Tommy Robinson Appreciation Thread

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Who is denying the English their identity ?

Follow up answer ; the rioters.

My wife is very keen on Anglo-Saxon history, and has had books on the subject published. She has a couple of sweat shirts and hoodies with A/S motifs but has just said she is afraid to be seen out in them because she fears she will be thought to be part of the disorder.

Edited August 10 by badgerx16

[Saint Fan CaM]

38 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

No, you're not understanding what happens. 

The whole asylum claim should be done outside of the UK, online, either in the country of origin or close to that. They then have the right to come here legally if accepted, so instead of paying the people smugglers thousands they take legal routes over. 

When you say turn off the tap, I'm not sure I get what you mean. Are you talking legal migration or asylum seekers? If legal migration (around 1 million people a year), we have control of that tap and there are certain measures you have to adhere to for being able to enter the country - these do not come over on boats and this is where we need to ensure we are taking the correct people - this is where the problem currently is.

If asylum seekers, again there are certain rules they have to prove to obtain asylum (around 25k people per year that HAVE to come over on boats as we shut down the legal routes for claiming asylum from outside the country) - if these aren't passed then they are turned down (around 80% are accepted) and removed to their country of origin. Asylum is a human right. 

I agree with all you’ve said in terms of process. My point of disagreement is that I am not sure the very sensible approach you suggest will actually stop the boats. If the policy was to immediately deport individuals not using the correct application process then in time it could work, but unfortunately it takes time to bite and in that time the liberal media will use it as a stick when the next child drowns.

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

I agree with all you’ve said in terms of process. My point of disagreement is that I am not sure the very sensible approach you suggest will actually stop the boats. If the policy was to immediately deport individuals not using the correct application process then in time it could work, but unfortunately it takes time to bite and in that time the liberal media will use it as a stick when the next child drowns.

But they wouldn't be in the country to deport, the visa application is done from outside the UK. So no boats are needed. It's not going to stop all the boats, but it would stop the majority. Why would they make that journey if they could do it via an easy process? 

Edited August 10 by Farmer Saint

[Saint Fan CaM]

27 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Follow up answer ; the rioters of all persuasions.

My wife is very keen on Anglo-Saxon history, and has had books on the subject published. She has a couple of sweat shirts and hoodies with A/S motifs but has just said she is afraid to be seen out in them because she fears she will be thought to be part of the disorder.

Don’t disagree with your comment as such, however it has to be recognised that there is more than one group causing unrest.

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

Don’t disagree with your comment as such, however it has to be recognised that there is more than one group causing unrest.

Of course, and some of the 'English' participants are probably not particularly racist, they are just looking for a ruck and the chance to loot shops.

What we really need is a spell of cold wet weather to dampen the fuses.

[Saint Fan CaM]

7 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But they wouldn't be in the country to deport, the application is done from outside the UK. So no boats are needed. It stops the majority of the boats. 

Again, I’m not disagreeing with the suggestion…it just won’t stop the boats without some form of deterrent. How many of the boat people do you think have access to on-line means / time? Not too many I would guess…they’re desperate and want a quick solution. The smuggling gangs will make sure there’s a product to sell still.

Edited August 10 by Saint Fan CaM

[iansums]

22 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Of course, and some of the 'English' participants are probably not particularly racist, they are just looking for a ruck and the chance to loot shops.

What we really need is a spell of cold wet weather to dampen the fuses.

True, riots are a fairly regular occurrence this time of year, especially when it’s hot.

[Tamesaint]

1 minute ago, iansums said:

True, riots are a fairly regular occurrence this time of year, especially when it’s hot.

The English should be thanked for hosting the annual French riots so that the French can hold the Olympics. 😁

[east-stand-nic]

2 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Stop trying to be sensible, your conspiracy nut version is much more believable.

So u now admit your opinion was incorrect about my turn of phrase. Apology accepted.

[badgerx16]

5 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

So u now admit your opinion was incorrect about my turn of phrase. Apology accepted.

"Deep inside of a parallel universe,

Badger apologised to east-stand-nic"

 

( Apologies to the RHCP for the plagiarism ).

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Who is denying the English their identity ?

When do yo ever see St George’s Day mentioned in the media, as compared to Burns Night, for example?

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

Again, I’m not disagreeing with the suggestion…it just won’t stop the boats without some form of deterrent. How many of the boat people do you think have access to on-line means / time? Not too many I would guess…they’re desperate and want a quick solution. The smuggling gangs will make sure there’s a product to sell still.

But it's not a quick solution - they travel for weeks/months to get to that point - and they will all have means over those weeks travelling. They have some money so they have access - it costs 1000's to get smuggled over. 

However, let's say they don't - the deterrent is to deal with them promptly - 25000 per year is 68 per day. The targeted wait time to decision is 3 weeks, so if we stuck to that there would only be 1400 in any one period needing food and accommodation - and from a human point of view it's only 3 weeks until a decision is made.

Also, what you will tend to find is those making the journey are not actual Asylum seekers, they are the 20-25% who are "illegal immigrants" - asylum visa's would unlikely be obtained by these people. 

The real issue is the 3000 or so migrants being accepted daily. That is where the real control is needed.

Personally, I can't understand why anyone would want to move here in the first place - I wouldn't live here if I didn't have to. 

Edited August 10 by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But it's not a quick solution - they travel for weeks/months to get to that point - and they will all have means over those weeks travelling. They have some money so they have access - it costs 1000's to get smuggled over. 

However, let's say they don't - the deterrent is to deal with them promptly - 25000 per year is 68 per day. The targeted wait time to decision is 3 weeks, so if we stuck to that there would only be 1400 in any one period needing food and accommodation - and from a human point of view it's only 3 weeks until a decision is made.

Also, what you will tend to find is those making the journey are not actual Asylum seekers, they are the 20-25% who are "illegal immigrants". 

The real issue is the 3000 or so migrants being accepted daily. That is where the real control is needed.

Personally, I can't understand why anyone would want to move here in the first place - I wouldn't live here if I didn't have to. 

Not sure why I've replied to my own post... 

Edited August 10 by Farmer Saint

[Holmes_and_Watson]

33 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

When do yo ever see St George’s Day mentioned in the media, as compared to Burns Night, for example?

Burns night has blokes in skirts, sorry kilts, so ticks a lot of progressive boxes, hence the extra coverage. 🙂

 

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

No, you're not understanding what happens. 

The whole asylum claim should be done outside of the UK, online, either in the country of origin or close to that. They then have the right to come here legally if accepted, so instead of paying the people smugglers thousands they take legal routes over. 

Genuine question.  Do those fleeing harm and seeking asylum in safe countries generally have access to the internet?

For those that have made it to a country close to the country of origin, aren't they able to seek safe harbour in that country?

I think you may also be confusing legitimate asylum seekers with illegal economic migrants when you mention 'people smugglers' - although that is ignoring the fact that the majority of people who are 'smuggled' are generally being done so against their will (see forced prostitution, domestic slavery, modern day slavery).

[Farmer Saint]

58 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Genuine question.  Do those fleeing harm and seeking asylum in safe countries generally have access to the internet?

For those that have made it to a country close to the country of origin, aren't they able to seek safe harbour in that country?

I think you may also be confusing legitimate asylum seekers with illegal economic migrants when you mention 'people smugglers' - although that is ignoring the fact that the majority of people who are 'smuggled' are generally being done so against their will (see forced prostitution, domestic slavery, modern day slavery).

I'm not confusing anything. 75% of those that apply for asylum in the UK are genuine Asylum Seekers and are accepted. 25% are illegal migrants. 

And yes, most do have access to the internet at a point in their journey - the vast majority have phones with Internet access for instance. That's why most first world countries offer the service. It also means they don't have to travel 4000 miles if they know they can't even qualify for the Asylum Visa. 

They most likely can stop in other countries, and many, many, many do (Germany had 334k last year for instance, France 167k, Spain 162k and Italy 136k compared to 81k for the UK), but some speak English or have family over here so want to come over here. 

Edited August 10 by Farmer Saint

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

But they wouldn't be in the country to deport, the visa application is done from outside the UK. So no boats are needed. It's not going to stop all the boats, but it would stop the majority. Why would they make that journey if they could do it via an easy process? 

The people on the boats are mainly economic migrants, they wouldn’t get  asylum granted if they applied from outside the UK.
 

There have been 1.2 million immigrants coming in to the uk the past year, only a tiny proportion come by via small boats, yet you think the process should be made easier? How many do you want, 2 million a year, 3 million? 

[Farmer Saint]

23 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

The people on the boats are mainly economic migrants, they wouldn’t get  asylum granted if they applied from outside the UK.
 

There have been 1.2 million immigrants coming in to the uk the past year, only a tiny proportion come by via small boats, yet you think the process should be made easier? How many do you want, 2 million a year, 3 million? 

Immigration is different to asylum seekers - different processes, rules and visa's. Immigration should be lower but that is by changing the parameters and tolerances that the government set out to everyone who does not live in the UK. How many more applications for asylum do you think we're going to get above the 80k? 1 million? 2 million?

Let's not conflate the two and stick to asylum seekers and boats, as this is the issue most seem to have. They want to stop the boats. To stop the boats you have to have ways to apply from outside the UK (that all 1st world countries apart from ourselves have) and you have to be able to process those claims in a quick and accurate manner. Your deterrent to the economic migrants is that you'll stay for 3 weeks before being flown back to Turkey/Albania or wherever they've come from.

In relation to the other million migrants, we need a sensible and pragmatic approach to what we need, which feeds into also encouraging workers in essential industries in the UK - bursaries for nurses, a minimum wage for care workers higher than the wages now, a crackdown on low paid, non-taxable, cash only jobs (car washes/nail salons etc) and probably ID cards (like national insurance) that has to be present to earn money. 

[Saint Fan CaM]

3 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

But it's not a quick solution - they travel for weeks/months to get to that point - and they will all have means over those weeks travelling. They have some money so they have access - it costs 1000's to get smuggled over. 

However, let's say they don't - the deterrent is to deal with them promptly - 25000 per year is 68 per day. The targeted wait time to decision is 3 weeks, so if we stuck to that there would only be 1400 in any one period needing food and accommodation - and from a human point of view it's only 3 weeks until a decision is made.

Also, what you will tend to find is those making the journey are not actual Asylum seekers, they are the 20-25% who are "illegal immigrants" - asylum visa's would unlikely be obtained by these people. 

The real issue is the 3000 or so migrants being accepted daily. That is where the real control is needed.

Personally, I can't understand why anyone would want to move here in the first place - I wouldn't live here if I didn't have to. 

An interesting question. Why do these people with expensive phones/contracts and have the means to pay thousands to smugglers want to come to live here? For the most part it’s not because they’re fleeing persecution - if it was they’d take up residence in Greece or some other safe EU country (some do of course). I’ve travelled the World a bit - this is definitely one of the best countries to live without doubt.

[Farmer Saint]

12 minutes ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

An interesting question. Why do these people with expensive phones/contracts and have the means to pay thousands to smugglers want to come to live here? For the most part it’s not because they’re fleeing persecution - if it was they’d take up residence in Greece or some other safe EU country (some do of course). I’ve travelled the World a bit - this is definitely one of the best countries to live without doubt.

But that's the point, it is people fleeing war torn countries - why do these people NOT have money? If Russia invaded England, would you not have a phone or any money if you emigrated?

For someone who's travelled a lot you seem to think the rest of the world lives like 1980s Ethiopia. 

I explained above why they'd want to come here, and that many, many more go to other countries in the EU or around the world. 

Edited August 10 by Farmer Saint

[Saint Fan CaM]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

But that's the point, it is people fleeing war torn countries - why do these people NOT have money? If Russia invaded England, would you not have a phone or any money if you emigrated?

For someone who's travelled a lot you seem to think the rest of the world lives like 1980s Ethiopia. 

I explained above why they'd want to come here, and that many, many more go to other countries in the EU or around the world. 

You appear to have a very simplistic view of the World and your argument as a result has suffered to the point where you’re trying to 2nd guess what I think to win points! You don’t know immigrants wanting to enter the UK are all fleeing war torn countries - that’s plain wrong. Russia invading England is a daft repose - no relevance to the debate and you know it. If you’ve offered a valid explanation of why people want to come here and immigration is out of control I must have missed it.

[Farmer Saint]

46 minutes ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

You appear to have a very simplistic view of the World and your argument as a result has suffered to the point where you’re trying to 2nd guess what I think to win points! You don’t know immigrants wanting to enter the UK are all fleeing war torn countries - that’s plain wrong. Russia invading England is a daft repose - no relevance to the debate and you know it. If you’ve offered a valid explanation of why people want to come here and immigration is out of control I must have missed it.

No, you've come on here to debate a point when you don't understand how immigration to the UK and other first world countries seems to work. Out of the back of that I have answered every question posed - if you can't be bothered to read my posts then don't debate with me, but don't be so disingenuous to suggest it's my fault you have missed it - it's not beyond the witt of man to understand you should probably read back through the thread. All the information you need is there. Unfortunately it seems you have lost the debate and as such are now hitting out, like a child. Essentially yes, everyone has access to the internet and phones cos they're not as poor as you think they are. Homeless, maybe, persecuted, maybe, but destitute? No.

Edited August 10 by Farmer Saint

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

Let's not conflate the two and stick to asylum seekers and boats, as this is the issue most seem to have. They want to stop the boats. To stop the boats you have to have ways to apply from outside the UK

Dear god. 
 

Most of the people on the boats are economic migrants who wouldn’t qualify for a work visa . They would be refused asylum if they applied outside the UK. That’s why they get on the fucking boats in the first place, that’s why the majority are young men and that’s why they throw their passports away upon arrival….

[ecuk268]

3 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Dear god. 
 

Most of the people on the boats are economic migrants who wouldn’t qualify for a work visa . They would be refused asylum if they applied outside the UK. That’s why they get on the fucking boats in the first place, that’s why the majority are young men and that’s why they throw their passports away upon arrival….

Could you give us some data on what proportion are economic migrants?

[Farmer Saint]

38 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Dear god. 
 

Most of the people on the boats are economic migrants who wouldn’t qualify for a work visa . They would be refused asylum if they applied outside the UK. That’s why they get on the fucking boats in the first place, that’s why the majority are young men and that’s why they throw their passports away upon arrival….

They wouldn't be applying for work visa's, they'd be applying for Asylum visa's and that's why you have to do it alongside having a strict and quick process to remove them. I did mention it in that post - I see you decided not to quote that part of it. 

Some additional info as to why they tend to be young males:

The majority of those arriving in small boats are men. In the year to 31 March 2024, 75% (22,357) were male and aged 18 or over (excluding those of unknown age or sex). Another 16% (4,630) of arrivals in the same period were children (under 18). These proportions have been stable over time, and similar to those observed in asylum applicants more broadly (72% and 19%, respectively, in the year to March 2024). One reason for the higher share of men among asylum seekers, in general, is the danger associated with irregular migration journeys. In many cases, female and minor family members join later through family reunification routes.

Edited August 10 by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/people-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/

 

Since 2018, the nationals of five countries – Iran, Albania, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria – have made up two-thirds of those crossing in small boats

A small number of nationalities make up a large share of people crossing the Channel in small boats (Figure 5). From 2018 to 31 March 2024, two-thirds of total arrivals (79,149) had one of five nationalities: Iranian (18%), Afghan (15%), Iraqi (13%), Albanian (12%), Afghan (13%), or Syrian (8%).

Edited August 10 by Farmer Saint

[Saint Fan CaM]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

No, you've come on here to debate a point when you don't understand how immigration to the UK and other first world countries seems to work. Out of the back of that I have answered every question posed - if you can't be bothered to read my posts then don't debate with me, but don't be so disingenuous to suggest it's my fault you have missed it - it's not beyond the witt of man to understand you should probably read back through the thread. All the information you need is there. Unfortunately it seems you have lost the debate and as such are now hitting out, like a child. Essentially yes, everyone has access to the internet and phones cos they're not as poor as you think they are. Homeless, maybe, persecuted, maybe, but destitute? No.

And there it is, insult the poster…nice.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/people-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/

 

Since 2018, the nationals of five countries – Iran, Albania, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria – have made up two-thirds of those crossing in small boats

A small number of nationalities make up a large share of people crossing the Channel in small boats (Figure 5). From 2018 to 31 March 2024, two-thirds of total arrivals (79,149) had one of five nationalities: Iranian (18%), Afghan (15%), Iraqi (13%), Albanian (12%), Afghan (13%), or Syrian (8%).

Good to see Afghan topping the table with both 15 and 13%!!

[Farmer Saint]

2 hours ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

And there it is, insult the poster…nice.

Not sure where I insulted you? 

[a1ex2001]

19 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

The people on the boats are mainly economic migrants, they wouldn’t get  asylum granted if they applied from outside the UK.
 

There have been 1.2 million immigrants coming in to the uk the past year, only a tiny proportion come by via small boats, yet you think the process should be made easier? How many do you want, 2 million a year, 3 million? 

You say yourself that the small boats are a tiny fraction of net migration to the UK so why would making it slightly easier suddenly mean we have  double the level of migration?  The vast majority of recent arrivals in the country have arrived with legitimate visas awarded either as essential workers under the points based system everyone said would fix migration or as students.  So if we want to reduce migration numbers we have a few options!  One stop including student arrivals in annual net migration figures as these people mostly go home few years later so including them is just waving a red ff at an angry bull. If that isn’t acceptable then we could reduce the number of foreign students but this would have a significant impact on university funding so we would either need to charge even more punitive student fees or increase higher education funding from general taxation neither of which will be popular!  The final option is to reduce visas for migrant workers which would lead to a shortage of workers in many essential industries including the NHS.

The choices are simple the small boats and migrants crammed into hotels are just a deliberate and convenient other for right wing politicians and their client media.  Other countries process significantly more asylum seekers than we do a year and also reject a significantly larger portion.

Oh and back on topic Yaxley Lennon is a total waste of oxygen he is a thug and a grifter who serves nobodies interests but his own and would complain about the night being dark if he could blame it on ‘others’ and pocket a couple of quid!

Edited August 11 by a1ex2001

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, a1ex2001 said:

You say yourself that the small boats are a tiny fraction of net migration to the UK so why would making it slightly easier suddenly mean we have  double the level of migration?  

How are you going to make it easier?  I didn’t see many Ukrainian’s on small boats, so there are clearly safe routes for people genuinely fleeing for their lives. 
 

“Apply for asylum abroad” is chucked around without any detail. Where do they apply, in their home country where they’re allegedly fleeing for their lives from.  Maybe Turkey, Libya, France, Italy?  
 

If we make it easier for someone to claim asylum from Afghanistan, what does this look like, how does he apply? Via the Taliban, do we go over and pick him up? Or does he have to get to a safe country first? 

 

 

 

 

[Turkish]

https://inews.co.uk/news/world/how-does-australia-deal-with-migrant-boats-what-the-approach-involves-and-how-it-could-apply-to-the-uk-crisis-1318963
 

seems sensible 

[a1ex2001]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

How are you going to make it easier?  I didn’t see many Ukrainian’s on small boats, so there are clearly safe routes for people genuinely fleeing for their lives. 
 

“Apply for asylum abroad” is chucked around without any detail. Where do they apply, in their home country where they’re allegedly fleeing for their lives from.  Maybe Turkey, Libya, France, Italy?  
 

If we make it easier for someone to claim asylum from Afghanistan, what does this look like, how does he apply? Via the Taliban, do we go over and pick him up? Or does he have to get to a safe country first? 

 

 

 

 

Loads of options, for those fleeing a country then they could apply for asylum at a UK embassy in a safe third country.  They could apply online the options are only limited by your imagination or lack there of.  If the main desire is the somewhat pathetic slogan ‘stop the boats’ then we could open asylum processing centres in France which the French government have previously said they would support.  You didn’t see Ukrainians on small boats because we opened safe routes for them to come legally to the UK and apply for asylum, something we don’t have for people from other nations.

None of which tackles the issue of high net migration which is fuelled by reporting students in the numbers and giving out large numbers of skilled worker visas which make up the vast majority of migrants.  The options for which are not attractive as nobody will want to pay more tax to fund higher education, or higher prices for services impacted by labour shortages and nobody wants a more broken NHS.

All this the country is full nonsense and we should stop all by essential migration is so laughably pathetic as the people screaming and throwing bricks fail to offer any realistic alternative.  They got there way we left the EU and ended freedom of movement to be replaced by a points based migration system and still they aren’t happy!

Edited August 11 by a1ex2001

[a1ex2001]

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

https://inews.co.uk/news/world/how-does-australia-deal-with-migrant-boats-what-the-approach-involves-and-how-it-could-apply-to-the-uk-crisis-1318963
 

seems sensible 

Seems incredibly expensive when you dig into the costs a little, would be much cheaper to process people efficiently assimilate those entitled to asylum and deport those not.

[badgerx16]

37 minutes ago, a1ex2001 said:

Loads of options, for those fleeing a country then they could apply for asylum at a UK embassy in a safe third country. 

 

You cannot apply for asylum at a UK embassy, you must physically be in the UK.

AFAIK there are only 3 approved routes; for Afghans, Ukrainians, and people from Hong Kong.

[a1ex2001]

7 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

You cannot apply for asylum at a UK embassy, you must physically be in the UK.

AFAIK there are only 3 approved routes; for Afghans, Ukrainians, and people from Hong Kong.

That is exactly what I said, I was asked what routes could be opened to allow asylum applications abroad and gave some basic examples.  Would people really pay smugglers stacks of cash and risk the crossing if they could just walk into the local embassy and apply?

It is laughable that people are so hung up on the small numbers of people arriving in the UK by small boat yet don’t want to offer an alternative route to apply for asylum.

Edited August 11 by a1ex2001

[Farmer Saint]

Seems to be a lot of questions on immgration coming in that are being knocked out the park here. 

Let's talk about that racist fuckwit Tommy Robinson. Found it very funny when he complained about the Daily Mail giving his hotel out. 

[benjii]

I see he has been enjoying a succulent Indian meal in Spain.

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 hours ago, a1ex2001 said:

That is exactly what I said, I was asked what routes could be opened to allow asylum applications abroad and gave some basic examples.  Would people really pay smugglers stacks of cash and risk the crossing if they could just walk into the local embassy and apply?

It is laughable that people are so hung up on the small numbers of people arriving in the UK by small boat yet don’t want to offer an alternative route to apply for asylum.

So let’s get this straight , how does someone from Afghanistan apply safely for asylum if he doesn’t fit the criteria? 
 

You seem to be implying he should be able to walk into the British embassy.

 

Is there even a functioning British Embassy in Kabul? If there is, where does he wait whilst his claim is processed? In the embassy, or does he go home safe in the knowledge that the Taliban will say “ok Mo, we respect your decision to leave our country & you’ll be safe whilst you await the UK decision”.

If successful, how does he get to the UK, do we go over and pick him up or do the Taliban kindly fly him over here? 
 

There are routes for people to apply if they’re in genuine danger, there are even routes for economic migrants. There just aren’t any for economic migrants pretending to be refugees. 
 

People in France are not in danger. 
 

 

Edited August 11 by Lord Duckhunter

[Farmer Saint]

16 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

There are routes for people to apply if they’re in genuine danger, there are even routes for economic migrants. There just aren’t any for economic migrants pretending to be refugees. 

 

 

Really, how? How do you apply if you are in genuine danger? 

[Whitey Grandad]

2 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Really, how? How do you apply if you are in genuine danger? 

 More importantly, why Britain? There are at least a couple of hundred other countries in the world.

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, Whitey Grandad said:

 More importantly, why Britain? There are at least a couple of hundred other countries in the world.

It depends - a lot of people will want to due to having family here, or due to being able to speak the language. 

Dont forget that the UK took in approximately 7% of all Asylum seekers to the EU last year, and a fifth of those that went to Germany, for example. 

[Sheaf Saint]

26 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

 More importantly, why Britain? There are at least a couple of hundred other countries in the world.

Are you suggesting that we should refuse to accept any refugees at all and just let everyone else deal with them instead?

[Sheaf Saint]

3 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

Seems to be a lot of questions on immgration coming in that are being knocked out the park here. 

Let's talk about that racist fuckwit Tommy Robinson. Found it very funny when he complained about the Daily Mail giving his hotel out. 

Indeed.

There is obviously a very important discussion to be had about the impacts of historical immigration on the UK and how to address that in future. I don't think anybody disputes that, regardless of their political persuasion.

However...

Under no circumstances whatsoever should we allow a knuckle-dragging, race-baiting, convicted violent criminal like Robinson to shape that discourse. Whatever good points he might have to make are not exactly original or groundbreaking, and simply an afterthought for him, used as an excuse for his thuggish behaviour. He's a hypocritical, self-aggrandising shit-stirrer, whose actions hinder rather than help the cause.

Fuck him. He's irrelevant.

[Turkish]

4 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

Seems to be a lot of questions on immgration coming in that are being knocked out the park here. 

Let's talk about that racist fuckwit Tommy Robinson. Found it very funny when he complained about the Daily Mail giving his hotel out. 

The actor Tommy Robinson 🤔🤔🤔🤔

[a1ex2001]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

So let’s get this straight , how does someone from Afghanistan apply safely for asylum if he doesn’t fit the criteria? 
 

You seem to be implying he should be able to walk into the British embassy.

 

Is there even a functioning British Embassy in Kabul? If there is, where does he wait whilst his claim is processed? In the embassy, or does he go home safe in the knowledge that the Taliban will say “ok Mo, we respect your decision to leave our country & you’ll be safe whilst you await the UK decision”.

If successful, how does he get to the UK, do we go over and pick him up or do the Taliban kindly fly him over here? 
 

There are routes for people to apply if they’re in genuine danger, there are even routes for economic migrants. There just aren’t any for economic migrants pretending to be refugees. 
 

People in France are not in danger. 
 

 

Now you’re just being deliberately obtuse, nobody within Afghanistan is going to be able to apply for asylum from within the boarders of that country but once they have fled to a third country they could if we chose permit them to apply for asylum in the UK at any British embassy and then if successful transport them to the UK.

Name me a safe route to apply for asylum in the UK without first arriving on UK soil?  They simply don’t exist outside of very short lived an specific measures ie Ukraine and Afghans who worked with the British.

You know as well as I do that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive in a measure to stop neighbouring countries being overwhelmed so don’t play the ‘they are in France so they are safe’ nonsense card as it doesn’t align with our commitments under international treaty.

The only way to decide if someone is pretending to be a refugee is to process their application something the last government effectively stopped doing and in the end even made illegal for small boat arrivals, hence the epic backlog.

Finally

as I said in my origional reply to your post the number of people arriving by small boat is a drop in the ocean if you are really serious about dropping the numbers you still need to choose one of my options to Achieve it but you seem to be ignoring that and delivering a load of waffle about Afghanistan having a terrible oppressive hostile government….

Edited August 11 by a1ex2001

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

xx

Edited August 11 by Sergei Gotsmanov

[Farmer Saint]

This made me chuckle. 

https://www.instagram.com/ukfactcheckpolitics/reel/C-VRWnWoMCV/?igsh=MW1rZ3M5Nms4N2M1dA==

[Whitey Grandad]

4 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Are you suggesting that we should refuse to accept any refugees at all and just let everyone else deal with them instead?

Yep. We’re full.

[Weston Super Saint]

8 hours ago, a1ex2001 said:

You know as well as I do that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive in a measure to stop neighbouring countries being overwhelmed so don’t play the ‘they are in France so they are safe’ nonsense card as it doesn’t align with our commitments under international treaty.

In what way does our current process not align with our commitments under international treaty?