . With emergency accomodation plans being put in place for at least the next five years and is expecting tens of thousand of immigrants in this period.The Tories are planning new accomodation sites at Essex, Linconshire and East Sussex It's costing the taxpayer £6 million a day now to keep the ones that have landed, God only knows what it will be costing,
....5 years from now.
....5 years from now.
Answers
I have said before, but it bears repeating - why is the government not providing the staff and resources to clear the assylum seekers backlog, get thm processed, and either get them settled and working, or gone. How hard can it be? Now if i can figure that out, the planet-sized brains at Whitehall can as well, so I would be interested to know what is stopping them?...
13:48 Mon 14th Aug 2023
You know, if you copy and paste whole sections of a newspaper article, you really should credit them, otherwise you could be risking Answerbank receiving plagiarism claims!
https:/
https:/
Rest assured I'd here today, gone tomorrow politicians are putting a number on something it's been plucked out of thin air to try and take some pressure off their laughable attempts at dealing with a crisis.
See also 'it'll all be over by Christmas' and other wishes when their inadequacy shines through.
See also 'it'll all be over by Christmas' and other wishes when their inadequacy shines through.
I have said before, but it bears repeating - why is the government not providing the staff and resources to clear the assylum seekers backlog, get thm processed, and either get them settled and working, or gone.
How hard can it be?
Now if i can figure that out, the planet-sized brains at Whitehall can as well, so I would be interested to know what is stopping them?
Since all politicians are motivated first and foremost by a desire to obtain and then maintain power, why are the Tories not addressing this cast-iron election loser situation, before it gets to polling day.
How hard can it be?
Now if i can figure that out, the planet-sized brains at Whitehall can as well, so I would be interested to know what is stopping them?
Since all politicians are motivated first and foremost by a desire to obtain and then maintain power, why are the Tories not addressing this cast-iron election loser situation, before it gets to polling day.
-- answer removed --
//I have said before, but it bears repeating - why is the government not providing the staff and resources to clear the assylum seekers backlog, get thm processed, and either get them settled and working, or gone.
How hard can it be?//
As I said in another thread, Andy, at the current rate of arrivals, just to keep the backlog level (at about 135,000 or thereabouts), claims will have to be decided at the rate of 135 every working day. To clear the backlog in six months, an additional 1,000 cases will have to be determined each day. If that wasn't enough, many of those refused asylum will make endless appeals and it is unlikely that any one case would be settled inside six months.
The Home Office (and the judicial system) is clearly not resourced to handle this volume of work and nor should it be.
How hard can it be?//
As I said in another thread, Andy, at the current rate of arrivals, just to keep the backlog level (at about 135,000 or thereabouts), claims will have to be decided at the rate of 135 every working day. To clear the backlog in six months, an additional 1,000 cases will have to be determined each day. If that wasn't enough, many of those refused asylum will make endless appeals and it is unlikely that any one case would be settled inside six months.
The Home Office (and the judicial system) is clearly not resourced to handle this volume of work and nor should it be.
//Why are endless appeals allowed, whatever happened to decisions being final?//
Because the law provides for them, Andy.
Very few judicial decisions taken in this country are "final." Almost every court or tribunal decision is open to appeal. As far as refusal of asylum goes, there is the added problem that once legal avenues in the UK have been exhausted (up to and including the Supreme Court in some cases where an important principle of law is concerned), the applicant can go to the European Court of Human Rights (even though the introduction of our own Human Rights Act was supposed to prevent that necessity). Although that court has no enforcement powers its verdicts are persuasive, but the principle aim of the applicant is to further prolong their stay in the UK.
Hopefully that's given you an insight into just "how hard it can be", Andy. It will not change until we have a government that is prepared to challenge the fundamental principles of the asylum philosophy. It would also be necessary for the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and, ideally, from the 1951 UN Convention on the treatment of refugees. There is no chance of that so we're largely stuck with it as it is. Anybody believing all this will magically change if a Labour government comes to power will be sadly disappointed.
Because the law provides for them, Andy.
Very few judicial decisions taken in this country are "final." Almost every court or tribunal decision is open to appeal. As far as refusal of asylum goes, there is the added problem that once legal avenues in the UK have been exhausted (up to and including the Supreme Court in some cases where an important principle of law is concerned), the applicant can go to the European Court of Human Rights (even though the introduction of our own Human Rights Act was supposed to prevent that necessity). Although that court has no enforcement powers its verdicts are persuasive, but the principle aim of the applicant is to further prolong their stay in the UK.
Hopefully that's given you an insight into just "how hard it can be", Andy. It will not change until we have a government that is prepared to challenge the fundamental principles of the asylum philosophy. It would also be necessary for the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and, ideally, from the 1951 UN Convention on the treatment of refugees. There is no chance of that so we're largely stuck with it as it is. Anybody believing all this will magically change if a Labour government comes to power will be sadly disappointed.
Thanks indeed NJ.
I am absolutely in favour of human rights, of course, i think any sane person is.
The problem clearly lies in the simple concept of being able to appeal endlessly, taking inordinate amounts of time, and costing inordinate amounts of money, but thanks to your explanation, I can see that actually cutting that process to an appropriate length is simply not going to happen, and as you say, we are indeed stuck with it.
It is an ideal vote-catcher, for Labour to say they will 'deal with the backlog', and it may well assist them in winning the next election.
But it is also clear, again from your explanation, that they are absolutely as powerless as the current incumbents to change the system in any way that means that the influx, and the duration of stays during appeals, can be reduced, even though they are going to promise that it can.
I am absolutely in favour of human rights, of course, i think any sane person is.
The problem clearly lies in the simple concept of being able to appeal endlessly, taking inordinate amounts of time, and costing inordinate amounts of money, but thanks to your explanation, I can see that actually cutting that process to an appropriate length is simply not going to happen, and as you say, we are indeed stuck with it.
It is an ideal vote-catcher, for Labour to say they will 'deal with the backlog', and it may well assist them in winning the next election.
But it is also clear, again from your explanation, that they are absolutely as powerless as the current incumbents to change the system in any way that means that the influx, and the duration of stays during appeals, can be reduced, even though they are going to promise that it can.
Well you were certainly easily persuaded there...
NJ's point about appeals is obviously correct, but a little misleading: the backlog is heavily linked to *initial* decisions, which are hardly delayed by the appeal process. See, eg:
https:/
As for why the backlog is so large, one important factor seems to be a loss of productivity at the decision-making level, which has been attributed to "low morale and high [staff] turnover". I'm not sure what the solution to this is, but pointing to the appeals process (and ECHR) at least is focusing on the wrong issue.
NJ's point about appeals is obviously correct, but a little misleading: the backlog is heavily linked to *initial* decisions, which are hardly delayed by the appeal process. See, eg:
https:/
As for why the backlog is so large, one important factor seems to be a loss of productivity at the decision-making level, which has been attributed to "low morale and high [staff] turnover". I'm not sure what the solution to this is, but pointing to the appeals process (and ECHR) at least is focusing on the wrong issue.
//...the backlog is heavily linked to *initial* decisions, which are hardly delayed by the appeal process.//
Yes, Claire. I didn't mean to imply that appeals were the principle cause of the backlog. I just wanted to paint a complete picture.
This entire industry is beyond any reasonable resources the country should be expected to devote to it. As I mentioned earlier, to deal with the current rate of arrivals, decisions on asylum must be made at the rate of about 130 or so every day. This is clearly an unsustainable effort, whether staff are demoralised or not and I would suggest it is not one the country should be resourcing anyway; it has far more important things to address.
This country must decide whether it wants to continue with this shambles, messing about with barges, RAF stations and Rwanda, or whether it wants to change it. The consensus seems to be that we should continue with it - so there we are and there we shall remain.
Yes, Claire. I didn't mean to imply that appeals were the principle cause of the backlog. I just wanted to paint a complete picture.
This entire industry is beyond any reasonable resources the country should be expected to devote to it. As I mentioned earlier, to deal with the current rate of arrivals, decisions on asylum must be made at the rate of about 130 or so every day. This is clearly an unsustainable effort, whether staff are demoralised or not and I would suggest it is not one the country should be resourcing anyway; it has far more important things to address.
This country must decide whether it wants to continue with this shambles, messing about with barges, RAF stations and Rwanda, or whether it wants to change it. The consensus seems to be that we should continue with it - so there we are and there we shall remain.
Latest Posts
Crosswords13 mins ago
Is It True That 364 Mps Think That It...
News39 mins ago
And Down Goes The Good Ship Gb
News42 mins ago
Crosswords54 mins ago
