The UK’s broken asylum system

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

multitool

Guest
Labour want to process more, they generally let everyone stay. More labour voters

You lie, and lie and lie.

Screenshot_20230810_101517_Samsung Internet.jpg


Screenshot_20230810_102021_Drive.jpg



So, because Andy is a bit dim, I'll spell it out for him. Total applications and succesful applications were at their lowest under Labour, and are now at record highs under Tories.
 
Last edited:
If the government were, competently and in good faith, providing accommodation and speeding up processing then we might agree. Performative politics and cruelty seeking to look as though you're doing something while, in reality leaving the issue for your opponents to solve doesn't cut the mustard.

Your final paragraph relies on your 'land of milk and honey' paradigm being right.

Its not
 

spen666

Well-Known Member
You lie, and lie and lie.

View attachment 4383

View attachment 4384


So, because Andy is a bit dim, I'll spell it out for him. Total applications and succesful applications were at their lowest under Labour, and are now at record highs under Tories.

a bit of cherry picking with figures there

The number of asylum applicants was at its highest in 2002 at 84,132 - that was under Labour. The low est figure quoted was also under Labour The current figure is according to what you have posted still below that 2-0-02 figure, so not really accurate to say it is at a record high.
The figures in relation to refusals is a % and not actual refusals and for example the 2004 rate is meaningless without knowing what it is 88% of? In any event an initial refusal rate on its own is not really a good indication of whether system is working or not. For example, if the government refused 100% of all asylum applications would that prove much, same as if government decided to approve all claims currently in system to deal with backlog it would again prove very little.

People would simply spin the rate to suit whatever the argument was.
ie 100 % refusal rate could be Government being too hard or could be people had no right to asylum and were all bogus claims
a 0% refusal rate could be government open floodgates or all those applying were entitled to asylum.



People can spin figures to mean what they want and to spin them to support any argument
 

multitool

Guest
a bit of cherry picking with figures there

The number of asylum applicants was at its highest in 2002 at 84,132 - that was under Labour. The low est figure quoted was also under Labour The current figure is according to what you have posted still below that 2-0-02 figure, so not really accurate to say it is at a record high.

Yes, you are correct, my (slight) error However this was early in Labour term, the number then dropped off a cliff. We are 13 years into Tory administration and it has skyrocketed.

It isn't true to say that the numbers can be spun to represent anything. Yes, I accidentally included the word 'highest', but that was not spin, it was overhaste whilst doing something else.

Andy's post was just factual bullshıt
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 159

Guest
I'm so pleased I'm.off the naughty list
 

Attachments

  • 20230711_092132.gif
    20230711_092132.gif
    1.6 MB · Views: 213

spen666

Well-Known Member
Yes, you are correct, my (slight) error However this was early in Labour term, the number then dropped off a cliff. We are 13 years into Tory administration and it has skyrocketed.

....
It has skyrocketed to a total still below the figure is had reached in 2002, some five years after Labour had been in power.

Probably not really early in the Labour term. Indeed it was a year after Labour had been re elected for a 2nd term. Are we just pretending that first term never happened?
Probably the figures have not skyrocketed as much as they did under Labour. Unless we are pretending that 2002 high point under Labour never happened?

Like I said figures can be spun as people like, especially when you try to rewrite history and ignore unhelpful statistics and pretend they did not happen
 

mudsticks

Squire
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/09/people-feared-dead-boat-sinks-near-lampedusa

Imagine being so.desperate, to be prepared to undergo this kind of potentially lethal journey.

And then you'll get people saying "Oh they're just 'easy life' seekers".

The third prong is a longer term aim of getting the message across to the travellers the UK is not the easy option they may have been led to believe.

And who has pedalled the myth of an 'easy life' ? The lies that immigrants are being housed in 'luxury hotels' or of our being 'swamped' or 'swarmed' by 'hoardes' of 'illegal' immigrants and all the rest of the nasty untruths?

Your beloved tabloid press, that's who, constantly stoking up xenophobia and hatred with their falsehoods, and twisted reporting that give the impression that immigration is an enormous threat to people in this country.

All of which, is of course a great distraction from our 'governments' persistent and deliberate mis management on this and so many other issues.

But stirring up hatred, and dehumanising stories sells newspapers - and provides great clickbait so who cares right?


Have you not been to a city recently, they're all delivering fast food on Ebikes

Tell that to Paley - apparently that kind of thing wouldn't be allowed here 🙄
 
2h ago11.00 BST

Record 755 people detected crossing Channel in small boats on Thursday, Home Office says

On Thursday 755 people were detected crossing the Channel in small boats, the highest number on a single day so far this year, the Home Office said.
The previous high for this year was 686 people on 7 July.
The cumulative number of arrivals by small boats in 2023 now stands at a provisional total of 15,826. Total arrivals last year were 45,755.
The latest figures mean there have been 100,715 arrivals detected since January 2018, when data was first reported.
There were 14 boats detected crossing the Channel on Thursday, which suggests an average of about 54 people per boat.
 
Top Bottom