[Politics] More than 40,000 have crossed the channel this year.

[Guinness Boy]

Amazing how you always turn up on these threads like a bad penny.

Speaking of trolling, I remember a time when continually banging on about multi accounts was considered trolling ...

"Banging on about"?

Some would say a moderator should perhaps be aware of and call out someone who had an account that, while not banned, had accumulated a lot of infractions, and decided to start afresh with a clean account. Albeit you're about as good at covering your tracks as I am at ballet.

Don't worry, the infractions you have on the other account will be taken into account if you screw up on this one. Good incentive to keep it clean, huh?

But, yes, there is no need for ordinary members to join a pile on when my main concern is your pathetic attempt to game the system, rather than your politics. It would be nice if the usual suspects stuck to the thread subject.

 

[The Clamp]

The government love the migrant disaster. They’ll never fix it, they say they will. And that is enough to get the morons voting for them. The Tory’s have learnt from experience. If they can fool the people into voting for Brexit and make them believe it’s still a good idea, you can fool them into anything.

 

[WATFORD zero]

The government love the migrant disaster. They’ll never fix it, they say they will. And that is enough to get the morons voting for them. The Tory’s have learnt from experience. If they can fool the people into voting for Brexit and make them believe it’s still a good idea, you can fool them into anything.

Because Brexit definitely wasn't about immigration, no, not at all, whatsoever, no siree

Oh

 

[The Clamp]

So we set up an asylum processing centre in Albania (or in France) for Albanians who want to claim political asylum in the UK. Then what? Every application gets turned down.

Will that stop them from crossing the Channel? Of course not, because the very reason they cross the Channel is because they would be turned down if they applied by legal means. Making it easier to apply would make no difference.

Incorrect. For many legitimate asylum seekers, there are no official routes to safety.

 

[Lever]

Incorrect. For many legitimate asylum seekers, there are no official routes to safety.

Surely everyone has seen this pr disaster....

 

[The Clamp]

If you are fleeing a country in fear of your life then why risk it again to get here on a dodgy boat? Safety and refuge can be found in other European countries that they pass through to get to Calais.

You mention NHS staff many nurses are using food banks yet these apparent migrants seeking asylum are pulling £5-10k out to cross the channel to get to UK shores.

Many do not “pull 5-10k” they enter into a a so-called arrangement whereby they agree to work for the smugglers when they reach the U.K. and pay the money back out of their wages.


Many do not get a choice of destination. They are sent to whatever country the traffickers need workers.

In reality for the men this usually means being forced to join begging gangs. drug dealing, burglary gangs etc. They’ll be coerced with beating and threats to their family.

For women and girls it’ll likely involve being gang raped, sometimes in front of their family to ensure compliance. Then they’ll be passed around the gang for a week or so, before being installed in brothels and moved around week to week. Some are denied food until they have been raped enough times by punters to “pay their rent”. Some are made into heroin addicts so they are further reliant on the gangs.

Children as young as 11 have been found in brothels run by trafficking gangs.

Those who get off the boats and surrender to the authorities may have paid up front, tens of thousands have not and are taken immediately by waiting traffickers to be put to work.

Women are very valuable to traffickers. More valuable than drugs over time. Drugs are sold and need to be “restocked”. Women can be used again an and again without stock needing to be replenished. They forcibly recruit overseas.

So in summary; no, they do not just “pull 5-10k”. In most cases no money at all exchanges hands between smuggler and victim.

 

[dsr-burnley]

The article states that, of those cases considered, 86% were approved. Obviously there are a huge number in limbo - but, as others have commented, this is a deliberate ploy by the government. The only way they are going to win the next election is by continuing to stoke hatred and rage - always aimed at the less fortunate in our society. It's the Farage method - demonise immigrants and hope that no one notices what a crap job you are doing.

Of the 7,000 cases settled, 40% were rejected out of hand and 86% of the remainder were accepted. So about half of the tiny proportion that have reached an initial decision, about half were accepted.

It's impossible to get a reasonable estimate of how many of the remainder would be accepted, because we don't know if the 7,000 considered so far simulate a random sample.

I find it hard to believe that the Home Office's incompetence over many years is because they have agreed to be incompetent to make the government look good. My brother took in three Ukrainian refugees earlier this year, and it took two months from accepting the Ukrainians' asylum application to processing the paperwork. How does that make the government look good?

 

[BadFish]

Of the 7,000 cases settled, 40% were rejected out of hand and 86% of the remainder were accepted. So about half of the tiny proportion that have reached an initial decision, about half were accepted.

It's impossible to get a reasonable estimate of how many of the remainder would be accepted, because we don't know if the 7,000 considered so far simulate a random sample.

I find it hard to believe that the Home Office's incompetence over many years is because they have agreed to be incompetent to make the government look good. My brother took in three Ukrainian refugees earlier this year, and it took two months from accepting the Ukrainians' asylum application to processing the paperwork. How does that make the government look good?

Nothing to do with making the government look good. But it does seem like a deliberate ploy on the part of the government.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/latest/news/thousands-seeking-asylum-face-cruel-wait-of-years-for-asylum-decision-fresh-research-shows/&ved=2ahUKEwiq64vwsfz7AhXiS2wGHchxDAwQFnoECAgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3lON-udTUgw1ecpPhkXyul

You just need to ask yourself why and what benefit such cruelty would have for a a government who weaponised this issue a long time ago. Perhaps they know that the vast majority are bona fide refugees and this is a way to keep the numbers confusing for people. Perhaps it is a deterrent to discourage more people from trying to enter the UK. Perhaps this way they can be seen to be supporting refugees in the manner of the treaty they signed up to without actually having to help anyone. Maybe they think this way they can appeal to both those that support helping others and those that they have convinced of the evils of 'economic migrants' and asylum seekers.

I am pretty biased on this subject so someone else may need to point out any more positive reasons for taking so long to process these people.

 

[BadFish]

Of the 7,000 cases settled, 40% were rejected out of hand and 86% of the remainder were accepted. So about half of the tiny proportion that have reached an initial decision, about half were accepted.

It's impossible to get a reasonable estimate of how many of the remainder would be accepted, because we don't know if the 7,000 considered so far simulate a random sample.

I find it hard to believe that the Home Office's incompetence over many years is because they have agreed to be incompetent to make the government look good. My brother took in three Ukrainian refugees earlier this year, and it took two months from accepting the Ukrainians' asylum application to processing the paperwork. How does that make the government look good?

Can you copy and paste where you got the 40% rejected out of hand?

Your link clearly states that 94% of those processed have been granted asylum.

The only part that I could find that mentions 40% is this bit.

• Of around 7,000 who have received an initial decision since 2018, 43 per cent were not considered for asylum because the government is seeking to remove them to a safe third country. But of those cases that were considered, 86 per cent were successful.

This isn't 'rejected out of hand' this is 'done a dodgy deal to make them someone else's problem'. If they were rejected they could be deported and there would be no need for a dodgy deal.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Nothing to do with making the government look good. But it does seem like a deliberate ploy on the part of the government.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/latest/news/thousands-seeking-asylum-face-cruel-wait-of-years-for-asylum-decision-fresh-research-shows/&ved=2ahUKEwiq64vwsfz7AhXiS2wGHchxDAwQFnoECAgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3lON-udTUgw1ecpPhkXyul

You just need to ask yourself why and what benefit such cruelty would have for a a government who weaponised this issue a long time ago. Perhaps they know that the vast majority are bona fide refugees and this is a way to keep the numbers confusing for people. Perhaps it is a deterrent to discourage more people from trying to enter the UK. Perhaps this way they can be seen to be supporting refugees in the manner of the treaty they signed up to without actually having to help anyone. Maybe they think this way they can appeal to both those that support helping others and those that they have convinced of the evils of 'economic migrants' and asylum seekers.

I am pretty biased on this subject so someone else may need to point out any more positive reasons for taking so long to process these people.

Unfortunately it appears that you suffer from what we in the medical world call 'a bit of an understanding of the situation'. This is sometimes shortened in medical circles to the textural terms 'knowledge' or 'reasoning'.

Significant side effects include a complete inability to shout loudly 'IT'S THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS FAULT', IT'S FRANCE'S FAULT', IT'S THE PEOPLE SMUGGLER'S FAULT' and, not so much recently 'IT'S THE EU'S FAULT'.

There is no known cure although a lobotomy has proved to help in certain circumstances. Sorry to have to break it to you like this

 

[BadFish]

Unfortunately it appears that you suffer from what we in the medical world call 'a bit of an understanding of the situation'. This is sometimes shortened in medical circles to the textural terms 'knowledge' or 'reasoning'.

Significant side effects include a complete inability to shout loudly 'IT'S THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS FAULT', IT'S FRANCE'S FAULT', IT'S THE PEOPLE SMUGGLER'S FAULT' and, not so much recently 'IT'S THE EU'S FAULT'.

There is no known cure although a lobotomy has proved to help in certain circumstances. Sorry to have to break it to you like this

I have been prescribed a daily copy of the Daily Mail but it just is not doing me any good.

The church suggested 5 Richard Littlejohns, 3 Nigel Farages and a Boris Johnston a day but all to no avail

I am doomed to my woke echo chamber

 

[Guinness Boy]

I have been prescribed a daily copy of the Daily Mail but it just is not doing me any good.

The church suggested 5 Richard Littlejohns, 3 Nigel Farages and a Boris Johnston a day but all to no avail

I am doomed to my woke echo chamber

Just be careful.

The ultimate punishment is being made to fly a "White Lives Matter" banner from the back of something that you've only just discovered as a technological thing.

 

[Wokeworrier]

"Banging on about"?

Some would say a moderator should perhaps be aware of and call out someone who had an account that, while not banned, had accumulated a lot of infractions, and decided to start afresh with a clean account. Albeit you're about as good at covering your tracks as I am at ballet.

Don't worry, the infractions you have on the other account will be taken into account if you screw up on this one. Good incentive to keep it clean, huh?

But, yes, there is no need for ordinary members to join a pile on when my main concern is your pathetic attempt to game the system, rather than your politics. It would be nice if the usual suspects stuck to the thread subject.

Some would say, (and often have) you are are a poor excuse for a moderator, and continually turn a blind eye to forum rules and second accounts when it suits (factually true)

But yes, if you hadn't started trolling about multi accounts then the usual suspects wouldn't have followed your lead, just like they did when you suggested I was another Steve Foster account. Great work Sherlock.

Golden rule of quality moderating GB, moderate with at least a pretence of integrity, balance and fairness or find another role to make up for personal shortcomings.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Just be careful.

The ultimate punishment is being made to fly a "White Lives Matter" banner from the back of something that you've only just discovered as a technological thing.

I'm never quite sure about Brighton people. Most of them are generally opposed to stereotyping, but there are still quite a few stone-age types who still work on the basis of "I'm glad I'm not prejudiced like everyone from Burnley".

 

[dsr-burnley]

Can you copy and paste where you got the 40% rejected out of hand?

Your link clearly states that 94% of those processed have been granted asylum.

The only part that I could find that mentions 40% is this bit.

• Of around 7,000 who have received an initial decision since 2018, 43 per cent were not considered for asylum because the government is seeking to remove them to a safe third country. But of those cases that were considered, 86 per cent were successful.

This isn't 'rejected out of hand' this is 'done a dodgy deal to make them someone else's problem'. If they were rejected they could be deported and there would be no need for a dodgy deal.

That's just semantics. For the record, when I said "rejected out of hand" I did mean the ones that were rejected without being considered. I would have thought that the binary opposite to "rejected out of hand" would be "given proper consideration".

 

[The Clamp]

Some would say, (and often have) you are are a poor excuse for a moderator, and continually turn a blind eye to forum rules and second accounts when it suits (factually true)

But yes, if you hadn't started trolling about multi accounts then the usual suspects wouldn't have followed your lead, just like they did when you suggested I was another Steve Foster account. Great work Sherlock.

Golden rule of quality moderating GB, moderate with at least a pretence of integrity, balance and fairness or find another role to make up for personal shortcomings.

He’s right though, isn’t he.

 

[BadFish]

That's just semantics. For the record, when I said "rejected out of hand" I did mean the ones that were rejected without being considered. I would have thought that the binary opposite to "rejected out of hand" would be "given proper consideration".

Getting back to your original point. If I remember it correctly.

Over the years it has been proven again and again that the vast majority of people crossing the channel are bona fide refugees who once processed are granted asylum status.

I don't see anything in your stats that show otherwise.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Some would say, (and often have) you are are a poor excuse for a moderator, and continually turn a blind eye to forum rules and second accounts when it suits (factually true)

But yes, if you hadn't started trolling about multi accounts then the usual suspects wouldn't have followed your lead, just like they did when you suggested I was another Steve Foster account. Great work Sherlock.

Golden rule of quality moderating GB, moderate with at least a pretence of integrity, balance and fairness or find another role to make up for personal shortcomings.

Why are you just not going back to your old account?

 

[Jim in the West]

I'm never quite sure about Brighton people. Most of them are generally opposed to stereotyping, but there are still quite a few stone-age types who still work on the basis of "I'm glad I'm not prejudiced like everyone from Burnley".

Great to get a Burnley perspective on this board - even though I disagree with you on this (and possibly other) issues. One of the many joys of NSC is the serious debates which have little to do with footie. Made all the more interesting by views from other parts of the UK.
Incidentally, being exiled in Somerset you become aware of that tendency to stereotype. Amazingly, we’re not all tractor-driving simpletons down here!!

 

[WATFORD zero]

Some would say, (and often have) you are are a poor excuse for a moderator, and continually turn a blind eye to forum rules and second accounts when it suits (factually true)

But yes, if you hadn't started trolling about multi accounts then the usual suspects wouldn't have followed your lead, just like they did when you suggested I was another Steve Foster account. Great work Sherlock.

Golden rule of quality moderating GB, moderate with at least a pretence of integrity, balance and fairness or find another role to make up for personal shortcomings.
it strikes me as odd, having multiple accounts, all that unecessary faff, for what benefit?

All these are from long before @Guinness Boy even mentioned you

JCFG back!

Do f*** off, though. Nobody likes you apart from Das Reich, and he's been banned.

Gosh, you are so clever.

Oh sorry, not clever. I meant snide. Oily snide.

Some things never change as you manage yet another sterling contribution to the Brexit debate. Having a problem with your other accounts ?

But you got banned twice in quick succession under your other account of JC Footy Genius, didn't you? A high horse is fine, but can you really ride one?

it strikes me as odd, having multiple accounts, all that unecessary faff, for what benefit?

are you really that ashamed/embarassed about what you post?

I really don't know which is funnier, the fact that so seriously overestimate the stupidity of other posters, or the fact you so massively underestimate your own