dunno but they survived three years and then managed to get on a truck so looks like your wrong again.
got it in one… the www has more sites that you and i will ever know about. their phone would be another start… or how about how they communicated during the war?? so guess you need to go back to he drawing board on that one too.
You do realise that the few that did fight alongside allied forces and decided suddenly to come here are very few and far between so dont worry still plenty of room for your mates.
edit to add
The ACRS has been set up since the 6/01/2022 so no need to come here on small boats illegally.
I would have thought that they would have taken them when they left…wouldn’t you? I doubt that translators had their own to keep.
And to own one in a repressive regime such as the Taliban controlled Afghanistan? How healthy would that be?
not to mention all the untraceable numbers… ring this if your in trouble type of thing.
ip addresses version 4 were made up of 4 groups each group was 0 to 999 so that means there are 996,005,996,001. they then decided they were running out of PUBLIC addresses so came up with version 6
Well of course! The ex UK forces assistants just walk into one of those internet cafe things in Kabul town centre…
Who would stop them? Afghanistan is a free coun…Oh, I see a flaw in your plan…
nope sorry its still open… only the separated families closed october last year. maybe because they knew there were no more separated families huh.
again the same way they get on the trucks…personal computers… mobile phones… mates computer… library… internet cafe…same way the rest of the espionage world manages… or maybe they just walk into the embassy and apply for the ACRS. As you say hang on that would mean that they could enter the uk legally rather than on a rubber duck they obviously cant do that despite the 34,000+ that have done just that in the last 3.5 years.
The only ones who stand out for me on that list is ‘‘legal’’.
The ones I have the problem with are the ones who come over on boats and in the backs of our trailers…ALL illegal whatever terminology you may choose for them.
I honestly think (only from a security and safety pov) that on arrival they should not be allowed unvetted and unchecked to live among our townspeople.
Instead they should be instantly arrested on entry as what they are…illegal, and detained in tents in designated camps, and provided with basic food and water, and sanitary facilities…nothing else…
(I know the word ‘camps’’ have dodgy perceived connotations, but let’s keep the conversation grown up..)
Yep absolutely.
The only known genuine refugees I have personal experience of are Ukranian women and kids in my home town, all nice peopleand fully integrated into local society…none arrived here on dinghies or in trailers I hasten to add.
Yep of course, I agree on that.
His perception was that many were just there for the better life rather than escaping wars etc, he was among them all week, getting to know individuals so I took his word for it.
He was also very ‘‘handy’’ among the most belligerent troublemaker types with the bad attitudes…pf which he told me were many.
Nah sorry mate, I’ll stop you right there. I don’t buy that one at all at any price.
We mentioned the Ukrainians, all those young guys are fighting after first prioritising on their family’s safety.
Leaving your wife and kids behind in what they claim to be is a ‘‘war they are fleeing’’ isn’t condusive with looking out for, or looking after your family…do you not agree?
I don’t know about you but the ansolute LAST thing I would do is leave my wife and kids to the mercy of some hostile invading force, for them to follow me after at a non specific date… maybe even months after I had left.
I would not expect them to be alive let alone safe.
It just does not ring true to a bloke (me) whose family’s safety would be (and is) paramount…sorry mate I’m calling b/s on that one.
Now if I was leaving poverty and looking for a free soft touch, leading to a better life for me and them…then I would leave them for a while maybe, knowing they would be safe for a while…
That is my view on that one.
I also tbf see the point they do that, leave some crap hole for their betterment…but it is not up to us as a country to be charitable to them, or to have ANY responsibility towards them,.especially when many of our own people need help and a step up in lifestyle…
Charity begins at home, harsh but true.
Of course I have not made checks…why would I.
Again empathising with these guys and putting myself in their shoes…(designer or otherwise) but firstly I’ll say this …
So without blowing my own trumpet, I have a knack of sussing people out by their attitude…maybe even through experience, …in fact I have done (meaningless) courses on this sort of stuff in the distant past which I won’t go into.
I have been proved right on this on many occasions also btw…so just go with that one for a minute for the sake of the discussion, whether or not you accept it.
I know that does not make me an authority, but again I am playing with the cardsI have been dealt
So …if I had escaoed some war torn sh hole, and ended up in a country that provided every home comfort free to me, I would be eternally grateful, absolutely thankful, and definitely (believe it or not) humble in my attitude to the native people whose country and town I was in enjoying the provided hospitality.
I do NOT see ANY if that with these young guys.
I would not be strutting around their streets like Joe Cool and Jack the Lad rollled into one, abusing their laws, making a ■■■■ of myself in a gang, and harrasing ('and worse) thrir women and young girls…as I have mentioned both my youngest daughter and my eldest now 16 yr old grandaughter have both been harrased..
Anyway obviously your views and my views on this were always going to be contrary.
But at least civil.
the treasury (read Rachel reeves) sold the last of the natwest group shares. More money for the budget you say nope… they sold them at a loss of 10.5 billion . Labour chancellor Alistair Darling bought them in 2008 at tax payers expense… and labour chancellor reeves sold them at tax payers expense.
kind of puts the ppe covid crap into perspective doesnt it.
For some asylum seekers they have no way to enter the country by regular means.
If they enter by irregular means, and successfully get asylum, then they are not here illegally. They are legal migrants.
If they enter by irregular means and are refused then they are here illegally. They are illegal migrants.
The method of entry is not the issue.
Some enter on scheduled aircraft on a tourist visa and stay on too long. They entered regularly but are illegal migrants if they do not apply for asylum ASAP.
For me the ones who fail to apply for asylum, and try to duck under the system, are as bad or worse than those who come on small boats etc. and apply ASAP.
Yeah. And at risk of being accused of point scoring the number of case officers etc fell for several years so that more asylum seekers were kept in hotels etc rather than being processed quickly and either allowed to work and hence pay taxes etc, or deported. Under Blair there were more asylum claims, but nowhere near as many were in hostels etc. They were looked at far quicker. Sunak started to reverse the trend so credit to him, but that was after years of under spend in the early stages that led to far greater expenses in the later stages.
Well yes, the word “camps” does make for certain images. Are you saying those images would not be deserved then? You do suggest that they should be less than the normal standard of housing for everyone else? Although about three quarters of those inside them would be bona-fide you think the majority, the innocents should be treated as harshly the quarter of scammers etc?
I disagree.
Yep there were special arrangements made for them, and quite right too.
Unlike the majority of asylum seekers they did not need to apply for asylum after arrival in the UK.
It is not possible to apply for asylum in the UK from outside the UK, of course.
Ukraine is not after Ukranian citizens. They are being invaded by a foreign army.
Iran, Irag, Afghanistan, are very different. The gov etc of those countries are against sections of their own citizens.
Minority groups are not in a position to openly fight against heavily armed police forces etc.
Christians in Afghanistan would likely be put to death if found.
Those who leave these countries might leave as a family, but only the man will make the journey to the UK. The rest might stay in, for instance, Turkey, until they know that they will find sanctuary here.
If granted refugee status then the family might be allowed to join the first arrival.
I don’t think it is as clear cut as “hostile invading forces”. And families might be OK for a year or so in a refugee camp if they have the aim of a better future further on.
I haven’t addressed all your points, but, I’ll draw a line there for now.
But it goes back to the same thing, they arrived here illegally…AND after leaving a safe country.
We aint responsible for them.
I would have at least some sympathy if they were French leaving an at war France.
They came here when there was no real need especially if in fact they were fleeing war and looking for a safe country.
But they actually paid to put themselves in danger by taking a perilous sea journey in an unsuitable type boat, instead of remaining in a safe country
They had zero intention of staying in France…why is that?
So due to those circumstances, we only should provide minimal but suitable shelter,.and feed them…
That in my book is not harsh, just not as luxurious and lucrative as the facilities now provided .
As for the bonafide ones, ignoring the fact again they have already left a safe country, you would think that they would be grateful for the safety and security provided, whatever the level, as opposed to the conditions they claim to have left.
As for your explanation (or opinion) as to why men leave their families, my answer to that is I would never leave my family whatever the circumstance, or whatever the reason they claim, I would be more likely to take pains to send my family to safety even if it meant me staying put myself to face whatever,.not trying to be a 2 bob hero.just saying as it is…so we will never agree on that one.
it is this simple… come here illegally you are not a bonafide asylum seeker there is absolutely 110% no reason to… end of… thats it full stop.
why should hard working people that are suffering enough under this government pay for these scum to come here and have a better life than the native people of this country. Even blair for ffs through the men in jail that came here illegally from serbia and croatia etc. Further more you know what they did… they came with their wives and children.
we need to stop picking them up in the channel stop giving the french millions a day. stop spending billions on housing and feeding them. If you come here illegally all you get is a white handkerchief and a blindfold on dover beach
If you insist on helping the genuine ones that have applied through the proper channels and had their asylum granted after proper checks. If they are dissidents in their own country toughski shtski they dont need to come here they could of gone to any other country of their ilk. If they are 100% genuine (many many wont be) find them useful work on temporary contracts in fixed abode where they have to check in every night and morning. The second the war or what ever is over back home no ifs or buts.
Got to agree mate, we need a hard line on these illegals…the situation has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime when you hear what is exactly going on in terms of facilities and handouts.
I agree with your view on the genuine ones, when the threats and dangers are over…return home, the reason they came here has been resolved.
The Ukranian people I know are just taking it as granted that one day they intend to return home, they have no intention of staying here, nor any ulterior motive for coming here in the first place.
Its just being said in a post that you can’t apply for asylum if you’re in the country
So how does that work with the boat people .
I ain’t got a clue please someone explain
The opposite is true.
Asylum can only be applied for after entering the UK.
Not by phone, on the www, by any means. Only when the applicant is here.
No visas are given to allow possible applicants to enter the UK to apply for asylum.
Without a visa carriers will not allow you to board a plane or ferry.
That is why so many use small boats or stowaway.
The other alternative which is more common in fact, is to arrive in the UK on a valid tourist or short stay visa, and then apply when here.
But those visas are not issued to those who are most likely to need asylum. Such as those who are not allowed passports etc by their native countries.
The Taliban, for instance, are not going to issue a passport to every one of their citizens that ask for one.
Imagine an Afghan who worked as a Translator for UK forces a few years ago. Would they be OK walking into a Taliban Gov Office and saying “Please can I have some travel documents so I can go to the UK, since I used to work for them when they were killing all your comrades”…how would that go down I wonder?
