The majority of the electorate accept that trade off. This is how leaving the ECHR has gone from fringe opinion to the mainstream in little over a year.
The current frameworks are just not working for us (or Europe) and there’s no sign of that changing. This is an issue that seems to be impacting Europe the most so perhaps we adapt similar regimes that Australia, Japan and the USA adhere too.
Japan’s grants around 1% (or thereabouts) of asylum claims, peaking at 9%. In the UK, our rate peaked at 76% in 2022 and before the Human Rights Act was enacted in law, it was around 8%.
Clearly the problem lies somewhere with the passing of the Human Rights Act that enshrined th ECHR in UK law. This is something David Blunkett and Jack Straw recognise when calling to reverse a measure they voted for. It’s clearly had v unintended consequences.
Crossing Afghanistan-Iran-Turkey-Greece-France-UK is not exactly ‘feeling for their lives’.Though it does make me ask the question-how exactly is someone fleeing a threat to their lives meant to come here legally?
Just looks a nice way of ensuring that we won’t take anybody, if I’m being cynical.Crossing Afghanistan-Iran-Turkey-Greece-France-UK is not exactly ‘feeling for their lives’.
The refugee conventions were not made with people picking and choosing which country to claim asylum in. That there is the pertinent point.
Oh just a couple of things:
- the cheek of you to accuse someone (think it was BSB) of being too deep into Reddit then producing a report by a Reform activist as a source.
- the methodology basing offending rates on 2021 populations when we are hugely aware that some of those population masses have grown significantly since then. Assessing 2023 crime figures vs 2021 population of Afghans or Albanians is going to bring about inconsistencies in the data.
FWIW I’d seen this before (it may have even been you that posted it on here?). To be fair, it is mildly frustrating that we don’t keep better track of data.
On the ECHR, it’s not in the UK’s gift to change it.Bit of a reach to say leaving the ECHR has become the mainstream view. Besides, why do we have to leave everything? Why can’t we petition to change it if it’s not working?
He’s becoming a bit of a Forrest Gump figure this guy. Bumbling his way from headline to headline.Ah, so he caused a huge fuss about boarding the plane and they gave him £500 to behave. Will keep that in mind for my next holiday
That source looks very reliable.
It was probably a question of giving him that so he went quietly or paying more to take him through the courts. If I were him I’d just turn it into a game at this point, keep trying to get back in and chucked out for cashHe’s becoming a bit of a Forrest Gump figure this guy. Bumbling his way from headline to headline.
I understand the urge to chuck him £500 to make the problem go away once and for all, but I’m not sure how or why there was even a negotiation here?
Why does he have the option of going quietly or loudly?!It was probably a question of giving him that so he went quietly or paying more to take him through the courts. If I were him I’d just turn it into a game at this point, keep trying to get back in and chucked out for cash
Just looks a nice way of ensuring that we won’t take anybody, if I’m being cynical.
Could've just promised it him the other end if he was a good boy on the plane and then told him to fek off when he got there. What's he going to do at that point?It was probably a question of giving him that so he went quietly or paying more to take him through the courts. If I were him I’d just turn it into a game at this point, keep trying to get back in and chucked out for cash
At least by that measure we’d take some from Ukraine. I don’t know, it still reads like an attempt to weasel out of accepting anyone because there’s no acceptable way to come here that’s accessible to a refugee.Via illegal routes, the number should be 0.
Even so, crossing two continents and the English Channel to claim asylum is obviously ridiculous. The 1951 Refugee Convention is not fit for purpose if left unreformed. Therefore, the proposal to amend the convention to only allow clams of refuge in the continent of origin makes sense and something I’d be in favour of.
I can take two females, just need to explain to the wife and daughter that they're out.At least by that measure we’d take some from Ukraine. I don’t know, it still reads like an attempt to weasel out of accepting anyone because there’s no acceptable way to come here that’s accessible to a refugee.
Apologies if I’ve read it wrong.
Look, he just wanted to catch the end of the Watford game before he was bundled off. Maybe also try to grope a flight attendant for old time’s sake.Could've just promised it him the other end if he was a good boy on the plane and then told him to fek off when he got there. What's he going to do at that point?
Are Ukrainians arriving via small boat? I don’t think they are.At least by that measure we’d take some from Ukraine. I don’t know, it still reads like an attempt to weasel out of accepting anyone because there’s no acceptable way to come here that’s accessible to a refugee.
Apologies if I’ve read it wrong.
One thing I noticed about him, he's better fed than many British people.Look, he just wanted to catch the end of the Watford game before he was bundled off. Maybe also try to grope a flight attendant for old time’s sake.
£500 is fair compensation.
Did you pop some evidence up the thread for what you’re saying?So basically, nothing is funny, you just don't have any counter arguments so again you come on a thread like this and just offer nothing of any value to the debate other than trying to derail it. You know you are wrong, basically.
The sneering from people like you and Torch is bizarre. Asking for data as whilst seemingly getting upset over the concept of these sort of conversations, apparently having no idea that someone from Afghanistan is more likely to commit a sexual offence than a British person, and then challenging a source, as if there are not stacks of them out there. Yeah sure, wheter it is 2x the amount or 200x the amount can be debated, but the question were 'are migrants committing more crime than British people' - as I said, this depends on what crime and what nationality they are. In this example with sexual crime however, there are many countries of which their citizens commit a higher percentage on British soil than Brits do. Hardly a surprise if you knew anything about how the world works.
I note one of your points is taken from a Guardian article called 'disputed or debunked claims about migration and crime UK', which means you really had not got anything of value to add when you left the laughing emoji, and went hunting for some information later when called out, which you clearly didn't even read anyway - as it also validates the point in the last paragraph.
Sorry, your response not only makes you look like an idiot, but also completely uninformed as well.
Yes, and the data comes from the MoJ.Did you pop some evidence up the thread for what you’re saying?
Playing the long game, get fat and hide in plain sight with the rest of us fatties.One thing I noticed about him, he's better fed than many British people.
Do you think westerners commit a lower percentage of sexual crimes than Thais do in Thailand?Do you think people from Afghanistan commit a lower percentage of sexual crimes than British people do in the UK?
Something more research based and accurate??Yes, and the data comes from the MoJ.
Assuming westerners crime is higher ( I dont know btw) then the Thais would be fine in banning eg British Tourism. They won't though because not only are they there legally, but they spend a fortune there too, with tourism being high on their spend list. I'm not really sure of the correlation anyhow. We cant answer the question whether someone's a c**t by pointing out there are other cunts too.Do you think westerners commit a lower percentage of sexual crimes than Thais do in Thailand?
You have a way with wordsAssuming westerners crime is higher ( I dont know btw) then the Thais would be fine in banning eg British Tourism. They won't though because not only are they there legally, but they spend a fortune there too, with tourism being high on their spend list. I'm not really sure of the correlation anyhow. We cant answer the question whether someone's a c**t by pointing out there are other cunts too.
Which brings me back to my original question: how is a refugee supposed to legally enter the country?Are Ukrainians arriving via small boat? I don’t think they are.
Ukraine also banned military aged men leaving the country. So the vast majority of refugees were women, children and the elderly.
I have a friend who fled Ukraine and her father was physically stopped at the border and had to present ID to prove he was above the age 60 (or whatever age it was to leave). This person also worked for a company that had bases in Europe so she just moved job in France initially, then to the UK on a salary where she’ll be a net tax contributor. In short, this person will be easily integrated and economically contribute.
Arrivals via small boat are 70-80% young men from nationalities with significantly higher propensities to committing crimes, claiming benefits or ending up in low income work. This is not a good deal for the British taxpayer and should not be allowed to stay if they’re a criminal or net-drain individual.
Claims of asylum and refuge are by definition, supposed to be temporary but as the UK and Europe found, this system is being used as a backdoor to permanent settlement.
They currently can’tWhich brings me back to my original question: how is a refugee supposed to legally enter the country?
Yes, so really this is just an attempt to not accept anybody.They currently can’t
Raw numbers? No. As a % of population? Probably also no.Do you think westerners commit a lower percentage of sexual crimes than Thais do in Thailand?
The MoJ is not accurate? In fact, the true numbers could be higher because the 'British' will also include naturalised migrants as well as 2nd and 3rd generation migrants.Something more research based and accurate??
Which is a legitimate argument but it won’t come without quid pro quo from other countriesYes, so really this is just an attempt to not accept anybody.
Speaking of which, I’ve noticed a lot of similar unrest outside asylum seeker hotels in Ireland, but how are they getting there?Which is a legitimate argument but it won’t come without quid pro quo from other countries
My actual original reply was to challenge the highly dubious data source, which seems to be taken as a fact these days.Assuming westerners crime is higher ( I dont know btw) then the Thais would be fine in banning eg British Tourism. They won't though because not only are they there legally, but they spend a fortune there too, with tourism being high on their spend list. I'm not really sure of the correlation anyhow. We cant answer the question whether someone's a c**t by pointing out there are other cunts too.
Couldn't get his dick out of the chicken?how is a refugee supposed to legally enter the country?
My actual original reply was to challenge the highly dubious data source, which seems to be taken as a fact these days.
Sort your problems out yourself RobertCouldn't get his dick out of the chicken?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?