I wonder if they understand irony? They're prepared to risk their lives crossing the channel in small dinghys after camping out in the open, but not accept reasonable accommodation.
I've seen what that accommodation is like and I've had to put up with much worse on residential training courses. En-suite? I've been in ex WW2 barracks with communal ablutions!
|
They could have come in by other means (air, road, train) - being silly here.
The accommodation is on the Bibby barge is fine. Construction workers in Scotland have freely lived on the thing.
It seems better than some of the people who rent get - seeing the news this evening when some poor guy died from the mould and damp in his rented accommodation.
|
>>communal ablutions!
Reminds me of Ashford Remand Centre!!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HM_Prison_Bronzefield
|
>> >>communal ablutions!
Scout camp we dug a long trench for number 1.
Number 2s we dug a deep pit, occasionally threw in softwood shavings , put a tiny canvas tent over it , and hoped the toilet seat didn’t topple over. Then filled it in and returfed it. Next year the grass was luxurious.
Very happy days
Last edited by: legacylad on Tue 8 Aug 23 at 11:32
|
>> I've seen what that accommodation is like and I've had to put up with much
>> worse on residential training courses. En-suite? I've been in ex WW2 barracks with communal ablutions!
But you didn't do National service.
Why I remember when...............
|
|
I watched a couple of the clips of onboard. Looks perfectly fine accommodation.
|
|
If it's not to their liking, then perhaps they should turn around and go back home again.
|
The whole thing is a stunt. And I am certain that Sunak (who looked like the voice of reason but actually turned out to be an extreme right winger) Jenrick and Braverman are delighted that the "migrants" are revolting, thus 'proving' what undeserving spongers they are.
There are 130,000 unprocessed asylum seekers (the correct term for them). Putting 500 on the barge is neither here nor there, it's not a solution because there isn't a material proportion of another 250 such barges to be had and if there were, there would be nowhere to put them. Although mooring a couple on the Thames by the Houses of Parliament would be a good place to start.
In other words, the government is NOT trying to solve the 'migrant' problem here - there is absolutely no possibility that it will make a dent in the 130,000 backed up asylum seekers unless and until there is some sort of amnesty for the majority and they can get jobs and have lives here (they could just process them of course, but there are currently 1200 case workers clearing an average of 4 cases each PER MONTH). That HMG could feasibly offload more than a hundred or two to Rwanda or Ascension Island is pure fantasy. It's a con. As for deterrence, even the dimmest aspiring boat person can work this out.
Meanwhile the government's focus and effort is actually going into trying to fix its own popularity deficit and to blaming Labour, incredibly, for the record-breaking mess it has made of practically everything over the last 13 years.
The main impact of the barge is to provide (another) focal point for a divisive populist campaign in which they hope sufficient thick voters will set all rational thought aside and get behind all their hate-based campaigns around 'the boats', 'migrants', ULEZ, LTN's, progress on the environment, decent pay and conditions for public services employees, benefit claimants, 'socialism', 'woke', and so on.
Lee Anderson told us 6 months ago what their election strategy would be, and it didn't involve fixing anything.
www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tories-should-fight-next-election-29211636
Last edited by: Manatee on Tue 8 Aug 23 at 12:09
|
I haven't read much about this but I'm not sure it was expected to fix the migrant problem as such, more the problem of where to house them at a reasonable cost to the country while they wait to be processed.
|
>> I haven't read much about this but I'm not sure it was expected to fix
>> the migrant problem as such,
Clearly not. Its only relevant role can be accommodation.
I was mistaken of course to imply the there are 130,000 in hotels. There aren't. Only 50 odd thousand.
|
>> I haven't read much about this but I'm not sure it was expected to fix
>> the migrant problem as such, more the problem of where to house them at a
>> reasonable cost to the country while they wait to be processed.
>>
>>
It's not about cost, it's about making a physical press release to their elderly voters.
Someone worked out that for the price they've charted the Bibby Whatitsface the government could have had the world's biggest cruise ship complete with staff, meals, and entertainment.
|
>> It's not about cost, it's about making a physical press release to their elderly voters.
>>
>> Someone worked out that for the price they've charted the Bibby Whatitsface the government could
>> have had the world's biggest cruise ship complete with staff, meals, and entertainment.
>>
I read somewhere that the Bibby barge was worth £50million and the government have agreed to rent it for 2 years for £400million. If true, this would seem par for the course for this government, given the amount blown on useless PPE to Lady Mone etc. Oh, and apparently the private mooring in Portland Harbour where the barge is moored belongs to a make of Sunak. I doubt they are charging mates rates though!
|
The Labour party would now also house migrants in barges. Other than that they seem to live in a pre-election no policy zone, afraid of making any commitments for fear they may upset some potential voters. Inspirational it isn't.
Like the Tories they are willing to sacrifice integrity and clarity in pursuit of power. What separates them is that they have almost no baggage having been out of power for 13 years, the Tories have by contrast got tons.
Tory record on immigration is dire - particularly allowing unprocessed claims to climb as they have is incompetent. Whether it is a political or Home Office failure is debatable. Barges , Rwanda etc are just a distraction technique.
That someone wants to escape violence, prejudice, etc is entirely understandable. Were this the overwhelming motivation they would stop in Europe (generally regarded as "safe"), not cross it and make a difficult boat journey.
It is easy to conclude they are as motivated to come to the UK as escape persecution. There are no criteria in place to judge whether predominantly economic migrants should be granted asylum, or simply returned to their country of origin.
|
There's an interesting website called Corporate Watch, where they "critically analyse" corporations, unsurprisingly.
They did a piece on the Bibby here, if anyone is interested. They also have done pieces on all British utility companies. I had absolutely no idea how big Octopus is, and where and what they invest in before reading it.
corporatewatch.org/floating-prisons-the-200-year-old-family-business-behind-the-bibby-stockholm/
|
>>The Labour party would now also house migrants in barges.
This is interesting. Watch this. What was actually said.
news.sky.com/video/labour-would-keep-housing-asylum-seekers-on-barges-if-elected-shadow-minister-stephen-kinnock-admits-12934751
Stephen Kinnock says that keep asylum seekers on barges, on military bases, in hotels etc is the last thing Labour wants to do but they will inherit a mess, they will attempt to get people out of these situations as quickly as possible but the reality is that on day one they will have to manage with the infrastructure then in place.
Regardless of who is dealing with it, it is now a very knotty problem on top of the original knotty problem of dealing fairly and practically with asylum seekers, instead of not dealing with them at all but attempting to store them for future export (which turns out, at least so far, to be illegal).
>>Like the Tories they are willing to sacrifice integrity and clarity in pursuit of power.
They have a long way to go before they will have sacrificed a tenth as much as the Conservatives.
I too am frustrated by Starmer - I think he should take a stand on a number of issues and justify a responsible strategy on many things but for the time being he prefers to sit on his hands (and a 20 point lead in voting intention) which he thinks is the least risky approach. Perhaps he thinks that going head on at the culture war has only downside risk, and he might be right. Clearly there will be a point at which a clear manifesto must be tabled.
See "Ming vase strategy".
inews.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-warned-labour-mps-risks-sleepwalking-defeat-election-plan-2236920
|
Interesting article, key bit for me is
Sir Keir may have crushed the dissenters, but the fear is that presenting a stable sensible party is not going to be enough to cut it on election night. One source said: “If it’s Sunak the management consultant vs Starmer the management consultant, Sunak is going to win because he is in fact a management consultant.
|
>> I too am frustrated by Starmer -
I am afraid the party in power you seek, wont be, mostly because it does not exist. To get elected a party needs to appeal to the majority of the electorate. "Asylum Seekers", no sorry ILLEGAL ECONOMIC MIGRANTS, are not liked by the majority of the population (well that lump in the middle you need to get on board to get elected) so an act like this will be carried on by any new party in power.
No idea why you are going off on one. Its a fantastic idea, it provides perfectly good accommodation, and gets good press.
|
|
Yeah I must say I did look at the article saying some had refused to go on it yet it looks not too bad at all to me. Probably as good as many of the barracks or whatever else they've been using as accommodation (except I suppose hotels, though I've been in some Travel Lodges in my time.... :-) )
|
>>No idea why you are going off on one. Its a fantastic idea, it provides perfectly good accommodation, and gets good press.
Warehousing asylum seekers instead of dealing with them is not a fantastic idea, is it? Even if conditions are humane.
I believe the capacity of the Stockholm was 222 when it was used as accommodation for workers. The capacity has been more than doubled to 500 by using bunks, and converting some shared spaces to extra accommodation. I'm imagining the 2 bed cabins we used to get on overnight Townsend Thoresen ferries in the 1980's, about 35 sq. ft. I hope they're a bit better than that.
I didn't think I'd gone off on one. The whole asylum policy is a stunt isn't it? For the overwhelming majority, they can only apply for asylum if they are here, they aren't allowed to even apply if they have arrived by "illegal" means, and there are no legal means available for most of them. Most can't be "sent back" and it seems very unlikely that more than a handful could in practice be exported to Rwanda or elsewhere. How many are we going to store up?
It's an auxiliary fire brigade demonstration, they have donned the brass helmets, screamed up and down in the fire engine, unravelled the hoses and sprayed a bit of water about but they haven't the capability to put out a bin fire.
|
|
So what's the answer? Throw buckets of money over it?
|
>> So what's the answer? Throw buckets of money over it?
>>
I think there needs to be more staff in the HO to get through the backlog and a way for more people to claim asylum at uk embassies.
I can't see anything else working.
|
The conflicts in Syria and Iraq etc created a Displaced Persons issue on a scale not seen since WW2. Since then the west has left Afghanistan and Sudan's gone south fast.
Ukraine is in the mix too but for some reason the rich nations reacted rationally then..
Money will be needed for sure but a rational policy approach involving co-operation across Europe and more widely together with safe routes are what's needed.
Not holding my breath.....
|
>> Money will be needed for sure but a rational policy approach involving co-operation across Europe
>> and more widely together with safe routes are what's needed.
The whole of the EU is a safe route. Once they are there they are safe. Once in, Your country of choice is then a preference. So lets cut out the crap that those entering the UK are seeking "assylum" Its a preference.
Of course we have control of our borders now we have so much influence in the EU.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 9 Aug 23 at 19:37
|
>> The whole of the EU is a safe route. Once they are there they are
>> safe.
Well unless you end up in a wagon or iso container someone forgets to unlock...
|
>> Well unless you end up in a wagon or iso container someone forgets to unlock...
Err no one in Europe forced you into it.
|
>>
>> >> Well unless you end up in a wagon or iso container someone forgets to
>> unlock...
>>
>> Err no one in Europe forced you into it.
>>
I never suggested anyone did.
|
>> I never suggested anyone did.
I'm treating this as a reference to the folks who were suffocated.
They were, I think, clear cut economic migrants set up to disappear into nail bars if they were lucky. Prostitution or drug farms if they were not
Asylum not on their agenda.
|
>> The whole of the EU is a safe route. Once they are there they are
>> safe.
You've swallowed the propaganda.
Some EU countries may are safe. Not sure about Italy or Poland. France is said to be so good 30p Lee says they can FOFF back there but the reality is it's institutionally racist.
If somebody rocks up in the UK and claims Asylum we're obliged, under treaties we're party to, to consider their claim.
Should have claimed elsewhere ain't a reason to reject.
|
>> You've swallowed the propaganda.
Nope, you refuse to see the reality. Its not asylum, its a preference. Its indisputable you cant argue its not. Nor can they, there is a process to apply for immigration and or asylum in the UK in Europe, which they chose not to use because they would be refused.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 9 Aug 23 at 20:02
|
>> Nope, you refuse to see the reality. Its not asylum, its a preference. Its indisputable
>> you cant argue its not.
You are swallowing the 'first safe country' fallacy.
As international law stands you can choose to go through Italy and France and claim Asylum in the UK.
Just the same as if you were claiming it 40 years ago and could travel from the USSR through (West) Germany and Holland and claim Asylum in London.
Where am I wrong?
|
>> As international law stands you can choose to go through Italy and France and claim
>> Asylum in the UK.
Which you can do in Europe
>> Where am I wrong?
There, the point above
Asylum means you are in fear of your life, or persecution. Neither applies in the EU
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 9 Aug 23 at 21:13
|
>> Which you can do in Europe
>> Asylum means you are in fear of your life, or persecution. Neither applies in the
>> EU
As above; you've swallowed the first safe country carp.
|
|
What part of "you can apply for UK asylum while in Europe " and dont need to rock over on a boat are you failing to grasp?
|
>> What part of "you can apply for UK asylum while in Europe " and dont
>> need to rock over on a boat are you failing to grasp?
Except you cannot.
|
Oh no thats right, (vbg walked into that one) check out Inadmissibility and safe countries..................
the thing you claim does not exist.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 10 Aug 23 at 20:57
|
>> Oh no thats right, (vbg walked into that one) check out Inadmissibility and safe countries..................
>>
>> the thing you claim does not exist.
It's complicated.
If you're from a country UK government deems safe your claim may be inadmissible
Should you as, say an Afghan, have passed through a country UK says is safe it's more tangled.
Courts said that's not relevant - international obligation etc.
UK government, paving way for Rwanda, produced legislation sayin that your claim might be ruled inadmissible if you came through safe (eg EU) country.
But if you're here, your claim is inadmissible and even if Rwanda's safe and legal they've not the capacity then what.
Care to guess how many have been sent back to the EU or another safe third country in last 12 months?
|
>> So what's the answer? Throw buckets of money over it?
That's the current 'solution'! £6m/day for 57,000 in hotels. £1.6bn for the accommodation barge(s). Then there are the other 75,000, not sure where there are - various airfields?
The Home Office policy is presumably not to process many of these cases. There are currently IIRC, I can't find the reference, about 1200 case workers processing an average of 4 asylum claims per month each.
The only viable plan really would be to process the asylum claims in accordance with applicable laws within a reasonable period of time. Temporary accommodation would then be a much simpler and cheaper operation, and successful applicants could perhaps fill some gaps in care work and fruit picking, nursing or doctoring, and paying some tax.
The government plan as things stand currently is illegal. Various of them have proposed leaving ECHR and changing the law to get round it.
|
>> The only viable plan really would be to process the asylum claims in accordance with
>> applicable laws within a reasonable period of time. Temporary accommodation would then be a much
>> simpler and cheaper operation,
And when the majority are refused because they are economic migrants? what then
>> and successful applicants could perhaps fill some gaps in care work
>> and fruit picking, nursing or doctoring, and paying some tax.
They dont. They disappear into the black hole black economy
|
>> Meanwhile the government's focus and effort is actually going into trying to fix its own
>> popularity deficit and to blaming Labour, incredibly, for the record-breaking mess it has made of
>> practically everything over the last 13 years.
This is really quite puzzling, isn't it?
I mean, if the Labour government was so wonderful, why weren't they re-elected in 2010?
If the Tories are so awful, why did the British electorate vote for them in 2010?
And why vote them in again in 2015 - if they are are so awful?
And again in 2019? Why?
Why did the Labour party chose such an un-electable dinosaur as Jeremy Corbyn as their leader?
Why are the Labour party so lukewarm about Keir Starmer?
You don't think any of the responsibility for this is on your own doorstep? Yes - YOU - the British electorate!
|
Oh all right then, I'll have a go.
>> This is really quite puzzling, isn't it?
>>
>> I mean, if the Labour government was so wonderful, why weren't they re-elected in 2010?
Banking crisis, Iraq, the fact that governments due tend to be less popular when they have been there for some time?
>>
>> If the Tories are so awful, why did the British electorate vote for them in
>> 2010?
See above. Note they were still 19 short of a majority, but they were in any case considerably less awful than they became subsequently
>>
>> And why vote them in again in 2015 - if they are are so awful?
Cameron. A more or less normal politician. It didn't go massively wrong for them, and us, and the country, until after some referendum or other.
>>
>> And again in 2019? Why?
It was a single issue election really. Boris Johnson and "Get Brexit Done". And Corbyn.
>>
>> Why did the Labour party chose such an un-electable dinosaur as Jeremy Corbyn as their
>> leader?
This is a really interesting one and complicated but the end result was that the more fundamentalist end of the party ended up in charge. As right or wrong as they might have been (and compared with what transpired Corbyn would have been competent) they were unelectable.
There a bit of a parallel with the Tories. The nutters took over, and are still in charge.
>>
>> Why are the Labour party so lukewarm about Keir Starmer?
Partly personality perhaps, although I like him. He is a compromise of course, as the best solutions always are. Some just don't think he's socialist enough. Some like me want him to be braver and make the case for what's right, instead of keeping his head down for fear of breaking the Ming Vase. Of course he wants to get Labour elected because they can't do any good otherwise, and he might well be right. Although sometimes it backfires. Labour promised a child care policy but didn't want to show their hand - the Tories nicked it.
>>
>> You don't think any of the responsibility for this is on your own doorstep? Yes
>> - YOU - the British electorate!
Yes - but it would be easier to blame the electorate if the Tories had got a majority of the vote. IIRC last time they got an outright majority of 70 on the back of 45% of the votes cast.
But I don't understand why anybody more or less normal votes Conservative anyway. I'd actually like to know if anyone thinks there is any credibility at all in this "motorists' friend" schtick and claiming that boosting oil production is in any way compatible with our (Conservative) environmental targets.
With hindsight, a lot of the roots of current problems lay in austerity. I think Labour would probably have done that too, although I don't think they would have punished the least well off in the way the Conservatives did. They pretty well stuck the blame on benefit claimants which was an incredible feat after they had bailed out the banks with £100's of billions.
|
Well said Manatee.
Again.
|
>> >> Why did the Labour party chose such an un-electable dinosaur as Jeremy Corbyn as
>> their
>> >> leader?
>>
>> This is a really interesting one and complicated but the end result was that the
>> more fundamentalist end of the party ended up in charge. As right or wrong as
>> they might have been (and compared with what transpired Corbyn would have been competent) they> were unelectable.
I put this question about Jeremy Corbyn into ChatGPT. Try it, very plausible answer.
>>But I don't understand why anybody more or less normal votes Conservative anyway.
>>
I don't understand why anyone who lives in the real world votes Labour.
I give it to you, Manatee, you have an answer, even if it's the wrong answer. But why isn't Labour more popular?
All the Labour leadership does is criticise the Tories, even if they don't have, in many cases, an answer and often when they do have an answer, it's the same as the Tories.
The bottom line is - the Tories are the party of government and Labour is the party of opposition.
|
>> >> >> Why did the Labour party chose such an un-electable dinosaur as Jeremy Corbyn
>> as their leader?
I put this question into chatGPT again. The following is part of the answer.
"However, it's important to note that Corbyn's leadership was also marked by controversies and criticisms. Many critics, both within and outside the Labour Party, raised concerns about his handling of issues like Brexit, his stance on national security, and allegations of anti-Semitism within the party.
In terms of electability, many observers argued that Corbyn's policy positions, leadership style, and perceived lack of popularity in key voter demographics could potentially hinder the party's chances in a general election. This concern was borne out in the 2017 and 2019 general elections, where the Labour Party under Corbyn faced electoral challenges and ultimately did not win the majority needed to form a government.
In summary, the decision to elect Jeremy Corbyn as the leader of the British Labour Party was the result of a combination of factors, including ideological shifts within the party, his appeal to certain segments of the population, and a desire for a more principled and progressive platform. However, his electability and ability to appeal to a broader range of voters remained points of contention throughout his leadership."
|
>The whole thing is a stunt...
Of course it's a stunt but it gives supporters on both sides of the political divide something to pontificate about and drives the wedge in a bit deeper.
It does mean that Sunak has fulfilled one of the promises he made when he became PM though.
|
>> Lee Anderson told us 6 months ago what their election strategy would be, and it
>> didn't involve fixing anything.
I like his latest comment.
www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1799682/lee-anderson-illegal-migrants-bibby-barge-france
|
|
...yup. There's no doubt that thirty-p Lee's informed, in-depth analysis and constructive suggestion cuts straight through to the solution to the immigration issue....
|
thirty-p Lee's informed, in-depth analysis and constructive
Well its pitched about right for the Express readerships intellectual abilities.
|
It is reasonable to assert that Western Europe at least is "safe" territory free of persecution many will be fleeing. Logically those arriving here through illegal routes are coming as economic or social migrants, and have no right to asylum.
The delay in processing claims is unacceptable - the product (I think) of incompetence not a political initiative as there is no obvious political gain. Barges, Rwanda, crooked lawyers etc are a smoke screen to evidence action even though it is ineffectual and inconsequential.
Significant numbers want to come to the UK. There are no clear criteria whether they should be offered residency (not asylum - see first para). Gangs - catch one and they will quickly be replaced. European "colleagues" are probably content to see their problem move offshore
If the UK wants to discourage "asylum" seekers it needs to make the cross channel journey completely unattractive. There should be a pre-asylum claim process in France before they make the journey. If they then come - return them to either:
- France (where they were safe) but this may completely sour Anglo French relations, or
- to their home country (where they will likely be persecuted) - likely to be unacceptable
Neither of these seem politically attractive. The default sub-optimal approach is to make it difficult when they arrive here - hence barges, Rwanda, old military sites etc - in the hope they will be dissuaded from coming. Probab;y won't work!!
|
|
If they are likely to be persecuted in their own country they would be granted asylum.
|
>> It is reasonable to assert that Western Europe at least is "safe" territory free of
>> persecution many will be fleeing. Logically those arriving here through illegal routes are coming as
>> economic or social migrants, and have no right to asylum.
The fact that France is a safe country, even if it were a Valhalla for people seeking refuge is neither here nor there. Under law settled since WW2 a person seeking Asylum can choose where to claim.
>> The delay in processing claims is unacceptable - the product (I think) of incompetence not
>> a political initiative as there is no obvious political gain. Barges, Rwanda, crooked lawyers etc
>> are a smoke screen to evidence action even though it is ineffectual and inconsequential.
I'm not convinced it's not by design. Jenrick has said as much. Long queues while held in suboptimal conditions is seen as reducing the so called pull factor.
>> If the UK wants to discourage "asylum" seekers it needs to make the cross channel
>> journey completely unattractive. There should be a pre-asylum claim process in France before they make
>> the journey.
That's the process for safe routes; examine their claims where they are.
|
The Tories are running a hate campaign, and it's working.
Let's not fall for it.
|
Tories want to demonstrate they are being "tough" - action politics.
Labour won't admit to a policy (or don't have one) for fear of offending one part or another of their voter base.
All quite depressing - with Tories you know what you will get - lots of noise possibly with little progress. With Labour you can assume whatever takes your fancy - it may or may not be true.
|
Seems the Netherlands is already using floating capacity for migrants.
unherd.com/2023/04/on-board-a-migrant-cruise-ship/
|
>The Tories are running a hate campaign, and it's working...
I think that if you take the blinkers off you'll find plenty of examples where Labour have sown their own hatred. It's nothing new and definitely not unique to the Tories.
Last edited by: Kevin on Thu 10 Aug 23 at 15:12
|
|
What makes the UK so attractive that people are willing to pay thousands of £ and risk their lives to get here when they are already in a safe European country?
|
>> What makes the UK so attractive that people are willing to pay thousands of £
>> and risk their lives to get here when they are already in a safe European
>> country?
>>
Common language, family, friends, tolerant society, we once ruled their current gaff!?
|
I've no idea how we compare to other countries but my mate took in a Ukrainian lady and her 15 & 6 year olds. He thinks they are getting c £1k a month plus other bits of assistance. They contribute towards the power bills and supply their own food but for them it's a quite comfortable life, not least as my mate is generous towards them himself, in the nicest way. I'm sure they are not typical though.
I read the other day (maybe here) that France and others don't provide proper accommodation to migrants. No idea if true or not.
Last edited by: smokie on Thu 10 Aug 23 at 16:23
|
A comparison with France whence most of the boats arrive:
1. France turns down ~70% of asylum claims vs the UK which approves over 90%
2. France makes an initial decision on asylum in ~3 months compared to years in UK
These two bits of data make it abundantly clear why asylum seekers prefer the UK.
They receive some financial support, healthcare etc whilst their claim is being processed but it seems to stop once their claim is settled. I doubt they are better provided than in the UK.
However France (and much of western Europe) have difficulty in deporting most failed asylum seekers possibly due to similar concerns facing the UK - legal challenge, possible persecution.
They simply fall from the system with no state support. Not clear what happens - I assume like the UK they find jobs in the black economy, deal or take drugs, minor crime etc.
|
>> A comparison with France whence most of the boats arrive:
>>
>> 1. France turns down ~70% of asylum claims vs the UK which approves over 90%
>> 2. France makes an initial decision on asylum in ~3 months compared to years in
>> UK
What are those numbers actually telling us?
Are applicants in both countries comparable?
Although both are subject to same international law provisions are they applied in the same way?
Is the French system fair, open and subject to a proper fair judicial appeal process?
Ours is.
Without that knowledge you may be comparing bananas with elephants
|
Without that knowledge you may be comparing bananas with elephants
>>
I think it's a comparison of two neighbouring countries, with similar living standards, similar economies, similar sized populations yet have entirely (if the figures are true) very different outcomes when it comes to asylum claims.
I don't think it's unreasonable to compare them. Even more so when the figures may well be so different.
|
>> I don't think it's unreasonable to compare them. Even more so when the figures may
>> well be so different.
I guess it's OK to compare but one you dig down a bit the answer is that you're comparing different cultures, different politics and massively different appeal/judicial systems.
The UK has, over my working life in the field, taken huge steps to ensure appeal tribunals, whether for immigration, benefits or even yellow line parking are, and are clearly seen to be completely independent of government.
|
>> >> I don't think it's unreasonable to compare them. Even more so when the figures
>> may
>> >> well be so different.
>>
>> I guess it's OK to compare but one you dig down a bit the answer
>> is that you're comparing different cultures, different politics and massively different appeal/judicial systems.
>>
>>
Let's say the French do have a different appeal system for asylum seekers and that system ends up with very different outcomes, how do they square that with human rights legislation, being in the EU, being in the ECHR etc?
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 12 Aug 23 at 07:47
|
>> Let's say the French do have a different appeal system for asylum seekers and that
>> system ends up with very different outcomes, how do they square that with human rights
>> legislation, being in the EU, being in the ECHR etc?
AIUI there's more latitude than one might think about how signatories to the Human Rights Convention implement it domestically and how they interpret it.
We signed up to the Convention at initiation but it was only post the Human Rights Act that it could be used/enforced in our domestic courts.
Similar with EU, in so far as they're involved.
|
> AIUI there's more latitude than one might think about how signatories to the Human Rights
>> Convention implement it domestically and how they interpret it.
>>
>>
I wonder how the french use this flexibility yet we are incapable/unwilling to do so. If asylum claims were inline with French acceptance rates it would be popular.
I don't understand how any attempt to use this latitude is seemingly impossible in the uk, yet other countries, such as france do so with not so much as a mumour. I've read France24 for a number of years fairly regularly and don't remember much complaint domestically or internationally about having an unfair judiciary or appeals procedure.
|
>> I wonder how the french use this flexibility yet we are incapable/unwilling to do so.
>> If asylum claims were inline with French acceptance rates it would be popular.
Somebody, Terry I think, compared the UK and French success rates. I read that, rightly or wrongly, as an assertion that UK is a soft touch.
I think it's a bit more complicated. For the reasons I've set out it may not be possible to compare their system and numbers with hours. Do we even handle cases and count numbers in a way that's comparable?
Whether we could be harder is a erent question.
It is of course arguable that Rwanda and the 2022 act allowing claims to be found inadmissible does exactly that.
What the ECHR says remains to be seen.
|
>> Somebody, Terry I think, compared the UK and French success rates. I read that, rightly or wrongly, as an assertion that UK is a soft touch.
Likewise, I read that you believe France is somehow unfair, lacking in legal process with regards to asylum claims.
>> I think it's a bit more complicated. For the reasons I've set out it may
>> not be possible to compare their system and numbers with hours.
I think it's entirely possible to measure outcomes, after all that's the matter at hand. The processes aren't a means to itself.
Do we even handle
>> cases and count numbers in a way that's comparable?
>>
I found this asylumineurope.org/ it appears to be able to compare like for like.
>> Whether we could be harder is a erent question.
How so?
|
Just looked up similar data for Spain.
In 2022 they received 119k asylum claims of which only 16% were awarded protection. I assume most claims from North and West Africa.
Spain try to meet a 180 day limit on decisions. Claimants receive little financial assistance and may be housed in detention centres not known for their desirability. Proximity to North Africa may be why many see it as a route to other European states with more open policies.
Without residency they are liable to deportation - although again I suspect many failed claims end up in the black economy, selling tourist tat on the Costas, drugs or travel to the UK as a more favourable destination.
Dismissing French outcomes as a result of cultural, social or legal differences is simplistic - they have a generally sound and fair legal system and are bound by the same EHCR.
|
>> Dismissing French outcomes as a result of cultural, social or legal differences is simplistic -
>> they have a generally sound and fair legal system and are bound by the same
>> EHCR.
I'm not dismissing them at all. They are what they are.
What I am saying is that cultural, political and particularly legal considerations make valid comparison hazardous.
|
I agree making superficial judgements over small differences is wrong for the reasons you note.
But the apparent differences are far from trivial - there needs to be a very convincing alternative explanation or the conclusion that the UK is relatively "soft" is probably fair. Whether the UK is right or wrong is a different matter.
My personal view is more centrist than either extreme. Main issues are the large backlog of cases, the lack of clear and meaningful policy intent, and the politicisation of asylum rather than a matter of moral, practical or economic debate.
|
>> I agree making superficial judgements over small differences is wrong for the reasons you note.
That much is common ground
>> But the apparent differences are far from trivial - there needs to be a very
>> convincing alternative explanation or the conclusion that the UK is relatively "soft" is probably fair.
I cannot find anything that suggests 90% success in UK - can you recall where that came from?
FWIW it's near reported figures for small boat arrivals making claims - around 10% do not make a claim.
The success figure for the UK in 2021, including appeals, per Migration Observatory was around 60%. That was up on previous years rate of <50% but there may be reasons - eg Afghans - why that was so.
Last year there were a lot of Albanians. Even from my liberal perspective they look pretty fishy so will be refused; numbers go down again.
>> Whether the UK is right or wrong is a different matter.
My feel is we were broadly right but that the focus on boats - less than half of irregular migration - is distorting perceptions.
Bibby Stockholm was portrayed as being driven by (and by inference for) boat arrivals bit most of those briefly there were not boat arrivals.
|
>> I cannot find anything that suggests 90% success in UK - can you recall where
>> that came from?
It has been widely used in the news media. This link to a UK.gov document:
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-december-2022/how-many-people-do-we-grant-protection-to
Just over three quarters (76%) of the initial decisions in 2022 were grants of refugee status, humanitarian protection or alternative forms of leave. Of the appeals determined in 2022, around half (51%) were allowed
I would guess the figures should be treated with some caution as they vary widely from year to year depending on covid timing, countries involved (eg: Albania, Afghanistan, Syria etc)
>> Bibby Stockholm was portrayed as being driven by (and by inference for) boat arrivals bit
>> most of those briefly there were not boat arrivals.
That I was not aware of - although this may not be material - but possibly embarrassing. Also worth noting that "illegal" migrants are only a small part of total immigration which is generally not regarded as an issue - eg: Ukraine, Hong Kong, Afghanistan.
|
>> Somebody, Terry I think, compared the UK and French success rates.
>> I read that, rightly or wrongly, as an assertion that UK is a soft touch.
I think it’s difficult to draw that link without further evidence. Given the difficulty in crossing the channel it’s possible that only the truly desperate attempt it, of which the survivors would be more likely to have a valid case than your generic migrant who’s sauntered across into Spain from Morocco.
Ultimately far more damage has been caused to the UK through government incompetence (Brexit, Johnson, Truss, Sunak) than by a few tens of thousands of migrants. And if they are economic migrants, so what?
|
And they've cleared it because of Legionella in the water...
How the hell could that not have been found an dealt with when the vessel was being commissioned.
|
|
Ridiculous, this is basic FM. Should have been picked ages ago.
|
|
... Express shortly to report it's French Foreign Legionnaire's disease....
|
|
Total incompetence on the part of the contractors - as far as I am aware legionella is part of basic housekeeping for any "public" space.
|
|
The Scottish workers previously on it probably weren't bothered about that wee thing ;>).
|
Another spoke in Suella's wheel:
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/27/braverman-plan-to-house-uk-asylum-seekers-on-bibby-stockholm-barge-faces-legal-hurdle
Fire Brigades Union seeking Judicial Review on grounds that, as adapted to double up numbers, it's a death trap.
I guess its interest is that FBU members will be risking their lives if there's a fire...
|
>>
>> I guess its interest is that FBU members will be risking their lives if there's
>> a fire...
>>
And most certainly not trying to score points off a Conservative government!
No sir!
|
|
The FBU is very left wing. Doesn’t support Starmers so certainly will instinctively oppose anything a right wing Conservative government does. I guess we need an independent expert review as to the fire risk.
|
>> The FBU is very left wing. Doesn’t support Starmers so certainly will instinctively oppose anything
>> a right wing Conservative government does. I guess we need an independent expert review as
>> to the fire risk.
What exactly constitutes 'very left wing'?
FBU is affiliated to the Labour Party. Its General Secretary Matt Wrack was certainly active in outfits to the left of Labour in the past but he's a member now.
Though if he's thinking of cutting up his card over the party's headlong dash to the right he's not alone!!
|
I would say any organisation and it’s leader that supported the views and aims of Jeremy Corby is very left wing. They are inherently opposed to anything a right wing government will attempt to do just as the opposite is also true.
As I said we need an independent unbiased opinion to ascertain whether or not there is an unacceptable fire risk involved.
Unfortunately we are going down the same route as the USA. Political allegiance is becoming the basis as to whether or not you oppose an idea regardless of the facts.
|
>> And most certainly not trying to score points off a Conservative government!
Oliver Dowden was saying that a couple of weeks ago when the FBU first raised the issue: well he would, wouldn't he.
The point abou FBU members is that it gives ample standing for them to take proceedings.
Government lawyers have persuaded, or tried to persuade, the courts quite often of late that applicants for JR have 'no skin in the game' and their cases, or their participation in cases, cannot be allowed to continue.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 27 Aug 23 at 13:49
|
Fire Brigades Union seeking Judicial Review on grounds that, as adapted to double up numbers,
>> it's a death trap.
>>
>
I would imagine that the HO went with what the local council and Fire Brigade recommended/authorised. Perhaps they spoke to their own members in the local FB?
|
Smokescreen.
Who owns the Bibby Stockholm?
When did they buy it and for how much?
How much are HMG paying for leasing it and for how long?
How did they tender for a suitable barge?
How much are HMG on the hook for if/when a court decides to shut it down?
How much I being 'saved' compared to the use of hotel accommodation?
Find the answers to the above and it will become clear what is going on.
|
Which is over 90% owned by the Bibby family via various trusts.
|
|
And that's significant in some way I'm guessing?
|
>> And that's significant in some way I'm guessing?
Bibby group, as you may know, have fingers in all sorts of pies. Ships and lorries are one. ISTR they also do credit factoring - paid them a few times for a small business who did graphic design and produced those pull up things you use to 'show the flag' at conferences etc.
I suspect the trusts are a means, legitimate of course to reduce tax.
TBH I don't think Bibby themselves should be the focus.
OTOH, middlemen, arrangements for/cost of mooring, and what happens money wise if it all goes titzup, eg if the FBU succeed and government have acted unlawfully, are serious matters of public interest.
|
>> OTOH, middlemen, arrangements for/cost of mooring, and what happens money wise if it all goes
>> titzup, eg if the FBU succeed and government have acted unlawfully, are serious matters of
>> public interest.
>>
>>
>
I'm not aware of any smoking gun with regard to the barge itself. I've not seen any other links to some sort of similar with any other aspect of it, may not have come to light or maybe not there.
|
Most barriers to resolving the asylum issue seem political - albeit dressed in a rational veneer.
Do the public support the protests because (a) they think they are rationally justified, (b) political allegiance (Tory = bad), or (c) they relish the thought of Braverman being blocked again.
Or will there come a point where Tories will win public support by (a) pushing through legislative changes in asylum rules applied, (b) withdrawing from EHCR, to demonstrate the UK has truly taken back control.
From a Tory perspective the second option may seem an increasingly sound strategy. Public support for the current asylum debacle is (I suspect) very low. Positive steps to improve it may be perceived as very attractive - even if lacking a moral dimension.
The current asylum process is a disaster area - ever increasing backlog of claims, inability to implement policy changes, money wasted with the French who are only too happy to see an asylum claim offshored to the UK.
Rather than being seen as weak and ineffectual Braverman and Sunak may see a lot of political capital in being tough. That it upset the morality police may be a political price worth paying.
|
>> Rather than being seen as weak and ineffectual Braverman and Sunak may see a lot
>> of political capital in being tough. That it upset the morality police may be a
>> political price worth paying.
I despair of living in a country where the acquisition of political capital trumps humanitarian considerations.
Once we've 'beaten' asylum who's next up to be demonised?
Outwith the Convention rolling over any of us is easier...
|
>> I despair of living in a country where the acquisition of political capital trumps humanitarian
>> considerations.
>>
There's always a political angle to every decision, i don't see this as any different. Its only a matter of degrees.
|
>> There's always a political angle to every decision, i don't see this as any different.
>> Its only a matter of degrees.
Of course it is.
My despair is not limited to Asylum and Immigration...
|
>> My despair is not limited to Asylum and Immigration...
You must spend alot of time in despair!
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 29 Aug 23 at 10:46
|
>> There's always a political angle to every decision, i don't see this as any different.
>> Its only a matter of degrees.
It's been way beyond that for some time with this government. Everything is about how it looks to their likely voters, that is, fundamentally dishonest.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 29 Aug 23 at 10:46
|
"Most barriers to resolving the asylum issue seem political - albeit dressed in a rational veneer."
The migration "problem" is fundamentally not solvable if we mean acutally reducing immigration to the UK. With all the problems in the world from extreme and poverty war to climate change more ane more people want to reach the wealthier and more stable parts of the world including the UK. One way or another those people will eventually manage to achieve their ambition.
|
>>With all the problems in the world from extreme and poverty war to climate
>> change more ane more people want to reach the wealthier and more stable parts of
>> the world including the UK. One way or another those people will eventually manage to
>> achieve their ambition.
Immigration is not a one subject issue.
Asylum Seekers and those who get recognised as refugees are a (small) subset of total immigration to the UK in the last 12 months.
|
Asylum Seekers and those who get recognised as refugees are a (small) subset of total immigration to the UK in the last 12 months.
And they will continue to grow for the reasons stated. Unless all the worlds problems are miraculously solve the opressed the poor, and the hungry will continue to seek a better home. No country has solved the illegal immigration problem. It is not solvable
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Sun 27 Aug 23 at 19:12
|
tinyurl.com/preview/2cuaoa22
A link to the international version of the Sun, shows an alleged improvement in how Belgium deals with people crossing the channel. Now the reduction may not be down wholly to the policies (and it's in the sun etc) but opens a line as to are there more effective ways to spend the money given by the Gov.
|
Asylum seekers refuse to board accommodation barge - zippy
