|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Apr 28, 2024 10:13:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Apr 28, 2024 11:01:48 GMT
It seems they might be onto to something here🤔🙄who’d have thought it
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Apr 28, 2024 12:46:30 GMT
Isn't there quite a large heavy drinking culture too? What’s not to like😉 Nothing at all 🙂 As long as they either pay their own medical bills or the wider populous don't mind paying them through taxation 😉
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Apr 28, 2024 15:32:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by henry on Apr 28, 2024 18:58:55 GMT
Build a "processing centre" in Holyhead. Open a rubber boat factory next to it. Tell the local police to spend more time trawling the internet for hate crimes.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Apr 28, 2024 19:01:55 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2vw51eggwqoIt is a bit daft like what she's saying here. The uk can't send them back to France so why does this woman think Ireland can get an agreement to send them back to the uk. There is the Dub agreement which could potentially be used to send them back to the EU.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Apr 28, 2024 21:47:26 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2vw51eggwqoIt is a bit daft like what she's saying here. The uk can't send them back to France so why does this woman think Ireland can get an agreement to send them back to the uk. There is the Dub agreement which could potentially be used to send them back to the EU. It's far from daft but it suits British and Irish Politicians to be misleading and posturing Under the Common Travel Agreement CTA between Britain and Ireland there is information sharing on Asylum seekers and a returns agreement for people who have illegally used this route if they have already made a claim for Asylum in Britain Ireland has routinely returned Asylum Seekers to UK who had already made a claim for Asylum in UK albeit the numbers up to now have been relatively small who have opted to try this. One month ago the Irish High Court upheld a claim by two Asylum Seekers not to be returned from Ireland to Britain because Britain was not a safe Country because of its Rwanda Policy so there was a possibility of them if returned to Britain to be sent to Rwanda Ireland normally receives about 1,500 Asylum Claims a month. Due to Covid where House Building slowed down/Stopped and an influx of about 100,000 Ukrainian Refugees it has placed pressure on the Irish Government to provide accommodation to all of these cohorts. This combination has also driven up Rental Accommodation prices for the local population. There are always people ready to exploit any economic situation. Right Wing Elements who are opposed to any immigration but especially of a particular skin pigment use these circumstances for their own ends. Recently a relatively large increase in Asylum Seekers particularly from Nigeria via Britain have used the CTA route to claim Asylum in Ireland and as it stands can't be returned because Britain is not a Safe Country It should be a relatively simple exercise for the Irish Government to reframe its laws that Britain is a Safe Country and resume returns, as UK declared Rwanda a safe Country. UK from its part is saying it won't take Asylum Seekers back from Ireland until Brussels will enter negotiations with UK on a General Returns Policy it had under Dublin 111 before Brexit. As and when Ireland changes the technicality of Britain being a Safe Country it will revert to conditions under the CTA but as we have seen Britain is not adverse to breaking International Agreements so this Mexican Standoff may have some way to run. Rishi can currently falsely claim his Rwanda Policy as working rather than other Countries, Ireland, operating a Rules Based System so I'd expect he will try and drag it out for as long as possible.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Apr 29, 2024 20:01:49 GMT
Here we have it
London can take back their refugees now.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Apr 29, 2024 20:07:06 GMT
Here we have it London can take back their refugees now. Trouble is most of them get dispersed to forgotten cities like Stoke on Trent. And the locals have zero stomach for a fight
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Apr 29, 2024 20:22:57 GMT
Here we have it London can take back their refugees now. Trouble is most of them get dispersed to forgotten cities like Stoke on Trent. And the locals have zero stomach for a fight To be fair stoke is probably a good place for them especially with some of the food you lot seem to like. A bit of cultural enrichment going a long way. I just worry about their safety in Ireland. We still have riots and threat levels raised and so the last thing someone leaving war wants is to end up in another war. I think main land britain provides the support and opportunities needed for refugees with a very welcoming population. Also being more multicultural already would help with them mixing and fitting into communities. It's a no brainer really.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Apr 29, 2024 20:23:56 GMT
Trouble is most of them get dispersed to forgotten cities like Stoke on Trent. And the locals have zero stomach for a fight To be fair stoke is probably a good place for them especially with some of the food you lot seem to like. A bit of cultural enrichment going a long way. I just worry about their safety in Ireland. We still have riots and threat levels raised and so the last thing someone leaving war wants is to end up in another war. I think main land britain provides the support and opportunities needed for refugees with a very welcoming population. Also being more multicultural already would help with them mixing and fitting into communities. It's a no brainer really. Funny
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Apr 29, 2024 22:32:53 GMT
Here we have it London can take back their refugees now. This is the point I was making in my previous reply to you that a returns agreement is covered under CTA and even though UK lost Dublin 111 Returns Option after Brexit there was a specific provision in UK /EU TCA Protocol 20 to retain it within CTA Even the Telegraph acknowledges this buried in a sabre ratling Article Before Brexit, the return of migrants to EU countries was governed by the Dublin Agreement, under which migrants could be sent back to a safe third country through which they had passed before arriving at their destination.A post-Brexit provision was, however, made in the case of the UK and Ireland, which meant Ireland could return asylum seekers to Britain. No asylum seeker has been successfully returned to Ireland, or vice-versa, under this post-Brexit arrangement since it was struck.However, the Irish High Court last month ruled that the Irish government’s declaration of the UK as a “safe third country” to which it could return asylum seekers was unlawful, owing to the Rwanda Bill. The emergency legislation proposal seeks to overturn this judgment.
This is the exact reason Ireland needs to change its legislation to declare Britain a "Safe Country" www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/28/ireland-plans-send-asylum-seekers-back-uk/#:~:text=A%20post-Brexit%20provision%20was,arrangement%20since%20it%20was%20struck.However what is the Law under an International Agreement isn't necessarily what happens, IMMEDIATELY, Rishi is not in a position Politically with Local and a GE upcoming to concede this at the moment which is why I said UK Government will be prepared to ignore International Law, temporarily. The CTA duties and obligations are spelt out in more detail in the House of Commons Library Briefing www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7661/CBP-7661.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjo-_OFuuiFAxVAWkEAHaHdAK0QFnoECCgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw03E3maXNoZN8bARZuRiWRY
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 29, 2024 23:05:44 GMT
Ben is normally pretty balanced in his journalism ...
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Apr 30, 2024 0:38:33 GMT
Ben is normally pretty balanced in his journalism ... Indeed he is, but it requires a modicum of intelligence to interpret what he is reporting, far beyond the capabilities of some, judging by the responders to his Tweet are capable of. As I said in my first post on the subject, because Ireland accepted 100,000+ Ukrainian Refugees or 2% of the Population in relative terms this would be about 1,400,000 in UK versus an actual about 200,000 On average there are about 14,000/18,000 Asylum Applications in Ireland each year, again far higher relative to the Population than UK but a manageable number under normal circumstances Because of the Influx of Ukrainian Refugees these aren't normal circumstances and it has placed a squeeze on available accommodation and inevitably some landlords will exploit and push rental accommodation prices up for the local population Right Wing Elements who oppose migrants from certain parts of the world exploit that situation and ferment discontent. It is similar to the relatively small number of Refugees who arrive in UK via small boat versus the vastly greater number that arrive legally. Controversy creates Click bait The Irish Government under pressure to resolve a domestic Housing Crisis not just from Right Wing Elements happened upon a recent failed High Court application to return 2 Asylum Seekers who had previously failed Asylum Applications in UK because the Courts found UK no longer a "Safe Country" because of Rwanda Policy in UK. This gave Irish Government cover to erroneously claim that the build up of Asylum Seekers was due to an influx from UK due to Rwanda Policy, there is a small element of truth. Rishi desperate to show any achievement in his administration gladly embraced this as proof positive that his Rwanda Policy was a Game Changer convenient to the upcoming Local and GE The overall danger in these Political Shenanigans from both the Irish and UK Governments is it can be seen as pandering to Right Wing Racists
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 1, 2024 19:42:16 GMT
A couple of questions on this absolute tragic case www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/may/01/father-of-girl-died-channel-family-feared-deported-iraqIf crossing by boat is deemed an illegal way to enter Britain and gain asylum, why didn't the family ( and other similar families) enter by a " legitimate " means?( And I am not talking about the rights and wrongs of the UK making it 'easier' for people to apply for asylum eg having a processing point (s) on the continent I am asking about the methods by which people arrive here. Secondly if they have already lived in 4 EU countries and had their asylum request turned down 14 times, why would coming to the UK offer more hope....I'd imagine that for whatever reasons the other 14 applications were rejected, the UK would probably reject them for similar reasons
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 1, 2024 20:11:44 GMT
Which "legitimate" means are you referring to John?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 1, 2024 20:19:41 GMT
Which "legitimate" means are you referring to John? I've no idea , but I thought someone on here had said the latest Act refers to " illegal " means of entry, presumably those people who have had / are having their applications for asylum processed have entered" legally ",.....so I wad hoping someone would tell me the current means of entry by which someone has their application considered.....BUT my question really is" why didn't the family find a different/ safer way to enter( NO PAPERS?)" and if they have been rejected 14 times, why should they think that their chances would be different in the UK ( desperation)......if their claims were legitimate , perhaps one of the 4 countries they resided in should have accepted them
|
|
|
Post by frasier37 on May 1, 2024 20:30:17 GMT
*This is my land, its illegal for you to walk on this part of the earth
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 1, 2024 20:33:50 GMT
Which "legitimate" means are you referring to John? I've no idea , but I thought someone on here had said the latest Act refers to " illegal " means of entry, presumably those people who have had / are having their applications for asylum processed have entered" legally ",.....so I wad hoping someone would tell me the current means of entry by which someone has their application considered.....BUT my question really is" why didn't the family find a different/ safer way to enter( NO PAPERS?)" and if they have been rejected 14 times, why should they think that their chances would be different in the UK ( desperation)......if their claims were legitimate , perhaps one of the 4 countries they resided in should have accepted them My answer would still be exactly the same as when you asked this question last week John ... Thanks for your answer Wannabee. In respect of the The Illegal Migration Act 2023 ... does " arrive here illegally " mean the means by which someone arrives in the UK ( What is a " legal" way , realistically, if the intention is to get here and then claim asylum....illegal by deception?) Or someone whose application for asylum is deemed a failure/ illegal? Is a country expected to accept an endless flow of immigrants....if that number reaches, say, 10 m in 10 years Or 25m in 20 years?
Just to add to wannabee's excellent answers ... your question above, goes to the very heart of the current issue.
That being, for the vast majority of asylum seekers, there is no longer any way for them to arrive on UK shores legally. The Government has to all intent and purposes, removed the routes previously available to asylum seekers, save for those from the Ukraine and Hong Kong and theoretically (although in practice not) Afghanistan.
The only way you can apply for asylum in the UK, is if you present yourself in person on British soil, however, now if you arrive on British soil without a visa, then you are deemed to be arriving here illegally and thus your application won't even be considered. So, even if you are a genuine asylum seeker, as there is no other way to reach Britain to have your case considered but by arriving by small boat, your case will never be heard.
The UK is essentially telling the world, that it will no longer consider applications from any asylum seekers (save for the ones mentioned previously), which is a violation of international human rights law.
97% of asylum seekers from Eritrea and Afghanistan were previously granted asylum in the UK, as we recognised that their cases were indeed genuine, however, now, those cases won't even get to be heard.
The French have offered to house UK immigration centres in France, so that asylum seekers can be processed and have their application heard, BEFORE setting off across the channel on a small boat but even though this would dramatically decrease the amount of small boat crossings of the channel, the British government is simply not interested in working with the French to this end because it isn't interested in granting asylum to anybody at all.
This is worth a 2 minute watch ...
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 1, 2024 20:38:59 GMT
I've no idea , but I thought someone on here had said the latest Act refers to " illegal " means of entry, presumably those people who have had / are having their applications for asylum processed have entered" legally ",.....so I wad hoping someone would tell me the current means of entry by which someone has their application considered.....BUT my question really is" why didn't the family find a different/ safer way to enter( NO PAPERS?)" and if they have been rejected 14 times, why should they think that their chances would be different in the UK ( desperation)......if their claims were legitimate , perhaps one of the 4 countries they resided in should have accepted them My answer would still be exactly the same as when you asked this question last week John ...
Just to add to wannabee's excellent answers ... your question above, goes to the very heart of the current issue.
That being, for the vast majority of asylum seekers, there is no longer any way for them to arrive on UK shores legally. The Government has to all intent and purposes, removed the routes previously available to asylum seekers, save for those from the Ukraine and Hong Kong and theoretically (although in practice not) Afghanistan.
The only way you can apply for asylum in the UK, is if you present yourself in person on British soil, however, now if you arrive on British soil without a visa, then you are deemed to be arriving here illegally and thus your application won't even be considered. So, even if you are a genuine asylum seeker, as there is no other way to reach Britain to have your case considered but by arriving by small boat, your case will never be heard.
The UK is essentially telling the world, that it will no longer consider applications from any asylum seekers (save for the ones mentioned previously), which is a violation of international human rights law.
97% of asylum seekers from Eritrea and Afghanistan were previously granted asylum in the UK, as we recognised that their cases were indeed genuine, however, now, those cases won't even get to be heard.
The French have offered to house UK immigration centres in France, so that asylum seekers can be processed and have their application heard, BEFORE setting off across the channel on a small boat but even though this would dramatically decrease the amount of small boat crossings of the channel, the British government is simply not interested in working with the French to this end because it isn't interested in granting asylum to anybody at all.
This is worth a 2 minute watch ...
I don't think that answers the question in respect to this family though, the specifics of legitimate routes in for them and their hope for a different outcome, having been turned down in EU countries 14 times..Apparently some people DO arrive here by other means..but I'm not getting into one of your marathons .
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 1, 2024 20:46:27 GMT
My answer would still be exactly the same as when you asked this question last week John ... I don't think that answers the question in respect to this family though, the specifics of legitimate routes in for them and their hope for a different outcome, having been turned down in EU countries 14 times..Apparently some people DO arrive here by other means..but I'm not getting into one of your marathons . What do you mean 'marathons', you've asked a question (again) and I've given you the same answer, again. This family is from Iraq, there AREN'T any other ways for asylum seekers from Iraq to apply for asylum in the UK but to do so illegally. It's not a concept that requires any sort of lengthy debate, it's a bona fide fact. Did you watch the video in the link?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 1, 2024 20:50:06 GMT
I don't think that answers the question in respect to this family though, the specifics of legitimate routes in for them and their hope for a different outcome, having been turned down in EU countries 14 times..Apparently some people DO arrive here by other means..but I'm not getting into one of your marathons . What do you mean 'marathons', you've asked a question (again) and I've given you the same answer, again. This family is from Iraq, there AREN'T any other ways for asylum seekers from Iraq to apply for asylum in the UK but to do so illegally. It's not a concept that requires any sort of lengthy debate, it's a bona fide fact. Did you watch the video in the link? Just a quick Google on this. commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9630/It must be that this particular family could not come by one of the routes mentioned in the report, which begs the question of why they thought they would get a better outcome in the UK than they had in their 4 previous EU countries of residence and 14 failed applications
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 1, 2024 20:56:56 GMT
What do you mean 'marathons', you've asked a question (again) and I've given you the same answer, again. This family is from Iraq, there AREN'T any other ways for asylum seekers from Iraq to apply for asylum in the UK but to do so illegally. It's not a concept that requires any sort of lengthy debate, it's a bona fide fact. Did you watch the video in the link? Just a quick Google on this. commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9630/It must be that this particular family could not come by one of the routes mentioned in the report, which begs the question of why they thought they would get a better outcome in the UK than they had in their 4 previous EU countries of residence and 14 failed applications No it's not just this family. Please watch the video, it takes 2 mins to view and it is a Tory in conversation with another Tory (there is no political agenda but rather just an attempt to get to the truth) and it explains the situation perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 1, 2024 23:43:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 2, 2024 9:41:14 GMT
Just a quick Google on this. commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9630/It must be that this particular family could not come by one of the routes mentioned in the report, which begs the question of why they thought they would get a better outcome in the UK than they had in their 4 previous EU countries of residence and 14 failed applications No it's not just this family. Please watch the video, it takes 2 mins to view and it is a Tory in conversation with another Tory (there is no political agenda but rather just an attempt to get to the truth) and it explains the situation perfectly. I’ve seen your video Paul. I had seen it before. I'm not asking the same question. I think you are not understanding my question and are answering the question you want to answer which is to do with the criticism of the UK policy. I'm not particularly CRITIQUING the UK policy , which has been criticised many times. I know and accept that it isn’t easy for a person to gain entry to the UK and then be successful in an Asylum Application, under the UK requirements. ( I can remember Afghan interpreters acting on behalf of the British who were denied Asylum , a few years back, and think thst was disgraceful). Whether the UK policy is “ fair”, “ right” , “ sensible, workable, disingenuous or compassionate can be and has been debated. Whether the UK has the “right “ to lay down any conditions or policies it wants is “ right “ again can also be debated. I AM NOT TALKING OR ASKING MY QUESTION ABOUT THAT. My question is much simpler ( it actually is but I’m sure it can be complicated a dissertation could be written on it) What I an asking opinions on is ( I’m not particularly trying to debate the issue or argue the point, just simply trying to hear posters’ views).... Given the UK policy, given the difficulties ( IMPOSSIBILITIES if you like ) of entering the UK legally, knowing that to enter illegally would result in a rejection, given that the UK only accepts people under strict criteria...... Why did THIS FAMILY still try to enter “ illegally “ ...... Particularly given that that already had 14 applications turned down in safe ( similarly welcoming Western democracies?) countries ? Why were they rejected 14 times? Surely the odds were that their application would not be considered , let alone rejected. So why put themselvesat risk. Desperation, the last hope?...BUT it seems to me it would more than likely result in failure? ( I guess as an aside, why did they think their UK application would be successful if 14 previous ones were rejected) I’m NOT asking a wider question or a different question. I know the UK policy has been criticised, as have many countries ‘ policies. This is what I meant by entering a marathon. I think it is also what Fos is referring to for instance when he refers to the meaning of words rather than the words. You have to allow contributors to put in and get out of posts what they want and accept that it might be different from your rules.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 2, 2024 10:09:26 GMT
No it's not just this family. Please watch the video, it takes 2 mins to view and it is a Tory in conversation with another Tory (there is no political agenda but rather just an attempt to get to the truth) and it explains the situation perfectly. I’ve seen your video Paul. I had seen it before. I'm not asking the same question. I think you are not understanding my question and are answering the question you want to answer which is to do with the criticism of the UK policy. I'm not particularly CRITIQUING the UK policy , which has been criticised many times. I know and accept that it isn’t easy for a person to gain entry to the UK and then be successful in an Asylum Application, under the UK requirements. ( I can remember Afghan interpreters acting on behalf of the British who were denied Asylum , a few years back, and think thst was disgraceful). Whether the UK policy is “ fair”, “ right” , “ sensible, workable, disingenuous or compassionate can be and has been debated. Whether the UK has the “right “ to lay down any conditions or policies it wants is “ right “ again can also be debated. I AM NOT TALKING OR ASKING MY QUESTION ABOUT THAT. My question is much simpler ( it actually is but I’m sure it can be complicated a dissertation could be written on it) What I an asking opinions on is ( I’m not particularly trying to debate the issue or argue the point, just simply trying to hear posters’ views).... Given the UK policy, given the difficulties ( IMPOSSIBILITIES if you like ) of entering the UK legally, knowing that to enter illegally would result in a rejection, given that the UK only accepts people under strict criteria...... Why did THIS FAMILY still try to enter “ illegally “ ...... Particularly given that that already had 14 applications turned down in safe ( similarly welcoming Western democracies?) countries ? Why were they rejected 14 times? Surely the odds were that their application would not be considered , let alone rejected. So why put themselvesat risk. Desperation, the last hope?...BUT it seems to me it would more than likely result in failure? ( I guess as an aside, why did they think their UK application would be successful if 14 previous ones were rejected) I’m NOT asking a wider question or a different question. I know the UK policy has been criticised, as have many countries ‘ policies. This is what I meant by entering a marathon. I think it is also what Fos is referring to for instance when he refers to the meaning of words rather than the words. You have to allow contributors to put in and get out of posts what they want and accept that it might be different from your rules. With the greatest of reapect John I'm NOT answering the question I want to ask, I'm answering YOUR question. You even made the point of saying that you were asking two questions, I answered your first question but not the second one. And the answer to your question, is the same as it was, when you asked the same question last week ... there ISN'T a way for they (and other similar families) to enter by "legitimate" means, as your question (incorrectly) seems to suggest that there is. If you had already watched the video, then I would have assumed that that would have been clear. The reason that I didn't answer your original second question is because it appeared to follow on from the belief that there were other legitimate alternatives available to them but to enter the UK by small boat. And once it had been established that this wasn't the case, it made it much more tricky to answer. However, I'll have a crack at it ... I'm not really sure how anybody COULD answer your question, save to base a reply on what has already been established in the original report. What terrible circumstances must people have to endure before they make the decision to have to undertake such a perilous journey? The guy said that he had been repeatedly refused asylum in more than one mainland European nation and that he would have loved to have stayed in Europe and not have to put at risk the lives of himself and his family but that wasn't possible, so a journey to the UK was their last possible resort. Would it be safe to assume, that as this was the case, then they were about to be deported back to Iraq and he saw the risk of a channel crossing as the lesser of two terrible evils? I genuinely can't think of any other answer to your question, why do you think that he elected to take the decision that he did?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 2, 2024 10:34:01 GMT
I’ve seen your video Paul. I had seen it before. I'm not asking the same question. I think you are not understanding my question and are answering the question you want to answer which is to do with the criticism of the UK policy. I'm not particularly CRITIQUING the UK policy , which has been criticised many times. I know and accept that it isn’t easy for a person to gain entry to the UK and then be successful in an Asylum Application, under the UK requirements. ( I can remember Afghan interpreters acting on behalf of the British who were denied Asylum , a few years back, and think thst was disgraceful). Whether the UK policy is “ fair”, “ right” , “ sensible, workable, disingenuous or compassionate can be and has been debated. Whether the UK has the “right “ to lay down any conditions or policies it wants is “ right “ again can also be debated. I AM NOT TALKING OR ASKING MY QUESTION ABOUT THAT. My question is much simpler ( it actually is but I’m sure it can be complicated a dissertation could be written on it) What I an asking opinions on is ( I’m not particularly trying to debate the issue or argue the point, just simply trying to hear posters’ views).... Given the UK policy, given the difficulties ( IMPOSSIBILITIES if you like ) of entering the UK legally, knowing that to enter illegally would result in a rejection, given that the UK only accepts people under strict criteria...... Why did THIS FAMILY still try to enter “ illegally “ ...... Particularly given that that already had 14 applications turned down in safe ( similarly welcoming Western democracies?) countries ? Why were they rejected 14 times? Surely the odds were that their application would not be considered , let alone rejected. So why put themselvesat risk. Desperation, the last hope?...BUT it seems to me it would more than likely result in failure? ( I guess as an aside, why did they think their UK application would be successful if 14 previous ones were rejected) I’m NOT asking a wider question or a different question. I know the UK policy has been criticised, as have many countries ‘ policies. This is what I meant by entering a marathon. I think it is also what Fos is referring to for instance when he refers to the meaning of words rather than the words. You have to allow contributors to put in and get out of posts what they want and accept that it might be different from your rules. With the greatest of reapect John I'm NOT answering the question I want to ask, I'm answering YOUR question. You even made the point of saying that you were asking two questions, I answered your first question but not the second one. And the answer to your question, is the same as it was, when you asked the same question last week ... there ISN'T a way for they (and other similar families) to enter by "legitimate" means, as your question (incorrectly) seems to suggest that there is. If you had already watched the video, then I would have assumed that that would have been clear. The reason that I didn't answer your original second question is because it appeared to follow on from the belief that there were other legitimate alternatives available to them but to enter the UK by small boat. And once it had been established that this wasn't the case, it made it much more tricky to answer. However, I'll have a crack at it ... I'm not really sure how anybody COULD answer your question, save to base a reply on what has already been established in the original report. What terrible circumstances must people have to endure before they make the decision to have to undertake such a perilous journey? The guy said that he had been repeatedly refused asylum in more than one mainland European nation and that he would have loved to have stayed in Europe and not have to put at risk the lives of himself and his family but that wasn't possible, so a journey to the UK was their last possible resort. Would it be safe to assume, that as this was the case, then they were about to be deported back to Iraq and he saw the risk of a channel crossing as the lesser of two terrible evils? I genuinely can't think of any other answer to your question, why do you think that he elected to take the decision that he did? I'll leave it at that then Paul. They are two different questions. The second one was asking for opinions on why a family would risk the channel crossing virtually knowing that asylum application would not be considered. I'll leave it there
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 2, 2024 10:37:04 GMT
With the greatest of reapect John I'm NOT answering the question I want to ask, I'm answering YOUR question. You even made the point of saying that you were asking two questions, I answered your first question but not the second one. And the answer to your question, is the same as it was, when you asked the same question last week ... there ISN'T a way for they (and other similar families) to enter by "legitimate" means, as your question (incorrectly) seems to suggest that there is. If you had already watched the video, then I would have assumed that that would have been clear. The reason that I didn't answer your original second question is because it appeared to follow on from the belief that there were other legitimate alternatives available to them but to enter the UK by small boat. And once it had been established that this wasn't the case, it made it much more tricky to answer. However, I'll have a crack at it ... I'm not really sure how anybody COULD answer your question, save to base a reply on what has already been established in the original report. What terrible circumstances must people have to endure before they make the decision to have to undertake such a perilous journey? The guy said that he had been repeatedly refused asylum in more than one mainland European nation and that he would have loved to have stayed in Europe and not have to put at risk the lives of himself and his family but that wasn't possible, so a journey to the UK was their last possible resort. Would it be safe to assume, that as this was the case, then they were about to be deported back to Iraq and he saw the risk of a channel crossing as the lesser of two terrible evils? I genuinely can't think of any other answer to your question, why do you think that he elected to take the decision that he did? I'll leave it at that then Paul. They are two different questions. The second one was asking for opinions on why a family would risk the channel crossing virtually knowing that asylum application would not be considered. I'll leave it there Eh? I've literally just said that you asked two different questions. I answered your first one originally and have done so again now and I've also answered your second question this time. What's the problem?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 2, 2024 10:54:16 GMT
I'll leave it at that then Paul. They are two different questions. The second one was asking for opinions on why a family would risk the channel crossing virtually knowing that asylum application would not be considered. I'll leave it there Eh? I've literally just said that you asked two different questions. I answered your first one originally and have done so again now and I've also answered your second question this time. What's the problem? You have also literally said "And the answer to your question, is the same as it was, when you asked the same question last week"
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on May 2, 2024 10:54:39 GMT
No it's not just this family. Please watch the video, it takes 2 mins to view and it is a Tory in conversation with another Tory (there is no political agenda but rather just an attempt to get to the truth) and it explains the situation perfectly. Why did THIS FAMILY still try to enter “ illegally “ ...... Particularly given that that already had 14 applications turned down in safe ( similarly welcoming Western democracies?) countries ? Why were they rejected 14 times? Surely the odds were that their application would not be considered , let alone rejected. So why put themselvesat risk. Desperation, the last hope?...BUT it seems to me it would more than likely result in failure? Just to address this particular point and not interject in your overall conversation with Paul I doubt we know or will ever know all of the circumstances of this Family The answer is in the first Paragraph of the link you posted, they were, according to the Father, about to be sent back to Basra in Iraq by France who considered it safe to do so. Whether this is true or the Father believed it who knows. Human nature makes people do extraordinary brave or stupid things when faced with adversity, it's why we see extraordinary acts of bravery during Wars. In his interview with BBC the Father said his goal was to find a safe haven where he and his wife could work to support their children in a stable environment so they could receive an education. It's a modest ambition shared by the majority of Family Units. What prompted him as head of the Family to risk the lives of his Family? He apparently had been turned down for Asylum Status 14 times in Belgium, Sweden and France I assume so facing the prospect of he and his Family being sent to Iraq he took a gamble that ended in Tragic circumstances. Did he think if he and his Family reached UK their passage to settled status would be easily successful, I doubt it given his previous experience but I'm guessing having lived a nomadic life for 14 years another period wasn't daunting compared to being sent to Iraq in his mind. Sometimes there just isn't a perfect answer as to why people do certain things, not least because we just don't know all the facts. What this episode has done hopefully and it was through pure luck that BBC had a film crew on the Beach to see all the events unfold and subsequent interview with the Father. It puts a Human Face on who some, not all, Asylum Seekers are as opposed to the view they are all scroungers trying to get Benefits
|
|