How can i claim asylum?

13»

Comments

  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    johnfinch wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Johnfinch.


    I was thinking.

    You suggest the problem is the 2-3 year turnaround to sort out asylum seekers.

    Given the especially tricky nature of finding out the real background to asylum seekers, (are they actually in danger? are they criminal << something which if they are in danger from the state is tricky to identify), are they who they say they are, etc etc, how would this be solved?

    Particularly if they are from unco-opereative gov'ts...

    Frank the Tank suggested that the 2-3 year wait is the main problem, not me.

    For me the main problem is that refugees exist in the first place. (That's a comment on the countries that create them BTW, not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to flee.)

    Ah, excuse the confusion.
    _
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Ah, excuse the confusion.

    Consider yourself excused.
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    antfly wrote:
    bails87 wrote:



    And they won't be moving out until April, when new rules come into place. Rules that were going to be introduced anyway. So the press ocverage acheived nothing but make the old gov't look bad and the new one look good. But I'm sure there's absolutely no way that this was a story fed to the press by a govt spin doctor to make them look "tough on immigration" :roll:

    I`m pretty sure that it`s the new coalition, with Iain Duncan-Smith in charge of cutting benefit waste, that brought in the new rules and not the old wasteful government who did absolutely nothing about it.

    Oh yes, I know, and agree. But I think today the Daily Star has claimed that they forced ministers to evict the family. When in actual fact nothing will be happening until April when the new rules come into force. Rules that would have been introduced regardless of if this story was in the papers.

    I'm not saying the old or new system was right or wrong. Just that this hasn't happened quite as depicted in some of the papers. It's a nice sensational story to exxagerate/highlight labour's 'waste'. The tories look good because it makes them look like they're sorting it out. The tabloids look good because they look like they're representing the 'man on the street' and forcing politicians to listen. Win-win for them both. When in actual fact there's a chance the story was only in the papers because the Tory press office fed it to them.

    Cynical, moi? :wink:
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • antfly
    antfly Posts: 3,276
    How the story got there isn`t important, facts are facts, even when they are in The Sun. If it was meant to highlight Labour waste then it certainly does it`s job very well. It may be an extreme example {one of many} but it is outrageous and the new government is at least doing something about it quickly.
    Smarter than the average bear.
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    antfly wrote:
    How the story got there isn`t important, facts are facts, even when they are in The Sun. If it was meant to highlight Labour waste then it certainly does it`s job very well. It may be an extreme example {one of many} but it is outrageous and the new government is at least doing something about it quickly.

    I agree, facts are facts even when they're in the sun. But my post earlier showed that the Sun aren't particularly good at representing the facts. Hence the assumption of wilful misreporting:wink:

    Yes, it does seem like it could have been some kind of scam, I just got involved in the hope of getting my points across that
    1. the tabloids aren't the most reliable source on a story involving foreigners
    2. the family aren't asylum seekers and
    3. genuine asylum seekers can't 'milk the system'.
    Actual asylum seekers will either be in a detention centre or in 'social housing' that's not good enough for normal council tenants. Then they're banned from working and given £35 a week (£5 a day!) to live on.

    The house does seem excessive. I wonder if the papers know how much the rent actually is though, or if they guessed because that's what a private tennant would pay?
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • fast as fupp
    fast as fupp Posts: 2,277
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Why not blame the people who actually defaulted on their loans in the first place?


    The "sub-prime" mortgage takers.

    yes! the dastards- fancy availing themselves of a product that was freely advertised!

    still those bankers have got to justify those bonuses somehow :shock:
    'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    fast as fupp wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Why not blame the people who actually defaulted on their loans in the first place?


    The "sub-prime" mortgage takers.

    yes! the dastards- fancy availing themselves of a product that was freely advertised!

    still those bankers have got to justify those bonuses somehow :shock:

    What can I say? When I take out a loan, I make sure I have the means and the collatoral to easily pay it back.
    _
  • guilliano
    guilliano Posts: 5,495
    And what about the people who took mortgages and then saw interest rates go up or had an enforced change of circumstances? These debts were sold to idiotic bankers who saw a quick buck too
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/guilliano/
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    Rick Chasey wrote:

    What can I say? When I take out a loan, I make sure I have the means and the collatoral to easily pay it back.

    The banks were still guilty of irresponsible lending though.
  • rapid_uphill
    rapid_uphill Posts: 841
    bails87 why do you keep saying that? were is your proof?
    bails87 wrote:
    2. the family aren't asylum seekers
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    rapid_uphill

    Seeing as you believe the Sun, read the first line of the article linked to, by you, in the very first post.
    A FAMILY of former asylum-seekers
    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... m-pad.html

    Happy to help :roll:
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    rapid_uphill wrote:
    bails87 why do you keep saying that? were is your proof?
    bails87 wrote:
    2. the family aren't asylum seekers

    If their case has been heard, and they've been granted asylum, they aren't asylum seekers anymore.
  • rapid_uphill
    rapid_uphill Posts: 841
    bails87 its funny how you believe the sun only when it suits you. :?
    If the sun says they are FORMER asylum seekers i dont believe it.
    I believe THEY ARE asylum seekers and THEY ARE milking the system and im not happy about it :x


    bails87 wrote:
    rapid_uphill

    Seeing as you believe the Sun, read the first line of the article linked to, by you, in the very first post.
    A FAMILY of former asylum-seekers
    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... m-pad.html

    Happy to help :roll:
  • JLM74
    JLM74 Posts: 108
    rapid_uphill wrote:
    bails87 its funny how you believe the sun only when it suits you. :?
    If the sun says they are FORMER asylum seekers i dont believe it.
    I believe THEY ARE asylum seekers and THEY ARE milking the system and im not happy about it :x

    So, what you are saying is that you believe The Sun when it suits you too. :wink:
  • rapid_uphill
    rapid_uphill Posts: 841
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16FdJrrAWSo
  • tebbit
    tebbit Posts: 604
    If they have received asylum then they are no longer asylum seekers, the same as Michael Howard's or Michael Portillo's parents/grandparents, however they are still pi*s taking bast*rds.
  • Stewie Griffin
    Stewie Griffin Posts: 4,330
    johnfinch wrote:
    rapid_uphill wrote:
    bails87 why do you keep saying that? were is your proof?
    bails87 wrote:
    2. the family aren't asylum seekers

    If their case has been heard, and they've been granted asylum, they aren't asylum seekers anymore.

    Correct. Which makes them entitled to full benefits.
    A few other little bits; Asylum seekers can't work for the first 6 Months after claiming Asylum or until a decision has been made on their case, whichever is sooner. You can find out the maximum amount that housing benefit will pay on any property by going to the LHA Direct website. They can't be evicted until they breach their Tenancy Agreement or it expires (or if its temporary accommodation and they refuse a nomination to another property) even then evicting someone can take a Year.
  • bexley5200
    bexley5200 Posts: 692
    take me home country roads to the place i belong,john denver.
    going downhill slowly
  • rml380z
    rml380z Posts: 244
    tebbit wrote:
    ...however they are still pi*s taking bast*rds.
    I'm sure anyone would do the same given the circumstances. Heck, I'd jump at the chance to move into a large flat for free. You can't blame them; it's the system that's broke.

    I understand that the rules for lending in the US are different than here; on many mortgages, sub-prime included, if you get into difficulties you can just hand the keys back in and the bank can't pursue you for any more money. So it's totally the banks' fault for lending to high-risk people in the first place. Don't blame the people getting the loan; given a similar situation I'd do the same.

    I blame the government for much of this, 'though; different rules in other countries (Spain springs to mind) means that their banks did not get into the same difficulties (Santander had no problems and is doing very well at the moment).
  • tebbit
    tebbit Posts: 604
    You have missed my earlier post, the landlord is an "associate" of theirs, the insurance the landlord has will include a clause for refurbishing the property on there vacating the property, they will have "wrecked" the place, however probably only in their last few days of being in there. The landlord will then claim on his insurance for the refurbishment of the property to the required, then re-market the property.

    Its not a flat, its a house.

    Also have you been reading about the crash in the Spanish property market, the re-possessions and foreclosures?
  • rml380z
    rml380z Posts: 244
    tebbit wrote:
    You have missed my earlier post, the landlord is an "associate" of theirs, the insurance the landlord has will include a clause for refurbishing the property on there vacating the property, they will have "wrecked" the place, however probably only in their last few days of being in there. The landlord will then claim on his insurance for the refurbishment of the property to the required, then re-market the property.

    Its not a flat, its a house.

    Also have you been reading about the crash in the Spanish property market, the re-possessions and foreclosures?

    Oops, sorry, you're right they are pi**-taking for the dubious nature of the insurance claim. I thought you meant for their living some massive flat/house/mansion being paid for by the tax-payer.

    There is a crash in the Spanish property market, yes, as everywhere. However, their banks were well-cushioned against the sub-prime fiasco of a year ago. Now they're just victims of the recession like every industry in every country. What I'm saying is that we wouldn't have had the original crisis(or it would have been far less severe) if similar rules had been followed in the UK and the USA.
  • tebbit
    tebbit Posts: 604
    I agree with most of your problems, however the banks were acting on in accordance with the government of the times wishes and their central bankers wishes, the main problems of the banks are systemic along with the other problems in the economy.

    And yes the whole thing is a p*ss take, from many angles, look at it from a new perspective and find a new way these people are having a laugh, also you can widen the net and ....

    Actually it gets too depressing and you start sounding like the nutter down the pub

    :D

Categories