Keir Starmer

[TRITON]

By definition if these alleged asylum seekers have passed through other safe countries in order to get to the UK and not sought asylum in the first safe country they entered then arguably they're not genuine asylum seekers, they are in fact illegal immigrants.

Just for a bit of clarification.
Asylum seekers are not held by any international law to claim asylum in any country other than the one of their choosing. So they may want to come to the UK for a host of reasons. Family already settled here, or born here. They might have a better command of English than any other European
language
They might be choosing Britain because in some European countries they're facing far more racism and bigotry.

The other point, and this is a biggie, and one that those who think Farage is their savior and listened to the lies he's been preaching is THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT

If someone comes to the UK and claim asylum, it is under International law their right to do so.
From then their case is heard, and if unsuccessful will be removed from these shores as an illegal immigrant, because their had their case and were unsuccessful. This lack of success is what then deems them as illegal.. But until their case is heard they have asylum seeker status.

If you want an example of someone who is looking to become an immigrant purely for economic reasons, then look no further than the tax evader Charlie Mullins. Who wants to leave the UK because he might be asked to put his hand in his pocket and pay his fair share.
He's looking to move to either Spain, or Dubai, 2 countries where he speaks neither language

Or you could look towards the tens of thousands of UK pensioners who moved to Europe to be a burden on their health system again purely for economic reasons.
Did you know that 36 thousand of those pensioners living abroad have been happily claiming their UK winter heating allowance.

Many people leave the UK each year, last year 535,000 left to go elsewhere, and more than likely did so for economic reasons.

 

[spanner48]

I wonder (not really) how many politicians enter politics for the good of the country? Is it just naivity to believe election promises? Should politicians be held accountable when they do not follow up in their advertising?

It strikes me that all Western countries - it is the same here in Oz - began a fast downhill slide when parties sought to appeal to everyone, making promises that they could not keep (simply as they were contradictory), and stopped standing for a specific issue. The wishy-washy, low moral and low ethical standards are the result. We shall see a backlash in extremists, who at least have a clear message (not necessarily good ones).

I, too, thought Starmer might bring order into the chaos I see in the UK. Unhappily, now I view him just adding to the chaos.

Regards from Perth

Derek

A good word for Guido Fawkes: "The only man ever to enter Parliament with completely honest intentions"

 

[TRITON]

A good word for Guido Fawkes: "The only man ever to enter Parliament with completely honest intentions"

Except he did so for religious reasons, not political.

I thought everybody knew that.

 

[spanner48]

Just for a bit of clarification.
Asylum seekers are not held by any international law to claim asylum in any country other than the one of their choosing. So they may want to come to the UK for a host of reasons. Family already settled here, or born here. They might have a better command of English than any other European
language
They might be choosing Britain because in some European countries they're facing far more racism and bigotry.

The other point, and this is a biggie, and one that those who think Farage is their savior and listened to the lies he's been preaching is THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT

If someone comes to the UK and claim asylum, it is under International law their right to do so.
From then their case is heard, and if unsuccessful will be removed from these shores as an illegal immigrant, because their had their case and were unsuccessful. This lack of success is what then deems them as illegal.. But until their case is heard they have asylum seeker status.

If you want an example of someone who is looking to become an immigrant purely for economic reasons, then look no further than the tax evader Charlie Mullins. Who wants to leave the UK because he might be asked to put his hand in his pocket and pay his fair share.
He's looking to move to either Spain, or Dubai, 2 countries where he speaks neither language

Or you could look towards the tens of thousands of UK pensioners who moved to Europe to be a burden on their health system again purely for economic reasons.
Did you know that 36 thousand of those pensioners living abroad have been happily claiming their UK winter heating allowance.

Many people leave the UK each year, last year 535,000 left to go elsewhere, and more than likely did so for economic reasons.

This is complete nonsense.

1: Geneva Convention of 1951 on Asylum-seekers and Refugees: Article 31 of the Convention:
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened

2: This, from ASILE:
The right to choose the country of asylum is neither openly provided for nor denied under international law. The 1951 Convention does not contain an explicit provision on this issue.

In the decades following the 1951 Convention, the general practice was based on the assumption that the country responsible for providing asylum is the one receiving the asylum claim, leaving a margin of choice to the asylum seeker. The emergence of the concept of a safe third country in the early 1990s triggered an understanding that the right to seek and enjoy asylum does not necessarily include a right to choose where to enjoy asylum.

2: Illegal immigrants
It is fundamental to the existence of any nation-state that it has control over who does - or does not - have the right to live in it. An 'asylum seeker' whose status is accepted by a host country becomes a 'refugee', and is entitled to remain - SO LONG as the situation in that person's home country does not allow of their safe return. An asylum seeker whose status is NOT accepted by a host country is an 'illegal immigrant'. And is universally subject to deportation.

 

[TRITON]

" Under existing British law, it’s illegal to enter the country without a visa or special permission. That means someone who reaches the UK on a small boat could face up to four years in prison.

But people who make the Channel crossing are protected by international law if they claim asylum once they arrive.

That means they can’t be punished while their application is being considered – and if they’re successful, they won’t be prosecuted for the way they arrived.

So, arriving by small boat is only illegal if you don’t claim asylum – or if you make an asylum claim and it’s rejected.

Though, even then, the chances of someone being prosecuted are thought to be low. "

Robert McNeil, deputy director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford,

 

[Yorkieguy]

Yet another miss-step:

Rachel Reeves set to call off her planned pension tax raid
Rachel Reeves has called off her planned pension tax raid after being warned that it would unfairly impact up to a million teachers, nurses and other public sector workers. The Chancellor had planned to raise funds by reducing tax relief on those earning £50,000 or more per year.
But senior Treasury officials said the move would disproportionately hit those who have given their careers for the state.

The original proposals would have seen public sector workers on £50,000 a year face an additional annual tax bill of £1,000. But last night a senior government figure said it would be 'madness' to inflict large tax rises on workers who have just been handed a pay rise, according to The Times.

Don't they talk to each other?

Public sector workers don't 'give their careers to the state' - they enjoy high salaries, take 50% more sickness absence than private sector employees, on the whole have a level of job security which doesn't apply in the private sector, and have overly generous terms and conditions of employment, and generous pensions underpinned by taxpayers. That doesn't mean they're not to be valued and don't try to do a good job, but please - they're employees - they're not in holy orders.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/oth...1&cvid=da1be574e4ce4bf8a96fd711d7a1bc8b&ei=16

 

[Amplidyne]

Yet another miss-step:

Rachel Reeves set to call off her planned pension tax raid
Rachel Reeves has called off her planned pension tax raid after being warned that it would unfairly impact up to a million teachers, nurses and other public sector workers. The Chancellor had planned to raise funds by reducing tax relief on those earning £50,000 or more per year.
But senior Treasury officials said the move would disproportionately hit those who have given their careers for the state.

The original proposals would have seen public sector workers on £50,000 a year face an additional annual tax bill of £1,000. But last night a senior government figure said it would be 'madness' to inflict large tax rises on workers who have just been handed a pay rise, according to The Times.

Don't they talk to each other?

Public sector workers don't 'give their careers to the state' - they enjoy high salaries, take 50% more sickness absence than private sector employees, on the whole have a level of job security which doesn't apply in the private sector, and have overly generous terms and conditions of employment, and generous pensions underpinned by taxpayers. That doesn't mean they're not to be valued and don't try to do a good job, but please - they're employees - they're not in holy orders.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/oth...1&cvid=da1be574e4ce4bf8a96fd711d7a1bc8b&ei=16

And yet another U Turn.

They're doing doughnuts!

I'm not a fan of Labour anyway, but they were supposed to put right all the "faults" of the Tories.

Or at least that they and the media kept telling people they had.

Instead we have just more of the same (Only worse!)

 

[TRITON]

Pension tax raid on pensioners. Utterly shocking. Its almost the type of thing the tories would do.
Wait a mo, they already did that
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/p...ng-tax-hits-record-high-as-tory-raid-on-brit/

 

[ey_tony]

Just for a bit of clarification.
Asylum seekers are not held by any international law to claim asylum in any country other than the one of their choosing. So they may want to come to the UK for a host of reasons. Family already settled here, or born here. They might have a better command of English than any other European
language
They might be choosing Britain because in some European countries they're facing far more racism and bigotry.

The other point, and this is a biggie, and one that those who think Farage is their savior and listened to the lies he's been preaching is THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT

If someone comes to the UK and claim asylum, it is under International law their right to do so.
From then their case is heard, and if unsuccessful will be removed from these shores as an illegal immigrant, because their had their case and were unsuccessful. This lack of success is what then deems them as illegal.. But until their case is heard they have asylum seeker status.

If you want an example of someone who is looking to become an immigrant purely for economic reasons, then look no further than the tax evader Charlie Mullins. Who wants to leave the UK because he might be asked to put his hand in his pocket and pay his fair share.
He's looking to move to either Spain, or Dubai, 2 countries where he speaks neither language

Or you could look towards the tens of thousands of UK pensioners who moved to Europe to be a burden on their health system again purely for economic reasons.
Did you know that 36 thousand of those pensioners living abroad have been happily claiming their UK winter heating allowance.

Many people leave the UK each year, last year 535,000 left to go elsewhere, and more than likely did so for economic reasons.

The answer whether or not you like it is that this country doesn't have the capacity in the form of infrastructure and finances to service the people already living here let alone 1000s of migrants turning up on our doorstep week after week.
I get where you are coming from but realistically where are they going to be housed for starters? More to the point who is covering the costs because it's very unlikely that they have a home in their backpack or enough money to fund the rental of a property, feed themselves etc.

I believe we have a duty to give shelter to those who suffer genuine threats because of their religion, politics or sexual orientation but living in in a dung-hole is not a good enough reason to accept migrants looking to improve their quality of life.

It's no coincidence that the quality of services in the UK have been falling as the population has been growing, just as the demand for housing has risen leaving a shortfall of millions of homes needed for the people already here.
There comes a point where the people of the UK have got to turn around and say, sorry NO, we can't afford to let more people in until we have the quality infrastructure needed and a growing economy to fund all of the infrastructure and services required to meet demand.

What is happening is we are being taxed so that others from other countries who have put nothing into our system can come here and instantly take advantage of our social benefits system. It's completely wrong. That may seem harsh but I believe that the people who have paid into the system all of their working lives should come first and have priority.
The reason why migrants head to the UK is because we are stupid and far too generous and sooner or later the country needs to wake up otherwise the UK will end up being a bankrupt dung-hole just like many of the countries from where they have migrated.

 

[woodieallen]

You mean the institutionally racist and misogynistic police service ?. Yes I can understand why they might feel like that should be an option



As to politicians jumping on a bandwagon, can you name me a politician who hasn't ? and as such why direct towards Keir Starmer

Politicians have to try to show solidarity to all groups in this country

Sticking you back on Ignore. Bye.

 

[John Brown]

I fear you are missing the point Triton. We want good quality politicians. We know we don't have them. The question is why.

The answer is the job is not attractive to people with ethics and intellect and who are not narcissists hungry for social media clicks. This recruitment block is because they are hounded mercilessly by the media, and it is dramatically underpaid for people who look at the opportunity cost of choosing ethical politics.

Assuming you are not being disingenuous about the kneeler reference, the answer is he jumps on every passing bandwagon. When the BLM craze for "taking the knee" craze was briefly popular, he was shown in full "marry me" pose with Ms Rayner. He's been kneeler ever since as many people thought, well maybe all lives matter equally. Two tier has since been added because it's a different law for him and his ilk with regard to policing and enforcement, and not long after that we had lots of examples of freebies, which some think are ever so similar to bribes. For a former DPP director who stood for election on the basis of ethical government, it all adds to a sense of tone deaf personal entitlement and greed.

To be honest, you've surprised me with this silly name calling. I thought you were better than that.
Having said which, I confess to being disappointed with Kier, I expected better of him, too.

 

[AJB Temple]

^^ The terms were coined in the media, but they serve a useful purpose. It pricks the holier than thou balloon he was floating on the electorate and keeps people focussed on what he is really like. This is without any reference to the other rumours circulating in the media about his behaviour.

As to being disappointed in me, that is your choice. I don't know you so naturally I don't care what you think. Please fill your boots.

 

[selectortone]

.

nope, not worth it.

 

[TRITON]

Sticking you back on Ignore. Bye.

Hooray

 

[Jacob]

.....

It's no coincidence that the quality of services in the UK have been falling as the population has been growing,.....

yes it is a coincidence.
It has been deliberate government policy to underfund public services, since 1979. It's the right-wing ideology of `'austerity" supported by Reagan, Thatcher and others. Still on going under Starmer - hoping for "growth" and forcing people into work when there are no jobs..
The "idea" is that the free market will fill the gaps in some natural organic sort of way.
It's really childish to blame immigrants and rising population, but it's always been that way - blaming the underdog, the ones least responsible for the state of current affairs. They were doing it in the 19th century and punishing the unemployed with workhouses. They've always been doing it throughout history.

 

[AJB Temple]

I'm not sure people are blaming immigrants Jacob. Surely the argument is more subtle.

".... forcing people into work when there are no jobs..
The "idea" is that the free market will fill the gaps in some natural organic sort of way.
It's really childish to blame immigrants and rising population...."

You admit yourself that there are "no jobs" and that government basically just hope that the market will create them. In no jobs environment, surely it is logical that immigration makes matters worse for the population, irrespective of origin, that is already here.

If a bath is full, keeping the taps on just causes a damaging flood. That is the analogy.

 

[Fergie 307]

" Under existing British law, it’s illegal to enter the country without a visa or special permission. That means someone who reaches the UK on a small boat could face up to four years in prison.

But people who make the Channel crossing are protected by international law if they claim asylum once they arrive.

That means they can’t be punished while their application is being considered – and if they’re successful, they won’t be prosecuted for the way they arrived.

So, arriving by small boat is only illegal if you don’t claim asylum – or if you make an asylum claim and it’s rejected.

Though, even then, the chances of someone being prosecuted are thought to be low. "

Robert McNeil, deputy director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford,

I think one of the problems in the past was those who arrived in the backs of lorries, for example, and then just vanished without ever making a claim for asylum. They were undoubtedly illegal immigrants.

Far fewer now as the traditional routes have largely been closed down, leaving the boats. Of course we have no idea how many make it across without being intercepted, but I would think it is a fairly small number. The vast majority of the boats now probably get spotted and intercepted.

Not sure where the idea comes from that the UK is a particularly favoured destination. Virtually all the EU states that are on a similar economic footing take far more than we do.

It seems to me that one of the big problems is that for all the "stop the boats" stuff no real progress has been made in processing the claims more quickly. If that process were speeded up then those who genuinely want to work and make a life here could get on with it. Those who are unsuccessful could be deported.

To my mind the simplest way to make the boat crossing unattractive would be to set up a system where the asylum seeker would have to apply before coming here. If they were successful they can then enter the country like anyone else.
If you automatically disbar anyone from making a claim if they have entered the country by any other means, and make it clear they will immediately be deported, they would have little incentive to do so.

What the legal ramifications of such a proposal would be I don't know, but it seems a more logical way to approach the issue.

The idea that they should claim asylum in the first country they get to isn't really workable. Greece and Italy can't take them all.
Equally I do get annoyed with those who claim the people in boats are fleeing for their lives. That may well have been the case at the start of their journey, but from France, really?

Of course some people will contend that we should not take them at all.

I can understand the view that with our housing, education and health service in a sorry state the last thing we need is more people putting it under additional strain.
On the other hand should we really be turning these people away, when our neighbours are taking them in?
Not really very British is It?

It has to be said that many immigrants are to be found in the NHS and the construction industries, where we seem to be short of our own people, and no doubt a fair few of those coming on the boats will find places in these areas, and so may actually contribute to reducing some of these problems. Overall the situation is not that straightforward. Another very good reason for overhauling the system so we can fast track people who have skills we need, and quickly identify and rid ourselves of those we would rather not have, criminals for example.

As to those who would rather not have them because of various extreme political views, I have no real time for their arguments.

 

[niemeyjt]

Not sure where the idea comes from that the UK is a particularly favoured destination. Virtually all the EU states that are on a similar economic footing take far more than we do.

Except that at least the Oxford’s Compas Migration Centre says that is untrue:

The research – published on Monday and compiled by 18 institutions including Oxford University’s Compas centre – estimated the number of illegal migrants in the UK was between 594,000 and 745,000, ahead of Germany (up to 700,000), France (300,000), Italy (458,000) and Spain (469,000).
source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...-most-illegal-migrants-in-europe-study-finds/

 

[Dovetail]

Guys, this a gentle reminder that we do not allow name calling or personal attacks. This warning is preemptive.

 

[Yorkieguy]

What is happening is we are being taxed so that others from other countries who have put nothing into our system can come here and instantly take advantage of our social benefits system. It's completely wrong. That may seem harsh but I believe that the people who have paid into the system all of their working lives should come first and have priority.
The reason why migrants head to the UK is because we are stupid and far too generous and sooner or later the country needs to wake up otherwise the UK will end up being a bankrupt dung-hole just like many of the countries from where they have migrated.

You are the victim of asylum myths in your belief that they 'instantly take advantage of our benefits system'.

If you aren't interested in the facts, just file this under 'burn before reading'.

The UK is not the most generous country - far from it.

In Austria, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and the Nordic countries, social benefits are higher for immigrants than for natives.

And the UK is way down the list of the number of arrivals.

Here's what asylum seekers in Britain actually get. (It doesn’t include house or a car):

Quote:

Somewhere to live, a cash allowance or both.

Housing:

You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast, [or will be ‘warehoused’ in the Bibby Barge]. You cannot choose where you live. It’s unlikely you’ll get to live in London or south-east England.

Cash support:

You’ll get £49.18 per week for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries. Your allowance will be loaded onto a debit card (ASPEN card) each week. You’ll be able to use the card to get cash from a cash machine.

So, that's just £7.00 a day for food, clothing, and such things as hygiene and sanitary products.

Extra money for mothers and young children:

You’ll get extra money to buy healthy food if you’re pregnant or a mother of a child under 3. The amount you get will depend on your situation.

Your situation	Extra payment per week
Pregnant mother	£5.25
Baby under 1 year old	£9.50
Child aged 1 to 3	£5.25

Hardly enough to 'live the life of Riley'.

Why aren't they put to work?

They're not allowed to. [Albeit some unscrupulous employers exploit them to work illegally for slave wages in menial jobs]. This is to deter 'Economic Migrants' from coming here, (usually from Eastern Europe, such as Albania, who are not in danger and who are indeed 'illegal'). Asylum seekers can only apply for permission to work if they have waited over 12 months for an initial decision on their asylum claim or for a response to a further submission for asylum; and they are not considered responsible for the delay in decision-making. (They can do voluntary unpaid work).

If an asylum seeker's application is upheld, they become a 'refugee' with indefinite leave to remain. Refugees are allowed to work in any role consistent with their skill level. The quicker the applications are processed, the sooner they can seek employment and pay taxes, or if refused, can be be returned. (63% of asylum claims were granted in UK in 2023).

As of the end of June 2024, the UK's asylum backlog was 85,839 applications, which is a 36% decrease from the previous year.

However, the total number of cases in the asylum system was 4% higher than in June 2023, due to a large number of cases being refused and going to appeal. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (NABA) separated asylum cases into "legacy" and "flow" cases, with the goal of prioritizing cases that had been waiting a long time for a decision. The legacy backlog decreased by 97% between December 2022 and March 2024, but the flow caseload increased by 92%. Factors that have contributed to the UK's asylum backlog include: Declining caseworker productivity, Administrative problems, High staff turnover, new rules on inadmissibility, and suspension of the 'Detained Fast Track' process.

If their application for asylum is refused, in a long drawn-out process, they're returned to their country of origin. if they overstay, only then do they become an ‘illegal immigrant’. If they are granted asylum, most will become productive citizens, and will pay their taxes, as will their children.

When you consider the perils they put themselves through, it's facile to assert that they lack the work ethic and want loaf around on welfare benefits.

The broad term often used by hard-of-thinking racists to describe asylum seekers as 'illegals'. They’re not, and there’s no such thing as a ‘bogus’ asylum seeker. Because the government doesn't wish to use the term 'asylum seekers' and can’t refer to them as ‘illegals’, they refer to them as ‘irregular arrivals’

It won't make any difference to those with a racist mindset, but anyone washed up on these shores who claims asylum is not an 'illegal immigrant' - they're an 'asylum seeker'. Most are from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, and have made a perilous journey, the least dangerous part of which is sailing across the busiest shipping lane in the world in an overloaded inflatable. (In 2019, 68% of the world’s refugees came from just five countries: Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, South Sudan and Myanmar). 45% of separated children applying for asylum in the UK in the year up to June 2020 were from Iran, Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Most of those arrive here uninvited, but thousands of Afghans were invited here after the collapse of Afghanistan because they'd worked as interpreters etc for the British Government and their lives are in danger). It was Tory Blair who took the UK into Iraq based on a pack of lies, which has destabilised the whole of the Middle East, and who took us into Afghanistan - both unwinnable wars propagated by the USA, which have made the world a far more dangerous place.

And no - we don't take more refugees than other European countries. In proportion to its population, the year ending Dec 2021 UK ranks 18th in Europe for asylum applications. The country with the highest numbers of refugees in the European Union is Germany. It hosts some 1.2 million refugees, 243,200 asylum seekers, and 26,700 stateless persons.

Here are some statistics on asylum seekers in Europe by country:

• UK
  In the year ending June 2024, there were 75,658 asylum applications in the UK, which is 8% fewer than the previous year. In 2023, the UK received 67,337 asylum applications, which was 8% of the total asylum applications in the EU+ and UK combined.
  
  
• EU+
  In the year ending September 2023, there were 1.14 million asylum applications in the EU+, which is a 29% increase from the previous year. Germany received the most asylum applications in the EU+ (341,300), followed by France (167,230) and Spain (156,180).
  
  
• Italy
  In 2023, Italy hosted 298,000 refugees. In 2022, the number of asylum applications in Italy was 84,000.
  
  The number of asylum applications in the UK has fluctuated over the years:

• 2002: The number of asylum applications peaked at 84,132
• 2010: The number of asylum applications reached a low point of 17,916
• 2015: The number of asylum applications rose to 32,733
• 2020: The number of asylum applications dipped during the first year of the pandemic
• 2022: The number of asylum applications rose to 81,130, the highest number since 2002

In the year ending March 2024, there were 38,546 'irregular arrivals', 28% fewer than in the year ending March 2023. 81% of these arrived by small boats. In the year ending March 2024, 31,079 people arrived by small boats, 31% fewer than in the year ending March 2023 (45,019), and 32% fewer than the peak of 45,774 in 2022.

Source of information:

Asylum support - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Working in the UK while an asylum case is considered - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Can Refugees work in the UK? See:

https://sonacircle.com/are-refugees-and-asylum-seekers-allowed-to-work-in-the-uk/

Irregular migration to the UK, year to March 2024:

https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...ar-migration-to-the-uk-year-ending-march-2024

Refugee & Asylum facts:

https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/i...lum applications,, India, Pakistan and Turkey

Sensible balanced debate on this topic is impossible - it's highly polarised and generates more heat than light.

Meanwhile, work-shy Brits who – when we were in the EU, used to bemoan Eastern Europeans for 'stealing our jobs' - but post Brexit, workshy Brits no longer have that excuse, but still don't want to get off their backsides to pick fruit and veg for £60k a year:

Fancy picking vegetables? It could earn you £62,000 a year (thelondoneconomic.com)

https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...ny-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to

https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-uk#...drove a large increase from the previous year

https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/

But Labour say they'll succeed where the Tories failed, and will sort it all out. Starmer and Yvette Cooper have a plan:

They're are going to 'Smash the Gangs' and stop the boats, so will solve the problem.

Don't hold your breath.