Sky news tosser

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jaffa_The_Hut

Well-known member
Didn’t they burn down a holding centre only last month as they said conditions weren’t fit for purpose? 😮
Caused £2m damage from all accounts. 🤬
 

Scaramanga

Well-known member
Try bunking up offshore for several years in a box with strangers for a month at a time in a foreign land, even hot bedding on occasions.
 

Ooh It’s a Corner

Well-known member
A guy from Amnesty International saying army barracks were not suitable accommodation for illegal immigrants before they are processed.
Suitable for Army though?
Why do we give these pillocks airtime?
Perhaps the guy from Amnesty International will let these people live with him for a while before they are sent back to where they came from .
The method of transport they used to get here should be the same method that they leave by if necessary under the watchful eye of the people whose accommodation is so unsuitable for them
 

seasideone

Well-known member
I could never do a Sub to be fair, and I don’t think I could do a rig to be honest.

Always remember Pipa Alpha (?) as a kid.

Fair play though mate - I believe it pays a decent living 👍
 

catinstalbans

Well-known member
How many times does it have to be pointed out to the bigotfest on this thread.
They are not illegal. They are asylum seekers. That is not to say that those that set fire to the barracks did not commit a criminal offence.
They are human beings and therefore should be treated with respect, humanity and dignity while their applications are processed. Sanitary conditions fit for human habitation should be a minimum. The barracks fails in this regard.
It is important that we have organisations such as Amnesty International to stand up to the hostile environment and dog whistle racism of the right wing Conservative party.
 

cruzzer

Well-known member
How many times does it have to be pointed out to the bigotfest on this thread.
They are not illegal. They are asylum seekers. That is not to say that those that set fire to the barracks did not commit a criminal offence.
They are human beings and therefore should be treated with respect, humanity and dignity while their applications are processed. Sanitary conditions fit for human habitation should be a minimum. The barracks fails in this regard.
It is important that we have organisations such as Amnesty International to stand up to the hostile environment and dog whistle racism of the right wing Conservative party.
Point of order, did they enter the country legally? If not then they are by definition illegal immigrants.

But don’t let a fact get in the way of your vitriol.
 

seasideone

Well-known member
How many times does it have to be pointed out to the bigotfest on this thread.
They are not illegal. They are asylum seekers. That is not to say that those that set fire to the barracks did not commit a criminal offence.
They are human beings and therefore should be treated with respect, humanity and dignity while their applications are processed. Sanitary conditions fit for human habitation should be a minimum. The barracks fails in this regard.
It is important that we have organisations such as Amnesty International to stand up to the hostile environment and dog whistle racism of the right wing Conservative party.
The Ritz then?
 

Thelaneends1

Well-known member
How many times does it have to be pointed out to the bigotfest on this thread.
They are not illegal. They are asylum seekers. That is not to say that those that set fire to the barracks did not commit a criminal offence.
They are human beings and therefore should be treated with respect, humanity and dignity while their applications are processed. Sanitary conditions fit for human habitation should be a minimum. The barracks fails in this regard.
It is important that we have organisations such as Amnesty International to stand up to the hostile environment and dog whistle racism of the right wing Conservative party.
You talk some utter rubbish man/woman.
 

Ooh It’s a Corner

Well-known member
How many times does it have to be pointed out to the bigotfest on this thread.
They are not illegal. They are asylum seekers. That is not to say that those that set fire to the barracks did not commit a criminal offence.
They are human beings and therefore should be treated with respect, humanity and dignity while their applications are processed. Sanitary conditions fit for human habitation should be a minimum. The barracks fails in this regard.
It is important that we have organisations such as Amnesty International to stand up to the hostile environment and dog whistle racism of the right wing Conservative party.
Invite them round your gaff and feed them then if you are that bothered
 

catinstalbans

Well-known member
Again. How many times does it have to be said.

There is no lawful restriction against people choosing the country in which they want to seek asylum, and the people crossing the Channel are not committing any unlawful act in doing so, according to Christopher Desira, human rights and immigration solicitor at Seraphus law firm.
The 1951 Refugee Convention, a legal document which defines the term “refugee” and outlines their rights, features no obligation for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach – so it is legitimate for someone to pass through France and then claim asylum in Britain.

Read more​

It is then up to the UK to decide whether or not to grant asylum. Under the Dublin III Regulation, the UK has lawful means to transfer those people to the country where they first claimed asylum, so long as this can be proven. But their entry into the UK is not illegal in itself.
Please enter your email addressPlease enter a valid email addressPlease enter a valid email address
SIGN UP





The Independent would like to keep you informed about offers, events and updates by email, please tick the box if you would like to be contacted
Read our full mailing list consent terms here
Mr Desira criticised Mr Johnson’s comments for being “just another attempt to dehumanise the people doing this, so we can treat them in numbers and as criminals, and not understand what they’re doing and why”.
It isn’t ‘very bad’: there is no other way for people to claim asylum in the UK – and why shouldn’t they?
loader_100x100.gif

loader_100x100.gif


















The idea that crossing the Channel on a small boat amounts to cheating their way in or “jumping the queue” is false. People have the right to claim asylum in the UK, and the routes for doing this from outside the country are few and far between – and often very difficult to access.
Currently, due to travel restrictions during the coronavirus pandemic, there is in fact no lawful way to reach the UK on refugee or humanitarian grounds, according to immigration lawyer Colin Yeo.

“There is a tiny proportion of those refugees who reach Europe who are desperate to reach the UK specifically and because there are no safe or legal routes to reach our country, they sometimes take extreme measures,” he says.
“At least two are known to have drowned doing so in 2019 when there were fewer of these small boat crossings. The government cannot prevent people wanting and indeed trying to come here but they can work with the French to offer alternatives to these dangerous crossings.”
With this in mind, it is also important to remember that the number of people who seek asylum in Britain (44,800 in 2019) is far below that in EU countries such as Germany, which takes in around four times as many, and France, which takes three times more than the UK.

Minister Nick Gibb says boats could be used to block Channel migrants
Last year, there were around five asylum applications for every 10,000 people resident in the UK, while across EU countries there were 14 asylum applications for every 10,000 people, according to the Commons Library.
More than half of people who claim asylum in Britain obtain refugee status and provide a net contribution to the UK, indicating that they are people who want to work and contribute to society and the economy.
If there is no safe or “legal” route through which they can request protection and start a new life in Britain, it is inevitable that some will attempt to reach UK shores via unauthorised means.
It isn’t ‘stupid’: people have valid reasons to come to the UK after fleeing persecution
The vast majority of people trying to cross to the UK do so because they have close ties with people in the country or its culture, according to Frances Timberlake, coordinator at the Refugee Women’s Centre, a small charity supporting migrant women and families in Calais and Dunkirk.
“A lot of the families here are Iraqi Kurds, and there’s a large Kurdish community in the UK, so basically everyone I work with has very close family members or friends and community links to people in the UK,” she explains.
“For the majority of people we work with it’s also linked to colonialism. They come from countries that had a former British presence in them, so have quite a strong link to British culture, British media, the English language. A lot of people from Iraq for example who have worked with British forces or British oil companies. It’s very much linked to the UK’s presence abroad, and that creates a stronger sense of connection.”
With this in mind, it is important to remember that people have made irregular Channel crossings going back decades, and the rise in the use of small boats is likely to represent more of a shift in method than a new phenomenon of “stupid” journeys
Rob McNeil, from the Migration Observatory, says most of those who are now crossing on boats would have previously been crossing on lorries via the Channel Tunnel – and that fortified security by the British and French governments was likely to have been a key factor in people switching to a different route.
“This is to some extent one of those situations where you squeeze things in one place and it creates a bubble somewhere else, in so far as the UK and French governments have spent an extremely long time working on preventing a new Jungle being created in Calais, and trying to crack down on people entering the UK in the back of lorries,” he says.
“The more that becomes a physical deterrent, irrespective of the extent to which it succeeds in preventing people from moving, the more people are going to be looking for alternative approaches to doing things.”
On this note, Frances adds: “I would use stupid to describe most of the policies the UK has proposed so far, which have totally failed.
“They haven’t limited the strength of smuggling or trafficking groups at all. It hasn’t limited the number of crossings being made. It’s just forced them to more dangerous routes, and it’s not saving any money. That’s what is dangerous and criminal.


https://www.vitabiotics.com/product...jIGsNOHyzY8vGIZ4tQhduCA5yDxnFMo7rqvz47A5OOuAQ


https://go.babbel.com/v1/tl?bsc=eng...g4jIGsNOHyzY8vGIZ4tQhduCA5yDuxj0ot9f1-PickYdI






https://go.babbel.com/v1/tl?bsc=eng...jIGsNOHyzY8vGIZ4tQhduCA5yDuxj0okLKl4dfb1Y65AQ
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
If they were illegal they wouldn't be in a hotel. They are asylum seekers awaiting a decision as to whether they can remain.
 

Poultongirl

Well-known member
If they were illegal they wouldn't be in a hotel. They are asylum seekers awaiting a decision as to whether they can remain.
I get it, you shout out constantly about how Boris should have shut the borders months ago to people legally goin about their business yet your quite happy for people to keep coming in by illegal means on their rubber dinghies !!!
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
I get it, you shout out constantly about how Boris should have shut the borders months ago to people legally goin about their business yet your quite happy for people to keep coming in by illegal means on their rubber dinghies !!!
Not illegal once again. This Government have had 11 years to do something about it. Seemingly they are incompetent.
 

Thelaneends1

Well-known member
Again. How many times does it have to be said.

There is no lawful restriction against people choosing the country in which they want to seek asylum, and the people crossing the Channel are not committing any unlawful act in doing so, according to Christopher Desira, human rights and immigration solicitor at Seraphus law firm.
The 1951 Refugee Convention, a legal document which defines the term “refugee” and outlines their rights, features no obligation for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach – so it is legitimate for someone to pass through France and then claim asylum in Britain.

Read more​

It is then up to the UK to decide whether or not to grant asylum. Under the Dublin III Regulation, the UK has lawful means to transfer those people to the country where they first claimed asylum, so long as this can be proven. But their entry into the UK is not illegal in itself.
Please enter your email addressPlease enter a valid email addressPlease enter a valid email address
SIGN UP





The Independent would like to keep you informed about offers, events and updates by email, please tick the box if you would like to be contacted
Read our full mailing list consent terms here
Mr Desira criticised Mr Johnson’s comments for being “just another attempt to dehumanise the people doing this, so we can treat them in numbers and as criminals, and not understand what they’re doing and why”.
It isn’t ‘very bad’: there is no other way for people to claim asylum in the UK – and why shouldn’t they?
loader_100x100.gif

loader_100x100.gif


















The idea that crossing the Channel on a small boat amounts to cheating their way in or “jumping the queue” is false. People have the right to claim asylum in the UK, and the routes for doing this from outside the country are few and far between – and often very difficult to access.
Currently, due to travel restrictions during the coronavirus pandemic, there is in fact no lawful way to reach the UK on refugee or humanitarian grounds, according to immigration lawyer Colin Yeo.

“There is a tiny proportion of those refugees who reach Europe who are desperate to reach the UK specifically and because there are no safe or legal routes to reach our country, they sometimes take extreme measures,” he says.
“At least two are known to have drowned doing so in 2019 when there were fewer of these small boat crossings. The government cannot prevent people wanting and indeed trying to come here but they can work with the French to offer alternatives to these dangerous crossings.”
With this in mind, it is also important to remember that the number of people who seek asylum in Britain (44,800 in 2019) is far below that in EU countries such as Germany, which takes in around four times as many, and France, which takes three times more than the UK.

Minister Nick Gibb says boats could be used to block Channel migrants
Last year, there were around five asylum applications for every 10,000 people resident in the UK, while across EU countries there were 14 asylum applications for every 10,000 people, according to the Commons Library.
More than half of people who claim asylum in Britain obtain refugee status and provide a net contribution to the UK, indicating that they are people who want to work and contribute to society and the economy.
If there is no safe or “legal” route through which they can request protection and start a new life in Britain, it is inevitable that some will attempt to reach UK shores via unauthorised means.
It isn’t ‘stupid’: people have valid reasons to come to the UK after fleeing persecution
The vast majority of people trying to cross to the UK do so because they have close ties with people in the country or its culture, according to Frances Timberlake, coordinator at the Refugee Women’s Centre, a small charity supporting migrant women and families in Calais and Dunkirk.
“A lot of the families here are Iraqi Kurds, and there’s a large Kurdish community in the UK, so basically everyone I work with has very close family members or friends and community links to people in the UK,” she explains.
“For the majority of people we work with it’s also linked to colonialism. They come from countries that had a former British presence in them, so have quite a strong link to British culture, British media, the English language. A lot of people from Iraq for example who have worked with British forces or British oil companies. It’s very much linked to the UK’s presence abroad, and that creates a stronger sense of connection.”
With this in mind, it is important to remember that people have made irregular Channel crossings going back decades, and the rise in the use of small boats is likely to represent more of a shift in method than a new phenomenon of “stupid” journeys
Rob McNeil, from the Migration Observatory, says most of those who are now crossing on boats would have previously been crossing on lorries via the Channel Tunnel – and that fortified security by the British and French governments was likely to have been a key factor in people switching to a different route.
“This is to some extent one of those situations where you squeeze things in one place and it creates a bubble somewhere else, in so far as the UK and French governments have spent an extremely long time working on preventing a new Jungle being created in Calais, and trying to crack down on people entering the UK in the back of lorries,” he says.
“The more that becomes a physical deterrent, irrespective of the extent to which it succeeds in preventing people from moving, the more people are going to be looking for alternative approaches to doing things.”
On this note, Frances adds: “I would use stupid to describe most of the policies the UK has proposed so far, which have totally failed.
“They haven’t limited the strength of smuggling or trafficking groups at all. It hasn’t limited the number of crossings being made. It’s just forced them to more dangerous routes, and it’s not saving any money. That’s what is dangerous and criminal.


https://www.vitabiotics.com/product...jIGsNOHyzY8vGIZ4tQhduCA5yDxnFMo7rqvz47A5OOuAQ


https://go.babbel.com/v1/tl?bsc=eng...g4jIGsNOHyzY8vGIZ4tQhduCA5yDuxj0ot9f1-PickYdI






https://go.babbel.com/v1/tl?bsc=eng...jIGsNOHyzY8vGIZ4tQhduCA5yDuxj0okLKl4dfb1Y65AQ
Open your house up then.
 

ChallengerDeep

Well-known member
We are all much closer to being an illegal immigrant than we are to being a billionaire.

Those at the top use the media to bombard us with anything that will divide us.

You keep on worrying about Jonny foreigner, who fared worse than you did in the lottery of where you were born, than the ruling class that seek only to maintain the status quo of complete wealth inequality.

Which one is having a real effect on your life?
 

Lytham_fy8

Well-known member
Rather than do that why not let them have your house to live in while they are being processed
Or just give them somewhere habitable to stay while their case is processed? Like any decent country would.

Why so much impotent anger towards those less fortunate? What harm have they done you? Why would giving them basic fit for purpose accommodation effect you?
 

Poultongirl

Well-known member
Or just give them somewhere habitable to stay while their case is processed? Like any decent country would.

Why so much impotent anger towards those less fortunate? What harm have they done you?
Their case???? they don’t have a case!!
oh and four star hotels are not habitable then?
 

poolseasider

Well-known member
Or how about stop blaming the person and look at the route problem why they have left their homeland also there is nothing wrong with moving to better your life some have done it in there lives.
 

Lytham_fy8

Well-known member
They set fire to it.
It was already condemned. The army moved out years ago.
I dont worry about jonny foreigner I'm must sick and tired of having these people rammed down my throat. My parents both died last year and when we added up what they paid for their care in care homes it equated to around £200k so I say fuck off to all these scroungers from across the globe who want to come here and live off the British tax payer.
What about the British people who live off the tax payer? What difference does it make? How do they personally effect your life?
 

Lytham_fy8

Well-known member
Think you have some anger issues
Let me know which countries offer
better accommodation to illegal immigrants?
Thankfully yours is a minority view or this country would be fcuked
I'm not the one getting angry about people on the bottom rung of life because they foreigners fella.

Why would the country be fucked if we gave asylum seekers habitable accommodation and what do other country's arrangements have to do with it?
 

Thelaneends1

Well-known member
You have a valid point but unfortunately we have an obligation to look after the scrotes who are born in the UK.
If it was my decision these people would be made to work even picking litter in the streets.
 

ChallengerDeep

Well-known member
I dont worry about jonny foreigner I'm must sick and tired of having these people rammed down my throat. My parents both died last year and when we added up what they paid for their care in care homes it equated to around £200k so I say fuck off to all these scroungers from across the globe who want to come here and live off the British tax payer.
That's the point - it is being rammed down your throat by a constant narrative in the media to make you fear these people, even though they haven't had a direct effect on your life.

If we cracked down on tax evasion from the richest in this country, then we could afford a more functional state subsidied care industry.

Working and middle class people shouldn't work all their life, paying taxes and contributing to society, to then have to pay out a fortune for a decent level of care in old age.

The disparity of wealth distribution is a far bigger reason for that than illegal immigrants/asylum seekers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
X