Embarrassing (2 Viewers)

Brighton Sky Blue · Aug 20, 2025

chiefdave said:
This may end up being a case of be careful what you wish for.

First and foremost the decision seems to have been made on the basis that planning permission is required to place asylum seekers in hotels. Going to ignore the legal side of that as I have no idea on what the basis is in law for saying if certain groups of people are staying in hotels it requires a change of use planning application but if that is valid it will apply across the country now. Councils will be racing to get cases into court citing this as relevant case law.

But they're not going to be putting the asylum seekers out on the streets, they're going to have to go somewhere and that will be dispersal accommodation. What that means is that they will be moved into private accommodation in the wider community.

I will leave it to others to decide if they believe that is a better option or not. I suspect that may well depend on if they end up living next door to them.

What I took from it is that the council are happy to grant planning permission for a hotel with paying customers, but if they intend to just build a ‘hotel’ really functioning as an asylum seeker holding pen, permission denied.

Rightfully so and hopefully it triggers what’s needed to stop using hotels for this and to return them to being used by the public. The people profiting from cramming people into their hotels while running a bare minimum staff and service though will clearly not want it to stop though.

shmmeee · Aug 20, 2025

Brighton Sky Blue said:
What I took from it is that the council are happy to grant planning permission for a hotel with paying customers, but if they intend to just build a ‘hotel’ really functioning as an asylum seeker holding pen, permission denied.

Rightfully so and hopefully it triggers what’s needed to stop using hotels for this and to return them to being used by the public. The people profiting from cramming people into their hotels while running a bare minimum staff and service though will clearly not want it to stop though.

Surely this means we’re going to have to pay migrants for food then as we can’t supply it if we’re putting them all in houses instead?

Brighton Sky Blue · Aug 20, 2025

shmmeee said:
Surely this means we’re going to have to pay migrants for food then as we can’t supply it if we’re putting them all in houses instead?

I’d hope that we pay for a lot more people to work through the backlog and process claims at a rate that allows us to temporarily hold people in more suitable facilities

PVA · Aug 20, 2025

I do love this silent majority stuff.

Lads, there was an election a year ago - why did you stay silent then?

Staying silent for the one time every 4/5 years you get to have a say seems...not a great plan?

shmmeee · Aug 20, 2025

Brighton Sky Blue said:
I’d hope that we pay for a lot more people to work through the backlog and process claims at a rate that allows us to temporarily hold people in more suitable facilities

Yeah but that’s not a solution to now that’s a how to stop it getting worse and slowly chip away over three years. If you close all the hotels today you’re probably kicking out a bunch of homeless people from halfway houses to make room (not a random example this happened to someone I know). The migrants have to go somewhere and you don’t get 20k places at the drop of a hat

Brighton Sky Blue · Aug 20, 2025

shmmeee said:
Yeah but that’s not a solution to now that’s a how to stop it getting worse and slowly chip away over three years. If you close all the hotels today you’re probably kicking out a bunch of homeless people from halfway houses to make room (not a random example this happened to someone I know). The migrants have to go somewhere and you don’t get 20k places at the drop of a hat

Then build temporary facilities away from urban centres. Hotels being used instead sucks money out of the local economy and is creating a visible target for disorder

shmmeee · Aug 20, 2025

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Then build temporary facilities away from urban centres. Hotels being used instead sucks money out of the local economy and is creating a visible target for disorder

Right. You want to build “temporary facilities away from urban centres” that we have to provide services to that won’t be seen as overwhelming the local area.

How long do you expect this to take? Are we talking alligator Alcatraz here?

The choices are rented homes or hotels. All the ex prison sites and the like are used already. They legally can’t work so you’ve got to provide everything for them while they’re there. That’s far easier in a city than out in the sticks.

Is there any evidence of them harming the economy? I’m not sure how that would even work as it’s an influx of demand.

I’m really not sure plonking a load of asylum seekers in rural Tory heartlands is going to make this go away like you think.

Brighton Sky Blue · Aug 20, 2025

shmmeee said:
Right. You want to build “temporary facilities away from urban centres” that we have to provide services to that won’t be seen as overwhelming the local area.

How long do you expect this to take? Are we talking alligator Alcatraz here?

The choices are rented homes or hotels. All the ex prison sites and the like are used already. They legally can’t work so you’ve got to provide everything for them while they’re there. That’s far easier in a city than out in the sticks.

Is there any evidence of them harming the economy? I’m not sure how that would even work as it’s an influx of demand.

I’m really not sure plonking a load of asylum seekers in rural Tory heartlands is going to make this go away like you think.

I’m saying the policy should never have started in the first place. Hotels being closed to the public and run on skeleton crews while being targets and causes of anti social behaviour clearly has negative economic consequences.

We are focusing on where to put people instead of getting through the backlog

shmmeee · Aug 20, 2025

Brighton Sky Blue said:
I’m saying the policy should never have started in the first place. Hotels being closed to the public and run on skeleton crews while being targets and causes of anti social behaviour clearly has negative economic consequences.

We are focusing on where to put people instead of getting through the backlog

Were doing both that’s why the numbers are coming down rapidly.

So you’ve got no proof of negative economic consequences. You just think “smelly migrants must cost money”. I’d be surprised if a hotel suddenly being booked up is bad financially for the owners and staff of that hotel or of an influx of people full stop doesn’t. Is there evidence anti social behaviour is higher per capita in these groups? Seems like you’re repeating a lot of stuff you’ve no idea is true tbh.

Brighton Sky Blue · Aug 20, 2025

shmmeee said:
Were doing both that’s why the numbers are coming down rapidly.

So you’ve got no proof of negative economic consequences. You just think “smelly migrants must cost money”. I’d be surprised if a hotel suddenly being booked up is bad financially for the owners and staff of that hotel or of an influx of people full stop doesn’t. Is there evidence anti social behaviour is higher per capita in these groups? Seems like you’re repeating a lot of stuff you’ve no idea is true tbh.

Now you’re even accusing me of racist dog whistling. You’ve lost the plot on this one.

shmmeee · Aug 20, 2025

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Now you’re even accusing me of racist dog whistling. You’ve lost the plot on this one.

Im just asking you to back up your quite inflammatory statements. The fact you go straight to insults tells me all I need thanks.

shmmeee · Aug 20, 2025

Nick said:
I haven't deleted anything and can't be arsed to check.

I assume it's started with the stuff about his wife and then posts quoting it or with that in were removed. Bit far.

Don't actually think he was crying about it or running to anybody either.

Is this about me and Ashdown? No I see it as a total win when people get personal with decade old info on here. Chicken started going on about a job I left about fifteen years ago at one point. Last time o checked in on Grendel he was still ranting about my dad. Says more about them than me that I rattle them that much they’re either hunting down anything they can find or they’re so obsessed they’re remembering facts about my life from years ago.

If it was deleted it wasn’t asked for by me.

Brighton Sky Blue · Aug 20, 2025

shmmeee said:
Im just asking you to back up your quite inflammatory statements. The fact you go straight to insults tells me all I need thanks.

The anti social behaviour I’m on about is referring to people starting trouble while ‘protesting’ at these sites.

Asylum seekers can’t go out and spend money in the same way a tourist or business traveler can. They can’t spend money in the hotel either. The person running the hotel is providing a bare minimum staff so can afford to let a load go while still making a profit for themselves.

Add on to this the lack of security being provided in these places which leaves added risks to the people in them. At least by building places to a standard format you get consistency of treatment and security while returning hotels to their local communities.

The only people benefitting from this policy are the hotel owners. Which as it was a Tory idea, makes total sense.

Jamesimus · Aug 20, 2025

Brighton Sky Blue said:
The anti social behaviour I’m on about is referring to people starting trouble while ‘protesting’ at these sites.

Asylum seekers can’t go out and spend money in the same way a tourist or business traveler can. They can’t spend money in the hotel either. The person running the hotel is providing a bare minimum staff so can afford to let a load go while still making a profit for themselves.

Add on to this the lack of security being provided in these places which leaves added risks to the people in them. At least by building places to a standard format you get consistency of treatment and security while returning hotels to their local communities.

The only people benefitting from this policy are the hotel owners. Which as it was a Tory idea, makes total sense.

Haven’t been keeping up with this thread as I was anticipating it turning into a shit show. But just wanted to mention, I have been in one of these migrant hotels (in Newcastle) and they are certainly not the five star accommodation some people will lead you to believe. If anything, the one I was in was not fit for human habitation and other things need to be done to house / help these people, without feeding into the pockets of greedy landlords and hotel owners.

Brighton Sky Blue · Aug 20, 2025

Jamesimus said:
Haven’t been keeping up with this thread as I was anticipating it turning into a shit show. But just wanted to mention, I have been in one of these migrant hotels (in Newcastle) and they are certainly not the five star accommodation some people will lead you to believe. If anything, the one I was in was not fit for human habitation and other things need to be done to house / help these people, without feeding into the pockets of greedy landlords and hotel owners.

I can well believe they’re not luxurious. As I said, the only people profiting from this are the hotel owners. There are no other ‘winners’ from it.

CCFCSteve · Aug 20, 2025

skybluetony176 said:
As opposed to no chance whatsoever of being returned to another EU country. A deterrent to no deterrent.

As already pointed out. While irregular crossings dropped into the EU they rose into the UK from the the EU. Take 2024 alone. Crossings into Europe fell almost 40% while into the UK from the EU they rose almost 25% year on year. Why is the UK bucking the trend compared to the EU as a whole?

I presume irregular crossings into the EU have reduced mainly due to the countries the EU is partnering with/paying vast amounts of money to are doing a better job than France at stopping migrants crossing their borders and/or are accepting people back quicker reducing the deterrent at source. It’s certainly not because DR is a deterrent which was my original point

Why the irregular crossings are still increasing here is one for the government but what the EU/France are doing allowing the number get to the UK has to be questioned. if you believe being in the EU/DR would suddenly stop the a significant number of crossings that’s your prerogative. I agree it might help a bit but mainly because France might showing a bit more political will (not hard as it’s been pathetically low)

Anyway, wasting hours banging my head against a brick wall is why i try to swerve the politics threads these days. Just try to add some critical thinking

Jamesimus · Aug 20, 2025

Brighton Sky Blue said:
I can well believe they’re not luxurious. As I said, the only people profiting from this are the hotel owners. There are no other ‘winners’ from it.

The one I went in had security, but was just a couple of big blokes who were very nice. Everyone inside the hotel I spoke to were sound, but it was terribly over crowded

I later found out how much they are making per head. Let’s just say it’s not going back into ensuring the facilities are decent…

Realise this is all anecdotal etc but from a personal point of view I found it quite shocking. Could be spending less money and still be putting an arm around these people, helping them integrate etc.

Brighton Sky Blue · Aug 20, 2025

CCFCSteve said:
I presume irregular crossings into the EU have reduced mainly due to the countries the EU is partnering with/paying vast amounts of money to are doing a better job than France at stopping migrants crossing their borders and/or are accepting people back quicker reducing the deterrent at source. It’s certainly not because DR is a deterrent which was my original point

Why the irregular crossings are still increasing here is one for the government but what the EU/France are doing allowing the number get to the UK has to be questioned. if you believe being in the EU/DR would suddenly stop the a significant number of crossings that’s your prerogative. I agree it might help a bit but mainly because France might showing a bit more political will (not hard as it’s been pathetically low)

Anyway, wasting hours banging my head against a brick wall is why i try to swerve the politics threads these days. Just try to add some critical thinking

Macron clearly has his eyes on the EU presidency. It would surely be in his political interest to score a ‘win’ by helping to resolve the boat crossings.

shmmeee · Aug 20, 2025

Brighton Sky Blue said:
The anti social behaviour I’m on about is referring to people starting trouble while ‘protesting’ at these sites.

Asylum seekers can’t go out and spend money in the same way a tourist or business traveler can. They can’t spend money in the hotel either. The person running the hotel is providing a bare minimum staff so can afford to let a load go while still making a profit for themselves.

Add on to this the lack of security being provided in these places which leaves added risks to the people in them. At least by building places to a standard format you get consistency of treatment and security while returning hotels to their local communities.

The only people benefitting from this policy are the hotel owners. Which as it was a Tory idea, makes total sense.

Hotels were brought in initially as a Covid measure because they allowed isolation and we weren’t evicting people from accommodation. Then arrivals have risen.

Building and then quickly emptying (for that is the plan and what’s happening thanks to work on the backlog) custom made accommodation would be a lot more expensive. The only real alternative is to move asylum seekers back to essentially rented accommodation in family homes in the private market or in council owned homes (which are likely to already have vulnerable people in). If you think people are unhappy with a hotel, wait until they’re crowded outside a three bed semi in a housing crisis.

The only way out is through here really or a fuck ton of cash (which will go down how in the press?). They’ve just got to keep doing what they’re doing and clear the backlog, but as always in politics it’ll or a lot mean the term is full of anger at them not doing Tory mistakes yet then when they’re fixed they’ll get kicked out and the next lot will get credit for starting from a clean slate.

shmmeee · Aug 20, 2025

Jamesimus said:
The one I went in had security, but was just a couple of big blokes who were very nice. Everyone inside the hotel I spoke to were sound, but it was terribly over crowded

I later found out how much they are making per head. Let’s just say it’s not going back into ensuring the facilities are decent…

Realise this is all anecdotal etc but from a personal point of view I found it quite shocking. Could be spending less money and still be putting an arm around these people, helping them integrate etc.

The conditions are shit. I was reading a piece and they’ve got kids sharing rooms with unknown adults, massive safeguarding issues all over, migrants begging for mops and buckets or buying them with their £9/wk because their room is filthy despite supposed to be being cleaned. People falling ill because the food is badly cooked etc.

They’d probably love to be in self catering family homes getting £45/wk and having control over their lives but can you imagine the blow back? “Migrants get 5 times as much under Labour” “Labour gives £500k home to migrants” etc etc.

Brighton Sky Blue · Aug 20, 2025

shmmeee said:
Hotels were brought in initially as a Covid measure because they allowed isolation and we weren’t evicting people from accommodation. Then arrivals have risen.

Building and then quickly emptying (for that is the plan and what’s happening thanks to work on the backlog) custom made accommodation would be a lot more expensive. The only real alternative is to move asylum seekers back to essentially rented accommodation in family homes in the private market or in council owned homes (which are likely to already have vulnerable people in). If you think people are unhappy with a hotel, wait until they’re crowded outside a three bed semi in a housing crisis.

The only way out is through here really or a fuck ton of cash (which will go down how in the press?). They’ve just got to keep doing what they’re doing and clear the backlog, but as always in politics it’ll or a lot mean the term is full of anger at them not doing Tory mistakes yet then when they’re fixed they’ll get kicked out and the next lot will get credit for starting from a clean slate.

It depends on how quickly the backlog can be cleared. If you’re saying years, I still strongly disagree with using hotels for the purpose.

shmmeee · Aug 20, 2025

CCFCSteve said:
I presume irregular crossings into the EU have reduced mainly due to the countries the EU is partnering with/paying vast amounts of money to are doing a better job than France at stopping migrants crossing their borders and/or are accepting people back quicker reducing the deterrent at source. It’s certainly not because DR is a deterrent which was my original point

Why the irregular crossings are still increasing here is one for the government but what the EU/France are doing allowing the number get to the UK has to be questioned. if you believe being in the EU/DR would suddenly stop the a significant number of crossings that’s your prerogative. I agree it might help a bit but mainly because France might showing a bit more political will (not hard as it’s been pathetically low)

Anyway, wasting hours banging my head against a brick wall is why i try to swerve the politics threads these days. Just try to add some critical thinking

See next reply to you might salve your head a bit. Have rowed back (no pun intended)

Mucca Mad Boys · Aug 20, 2025

shmmeee said:
OK I’ve done more research and I think you’re right but not for the reasons you say. From what I can gather the tipping point was 2018 not 2020 and that’s when we tightened border security at ports around trucks. I’ve found a report from 2015, so height of the migrant crisis, but that says 39k truck crossings stopped that year. I don’t know how common it was to get through but I’d assume at least 50:50 so let’s say about 40K+ truck arrivals at peak migrant in 2015. That’s probably swapped almost entirely to boats taking into account start up time for routes and Covid.

The returns agreement is a thing if you believe any return agreement is a thing. Even the most draconian have only promised a tiny percentage so I’m not convinced either way.

So the question is are we happier when the migrants are in trucks or in boats?

And if we find a way to stop the boats should we expect 40k migrants a year in hot air balloons?

This is why you need a deterrent and it’s no surprise crossing has gone up since Labour scrapped Rwanda. It’s the only significant change this

The home office needs to be committed to turning back boats (or other means) to France, refuse to grant asylum claimants to anyone who rocks up illegally and ensure they process anyone ‘offshore’.

For current asylum claimants, it’s implicitly a permanent settlement, ILR is granted after 5 years with no questions which gives them access to the British welfare state and the family reunion laws are so broad, it can literally apply to anyone. There was a ruling that allowed on Afghan man to bring 22 friends and family because anyone can be family.

To top it off, the vast number of these people are working aged males from violent countries, often undocumented. I don’t have polling data to hand but pretty sure the vast majority of people would only prefer to take in women and children. Frankly, it should be government policy to deny asylum to men below the state pension age and anyone claiming to be a minor or pensioner needs papers.

Ultimately, Macron was right when he called Britain ‘El Dorado’ for these illegal migrants making the crossing. You almost definitely won’t be removed if you commit crime, find work in the gig economy and after 5 years, you get ILR. That all needs to change and there isn’t a more unequipped PM to deal with this than Keir Starmer unfortunately. Not that Rishi Sunak was much better on this issue.

wingy · Aug 20, 2025

There are sites that could take them I think, don't know how locals would feel but I'm thinking of sites that have security, permanent tented cities like Farnborough right next to the airstrip, Harrogate outside the the town there are buildings used intermittently for exhibitions, don't think it would work though as they're simply not wanted here mostly,or at least it seems that way.

Mucca Mad Boys · Aug 20, 2025

Brighton Sky Blue said:
It depends on how quickly the backlog can be cleared. If you’re saying years, I still strongly disagree with using hotels for the purpose.

If it means rubber stamping people into the country, it doesn’t change how angry people are on this.

Brighton Sky Blue · Aug 20, 2025

Mucca Mad Boys said:
If it means rubber stamping people into the country, it doesn’t change how angry people are on this.

It should mean processing the claim and doing due diligence on the case. I do not mean just saying ‘yes’ to every claimant.

PVA · Aug 20, 2025

Jamesimus said:
The one I went in had security, but was just a couple of big blokes who were very nice. Everyone inside the hotel I spoke to were sound, but it was terribly over crowded

I later found out how much they are making per head. Let’s just say it’s not going back into ensuring the facilities are decent…

Realise this is all anecdotal etc but from a personal point of view I found it quite shocking. Could be spending less money and still be putting an arm around these people, helping them integrate etc.

I had a similar experience at one in Cardiff. It was very grim and bleak inside. Certainly not 4 star, as the hotel was rated.

Though it has since had a huge refurbishment and reopened to the public.

SBT · Aug 20, 2025

Mucca Mad Boys said:
it’s no surprise crossing has gone up since Labour scrapped Rwanda. It’s the only significant change this

Interesting theory. Personally I think migrants are flocking to this country ever since we sacked Mark Robins.

Brighton Sky Blue · Aug 20, 2025

SBT said:
Interesting theory. Personally I think migrants are flocking to this country ever since we sacked Mark Robins.

A scheme that resettled nobody and cost a fat wedge of money. Sounds like a Starmer plan tbf

SBT · Aug 20, 2025

Brighton Sky Blue said:
A scheme that resettled nobody and cost a fat wedge of money. Sounds like a Starmer plan tbf

Robins managed to resettle much more quickly than I anticipated - he assimilated very well into Midlands culture.

Brighton Sky Blue · Aug 20, 2025

SBT said:
Robins managed to resettle much more quickly than I anticipated - he assimilated very well into Midlands culture.

Agreed. He can apparently not start the season by shitting the bed in Stoke

Mucca Mad Boys · Aug 20, 2025

Brighton Sky Blue said:
It should mean processing the claim and doing due diligence on the case. I do not mean just saying ‘yes’ to every claimant.

In practice, this is what’s been happening and even where claims are denied, v few people are actually removed.

SBT said:
Interesting theory. Personally I think migrants are flocking to this country ever since we sacked Mark Robins.

What else is driving the increase?

The Rwanda scheme was failing because the courts were grounding flights which demonstrates the need to repeal certain laws and pass primary legislation.

Labour are looking to do their own reprocessing scheme and if anyone can put 2 and 2 together, tells you that they know it was a mistake to scrap the plan without an alternative.

shmmeee · Aug 20, 2025

Mucca Mad Boys said:
This is why you need a deterrent and it’s no surprise crossing has gone up since Labour scrapped Rwanda. It’s the only significant change this

The home office needs to be committed to turning back boats (or other means) to France, refuse to grant asylum claimants to anyone who rocks up illegally and ensure they process anyone ‘offshore’.

For current asylum claimants, it’s implicitly a permanent settlement, ILR is granted after 5 years with no questions which gives them access to the British welfare state and the family reunion laws are so broad, it can literally apply to anyone. There was a ruling that allowed on Afghan man to bring 22 friends and family because anyone can be family.

To top it off, the vast number of these people are working aged males from violent countries, often undocumented. I don’t have polling data to hand but pretty sure the vast majority of people would only prefer to take in women and children. Frankly, it should be government policy to deny asylum to men below the state pension age and anyone claiming to be a minor or pensioner needs papers.

Ultimately, Macron was right when he called Britain ‘El Dorado’ for these illegal migrants making the crossing. You almost definitely won’t be removed if you commit crime, find work in the gig economy and after 5 years, you get ILR. That all needs to change and there isn’t a more unequipped PM to deal with this than Keir Starmer unfortunately. Not that Rishi Sunak was much better on this issue.

will address the rest but can we stop with:

“the vast majority are working age males from violent countries” bit?

Lets take it bit by bit: “from violent countries” well yeah, otherwise you’d complain there’s no need to claim asylum.

“working age males”

Why might this be? I was listening to something yesterday on R4 about the migrants who died in the back of a truck in Austria about ten years ago. Was really interesting actually as it interviewed the family of those who sent their son and some of the smugglers who are now in jail.

Anyway, the journey involved paying large amounts of cash to a smuggler and basically being told to get into whatever cramped transport was used, sometimes left in a random Serbian forest for two days to fend for themselves until the next guy is available. Theres often violence in cramped accommodations with no food and water. These people are literal people traffickers.

What do you think happens if a woman elderly person or child tries to make this journey? The elderly will likely die from dehydration and exhaustion. The children if they don’t die are likely to be abducted as they can’t fend for themselves and the women too likely to disappear into sex trafficking. So the only people likely to make it are working age men.

The guy who died was escaping ISIS and heading for Germany. They interviewed his grandad who paid and said they sent him because he could have a new life even if they couldn’t make it and didn’t want to leave their home.

I’m really not sure what you want long distance migrants to look like if not “working age”/“fighting age”/“spilling your woman and taking your pint age” men

Brighton Sky Blue · Aug 20, 2025

Mucca Mad Boys said:
In practice, this is what’s been happening and even where claims are denied, v few people are actually removed.

What else is driving the increase?

The Rwanda scheme was failing because the courts were grounding flights which demonstrates the need to repeal certain laws and pass primary legislation.

Labour are looking to do their own reprocessing scheme and if anyone can put 2 and 2 together, tells you that they know it was a mistake to scrap the plan without an alternative.

Pesky judges upholding ‘human rights’ eh

Marty · Aug 20, 2025

PVA said:
I do love this silent majority stuff.

Lads, there was an election a year ago - why did you stay silent then?

Staying silent for the one time every 4/5 years you get to have a say seems...not a great plan?

I agree, if you don't vote you can't moan.

Embarrassing (2 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency