The 2024 General Election - July 4th

[Tamesaint]

25 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

It does exactly what it was designed to do. Increase immigration so there’s no need to invest in training our own citizens properly & no need for welfare reform. Boris has always been soft on immigration & Sunak is a treasury man. The Tories are addicted to  immigrant labour as much as the Labour Party. The only difference between the 2 is the Tories are a bit more bullish when pretending they’re not. 

 

It is not just poltical parties who are addicted to immigration. It is the whole economy !! The sooner MPs grow up, explain this to the country and start to explain why limited immigration is needed in the Uk the better. 

My mother in law is in a nursing home. The vast majority of staff who work there are not from the UK. The simple fact is that the pay and the conditions of work are not attractive to British people. The fees (£7, 000 a month) that minlaw pays are already astronomical. If the home  was to pay higher wages and "invest in training our own citizens properly" the fees would rise even further. Certainty minlaw would find it difficult to pay them as would I daresay many of the other residents. 

Edited January 17 by Tamesaint

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, andypen said:

Even if the Rwanda bill is passed, it really isn't worth a w**k in its current form. The provision for lodging appeals against any "deportation" , including to the ECHR, will mean that nobody will end up being sent there. We'll have as many arrivals as before and hundreds of lengthy and costly legal wrangles, for which the Govt. have apparently planned to draft in an extra 150 judges to mete out the inevitable. 5000 or so candidates for this excursion have simply disappeared recently as well. The Tory rebels , and I suspect most of the MP's who voted in favour, know this very well. They really do think the public is stupid. So the Tories have a shite plan, and Labour have no plan to "stop the boats", we might as well send fleets of cruise ships over to France and have done with it. At least the Lee Andersons of this world have some principles.

The judiciary have already said it is down to them how they use the judges, not the government. There would also be a backlash from the many serious cases that are waiting for many months, sometimes years, to reach court. If you were going to fast track something at all, then surely rape cases should be a priority rather than a pantomime scheme dreamt  up to cover up the fact that the government have completely failed to deal with immigration properly.

As for Labour not having a plan. They do and have talked about a great deal. It was pathetic to listen to Sunak flailing around in PMQ’s today. All he had was that Starmer didn’t have a plan. Their plan is to ramp up (ie actually make it work properly) the smashing of the trafficking gangs in France, to open up more and efficient routes to enable those who wish to apply for asylum here to be able to do so with risking their lives on the channel and to make the processing of outstanding claims more efficient. We are already spending a fortune on a system that not only doesn’t work, but the current Government are not putting proper resources into it to make it work. They prefer to pretend that the Rwandan plan is a perfect deterrent. As Chris Bryant says, if the prospect of dying in the channel doesn’t deter them, the slim chance that they might be deported to Rwanda certainly isn’t going to.

The only thing the Tories have got is the hate of Johnny Foreigner wanting to come and live here and the knowledge that talking about it appeals to a number of their voter base. The fact that they are spending so much time and effort focussing on the ridiculous Rwanda bill rather than the ongoing cost of living crisis tells you all you need to know.

[egg]

1 hour ago, andypen said:

Even if the Rwanda bill is passed, it really isn't worth a w**k in its current form. The provision for lodging appeals against any "deportation" , including to the ECHR, will mean that nobody will end up being sent there. We'll have as many arrivals as before and hundreds of lengthy and costly legal wrangles, for which the Govt. have apparently planned to draft in an extra 150 judges to mete out the inevitable. 5000 or so candidates for this excursion have simply disappeared recently as well. The Tory rebels , and I suspect most of the MP's who voted in favour, know this very well. They really do think the public is stupid. So the Tories have a shite plan, and Labour have no plan to "stop the boats", we might as well send fleets of cruise ships over to France and have done with it. At least the Lee Andersons of this world have some principles.

I haven't read that, but a judicial recruitment round is about the conclude with the appointment of 150 part time tribunal judges. 

[andypen]

I don't know how anyone can think that illegal immigration is anything but detrimental to this country, and it's got nothing to do with being xenophobic or the favourite slur of being a racist. As it stands currently, the tens of thousands entering via the boats may well be a small number compared to legal migration, but that is now at astronomical levels never before seen and is quite obviously unsustainable. The financial cost to the UK is not insignificant, and the fact that were housing them in hotels, converted army bases and even newly built housing complexes tells me that we don't know what to do with them, still, at least we don't have a native homeless problem to worry about, oh wait...

Then there's the security concerns. We simply do not know who any of these people are, what their backgrounds are, and given the increasing political tensions around the world now it's criminally negligent to allow them to simply walk in and disappear in many cases. Many will end up in the black economy, criminal gangs, homeless or in modern slavery, adding to the current underclass of people who have no stake in this country and officially do not exist.

As for Sunak's obsession with legal immigration, he seems wedded to the economic mantra that to grow your economy you need to increase productivity and population. The problem is we are not increasing productivity to any significant degree, but have managed to balloon the population numbers through immigration, while 5 million UK citizens are effectively unemployed.

Starmer's "plan" for the problem is mere doublespeak, and will result in being fobbed off by the French (again), and probably a blanket amnesty on outstanding asylum claims as well as ditching of the Rwanda scheme (not a bad thing but what a waste of time and money).

 

[moonraker]

16 minutes ago, andypen said:

I don't know how anyone can think that illegal immigration is anything but detrimental to this country, and it's got nothing to do with being xenophobic or the favourite slur of being a racist. As it stands currently, the tens of thousands entering via the boats may well be a small number compared to legal migration, but that is now at astronomical levels never before seen and is quite obviously unsustainable. The financial cost to the UK is not insignificant, and the fact that were housing them in hotels, converted army bases and even newly built housing complexes tells me that we don't know what to do with them, still, at least we don't have a native homeless problem to worry about, oh wait...

Then there's the security concerns. We simply do not know who any of these people are, what their backgrounds are, and given the increasing political tensions around the world now it's criminally negligent to allow them to simply walk in and disappear in many cases. Many will end up in the black economy, criminal gangs, homeless or in modern slavery, adding to the current underclass of people who have no stake in this country and officially do not exist.

As for Sunak's obsession with legal immigration, he seems wedded to the economic mantra that to grow your economy you need to increase productivity and population. The problem is we are not increasing productivity to any significant degree, but have managed to balloon the population numbers through immigration, while 5 million UK citizens are effectively unemployed.

Starmer's "plan" for the problem is mere doublespeak, and will result in being fobbed off by the French (again), and probably a blanket amnesty on outstanding asylum claims as well as ditching of the Rwanda scheme (not a bad thing but what a waste of time and money).

 

You need to understand the difference between illegal immigration and asylum.  The right wing love to use incorrect terminology to justify their illegal plans deliberately using illegal immigration and asylum as one and the same thing, another is saying foreign courts should not rule on UK matters, when the courts they are referring to are International Courts, i.e. courts within which the UK has equal representation to all the signatories of the agreements that set up the courts in the first place, they are not "foreign".  Ironically International Courts were originally championed by UK governments including tory ones.

[a1ex2001]

1 hour ago, andypen said:

I don't know how anyone can think that illegal immigration is anything but detrimental to this country, and it's got nothing to do with being xenophobic or the favourite slur of being a racist. As it stands currently, the tens of thousands entering via the boats may well be a small number compared to legal migration, but that is now at astronomical levels never before seen and is quite obviously unsustainable. The financial cost to the UK is not insignificant, and the fact that were housing them in hotels, converted army bases and even newly built housing complexes tells me that we don't know what to do with them, still, at least we don't have a native homeless problem to worry about, oh wait...

Then there's the security concerns. We simply do not know who any of these people are, what their backgrounds are, and given the increasing political tensions around the world now it's criminally negligent to allow them to simply walk in and disappear in many cases. Many will end up in the black economy, criminal gangs, homeless or in modern slavery, adding to the current underclass of people who have no stake in this country and officially do not exist.

As for Sunak's obsession with legal immigration, he seems wedded to the economic mantra that to grow your economy you need to increase productivity and population. The problem is we are not increasing productivity to any significant degree, but have managed to balloon the population numbers through immigration, while 5 million UK citizens are effectively unemployed.

Starmer's "plan" for the problem is mere doublespeak, and will result in being fobbed off by the French (again), and probably a blanket amnesty on outstanding asylum claims as well as ditching of the Rwanda scheme (not a bad thing but what a waste of time and money).

 

First you need to define what you mean by 'illegal immigration' as it seems you are using the term incorrectly, people arriving by small boat are not classed as illegal immigrants from the moment they apply for asylum, an asylum seeker cannot be an illegal immigrant as they are part of our legal immigration program.  Arriving by boat small boat is a problem but then we don't offer any other legal means by which people can apply for Asylum so leave these people with no choice.  The financial cost to the UK of housing asylum seekers is because we simply don't process them in a timely manner, other counties manage to process many more than we do and they also reject and deport more cases than we do.  The small boats/illegal migrant bogey man is a creation of the Tory party and the right wing media to supply a suitable 'other' for them to blame for all our woes while the rich rob us blind and the really sad thing is it has sucked so many people in.  Small boats shouldn't even be in the top ten of things on the governments agenda but they are getting away with wasting huge amounts of time and money on it because they have conned enough of the electorate into believing it is 'the problem'.

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, moonraker said:

 Ironically International Courts were originally championed by UK governments including tory ones.

Winston Churchill was one of the prime movers in founding the ECHR.

[Tamesaint]

12 minutes ago, a1ex2001 said:

First you need to define what you mean by 'illegal immigration' as it seems you are using the term incorrectly, people arriving by small boat are not classed as illegal immigrants from the moment they apply for asylum, an asylum seeker cannot be an illegal immigrant as they are part of our legal immigration program.  Arriving by boat small boat is a problem but then we don't offer any other legal means by which people can apply for Asylum so leave these people with no choice.  The financial cost to the UK of housing asylum seekers is because we simply don't process them in a timely manner, other counties manage to process many more than we do and they also reject and deport more cases than we do.  The small boats/illegal migrant bogey man is a creation of the Tory party and the right wing media to supply a suitable 'other' for them to blame for all our woes while the rich rob us blind and the really sad thing is it has sucked so many people in.  Small boats shouldn't even be in the top ten of things on the governments agenda but they are getting away with wasting huge amounts of time and money on it because they have conned enough of the electorate into believing it is 'the problem'.

Who has hijacked Alex's login? He is talking a lot of sense. 😁😁😁

[Weston Super Saint]

32 minutes ago, a1ex2001 said:

  Arriving by boat small boat is a problem but then we don't offer any other legal means by which people can apply for Asylum so leave these people with no choice.  

Yet that is wholely untrue.

Assuming these are not french people seeking asylum from the French, then they will have travelled through a number of other countries where they could just as easily have applied for asylum.

To claim they have no choice is incorrect.

[badgerx16]

11 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Yet that is wholely untrue.

Assuming these are not french people seeking asylum from the French, then they will have travelled through a number of other countries where they could just as easily have applied for asylum.

To claim they have no choice is incorrect.

As is to infer that they are obliged to seek asylum in the first 'safe' country they come across.

[Weston Super Saint]

8 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

As is to infer that they are obliged to seek asylum in the first 'safe' country they come across.

That isn't what I've done, merely pointed out that the 'choice' was made to not seek asylum in the first 'safe' country, instead choosing to risk their lives on illegal channel crossings.

The OP said they had 'no choice' but to do so, which isn't true.

The semantics over whether or not a 'genuine' asylum seeker will seek asylum in the first safe country is a different argument.

[whelk]

Pathetic parroting of the line that Starmer doesn’t have a plan, I have heard that on day one he will have a fleet of luxury yachts ready to go from Calais and will be running daily on the half hour.  He is even going to have free sausage and beans to feed them as well.

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

Pathetic parroting of the line that Starmer doesn’t have a plan, I have heard that on day one he will have a fleet of luxury yachts ready to go from Calais and will be running daily on the half hour.  He is even going to have free sausage and beans to feed them as well.

Hopefully not pork, and with a vegetarian option for Hindus.

[pingpong]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Pathetic parroting of the line that Starmer doesn’t have a plan, I have heard that on day one he will have a fleet of luxury yachts ready to go from Calais and will be running daily on the half hour.  He is even going to have free sausage and beans to feed them as well.

What's your source on this? I'd not heard about yachts, but agree with you in principle‐ ferries would make sense. It would smash the gangs overnight, and we could undercut them on the fee and make some of the money we need to process their claims.

If we got asylum seekers to spend their life savings on the process rather than to criminal gangs, we could process them much faster. Since the majority are legitimate claims, they would go through a legitimate challenge. 

Then you would have a case for any remaining small boats only being for illegal immigrants, they'd be spending extra to bypass a cheaper and quicker route, to get around the process.  Then you have a case for deportations.

[whelk]

These cunts are so desperate. We should go after the barristers that defend rapists. Fucking rapey sympathising bastards. Law is just a guise and we all know what they stand for.

https://news.sky.com/story/tories-defend-better-call-keir-attack-ad-that-seeks-to-highlight-labour-leaders-legal-past-13050372

Edited January 17 by whelk

[badgerx16]

Politics in the UK folowing the trend in the US and getting flushed down the toilet. Bugger trying to convince the electorate on policies, let's settle for personal attacks and near-slanderous bullshit.

[Jack]

55 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Politics in the UK folowing the trend in the US and getting flushed down the toilet. Bugger trying to convince the electorate on policies, let's settle for personal attacks and near-slanderous bullshit.

Yep, we’ve got Boris Johnson and the succession of clowns after him to thank for that. I think people have forgotten what it’s like for politics to not be a complete circus. 
 

 

[rallyboy]

Boris perfected a new approach, promise absolutely everything and concentrate your efforts not on policy but on coming up with a distraction or an excuse when you fail to deliver.

The other thing is we have maybe 20% on the left and the same on the right who will always vote that way.

Boris didn't care about them, he was just making up stuff for the other 60%, of which a considerable number are not interested or so thick they fall for any old drivel they see written on a bus.

The key is winning over those simpletons, the ones who can't grasp the concept of things like roundabouts or corkscrews, you wouldn't trust them to sit the right way on a toilet, but they are still allowed to go into polling stations to cause chaos. 

 

[Winnersaint]

Lee Anderson's resignation letter.

[Winnersaint]

Which Tory cunt are you most wanting to experience a Portillo moment. I'll start with my local MP, John Redwood.

[Jack]

3 minutes ago, Winnersaint said:

Which Tory cunt are you most wanting to experience a Portillo moment. I'll start with my local MP, John Redwood.

There aren’t really any serious ones left anyway. Michael Gove has one of the most punchable faces I’ve ever seen, be good to see him lose his seat 

[Winnersaint]

3 minutes ago, Jack said:

There aren’t really any serious ones left anyway. Michael Gove has one of the most punchable faces I’ve ever seen, be good to see him lose his seat 

Would be good to see the ape Gullis and 30p Lee get stuffed at the ballot box.

[Jack]

Good shouts. I’ll add Michael Fabricant for looking and sounding as ridiculous as he does. 
 

Oh and Rees-Mogg too. Absolute cretin 

[sadoldgit]

There has been a boundary change in our constituency and we have gone from a safe Tory seat to a cast iron safe Tory seat. The sooner that there is a move towards PR the better. Whilst the boundary commission is independent, the new boundaries favour the Torys in terms of votes at the last election. When you consider that the way the current system works Tories need less votes per seat than the opposition parties it makes a mockery of democracy.

[trousers]

1 hour ago, rallyboy said:

Boris perfected a new approach, promise absolutely everything and concentrate your efforts not on policy but on coming up with a distraction or an excuse when you fail to deliver.

The other thing is we have maybe 20% on the left and the same on the right who will always vote that way.

Boris didn't care about them, he was just making up stuff for the other 60%, of which a considerable number are not interested or so thick they fall for any old drivel they see written on a bus.

The key is winning over those simpletons, the ones who can't grasp the concept of things like roundabouts or corkscrews, you wouldn't trust them to sit the right way on a toilet, but they are still allowed to go into polling stations to cause chaos. 

 

Other than people who are unfortunate to have low intelligence, are there people with any other type of disability that you would discriminate against by not allowing them to vote...?

[badgerx16]

6 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

.....Tories need less votes per seat than the opposition parties it makes a mockery of democracy.

It isn't quite that simple though. Labour have 15 seats where they had a majority of over 30 thousand, the Conservatives have 3. Labour have far more large majorities, the Tories have a lot of close marginals. The boundary changes are based on balancing local election ward results and trying to make Parliamentary boundaries a better match to local Government.

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Winnersaint said:

Which Tory cunt are you most wanting to experience a Portillo moment. I'll start with my local MP, John Redwood.

Cruella, Moggy, Francois, Gove, Sunak, Anderson for starters. As many of the others as possible after them.

[Tamesaint]

4 hours ago, trousers said:

Other than people who are unfortunate to have low intelligence, are there people with any other type of disability that you would discriminate against by not allowing them to vote...?

Pompey supporters. 

[a1ex2001]

15 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Yet that is wholely untrue.

Assuming these are not french people seeking asylum from the French, then they will have travelled through a number of other countries where they could just as easily have applied for asylum.

To claim they have no choice is incorrect.

Ignoring the fact that the international refugee convention we are members of allows travel through a safe country to the place you wish to claim asylum.  If you disagree with the rules fair enough but don't make them up, the simple facts are the British Government only allows you to apply for asylum once you are on British soil and for a small number of asylum seekers that means the only option to apply for asylum in the UK is to cross the channel in small boats.  People have a myriad of reasons for choosing to come to the UK but as you point out more choose to apply in France/Germany/etc rather than risk the boat crossing, these countries do however process applications much quicker than us, reject more applications than us and also deport more failed applicants than us.

If stopping the boats is the issue (which the government keeps saying it is) then the fix is easy open a processing centre in France and process applications without the need to cross the channel, if the issue is stopping foreign people coming here then stop other forms of migration that result in much higher numbers than the small boat arrivals and be prepared for the massive rise in costs and drop in service levels that closing up shop would result in.

Immigration is an emotive issue and the current government are just using it as a dog whistle to cover up the huge sums of money they are effectively stealing from the public purse and giving to their already rich mates, we have the most corrupt government in living memory and all the papers are talking about is Rwanda this small boats that it is almost the perfect crime!

[igsey]

6 hours ago, Tamesaint said:

Pompey supporters. 

That Venn diagram is a circle.

[trousers]

6 hours ago, Tamesaint said:

Pompey supporters. 

 

25 minutes ago, igsey said:

That Venn diagram is a circle.

Ha... was just about to post that very remark 😂

[rallyboy]

10 hours ago, trousers said:

Other than people who are unfortunate to have low intelligence, are there people with any other type of disability that you would discriminate against by not allowing them to vote...?

There's no discrimination Lord T, I'm not looking to ban anyone from voting, especially the genuinely thick as they wouldn't operate pen and paper, it's the moderately stupid we need to tackle, the Gullis and Anderson types, they're the dangerous ones.

But if we leave something shiny outside the Polling Station, or have Mrs Brown's Boys running on a big screen, that should occupy them while democracy is served.

[whelk]

10 hours ago, trousers said:

Other than people who are unfortunate to have low intelligence, are there people with any other type of disability that you would discriminate against by not allowing them to vote...?

They need to look at the Small things in life that annoy you thread and start with some of those first

[Winnersaint]

The fragrant Ms Coffey being an absolute clown. FFS. Can yoiu imagine the uproar if Diane Abbott had said this?

 

Edited January 18 by Winnersaint

[revolution saint]

I haven't watched the press conference but did last nights vote justify having a press conference?  It's not like anything has materially changed yet because it still needs to go through the Lords.

Appreciate it's an emotive issue for some but it comes across as if Sunak thinks the Rwanda scheme is the burning issue of our times, the biggest single thing that keeps everyone up at night and will make or break him in an election.  Dunno about anyone else but surely there's more important shit he should be doing rather than holding a (presumably) self congratulatory press conference about a vote a government with an 80 seat majority should win at a canter anyway.

[whelk]

6 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

I haven't watched the press conference but did last nights vote justify having a press conference?  It's not like anything has materially changed yet because it still needs to go through the Lords.

Appreciate it's an emotive issue for some but it comes across as if Sunak thinks the Rwanda scheme is the burning issue of our times, the biggest single thing that keeps everyone up at night and will make or break him in an election.  Dunno about anyone else but surely there's more important shit he should be doing rather than holding a (presumably) self congratulatory press conference about a vote a government with an 80 seat majority should win at a canter anyway.

Most don’t give a shit. Look at all the fuss dedicated to this week. It is only of interest to politicos and not as if the Tory rebellion ever leads to anything material but reported as if the government is about to fall. Tories need to get a refund on their spin strategist. 

[Fan The Flames]

47 minutes ago, Winnersaint said:

The fragrant Ms Coffey being an absolute clown. FFS. Can yoiu imagine the uproar if Diane Abbott had said this?

 

That is brilliant.

[badgerx16]

Carol Vorderman on X said that Therese Coffey thinks the capital of Rwanda is 'R'.

[Tamesaint]

59 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Carol Vorderman on X said that Therese Coffey thinks the capital of Rwanda is 'R'.

There is a simple explanation. 

Therese Coffey is one of Liz Truss's best friends. 

[a1ex2001]

3 hours ago, revolution saint said:

I haven't watched the press conference but did last nights vote justify having a press conference?  It's not like anything has materially changed yet because it still needs to go through the Lords.

Appreciate it's an emotive issue for some but it comes across as if Sunak thinks the Rwanda scheme is the burning issue of our times, the biggest single thing that keeps everyone up at night and will make or break him in an election.  Dunno about anyone else but surely there's more important shit he should be doing rather than holding a (presumably) self congratulatory press conference about a vote a government with an 80 seat majority should win at a canter anyway.

It is a simple bait and switch move by the government, this distract you with the terrible immigrants who might steal your cookies while in reality they have already stolen most of the cookies, it is a trick as old as time and sadly still as effective today as it was 100 years ago!

[Weston Super Saint]

8 hours ago, a1ex2001 said:

Ignoring the fact that the international refugee convention we are members of allows travel through a safe country to the place you wish to claim asylum.  If you disagree with the rules fair enough but don't make them up, the simple facts are the British Government only allows you to apply for asylum once you are on British soil and for a small number of asylum seekers that means the only option to apply for asylum in the UK is to cross the channel in small boats.  People have a myriad of reasons for choosing to come to the UK but as you point out more choose to apply in France/Germany/etc rather than risk the boat crossing, these countries do however process applications much quicker than us, reject more applications than us and also deport more failed applicants than us.

If stopping the boats is the issue (which the government keeps saying it is) then the fix is easy open a processing centre in France and process applications without the need to cross the channel, if the issue is stopping foreign people coming here then stop other forms of migration that result in much higher numbers than the small boat arrivals and be prepared for the massive rise in costs and drop in service levels that closing up shop would result in.

Immigration is an emotive issue and the current government are just using it as a dog whistle to cover up the huge sums of money they are effectively stealing from the public purse and giving to their already rich mates, we have the most corrupt government in living memory and all the papers are talking about is Rwanda this small boats that it is almost the perfect crime!

Enlighten me, what rules have I made up?

 

[a1ex2001]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Enlighten me, what rules have I made up?

 

You said they have a choice which if they wish to claim asylum in the UK they don’t.  As has been asked many times in many forums including parliament name the legal routes by which they can come to the UK and claim asylum? which is a right under the treaties we signed up to.

I get that you think they should claim asylum as soon as they are in a safe country but there is no legal obligation on them to do so if you wish that to be the case campaign for a law change.

[Weston Super Saint]

32 minutes ago, a1ex2001 said:

You said they have a choice which if they wish to claim asylum in the UK they don’t.  As has been asked many times in many forums including parliament name the legal routes by which they can come to the UK and claim asylum? which is a right under the treaties we signed up to.

I get that you think they should claim asylum as soon as they are in a safe country but there is no legal obligation on them to do so if you wish that to be the case campaign for a law change.

I said they had a choice to claim asylum in another safe country - that isn't "making up the rules", those are existing rules.  They chose to cross the channel illegally to claim asylum in Britain. It's not that hard to understand and they "could" have made a different choice.

I also said the semantics over whether they should / should not claim asylum in the first safe country is a completely separate debate.  I have not stated that as my opinion, but it seems you are happy to make assumptions that it is.

[badgerx16]

10 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I said they had a choice to claim asylum in another safe country - that isn't "making up the rules", those are existing rules.  They chose to cross the channel illegally to claim asylum in Britain. It's not that hard to understand and they "could" have made a different choice.

 

They are entitled to claim asylum in the UK. The UK refuses to set up a legal route for them to do so, therefore the only way for them to exercise their perfectly legitimate right is to take an alternative route. There is no reason why the UK Government can't set up a legal route.

[Whitey Grandad]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

They are entitled to claim asylum in the UK. The UK refuses to set up a legal route for them to do so, therefore the only way for them to exercise their perfectly legitimate right is to take an alternative route. There is no reason why the UK Government can't set up a legal route.

That doesn’t answer the question of why they don’t seek asylum elsewhere.

[badgerx16]

15 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

That doesn’t answer the question of why they don’t seek asylum elsewhere.

Because they want to do so here, as they are entitled to do.

[aintforever]

21 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

That doesn’t answer the question of why they don’t seek asylum elsewhere.

Most do. I expect language and family connects are two reasons why some might feel safer here.

[pingpong]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

That doesn’t answer the question of why they don’t seek asylum elsewhere.

The vast majority do. Those that come, it's usually language, or family here. 

https://www.oasiscardiff.org/blog/why-do-refugees-leave-france-for-the-uk

 

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Because they want to do so here, as they are entitled to do.

They are entitled to ask but they are not entitled to receive.

[moonraker]

3 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

They are entitled to ask but they are not entitled to receive.

And are entitled to be treated humanely and receive a fair and efficient hearing, shamefully neither of which this excuse for a government seems capable of doing.