Sooner or later, and, now it has happened

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

glasgowcyclist

Über Member
Please could you provide a link to that news report; professional interest in why turning 16 would disqualify.

With respect, this is a topic for an entirely different thread.
 

mudsticks

Squire

So your take away from that article is that you are bothered by the fact that a woman has eight children -

But the fact that she has received abuse regarding that leaves you unbothered.??

Marie told Birmingham Live: "Some of the abuse I receive is just vile. They call me a parasite, a s*** and they 'hope I die soon'. Others say I'm a 'scrounger' and I've had threats of men coming to get me and 'teach me a lesson'.

Anyway its a topic for another thread - but yes you've illustrated - once again - quite well - where you sympathies lie :okay:
 
D

Deleted member 28

Guest
So a war, bombardment even by your own government, or persecution for your political beliefs, or even your sexuality, being the 'wrong' ethnicity, your land having been invaded by dangerous militia, or even heaven help us , daring to be a woman in a country where existing as such, means your freedoms have all but been taken away.

Are 'self induced' are they??

As for the other bit about your local news , I have no idea about that particular case, and it's not really comparable is it??
Never said any of that was their own fault, paying people smugglers to get you into a country that puts your life at risk is.

As people love saying so often on here the rest of Europe take far more in than we do so why not just stop in one of those countries instead of that 'final push' .

I've heard all the stories of English speaking and family members etc so don't bore me with that one, if they take the risk then they HAVE bought it on themselves.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

icowden

Squire
Never said any of that was their own fault, paying people smugglers to get you into a country that puts your life a risk is.

So which is better Shep, staying where your life and family are definitely at risk, or going to where your life and that of your family *might* be at risk? I think I know which one I would go for.
 
D

Deleted member 28

Guest
So your take away from that article is that you are bothered by the fact that a woman has eight children -

But the fact that she has received abuse regarding that leaves you unbothered.??

Marie told Birmingham Live: "Some of the abuse I receive is just vile. They call me a parasite, a s*** and they 'hope I die soon'. Others say I'm a 'scrounger' and I've had threats of men coming to get me and 'teach me a lesson'.

Anyway its a topic for another thread - but yes you've illustrated - once again - quite well - where you sympathies lie :okay:
So which is better Shep, staying where your life and family are definitely at risk, or going to where your life and that of your family *might* be at risk? I think I know which one I would go for.
I'll repeat, stop in a country that doesn't require a perilous Sea crossing!
 

mudsticks

Squire
Never said any of that was their own fault, paying people smugglers to get you into a country that puts your life a risk is.

As people love saying so often on here the rest of Europe take far more in than we do so why not just stop in one of those countries instead of that 'final push' .

I've heard all the stories of English speaking and family members etc so don't bore me with that one, if they take the risk then that IS they have bought it on themselves.

so you don't think we should take in any refugees ?

Whats your justification for that.?

If there were safe routes to come here here, or no compelling reasons then there wouldn't be people attempting unsafe crossings .

Just because you're 'bored' with the reasons why people may choose to seek asylum here, doesn't make them any less valid.

It seems as if you very quickly get 'bored' with anything that in any way might alter your tabloid view of the world.
 

icowden

Squire
My initial reaction is 'why have 8 kids if you can't afford to feed them' and why not get them earning in order to help you pay for the food?

Interesting. My initial reaction is what a shoddy piece of journalism. Her two oldest children are 18 and 20, so she hasn't had child benefit for them for 2 and 4 years respectively. So why the newspaper article? Why not ask *why* she has ended up with 8 children and how the system has let her down? Why not ask why she feels that she is struggling given that her two oldest children are no longer dependent on her and can earn their own living or go to further education?
 

glasgowcyclist

Über Member
Of course the UK is economically attractive, that's why the economic migrants cross several borders and risk their lives crossing the channel to get here.

Asylum seeking has got bugger all to do with it.
I always thought you were a supporter of due process given your working environment so where did that principle go now that we're talking about people seeking asylum? There is a process to be gone through where each asylum application is closely scrutinised by the Home Office and accepted or rejected and, currently, most applications are granted.

If there was any truth in your blanket and deliberate mis-categorisation of these people as all being economic migrants then the evidence doesn't support it.

Unless, of course, you're able to do what Patel can't and prove it.

Moral of the story is don't believe all the garbage you read on here.

Quite.
 

glasgowcyclist

Über Member
I've heard all the stories of English speaking and family members etc so don't bore me with that one,

These are valid reasons, too bad if you find them boring or inconvenient to your position.

People seeking to cross from France report that they are badly treated by the police there so why would they feel it safe to remain? French police break up their camps, taking away their sleeping bags and equipment, leaving them and their children crying in the rain by the roadside.

Having got that far and with the UK practically in sight, why would they stay where they are still abused?

The fact remains that they are entitled to seek asylum here regardless of how they arrive or which countries they traversed to get here. Both international and UK law supports that.
 

Pale Rider

Veteran
I always thought you were a supporter of due process given your working environment so where did that principle go now that we're talking about people seeking asylum? There is a process to be gone through where each asylum application is closely scrutinised by the Home Office and accepted or rejected and, currently, most applications are granted.

If there was any truth in your blanket and deliberate mis-categorisation of these people as all being economic migrants then the evidence doesn't support it.

Unless, of course, you're able to do what Patel can't and prove it.



Quite.

I do support due process, but I also support an appropriate due process.

Like many court battles, asylum seeking has now been reduced to tactics, how to win.

The rightness and wrongness of it are irrelevant.

Thus if someone is granted asylum, it merely tells us they won the tactical battle, it does not tell us they are a genuine asylum seeker although they could be.

Equally, if someone is refused asylum, it merely tells us they lost the tactical battle, it does not tell us they are not entitled to asylum, although it's likely they are not.

Several posters point to the high number of approvals, which tells us our system is not as hostile as some on here would have us believe.

If we were that nasty, there would be no approvals.

It also chimes in with the remarks of French minister about the UK being too welcoming.

Thus some economic migrants think: "Get yourself across the channel, because even if you don't qualify for asylum, there's a fighting chance you will get it anyway."
 
Top Bottom