MalcSB
Well-Known Member
It’s a private hire vehicle.
It’s a private hire vehicle.No it's not at the bus stop, it's just for you. It's allens taxis, stagecoach just rang them up and paid for it for you.
Whether or not you have exercised a choice is not the definition of private health care. You could choose to have your treatment at George Eliot rather than UHCW - doesn’t make GE a private hospital.How can it be private healthcare if you don’t choose it?
If I buy myself a Routemaster bus off eBay and drive myself to work in it every morning, that doesn’t mean I’m using public transport.
Surely not under a Labour governmentI'm sure there's some money flying about though. Back handers. Winks and nudges.
Lot of money in the people smuggling game.
It's a disgrace.
As I said, spend half an hour in bhandals waiting room. It's an eye opener. (Wallet opener for me though)
It would probably be a different story if it was 300 women and children. Again, it's not.
Exercising a choice is not the definition of private health care, but all private health care does have to be exercised by choice…that’s how the private sector works.Whether or not you have exercised a choice is not the definition of private health care. You could choose to have your treatment at George Eliot rather than UHCW - doesn’t make GE a private hospital.
You’re mistaking something that has the appearance/trappings of a private sector service for an actual private sector service. If it’s Stagecoach who are arranging when and where the taxi shows up and travels to, and you don’t have any say in the matter, then you’re using public transport whether you feel like you’re riding in a taxi or not.No it's not at the bus stop, it's just for you. It's allens taxis, stagecoach just rang them up and paid for it for you.
Impossible to get an NHS dentist in Rugby so i go to Stoke Aldermoor dental clinic (part of Bhandals group) they always ask me if i pay for my treatment (which i do,uk pensioner's don't get free treatment)... trust me I'm out of that dental chair in record time on every visitI'm sure there's some money flying about though. Back handers. Winks and nudges.
Lot of money in the people smuggling game.
It's a disgrace.
As I said, spend half an hour in bhandals waiting room. It's an eye opener. (Wallet opener for me though)
It would probably be a different story if it was 300 women and children. Again, it's not.
It would be if it was an education contract solely for 300 people living in a hotel.Just wondering if people think academies are private schools?
Paid for by the state but run separately.
Not when it is being commissioned on behalf of a particular group - the state has made a choice for them.Exercising a choice is not the definition of private health care, but all private health care does have to be exercised by choice…that’s how the private sector works.
In which case, it’s de facto not a private arrangement…the state has made a choice for them
It pisses me off that when you are entitled to an NHS service which either isn’t available locally or has ridiculously long waits, to get timely treatment you have to pay the entire cost of private provision yourself. The NHS price should be reclaimable.Impossible to get an NHS dentist in Rugby so i go to Stoke Aldermoor dental clinic (part of Bhandals group) they always ask me if i pay for my treatment (which i do,uk pensioner's don't get free treatment)... trust me I'm out of that dental chair in record time on every visit.
Well in this instance they can, because they have a private contract. Which is my point.The issue of whether asylum seekers can more easily access public healthcare than British citizens is by far the more pressing issue, and imo that’s more of a public services question than an immigration one (though I know those on the right would disagree).
If they are being treated by a private company, in private facilities by private doctors and with private waiting times all not freely available to the British taxpayer - that is five star treatment compared to the NHS.In which case, it’s de facto not a private arrangement…
They shouldn't be entitled to any public health care, one of the reasons they head to the UK in the first placeIt’s all besides the point anyway - the only reason this healthcare is being described as “private” is because it’s a shortcut to get people to assume asylum seekers are getting (as one person in this thread put it) “five star treatment”. Sounds like that’s just spin but there we are.
The issue of whether asylum seekers can more easily access public healthcare than British citizens is by far the more pressing issue, and imo that’s more of a public services question than an immigration one (though I know those on the right would disagree).
WtafThey shouldn't be entitled to any public health care, one of the reasons they head to the UK in the first place
Don't we pay for it out of our National Insurance, everyone on a boat come in come in, what would you like today Sir, have whatever you want it's all freeWtaf
Certainly interesting, as far as I know there is no obligation to put up Asylum Seekers in Hotels, or for that matter provide them with free medical care or free anything. I am not sure why the Government does it, not as if there are not plenty of Activists to help.
I thought access to the NHS was based on residency and an asylum seeker is not a resident.
So a functioning home office dealing with applications is a really key part of thisFree medical care is provided
Groups that are exempt from charge include:
People whose application for asylum has been rejected may still be exempt from charge if they are supported:
- refugees (people who have been granted asylum, humanitarian protection or temporary protection under the immigration rules) and their dependants
- asylum seekers (people applying for asylum, humanitarian protection or temporary protection whose claims, including appeals, have not yet been determined) and their dependants
- people receiving support under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 from the Home Office
- children looked after by a local council
- victims, and suspected victims, of modern slavery or human trafficking, as determined by the UK Human Trafficking Centre or the Home Office, plus their spouse or civil partner, and any children under 18 provided they are lawfully present in the UK
- prisoners and immigration detainees
- under section 4(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 by the Home Office
- by a local council under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948
- under Part 1 (care and support) of the Care Act 2014
Might be sexist but if it was 300 women and children picked out of an actual warzone I'd see it differently.
The fact it's all men just seems strange.
Free medical care is provided
Groups that are exempt from charge include:
People whose application for asylum has been rejected may still be exempt from charge if they are supported:
- refugees (people who have been granted asylum, humanitarian protection or temporary protection under the immigration rules) and their dependants
- asylum seekers (people applying for asylum, humanitarian protection or temporary protection whose claims, including appeals, have not yet been determined) and their dependants
- people receiving support under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 from the Home Office
- children looked after by a local council
- victims, and suspected victims, of modern slavery or human trafficking, as determined by the UK Human Trafficking Centre or the Home Office, plus their spouse or civil partner, and any children under 18 provided they are lawfully present in the UK
- prisoners and immigration detainees
- under section 4(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 by the Home Office
- by a local council under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948
- under Part 1 (care and support) of the Care Act 2014
Also how would anyone know someone who has been successful from someone who is appealing from someone who’s case is being dealt withIsn't the reason the vast majority of asylum seekers are male is because all safe routes for seeking asylum here have been closed so you're now in the hands of gangs and hiding in lorries, crossing the channel in a dingy or similar.
Pretty sure its a 50/50 split when they look at people fleeing countries and around the same at the point people reach refugee camps.
Think the plan is the men make the crossing, then if their claim is successful they can bring the rest of the family over who were left at a refugee camp via a safe route.
Seems to me what we actually need is a working system for processing people. Get it done quicky, efficiently, and ideally safely, so we're not having to put thousands of people in hotels, provide healthcare etc because they're waiting months, if not years, to be processed. Get the genuine claims processed and integrating while we identify who shouldn't be there and get them processed quickly so they can be removed.
Also how would anyone know someone who has been successful from someone who is appealing from someone who’s case is being dealt with
In Coventry we took Syrian refugees from refugee camps legal route but one wouldn’t know
NothingHow would somebody know if it's somebody who came in illegally and has just vanished? What's to stop somebody just walking out of Cov Hill Hotel and going somewhere else?
Nothing
Easier to blame foreignerswhich is exactly why we need to sort out processing people and not having them stuck in a queue for years. the reason so many people are in hotels or other private accommodation is that the designated facilities, where you can monitor people, are way over capacity.
or better still we have the processing facilities on the European mainland so we can get them processed before anyone attempts to travel, sure that used to happen, no idea if it was policy or Brexit that ended that.
which is exactly why we need to sort out processing people and not having them stuck in a queue for years. the reason so many people are in hotels or other private accommodation is that the designated facilities, where you can monitor people, are way over capacity.
or better still we have the processing facilities on the European mainland so we can get them processed before anyone attempts to travel, sure that used to happen, no idea if it was policy or Brexit that ended that.
If only we had some facilities for this!which is exactly why we need to sort out processing people and not having them stuck in a queue for years. the reason so many people are in hotels or other private accommodation is that the designated facilities, where you can monitor people, are way over capacity.
or better still we have the processing facilities on the European mainland so we can get them processed before anyone attempts to travel, sure that used to happen, no idea if it was policy or Brexit that ended that.
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?