Immigrants crossing the channel.

[woof woof]

But, he's not bringing this to anyone attention, its been in the news for months, in fact didn't the Home Secretary at the time, Sajid Javid have to return early from holiday in December 2019 because of just this problem. The only thing he's really doing here is bringing attention to himself as he becomes more and more irrelevant.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...day-short-to-tackle-channel-migrant-crossings

Well at least we've had a discussion about it and who knows? People with harder views could feel a little more empathy if the plight of refugees/immigrants can be highlighted again and again or even just after reading some of the more refugee / immigrant / human rights friendly views here.

I've been through a few things in my life as have many of us and I do think it helps to talk so if nothing else this thread has helped me get a little rage, angst, concern and all the rest out there and as a result of it coming to the front of my mind again I may go the extra mile as and when I can to help those less fortunate.

 

[AZ6]

Because I knew what would happen and that's why I posted what I posted. I am heartily sick of the NF discussion. It's a distraction.

But...

Do you think Farage is right to raise this issue?

I wonder if the Farage haters care that peoples lives are at risk? Probably not.

?

 

[woof woof]

You do have more than your share of argumentativeness and less than your share of comprehension don't you?

You just wont let this go will you. Well done for being one of the people doing this, you're back on ignore buddy

 

[AZ6]

You do have more than your share of argumentativeness and less than your share of comprehension don't you?

Says the very person who posted something up, knowing and admitting it would cause argument, and then not understanding why that has caused an argument....

you're back on ignore buddy

How very Trumpian...

 

[boyfalldown]

Then ignore him. Next to the larger issue of immigrants crossing by sea in overcrowded boats I see him as an relevance and a distraction. Maybe create a thread about him and his motives?

Ignoring him seems a better option

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

How very Trumpian...

Some posters do appear to have an excessive need to "win the argument" and "have the last word". It's a pity because they often start out by making valid points.

 

[joxby]

You just wont let this go will you. Well done for being one of the people doing this, you're back on ignore buddy

I'm afraid you have to do your own modding here.
If you are to conduct a reasonable discussion, do your bans and accept some threads will lack a little continuity.
You're going to lose worthy contributions too but they are few and far between, its a small price to pay tbh.
Its a smoother experience without the extremes of any end of a spectrum...

 

[woof woof]

I'm not a fan of ignoring people as usually they don't raise my hackles/annoy/upset all the time but just recently the balance has tipped a bit.

If anyone is upset by my posts I'm happy to try and explain and talk about it but I feel that sometimes the chasm is so wide and the posts of some so repetitively displeasing to me that ignore seems like the only option. I currently ignore one and I hope that can change at some point to zero. Maybe I need to mellow.

 

[nilagin]

Ok so let's bust some myths.

UK nationals don't have to contribute before receiving any basic benefits. You are entitled to an amount the government decides is sufficient to live on. Which, currently, is very complicated to work out because of the nice, simple, easy to use system the government has but in place for benefit claimants. From a quick search, it appears to be something like £57.90 a week for a single person under 25, rising upwards with age, marital status, kids etc.

A person claiming asylum can get £37.75 a week.

In order to qualify this, you have to first have your asylum application accepted. If you're literally straight off a boat, God alone knows how long this might take. Weeks, months, before you even get to see someone who can advise you (these tend to be charities and other organisations, there is no government agency for this). Then, you may be offered accommodation. Ever seen the kind of accommodation offered to asylum seekers? I have. You wouldn't let a dog live in most of those places. Shocking. Then, the asylum application, if accepted, may then take months, years, to be processed. Asylum seekers are unable to work or claim any other benefits. Then, even if you get to the point where you have an application being processed, you can still wait years until there is an outcome. Years, on £37.75 a week in s***ty accommodation. To put that into some kind of perspective; MPs, who get paid pretty well, and are generally not poor people, can claim £25 a night for food expenses if they are away on 'parliamentary business'. Lords get paid £300 a day, plus travel and a subsidised canteen, to fall asleep in the HoL...

To anyone thinking the UK is a 'soft touch', why not try it for yourselves? Hop in a rubber dinghy, sail across the Channel, then pretend you're not a UK national. See how much fun you have. And don't forget to report back to us with your findings.

If the likes of Führage were genuinely concerned about the treatment of Human Beings, they'd be raging against the immigration and asylum system. Cos it's inhumane.

If the housing is that bad, simple solution is, give them a packed lunch, put them back in their dinghy and send them back across the channel.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I don't know the truth of this news story, but what I have been told by a close relative who is an Immigration Officer working at the port at which most of these migrants arrive, is that there's a process in place.
1. French naval and / or coastguard vessels do shadow them as they head out to sea. The french vessel hails them and asks whether they want help. The reply is always "No" because help from the French would mean their return to France.
2. The boat continues towards England, in sight of the French vessel..
3. The boat enters British territorial waters..
4. The migrants fire a red distress flare.
5. Our Royal Navy rescues them and either takes them on board, takes them in tow or escorts them to Port.
6. They are detained for a short period.
7. They are interviewed by an Immigration officer, who asks them to produce whatever documents they may have. S//he also asks them whether they are suffering from or have any symptons of any infectious diseases. If the answer is yes, then they are taken to a detention centre, but they always answer no. There are no actual health checks.
8. Each migrants asks for political asylum.
9. Each migrant is then issued with the documentation needed to obtain financial support.
10. Each migrant is then bailed to report at a later date, and is then released.

As for migrants who are in genuine fear for their safety and who can't stay in their own country, personally I'm more than happy to take them in, and the UK has a long and proud history of providing asylum to those in need - but asylum seekers are required to seek asylum in the first country that they reach that's safe, and except for the tiny number who stow away on ships or similar that come directly from a country in which they are in danger to our country, the asylum claim should be made elsewhere, for example in Greece (the usual first stop) or France, not here, because it isn't valid here.

 

[woof woof]

If the housing is that bad, simple solution is, give them a packed lunch, put them back in their dinghy and send them back across the channel.

The sad fact is that some will keep trying and meet their death and of course some will suffer at the hands of gangs or even the locals and some wont last two minutes if they go back home.

Being near Middlesbrough which has it's poverty and health issues and a high rate of refugees I do hear the objections and I do see and understand how resentment can grow and fester but these are people and even the ones without valid claims should be treated fairly and with compassion and here we're back to my original objection to the possibility of hand offs in the channel being a policy of some sort, it's too dangerous to be. imo.

 

[Diving Pete]

By definition those people who are in the channel traveling from France must be economic migrants rather than asylum seekers. This is due to traveling & leaving a 'safe' country (France).

 

[woof woof]

By definition those people who are in the channel traveling from France must be economic migrants rather than asylum seekers. This is due to traveling & leaving a 'safe' country (France).

In cold hard terms some of these immigrants are actually the middle classes of their country of origin as they're the ones who can pay the people smugglers. As such some of these could make a very nice contribution to the wealth of UK.

 

[AZ6]

If the housing is that bad, simple solution is, give them a packed lunch, put them back in their dinghy and send them back across the channel.

And break UK and international law? Why not simply address the housing issue? Why not actually try to make a better society for all?

Just a thought, like...

By definition those people who are in the channel traveling from France must be economic migrants rather than asylum seekers. This is due to traveling & leaving a 'safe' country (France).

Wrong. It's irrelevant as to where they may have travelled through to get here (France, Belgium, Holland, Spain, etc); once they are in UK territorial waters, it's the UK's responsibility to afford them safety and protection under both UK and International law. It doesn't matter if you think they should bugger off elsewhere. Those views, fortunately, are also irrelevant. Once they are here in OUR waters, it's OUR responsibility, as a society, to look after them. We should be priding ourselves on our open, welcoming society and culture; instead, we allow ****s like Farage the oxygen of publicity, to whip up xenophobia and hatred. The UK as a society is founded on migration; it's wealth is the legacy of the colonisation and invasion of foreign lands, and the exploitation of their people and resources. We have entire cities developed from such exploitation; look at Bristol for example. Moraly, we are not in any position to refuse entry to anyone. Chickens coming home to roost. I'd happily have no international borders, and the total freedom of movement of all people worldwide, but I'm a bit of a liberal like that.

The level of ignorance, narrow mindedness and just pure selfishness and prejudice on here, from some, is depressing. These are Human Beings. Let's treat them with equal respect that we demand for ourselves.

 

[Diving Pete]

And break UK and international law? Why not simply address the housing issue? Why not actually try to make a better society for all?

Just a thought, like...




Wrong. It's irrelevant as to where they may have travelled through to get here (France, Belgium, Holland, Spain, etc); once they are in UK territorial waters, it's the UK's responsibility to afford them safety and protection under both UK and International law. It doesn't matter if you think they should bugger off elsewhere. Those views, fortunately, are also irrelevant. Once they are here in OUR waters, it's OUR responsibility, as a society, to look after them. We should be priding ourselves on our open, welcoming society and culture; instead, we allow ****s like Farage the oxygen of publicity, to whip up xenophobia and hatred. The UK as a society is founded on migration; it's wealth is the legacy of the colonisation and invasion of foreign lands, and the exploitation of their people and resources. We have entire cities developed from such exploitation; look at Bristol for example. Moraly, we are not in any position to refuse entry to anyone. Chickens coming home to roost. I'd happily have no international borders, and the total freedom of movement of all people worldwide, but I'm a bit of a liberal like that.

The level of ignorance, narrow mindedness and just pure selfishness and prejudice on here, from some, is depressing. These are Human Beings. Let's treat them with equal respect that we demand for ourselves.

1. I didn't mention the UK territorial waters - thats an entirely different issue.
2. My comment was entirely valid due to UN law.
3. I also did not mention ANYONES RESPONSIBILITY... - again a totally different question.

 

[AZ6]

1. I didn't mention the UK territorial waters - thats an entirely different issue.
2. My comment was entirely valid due to UN law.
3. I also did not mention ANYONES RESPONSIBILITY... - again a totally different question.

But you claimed they are 'economic migrants' rather than valid asylum seekers. Which changes their legal status. Which would be illegal under UK and International law. Each person must be dealt with as an individual case. You have no idea what their reasons for wanting to enter the UK are. You have no idea where they have travelled from. So why make assumptions?

 

[jakeblu]

1. I didn't mention the UK territorial waters - thats an entirely different issue.
2. My comment was entirely valid due to UN law.
3. I also did not mention ANYONES RESPONSIBILITY... - again a totally different question.

I don't know the truth of this news story, but what I have been told by a close relative who is an Immigration Officer working at the port at which most of these migrants arrive, is that there's a process in place.
1. French naval and / or coastguard vessels do shadow them as they head out to sea. The french vessel hails them and asks whether they want help. The reply is always "No" because help from the French would mean their return to France.
2. The boat continues towards England, in sight of the French vessel..
3. The boat enters British territorial waters..
4. The migrants fire a red distress flare.
5. Our Royal Navy rescues them and either takes them on board, takes them in tow or escorts them to Port.
6. They are detained for a short period.
7. They are interviewed by an Immigration officer, who asks them to produce whatever documents they may have. S//he also asks them whether they are suffering from or have any symptons of any infectious diseases. If the answer is yes, then they are taken to a detention centre, but they always answer no. There are no actual health checks.
8. Each migrants asks for political asylum.
9. Each migrant is then issued with the documentation needed to obtain financial support.
10. Each migrant is then bailed to report at a later date, and is then released.

As for migrants who are in genuine fear for their safety and who can't stay in their own country, personally I'm more than happy to take them in, and the UK has a long and proud history of providing asylum to those in need - but asylum seekers are required to seek asylum in the first country that they reach that's safe, and except for the tiny number who stow away on ships or similar that come directly from a country in which they are in danger to our country, the asylum claim should be made elsewhere, for example in Greece (the usual first stop) or France, not here, because it isn't valid here.

There is no legal requirement for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they enter, in either in the UNHCR or EU law, its a common misunderstanding. Whilst the EU has a system, the Dublin Agreement, with fingerprinting which allows the return refugees to the country they first entered, we of course can no longer participate, or won't be able to soon. There is precedent in British law that states that Refugees have a right to choose the country of asylum.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1999/765.html

The first safe country ruse is often used by countries such as the UK who try to fudge their international responsibilities.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees

 

[woof woof]

Just a couple of quick google grabs.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019...d-in-refugee-resettlement-surpassing-the-u-s/

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites...8aee995b48b&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book

Maybe the UK could do more but I'm not sure it's fair to single the UK out as a total fudger. The figures over time may fluctuate for each country. Hosting countries are a different matter and the numbers are frightening.

Interesting read.

https://www.unhcr.org/globaltrends2018/

 

[jakeblu]

By definition those people who are in the channel traveling from France must be economic migrants rather than asylum seekers. This is due to traveling & leaving a 'safe' country (France).

No, see my earlier post.

 

[Uncle Fester]

The French should spend time, money and resources on this because it would be the right thing to do. .

Indeed. I admire your idealism and I agree with it. But when has any country done the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do? The French have their own share of problems to deal with, and spending money, time and resources on non nationals isn't likely to be a priority. Nor would it be for any other country in the same circumstances I suspect.

Doesn't the UK contribute financially to this? I think we used to but that's beside the point. IMO everything within reason should be done to prevent people setting off across the sea as that is quite obviously a dangerous thing to do.

Yes, the UK does contribute financially, though it doesn't pay 100% of the costs of patrolling the coast either on land or at sea. The French Tax Payer is still paying to stop people from getting to our shores.

The French may indeed be quite happy too see immigrants leave French territory or waters. I don't know. I may be wrong but going on past reports of refugee/immigrant camps which people seemed to be shepherded to as staging off points the suspicion is there that this happens with the French authorities turning a blind eye or even at worst colluding.

I have no idea whether the French are happy to see migrants leave or not. I suspect they may feel, that the UK should do more to accommodate those who want to come here rather than leaving it for those countries in mainland europe to shoulder the bulk of the burden.

It was largely due to pressure from the UK that 'the jungle' refugee camp was broken up. And what did achieve? Not a lot, refugee encampments have been created at a number of locations in France and more people try to cross by boat now. We haven't sorted the problem out, we have displaced it.

Perhaps the arrival of a UK coast guard ship in this instance was coincidence and without collusion of any kind. Even if everyone involved is of pure motive we're still left with the fact that an overloaded small boat was apparently at least partially escorted through French waters and into UK waters and that clearly risked lives. Lets hope to god they're not colluding in it if only by turning a blind eye.

Surely if the French patrol boat did not shadow the migrant boat, that would have risked lives? If the migrant boat capsized whilst alone, the liklihood is that everyone onboard would die. If the French patrol boat was nearby it could assist in case of disaster.

Yes, the desperate people will probably try again but that's all the more reason to police this better in France/wherever. This isn't sub contracting control of our borders it's common sense and in the interest of preserving lives. I don't see a Brexit issue here. The aim should be to detain people if necessary for their own safety in France (or wherever) before they set off in over crowded boats until they can be processed for entry into the UK or passed to some other country that'll take them.

People will keep doing what they want to do, regardless of the risk, particularly if they are desperate. You cannot police this problem away. You might reduce the numbers, but you won't stop it. If you really want to sort this problem out, you need to treat the causes and the not symptoms.

In the meantime, if you want to reduce illegal migration, maybe part of the solution is to persuade the UK government to take in more refugees. If people could go to see UK officials in France and apply to come to the UK, then perhaps they will not risk their lives crossing in these tiny overcrowded boats. I think that perhaps it would be better to persuade the UK goverment to accept more people into this country, than ask the French to spend more of their time and money in stopping migrants from making the crossing.

Whilst you are right, it is a humanitarian issue, it is also undeniably a border control issue. We were told that we were taking back control of our borders. We have not. Everyone that lands on our shores is a testament of the failure of Pritti Patel and the whole government, to fulfill their own pledge. Asking the French to protect our borders is sub contracting the job to them. Maybe if we keep asking the French to do more and more, they will simply get fed up and decide not assist at all. I'm not sure the UK would be too happy with the consequences of that.

PS.
Just a little story. Nothing to do with this as far as I know but something to think about. Mrs WW went to a function last year, I didn't go, I just dropped her off then went off with my camera and picked her up again later. Anyway, she met an Egyptian guy who had to flee and he's now in the UK. He can't go back as he'd be killed as his name identifies him of being the of the wrong group. Imagine that. Imagine being killed because of your name. My heart aches for the people who are so desperate they'll go though the process of fleeing to another country and I know we can't take them all but surely we can do better to try and ensure they're not chugging across one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world in an overloaded dinghy.

I agree, it is a disgrace that this state of affairs exists in the world today. Things will not change until we make it clear to our leaders that we demand that they act in the best interests of all humanity and that a failure to do so will see them out of office. Alas, altruism and compassion seem to be very short supply these days. People are far more interested in petty trivia and our domestic political squabbles and so more people will drown in the channel, the mediterranean, and elsewhere:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world...hundreds-of-refugees-stranded-in-boats-at-sea

Alas, you and I are minority. The majority of people simply don't care enough and so these desperate people will carry on dying.

 

[dcash29]

Britain wasn't the first safe country these so called refugees entered. However our chums in the European union don't want them so allow their passage to the shores of northern France.
Its good to know who on the forum don't mind all these people coming here, as we'll know where to send the bill.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

But when has any country done the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do?

I see it as a question of first defining "right". When it comes to things like taking in refugees there are many different pressures from all sides.

People in precarious employment see outsiders as a threat to that employment. People desperate to get a council or housing association home see outsiders as competitors for the limited homes available. People whose income support is already too little to feed their children properly see outsiders as a threat to even the little they have. These are very real fears and it is wrong to dismiss them.

Anyone who is serious about wanting this country to do something for people fleeing violence in their own countries, needs to first put a government into power that will level up the existing population. That in turn means a government that will outlaw the very real corruption at the heart of our politics. To do that, I believe, requires the root and branch reform of our political system.

Helping other people, in my opinion, first requires helping ourselves.

 

[AZ6]

Britain wasn't the first safe country these so called refugees entered. However our chums in the European union don't want them so allow their passage to the shores of northern France.
Its good to know who on the forum don't mind all these people coming here, as we'll know where to send the bill.

I actually think this is a wonderful idea; an optional tax payment system. So, I’d be more than happy for my taxes to go towards supporting migrants, and if you don’t want to pay for that, then you get to pay for stuff like the utterly pointless and useless Trident missile system, HS2, subsidising big businesses that evade tax, and the monarchy. Wonderful! Only downside is; you don't get an NHS, unfortunately. Because many migrants work for that, and they care for asylum seekers as they do for any other Human Beings. But I do! Fantastic! But you can pay for private healthcare, so that’s ok.

As a result of this thread, I discovered that this wonderful, fabulous icon of ‘Britishness’, was designed by... a refugee.

 

[Uncle Fester]

I see it as a question of first defining "right". When it comes to things like taking in refugees there are many different pressures from all sides.

People in precarious employment see outsiders as a threat to that employment. People desperate to get a council or housing association home see outsiders as competitors for the limited homes available. People whose income support is already too little to feed their children properly see outsiders as a threat to even the little they have. These are very real fears and it is wrong to dismiss them.

Anyone who is serious about wanting this country to do something for people fleeing violence in their own countries, needs to first put a government into power that will level up the existing population. That in turn means a government that will outlaw the very real corruption at the heart of our politics. To do that, I believe, requires the root and branch reform of our political system.

Helping other people, in my opinion, first requires helping ourselves.

Of course, ‘right’ is a very vague term and I used it specifically in reply to a post where that word had been used.

I agree that people in precarious employment see outsiders as a threat to their employment, but why? Could it be that’s what people have been told for generations - that outsiders take our jobs? We recently had that message reinforced during the Brexit campaign and the threat of increased immigration was used to swing the vote in a particular direction.

What we didn’t really have was an examination of the facts. Whether migrants may actually contribute more to society than they take from it. We never seem to discuss, whether a desire to better your life generates wealth for all in society. We don’t discuss whether new entrepreneurs arriving in this country end up creating new businesses, and more employment and wealth for those people who may have regarded migrants as a threat to their jobs. We have plenty of experience to draw on from the Kinder transport to the Ugandan Asians fleeing Amin and more examples since then. I also don’t think it is any coincidence the richest (though very unequal) country on earth was built on the back of immigration.

Maybe the best way to level up is to encourage immigration and not the reverse? Maybe the best way to help ourselves is to help others?

I don’t pretend to have the answers to those questions, but I would like an impartial objective look at the facts before we jump to conclusions. I don’t think repeating the rhetoric of ‘the fear of the other’ will give us the answers.

What I do know, is that when we label people we have never met as terrorists, thieves, virus carriers etc without the slightest knowledge of their circumstances, it shows not only weakness of intellect but a corruption of ones basic humanity.

I agree that root and branch reform of politics is long overdue and there seems to be little sign of that happening. Quite the reverse, those who abused democracy to achieve governance seem well embedded in the seat of power. I very much doubt whether the welfare of the citizens of this country OR those landing on its shores will be a priority for them.

 

[AZ6]

What I do know, is that when we label people we have never met as terrorists, thieves, virus carriers etc without the slightest knowledge of their circumstances, it shows not only weakness of intellect but a corruption of our basic humanity.

Word.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

What we didn’t really have was an examination of the facts.

I believe you are correct.

However, for many people the facts are irrelevant; not because they don't want to know them but because they are under such pressure that they can't spare the attention to find out what they are. In such a circumstance, any rabble rouser can lead them into the worst behaviour.

It should be the job of the media to find out what is really happening and to explain it so that everyone can understand. Instead, much of the media distorts and obfuscates at the behest of that small group who control it. There are, of course, exceptions but they are too few to stem the tidal wave of misinformation.

I very much doubt whether the welfare of the citizens of this country OR those landing on its shores will be a priority for them.

This is the tragedy. We should be better than we are but it only takes a few bad people to create an atmosphere of selfishness and distrust that destroys the great aims of democracy.

 

[woof woof]

I see it as a question of first defining "right". When it comes to things like taking in refugees there are many different pressures from all sides.

People in precarious employment see outsiders as a threat to that employment. People desperate to get a council or housing association home see outsiders as competitors for the limited homes available. People whose income support is already too little to feed their children properly see outsiders as a threat to even the little they have. These are very real fears and it is wrong to dismiss them.

Anyone who is serious about wanting this country to do something for people fleeing violence in their own countries, needs to first put a government into power that will level up the existing population. That in turn means a government that will outlaw the very real corruption at the heart of our politics. To do that, I believe, requires the root and branch reform of our political system.

Helping other people, in my opinion, first requires helping ourselves.

My Gosh Andrew. I agree with every word.

In Middlesbrough there has been resentment but it is not IMO true racism and is much more a resentment that people appear to walk into council accommodation and apparently receive a lot of help which the locals struggle to access.

 

[woof woof]

I agree that people in precarious employment see outsiders as a threat to their employment, but why? Could it be that’s what people have been told for generations - that outsiders take our jobs? We recently had that message reinforced during the Brexit campaign and the threat of increased immigration was used to swing the vote in a particular direction.

There's no doubt that immigration can and has lead to pressures and resentment within communities and real pressure on services but one thing Brexit confirmed for me was that most people can be very reasonable about immigration and asylum as long as it's controlled and right or wrong the perception is that at the moment it isn't. After Brexit we will I hope have not only a better controlled system but also a fairer one. Is it right that Mrs WW has to go through a very lengthy, expensive and stressful immigration system whilst others could literally wake up and decide to move to the UK and do so with relatively few or even no real immigration worries?

As for reform of politics, we need a revolution in this country. Not a bloody one with people dead in the streets but we do IMO need a revolution but sadly the chances of us having one are probably less than the regime in China folding. All this makes what's happened to the Labour party all the more upsetting.

PS.
Anyone wondering what the immigration process can be like could take a quick look at the Life in the UK test. I wouldn't pass and many of the questions are IMO just ridiculous. It should IMO be balanced more towards the practicalities of living in the UK now rather than who won a battle 600 years ago or who wrote a poem in 1914. To think that someones migration status could turn on these IMO irrelevancies seems very unfair to me. Mrs WW past 1st time but after a lot of preparation. Actually she passed the 1st time she was allowed to take the test as twice she wasn't allowed to, once because they wouldn't accept documentation which their own website said was acceptable and once because a software glitch gave her two forenames, no rescheduling, no refund... just go away and reapply and spend all that money again.

 

[woof woof]

Alas, you and I are minority. The majority of people simply don't care enough and so these desperate people will carry on dying.

I think that most people do care, if you can get past the knee jerk responses and try and have a reasoned conversation. I've talked to people who could initially be written off as racists or at least anti immigrant but if you talk, listen and reason they're people with real worries and concerns who do actually care but maybe just feel overwhelmed.

 

[Box Brownie]

I see it as a question of first defining "right". When it comes to things like taking in refugees there are many different pressures from all sides.

People in precarious employment see outsiders as a threat to that employment. People desperate to get a council or housing association home see outsiders as competitors for the limited homes available. People whose income support is already too little to feed their children properly see outsiders as a threat to even the little they have. These are very real fears and it is wrong to dismiss them.

Anyone who is serious about wanting this country to do something for people fleeing violence in their own countries, needs to first put a government into power that will level up the existing population. That in turn means a government that will outlaw the very real corruption at the heart of our politics. To do that, I believe, requires the root and branch reform of our political system.

Helping other people, in my opinion, first requires helping ourselves.

Of course, in general, what you say has sound argument.......but sadly by the very nature of where are at in 21stC Britain it would take a generation (or more) to make the "leveling up" you mention. In the meantime, surely the way "we" provide succour to those refugees & asylum seekers can be can be included in any plans to level up the UK population. The two aspects should not be mutually exclusive.

If we were to cut off all hope that the UK is a safe haven by an isolationist approach we would not be making the world a safer place!

My Gosh Andrew. I agree with every word.

In Middlesbrough there has been resentment but it is not IMO true racism and is much more a resentment that people appear to walk into council accommodation and apparently receive a lot of help which the locals struggle to access.

IMO true, resentment fostered by a poorly planned & implemented policy is a core issue. This is not helped by the more rightwing thinkers agitation that stirs up that resentment in unsavoury ways verging on racism and xenophobia to 'thier' own political ends

 

[woof woof]

IMO true, resentment fostered by a poorly planned & implemented policy is a core issue. This is not helped by the more rightwing thinkers agitation that stirs up that resentment in unsavoury ways verging on racism and xenophobia to 'thier' own political ends

It's not a just a right wing initiated thing. My area was staunch Labour for decades and has only rebelled for specific reasons, namely unhappiness with the local Labour machine and its seeming indifference to the steel works woes, the imposition of an unpopular candidate from London and of course the whole Jeremy Corbyn debacle and the wider feeling that Labour has abandoned them. Immigration is in there somewhere but it isn't the number one right wing racist driving force some would have you believe. The area has been Labour for years. There's been no one knocking on doors pushing racist views. The left needs a new message and it needs to do better when in office.

 

[Box Brownie]

It's not a just a right wing initiated thing. My area was staunch Labour for decades and has only rebelled for specific reasons, namely unhappiness with the local Labour machine and its seeming indifference to the steel works woes, the imposition of an unpopular candidate from London and of course the whole Jeremy Corbyn debacle and the wider feeling that Labour has abandoned them. Immigration is in there somewhere but it isn't the number one right wing racist driving force some would have you believe. The area has been Labour for years. There's been no one knocking on doors pushing racist views. The left needs a new message and it needs to do better when in office.

I am reminded of ~ extreme heat & extreme cold causes burns that indistinguishable from each other. Though not exactly synced with what you are saying in regard to the Labour leadership 'failures'........ whichever "side" the political self interest comes from, the damage caused can be the same

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

It's not a just a right wing initiated thing. My area was staunch Labour for decades and has only rebelled for specific reasons, namely unhappiness with the local Labour machine and its seeming indifference to the steel works woes, the imposition of an unpopular candidate from London and of course the whole Jeremy Corbyn debacle and the wider feeling that Labour has abandoned them. Immigration is in there somewhere but it isn't the number one right wing racist driving force some would have you believe. The area has been Labour for years. There's been no one knocking on doors pushing racist views. The left needs a new message and it needs to do better when in office.

Voting for the sitting Govt because the sitting Govt (London) has abandoned them doesn't sound like it'll make a huge difference tbh.

 

[woof woof]

Voting for the sitting Govt because the sitting Govt (London) has abandoned them doesn't sound like it'll make a huge difference tbh.

Well, under the hated tories it looks like we'll get a steelworks back and if that happens Gosh know how Labour will get beck in here for a long long time. The hated tories are now in control of the land and jobs are we hope coming.

You appear hopelessly bias to me Andy, both on Brexit and the wider political debate but how would you feel if the people you thought should represent you didn't want to talk about the most important issues to you ("All they want to talk about is the steel works" she said, with a look of disbelief on her face...) and imposed a candidate from London you didn't want and didn't like and stuck to their decision despite resignations and warning what was to come? That staggering indifference and arrogance cost them more than just my vote at the last election, it cost them a lot of seats as did Jeremy.

https://news.sky.com/story/steel-pr...ar-within-three-years-after-ssi-deal-11938655

If the above happens... People will be very very

I don't give a flying what party is in as long as they raise the area up...

https://BANNED/BenHouchen

But we're straying from the point here which was, to me, that there seems to be a system in place which risks lives at sea and possibly put money in the pockets of organised crime.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

You appear hopelessly bias to me Andy, both on Brexit and the wider political debate but how would you feel if the people you thought should represent you didn't want to talk about the most important issues to you ("All they want to talk about is the steel works" she said, with a look of disbelief on her face...) and imposed a candidate from London you didn't want and didn't like and stuck to their decision despite resignations and warning what was to come? That staggering indifference and arrogance cost them more than just my vote at the last election, it cost them a lot of seats as did Jeremy.

Not really. I didn't say anyone should or shouldn't have voted either way for any reason.

I just pointed out that voting for the current Govt because you feel like Westminister has abandoned your area, is bloody stupid and has no logical reasoning behind it.

 

[joxby]

....the wider feeling that Labour has abandoned them...

If you talk to the left, they'll say its the opposite, that they have been abandoned by movement on mass to the right, which is of course hilarious but that's where we're at.
Somebody has changed and I highly doubt its the electorate.
Still, its their funeral.

 

[Ricardodaforce]

I this day and age do we really want all these alleged refugees coming here un.vetted ,I.s.i.s ,al-quaeda, covid carriers ,thiefs ,vagabonds scammers ,etc etc .
Totally wrong at this moment in time ..

Nigel farage the best prime minister we never had

This post is indicative of all that’s wrong with the U.K.

 

[woof woof]

Not really. I didn't say anyone should or shouldn't have voted either way for any reason.

I just pointed out that voting for the current Govt because you feel like Westminister has abandoned your area, is bloody stupid and has no logical reasoning behind it.

eh? What the hell are you on? Maybe you're getting confused with your threads but just to be clear I didn't say that about Westminster. Go and read it again.

Just to save you. What I posted was that people in my area feel abandoned by Labour, a party which has until recently had staunch local support for a very long time. The reasons why people are unhappy with Labour is for both local reasons and where the party has moved to as a party.

I spelt it out and I really don't know how I could have been clearer.

Andy, before you ruin the thread with this can't we agree to disagree, drop the partisan party twaddle and move on or maybe just drop it completely?

The point of this thread was not the evils of the cons or the saintly nature of Labour but rather my worries about what looks like a least a semi official policy of potentially allowing people to cross the channel when IMO this should be avoided as it's dangerous.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

eh? What the hell are you on? Maybe you're getting confused with your threads but just to be clear I didn't say that about Westminster. Go and read it again.

Just to save you. What I posted was that people in my area feel abandoned by Labour, a party which has until recently had staunch local support for a very long time. The reasons why people are unhappy with Labour is for both local reasons and where the party has moved to as a party.

I spelt it out and I really don't know how I could have been clearer.

Andy, before you ruin the thread with this can't we agree to disagree, drop the partisan party twaddle and move on or maybe just drop it completely?

The point of this thread was not the evils of the cons or the saintly nature of Labour but rather my worries about what looks like a least a semi official policy of potentially allowing people to cross the channel when IMO this should be avoided as it's dangerous.

I simply misread "London and of course the whole Jeremy Corbyn debacle and the wider feeling that Labour has abandoned them "

As "london has abandoned them".

No need to get your knickers in a twist so much, you could've just corrected me when I first said it.

 

[woof woof]

I simply misread "London and of course the whole Jeremy Corbyn debacle and the wider feeling that Labour has abandoned them "

As "london has abandoned them".

No need to get your knickers in a twist so much, you could've just corrected me when I first said it.

I don't know how I could have been clearer Andy. You seem indicative of the reasons why Labour have lost so many of their traditional voters. You and they just don't seem to comprehend.

There's always the good old ignore button.