I agree, look we have a legal obligation to allow successful asylum seekers to stay. All I’m suggesting is rather than waste money fighting a lost cause, set up a efficient system which allows us to separate the legitimate ones, so we know how many there are and try to integrate them, that allows us to deport the unsuccessful ones. Alongside have proper closed borders so we can decide which, and how many immigrants we allow in. it just seems obvious to me. I’m not suggesting a free for all, the exact opposite in fact . What we have now is chaos and a situation where we’ve lost control.
Agree And no one with an ounce of decency wants to see women and children suffer, but the overwhelming percentage of migrants are young men between 18-40. And presumably once they are granted asylum, then are then free to bring in anyone else related to them, which makes the problem an even bigger one. It's an absolute sh*t show and isn't helped by lawyers, the house of Lords, outdated laws, weak (and woke) politicians, and pro refugee protest groups. But as per my post re the Bangladeshi hate cleric, we now seem to let anyone into the country without any due process being followed and it's beyond ridiculous and people are getting more and more angry. Because these people don't end up in leafy Surrey or Sussex, or in affluent North London. They are placed into already poor and deprived communities. What Ron De Santis did with refugees entering Florida was take a small bus load of them to Martha's Vineyard and Hyannis in Massachussets where the likes of the Clintons and Obamas live and other million/billionaires. Within hours the local authorities were throwing a temper tantrum and saying they had no facilities to house them or look after them. So basically, not on my doorstep. Maybe we should try it here and see how quickly the will to sort things out changes ? There will be more hand wringing and apologies when we get another Lee Rigby, Manchester Arena, or Liverpool Maternity Hospital episode, and the body count grows again. All because we are not protecting ourselves. And with a count of 40,000 people already under surveillance for possible terror related activities here, how much longer until something is missed as that number grows ?
why are you harping on about this and being hypocrital with your comments about others trying to belittle others by making unnessary sarkie comments .. maybe its like a fish in the final dregs of river drying up because of a drought!??? Ive acknowledged your comment on the 3 [ of many path's ] which are schemes simply to honour past commitments. You never seem to work the actual difference between a comment and an opinion when offered by others and are so fixated on your beliefs that it leves very little room to accept that there is more to it or alternatives. EVERY EMBASSY IN THE WORLD is a potential outpost for those that are seeking asylum as previously stated some countries have outposts specific to a situation. I dont need to look it up I already was aware of the "schemes" to repatriate/ accept ex colonial / etc
this is a give up comment total misinterpretation twisted to meet your need to make a comment .. I /we DID NOT need a discussion, it was actually started by someone else not in our group that was having a retirement party .. she made a toast to the point of those still working "keep up the good work to pay my pension" that is why 3 of them joined us when we started to discuss pensions in general prompted by her comment!! Ashton says ... ..WOW, and reckon a change will mean individuals will somehow pay for their own moving forward? , so who pays for today’s pensioners? , you shouldnt be commenting on things you know very little about or understand but maybe you are just pretending you dont to actually try and be sarcastic!!! Unbelievable stated in black and white and you dont see it! Unbelievable given in in black and white here, and when the pension shake up took place a couple years ago, when the age was lifted, and will rightly so, again, no doubt in the next few years all the information needed was discussed in Parliament/ on the tv / radio/ in the papers .. everything you needed to know... where were you hibernating? Whats the use of the throw away phrase ask your friends in the context of this argument... it has already been explained! You obviously need to catch up .. on past events Clues..... pension age increases for men and for women by a lot of years. WORKPLACE PENSION LAWS in place .... etc etc A statistic based on interim actuallity ... average age beyond certain base ages changes as ne information is added to the analysis. When you make a comment like this it is a throwaway one unless you give a base line to start. Clue .. at a given time in our past the .gov made a decision to do something about pension payments .. accepted in Parliament by all parties. ALL information at the time of decision was the baseline [ check out ONS for annual differences ] From point A in time a decision was made to have a pension age of 65 /60 and how it would be funded ...... years later point B things had changed population wise etc.. so amendments made. They do fluctuate on a annual basis they are put in place to stay for a number [ x years ] ..they will not go down! [in the forseeable future ]
herein lies the main backbone of the problem .. not persecuted just in this modern age dont want to live without the niceties of what others have but unwilling to work at it in their own country and make that prosperous.. but rather go and sponge off of others who have already gone through the process of making their lives more comfortable like hereditary uk citizens.........
More waffle and nonsense, it’s what you do. It shouldn’t surprise me It’s possible to have a decent conversation with you until you run out of reasonable points , then you waffle and talk nonsense .
And if we had an efficient process in place we could assess the validity of their asylum claims, and send the ones that fail back. Instead we are wasting time and money trying to send them en mass, legitimate ones as well to Rwanda, at a cost of £170k per person plus legal fees because the process is ilegal, plus we’re paying £6m per day housing them here. Madness
yet another attempt at belittement as the answer is you dont have a sensible one to basic facts published everywhere by all and sundry truth is you dont understand what you post or else it would not have naieve attempts at sarcasm...... as the saying goes sarcasm is the lowest form of flattery and if your s*** was wit you could use it as toothpaste! So I take it you dont comprehend the pension structure and how it was brought to pass! Nothing more can be done to help you.. you just need to read a few more .gov posts ....
now that is the real cause of our expenditure when it is unnecessary you sort the root cause ... like get rid of it and you have one word correct ,,madness
All we read from Ashton is how an asylum should operate. Admirable. Yet no government has yet managed to implement ('not fit for purpose' was John Reid's comments when leaving office). Ashton - you have seemingly well thought out answers for our asylum system. The asylum seekers, presumably, have to live somewhere. It's the missing part in your jigsaw.
At present it costs £6m per day to house them, many of which would fail to gain asylum if we were quicker to process them, we are therefore paying to house more than we need to. The numbers aren’t going to decrease any time soon. The only suggestion our government has is to spend £170k per person to send them to Rwanda, plus legal fees, which they knew would happen by the way. Plus there’s every chance they won’t succeed in getting the system up and running because it’s illegal. I’m sure a better system than my suggestion could be found, but what we have at present is madness.
We should fail the vast majority, who have no right to be in this country. Despite the cost, and imho, it only needs one plane full of people to actually go to Rwanda to act as a significant deterrent to those on the other side of the channel.
We can’t fail people that have a legitimate claim. Besides at present it’s taking years to even assess them, while they wait we have to house all of them, even the ones that eventually fail. If we had legitimate routes and assessed them quicker we could send the ones that fail back immediately. We could then legitimately send any that arrive illegally straight Back.Now that would deter them and we’d be within the law, no long and expensive legal battles. Ker ching.
please log in to view this image Thames water in trouble to the tune of £14bn It supplies water to 25% of the population of the UK over 15 million people ..... In a statement, Ofwat said it had been clear "that Thames Water has significant issues to address - their environmental record and leakage performance, for example, are poor". The firm leaks more water than any other water company in UK, losing the equivalent of up to 250 Olympic size swimming pools every day from its pipes. However, if the firm cannot secure additional funding, it could be temporarily taken over by the government until a new buyer is found, in a special administration regime (SAR). This route was most recently taken with energy supplier Bulb after it ran into financial difficulties. ... [ comment .. More pressure on the .gov? ] I wonder if we will be on the recieving end of higher water soon?
rwanda The government has lost. But it's a split decision. The Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Underhill have decided the policy is not lawful. But the Lord Chief Justice agreed with the High Court's decision that Rwanda is a safe third country.
