The Good News Only - thread...

[Bromptonaut]

The government announced a fast track system for those from war torn countries last year I think, including Syria. Also includes Iran I think, who don't take anyone back.

Have you got a link to some detail of that fast track?

Not saying you're wrong but I've not seen anything to suggest that people from those countries can come here legally, never mind quickly.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It's for those already in the country. You could literally just Google 'asylum fast track'.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-thousands-of-iraqi-and-iranian-asylum-claims

Not just Iranians and Iraqis:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.s...-must-fill-out-under-fast-track-plan-12817696

As usual, some think it's a great idea, others that it's a terrible idea.

As the asylum system seems overworked as it is I'm not sure how effective it will be unless they chuck more money into staffing it adequately. Your 'new' application could be sat in an In tray for as long as your old one.

 

[Pale Rider]

Not quite.

I asked why Syrians in Syria, or in camps in adjoining countries, were treated differently to Ukrainians. In other words why is there not a safe route here.

That, once here, they're given refugee status is consistent with the need for safe routes.

It's also an indication of the fact that a lot of Asylum Seekers are slam dunkers to refugee status and people from Syria, Iraq, Sudan etc should be fast tracked. Similar for people from Albania or other safe/safeish countries albeit they'll be flown home PDQ.

Administratively, they're low hanging fruit.

Whatever.

My point is there is such a huge ocean of asylum seeker 'facts' none of it tells us anything much.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Whatever.

My point is there is such a huge ocean of asylum seeker 'facts' none of it tells us anything much.

Once you apply a few filters, mostly actual verifiable facts, and a smidge of common sense the ocean becomes a shallow pool.

 

[Pale Rider]

Once you apply a few filters, mostly actual verifiable facts, and a smidge of common sense the ocean becomes a shallow pool.

Not really, with a few posts Aurora Saab has driven a coach and horses through the accepted wisdom on here.

Maybe an Aurora Volvo could come along and do the same.

It's all a bugger's muddle not worthy of scrutiny.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Not really, with a few posts Aurora Saab has driven a coach and horses through the accepted wisdom on here.

Maybe an Aurora Volvo could come along and do the same.

It's all a bugger's muddle not worthy of scrutiny.

Not really. @AuroraSaab has drawn attention to schemes for those already here. I don't know if it only includes those arriving by approved means but if so then it's not a safe route. More of a fast track for low hanging fruit.

It's a beggar's muddle of HMG's making and therefore worth very close scrutiny...

 

[Pale Rider]

It's a beggar's muddle of HMG's making and therefore worth very close scrutiny...

It may be, but trying to do it with published figures is a waste of time because there will be another load of figures elsewhere in the ocean which say the opposite.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

https://www.google.com/search?q=how...rome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&chrome_dse_attribution=1

Ah, you need to add context to your numbers.

There was only 500 successful asylum claims last year

Only 500 grants to people who arrived by boat, which is not all who claimed in that year. Small boat arrivals account for less than half (44%) of the total number of people claiming asylum in the UK in the year ending March 2023.

The do gooder lawyers are only cherry picking the best chance claims, because most are economic illegal immigrants

Did you not realise that the 76% rate of granting protection in 2022 was the work of Home Office immigration staff and not lawyers?

This 👇 is from HMG and Home Office’s own published stats:

In 2022, there were 18,699 initial decisions made on asylum applications.
[…]
Just over three quarters (76%)* of the initial decisions in 2022 were grants of refugee status, humanitarian protection or alternative forms of leave.

93%** (33,299) of small boat asylum applications in the year ending March 2023 […] are awaiting a decision.

*[That’s 14,211, not 500. Bear in mind, too, that woke, lefty, do-gooder lawyers will have appealed successfully against about 50% of those refused at initial decision stage.]

**[ This percentage is so high because the UK gov is pursuing a deliberate backlogging policy. Safe routes and/or processing asylum visas in France, as the French offered to support logistically, would not only ease the backlog but would actually stop the boats by cutting off the criminal people-traffickers’ function. ]

 

[AuroraSaab]

Not really, with a few posts Aurora Saab has driven a coach and horses through the accepted wisdom on here.

Maybe an Aurora Volvo could come along and do the same.

It's all a bugger's muddle not worthy of scrutiny.

I do love a Volvo. Bought a massive old one for £100 15 years ago and ran that for quite a while.

The asylum system is certainly a mess. Takes too long to get a decision, appeals process seems fraught and arbitrary, not enough staff or resources.

The official Eurostat data on EU asylum applications etc is here if anyone wants to compare.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/stati...oldid=558844#Decisions_on_asylum_applications

It doesn't seem to give the % by each country, but says Germany and France granted over 50% of asylum claims in 2022 on initial application, then 60% of those who appealed.


The UK figure for 2021 is 72%. Success rate of those who appealed was 49%. Obviously this is dependent on the makeup of those claiming in the respective countries (eg Tunisians more likely to claim in France, even though they have little chance) so a straightforward comparison isn't possible. I don't think the UK much different than other European countries in terms of how many applicants we approve by %.

Edit: If there were 'safe routes' application centres in France, or even Africa and the Middle East, do you not think the channel boat issue would persist? It would just become the only access for those with no chance of asylum who would hope to land and disappear, those already refused in the EU, or those who didn't want to wait for safe route access. It might reduce the numbers but I can't see it stopping the boats.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I think the difference is most Ukranians here haven't applied for asylum.

That’s correct. They did not have to claim asylum.

And it’s because the UK gov recognised that people being bombed in a war needed protection, so they set up a system of visas* which Ukrainians could apply for without having to get here first. They could apply from a VAC (Visa Application Centre) operating in Kyiv, or in a neighbouring country. Once here under such a visa, they are entitled to seek employment, access public services or claim benefits, just as any UK citizen.


* The three visa types:

• Ukraine Family Visa scheme for Ukrainians whose relatives already have the right to remain in the UK.
• Ukraine Extension Visa Scheme, whereby Ukrainians who already had valid visas on certain dates, or were already in the UK, can apply to have their visas extended.
• Homes for Ukraine scheme which allows individuals in the UK (known as ‘sponsors’ or ‘hosts’) to provide a home to Ukrainian refugees.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Edit: If there were 'safe routes' application centres in France, or even Africa and the Middle East, do you not think the channel boat issue would persist? It would just become the only access for those with no chance of asylum who would hope to land and disappear, those already refused in the EU, or those who didn't want to wait for safe route access. It might reduce the numbers but I can't see it stopping the boats.

AIUI the vast majority of those arriving on small boats give themselves up to the authorities - Border Force - at the first opportunity and register for Asylum.

I guess, if they want to disappear into drug dealing or just doing ordinary work without a permit, they'd slip off soon enough and do so. I guess, if they arrive at some isolated place quietly and undetected they might do it now. How would we know?

If those with grounds for Asylum and who can show some connection - family, clan or whatever settled here - were allowed entry via France or centres in Africa etc and some restricted form of leave to remain would that reduce boat arrivals?

If it did then it's worked.

Even if people continue to come then failure to follow the safe route could be a prime facie reason to deny the right to claim Asylum at all.

 

[icowden]

The do gooder lawyers are only cherry picking the best chance claims, because most are economic illegal immigrants

Also can we put to bed that there is no such thing as a lefty do gooder lawyer. Unlike certain countries where legal matters are partisan, the UK is very proud of having an independent judiciary. Any solicitor or barrister found to be using personal bias to influence their work would likely be struck off.

A solicitor or barrister represents their client and the facts given to them. If their client says that they are guilty a solicitor or barrister may not argue otherwise. They present the facts of the case as agreed with their client and act in their client's interest in any legal matter.

Stop reading the Daily Mail and read @barristersecret instead.

 

[Pale Rider]

Also can we put to bed that there is no such thing as a lefty do gooder lawyer.

There very much is, although you seem confused with the role of the lawyers and the judiciary.

Hardly surprising when you recommend this:

and read @barristersecret instead.

Barristers I've spoken to about this clown don't recognise him as one of them.

Or at least, he's very junior since he demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the job works.

Still, he's not the first person to establish a constituency by posting crap on the internet.

In that respect I say good luck to him.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Barristers I've spoken to about this clown don't recognise him as one of them.

Or at least, he's very junior since he demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the job works.

I don't think we even know if the SB is male.

They may well be Junior. They write from that perspective.

Would you, based on what those who 'don't recognise' say, be able to explain how the lack of understanding etc manifests itself?

 

[Pale Rider]

I don't think we even know if the SB is male.

They may well be Junior. They write from that perspective.

Would you, based on what those who 'don't recognise' say, be able to explain how the lack of understanding etc manifests itself?

Not in very words, and it's likely only you would be interested.

As a brief example, there was a case at Teesside Crown with a few legal issues which the secret barrister commented on.

Me, who sat through most of the case, and the two opposing barristers who sat through all of it, all thought the comments were a load of cobblers.

They were clearly made by someone with little knowledge of the trial process, the law, and how barristers work in the real world.

But other than that, it was an expert analysis.

Very few of his general remarks on the criminal justice system make much sense to those involved in it, or me as a long term observer.

Having said that, I rarely read his stuff because the first few times I did, I knew it was rubbish.