LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

kingstongraham

tailwindhome said:

I wonder what percentage think Rwanda is just a processing centre

That is a very misleading question.

pangolin

TheBigBean said:

ddraver said:

Gotta give super-davo credit for calling that spot on... 🤣

I think I have posted enough on this forum for you to know better.

I think he was referring to Stevo's post shortly after SD's

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

pblakeney said:

Stevo_666 said:

It would be interesting to hear what the good people of Cake Stop think are the solutions here.

Allow applications in UK foreign embassies.

Decent suggestion. Although should that be any UK embassy? As clearly if they are applying from the UK embassy in (say) France or Germany, they are already in a safe country.

So?

So they are not in danger where they are.

Stevo_666

tailwindhome said:

Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.

Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense

One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?

tailwindhome

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.

Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense

One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?

Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.

Agreed 👍

pblakeney

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.

Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense

One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?

Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.

Agreed 👍

A handy point of reference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population

ddraver

TheBigBean said:

ddraver said:

Gotta give super-davo credit for calling that spot on... 🤣

I think I have posted enough on this forum for you to know better.

I was not referring to your good self.

super_davo

TheBigBean said:

super_davo said:

TheBigBean said:

Where do people stay when they are applying for asylum at a UK embassy?

Classic example of "they have reached a safe country if it's got a UK embassy, why don't they stay there".

Poland and Turkey have taken tons of refugees off the back of the Ukraine and Syrian war respectively, but staying in those countries won't be the right option for all fleeing, or fair to those countries. We only take a tiny percentage of the total.

Inviting applications in those "first safe countries" would send anyone people trafficking out of business, stop all boats, and if you processed before they came it would eliminate the cost of housing awaiting processing (as soon as here, you could look for work).

No chance of getting that past the Daily Mail government though.

You have completely misrepresented my question. The issue is that if someone applies for asylum in the UK, the UK has an obligation to house and feed them throughout the process. This process takes a while.

If someone applies in another country who is responsible? In most cases, the embassy would provide that, but that is not really practical given the numbers. Therefore, if the UK remains liable it would need to lease loads of space all round the world to accommodate the applicants. Clearly this is something that could be done, but it is not as simple as saying "accept applications abroad".

Alternatively, the host country could accommodate the refugees, but I'd imagine that would get tricky as they haven't applied for asylum in that country.

Even if such a system was set up, do you think people would spend years on hold in a third country when they want to be in the UK? What about the people who know they won't get asylum or are refused? Surely, they would continue to cross, so at best the numbers drop a bit.

It's always easy to sit at home and say it could all be done better, but things are never that easy.

Apologies if I misinterpreted your question.

I don't think it is that hard a problem to solve though. In most instances, said "first safe country" is taking on loads of refugees, the overwhelming majority of which stay in that country, and as such they have created provisions for housing / feeding etc.

I would look to those countries for an agreement, possibly with financial contribution in some cases.

To be honest its a win-win for all - the "first safe" country doesn't need to process the applications themselves, they don't need to house the people long term and there is considerably less incentive for criminal gangs to crop up.

Though to make it all work we would need a bit of trust that the UK wouldn't take the P and take years to assess.

rick_chasey

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

It would be interesting to hear what the good people of Cake Stop think are the solutions here.

Offer legal routes duh.

But at least Stevo demonstrates the reason why they’re doing this (to trap labour)

Is it really a trap if Labour say they’re going to re-introduce legal routes? I suspect the number of people who think we shouldn’t accept refugees is lower than the popular press would have us believe and most people can see that the tough talk is just talk that had achieved nothing.

The Tories should probably quietly row away from the subject as their record on a policy they like to make so much noise about is appalling.

Yeah it’s the “labour wants to open routes for immigrants, we’re closing them”

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

It would be interesting to hear what the good people of Cake Stop think are the solutions here.

Offer legal routes duh.

But at least Stevo demonstrates the reason why they’re doing this (to trap labour)

Is it really a trap if Labour say they’re going to re-introduce legal routes? I suspect the number of people who think we shouldn’t accept refugees is lower than the popular press would have us believe and most people can see that the tough talk is just talk that had achieved nothing.

The Tories should probably quietly row away from the subject as their record on a policy they like to make so much noise about is appalling.

Yeah it’s the “labour wants to open routes for immigrants, we’re closing them”

But that pre-supposes the majority of the UK are opposed to helping asylum seekers. I may be wrong but I think that might all be part of the circular narrative created by the right-wing. Maybe I’m being too optimistic but the poll posted above suggests it isn’t as big an issue as the Tories think it is / want it to be.

briantrumpet

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

It would be interesting to hear what the good people of Cake Stop think are the solutions here.

Offer legal routes duh.

But at least Stevo demonstrates the reason why they’re doing this (to trap labour)

Is it really a trap if Labour say they’re going to re-introduce legal routes? I suspect the number of people who think we shouldn’t accept refugees is lower than the popular press would have us believe and most people can see that the tough talk is just talk that had achieved nothing.

The Tories should probably quietly row away from the subject as their record on a policy they like to make so much noise about is appalling.

Yeah it’s the “labour wants to open routes for immigrants, we’re closing them”

But that pre-supposes the majority of the UK are opposed to helping asylum seekers. I may be wrong but I think that might all be part of the circular narrative created by the right-wing. Maybe I’m being too optimistic but the poll posted above suggests it isn’t as big an issue as the Tories think it is / want it to be.

Well that tactic of using an issue as a dividing wedge worked (electorally) with Brexit (which was all about furriners), and as that's fallen apart, they're trying it on furriners with no power or voice now.

They've run out of ideas: it's a bit like a sitcom that's gone well past its prime, has no plot, and is left with a handful of tired catchphrases.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

It would be interesting to hear what the good people of Cake Stop think are the solutions here.

Already posted two days ago.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

pblakeney said:

Stevo_666 said:

It would be interesting to hear what the good people of Cake Stop think are the solutions here.

Allow applications in UK foreign embassies.

Decent suggestion. Although should that be any UK embassy? As clearly if they are applying from the UK embassy in (say) France or Germany, they are already in a safe country.

Yes, that is fine.

Just because bullsh*tters like Jenrick keep repeating the 'first safe country' lie doesn't mean it has any validity.

rjsterry

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

It would be interesting to hear what the good people of Cake Stop think are the solutions here.

For the lack of capacity problem that the barge is supposed to be a symbol of pretending to address - process applications quicker. Unfortunately, the government chose to do the opposite to deter people coming, and it didn't. Now it's a crisis they talk big about speeding up the process.

Think of it as a medium term solution. Hotels are short term. Building infrastructure would be long term.

Medium-term, as in 'one day'?

The barge isn't inherently a bad idea. Accomodation is needed somewhere and probably better there than a semi-derelict army base. It's the poorly thought through execution and the tokenism: one barge when more than it will house are turning up in a single day.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

It would be interesting to hear what the good people of Cake Stop think are the solutions here.

For the lack of capacity problem that the barge is supposed to be a symbol of pretending to address - process applications quicker. Unfortunately, the government chose to do the opposite to deter people coming, and it didn't. Now it's a crisis they talk big about speeding up the process.

Think of it as a medium term solution. Hotels are short term. Building infrastructure would be long term.

Medium-term, as in 'one day'?

The barge isn't inherently a bad idea. Accomodation is needed somewhere and probably better there than a semi-derelict army base. It's the poorly thought through execution and the tokenism: one barge when more than it will house are turning up in a single day.

It's only been chosen for its visibility and the image of it as a prison, in effect. Oh, and probably rewarding another Tory donor.

They've started at the wrong end of the problem, a bit like Johnson hoping that hand washing would make a virus go away.

The boat's not there to solve the problem, even if it does reduce the pressure on accommodation by 0.5% for one day.

First.Aspect

The barge will be really offputting to the migrants who have a TV in their cabin on the trip over.

It's all about maximizing the core Tory vote, so that when they are beaten in the election, they still have over 100 MPs.

Pross

The wife was watching Joanna Lumley’s documentary travelling around the spice trail earlier. She was in Jordan talking to Rory Stewart about all the refugees they have taken into the country. Listening to Stewart reminded me of a time when the were still decent moderates within the Tory party, it’s a shame he and the others felt they had to resign.

Stevo_666

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.

Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense

One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?

Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.

Agreed 👍

So what do you think that limit should be?

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

It would be interesting to hear what the good people of Cake Stop think are the solutions here.

Already posted two days ago.

Go on then, quote the post with the magic solution.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

pblakeney said:

Stevo_666 said:

It would be interesting to hear what the good people of Cake Stop think are the solutions here.

Allow applications in UK foreign embassies.

Decent suggestion. Although should that be any UK embassy? As clearly if they are applying from the UK embassy in (say) France or Germany, they are already in a safe country.

Yes, that is fine.

Just because bullsh*tters like Jenrick keep repeating the 'first safe country' lie doesn't mean it has any validity.

Why not?

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

pblakeney said:

Stevo_666 said:

It would be interesting to hear what the good people of Cake Stop think are the solutions here.

Allow applications in UK foreign embassies.

Decent suggestion. Although should that be any UK embassy? As clearly if they are applying from the UK embassy in (say) France or Germany, they are already in a safe country.

Yes, that is fine.

Just because bullsh*tters like Jenrick keep repeating the 'first safe country' lie doesn't mean it has any validity.

Why not?

The international treaty to which we've been signatory to since 1951 is very clear on this. There is no requirement for refugees to apply in the 'first safe country'. Notwithstanding this, the vast majority do seek refuge either within a safer part of the same country or in an immediately adjacent country. Turkey and Poland are two obvious examples.

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

It would be interesting to hear what the good people of Cake Stop think are the solutions here.

Already posted two days ago.

Go on then, quote the post with the magic solution.

It was a direct reply to the last time you asked the same question. I'm sure you can find it.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.

Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense

One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?

Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.

Agreed 👍

So what do you think that limit should be?

It's roughly a fifth of net migration even with a war in Europe, so if we are worried about 'too many people' we should maybe stop handing out visas first before we worry about setting some arbitrary limit.

rick_chasey

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

It would be interesting to hear what the good people of Cake Stop think are the solutions here.

Offer legal routes duh.

But at least Stevo demonstrates the reason why they’re doing this (to trap labour)

Is it really a trap if Labour say they’re going to re-introduce legal routes? I suspect the number of people who think we shouldn’t accept refugees is lower than the popular press would have us believe and most people can see that the tough talk is just talk that had achieved nothing.

The Tories should probably quietly row away from the subject as their record on a policy they like to make so much noise about is appalling.

Yeah it’s the “labour wants to open routes for immigrants, we’re closing them”

But that pre-supposes the majority of the UK are opposed to helping asylum seekers. I may be wrong but I think that might all be part of the circular narrative created by the right-wing. Maybe I’m being too optimistic but the poll posted above suggests it isn’t as big an issue as the Tories think it is / want it to be.

I think it’s fair assumption on immigration and this is the Times on the latest Tory election plan

.
As disgraceful all of that is, attacking Starmer politically on his record as director of public prosecutions, when this govt has gutted the entire legal process and left anything relatively “minor” in the lap of badly trained magistrates, is especially awful.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

It would be interesting to hear what the good people of Cake Stop think are the solutions here.

Offer legal routes duh.

But at least Stevo demonstrates the reason why they’re doing this (to trap labour)

Is it really a trap if Labour say they’re going to re-introduce legal routes? I suspect the number of people who think we shouldn’t accept refugees is lower than the popular press would have us believe and most people can see that the tough talk is just talk that had achieved nothing.

The Tories should probably quietly row away from the subject as their record on a policy they like to make so much noise about is appalling.

Yeah it’s the “labour wants to open routes for immigrants, we’re closing them”

But that pre-supposes the majority of the UK are opposed to helping asylum seekers. I may be wrong but I think that might all be part of the circular narrative created by the right-wing. Maybe I’m being too optimistic but the poll posted above suggests it isn’t as big an issue as the Tories think it is / want it to be.

I think it’s fair assumption on immigration and this is the Times on the latest Tory election plan

.
As disgraceful all of that is, attacking Starmer politically on his record as director of public prosecutions, when this govt has gutted the entire legal process and left anything relatively “minor” in the lap of badly trained magistrates, is especially awful.

Big talk, but last week was supposed to be a big comms push on stop the boats and they couldn't even get their literal flagship to last the week.

I'm not sure they have the ability to do anything other than dig the hole deeper.

sungod

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

It would be interesting to hear what the good people of Cake Stop think are the solutions here.

Offer legal routes duh.

But at least Stevo demonstrates the reason why they’re doing this (to trap labour)

Is it really a trap if Labour say they’re going to re-introduce legal routes? I suspect the number of people who think we shouldn’t accept refugees is lower than the popular press would have us believe and most people can see that the tough talk is just talk that had achieved nothing.

The Tories should probably quietly row away from the subject as their record on a policy they like to make so much noise about is appalling.

Yeah it’s the “labour wants to open routes for immigrants, we’re closing them”

But that pre-supposes the majority of the UK are opposed to helping asylum seekers. I may be wrong but I think that might all be part of the circular narrative created by the right-wing. Maybe I’m being too optimistic but the poll posted above suggests it isn’t as big an issue as the Tories think it is / want it to be.

I think it’s fair assumption on immigration and this is the Times on the latest Tory election plan

.
As disgraceful all of that is, attacking Starmer politically on his record as director of public prosecutions, when this govt has gutted the entire legal process and left anything relatively “minor” in the lap of badly trained magistrates, is especially awful.

Big talk, but last week was supposed to be a big comms push on stop the boats and they couldn't even get their literal flagship to last the week.

I'm not sure they have the ability to do anything other than dig the hole deeper.

they're brexiters, all they know is lies and division, it's always someone else's fault, never their own

their talk of 'freedom' and 'rights' is especially misleading, as is proven by their track record...

stripping uk citizens of their rights with brexit, the single greatest loss of individual rights the country has even known, we used to execute people for less

peaceful protest is now punishable with criminal prosecution and years of imprisonment, people get less for violent crime, let alone fraud and corruption

current activity to repeal the human rights act

attacking lawyers, judges and the free press

...it's the recipe of fascists the world over, seen it too many times, it's saddening to see the uk being taken down the the same path by these scum

as long as they can keep stoking up fear and hatred of whichever group is the latest target of opportunity, they'll keep on their progress in rolling back the freedom of the british people, enthusiastically egged on by their enablers in the telegraph, mail, express, murdoch empire, gb 'news' et alii

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

It would be interesting to hear what the good people of Cake Stop think are the solutions here.

Offer legal routes duh.

But at least Stevo demonstrates the reason why they’re doing this (to trap labour)

Is it really a trap if Labour say they’re going to re-introduce legal routes? I suspect the number of people who think we shouldn’t accept refugees is lower than the popular press would have us believe and most people can see that the tough talk is just talk that had achieved nothing.

The Tories should probably quietly row away from the subject as their record on a policy they like to make so much noise about is appalling.

Yeah it’s the “labour wants to open routes for immigrants, we’re closing them”

But that pre-supposes the majority of the UK are opposed to helping asylum seekers. I may be wrong but I think that might all be part of the circular narrative created by the right-wing. Maybe I’m being too optimistic but the poll posted above suggests it isn’t as big an issue as the Tories think it is / want it to be.

I think it’s fair assumption on immigration and this is the Times on the latest Tory election plan

.
As disgraceful all of that is, attacking Starmer politically on his record as director of public prosecutions, when this govt has gutted the entire legal process and left anything relatively “minor” in the lap of badly trained magistrates, is especially awful.

It's a bit weird telling the opposition what you are going to attack them on so that they can get their responses prepared. If it wasn't the current incompetent shower of sh*t I'd assume it was a bluff and they'll hit them in some other direction. It would be such a simple thing to bat off immigration by just pointing to the complete lack of success the Tories have had in doing anything despite telling everyone it's a top priority.

rick_chasey

Yeah no disagreement. Obviously easier to run an election on good governance but that obviously is not an option

tailwindhome

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.

Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense

One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?

Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.

Agreed 👍

So what do you think that limit should be?

I don't have a specific number in mind.

Stevo_666

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.

Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense

One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?

Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.

Agreed 👍

So what do you think that limit should be?

I don't have a specific number in mind.

Didn't think you would. But my point still stands.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.

Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense

One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?

Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.

Agreed 👍

So what do you think that limit should be?

It's roughly a fifth of net migration even with a war in Europe, so if we are worried about 'too many people' we should maybe stop handing out visas first before we worry about setting some arbitrary limit.

Agree there is a wider issue regarding legal immigration but the point still remains that this needs to be addressed and in a situation where there is pressure on services, funding etc the numbers and associated cost is relevant. You may think there is room for plenty more and we should just invite them all in, but clearly a lot of the electorate think differently.